So, with films eventually shooting at 48fps and 60fps...

[TheSweetieMan]

what type of HD-tv should I get to replicate (as much as possible) what 60fps will look like? By that, I mean: since the higher FPS will generate a "lifelike" picture similar to HD sports broadcasts and what not, what type of TV presents the best 24fps feature, refresh rate, and "lifelike" presentation, which some probably consider the "soap opera" effect. Part of me almost wants to wait a couple years for when TVs feature a 60fps @ certain refresh rate kinda like they do now with 24fps, but I really want a new TV right now.

So, even though my description of a question comes off as a jumbled mess, basically, what TV will present blurays with the closest REAL LIFE picture?

[Blu Brad]

The main thing to look for is that the TV set is at least 100hz i went for a 50hz LG last year to my Sony KDL 40EX503 100hz and the difference is amazing if your into the ''soap oprah'' (which i am too) effect you'll love it check my review out, it looks awesome on movies like avatar, and on Pixar films and BBC nature programmes infact i love it on all film types, well not everyone will agree with me but everyone has there own taste.

https://www.blu-ray.com/Sony-KDL-40E...ow=userreviews

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

what type of HD-tv should I get to replicate (as much as possible) what 60fps will look like? By that, I mean: since the higher FPS will generate a "lifelike" picture similar to HD sports broadcasts and what not, what type of TV presents the best 24fps feature, refresh rate, and "lifelike" presentation, which some probably consider the "soap opera" effect. Part of me almost wants to wait a couple years for when TVs feature a 60fps @ certain refresh rate kinda like they do now with 24fps, but I really want a new TV right now.

So, even though my description of a question comes off as a jumbled mess, basically, what TV will present blurays with the closest REAL LIFE picture?

Not entirely sure what you're asking. First, the move to 48 or 60 Hz filming will have no effect on any TV you buy today. Any 1080p display will handle 60hz input, while no displays that I am aware of currently support 48Hz input signals. Of the ones that currently support 24Hz input, I am unsure of whether you are looking for the best motion interpolation, or displays that properly handle 24Hz input without interpolation. Please explain so you may be better helped.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

Not entirely sure what you're asking. First, the move to 48 or 60 Hz filming will have no effect on any TV you buy today. Any 1080p display will handle 60hz input, while no displays that I am aware of currently support 48Hz input signals. Of the ones that currently support 24Hz input, I am unsure of whether you are looking for the best motion interpolation, or displays that properly handle 24Hz input without interpolation. Please explain so you may be better helped.

Yeah, I kinda figured my description would come off vague.

The best explanation I can think of is, films shot at 48fps and 60fps will eliminate judder and artifacts during sweeping moments, quick movements, and eratic hand-held shots. This is mainly why I brought up the "sopa opera" effect, as shooting at 48 and 60 will also create a "lifelike" look to the film, similar to what sports in HD look like, as well as soap operas. I'm not really well versed when it comes to motion interpolation or non-motion interpolation, I think the best description that I can give is, with films shot on digital, hand-held, or shaky-cam, I'm really looking for something that can eliminate all the jarring motions and whatever artifacts it can remove from the picture. I know that certain plasmas have the 24p at 96hz, and then LCD/LEDs have the whole 120hz motion-flow feature (although, I hear most current plasmas also now have their own version of motion-flow, is that correct?) Basically, I really want something that can replicate that "lifelike" look at much as possible and generate a smoother and clearer picture.

I apologize if my descriptions aren't up to par.

[HDTV1080P]

99% of all 2-D films are shot at 24fps. That is why the Blu-ray format only supports native 1080p/24 on the physical disc instead of native 1080p/30, 1080p/48, and 1080p/60. It is true that filming movies at native 48fps or 60fps offers a much better picture quality then 24fps. The reason 2-D films are not produced at 48fps and 60fps is because it would cost a lot more money in film stock, video tape, and new editing equipment would need to be developed. In the future I have read about maybe future 4K or 8K higher budget movies being produced with a possible 48fps for 2-D material. Current the only 48fps movies being produced for consumers are the 3-D versions in the theater (24fps right eye and 24fps left eye).


It would be totally awesome to have 1080P/60 native movies. Also almost every USA display with a 1080P input would be able to properly display the image at 60Hz, 120Hz, or 240Hz. No display, displays 24fps at 24Hz since there would be an unwatchable flicker on the screen. With 24fps all displays have to either flash the image at multiplies of 24 (48HZ, 72Hz, 96Hz, 120Hz, etc) to eliminate flicker or convert it to 60Hz using 3:2 pulldown juddder. But with 60fps native movies one could display the image on the screen at 60Hz and the exact same Cinema quality frame rate would be maintained. One would not need a display repeating the 60Hz signal at multiplies of the original frame (120Hz, 240Hz, 480Hz, etc). Of course on LCD screens and other displays the picture would be better if the native 60Hz image was repeated 8 times to reach 480Hz or repeated 4 times to reach 240Hz.

There are many displays on the market that have 1080P/60 and 1080P/24 inputs. Some displays even support 50HZ inputs. On LCD screens that are 240Hz or 120Hz, most of those displays will display 1080p/24 native material correctly by repeating the original 24fps frame 10 or 5 times without frame Interpolation when the motion feature is turned off. Also if and when a new optical format is released that supports native 1080P/60 on the disc, those exact same 240Hz and 120Hz displays will most the time repeat the original 60Hz signal 4 or 2 times without frame interpolation.

The frame packed 3D Blu-ray signal becomes a 48fps (48Hz) signal when the display or projector unpacks the data. Currently there is no flat panel screen on the market that will take the unpacked 48Hz 3-D signal and refresh the image on the screen at 144fps. Digital Projection makes a Titan Reference 3-D projector that will properly display the 48Hz Blu-ray signal at 144fps just like 3-D is shown in the theater. That projector cost $84,995 which is more than what the average consumer is willing to spend on a projector. In the future hopefully more consumer electronic manufactories will make 3-D displays with 144fps, 192fps, and higher refresh rates. 3-D looks really good and is easy on the eyes when each eye receives 72fps (144fps). When in 3-D mode LCD flat panels that are 240Hz use black frames inserted between real frames so that the image on the screen is really 120Hz and then once the 3-D glasses are on the image becomes 60Hz for each eye. So on todays plasma and flat panels people are seeing 3:2 pulldown judder for each eye. Plasma screens are ideal for 3-D and hopefully in the future a 144fps or 192fps plasma will one day appear on the market.

Diagram on how the ideal 3-D display should work to maintain the original flicker free Cinema quality without 3:2 pulldown

So if you are looking for a plasma or LCD flat panel display, there are many on the market that properly handle 2-D 24fps source material and any future 1080P 60fps source material. Some displays will even handle 1080P at 50fps. Native 3-D at 48Hz is the only issue where all flat panels currently produced do not support the original 144fps Cinema quality 3-D screen flashing.

[TheSweetieMan]

The reason 2-D films are not produced at 48fps and 60fps is because it would cost a lot more money in film stock, video tape, and new editing equipment would need to be developed. In the future I have read about maybe future 4K or 8K higher budget movies being produced with a possible 48fps for 2-D material. Current the only 48fps movies being produced for consumers are the 3-D versions in the theater (24fps right eye and 24fps left eye).

That was true, but not any longer. I forgot the article I read, but by as soon as next year, theatres will be adopting equipment to properly run films shot at 48fps and 60fps (they're gonna have to if they want to show The Hobbit), which brings me to my next point: both The Hobbit and Avatar 2 are going to be filmed at 48fps and 60fps, so that's pretty much the guarantee that 48fps and 60fps will be the next film revolution (one that I'm 100% behind). It's nice to hear that any modern 1080p TV will basically support those formats, so I guess I'm now narrowed down to trying to find out which TV gives the best 24p representation without flickering or artifacts... would I want to go plasma or LCD or LED in that department? I've read where some people say that 24p at 96hz on plasmas are the way to go, then I've also read that 120hz and 240hz with motion-flow or w/e it's called is the best way to go. Basically, I'm just stuck... I want a TV that can replicate the closest thing to a "lifelike" picture til' 48fps and 60fps films are released on BD. I have to admit, I really liked what I saw from a LED 240hz HDtv with motion-flow that I saw at Best Buy, but I also saw a 3D plasma that had the 600hz feature as well as their own version of motion-flow (I've noticed all these different companies have their own name for it). Another question I have is, do non-3D plasmas now feature their own version of motion-flow?

