2012 HDTVs?

How are 48 FPS going to be displayed evenly on any panel? Most panels are following the 60 Hz grid line of thinking. Only a few obscure plasmas do this weird 96 Hz thing. Even so, the Hobbit is only going to be 48 FPS in cinema. There is no standard in any media to support anything more than 1080p24. How would 48 FPS not have judder on a 120 Hz panel? It is the double of playing a 24 FPS movie on a 60 Hz display. The effect would be less noticeable, but still there.

I want to be able to send 120 Hz to a display, period. To do the 5:5 pulldown on the display would need a 24 Hz input. I don't want to have to switch between 60 and 24 based on what is being played. Even being done automatically is a pain in the ass and slow. It's not a waste of bandwidth because it's not like that bandwidth would be getting used for anything else.
 
grimster said:
I want to be able to send 120 Hz to a display, period. To do the 5:5 pulldown on the display would need a 24 Hz input. I don't want to have to switch between 60 and 24 based on what is being played. Even being done automatically is a pain in the ass and slow. It's not a waste of bandwidth because it's not like that bandwidth would be getting used for anything else.
Click to expand...


Again, you aren't making any sense. How is having your gear autoswitch between 24/60fps a pain??

Using 5X the bandwidth for no reason, is a waste of bandwidth because you will require better electronics and better cables. Driving up cost to carry bandwidth that is pointless.

How are 48 FPS going to be displayed evenly on any panel?
Click to expand...

How will 48FPS be displayed evenly? Remember, we are talking about future TVs. But there are already many 240Hz sets, all you need is 48Hz input. That is easier and more useful than 120Hz input.

We probably won't get an update to home equipment with just the Hobbit, but in a few more years, and more 48FPS movies, we will get 48fps input/output standards in our gear.

Go 48 FPS.
 
48 FPS is retarded. They should go to 60 FPS. I don't get the moronic reasons for these goons to want to stick to multiples of 24. I want a 120 Hz input. I don't give a shit what some jerk-off is doing for one movie that barely anyone in the real world is going to even watch.
 
grimster said:
48 FPS is retarded. They should go to 60 FPS. I don't get the moronic reasons for these goons to want to stick to multiples of 24. I want a 120 Hz input. I don't give a shit what some jerk-off is doing for one movie that barely anyone in the real world is going to even watch.
Click to expand...

What an adult argument. :rolleyes: Are you going to hold your breath until you get it?

60Hz is more a local artifact based on the local power frequency, it is 50Hz in Euroland. All these 120Hz TVs are 100Hz TVs elsewhere. 120Hz isn't a universal standard.

24fps OTOH is universal standard and projecting equipment is already running at a multiples of 24fps, even old film projector are often using frame doubled film running at 48fps, it would be simple to drop in a 48fps film and play it back, not so with 60 fps.

48 FPS fixes just about all the 24 FPS artifacts and is actually a better projection fit and it isn't just one movie, lots of IMAX 48 FPS material as well.

I am very much looking forward to this, as should anyone who is tired of this century old standard that gives juddering pans and other artifacts in movies.
http://the-hobbitmovie.com/peter-jackson-discusses-new-filming-standard/
 
Really? Who uses film anymore to project? Film was not doubled, they just did two shutters per frame to not flicker. Who cares about PAL land? We needn't rely on the power grid for timing, anymore. 24 FPS doesn't judder in pans because it's 24 FPS, it's because of 3:2 pulldown.
 
grimster said:
Who cares about PAL land? We needn't rely on the power grid for timing, anymore. 24 FPS doesn't judder in pans because it's 24 FPS, it's because of 3:2 pulldown.
Click to expand...

Who cares about 50Hz? Most of the world. 50Hz is the majority, 60 Hz is the minority.

TVs everywhere still refresh based on mains frequency. Check some out. All the UK TV's are refreshing at multiples of 50Hz:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=node=560864&field-keywords=Hz&x=0&y=0

So you are throwing a tantrum about a non-standard that only exists in your backyard and not most of the world.

24FPS causes more panning Judder on it's own than 3:2 pulldown does. I see just as much judder at the movies as I do watching a 24fps movie on my 60Hz set. Leave you bedroom and go to a real movie and you might see this.

