Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Best Quality workflow 1080p 30fps on blu-ray.

Panavision were showing clips from Click in their trailer at CineGear as a demo for Genesis.

Problem is with a poor transfer, you're probably not even up to DVD standard for a lot of releases and putting more pixels on screen will be just more pixels of noise. Shame really, that people spend all this time to make a film look great, and someone comes along and puts out a crap looking disc of it.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Panavision were showing clips from Click in their trailer at CineGear as a demo for Genesis.
Click to expand...

Interesting... Hmmm. And this could very well be the case (Click shot with Genesis). After all, we're talking about Sony who has no shame in hyping their own products, even if it's a big fat lie.

Problem is with a poor transfer, you're probably not even up to DVD standard for a lot of releases and putting more pixels on screen will be just more pixels of noise. Shame really, that people spend all this time to make a film look great, and someone comes along and puts out a crap looking disc of it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know it's a poor transfer... It's just really sad that with all the tools and resources the big studios have that they can't produce something better. One would think that Sony would be pushing the quality envelope with BluRay titles to try and out-shine HD-DVD. ...But no.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Panavision were showing clips from Click in their trailer at CineGear as a demo for Genesis.

Problem is with a poor transfer, you're probably not even up to DVD standard for a lot of releases and putting more pixels on screen will be just more pixels of noise. Shame really, that people spend all this time to make a film look great, and someone comes along and puts out a crap looking disc of it.

Graeme
Click to expand...

It is how I felt watching the CLICK and UltraViolet.
Watching it on the large screen in the cinema is acceptable, watching it off the BD is like watching DVD with 4 times the bitrate. Transferring from the film to the laser printer will do a better job.
Yet again if choices of codecs and transfer and transcoding method are poor the result is poor.
With HD there is more then pixels and bitrate it seems, all components in the chain have to be upgraded.
Good testing program/gizmo will give them good feedback, like we have for testing the PC systems or graphic card speed and performance. Sony Play Station-3 has only this bitrate display but this do not show the codec quality. Any idea how to rate the BD releases except watching them? (subjective)

Andrew
 
So in the past we've been told to shoot on 24fps (actually 2397) for conversion to TV and possible film upconversion shows. Now you are saying 60P will look much better on tv (which I agree is true) so my question is how well can you derive 24P for a film out from this 60P master?
 
60 to 24 frame rate conversion

60 to 24 frame rate conversion

Just double the frame rate and divide by 5

2 X 60 =120
120 / 5 = 24

So you can pick one frame every 5 frames or merge 5 frames in to one by special technic.
Photographers are taking 5 to 10 pictures of the same object and then combining it in to one in order to achieve best possible quality. I will not mention antiblur and color balance advantage coming out of combining 5 frames in to one.
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~peleg/papers/wacv00-blur.pdf
I think photoshop has these implemented in the latest version.

One more reason why RED has 120 frame rate capability.
 
I'd personally like to see a framerate agnostic approach to TV and Cinema. Why should TV, not that it's just bytes, but locked to one frame rate? Surely, why convert PAL to NTSC when the TV could just start accepting the 25fps data (now that frames sizes are the same with HD), just like your projector does? Why shouldn't cinema projectors run at 50fps or 60fps if you want them too?

Graeme
 
tj williams said:
So in the past we've been told to shoot on 24fps (actually 2397) for conversion to TV and possible film upconversion shows. Now you are saying 60P will look much better on tv (which I agree is true) so my question is how well can you derive 24P for a film out from this 60P master?
Click to expand...

No matter what resolution and well lit images, 60p will always look like "reality tv". If you want a cinematic feeling, 24p (or 25p) is the way to go, even for HD broadcast and tv conversion. In this case you'd want the strobing.
If you are shooting a golf tournament or a news show, 1080p60 would be preferable though.
 
