[The Skull]

I have a Panasonic bd 35 playing through a panasonic TH-50PZ81B and must say that I'm very disappointed with the motion on blu ray films. Especially in fast motion, like the battle scenes from Back Hawk Down, Band Of Brothers, some parts are like watching action with stroboscope lighting. I have noticed blurry motion in many scenes of numerous BDs. Anyone else not impressed by the blu ray "quality"

TS

[Lunar Wolf]

Welcome to 24p, the way your supposedly supposed to watch it...

[thenicklouse]

so what are your TV and BD35 settings?

[Nic Rhodes]

film is slooow speed and not fast enough to capture detail other than slow pans

[Avi]

Originally Posted by The Skull

I have a Panasonic bd 35 playing through a panasonic TH-50PZ81B and must say that I'm very disappointed with the motion on blu ray films. Especially in fast motion, like the battle scenes from Back Hawk Down, Band Of Brothers, some parts are like watching action with stroboscope lighting. I have noticed blurry motion in many scenes of numerous BDs. Anyone else not impressed by the blu ray "quality"

TS

Do you see the same/similar types of issues with film on DVD or TV ?

AVI

[RODCULL]

Just to add that some films are deliberately shot in certain stylized ways to achieve a certain look. I've always thought Black Hawk Down, for example, was filmed in the style of a documentary film maker. Band of Brothers may also be trying to achieve a certain look to fit in with the theme of the movie. On Blu-ray the movie is reproduced as accurately as possible in terms of how it was meant to look, which may not always be super smooth and grain free.

[Bald Monkey]

Originally Posted by RODCULL

Just to add that some films are deliberately shot in certain stylized ways to achieve a certain look.

I've not see BOB on BR yet, but I suspect the style of the film might also be an issue here, as the two titles the OP mentions are both very stylised and possibly 'jerky' in places..

The Skull, have you noticed this on other titles?

[paulst10]

Originally Posted by RODCULL

On Blu-ray the movie is reproduced as accurately as possible in terms of how it was meant to look, which may not always be super smooth and grain free.

I watched Apocalypto the other night and the movie should be the reference on how to correctly perform panning shots at a speed which doesn't lose any detail and remains judder free there are numerous pans throughout the movie and all are pretty much perfect, Mel Gibson has perfected what it seems many directors & cameramen struggle to

Watching at 1080p/24 @ 72hz .. I still notice judder with quite a few titles, but this is mainly down to the panning shot being to quick

[punkymunky]

Originally Posted by The Skull

I have a Panasonic bd 35 playing through a panasonic TH-50PZ81B and must say that I'm very disappointed with the motion on blu ray films. Especially in fast motion, like the battle scenes from Back Hawk Down, Band Of Brothers, some parts are like watching action with stroboscope lighting. I have noticed blurry motion in many scenes of numerous BDs. Anyone else not impressed by the blu ray "quality"

TS

Jerky panning on Blu-ray is a sad fact of life due to the pants 24fps 'as it was filmed' output. If it drives you mad as it does most people, the only resolution is to buy a TV with frame interpolation which for Panasonic would be the TH-50PZ85B or PZ800 with intelligent frame creation. Basically it adds frames in between smoothing out the motion and works perfectly with Blu-ray. It's a shame nobody explained that when you shelled out for the 81 as I'm sure you would have payed the extra to avoid a headache, my sympathies.

[Phill1978]

problem is there are some (mental) av nuts who claim 24fp is right and smooth as butter ?!?

they also mock IFC, HDNM or motionflow technologies claiming a handycam effect or 'live' image, which in fact isnt the case on most of these technologies low setting, sure they can add a we bit of glitch or motion artifact but you end up with a much more professional and headache free image.

my 80" PJ at 48hz is still jerky on some bluerays (most actually) and its just not good enough, id much rather have the original content shot and blueray support 50-60fps at 720p than 24 frames at 1080p, what next ? 2048p 48bit colour at 12fps ?

sucks, its a fact of the technology not the player or the tv combo.

its blueray.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Phill1978

problem is there are some (mental) av nuts who claim 24fp is right and smooth as butter ?!?

they also mock IFC, HDNM or motionflow technologies claiming a handycam effect or 'live' image, which in fact isnt the case on most of these technologies low setting, sure they can add a we bit of glitch or motion artifact but you end up with a much more professional and headache free image.

my 80" PJ at 48hz is still jerky on some bluerays (most actually) and its just not good enough, id much rather have the original content shot and blueray support 50-60fps at 720p than 24 frames at 1080p, what next ? 2048p 48bit colour at 12fps ?

sucks, its a fact of the technology not the player or the tv combo.

its blueray.

