24p is outdated

[Jedi Master]

Innovation comes from trying new things, not from being stuck in the past century. Sure, not all new things will be better than the old, but how will people ever know if they don’t try?

Traditional cinema may be on its way out. Four big theaters in my area closed in the last two years, leaving just one. It’s moot for me anyway as I rarely go see movies at a theater. Why put up with inconsiderate people texting during the movie, sticky floors, and $8 popcorn when I can watch movies at home? And theaters will never have something I have at home—a pause button. Most of my viewing is via streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, which use 1080 60p. Shoehorning 24fps theatrical movies into this format causes motion artifacts that wouldn’t be there if the movies were shot at the native rate used by the streaming services.

As the old guard ages and dies off, the younger generation, who grew up playing video games and who are used to higher frames rates, will determine the future of cinema.

[PannySVHS]

Yes, zej will and zen zej will die too and your taste in films ass well.

[Fatalfury]

On 12/22/2023 at 5:39 PM, Jedi Master said:

Innovation comes from trying new things, not from being stuck in the past century. Sure, not all new things will be better than the old, but how will people ever know if they don’t try?

Traditional cinema may be on its way out. Four big theaters in my area closed in the last two years, leaving just one. It’s moot for me anyway as I rarely go see movies at a theater. Why put up with inconsiderate people texting during the movie, sticky floors, and $8 popcorn when I can watch movies at home? And theaters will never have something I have at home—a pause button. Most of my viewing is via streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, which use 1080 60p. Shoehorning 24fps theatrical movies into this format causes motion artifacts that wouldn’t be there if the movies were shot at the native rate used by the streaming services.

As the old guard ages and dies off, the younger generation, who grew up playing video games and who are used to higher frames rates, will determine the future of cinema.

60p isn't innovation in 2023, been around decades.

How much of Netflix content is 60p really? Been using Netflix for years, can't remember seeing any 60p there at all, apart from stumbling upon some Asian TV series.So I believe Netflix being 60p is bullcrap, not that frame rate conversion in digital age should be a problem at all, like PAL/NTSC is no longer an issue.

Netflix in 2023 is unable to stream proper 4k, much less 4K 60p.

If you want everything to look like 60p, turn on motion smoothing, looks like horse manure either way.

[Jedi Master]

8 hours ago, Fatalfury said:

How much of Netflix content is 60p really? Been using Netflix for years, can't remember seeing any 60p there at all, apart from stumbling upon some Asian TV series.So I believe Netflix being 60p is bullcrap

I didn’t say the content on Netflix was originally shot in 60p. The devices most people use to watch Netflix at home (Apple TV, Amazon FireTV, Roku, Nvidia Shield) will convert the stream from Netflix to the native frame rate of the device attached via HDMI, which is usually 50p or 60p. Some of these devices have the ability to be set to match the content frame rate, but this isn’t the default, and the vast majority of people using these devices take them out of the box, plug them in, and don’t change any of the default settings, therefore they’re watching movies shot at 24 fps upconverted to 50p or 60p and that generates artifacts like judder.

[kye]

5 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I didn’t say the content on Netflix was originally shot in 60p. The devices most people use to watch Netflix at home (Apple TV, Amazon FireTV, Roku, Nvidia Shield) will convert the stream from Netflix to the native frame rate of the device attached via HDMI, which is usually 50p or 60p. Some of these devices have the ability to be set to match the content frame rate, but this isn’t the default, and the vast majority of people using these devices take them out of the box, plug them in, and don’t change any of the default settings, therefore they’re watching movies shot at 24 fps upconverted to 50p or 60p and that generates artifacts like judder.

I was wondering if the conversation would get to discussing this.

I was curious some time ago and did some testing and some math.  