EDIT: BTW, does anyone know what the name is for plasmas that use their version of motion-flow? I'd really like to narrow down the Panasonices that feature it.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

That was true, but not any longer. I forgot the article I read, but by as soon as next year, theatres will be adopting equipment to properly run films shot at 48fps and 60fps (they're gonna have to if they want to show The Hobbit), which brings me to my next point: both The Hobbit and Avatar 2 are going to be filmed at 48fps and 60fps, so that's pretty much the guarantee that 48fps and 60fps will be the next film revolution (one that I'm 100% behind). It's nice to hear that any modern 1080p TV will basically support those formats, so I guess I'm now narrowed down to trying to find out which TV gives the best 24p representation without flickering or artifacts... would I want to go plasma or LCD or LED in that department? I've read where some people say that 24p at 96hz on plasmas are the way to go, then I've also read that 120hz and 240hz with motion-flow or w/e it's called is the best way to go. Basically, I'm just stuck... I want a TV that can replicate the closest thing to a "lifelike" picture til' 48fps and 60fps films are released on BD. I have to admit, I really liked what I saw from a LED 240hz HDtv with motion-flow that I saw at Best Buy, but I also saw a 3D plasma that had the 600hz feature as well as their own version of motion-flow (I've noticed all these different companies have their own name for it). Another question I have is, do non-3D plasmas now feature their own version of motion-flow?

EDIT: BTW, does anyone know what the name is for plasmas that use their version of motion-flow? I'd really like to narrow down the Panasonices that feature it.

3-D in theaters is already native 48fps (24fps for each eye).

RealD Cinema
Quote

“The source video is usually produced at 24 frames per second per eye (total 48 frames/s)”

“The high-resolution, digital cinema grade video projector alternately projects right-eye frames and left-eye frames 144 times per second.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_D_Cinema

IMAX 3D

“Alternatively the two projectors take turns displaying each frame (while one projector's image is displayed, the other is blocked) at an effective rate of 48 frames per second.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX_3D#IMAX_3D

IMAX HD 2-D system

"Variations on IMAX included the 48 frames per second IMAX HD process, which sought to reduce strobing and offer higher definition by doubling the normal film rate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX_3D#IMAX_3D

So far there is no native 2-D 48fps and 2-D 60fps movies but as you mentioned that might change when “The Hobbit” and “Avatar 2” are released.

There appears to be a lot of wrong information online when doing a Google search. Some website claim the Hobbit will be filmed in 3D at 48fps. If that is true then that is nothing special since all 3-D movies are native 2K at 48Hz.

“Jackson also notes that filming at 48 frames-per-second makes The Hobbit‘s 3-D images much less taxing to watch”

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/12/the-hobbit-48-frames-peter-jackson/

Now if the Hobbit is going to be shot in 2-D at 48fps that would be awesome. This website supports the Hobbit 2-D 48fps theory

“We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920′s). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/04/11/43441-48-frames-a-second/

James Cameron wants Avatar 2 to be 60fps 3D

http://www.slashfilm.com/james-cameron-avatar-2-light-frame-rate/

This entire issue is confusing since I have read articles about people talking about shooting “The Hobbit” in 48fps and "Avatar 2" in 48fps or 60fps. Right now 3-D theaters are already showing 3-D films at 144fps with a native source of 48fps (24fps each eye). Now if these articles mean they are planning on shooting the 3-D movies at 96fps (48fps each eye) or it means they plan on shooting the 3-D movies at 120fps (60fps each eye) then that is a different story.

The Blu-ray format only supports 2-D at 1080p/24 and 3-D at 1080p/48 once the frames are unpacked by the display. That means once a 120fps or 96fps movie is converted to Blu-ray it would need to be downconverted to either 1080i/30, 1080p/24, or 3-D frame unpacked at 1080P/48Hz by the display.

I do not know any plasma screens that are using frame interpolation, they all either using 3:2 pulldown at 60Hz or offer 48Hz, 72Hz, 96Hz, or 120Hz refresh rates.