3:2 judder is an overblown issues. 24fps judder is a significant and underrated issue.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
All of the entertainment in the world that people actually view and is actually good comes from the USA. Next would be Japan. 3:2 causes worse judder than just the fact that the frame rate is a low 24 FPS.
 
You simply have no clue what you are talking about. You are simply repeating misinformation your read on a blog somewhere mixed in with some of your own nonsense. Good luck with that.
 
48fps for the Hobbit? Holy cow.
Getting back to resolutions for a sec, I honestly thought something like 1440P was going to be the next logical step. IMO, it seems much more believable on the source side in the near future. However there would still probably be "room for improvement" on extremely large sets or projectors. By going 4K as the next step, that puts a stop to further need of resolution improvements for the foreseeable future.
I would've been thrilled with a "BD 2.0" at 1440P, as that seems like just about perfection to my eyes on a 55" - 75" set. Crisp. I just cannot fathom the technology that doesn't yet exist to support something like 4K. What - 200GB+ 2.5hr capacity requirements? Add 48fps to that and you're talkin' 1/2TB for a single movie? I don't see it - not even 4 years from now. And streaming 4K? LOL!!! You'd need a 40meg pipe just to see it highly compressed.
Necessary? Yes. Feasable in this economy? No way.
 
Brahmzy said:
48fps for the Hobbit? Holy cow.
Getting back to resolutions for a sec, I honestly thought something like 1440P was going to be the next logical step. IMO, it seems much more believable on the source side in the near future. However there would still probably be "room for improvement" on extremely large sets or projectors. By going 4K as the next step, that puts a stop to further need of resolution improvements for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

We stayed with SD resolution for over 50 years. It isn't going to start changing every 5 years now.

Especially since 1080p is overkill for most people, moving beyond 1080p will be like moving beyond CD to SACD. Only a small fringe would ever care and there would be no market success unless it was priced the same..

There may be a few products available, but they are completely pointless exercises in marketing.

Now if you have 12 foot+ projected image and you sit so close you can see the pixel pattern, you might be a candidate, but that is well below 1% of the population. You will be able to pay through the nose for 4K projector and solve you pixel problems, but you will be almost completely limited to showing normal 1080p HD material.

48 FPS OTOH is long overdue. We have been stuck for almost a century with barely adequate minimum frame rate, only because film was ridiculously expensive when they started. Who would want video games that run at 24 fps? It is amazing people tolerate 24fps movies in this day and age. I hope "The Hobbit" changes that (Avatar sequels are also shooting in higher FPS).
 
Last edited:
The word judder implies inconsistent movement, seeing the individual frames flickering on the screen can be annoying i guess to some, but i don't think judder is the right word.

3:2 is judder, because not every frame is flickering the same.
 
48 FPS is a stupid number. They should have jumped right to 60. If it's going to be shot on film, but displayed digitally, I don't see that there has to be any wide-spread equipment changes, just to those filming. It's still going to be released as 24 FPS, as there is nothing that supports a 48 FPS format. It's only going to be 48 FPS in the theaters.

I haven't noticed any kind of judder in pans in the theater. I notice it on my TV, because there is 3:2 pulldown applied.
 
Snowdog said:
We stayed with SD resolution for over 50 years. It isn't going to start changing every 5 years now.

Especially since 1080p is overkill for most people, moving beyond 1080p will be like moving beyond CD to SACD. Only a small fringe would ever care and there would be no market success unless it was priced the same..

There may be a few products available, but they are completely pointless exercises in marketing.

Now if you have 12 foot+ projected image and you sit so close you can see the pixel pattern, you might be a candidate, but that is well below 1% of the population. You will be able to pay through the nose for 4K projector and solve you pixel problems, but you will be almost completely limited to showing normal 1080p HD material.

48 FPS OTOH is long overdue. We have been stuck for almost a century with barely adequate minimum frame rate, only because film was ridiculously expensive when they started. Who would want video games that run at 24 fps? It is amazing people tolerate 24fps movies in this day and age. I hope "The Hobbit" changes that (Avatar sequels are also shooting in higher FPS).
Click to expand...


4k is a money maker for the TV business, just like they hoped 3d would be. Until they can start making calibrated TV's that hold their color, and can display black, i'm not sure why they are worrying about upping the resolution again.

Resolution is only one component to a video, i've been in many houses where they have their "awesome" 1080p television but a crap-ass bose sound system and their colors are dicked up.

Consumerism, isn't it nice!!!
 
Verge said:
4k is a money maker for the TV business, just like they hoped 3d would be. Until they can start making calibrated TV's that hold their color, and can display black, i'm not sure why they are worrying about upping the resolution again.

Resolution is only one component to a video, i've been in many houses where they have their "awesome" 1080p television but a crap-ass bose sound system and their colors are dicked up.

Consumerism, isn't it nice!!!
Click to expand...

+ 1. It's a nice bitch and a damn shame.
 
grimster said:
48 FPS is a stupid number. They should have jumped right to 60. If it's going to be shot on film, but displayed digitally, I don't see that there has to be any wide-spread equipment changes, just to those filming. It's still going to be released as 24 FPS, as there is nothing that supports a 48 FPS format. It's only going to be 48 FPS in the theaters.

I haven't noticed any kind of judder in pans in the theater. I notice it on my TV, because there is 3:2 pulldown applied.
Click to expand...

Why is 60 significantly better than 48 for a moving image to 99+% of the population? Thanks.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Why is 60 significantly better than 48 for a moving image to 99+% of the population? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Because his TV is 60 Hz (because he lives in North America where power is 60 Hz) and he can't see beyond that.

Peter Jackson, really has a solid reasoning behind what he is doing. 48fps almost certainly back converts into 24fps better as well which will be still required for some venues:
http://the-hobbitmovie.com/peter-jackson-answers-why-48-fps-for-the-hobbit/
Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production.

24fps vs 48fps is a massive night and day type improvement, 48fps vs 60fps is pretty much undetectable, so the same benefits with better backward compatibility.
http://the-hobbitmovie.com/peter-jackson-discusses-new-filming-standard/
We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.

It looks great, and we’ve actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We’re getting spoilt!

So in the End, 48fps gives you pretty much all the improvement, while being a better technical fit for backward compatibility.

I hope a lot of people get spoiled by the improved clarity and motion in the Hobbit/Avatar2 and this leads to more high frame-rate movies.
 
Snowdog said:
I hope a lot of people get spoiled by the improved clarity and motion in the Hobbit/Avatar2 and this leads to more high frame-rate movies.
Click to expand...

Gonna need .h265 and need it fast.


4K at 48fps will need an entirely new format. People are just now starting to adopt blu-rays.
 
Verge said:
Gonna need .h265 and need it fast.

4K at 48fps will need an entirely new format. People are just now starting to adopt blu-rays.
Click to expand...

They are independent of each other.

While 4K is really irrellevant for home users since they would never see the difference, it would be a massive waste for the quadrupled space usage.

48fps OTOH will help at any resolution/distance and it won't even double space.

But the first big test will in theaters where storage the issues are irrellevant, Blu Rays will likely have downconverted 24fps for some time.

The important thing is getting the movies shot at higher frame rates now, eventually we will get the display medium for home. But you can't unjudder, unblur a 24 fps movie after it is shot.
 
Seriously, it's one movie, and it's not even going to be watched by the mainstream. One movie, un-mainstream, in a higher frame rate is NOT going to change the game, AT ALL. And mainly because it's a retarded 48 FPS instead of something normal and TV-matching like 60 FPS. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind taking a pixel hit and going 720p60 (since Blu-ray actually supports this) if they offered it. Even 1080i60 would be acceptable.
 
grimster said:
Seriously, it's one movie, and it's not even going to be watched by the mainstream. One movie, un-mainstream, in a higher frame rate is NOT going to change the game, AT ALL. And mainly because it's a retarded 48 FPS instead of something normal and TV-matching like 60 FPS. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind taking a pixel hit and going 720p60 (since Blu-ray actually supports this) if they offered it. Even 1080i60 would be acceptable.
Click to expand...