In testing I can see the difference between 24p and 30p easily, on both a 60p display or a display that is set to the native frame rate.  The difference is obvious and the look of 30p is quite distasteful to me, regardless of the display frame rate / refresh rate.
24p on a 60p display does indeed introduce jitter in the timing of the frames (where the frames displayed are "nearest" and not synthesised from multiple frames in the source material).  When you go to higher frame rates the jitter becomes less, with 120p being an even multiple of 24p, so the jitter of 24p will be eliminated or drastically reduced with higher display frame rates.

In the math I did, I was surprised to see that capture frame rates are remarkably preserved even if put through different frame-rate timelines / displays etc.  

Assuming I didn't screw up the logic, here's what you see when watching 24p source material on 30p display.  Timing is all over the place, but for whatever reason both 24p on a 24p display as well as the below are still preferable to 30p for me.

What becomes interesting is when we shoot 30p, put it on a 24p timeline, and then display it on a 30p display:

 

Apart from a doubled-up frame every so often (because there are only 24 frames per second to choose from), the 30p is completely resurrected!

I have wondered if Netflix etc apps on smart TVs actually change the frame rate based on the source material or if they just run the TV at some fps and pick the nearest frame to display.  I have been meaning to test my TV with my phone (recording the screen with 240fps slow motion and then reviewing the footage and counting the frames is pretty straight-forwards).

TLDR;

• 24p is far superior to 30p/60p regardless of display refresh rate (for me anyway)
• When displays move to faster refresh rates the jitter from 24p sources will be reduced / eliminated
• Frame rate conversions can involve interesting time-aliasing effects where the time-resolution of some frame rates can pass through almost completely in-tact

[Jedi Master]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I have wondered if Netflix etc apps on smart TVs actually change the frame rate based on the source material or if they just run the TV at some fps and pick the nearest frame to display.

Depends on whether the sink device (the smart TV in this case) supports QMS. The Netflix app does , but most streaming devices either don’t or not completely. 

[BTM_Pix]

[fuzzynormal]

As a child of the 1970's would it surprise any of you to know that I grew up MOSTLY viewing motion picture images that were 60fps?

And yet I still prefer 24fps.  

There's a little perspective from a person that's seen both during his entire life and is now an official old fart.  So, just to say, that it's not as if younger generations are going to have a dissimilar experience when it comes to 60fps.

My guess is that the legacy of 24fps is going to be a thing throughout the 21st century, and most likely will never actually go away; the reasons mentioned in this thread cover why.

[JulioD]

Perspective

 

https://aftermath.site/true-lies-4k-uhd-blu-ray-james-cameron-peter-jackson-park-road-post?fbclid=IwAR3b3VsuqvTo-oQGqoXKwbCnecwsIitsFTNIPJn6Q9e0U5e-9CnDfcbe2BQ_aem_ARJEhho1vX53Khd8nl-ybLVB85Xaq75msEdbUm5GS7EjABLhSohni7-OdMbAWzAtAbg

[philipd]

The 24fps argument about the cinematic looks is fundamentally flawed.

1) A projection system has black frame insertion, you see the frame, then black, then another frame.  All electronic displays we use now are sample and hold, there is no black frame insertion.  This means you can not get a cinematic look using 24fps on modern displays, it is only possible using projection systems *

2) Due to the slow frame rate of 24fps, projection systems show each frame twice, so you get frame 1, black frame inserted, frame 1 again, black frame inserted, frame 2 and so on projected on to the screen.  With persistence of human vision during the black frame gives us something approximating to 48fps, this helps avoid the illusion of motion from breaking down and stops us perceiving blurring when our eyes track motion.  Our electronic displays are sample and hold, frame 1 is shown continuously until frame 2 replaces it and so, this causes blurring when we follow anything moving across the screen.  Imagine a slow shutter speed at 1/24th of a second, any panning of the camera causes blurring, this is what happens with our eyes as we track motion on sample and hold displays, as our eyes are really moving across a series of static images.  (Incidentally Plasma TVs, due to the way they had to work, had black frame insertion, hence they were always seen superior for watching films as they worked very much like projection systems).  This means it is impossible to replicate the film aesthetic on modern displays *

