High Frame Rate Blu-ray?

[ronjones]

Originally Posted by joie

Is 3D is being displayed at 48 fps?
I'd guess that it is 24 fps, alternating frames for one eye with frames for the other eye, which makes the effective frame rate 12 fps, but the brain's "post processing" makes it seem like 24 fps.

First no one does 12 Hz per eye. When we talk about Blu-Ray Discs doing 1080p/24 Hz for 2D or 3D that means 24Hz for each eye. Blu-ray records both the right and left images of a 3D image into the same "super frame" at 24 Hz using "frame packing" encoding, as defined by the HDMI 1.4b standard. The Hobbit when shown in theaters advertising RealD (3D) HFR is displaying it at 48 Hz to each eye (that's why its called High Frame Rate). Even though most of the theaters with HFR compatible digital projectors are using projectors with 4K resolution the digital cinema input signal standard limits the 3D resolution to only 2K so it appears that what you are seeing in these theater is native 2K/48Hz 3D video that has been upscaled by the projector to 4K resolution for display.

[TheHighRoller]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

It will be interesting to see how they release this movie on home video.

This sums up how I feel about a home media release for The Hobbit (which I still have yet to see).

[AlanUK]

After reading through the posts in this thread i still don't understand why this film cannot be played at a higher frame rate, like the OP said the PS3 can output games & these can be displayed on everyone's TV set, the output from the PS3 will be just the same ones & zeros like there would be for either a game or a film, the TV doesn't know the difference it just displays what is sent to it.

What happens when i take a game disc out of my PS3 & then put in a film disc, why can the TV not display the same information ?

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by AlanUK

After reading through the posts in this thread i still don't understand why this film cannot be played at a higher frame rate, like the OP said the PS3 can output games & these can be displayed on everyone's TV set, the output from the PS3 will be just the same ones & zeros like there would be for either a game or a film, the TV doesn't know the difference it just displays what is sent to it.

What happens when i take a game disc out of my PS3 & then put in a film disc, why can the TV not display the same information ?

The game is a game. The movie is a movie.
It sounds weird, but that's how it is.

Also the PS3 is usually outputting 720p @ 30 or 60 fps. But never 1080p @ 48 fps.
Studios will never try to sell a 720p Blu-ray and there's no way to create a 720p @ 48fps BD right now anyways, and no one's willing to create new BD standards when we've already begun talking about 4K. It took long enough to get people to buy 3D BD, but right now there is literally only one 48 fps movie in existence.

[nic727]

So no news about the next gen tv or bluray to feature 3D HFR or 2D HFR?

I would like to buy "The Hobbit - Collector Edition" in about 3 year in HFR version

That would be cool!

EDIT : Maybe PS4 and Xbox One could run HFR movie? Or it's just like the post before, a game is a game and not a movie?

[hazelwu]

Originally Posted by nic727

So no news about the next gen tv or bluray to feature 3D HFR or 2D HFR?

I would like to buy "The Hobbit - Collector Edition" in about 3 year in HFR version

That would be cool!

EDIT : Maybe PS4 and Xbox One could run HFR movie? Or it's just like the post before, a game is a game and not a movie?

At this time no PS4 nor Xbox One plays even Blu-ray 3D.

HFR BD most likely won't happen as it requires a new standard to be made (for both TV and player), and there's probably only 3 movies....

[BozQ]

HFR/HFR 3D would require a massive amount of storage space.
Each Hobbit movie is about 3 hours long. If you try to deliver HFR 3D on a BD, then it's equivalent to storing a 6 hour 3D movie on a disc.

50GB is probably not enough to store the movie. Or otherwise, the movie has to be split into two discs.

Either way, if there is any way the 3D HFR can be preserved on Blu-ray, I will get the trilogy in a box set.
Right now, I'm not too compelled to get the current 24fps Blu-ray.

[nic727]

Originally Posted by BozQ

HFR/HFR 3D would require a massive amount of storage space.
Each Hobbit movie is about 3 hours long. If you try to deliver HFR 3D on a BD, then it's equivalent to storing a 6 hour 3D movie on a disc.

50GB is probably not enough to store the movie. Or otherwise, the movie has to be split into two discs.

Either way, if there is any way the 3D HFR can be preserved on Blu-ray, I will get the trilogy in a box set.
Right now, I'm not too compelled to get the current 24fps Blu-ray.

I heard that new 4K bluray from Sony can store 100Gb... But I don't know if it's true, because I didn't hear about 4K bluray before.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by nic727

I heard that new 4K bluray from Sony can store 100Gb... But I don't know if it's true, because I didn't hear about 4K bluray before.