But you just got done saying that 1080p wasn't enough for anyone. So why would anyone want to go to 720p? Second, anything ending in "i" is foolish. It will cause horrible effects in fast scans. But you knew that; right?
 
if $$ is no object then just get the best HDTV to come out since the famed Pioneer Kuro--- the Sharp Elite Pro
 
Interesting. Where did I say that 1080 is not enough? If I recall, I even said that 1080 as a delivery resolution is enough to show film grain, anything higher isn't going to much matter. What I did say is that 1080 is pointless if film is going to be scanned at 2k, you need to go 4k and then resize down. Even larger film scanned at 8k shines over 35mm scanned at 4k. 1080 will look just as good as 2160 if it is run at two times the speed. I'd say even better, since the frames gain much more detail simply from removing motion blur. Frame rate is resolution, too. I'm a strict opponent of all this 4k madness. Do we really need more new screens when most people still have SDTV CRTs? We do, however, have panels that are capable of 1080p60, cameras capable of shooting it, a link capable of transmitting it, and with some simple bureaucracy, can add 1080p30 and 60 to the Blu-ray format. All that would be left is to get people to shoot in it. It would really do away with the people who don't know how to shoot a movie. Interlacing only makes things crap when deinterlaced improperly. Quit spreading false hype. Oh, and 4k is purely a cinema format, and 4096 x some arbitrary number based on aspect ratio. What they mean by 4k in the consumer world is just 1080 quadrupled, or 3840x2160.
 
Snowdog said:
The important thing is getting the movies shot at higher frame rates now, eventually we will get the display medium for home. But you can't unjudder, unblur a 24 fps movie after it is shot.
Click to expand...

Yea no kidding, it would be awesome if my projector took 1080p/48....



OH SNAPZ !!!!! FUTURE PROOFZ!
 
grimster said:
Seriously, it's one movie, and it's not even going to be watched by the mainstream. One movie, un-mainstream, in a higher frame rate is NOT going to change the game, AT ALL. And mainly because it's a retarded 48 FPS instead of something normal and TV-matching like 60 FPS. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind taking a pixel hit and going 720p60 (since Blu-ray actually supports this) if they offered it. Even 1080i60 would be acceptable.
Click to expand...


Yea, nobody, i mean NOBODY, is going to watch the hobbit.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoKFtf4A_mc


idiot
 
What a bunch of weirdos still on this 48 Hz garbage...for one [quite retarded] movie.
 
I don't give a shit what award a person wins. It doesn't mean the mainstream watched those movies. It was limited to nerds, and nerds go see movies like that like 20 times over. I bet if they actually counted the number of individuals who went to see those movies, the numbers would be a lot lower. Any kind of garbage with that sort of back story and invented religions and languages are for complete idiots. Have fun in your mom's basement and at your nerd conventions.
 
grimster said:
What a bunch of weirdos still on this 48 Hz garbage...for one [quite retarded] movie.
Click to expand...

If you think JRR is retarded, sweet, that is your right here in the USA.


But don't say it isn't a mainstream movie, considering the last one won best picture and I believe all 3 were nominated. This will be the biggest movie of 2012/13.
 
grimster said:
I don't give a shit what award a person wins. It doesn't mean the mainstream watched those movies. It was limited to nerds, and nerds go see movies like that like 20 times over. I bet if they actually counted the number of individuals who went to see those movies, the numbers would be a lot lower. Any kind of garbage with that sort of back story and invented religions and languages are for complete idiots. Have fun in your mom's basement and at your nerd conventions.
Click to expand...


I have my own house, with my own dedicated theater room. Of course according to you, the best way to watch a movie is in your parents living room on a crummy 40 inch plasma. Make no mistake, i don't live with my parents. You are projecting your life, onto mine.
 
Things like that are nominated over pure numbers, not how society as a whole views them. It will only be the biggest movie by pure number of tickets being sold. Count the number of individuals who go to see it, and the numbers will look quite pathetic. One [pathetic] movie being 48 FPS is not enough of a reason to adopt that number.

Good for you, you have your own douchey theater room in your mom's basement. Enjoy your fantasy movies, you tool. Keep living life with your head in the clouds. I don't live with my parents either, fuck face.
 
grimster said:
Things like that are nominated over pure numbers
Click to expand...

HOLY CRAP, A MEMBER OF THE ACADEMY HAS GRACED THE [H]. You don't know how they are nominated, sorry buddy. You are talking out of your ass.

Good for you, you have your own douchey theater room in your mom's basement. Enjoy your fantasy movies, you tool. Keep living life with your head in the clouds. I don't live with my parents either, fuck face.
Click to expand...


You sure sound like you do.