I think I'll take that as a challenge when we get our REDs to shoot 50fps or 60fps and make it still look totally cinematic without changing the frame rate :-)

Graeme
 
tj williams said:
So in the past we've been told to shoot on 24fps (actually 2397) for conversion to TV and possible film upconversion shows. Now you are saying 60P will look much better on tv (which I agree is true) so my question is how well can you derive 24P for a film out from this 60P master?
Click to expand...

Unlike 30p, 60p gives you enough frames that picking out 24 of them every second shouldn't introduce horribly noticeable motion artifacts. But note that you obviously can't shoot on a 1/48 shutter at 60p, so you're going to get less motion blur, creating a bit of a strobe effect if you remove frames. It might not be too noticeable if you shoot at 1/60, though, and I suspect clever software could use data from the removed frames to create fairly convincing motion blur for the 24p version.

A bigger issue is that while 60p will give smoother motion on television, it will also look more like TV news and less like what people think of as "cinema". This perception might change as technology creates more flexibility for acquisition and exhibition, though.
 
However, if you shoot 60p, light it properly, and grade it nicely, it should look very nice and cinematic indeed. 90% of "cinematic" is lighting and grading.

60fps looks, traditionally, soap, because of harsh "video" lighting, video style image processing, edge enhancement and interlace. Avoid all of them and do 60fps progressive, then it will look very cinematic, but different, and perhaps better than 24fps.

Graeme
 
Actually I have seen a beautifully lighted 75 fps 2k 35mm scan play back at 60 fps on a 720p plasma. While being very beautiful retaining all the organic properties of film, It just looked like really expensive high quality video to me.
 
But perhaps that's because you know what to "look" for? It will be interesting to see what people can do with a high quality high fps source like RED?

Graeme
 
Sure it will be interesting.
Say 24 fps was all about saving those remaining 36 fps in the celluloid budget, and 60 fps is the future...

BTV. Just saw a BluRay HD sampler from Sony on a 50" 1080p screen......never seen a better example of the horrors of edge enhancement and interlace twitter.
The "actors" (Models) were nice though :-)
 
Interesting, enabling, and fun! BTW, I like the 24p film aesthetic too, but I also like the high quality high fps aesthetic too :-)

Um, if that's the Bluray sampler I've seen in local stores here in Ottawa, it's abysmal and whoever made it should be shot for crimes against quality!

Graeme
 
CODECS'n'stuff

CODECS'n'stuff

Hej, and hej graeme

just a quickie before i post my request: 24/25 fps will always look more cinematic than any significant higher framerates; it's more a psychological
fact than a visual matter. the lower the framerates, the more our brains place
the visuals into "past/happened" thus looking in a way more "poetic/historic"

ok;

now after i read your post where you (graeme) listed some codecs and
quality setings, i wanted to ask you if it'd be possible for you to make a quick
overview of how quality settings affect a specific codec - for example i didn't
know that photojpg turns to 4:4:4 when having it set to 100% - what about
90%? - how does the quality settings affect in animation-codec?

thanks for any hints/links/tables..

martin
 
Martin, I prefer to think of it as a cultural phenonema, and a learned one at that, rather than a psycological one. There's nothing inherent in the frame rate that suggests "past / happened" other than growing up in a country that shows the vast majority of drama at 24fps.

Codec stuff is off topic for this thread - post over on Off Topic and we can pick up other there....

Graeme
 
I sort of agree and disagree with you Graeme. I think that there is something significant psychologically going on with our perception of different frame rates, but that our interpretation of it is cultural and learned. To me high frame rates seem to look more real, low frame rates seem to look less real. It is not about an association with video it is something deeper than that. If you merely drop the interlace SD video instantly takes on a slightly dreamy feel even if the quality is pants.

Our association of low frame rates with cinema (ie high quality) and high frame rates with video (ie low quality) is purely cultural and we should definitely try to move forwards and get over that, but I suspect that there will always be a place for low frame rates to create a certain look, beyond trying to recreate film.

Martin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top