Right, that's because there's a shutter which is necessarily forced to cut off the light 48 times per second. On a LCD or plasma panel though, there is no blanking. Or are you telling me that this 120Hz display is going black all the time?
It's not any different, but good luck trying to buy a TV that can display at 24Hz. Instead, manufacturers build mostly TVs that have only one display rate. With that restriction, a 120Hz display rate makes sense for covering 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps material.
Then what about 23.98, 29.97, 59.94?
HD specifies all of the above frame rates (integer and non) as viable. Indeed, most programming in North America will be 59.94i or 23.98p, but 30.00 and so on are valid as well.
No, this is how it works on a progressive display. (Interlaced pulldown gets even uglier, since the 3rd frame in the set is a hybrid of two of the original film frames.)
Sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say then. I thought we were talking about "smoothing" an interlaced source signal (be it TV or a movie from a DVD or whatnot, or even 1080i HD) into a 120Hz progressive display.
If you are trying to fit 24 frames into a 60Hz signal, how would you do it?
On a normal 60Hz set, every frame alternates between being repeated 2 times or 3 times (2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3) in order to sync up with the 60Hz refresh rate (it's called 3:2 pulldown)
Minor nitpick - you mean to say interlaced fields (the progressive frame is split into two fields), rather than frames.
With displays that have a 120Hz refresh rate, this pulldown is eliminated be repeating every frame 5 times (5*24=120). This gives a more natural and fluid appearance.
Even if this were true, I don't understand how it would be an improvement over simply reversing the pulldown and displaying 24 progressive fps rather than 120. After all, if you redraw the same frame once or a hundred times over the same interval on a progressive display, the result is exactly the same.
Theatrical film is shot at 24 fps. TV shows in the SD days are shot at almost 60 interlaced fields per second. This is why the viewer perceives more fluidity of motion in television.
However, a given frame of theatrical film is typically exposed longer (1/48 sec or more) than a field of TV (less than 1/60 sec), affording for more motion blur, which overcomes the visual effect.
DVDs inherently carry an SD (4:3) picture, but you can encode the picture anamorphically (16:9 squashed into 4:3) and set a flag so that the DVD player will play it back either as letterboxed 4:3 (SD) or widescreen 16:9 if your TV can accept such a signal.
You'll virtually never see a recent movie on DVD in 4:3 without the bars in the US either.
I think this is incorrect. If you take the "widescreen" DVD and play it in a player connected to dumb old-school CRT (like my TV), you will see the bars, but the player is creating them. If you play the DVD e.g. in your computer, you will likely see a 16:9 window without any letterboxing.
So what is the set actually doing in this mode? Is it an LCD or plasma or something? Regardless since I presume it is not a CRT and that it is inherently a progressive display, I don't understand what difference this "refresh" rate could make unless there's some additional signal processing being implied (e.g. line doubling, etc).
I guess I should go research the Bravia and find out for myself, but I thought I would ask.
Well, not exactly. That's not quite the distinction I was making. To my view it is forgivable to speak of sailing on an engine-powered boat, but not forgivable to state that the wind was captured by the boat's sails (when the boat has none).
Similarly, I can forgive people speaking about a "short film" that was shot in digital video, but not forgive the author's statement that the image was recorded onto film (it very obviously was not).
Sure, that's true, but we should still have no tolerance for blatant lies. The article summary says "was recorded on film". The meaning of that statement is very obvious and precise, and can hardly be confused with "recorded as video" or such. To forgive this error is to forgive those who say "literally" when they very deliberately mean the opposite.
When you order food at a restaurant, would you be indifferent if you were served something completely different?
The author's credibility is further burned if he's actually calling Apple's network filing system "AFS" (no, I didn't read the article). It's called AFP (Apple Filing Protocol).
I've had my hands in two feature-length projects shot on the Red, and I can attest that not only is the camera real, but it can produce fantastic picture.:)
Has windows 7 been released to the consumer masses already? Didn't they just finish announcing its name a couple of weeks ago? Wow, that's fast. I thought Vista was still the flagship product on the market.
Oh, it's not out yet? Then why the hell are we talking about what windows 7 "is", if nobody can buy and use it TODAY? Obviously it won't be the same by whenever it eventually comes out. You guys are just playing into Microsoft's marketing desires by speaking about a pipe dream as though it were already present reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Thirsty Man Turns To Water.
Naked People Turn To Clothes.
etc.
I think you are proving the parent's point.
Parent:
we are already at the point where it's the LENS that's the limiting factor for picture quality
You:
Not at all - 22mpix is about film resolution [...] Long way to go before that's on my phone.
The lens on your phone is a piece of shit; a better lens will make your phone's 1 megapixel picture look better than would a 22 megapixel sensor.
-b
No kidding.
I didn't get the memo; what is it that's happening with robots on monday?
-b
Right, that's because there's a shutter which is necessarily forced to cut off the light 48 times per second. On a LCD or plasma panel though, there is no blanking. Or are you telling me that this 120Hz display is going black all the time?
-b
It's not any different, but good luck trying to buy a TV that can display at 24Hz. Instead, manufacturers build mostly TVs that have only one display rate. With that restriction, a 120Hz display rate makes sense for covering 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps material.
