"Ultra HD Blu-ray" will be 60GB dual-layer, 100GB tri-layer and support up to 60fps amongst other st - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46875609]Home video, yes. But there's not a single consumer blu-ray or DVD (that I am aware of) that is 60fps. So it is something new. 60fps footage would simply not fit on current discs, unless it was below feature length material. This was your original argument: Which is wrong, because until these new discs, there is no way 60fps content would have fit on a disc, as each additional frame creates a larger filesize. You can't get any DVD's that actually have 50-60fps footage on them. They don't exist. You can put some on yourself, of a small amount of footage. But it's simple too big (and pointless) for anything sold. All you're saying right now is that the TV's are capable of it. But discs aren't capable of fitting it on.[/QUOTE]If you're talking about progressive scan or frames, 720P Blu-rays do support 50fps and 60 fps. The size isn't the issue when putting higher frame rate footage on Blu-ray (AVCHD supports a 1080P 50/60 mode which is 28Mbps, Blu-ray tops out around 40Mbps), it's that the standard doesn't support 1080P at 48 50 and 60 FPS. Any DVD which is interlaced and displayed properly will give a 50 and 60 FPS look.

I watched The Fresh Prince of bel-air on DVD and it was 60fps, like the original NTSC broadcasts. Some of the bonus features on a Ghostbusters blu-ray I have are also 60fps. It is certainly not a question of whether "it will fit on the disc" or not, especially seeing as digital video is not locked to a specific bitrate.

I still haven't watched a movie on Blu-ray :(

[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46875703]If you're talking about progressive scan or frames, 720P Blu-rays do support 50fps and 60 fps. The size isn't the issue when fitting footage on Blu-ray (AVCHD supports a 1080P 50/60 mode which is 28Mbps, Blu-ray tops out around 40Mbps), it's that the standard doesn't support 1080P at 48 50 and 60 FPS. Any DVD which is interlaced and displayed properly will give a 50 and 60 FPS look.[/QUOTE] Size is the issue, because companies don't want to use a 50gb blu-ray when they can fit the movie on a 25gb bluray. You either sacrifice quality to fit it on a 25gb, which most high-bitrate new films take up almost all of, or you fit it onto a 50gb. Which is pointless anyway, because high framerate is really awful and should never take off. [editline]8th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Warship;46875784]I watched The Fresh Prince of bel-air on DVD and it was 60fps, like the original NTSC broadcasts. Some of the bonus features on a Ghostbusters blu-ray I have are also 60fps. It is certainly not a question of whether "it will fit on the disc" or not, especially seeing as digital video is not locked to a specific bitrate.[/QUOTE] Yeah but at what cost to the bitrate? I'd rather have higher quality, lower framerate content [editline]8th January 2015[/editline] And I did say some SD special features could be in 60fps, but never a main feature because that's what takes up the bulk of the room. [editline]8th January 2015[/editline] And I'd wager there were only a few episodes per disc on that fresh prince dvd? It's pointless

[QUOTE=usaokay;46874342][I]4K Blu-Ray[/I] has a better ring to it.[/QUOTE] Sounds like a Roman just got stabbed.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46875855]Size is the issue, because companies don't want to use a 50gb blu-ray when they can fit the movie on a 25gb bluray. You either sacrifice quality to fit it on a 25gb, which most high-bitrate new films take up almost all of, or you fit it onto a 50gb. Which is pointless anyway, because high framerate is really awful and should never take off. [editline]8th January 2015[/editline] Yeah but at what cost to the bitrate? I'd rather have higher quality, lower framerate content[/QUOTE] And a large percentage of blu-ray movies manufactured are 50 GB discs. They pass the cost on to the consumer and use marketing speak to convince consumers to buy it. It's not an issue, the blu-ray standards are the issue as it means consumers will need newer players. Higher frame rate content looks better for things like sports or TV shows where the smoother is look is desired. Chances are that you've seen higher frame rate content when everyone had CRTs and analog TV. Back then it was due to the interlace process which put every second line on a different point in time to the first.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46875855] Yeah but at what cost to the bitrate? I'd rather have higher quality, lower framerate content [/QUOTE] Double the framerate =! Double the bitrate required

[QUOTE=Megadave;46875905]Sounds like a Roman just got stabbed.[/QUOTE]I think you're thinking of Et tu, Brute.