[TheSweetieMan]

To clear things up, on The Hobbit's Facebook, Jackson clarified that The Hobbit WILL be filmed at 48fps on 3D, but it's 2D conversion will also be 48fps, which is why I made the statement that theatres will have to convert if they want to show that film. Also in that article from Cameron, he touches on why this won't be a big deal for theatres to make a switch... and finally, Avatar 2 WILL shoot at 60fps and much like The Hobbit, will receive the 60fps conversion on 2D. It's a complicated discussion, but in short... I'm assuming that within the next 3 to 4 years, 3DHDtvs will have to make some sort of change to take full advantage of 48fps and 60fps.

Finale note: I really don't want a 3Dtv at the moment if that helps at all. I'm not big on the whole 3D craze, and I won't make the change til' the aforementioned Hobbit and Avatar get their 48fps and 60fps releases. So, I guess a TV using frame interpolation IS what I'm looking for then, right? Since I'm aiming for the "lifelike" picture.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

To clear things up, on The Hobbit's Facebook, Jackson clarified that The Hobbit WILL be filmed at 48fps on 3D, but it's 2D conversion will also be 48fps, which is why I made the statement that theatres will have to convert if they want to show that film. Also in that article from Cameron, he touches on why this won't be a big deal for theatres to make a switch... and finally, Avatar 2 WILL shoot at 60fps and much like The Hobbit, will receive the 60fps conversion on 2D. It's a complicated discussion, but in short... I'm assuming that within the next 3 to 4 years, 3DHDtvs will have to make some sort of change to take full advantage of 48fps and 60fps.

Finale note: I really don't want a 3Dtv at the moment if that helps at all. I'm not big on the whole 3D craze, and I won't make the change til' the aforementioned Hobbit and Avatar get their 48fps and 60fps releases. So, I guess a TV using frame interpolation IS what I'm looking for then, right? Since I'm aiming for the "lifelike" picture.

Thanks for clarifying the information for me, since there is a lot of wrong or confusing information about the subject.

So the Hobbit 3-D version will be at native 48fps (24fps each eye) which will one day be placed on a Blu-ray 3-D disc and once the display unpacks the frames the original 48fps will be restored. If they really shoot the Hobbit at 48fps in 2-D that would offer much better 2-D quality in the theater. The problem is the movie would need to be downconverted from the 4K 48fps or 2K 48fps master to 1080p/24 on the Blu-ray disc. So the Hobbit would not offer 48fps 2-D on the Blu-ray format.

Some articles mentioned that Avatar 2 will be recorded in 48fps or 60fps. So if both the 3-D version and 2-D versions are filmed at 60fps then the 3-D and 2-D quality in the theater will be much better. Movie theaters would need to project the 2-D version of Avatar 2 at 60fps. Some movie theaters with single projector systems would need to project the 3-D 60fps version (30fps each eye) of Avatar 2 at a minimum of 120fps to offer a flicker free image (each eye sees 60fps without 3:2 pulldown). If there is a really bright projector they may project the 3-D 60fps source at 240fps (each eye sees 120fps) but that may not be necessary since most people do not see flicker at 120Hz. The Titan 3-D Reference projector will accept both a 1080p/60 and 1080p/48 3-D signal. So Avatar 2 will playback properly at 120Hz on the Titan 3-D Reference projector as long as one owned the Avatar 2 movie with the proper equipment.

The Avatar 2 might be released on Blu-ray 2-D at 1080i/30 or 1080p/24. They would need to apply a 2:3 pulldown process (or 3:2 pullup process might be the proper name) to release Avatar 2 on Blu-ray at the lower quality 1080p/24 frame rate. The frame packed 1080P Blu-ray 3-D format would need a lower quality 48fps conversion from the 60fps source.

If 3-D films at 60fps or higher really takes off then in several years from now an improved Blu-ray format could be developed. A Blu-ray format that used multilayer 200GB-500GB+ discs with a lossless video compression method could be developed that supported 4K and 1080P resolution at 24fps, 30fps, 60fps, etc.