Always right - check
Knows everything - check
Thinks others share his predicaments - check
mad at the world - check
foul mouth - check

Angsty-Teen - CONFIRMED!


When you can legally buy alcohol, we can talk some more.
 
More assumptions from a total moron. Quite laughable.

- An academy is a private organization. Obviously the public does not vote. Just because nominees are told to the public before any voting is done, doesn't mean the public decides shit.
- I'm not always right, but against you, of course I am.
- I don't know everything, but I do know more than you.
- Okay?
- Not mad at the world, I just hate idiots and those who are into such ridiculously fantastic (as in fantasy, not of greatness) things like Hobbits and other worlds, and are generally disconnected from reality, and just people with an opinion different than mine in any facet. Having a personal theater is something that is pretty much an issue of insecurity and done by a person who views life as a fantasy.
- Freedom of speech. Grow up. You sound like a 5-year-old with a swear jar.
- 27, I can buy as much alcohol as I want. Too much alcohol sounds like your problem.

AND, look at Peter Jackson at that awards thing. What a fat slob. So disrespectful to everyone there. He's bordering along the times of some slovenly squatter douche like Richard Stallman.
 
grimster, enjoy your week off, the kinds of posts you've made in this thread are not welcome on this forum. For the others of you who decided to call other members names, grimsters fate can easily be your own if you decide to keep doing it.

Back on-topic please.
 
Verge said:
Yea no kidding, it would be awesome if my projector took 1080p/48....

OH SNAPZ !!!!! FUTURE PROOFZ!
Click to expand...

Do you mean, yours does? Some do.

Then all we need is an updated Blu Ray standard and you might be in business. Heck likely just a small patch for the PS3/Sony projectors.

Most movies don't use the full 50GB, so you it could probably be done in standard BRD size, since it is mainly in the action scenes where you need it that 48fps will double bandwidth. In more static scenes with few changes between frames, the bandwidth would likely not increase that much.

Anyway, this is the next advance I am most looking forward to.

For 2012 TVs I don't see much emerging, maybe someone will finally show up with a big OLED for sale in 2012, that should be visually impressive for those who can afford it.
 
Snowdog said:
Do you mean, yours does? Some do.

Then all we need is an updated Blu Ray standard and you might be in business. Heck likely just a small patch for the PS3/Sony projectors.

Most movies don't use the full 50GB, so you it could probably be done in standard BRD size, since it is mainly in the action scenes where you need it that 48fps will double bandwidth. In more static scenes with few changes between frames, the bandwidth would likely not increase that much.

Anyway, this is the next advance I am most looking forward to.

For 2012 TVs I don't see much emerging, maybe someone will finally show up with a big OLED for sale in 2012, that should be visually impressive for those who can afford it.
Click to expand...

It will take 1080p/48 over HDMI from a computer, so i would assume it will work. I think the older model sony sxrd's only took 48p and they finally fixed it via firmware to take 24p, but who knows. Knowing Mr. Jackson, we will get a regular blu-ray for 29.99, then an ultimate edition for 29.99, then in 2015 we will get a 48fps superior chromium edition for 34.99. I doubt i have the same equipment in 4 years.

I have some longer rips that use 35-40gb for video. The question is, does doubling the framerate really double the size of the movie? There are people on here more familiar with video encoding schemes than I, but it seems like it shouldn't be as simple as just doubling the size. Regardless, Sony is claiming 4k blu-rays in the near future but i don't see how it's possible without a new disc or a new codec, as they have 4x the information to encode.
 
48FPS should not be anywhere near double the size of 24FPS because encoding also depends on inter-frame differences. But it will be situational.

4K will really quadruple storage requirements. These must be new format BRD with more layers or something (or live with more artifacts).

I think it will depend on the reaction to 48FPS. If people really notice the difference, then we will likely get more features and home equipment in short order. Otherwise 48FPS may languish.
 
Snowdog said:
I think it will depend on the reaction to 48FPS. If people really notice the difference, then we will likely get more features and home equipment in short order. Otherwise 48FPS may languish.
Click to expand...

We shall see how it looks. I know at 120fps it will look to real, and IMO, i wouldn't like it. When I go to a movie, i like to know i'm watching a movie. But i'm an old school purist who also complained when all the cinema's went digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top