Do you suffer headache with normal film on PAL DVD ? What type of PJ/TV do you use ?

AVI

[Phill1978]

Originally Posted by Avi

Do you suffer headache with normal film on PAL DVD ? What type of PJ/TV do you use ?

AVI

dvd isnt 'quite' as bad,

i sit 4 meters away from 80" , it isnt my entire field of vision but on some pans over landscapes there is a full field judder as people have noticed, now joe public probably run a smaller screen perhaps not native 1:1 1080p 24hz and may have come to accept the motion (although i belive joe public probably wont have this kit in the masses yet) and also maybe run non 24fp mode on there sets.

am i right in thinking dvd is 30fps ? its on the edge of being acceptable in fact i think on 60fp double frame mode its actually 'alright' but certainley needs to be quicker.

but then again it does have 6fps more to play with so no i dont think dvd is as bad but it still isnt exactly super smooth

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Phill1978

dvd isnt 'quite' as bad,

i sit 4 meters away from 80" , it isnt my entire field of vision but on some pans over landscapes there is a full field judder as people have noticed, now joe public probably run a smaller screen perhaps not native 1:1 1080p 24hz and may have come to accept the motion (although i belive joe public probably wont have this kit in the masses yet) and also maybe run non 24fp mode on there sets.

am i right in thinking dvd is 30fps ? its on the edge of being acceptable in fact i think on 60fp double frame mode its actually 'alright' but certainley needs to be quicker.

but then again it does have 6fps more to play with so no i dont think dvd is as bad but it still isnt exactly super smooth

Film on R2 PAL DVD is the same 24frame capture material as Blu-ray but is sped up to 25 frames during telecine to enable easy frame 2:2 repeat at 50hz. R1 NTSC DVD is 24 frames same as Blu-ray but these are output at 60hz using a 3:2 frame repeat cycle.

There are three issues with regard to motion. One is 3:2 repeat motion judder, two is the slow capture rate of film itself and three is the display tech. Using 24 frame output fixes issue one but won't fix issue two or three. 24fps film capture is a legacy of the film industry rather than a standard set by Blu-ray. To move away from this would require wholesale change across the film industry. Issue three may caused by inherent features of a display tech such as LCD/LCOS motion smear/blur. This is one of the major drivers of higher refresh rates and frame interpolation.

AVI

[homeruk]

Originally Posted by punkymunky

Jerky panning on Blu-ray is a sad fact of life due to the pants 24fps 'as it was filmed' output. If it drives you mad as it does most people, the only resolution is to buy a TV with frame interpolation which for Panasonic would be the TH-50PZ85B or PZ800 with intelligent frame creation. Basically it adds frames in between smoothing out the motion and works perfectly with Blu-ray. It's a shame nobody explained that when you shelled out for the 81 as I'm sure you would have payed the extra to avoid a headache, my sympathies.

just to let you know the pz81b has IFC thats why i got it :P

[eiren]

Originally Posted by Phill1978

problem is there are some (mental) av nuts who claim 24fp is right and smooth as butter ?!?

they also mock IFC, HDNM or motionflow technologies claiming a handycam effect or 'live' image, which in fact isnt the case on most of these technologies low setting, sure they can add a we bit of glitch or motion artifact but you end up with a much more professional and headache free image.

my 80" PJ at 48hz is still jerky on some bluerays (most actually) and its just not good enough, id much rather have the original content shot and blueray support 50-60fps at 720p than 24 frames at 1080p, what next ? 2048p 48bit colour at 12fps ?

sucks, its a fact of the technology not the player or the tv combo.

its blueray.