No. There is no 4K Blu-ray.
You must have mistaken it with Sony's "Mastered in 4K" range of Blu-ray Discs.

At its core, the video is still 1080p, specially optimized for UHDTV. It isn't actually 4K like Sony would like you to believe.

Currently, we are nowhere near confirmation of any new format or an updated Blu-ray specs to support 4K or HFR content.

[SirStephenH]

48fps is not possible on Blu-Ray at the moment and will most likely never be. The current standards do not support it and hardware is required to support the standards in order to be Blu-Ray certified. No major revisions to the standards will likely be made while 4k and future disc technologies are in the works.

As for the hardware, almost all the hardware in existence is only just able to handle the current standards, mainly in order to keep costs down because there's no reason to support more than what's required of it. This would require new hardware which would be a tougher sell to consumers than 3D and would generate a great deal of confusion. The doubling of the frame-rate would also almost double (don't count the audio twice) the size of the movie which would lead to lower bit-rates and multi-disc movies. It's highly unlikely that companies will use these stop-gap measures with better disc technologies on the horizon.

It would technically be feasible to increase the frame-rate to 60 and encode it in 720p but the frame-rate conversion would create jitter and the video would be a lower resolution, eliminating any advantage of the higher frame-rate. It's been brought up that 1080i50 and 1080i60 are part of the specs but there's an enormous flaw in this argument besides what I just brought up. The "i" in those numbers stands for interlaced. Interlaced videos show half a standard (progressive) frame each interlaced frame so every two interlaced frames equals one standard. So 1080i50 is the equivalent of 1080p25 and 1080i60 is the equivalent of 1080p30. Interlaced video displays the odd lines of a single progressive frame then displays the even ones and does this for every standard frame, this happens so quickly that it appears to be a whole frame. There's only one clear advantage to this process and that's that it uses a little less bandwidth which is why the antiquated standard has stubbornly found a home in broadcast television. Few also claim that it displays motion a little better but the only difference most people see is an overall reduction in quality vs progressive scan. Progressive scan on the other hand displays each frame in it's entirety. So to summarize, it takes two interlaced frames to make up one progressive frame so the higher interlaced frame-rates aren't really higher at all.

The reason why a PS3 can run games at 60fps but not movies is differing standards and technologies. A PS3 is essentially a computer and is therefore more flexible, it's also a single standardized piece of hardware. Sony can update it to do just about anything it's capable of because the hardware is standardized and they know it's exact capabilities. Also there're few actual videos in games, most of it is created on the fly and are actually adapted to the hardware it's self by the developers. Blu-Ray on the other hand is designed to be compatible with a wide range of devices and has to play nice with every one. It cannot be reworked to take advantage of a single device's hardware because that would put it out of spec with everything else. I would also like to point out that in order to maintain a smooth 60fps, nearly every game on all the current major consoles (Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, and PS4) run natively at or just above 720p no matter what it says on the game's case.

We'll most likely see HFR video on cable and the internet first, the same with 4k. This will make it to market sooner than the new disc technologies that would be required for this content and will make it cheaper for the consumer early on due to it mainly using existing technologies, reducing the need for expensive bleeding edge equipment (remember the $2000+ Blu-Ray players?).

[I KEEL YOU]

Doesn't bother me one bit.

Motion pictures should be at 24 frames per sec and not look like soap operas. The only time I prefer high frames is when watching sports. And in video games.

[SirStephenH]

I don't get the soap opera reference.

It's about time that the frame rate of all video be raised to a minimum of 60p. The 24p standard has been around since the days of silent movies and no longer cuts it.

All sports broadcasts in NTSC countries are in 720p30 or 1080i60 just like all other broadcast television. As I said before, 60fps interlaced is the equivalent of 30fps progressive and any advantage of the "higher" frame-rate is an illusion that most people don't fall for. The 30fps broadcast standard is barely better than the 24fps movie standard so you'd better hope that HFR takes off at least as far as your sports are concerned.

[Aniki]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Doesn't bother me one bit.

Motion pictures should be at 24 frames per sec and not look like soap operas. The only time I prefer high frames is when watching sports. And in video games.