3)  Distribution of 24fps footage and viewing of the same seldom results in 24fps.  Modern TVs interpolate frames, up to 60, 120 or 240fps will be shown and not 24fps, they do this to overcome the blurring on motion inherent with sample and hold displays, so that each frame is only shown for a fraction of the time it would otherwise be before being replaced by an approximated frame.  This means the majority of viewers are not seeing 24 frames per second, but a lot more, however as going from 24fps up to 60 or higher needs a lot of interpolated frames, they will potentially see artefacts when there is motion.  This means many people will not be watching 24fps as 24fps anyway but will be viewing 60fps or more with added artefacts.

4) Computer monitors, laptops and many mobile devices are locked to 60fps.  They usually do not interpolate frames so will just show the 24 frames per second as is, but will need to repeat frames to get 60 fps, this is known as 3:2 pulldown (used in NTSC countries for decades to show films on TV), it means there is some judder added due to the unevenness of this process. Those growing up in NTSC countries often don't notice this extra judder, but those watching 24fps on 60Hz monitors in PAL areas will notice it more as this was never a thing on PAL TV systems, as they just speeded up 24fps to 25fps.  Remembering that projection systems trick our visual system in to seeing something more approximate to 48fps, on computer displays we will be seeing only 24fps, so motion can break down easily and the viewer starts seeing strobing images rather than smooth motion.  This means computers can't show 24fps without extra added judder and it can look very strobing, with odd motion judders, and the sample and hold issues of these displays without interpolation means many will see a resolution drop when they following objects moving.

* Some TVs do offer black frame insertion, this can be called a number of things depending on the manufacturer, and will work by strobing the backlight of LCD displays or turning of OLED panels in between frames.  As this causes a reduction in light output and TVs are all about HDR these days, this option if present will never be enabled by default and typically will be buried away in the menu somewhere.

So its a complete fallacy that a cinematic effect can be had using 24fps outside of a cinemas and a projection system.  The best frame rate for YouTube and any content only to be shown outside of cinemas is 60fps.

What typically makes films cinematic are the tricks and considerations made due to having to use a slow frame rate.

Also younger generations are all about higher frame rates, no one is gaming at 24fps!  Also why go to the trouble of larger colour spaces, HDR, 4K resolutions just to degrade the visual output by using a frame rate that only came about because that was the absolute minimum they could get away with to keep film production and duplication costs as low as possible?

[Jedi Master]

40 minutes ago, philipd said:

Also younger generations are all about higher frame rates, no one is gaming at 24fps!  Also why go to the trouble of larger colour spaces, HDR, 4K resolutions just to degrade the visual output by using a frame rate that only came about because that was the absolute minimum they could get away with to keep film production and duplication costs as low as possible?

I agree. Shoehorning 24fps into video systems with native refresh rates of 60 Hz is going to result in compromises that create artifacts. 

Before I replaced my home theater projector with a Sony VPL-GTZ380, which is a native 4K 120 Hz model, I could easily see judder and other artifacts on my previous projector, which was 60 Hz, especially during panning. The newer projector is able to handle 24fps material better because 24 divides evenly into 120. Most home systems are still 60 Hz, and until they all get replaced with 120 Hz and 240 Hz equipment, this will be a problem.

The ongoing trend is shifting from viewing movies in theaters to watching at home, and this shift has been happening for at least the last twenty years. People are tired of the high price of theater tickets compared to prices streaming services charge*, and they're tired of exorbitant prices for snacks and inconsiderate people texting during movies. They're also used to conveniences home viewing offers that will never be possible in theaters: watching movies any time they want, and the ability to pause a movie (and rewind and replay sections of it).

I expect this trend will continue as more and more local theaters close (four near me closed over the last few years) and home theater equipment gets better and cheaper.