It's not Blu-ray, it's Film.

Film is shot (in Hollywood) at 24 frames per second. Over here in PAL land it's also sometimes shot at 25 frames per second (not nearly as common).

If 24fps is shown as 24Hz, it looks ropey. What most displays do is take that and display it at a multiple of 24 i.e. 48Hz or 72Hz. There are still 24 frames per second, but the frames are doubled or tripled up to make it look smoother.

Blu-ray 24fps on a good system looks as smooth as it does in the cinema. If it doesn't look smooth, then it's down to the playback equipment or things not being set-up correctly.

IFC is horrid, and should only be used when your display can't handle a multiple of 24 correctly.

[Phill1978]

Originally Posted by eiren

It's not Blu-ray, it's Film.

Film is shot (in Hollywood) at 24 frames per second. Over here in PAL land it's also sometimes shot at 25 frames per second (not nearly as common).

If 24fps is shown as 24Hz, it looks ropey. What most displays do is take that and display it at a multiple of 24 i.e. 48Hz or 72Hz. There are still 24 frames per second, but the frames are doubled or tripled up to make it look smoother.

Blu-ray 24fps on a good system looks as smooth as it does in the cinema. If it doesn't look smooth, then it's down to the playback equipment or things not being set-up correctly.

IFC is horrid, and should only be used when your display can't handle a multiple of 24 correctly.

you see, at the cinema i find it a bit jerky on pans also.

my kit is fully 24hz compliant and its my preference for a faster frame rate, in future we will have this perhaps when 3D comes along

[WillieCocker]

This is why Philips invented HDNM for those who can't stand 24p movement.

[expat]

Originally Posted by eiren

If 24fps is shown as 24Hz, it looks ropey. What most displays do is take that and display it at a multiple of 24 i.e. 48Hz or 72Hz. There are still 24 frames per second, but the frames are doubled or tripled up to make it look smoother.

This is also how film is projected at the cinema, isn't it? Is this always done at 48Hz, or is frame tripling used as well?

[Phill1978]

Originally Posted by WillieCocker

This is why Philips invented HDNM for those who can't stand 24p movement.

and i loved my 9632d shame it couldnt do 1080p without line flicker and had massive input lag

[TommyVecetti]

Originally Posted by expat

This is also how film is projected at the cinema, isn't it? Is this always done at 48Hz, or is frame tripling used as well?

48hz at the cinema. Eye strain galore.

[binbag]

At the Bristol Show this year the one thing that was almost universal amongst the display demos was judder - I noticed vertical on most things being shown and horizontal on a lot of top end kit ( flat panel and projected) that you would expect not to have these problems.

This was the first year that 1080p24 was a common format (last year it was all PS3s and HDDVD players) and looking at what was on offer it appears to me that the new holy grail is merely the latest emporers new clothes.

Can somebody clarify for me, in the simplest of terms, the relationship between the fps a film is shot at the refresh rate of the display that shows it?

[Avi]

Originally Posted by binbag

Can somebody clarify for me, in the simplest of terms, the relationship between the fps a film is shot at the refresh rate of the display that shows it?

Basically you have the capture rate i.e. film camera 24 frames for 1 second of motion image and then the rate at which the display presents each of these frames per 1 second of image.

The display refresh will largely depend on the technology being used. Some technologies require a faster display refresh to avoid the perception of flicker, motion smear/blur etc. Usually it will be some multiple of the source such as 48hz, 72hz, 96hz, 120hz. This avoids unequal 3:2 type frame repeat which is what causes judder with 24 frame film played back at 60hz.

AVI

[alpine101]

Originally Posted by binbag

This was the first year that 1080p24 was a common format (last year it was all PS3s and HDDVD players) and looking at what was on offer it appears to me that the new holy grail is merely the latest emporers new clothes.

Quite probably, it was invented for the US/Japanese market to reduce the even worse stuttering effects they've had from 3:2 pull down on 60Hz DVDs in the past...

Film based cinemas, although they move the film through the projector at 24fps, often have a second segment on the rotary shutter, the first one obscures the picture while the film frame is being changed, and the second which doubles up the flicker rate that the eye discerns.

[expat]

Originally Posted by Phill1978

you see, at the cinema i find it a bit jerky on pans also.

Do many people share this perception? I know that people have varying degrees of sensitivity to visual phenomena (e.g. DLP rainbows), but I never felt that depictions of motion in films at the cinema were unsatisfactory in any way.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by expat

Do many people share this perception? I know that people have varying degrees of sensitivity to visual phenomena (e.g. DLP rainbows), but I never felt that depictions of motion in films at the cinema were unsatisfactory in any way.

Personally I don't have a real issues with film motion. I do notice 3:2 repeat judder and I'm also sensitive to sample and hold motion smear/blur with LCD/LCOS techs. I guess there's a physiological aspect to all of these and the threshold will vary from person to person.

AVI

[kingfats]

I'm "fairly" happy with 24fps on Blu-ray to be honest the TV seems to do a very good with the refresh rate (72Hz) so yeah,no real complaints.

[punkymunky]

I find cinema juddery but Blu-ray takes the biscuit.

I think they've marketed this 24p nonsense because that's the only way to get that kind of resolution onto a high def disc and to decode it in a cheap enough player. I personally would have preferred something sensible like 1366 x 768p at 60hz but I guess that just doesn't sound sexy to the marketing boys especially when you can pitch a slow moving image on a 1080p screen to flog the format. It's clearly a servere limitation and one that's going to put a lot of people off - myself included. I suspect that in the nearish future downloadable HD content will run at the higher refresh rates it deserves and we will look back on blu ray much as we now look at VHS.

[aniki]

Originally Posted by punkymunky

I find cinema juddery but Blu-ray takes the biscuit.

Neither Cinema or Blu Ray are inherently juddery if displayed correctly.
You may however, experience 'flicker' on fast moving scenes.

Originally Posted by punkymunky

I think they've marketed this 24p nonsense because that's the only way to get that kind of resolution onto a high def disc and to decode it in a cheap enough player.

24p has been industry standard since the late 20s as an acceptable compromise between 16p and 30p. Surely to be presented with a format (Blu-Ray) offering an unadulterated like for like frame rate is the best we could ask for.... Certainly a vast improvement over the old NTSC and PAL 'Nonsense'

Originally Posted by punkymunky

I personally would have preferred something sensible like 1366 x 768p at 60hz

If we still film at 24p, a 60hz media format is far from sensible....

Originally Posted by punkymunky

It's clearly a severe limitation

24p is still considered as industry standard. If the industry started adopting 60 frames per second, most filmmakers fear that it would start looking alot like video and less like film.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by aniki

24p is still considered as industry standard. If the industry started adopting 60 frames per second, most filmmakers fear that it would start looking alot like video and less like film.

Some good points.

We would also probably need to move beyond 50gb disc in terms of storage and define a new video standard for Blu-ray as it doesn't support 60 frame per second. Then we're left with will people like the "look" and if it's anything like what some LCD's do with motion interpolation it wouldn't get my vote.

AVI

[punkymunky]

Originally Posted by aniki

Neither Cinema or Blu Ray are inherently juddery if displayed correctly.
You may however, experience 'flicker' on fast moving scenes.


24p has been industry standard since the late 20s as an acceptable compromise between 16p and 30p. Surely to be presented with a format (Blu-Ray) offering an unadulterated like for like frame rate is the best we could ask for.... Certainly a vast improvement over the old NTSC and PAL 'Nonsense'


If we still film at 24p, a 60hz media format is far from sensible....


24p is still considered as industry standard. If the industry started adopting 60 frames per second, most filmmakers fear that it would start looking alot like video and less like film.

Thanks for your feedback, I guess what I am getting at is the fact that 24 fps may have been fine 90 years ago but for me it's just a little Edwardian. I don't know why film makers would shy away from the 'video' look when for me HD video is a big improvement. I understand that you want your home AV to mirror that of the original source but it's the source that's the problem - we don't view our world in 24 frames per second so why should we view our movies in this way, just because it was a good idea when Lloyd George signed the Treaty of Versailles.