Samsung and Panasonic make a few higher end plasma displays that display 2-D 1080p/24 signals at 96Hz. Those 96Hz higher-end models also do 3-D at 120Hz instead of 144Hz (60Hz for each eye with 3:2 pulldown judder).

[TheSweetieMan]

To try to answer this as straightforward as possible, both The Hobbit and Avatar being shot at 48fps or 60fps is in the similar vein of Douglas Trumbull's 60fps from many, many, MANY years ago that was never adopted by theatres due to financial boundaries during that time. If you read this article: http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cin...ema-at-60-fps/ it does more in depth. Basically, even if the films are shot in 48fps or 60fps, the 2D versions will retain those framerates and be the first two motion pictures shown in theatres with the full software upgrade to TRULY showcase the clarity of 48fps or 60fps. Also, he notes that upgrading the natural resolution of films isn't an obligation at this point, which I happen to agree with him on (but that's a whole different discussion all together).

So yeah, you're pretty much right that not just 3D films, but 2D films (2D films will also be able to shoot at 48fps or 60fps in a director opts to do that instead, which most will). Basically, with The Hobbit and Avatar 2, which WILL be guaranteed box office bangers, theatres WILL do the software upgrade within the next year to actually showcase the natural 48fps and 60fps. The next step will be the upgraded blurays that you're talking about... I'm willing to bet by 2013 that there will have to be blurays that playback the natural 48fps or 60fps, as that is going to become the routine choice of film making by most directors.

Last question, the plasmas that do the 24p at 96hz, will that generate a picture similar to LCD/LEDs that use motion-flow? I really want that "lifelike" picture (sorry for the abundance of questions).

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

To try to answer this as straightforward as possible, both The Hobbit and Avatar being shot at 48fps or 60fps is in the similar vein of Douglas Trumbull's 60fps from many, many, MANY years ago that was never adopted by theatres due to financial boundaries during that time. If you read this article: http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cin...ema-at-60-fps/ it does more in depth. Basically, even if the films are shot in 48fps or 60fps, the 2D versions will retain those framerates and be the first two motion pictures shown in theatres with the full software upgrade to TRULY showcase the clarity of 48fps or 60fps. Also, he notes that upgrading the natural resolution of films isn't an obligation at this point, which I happen to agree with him on (but that's a whole different discussion all together).

So yeah, you're pretty much right that not just 3D films, but 2D films (2D films will also be able to shoot at 48fps or 60fps in a director opts to do that instead, which most will). Basically, with The Hobbit and Avatar 2, which WILL be guaranteed box office bangers, theatres WILL do the software upgrade within the next year to actually showcase the natural 48fps and 60fps. The next step will be the upgraded blurays that you're talking about... I'm willing to bet by 2013 that there will have to be blurays that playback the natural 48fps or 60fps, as that is going to become the routine choice of film making by most directors.

Last question, the plasmas that do the 24p at 96hz, will that generate a picture similar to LCD/LEDs that use motion-flow? I really want that "lifelike" picture (sorry for the abundance of questions).

I understand what you are saying, some future 2-D movies recorded at a native 48fps and a native 60fps will be projected in the theater at 48fps and 60fps.

Blu-ray 2-D came out in 2006 and then Blu-ray 3-D came out in 2010. Maybe in 2016 we may see Blu-ray 4K with support for multilayer discs. In my opinion it is too early to start making Blu-ray 2-D discs with 48fps and 60fps in 2013. A 60fps disc would require a 100GB of space and a special Blu-ray disc would need to be placed in the package. Existing players would not be able to decode the 60fps discs and read the 100GB 4 layer discs.

I still think that if 60fps takes off and 48fps takes off that it would be better to wait until around 2016 and launch a 4K 200GB+ optical format that supports variable frame rates for 4K and 1080P.

If James Cameron decides to make Avatar 3 at 120 frames per second, is everyone going to go out and buy a new TV and a new Blu-ray player that offers 120HZ inputs?? I do not think so. 3-D and 2-D at 500fps or 10,000fps would look awesome but the higher the frame rate of the original recording the more storage space and bandwidth is needed.