*Local theaters typically charge $12 a ticket in this area, so that's $36 for a family of three, not including popcorn at $6.50 a bag and a drink at $4.50. By contrast, rentals on Prime Video are typically around $2.99-$5.00 once a movie has been on streaming for a few months, and that's the price for an entire family.

[PannySVHS]

Modern televisions with 100/120 hertz technology are no longer bound to 50 or 60 Hertz. 24p images are displayed at 48, 72 or 120 frames per second. Neither a 3:2 pulldown for NTSC nor acceleration for Pal is needed.

A film recorded at 48fps and displayed at 48Hz looks videoish and a film recorded at 24p displayed at 48Hz does not. 24p  is still the main standard for feature films all around the world. In Germany and other PAL countries 25p used for narrative TV production, 50p for soccer. Both can be displayed at 50Hz.

 

[JulioD]

You are all smart and I think you’re brilliant 

[PannySVHS]

7 minutes ago, JulioD said:

You are all smart and I think you’re brilliant 

I think the LX10 is a brilliant little camera and it is a smart move to use one in its 24 or 25p 4K mode. 🙂

[philipd]

9 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

Modern televisions with 100/120 hertz technology are no longer bound to 50 or 60 Hertz. 24p images are displayed at 48, 72 or 120 frames per second. Neither a 3:2 pulldown for NTSC nor acceleration for Pal is needed.

 

Yes that is true, the 3:2 pulldown was related to things other than modern TVs. A computer monitor will typically be at 60Hz and it sticks at that.  In many cases you can dive into display settings and if offered by the graphics driver there may be a 24fps option.  The monitor will lose sync for a bit, then at that point everything is running at 24fps and a video at 24fps will play back correctly.  Many tablets, smart phones and laptops are also stuck at 60Hz and 3:2 pulldown will be required.  Of course if a device supports 120Hz, 3:2 pulldown isn't required.

Newer good TVs will switch to a supporting frame rate when using their built in apps, so 48 or 72 or 96 perhaps an interpolate and add new frames, but the viewer isn't seeing 24fps in this case, it will resemble something with a much higher frame rate as by default interpolation is turned on, and many will not turn it off.  Also where people have smart devices connected to their TV then HDMI refresh switching is very much hit and miss, either not supported at all, or doesn't always work correctly.  For example my Nvidia Shield defaults to 60Hz and doesn't attempt to switch frame rates on the fly, so 24fps is shown with 3:2 pulldown.

Really 24fps is supported as a legacy framerate on modern devices and its all a bit hit and miss to what the viewer will end up seeing, so if a creator is using 24fps in the belief the slower framerate somehow makes it look like a film, well in the majority of cases people viewing it will not be seeing a true 24fps playback, and even if they were (interpolation turned off and a 24Hz refresh rate) will never see it as shown by a projection device in the cinema.

[kye]

2 hours ago, philipd said:

The 24fps argument about the cinematic looks is fundamentally flawed.

1) A projection system has black frame insertion, you see the frame, then black, then another frame.  All electronic displays we use now are sample and hold, there is no black frame insertion.  This means you can not get a cinematic look using 24fps on modern displays, it is only possible using projection systems *

2) Due to the slow frame rate of 24fps, projection systems show each frame twice, so you get frame 1, black frame inserted, frame 1 again, black frame inserted, frame 2 and so on projected on to the screen.  With persistence of human vision during the black frame gives us something approximating to 48fps, this helps avoid the illusion of motion from breaking down and stops us perceiving blurring when our eyes track motion.  Our electronic displays are sample and hold, frame 1 is shown continuously until frame 2 replaces it and so, this causes blurring when we follow anything moving across the screen.  Imagine a slow shutter speed at 1/24th of a second, any panning of the camera causes blurring, this is what happens with our eyes as we track motion on sample and hold displays, as our eyes are really moving across a series of static images.  (Incidentally Plasma TVs, due to the way they had to work, had black frame insertion, hence they were always seen superior for watching films as they worked very much like projection systems).  This means it is impossible to replicate the film aesthetic on modern displays *