Agree completely.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by SirStephenH

It would technically be feasible to increase the frame-rate to 60 and encode it in 720p but the frame-rate conversion would create jitter and the video would be a lower resolution, eliminating any advantage of the higher frame-rate. It's been brought up that 1080i50 and 1080i60 are part of the specs but there's an enormous flaw in this argument besides what I just brought up. The "i" in those numbers stands for interlaced. Interlaced videos show half a standard (progressive) frame each interlaced frame so every two interlaced frames equals one standard. So 1080i50 is the equivalent of 1080p25 and 1080i60 is the equivalent of 1080p30. Interlaced video displays the odd lines of a single progressive frame then displays the even ones and does this for every standard frame, this happens so quickly that it appears to be a whole frame. There's only one clear advantage to this process and that's that it uses a little less bandwidth which is why the antiquated standard has stubbornly found a home in broadcast television. Few also claim that it displays motion a little better but the only difference most people see is an overall reduction in quality vs progressive scan. Progressive scan on the other hand displays each frame in it's entirety. So to summarize, it takes two interlaced frames to make up one progressive frame so the higher interlaced frame-rates aren't really higher at all.

Or speed up the HFR 48fps to 50fps, and encode it as 720p50
The only minor drawback is a higher pitch audio from the speed up frame rate. This was a common with PAL DVDs and it probably still is today, when 24fps film was speed up to 25fps. And we got beautiful 576p25
The Official FIFA World Cup 2010 Film in 3D was 720p60-3D, although there are no content available, I believe 720p50-3D should not be an issue. So this might be a possible compromise if the filmmakers and consumers are willing to go for it. If there is such a release, I will grab it in an instant.

The reason why a PS3 can run games at 60fps but not movies is differing standards and technologies. A PS3 is essentially a computer and is therefore more flexible, it's also a single standardized piece of hardware. Sony can update it to do just about anything it's capable of because the hardware is standardized and they know it's exact capabilities. Also there're few actual videos in games, most of it is created on the fly and are actually adapted to the hardware it's self by the developers. Blu-Ray on the other hand is designed to be compatible with a wide range of devices and has to play nice with every one. It cannot be reworked to take advantage of a single device's hardware because that would put it out of spec with everything else. I would also like to point out that in order to maintain a smooth 60fps, nearly every game on all the current major consoles (Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, and PS4) run natively at or just above 720p no matter what it says on the game's case.

Yes, that's true. There are games that are rendered even below 720p. They're only upscaled at the final stage with little to no performance impact in the overall gaming experience.

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Doesn't bother me one bit.

Motion pictures should be at 24 frames per sec and not look like soap operas. The only time I prefer high frames is when watching sports. And in video games.

It's the same with 3D.
To me, I respect filmmakers like James Cameron and Peter Jackson, who are coming up with new ways to create new experiences for cinemas, in an attempt to draw us away from home and into the cinema. Cameron did it with 3D and now Jackson with HFR/HFR3D. But yet, they're 100% backwards compatible. If you are uncomfortable with the new format, there is the trusty old 24fps 2D theatrical experience.
It's such a risky venture for these filmmakers, but they really outdid themselves with 3D and HFR.

Don't get me wrong, I still love meself some old school 24fps 2D movies all the time. But there's also nothing wrong in indulging in something different once in a while. And I'll gladly pick up The Hobbit movies, Blu-ray or otherwise, in HFR 3D.

[SirStephenH]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Or speed up the HFR 48fps to 50fps, and encode it as 720p50
The only minor drawback is a higher pitch audio from the speed up frame rate. This was a common with PAL DVDs and it probably still is today, when 24fps film was speed up to 25fps. And we got beautiful 576p25
The Official FIFA World Cup 2010 Film in 3D was 720p60-3D, although there are no content available, I believe 720p50-3D should not be an issue. So this might be a possible compromise if the filmmakers and consumers are willing to go for it. If there is such a release, I will grab it in an instant.

When frame rates are changed the video is never simply sped up. Frames are repeated to fill in the extra ones. This creates a visible jitter and detracts from the experience.

I know this example isn't realistic but it's the simplest way to explain this. Lets say you wanted to change a 1 second long 4fps video to 6fps for example. The frames of the resulting video would be 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 with two frames (3 and 6) repeated to fill in the extra frames.

Originally Posted by BozQ

Yes, that's true. There are games that are rendered even below 720p. They're only upscaled at the final stage with little to no performance impact in the overall gaming experience.

They're upscaled by the console and the consoles' hardware upscalers aren't very high quality, at least with the last gen (360, PS3). There's no real performance impact but there is a visual one.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by SirStephenH

The doubling of the frame-rate would also almost double (don't count the audio twice) the size of the movie which would lead to lower bit-rates and multi-disc movies.

No, the size of the video stream would only double for an uncompressed movie.

