Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk 4K UHD 60p/3D (2016)

[Lt_Cobretti]

Originally Posted by shield80

Still, don't get do you LOL

Your brain must be amazing he he

It should not look real, is it that hard to understand.

Bruh, RockyIII and I probably wouldn't see eye to eye on basically anything, but you're just being a dick at this point.

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

Well it's not so much that a movie should or should not look real...

it's that with the budget limitations of most movies, the 24fps removal from reality really covers up alot of the fakeness inherent in the sets and costumes and such. so when you view it in 60 fps it's like "wow this clearly looks like some guys acting on a set" as opposed to "this looks like a real video of people in x land doing y things in z story".

it's going to take a lot more care and craft from directors and production teams to really get it right.

This.

[shield80]

Originally Posted by Lt_Cobretti

Bruh, RockyIII and I probably wouldn't see eye to eye on basically anything, but you're just being a dick at this point.

Well somebody needs to be a dick with him

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Trouble is it was shot 48fps and there's no 48p in the UHD spec, I'm not quite sure how best they could adapt it to 60p and if they couldn't make it work I'd rather stick with the 24p versions. I watch the Hobbitses on Blu-ray with some mild interpolation anyway, not full soap opera effect but the Motionflow Clear option on Sony sets is a nice fit.

3:2 pulldown should work nicely for 48->60fps UHD, just as it does for 24->30fps NTSC.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

3:2 pulldown should work nicely for 48->60fps UHD, just as it does for 24->30fps NTSC.

Very true. Both native 120fps and 48fps can be worked nicely into our displays

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

3:2 pulldown should work nicely for 48->60fps UHD, just as it does for 24->30fps NTSC.

But it doesn't work nicely, it adds unnatural judder caused by the repetition of those fields/frames (which would essentially be made twice as bad for 48 into 60 vs 24 into 30) and judder is exactly the kind of thing which HFR is supposed to be avoiding. Sure, we're essentially watching 24fps in 120Hz on most high end displays these days, each frame repeated five times, but the point about 3:2 pulldown is that it's only duplicating select fields/frames which is what causes the unnatural judder.

We can restore the proper cadence to such 24->30 material using certain processing modes like the excellent Truemotion (with film mode set to Medium or High, Low doesn't activate the reverse pulldown) on Sony TVs, or indeed forcing 24p converted output like most Blu-ray players can do nowadays, but there won't be such a mode for converting a 60fps input back into 48fps, nor would such a thing be relied upon for optimal playback by the studios because not everyone would have it.

A very slight change to 50fps might be the best way to go BUT 25/50 compatibility isn't mandatory for UHD players in non-PAL territories so again, you're faced with the prospect of some people being left out. I think the only way to ensure a proper 60fps version would be to create a brand new frame-blended version from scratch, kinda like how Billy Lynn's <120 options were created. But that might be far too expensive a proposition just for releasing on a niche of a niche home video format. Dunno.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But it doesn't work nicely, it adds unnatural judder caused by the repetition of those fields/frames (which would essentially be made twice as bad for 48 into 60 vs 24 into 30) and judder is exactly the kind of thing which HFR is supposed to be avoiding. Sure, we're essentially watching 24fps in 120Hz on most high end displays these days, each frame repeated five times, but the point about 3:2 pulldown is that it's only duplicating select fields/frames which is what causes the unnatural judder.

We can restore the proper cadence to such 24->30 material using certain processing modes like the excellent Truemotion (with film mode set to Medium or High, Low doesn't activate the reverse pulldown) on Sony TVs, or indeed forcing 24p converted output like most Blu-ray players can do nowadays, but there won't be such a mode for converting a 60fps input back into 48fps, nor would such a thing be relied upon for optimal playback by the studios because not everyone would have it.

A very slight change to 50fps might be the best way to go BUT 25/50 compatibility isn't mandatory for UHD players in non-PAL territories so again, you're faced with the prospect of some people being left out. I think the only way to ensure a proper 60fps version would be to create a brand new frame-blended version from scratch, kinda like how Billy Lynn's <120 options were created. But that might be far too expensive a proposition just for releasing on a niche of a niche home video format. Dunno.

Should player's refresh rate be set on 24Hz or 60Hz when watching Billy Lynn or does it really matter?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Should player's refresh rate be set on 24Hz or 60Hz when watching Billy Lynn or does it really matter?