Then what about 23.98, 29.97, 59.94?
HD specifies all of the above frame rates (integer and non) as viable. Indeed, most programming in North America will be 59.94i or 23.98p, but 30.00 and so on are valid as well.
b
You're absolutely correct.
That is what I was trying to communicate, but you've said it more accurately than I did.
thanks,
-b
No, this is how it works on a progressive display. (Interlaced pulldown gets even uglier, since the 3rd frame in the set is a hybrid of two of the original film frames.)
Sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say then. I thought we were talking about "smoothing" an interlaced source signal (be it TV or a movie from a DVD or whatnot, or even 1080i HD) into a 120Hz progressive display.
If you are trying to fit 24 frames into a 60Hz signal, how would you do it?
2:3 pulldown.
-b
On a normal 60Hz set, every frame alternates between being repeated 2 times or 3 times (2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3) in order to sync up with the 60Hz refresh rate (it's called 3:2 pulldown)
Minor nitpick - you mean to say interlaced fields (the progressive frame is split into two fields), rather than frames.
With displays that have a 120Hz refresh rate, this pulldown is eliminated be repeating every frame 5 times (5*24=120). This gives a more natural and fluid appearance.
Even if this were true, I don't understand how it would be an improvement over simply reversing the pulldown and displaying 24 progressive fps rather than 120. After all, if you redraw the same frame once or a hundred times over the same interval on a progressive display, the result is exactly the same.
Theatrical film is shot at 24 fps. TV shows in the SD days are shot at almost 60 interlaced fields per second. This is why the viewer perceives more fluidity of motion in television.
However, a given frame of theatrical film is typically exposed longer (1/48 sec or more) than a field of TV (less than 1/60 sec), affording for more motion blur, which overcomes the visual effect.
-b
DVDs inherently carry an SD (4:3) picture, but you can encode the picture anamorphically (16:9 squashed into 4:3) and set a flag so that the DVD player will play it back either as letterboxed 4:3 (SD) or widescreen 16:9 if your TV can accept such a signal.
You'll virtually never see a recent movie on DVD in 4:3 without the bars in the US either.
I think this is incorrect. If you take the "widescreen" DVD and play it in a player connected to dumb old-school CRT (like my TV), you will see the bars, but the player is creating them. If you play the DVD e.g. in your computer, you will likely see a 16:9 window without any letterboxing.
-b
It may also have something to do with how films are shot at 30fps. Almost always. They're jerky if you know what to look for.
You made a similar statement in another posting. Nobody ever shoots film at 30 fps. What are you talking about?
-b
They always shoot (or at least play) films at 25/30fps, and that irritates me no end.
What/whom are you referring to here?
-b
I guess that means ~119.88 Hz? :)
So what is the set actually doing in this mode? Is it an LCD or plasma or something? Regardless since I presume it is not a CRT and that it is inherently a progressive display, I don't understand what difference this "refresh" rate could make unless there's some additional signal processing being implied (e.g. line doubling, etc).
I guess I should go research the Bravia and find out for myself, but I thought I would ask.
Unfitter, unhappier, less productive?
Why do Americans refer to bills/invoices as "checks"?
-b
Hardware has it's limitations.
And grammar has it is limitations too!
Well, not exactly. That's not quite the distinction I was making. To my view it is forgivable to speak of sailing on an engine-powered boat, but not forgivable to state that the wind was captured by the boat's sails (when the boat has none).
Similarly, I can forgive people speaking about a "short film" that was shot in digital video, but not forgive the author's statement that the image was recorded onto film (it very obviously was not).
-b
Sure, that's true, but we should still have no tolerance for blatant lies. The article summary says "was recorded on film". The meaning of that statement is very obvious and precise, and can hardly be confused with "recorded as video" or such. To forgive this error is to forgive those who say "literally" when they very deliberately mean the opposite.
When you order food at a restaurant, would you be indifferent if you were served something completely different?
Did you read the fucking article?
We're talking about HDCP.
What does ripping CDs have to do with playing video over DisplayPort?
The author's credibility is further burned if he's actually calling Apple's network filing system "AFS" (no, I didn't read the article). It's called AFP (Apple Filing Protocol).
-b
That's not ironic. It's a coincidence.
I've had my hands in two feature-length projects shot on the Red, and I can attest that not only is the camera real, but it can produce fantastic picture. :)
-b
I was under the impression that film cameras cost upwards of 110k for HD with no analog conversion since all the HD transmission methods are digital.
Huh? This sentence makes no sense; what are you trying to say?
-b
Has windows 7 been released to the consumer masses already? Didn't they just finish announcing its name a couple of weeks ago? Wow, that's fast. I thought Vista was still the flagship product on the market.
Oh, it's not out yet? Then why the hell are we talking about what windows 7 "is", if nobody can buy and use it TODAY? Obviously it won't be the same by whenever it eventually comes out. You guys are just playing into Microsoft's marketing desires by speaking about a pipe dream as though it were already present reality.
b
Thank God.
Uh, no. How about thank the American voters.