With lossy compressed video, the size will increase but by about half. With higher framerate, each frame is more similar to the preceding and subsequent frames. Inter frames can be described with less bits. It will require more bits overall but not proportional to the framerate increase.

All sports broadcasts in NTSC countries are in 720p30 or 1080i60 just like all other broadcast television. As I said before, 60fps interlaced is the equivalent of 30fps progressive and any advantage of the "higher" frame-rate is an illusion that most people don't fall for.

No, the increased temporal resolution of native 60i material (compared to 30p) is not an 'illusion'. We sacrifice spatial resolution but gain temporal resolution.

Originally Posted by SirStephenH

When frame rates are changed the video is never simply sped up. Frames are repeated to fill in the extra ones. This creates a visible jitter and detracts from the experience.

No, it is sped up in the exact example that BozQ just gave you.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by SirStephenH

When frame rates are changed the video is never simply sped up.

Stephen, go read up how PAL DVDs are made in Europe and other regions. Most of the 24fps film material are speed up to 25fps with no additional frames inserted. The minor effect of this speed up is a higher pitch audio, because it is playing faster.

What you are describing to me is the 3:2 Pull down in NTSC regions. And that is simply not possible with HFR 3D.

So my suggestion is to simply speed up The Hobbit movies from 48fps to 50fps. And then author the Blu-ray at 720p50-3D. Similarly, the only side effect is a higher pitch audio.

The Official World Cup 2010 Film was released as a 720p60-3D Blu-ray, so 720p50-3D shouldn't be a problem. Unless there is a compatibility issue in NTSC regions which I'm not aware of. But I believe it's a non issue. Unless there's a Blu-ray now authored that way, I can't test it.

[BozQ]

Do note, my suggestion is merely an idea of delivering HFR 3D to Blu-ray without revising the current specs, at the cost of sacrificing 1080p resolution and audio.

In order to get Blu-ray to play 1080p48 in 3D probably requires a near overhaul of the entire system. From new hardware to storage medium and new HDTV standards. And other than The Hobbit movies, there isn't any other HFR 3D material that I'm aware for BDA to consider HFR 3D in their spec revision. Hell, they're not even done with 4K Blu-ray. Our only hope is probably James Cameron after he's done with the Avatar sequels and he starts pushing for the format.

As someone mentioned earlier, we'd sooner see HFR 3D content delivered digitally than in any home media format.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by SirStephenH

When frame rates are changed the video is never simply sped up.

that is not true. When you move from NA (24 fps) to European (25 fps) it is simply sped up it would be insanely stupid to do it otherwise. There is no manipulation the device just plays the 24 as if it was 25 and so the movie has a slightly shorter run time. To me that was part of the "joke" many years ago when I had a discussion with my cousin on subs vs dubs and he said " dubs are better because you hear the original actors voice" and my response was "no because it also speeds up the audio and so it is higher pitched".

frame manipulation (duplication) is only used when the frame rate difference is large for example when you go from 24 (movie here) to 60 (TV here) where 2:3 pull down is used (i.e 1,1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6....)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Stephen, go read up how PAL DVDs are made in Europe and other regions. Most of the 24fps film material are speed up to 25fps with no additional frames inserted. The minor effect of this speed up is a higher pitch audio, because it is playing faster.

What you are describing to me is the 3:2 Pull down in NTSC regions. And that is simply not possible with HFR 3D.

So my suggestion is to simply speed up The Hobbit movies from 48fps to 50fps. And then author the Blu-ray at 720p50-3D. Similarly, the only side effect is a higher pitch audio.

I am not sure if Singapore uses 50 Hz, if so, I get the argument for your area. But you also appear to have some stuff wrong

Back in the days of PAL you had to convert a film because PAL was different than NTSC in NA, the frequency 50 vs 60 was only one of the differences. Today a US film isn't in 50HZ (or even 25Hz) but 24HZ, the device just plays it faster, that is why it is easy for a European (for instance) to buy a region free BD from NA but not necessarily the other way around. The European device will take the 24 fps BD and frame double to 48 and play it as 50. If I import a BD from Europe and it is a US film it will be 24fps and so no issue and if I buy European content locally again no issue, but most devices here don't accept/transfer 25/50 HZ so if I import native European content (such as the TV show Sherlock) it won't play in al my rooms but only on the BD player that can handle 50Hz and the display that will show it.


as to your main point (assuming I lived in a 50Hz region and it was possible), I disagree with it, resolution and audio are much more important than HFR especially in a slow moving film that had to have a professional 24 fps master done for theatrical presentations since many theatres could not play a 48fps film.