It literally doesn't matter. The UHD plays in 60fps, period. (Even if you switch into a lower resolution it will still play in 60p).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But it doesn't work nicely, it adds unnatural judder caused by the repetition of those fields/frames (which would essentially be made twice as bad for 48 into 60 vs 24 into 30) and judder is exactly the kind of thing which HFR is supposed to be avoiding.

I would think it would be half as bad, not twice - since the native framerate of the source is higher.
A lot of judder comes from 24fps itself being too low to begin with.

Video games do this all the time on the PC, where the framerate is all over the place due to video processing power. Doing a 3:2 pulldown on 48fps should have no detrimental effect. Will it be as buttery smooth as Billy Lynn? No. But it should still be noticeably better.

[Geoff D]

Variable fps is one thing, adding in an arbitrary amount of duplicated frames to fit X frame rate is something else. And of course 24fps has judder but that's why I stressed the "unnatural" part above when dealing with a 3:2 conversion, I've always hated how such material looks and I dunno how you Yanks put up with it for so long. But I guess when it's all you know, or what you grew up with, then it just looks normal, but I grew up watching 25fps/50Hz PAL (which sped up 24fps rather than duplicate fields to fit) so the 3:2 effect stands out like a sore thumb. Point taken about how it may well affect 48fps less than it does 24fps, but until I see such a thing in action then I'll remain sceptical.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

but I grew up watching 25fps/50Hz PAL (which sped up 24fps rather than duplicate fields to fit) so the 3:2 effect stands out like a sore thumb. Point taken about how it may well affect 48fps less than it does 24fps, but until I see such a thing in action then I'll remain sceptical.

Most DVDs could deal with the 3:2 pulldown fairly well and why it's always been a benchmark test for DVD players and the like.

What I can't stand is the PAL speedup which drives me bananas. Stuff being imperceptibly too fast and definitely sounding weird.

[Geoff D]

I don't remember players being able to actually "deal" with pulldown back in the day, we had to wait for upscaling HDMI players to be able to actually bypass it at the player end by forcing 24p output. On the display end Pioneer plasmas had various processing modes to overcome it, I distinctly remember having 48Hz and 72Hz modes on my 436SXE.

As I said, it's all you guys knew so it didn't stand out and probably still doesn't, but me no likey. I'm not advocating PAL as a choice because I don't like the 4% speed up either but that's not my wider point, just saying that coming from a display format which didn't use 3:2 pulldown for 24fps content then said pulldown has an obvious effect compared to native 24/25p playback. But hey, this is me: my "obvious" is another man's "whatchoo talkin' 'bout?".

[RockyIII]

I am fascinated by the topic of frame rate. For years we have been stuck with 24fps, never taking into consideration the possibilities of film in HFR, and never exploring all of its cinematic potential

[shield80]

Originally Posted by rockyiii

i am fascinated by the topic of frame rate. For years we have been stuck with 24fps, never taking into consideration the possibilities of film in hfr, and never exploring all of its cinematic potential

lol

[imsounoriginal]

2D HFR can look weird, but I do believe that HFR benefits 3D so much that all 3D should be HFR.

[shield80]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

2D HFR can look weird, but I do believe that HFR benefits 3D so much that all 3D should be HFR.

Rocky like that it could look weird in 2D and good on 3D he he

[shield80]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

2D HFR can look weird, but I do believe that HFR benefits 3D so much that all 3D should be HFR.

3D i don't watch anyway so that i have to take your word for it,but 2D HFR does not benefit at all

[TheSweetieMan]

This film, obviously, is an absolute showcase for showing people the full impact of 4K/HDR/HFR--but good god, is HFR absolutely ugly for filmmaking. Keep that shit for gaming.

[Laserdisk]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

I am fascinated by the topic of frame rate. For years we have been stuck with 24fps, never taking into consideration the possibilities of film in HFR, and never exploring all of its cinematic potential

Absolute bullshit.
People tired many times before, there are reasons there are only 4 modern movies with it

[legends of beyond]

I feel like I'm the only one here not named RockyIII that likes HFR.



Screw this movie though.

[imsounoriginal]

If Avatar has HFR then people will change their minds. Don't doubt the power of The Cameron.