LCD screens and LCD screens with LED backlighting will produce the same 24p frame quality as a plasma screen when the frame interpolation motion features are turned off. Plasma and LCD both can do 24P correctly like a film projector, but it depends on the model. What I am trying to say is LCD screens and plasma screens can both offer a Cinema quality experience with deep blacks and correct frame rates. It all depends on the model of TV and the settings one uses in the menu.

[TheSweetieMan]

I don't think it's too early to start making BD players that can handle films shot on 48fps and 60fps, I'm assuming you're including the 4k resolution that adds such an emormous amount of GB space to be obsorbed. Remember, Cameron says that 48fps and 60fps can be played in theatres without having to go to 4k resolution... I'm sure if theatres can adapt to what he's offering, BD players can as well. I mean, I'm not saying people are going to run out and buy all these new technological advancements for their HDtvs or BD players, but with both Jackson and Camerom for sure going with 48fps at the moment, will the HD industry have a choice? They're not the only two who are going to be using those formats, especially once you include other renowned directors who will be shooting at those rates WITHOUT 3D. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to believe that by 2013, we'll start seeing BD players that can play the natural 48fps at the very least.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I don't think it's too early to start making BD players that can handle films shot on 48fps and 60fps, I'm assuming you're including the 4k resolution that adds such an emormous amount of GB space to be obsorbed. Remember, Cameron says that 48fps and 60fps can be played in theatres without having to go to 4k resolution... I'm sure if theatres can adapt to what he's offering, BD players can as well. I mean, I'm not saying people are going to run out and buy all these new technological advancements for their HDtvs or BD players, but with both Jackson and Camerom for sure going with 48fps at the moment, will the HD industry have a choice? They're not the only two who are going to be using those formats, especially once you include other renowned directors who will be shooting at those rates WITHOUT 3D. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to believe that by 2013, we'll start seeing BD players that can play the natural 48fps at the very least.

Currently 100% of all 3-D theaters are 2K only. The theater will either use one 2K projector with a polarity modulator so that each eye sees a 2K image or the theater uses two 2K projectors. The Sony SXRD 4K projector system offers full 2k resoultion for left and right eye simultaneously when the Sony 3-D lens apdater is installed. In the future maybe theaters will upgrade to 4K for 3-D by installing 4K projectors. To offer true 3-D 4K quality would require either two DLP 4K projectors installed or in the case of Sony's SXRD system a new 8K projector would be needed to delivery 4K image to each eye. Yes 48fps and 60fps can be displayed at 2K and 4K.

All Blu-ray players made from 2006 convert native 1080p/24 to 1080p/60 with 3:2 pulldown but that is not true native 60fps. To get native 1080p at 60fps onto a Blu-ray disc you would be talking about an entire new extension to the Blu-ray format. The Blu-ray Disc association would have to create a new standard to allow native 1080p/60 frames per second. Unless some new compression system was developed one would need to use a 100GB disc to fit 60fps onto the optical disc.

All new Blu-ray players would need to be built to play the discs with 60fps. The existing HDTV’s would handle 2-D images coming from a native 1080P 60fps device, but the 3-D displays are designed to unpack the 3-D image at 48fps.

We will have to wait and see what happens. Right now 100% of 2-D movies are 24fps and 100% of 3-D movies are 48fps and the existing Blu-ray format handles those movies perfectly fine.

In the future when 48fps and 60fps native movies become a reality then we will most likely see the movies converted to the standard DVD and Blu-ray format so that the majority of the consumers can view them. If there was enough demand to view movies at a native 60fps rate, then an entire new Blu-ray player could be developed called Super Blu-ray player or some other name.

Also both the Hobbit and Avatar 2 movies you are talking about were designed for 3-D as the ultimate experience. I would rather see those movies in 3-D instead of 2-D.

[TheSweetieMan]

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but as I pointed out in that article, 2K is perfectly fine for the current push of 48fps and 60fps, I can wait on a resolution upgrade when it becomes an obligation (and as Cameron pointed out in that speech, it's not, at least when it pertains to 48fps and 60fps filming). Anyway, I understand and respect the fact that you'd like to see 3D movies and they're intended to be... I wasn't really trying to say otherwise, I'm just PERSONALLY not a fan of 3D. I did want to reiterate that in the past, Cameron has talked about even traditional 2D film makers eventually shooting at 48fps and 60fps, even if it's for 2D purposes. Basically, any director that opts to shoot digital will probably implement this style first (you may even see arthouse directors like Lars von Trier adapt to this style, as he LOVED the "video/sopa opera" look to begin with. My current personal favorite blockbuster director (Neill Blomkamp) would probably also like to see a RED One camera shoot at 48fps or 60fps, as he originally wanted District 9 to look lifelife and as if you were there with the protagonist of the film. Of course, this is all hypopthetical, but chances are, 48fps and 60fps will become the standard, especially since theatre chains can now financially adapt to it without risking any major losses.

