[johnchart]

Why aren't more primetime shows & movies broadcast in 1080P format? Seems like most of the 1080P shows are pay-per-view. Just wondering.....

John

 

[Davenlr]

Why aren't more primetime shows & movies broadcast in 1080P format? Seems like most of the 1080P shows are pay-per-view. Just wondering.....

John

No one has enough bandwidth available to transmit it live without sacrificing elsewhere in their system.

 

[veryoldschool]

Why aren't more primetime shows & movies broadcast in 1080P format? Seems like most of the 1080P shows are pay-per-view. Just wondering.....

John

1080p/24 isn't used for broadcast.

 

[HoTat2]

No one has enough bandwidth available to transmit it live without sacrificing elsewhere in their system.

True for 1080p at 60 frames/sec., but AIUI 1080p at 24 frames/sec. actually requires less bandwidth than a standard 1080i broadcast. And has no better PQ given decent de-intelacing circuity for a set receiving the same program in 1080i.

Therefore I wonder if its more marketing hype for the case of [email protected] fps than anything else.

If DIRECTV commonly broadcast many [email protected] fps programs like the current 1080i linear HD ones the format will lose its special appeal as a PPV option.

 

[Davenlr]

Yea, I was referring to 1080p/60. Broadcast TV/cable channels would look like pixellated crap at 1080p/24.

 

[Laxguy]

Yea, I was referring to 1080p/60. Broadcast TV/cable channels would look like pixellated crap at 1080p/24.

Under all circumstances? If it were shot and processed correctly, why would it look bad? (Excluding fast moving sports for the most part.)

 

[Davenlr]

Under all circumstances? If it were shot and processed correctly, why would it look bad? (Excluding fast moving sports for the most part.)

Well, I suppose if you shot everything on film at 24fps and transferred it that way, it might look ok, but other than movies, most of the content it would best be suited to, would be the least likely to gain anything from it. Fast moving sports and entertainment shows, concerts with lots of strobes, etc....which would benefit from the 1080p part, would look the worst at 24 fps.

Then if the monitor isnt capable of 3:2 pulldown, or 120hz, judder would be a problem.

I suppose if done right, it might look ok, but I dont see it looking any better than 1080i/60 really.

I would think 1080p/60 would be the minimum to notice any improvement, and with 4K and 8K coming out, whats the point?

 

[Laxguy]

OK. I am not saying we should want that, just trying to get a better understanding of the processes.
Can't digital video be shot in 24 fps? (not promoting that, either!)

 

[Davenlr]

OK. I am not saying we should want that, just trying to get a better understanding of the processes.
Can't digital video be shot in 24 fps? (not promoting that, either!)

Well, cheap webcams (even HD ones) are 30 fps, and look pretty crappy. I guess they could make a 24 fps video camera. In a perfect world, they would start over from scratch and have variable frame rate and variable resolution. Let the computer in the video camera shoot at the minimum of each to maintain quality.

 

[veryoldschool]

OK. I am not saying we should want that, just trying to get a better understanding of the processes.
Can't digital video be shot in 24 fps? (not promoting that, either!)

Well, cheap webcams (even HD ones) are 30 fps, and look pretty crappy. I guess they could make a 24 fps video camera. In a perfect world, they would start over from scratch and have variable frame rate and variable resolution. Let the computer in the video camera shoot at the minimum of each to maintain quality.

This was kicked around a long time back.
It turns out a lot of "TV" is actually filmed, so 1080p/24 would work fine.

 

[P Smith]

True for 1080p at 60 frames/sec., but AIUI 1080p at 24 frames/sec. actually requires less bandwidth than a standard 1080i broadcast. And has no better PQ given decent de-intelacing circuity for a set receiving the same program in 1080i.

Therefore I wonder if its more marketing hype for the case of [email protected] fps than anything else.

If DIRECTV commonly broadcast many [email protected] fps programs like the current 1080i linear HD ones the format will lose its special appeal as a PPV option.

I would say it's depend how big&often picture's changes in that movie: scenes changes, big&fast objects moving across, rapid light changes etc.

 

[Delroy E Walleye]

In my opinion (and experience), any "live" TV video looks absolutely terrible when the frame/field rate drops much below 60 fps. I could probably write a complete paper (rant) on this topic, but suffice it to say 24 fps is ok for film in most cases, since we've been used to it both theatrically and on TV for decades.

Same applies to "live" TV video. We're just used to seeing 60fps, and things like live sports, talk and game shows, etc. just don't look "natural" any other way, framerate-wise.

Just like some of us don't like "judder" in our live TV (me being among them), film buffs don't like "judder reduction" applied to their movies (a complaint about HDTVs with higher refresh rates that also have some type of frame/motion interpolation in them).

