SaintWaldo said:
Treblaine said:
Worse than that, all TVs at the moment use the inferior 120Hz standard which is poorly compatible with feature films which are shot at 24 frames/sec (no common denominator)
I'm sorry, but the common divisors for the whole numbers 120 and 24 are 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24. So, what was your point again?
Sorry, I think I was a bit misled on that, it seems I didn't fully understand the problem and it is not really anything to do with the refresh rate of any screen or projector... but the camera.
Ok, let me put it this way. One of the reasons I am really annoyed at 3D as being the "next big revolution in mainstream cinema technology" is why the hell are we moving on to 3D when we haven't even gotten 2D working properly?
For example, every single film since The Jazz Singer has been shot at 24 frames/second as standard (bloody talkies, ruined cinema if you ask me*) but have you ever played a video game where the framerate is only 24 frames/sec? It's horrible and juddery isn't it?
Well the same exact problem exists for film, panning shots have to be EXTREMELY slow or use other tricks like focus on an object that moves with the camera in the foreground in centre of view, the background judders but is out of focus and hopefully ignored.
The thing is for DECADES everyone blamed something called "3:2 Pulldown" which is an awkward name for the solution to where if you have 24 frames/sec of footage yet must refresh equally 60 times per second, the solution is to show one frame for 3 passes, then the next frame for 2 passes, then the next frame for 3 passes. Thought this does cause a certain type of barely noticeable judder, it doesn't cause the judder most often seen in panning or fast shots as the problem is in the very raw prints themselves that are not collecting data quick enough to smoothly update how the picture is changing.
All this talk of 120hz and 24hz playback are red herrings. The TVs and projectors aren't causing judder, it's just in the past their blurriness hid an INHERENT problem with cinema film. The idea that the essence of cinema is absolutely pure and wonderful and "as god intended it" is a lie.
Frame Interpolation attempts to solve this by basically looking at two frames of 24fps media and making up 3 "joining frames" based on how the next frame looks and though it looks smooth when it comes to panning shots, it looks like ass as 75% or more of the frames are literally made up on the fly by a computer algorithm.
Really, the next revolution in film should NOT have been this useless 3D crap but start filming stuff at 60 frames per second and playing it back at that speed in cinema and on blu-ray.
See that would REALLY change cinema as so much of filmography is just about keeping the shot as still as possible as if there is any big movement then it all ends up like an earthquake as people seem to teleport around a room. The camera would have a far more natural view and able to move fluidly and catch subtler smoother movements.
Only once THAT technology is pervasive, cheap and accepted throughout cinema and the home should they then try to get it working in 3D. But the problem is frame-rate is a hard sell to the mass market.
And the great thing about tech like this is... it can be rolled out TODAY for the consumers at NO EXTRA COST as every single HDTV and monitor is 60hz compatible, the HDMI cable can handle the bitrate and so can the blu-ray discs. The only slight problem is the capacity, with 2.5x more frames per second the a 20GB movie would be inflated to 50GB and many cinema films on Blu-ray are larger than 20GB on blu-ray when shooting at only 24-frames per second. But Sony are working on a way to up the blu-ray capacity even higher than 50GB that would be available with even a firmware update.
The problem is for the industry how the hell do you sell 'higher refresh-rate' to the mass market? 3D is an easily marketed gimmick, people don't care about annoying shit that they can't put their finger on, they just want someTHING they can say "oh, it's got this".
In fact, that is what I'd much rather have for Killzone 2: a solid 60 frames per second refresh rate with no screen tear, lower the controller latency (input lag) too.
Wipeout HD plays in 1080p60 and it REALLY benefits from that high res and high frame-rate and when there are too many explosions it lowers the resolution temporarily rather than the frame rate.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm