High definition in the temporal dimension?

Ar-Jar

Standard Member
Hi all,

Now we have HD video which is starting to look good. A good 720 spatial resolution goes a long way, not to mention 1080. But I haven't seen any discussion at all about high definition in the third dimension, time. The old 24 fps of movies must be one of those old constants that were defined by the limitations of technology once upon a time. It requires a good camera man / woman to shoot good pans without judder. With poor temporal resolution we have to reduce spatial resolution (blur the image) not to get aliasing.

I would imagine that 50 fps or so whould make the life of movie makers much easier and the viewing experience much more pleasant.

Any rumours about when we will get 50 fps movies (or, given that Hollywood rules, 60 fps)?

Arto
 

weebroonieuk

Standard Member
im quite sure hollywood master there movies now in much higher res and frame rates than we see because it helps the films lifespan foir future format sales for older films and to create the highest quality master they can for ease of touching up and special effects
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
Nope its all 24fps. People actually like the way 24fps looks shot under the right circumstances , right shutter angle (anything greater than 120 really) gives nice pleasing motionblur which mimics the level the human visual system gets when panning. Higher frame rates can actually look more like video . 50/60i materila through a bob deinterlace will look very similar to shooting film at 50fps ....and its not really ever described as a more pleasing look.
 

Ar-Jar

Standard Member
What I'm not happy with is that often there isn't motion blur but aliasing because the moving parts weren't low pass filtered enough. I've seen some very flickery stuff in the movie theater. I agree that some video material on TV looks a bit tacky but I'd like to think it's more because of the contents than the format :)

So maybe some would like to stick to 24 fps for artistic reasons (b/w photographs can be very beautiful too), and because we're so used to it, but to be as close to reality as possible I still think a higher fps would be preferrable. Or are you referring to some reseach on the human visual system that points at 24 fps being optimal?

Arto
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
Average human visual system has been pegged at between 7 and 17 fps . Its dependant on conditions (it goes up in the dark). People don't really see in frames though.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Philips OLED+935 impressions, Denon AVC110 Review, Film Reviews, News and More...
Top Bottom