If you want to see a prime example of how video gets ruined, take a look at any of the current season of AMP on AXIS Tv. The picture truly sucks. Just compare it to almost any of the older episodes from seasons past (HDNet, and you have to go back to nearly a year ago now, if they still might be in someone's DVR). I can only conclude that they "juddered it up" to decrease the bandwitdh and make it play on a phone. It surely looks like it's being "filmed" with one.

The lone exception for sports would have to be NFL Films. I believe they've always been "overcranked" in the camera with a higher shutter speed and "projected" quite naturally at 24fps with a slowed-down appearance. This goes way back before the days of the "Super Slo-Mo" we're all used to on video, now.

In addition to all this (and previous posts here) we must remember that the main (ATSC) digital TV standards (especally and including HDTV) are all either 60 fields or 60 frames per second (ok, 59.94) and not 24.

If you really *need* your primetime TV and movies in 1080p, for now you'll simply have to buy or rent them on BD, as I'm pretty sure most (the "shot on film" ones, at least) are transferred to BD in 1080p.

 

[P Smith]

I think you (any adult) should understand hidden (perhaps at brain level) agreement between movie studios and DVD/BR player's manufacturers and cable/satcos.
They are suppose (I would say designed) to be in different segments of consumer market and divided it to make money from both sides: BR and cable/satellite distribution of movies.

That would keep over compressed content by cable/satcos irregardless of our moaning for long time.

 

[Laxguy]

Well, cheap webcams (even HD ones) are 30 fps, and look pretty crappy. I guess they could make a 24 fps video camera. In a perfect world, they would start over from scratch and have variable frame rate and variable resolution. Let the computer in the video camera shoot at the minimum of each to maintain quality.

Cheap webcams have lousy lenses and poorly executed encoding! Apples and pineapples!

A question: Is not a (24fps during the shooting) movie displayed at a higher frame rate on HD displays?

 

[P Smith]

Cheap webcams have lousy lenses and poorly executed encoding! Apples and pineapples!

A question: Is not a (24fps during the shooting) movie displayed at a higher frame rate on HD displays?

Sure. No one TV refresh screen with 24 fps speed. Doing 24 to 60 en mass, some lucky owners had 24->120 or ->240 conversion with artificial [SW] filling missing frames.

 

[CCarncross]

Cheap webcams have lousy lenses and poorly executed encoding! Apples and pineapples!

A question: Is not a (24fps during the shooting) movie displayed at a higher frame rate on HD displays?

Any decent HD display these days does 1080p/24...just check the next time you play a BD movie.

 

[HoTat2]

Sure. No one TV refresh screen with 24 fps speed. Doing 24 to 60 en mass, some lucky owners had 24->120 or ->240 conversion with artificial [SW] filling missing frames.

The way I understand it is that 120 and 240 Hz sets will detect native 24 fps film based material and if necessary remove the redundant frames added by the 2:3 pull-down process to recover the original [email protected] fps film rate format. Then preserve that native frame rate by refreshing the display 5 or 10 times the native 24 Hz for a judder free picture.

When the set receives live video or non-film programming its converted to [email protected] fps and may be displayed at a refresh rate 2 or 4 times per frame. Or as a user switchable option (labeled under various trademark names) for programs with a lot of fast action scenes like certain sports, at a refresh rate of the native 60 Hz with 1 or 3 computer generated interpolated frames with calculated movement inserted in between.

 

[HoTat2]

Any decent HD display these days does 1080p/24...just check the next time you play a BD movie.

True, though while most sets today can receive it, for LCD at least (don't know about plasma) unless you have a 120 or 240 Hz set they must add 2:3 pull-down back in for a standard 60 Hz display which really defeats the whole purpose of a receiving in a [email protected] Hz format to begin with I'd say.

 

[P Smith]

Very complicated process, we can't get all details of that: many companies has own patented chips/algos.
Just small remark: you can't fill/replicate frames in between these frames (and B/P slices) taken from compressed stream; you'll need temporal and space interpolation (I mean for moving objects) or it will end up with some sort of artifacts like special 'jerkiness'.

 

[LoopinFool]

In addition to all this (and previous posts here) we must remember that the main (ATSC) digital TV standards (especally and including HDTV) are all either 60 fields or 60 frames per second (ok, 59.94) and not 24.

Just picking nits here, but the ATSC standard does include 24fps as an option. There are a total of 12 different NTSC HD formats allowed, including both 24 and 23.976. Check the Wiki.

In practice, all broadcasters in the US have chosen to pick just one of those 12 formats and to stick with it at all times. In addition, I believe they are all using one of only two HD formats (what we typically call 1080i and 720p).

- LoopinFool