But yeah, all new bluray players would have to be developed, but by 2013 or 2014 at the least... you know, 2014 is probably a more logical date, as The Hobbit and Avatar are the only two major films shooting at 48fps and 60fps at the moment.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but as I pointed out in that article, 2K is perfectly fine for the current push of 48fps and 60fps, I can wait on a resolution upgrade when it becomes an obligation (and as Cameron pointed out in that speech, it's not, at least when it pertains to 48fps and 60fps filming). Anyway, I understand and respect the fact that you'd like to see 3D movies and they're intended to be... I wasn't really trying to say otherwise, I'm just PERSONALLY not a fan of 3D. I did want to reiterate that in the past, Cameron has talked about even traditional 2D film makers eventually shooting at 48fps and 60fps, even if it's for 2D purposes. Basically, any director that opts to shoot digital will probably implement this style first (you may even see arthouse directors like Lars von Trier adapt to this style, as he LOVED the "video/sopa opera" look to begin with. My current personal favorite blockbuster director (Neill Blomkamp) would probably also like to see a RED One camera shoot at 48fps or 60fps, as he originally wanted District 9 to look lifelife and as if you were there with the protagonist of the film. Of course, this is all hypopthetical, but chances are, 48fps and 60fps will become the standard, especially since theatre chains can now financially adapt to it without risking any major losses.

But yeah, all new bluray players would have to be developed, but by 2013 or 2014 at the least... you know, 2014 is probably a more logical date, as The Hobbit and Avatar are the only two major films shooting at 48fps and 60fps at the moment.

I also want to see native 48fps and 60fps 2-D movies. I like both 2-D and 3-D movies. The higher the native frame rate and the higher the native resolution the better the quality of the image captured by the camera. I am a big fan of the 14 MegaPixel Red One Epic camera. That camera is capable of 5K resolution at 59.94 fps. 720P, 1080P, 2K, 3K, 4K, 4.5K, and 5K are supported at frame rates as low as 23.98 and as high as 59.94 fps. The Red One Epic camera supports the following frame rates 23.98, 24, 25, 29.98, 48, 50, and 59.94. I was reading that future versions of the Red One or other brands might support 120fps or 180fps native recording. The RedCode propriety recoding format will allow the Red One Epic to record at 225fps for 2K, 180fps for 3K, and 120fps for 5K,4.5K, and 4K. But the projection frame limit is 59.94fps with current technology.

One day when a 16K digital camera is developed then there will be no more need for 70mm film. Digital Cinema is amazing technology.
http://www.red.com/products/epic

[TheSweetieMan]

I'm also on the bandwagon for digital shooting... but then again, it's probably due to the fact that much like the film makers I enjoy, they prefer the "lifelike" look over the "film" look. I'm definitely going to read up more on these future plans for RED, thanks for the link.

BTW, I made another thread on here in regards to how animation looks with motion-flow, but didn't really get the answer I wanted. Since all of Pixar and Dreamworks' animated films look great on that feature, is it likely that films like Ghost in the Shell: Innocence and The Sky Crawlers, which combine 3D animation with 2D animation, will also look impressive with that feature?

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I'm also on the bandwagon for digital shooting... but then again, it's probably due to the fact that much like the film makers I enjoy, they prefer the "lifelike" look over the "film" look. I'm definitely going to read up more on these future plans for RED, thanks for the link.

BTW, I made another thread on here in regards to how animation looks with motion-flow, but didn't really get the answer I wanted. Since all of Pixar and Dreamworks' animated films look great on that feature, is it likely that films like Ghost in the Shell: Innocence and The Sky Crawlers, which combine 3D animation with 2D animation, will also look impressive with that feature?