3)  Distribution of 24fps footage and viewing of the same seldom results in 24fps.  Modern TVs interpolate frames, up to 60, 120 or 240fps will be shown and not 24fps, they do this to overcome the blurring on motion inherent with sample and hold displays, so that each frame is only shown for a fraction of the time it would otherwise be before being replaced by an approximated frame.  This means the majority of viewers are not seeing 24 frames per second, but a lot more, however as going from 24fps up to 60 or higher needs a lot of interpolated frames, they will potentially see artefacts when there is motion.  This means many people will not be watching 24fps as 24fps anyway but will be viewing 60fps or more with added artefacts.

4) Computer monitors, laptops and many mobile devices are locked to 60fps.  They usually do not interpolate frames so will just show the 24 frames per second as is, but will need to repeat frames to get 60 fps, this is known as 3:2 pulldown (used in NTSC countries for decades to show films on TV), it means there is some judder added due to the unevenness of this process. Those growing up in NTSC countries often don't notice this extra judder, but those watching 24fps on 60Hz monitors in PAL areas will notice it more as this was never a thing on PAL TV systems, as they just speeded up 24fps to 25fps.  Remembering that projection systems trick our visual system in to seeing something more approximate to 48fps, on computer displays we will be seeing only 24fps, so motion can break down easily and the viewer starts seeing strobing images rather than smooth motion.  This means computers can't show 24fps without extra added judder and it can look very strobing, with odd motion judders, and the sample and hold issues of these displays without interpolation means many will see a resolution drop when they following objects moving.

* Some TVs do offer black frame insertion, this can be called a number of things depending on the manufacturer, and will work by strobing the backlight of LCD displays or turning of OLED panels in between frames.  As this causes a reduction in light output and TVs are all about HDR these days, this option if present will never be enabled by default and typically will be buried away in the menu somewhere.

So its a complete fallacy that a cinematic effect can be had using 24fps outside of a cinemas and a projection system.  The best frame rate for YouTube and any content only to be shown outside of cinemas is 60fps.

What typically makes films cinematic are the tricks and considerations made due to having to use a slow frame rate.

Also younger generations are all about higher frame rates, no one is gaming at 24fps!  Also why go to the trouble of larger colour spaces, HDR, 4K resolutions just to degrade the visual output by using a frame rate that only came about because that was the absolute minimum they could get away with to keep film production and duplication costs as low as possible?

Your arguments are all technically correct, however they fail to understand one critical thing: how it actually appears to humans.  

There are exceptions of course, but a casual glance through the thread will tell you one thing overwhelmingly clearly - 60p looks awful.

Considering that the entire purpose of cinema and TV is to be viewed by humans, this is game over.

[philipd]

21 minutes ago, kye said:

Your arguments are all technically correct, however they fail to understand one critical thing: how it actually appears to humans.  

There are exceptions of course, but a casual glance through the thread will tell you one thing overwhelmingly clearly - 60p looks awful.

Considering that the entire purpose of cinema and TV is to be viewed by humans, this is game over.

60p looks awful?  Everyone who's seen my videos at 60fps have said they look stunning, no one has said "Doesn't look a film the frame rate is too high".  If people want to shoot at 24fps that is of course their choice, but unless that person controls the TV and playback devices and have them set up correctly, the chances are their friends and family or customers with their own TVs will be watching it like its 60 or 120fps due to interpolation on their TV and it will not resemble being at the "flicks" in anyway shape or form, but due to the lack of temporal information, those interpolated frames will be introducing artefacts and reducing quality.

[fuzzynormal]

2 hours ago, philipd said:

The best frame rate for YouTube and any content only to be shown outside of cinemas is 60fps.

Dang.  Now that I read it on the internet it must be true.

[fuzzynormal]

13 minutes ago, philipd said:

Everyone who's seen my videos at 60fps have said they look stunning

Maybe they're just being polite? 🙂

[BTM_Pix]

>EDIT

Wrong thread.