If you are talking about 240Hz or 120Hz Motionflow then turning that feature off will produce a Cinema quality results by using the repeating frame method from a 1080p/24 Blu-ray. Some people like to leave the Motionflow features turned on for their LCD screens to have a more video type of look instead of a film look.


Also I enjoyed reading the future of Cinema is 60Hz article link you provided

http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cinemacon-james-cameron-demos-the-future-of-cinema-at-60-fps/

quote
“"It's about framerates, man." It's very hard to get into a discussion about framerates because, first of all, it's a very technical aspect of filmmaking - both from the production side and the cameras and so on, as well as a distribution side, in terms of projectors. But Cameron confirmed that in order for theaters to be able to use/show 48 or 60FPS, all they would need is a software upgrade to any existing "Generation 2" projectors - those manufacturer in 2010 and beyond. So most digital cinemas are already capable of running these framrates, it's just a matter of making them the norm. Cameron emphasized that the future of projection is not yet pushing the resolution above and beyond 4K, but rather improving framerates and light output first.”

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I'm also on the bandwagon for digital shooting... but then again, it's probably due to the fact that much like the film makers I enjoy, they prefer the "lifelike" look over the "film" look. I'm definitely going to read up more on these future plans for RED, thanks for the link.

BTW, I made another thread on here in regards to how animation looks with motion-flow, but didn't really get the answer I wanted. Since all of Pixar and Dreamworks' animated films look great on that feature, is it likely that films like Ghost in the Shell: Innocence and The Sky Crawlers, which combine 3D animation with 2D animation, will also look impressive with that feature?

It's hit and miss with software interpolation (aka motionflow, auto motion plus, etc. each company has a different name for it). It depends on the tv you are watching (different tv's will do better/worse jobs of adding in the frames) and the content. Some movies like digital cartoons and Avatar look great with motion interpolation, while sometimes it can introduce a lot of artifacts (like judder and jerky motion). Chances are, you'll probably want to end up going with an LED tv of some kind since you really like the "soap opera" effect. I'd recommend either Samsung or Sony; everything i've seen and read leads me to say they are the best brands for LED and LCD tv's.

[TheSweetieMan]

I feel so retarded for not understanding most of this stuff, when I used to have a decent grap of it.

What about the Panasonic V10? I remember that being a mega hit about a year and a half ago, mainly because it had the 24p feature at 96hz, which apparently the G10 didn't, it only had 48hz which still left flickering. Is the V10 still on the market? I would like to go back to Best Buy and ask questions (and no offense to anyone that has ever worked at Best Buy) but their sales floor employees usually don't have the singlest clue of wth they are talking about.

I think my problem is, I've seen stuff like motion-flow and auto-motion plus on display, but I don't think I've ever seen the 24p at 96hz on display, which I'm assuming by eliminating flickering, that means it's eliminating jarring motions and all that jazz, correct?

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I feel so retarded for not understanding most of this stuff, when I used to have a decent grap of it.

What about the Panasonic V10? I remember that being a mega hit about a year and a half ago, mainly because it had the 24p feature at 96hz, which apparently the G10 didn't, it only had 48hz which still left flickering. Is the V10 still on the market? I would like to go back to Best Buy and ask questions (and no offense to anyone that has ever worked at Best Buy) but their sales floor employees usually don't have the singlest clue of wth they are talking about.

I think my problem is, I've seen stuff like motion-flow and auto-motion plus on display, but I don't think I've ever seen the 24p at 96hz on display, which I'm assuming by eliminating flickering, that means it's eliminating jarring motions and all that jazz, correct?

The V10 is out of production. Samsung and Panasonic have new plasmas models now. There are good LCD and plasma screens on the market. In the movie theater film projectors never use frame interpolation or any of the motion features found on many new consumer displays. In the theater the original frame rate is flashed on the screen at 2X or 3X to eliminate flicker.

Read the following link it has good information about display technologies

https://forum.blu-ray.com/display-th...rame-rate.html

Some people like the cartoonist soap opera or smooth video type of look found on LCD screens. While others like to turn that feature off and just repeat the original frame to reach the native refresh rate of the LCD display.