People seem to be pushing for 48/60fps standard in movies, but I think it should be the directors choice. When it comes to an artistic vision, higher fps doesn't always mean better. Sometimes certain effects are achieved at different framerates. But I'd like the option to be open so that directors could choose.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46874355]60fps PORN not that I am ever going to get porn on a piece of physical media but STILL [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] well I kinda don't really plan on getting a lot of disposable physical data media period, but whatever[/QUOTE] [I]psst.[/I] [url]http://reddit.com/r/60fpsporn[/url]

[QUOTE=Medevila;46876245]So you'd need a new player, right?[/QUOTE] Yeah, but who knows; maybe they will be able to make a disc readable by normal blu-ray readers and in addition to the UHD material there is an HD version.

"60 fps" "But that's not cinematic!!!!!" Ubisoft's only defense, that was already shoddy, is about to get blown COMPLETELY out of the water.

it's not even 4k though bullshit marketing [QUOTE=usaokay;46874360]60 FPS needs to be a standard in films. It doesn't matter which kind of film it is, whether if it be action, drama, comedy, porn, horror, sci-fi, porn, artistic, or porn.[/QUOTE] not necessarily, unlike gaming where high frame rates are desired because of the lack of true and realistic motion blur, films have that effect due to the actual process of filming, which works better at the current frame rate, as well as it being generally accepted as a comfortable frame rate at which to view films [I]currently[/I] that was just a devil's advocate thing though I do think we should be moving towards higher frame rates, but I think that saying 60fps needs to be a standard is kind of limiting, what about 120fps, 144fps, 240fps etc. Years ago the same exact thing was said about 24fps, we shouldn't just become content, I think we should be pushing for more.

[QUOTE=usaokay;46874360]60 FPS needs to be a standard in films. It doesn't matter which kind of film it is, whether if it be action, drama, comedy, porn, horror, sci-fi, porn, artistic, or porn.[/QUOTE] Oh no no no no no. 23.976 FPS provides a cinematic aspect because it's just at the perfect framerate to where we can perceive motion without any indication of frame skipping. You boost it up to 60 FPS and it ruins the motion of the film. Everything becomes too fluid. The new frames take you out of the movie world and distracts you. Even doing 48 FPS, test audiences for The Hobbit were expressing displeasure. [url]http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23698/cinemacon-hobbit-48fps-reactions[/url] There is no advantage to making movies at 60 FPS.

[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;46876632]Oh no no no no no. 23.976 FPS provides a cinematic aspect because it's just at the perfect framerate to where we can perceive motion without any indication of frame skipping. You boost it up to 60 FPS and it ruins the motion of the film. Everything becomes too fluid. The new frames take you out of the movie world and distracts you. Even doing 48 FPS, test audiences for The Hobbit were expressing displeasure. [url]http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23698/cinemacon-hobbit-48fps-reactions[/url] There is no advantage to making movies at 60 FPS.[/QUOTE] This is also completely disregarding the larger file sizes (or more film needing to be consumed), the severe limitations that would be imposed on slow motion footage (needing to have cameras Shoot even faster which not a lot of digital ones do), the increased exposure times that would be required for smooth motion, and a slew of other things 24fps has been a standard for a reason, and will continue to be one

BREAKING: 4K Blu-Ray film physical copies expect retail at affordable rate of $49.99.

[QUOTE=usaokay;46874342][I]4K Blu-Ray[/I] has a better ring to it.[/QUOTE] 4KBD, 2160p blue-ray disk. I like it, sounds futuristic and techy, and it's memorable.

[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;46876632]Oh no no no no no. 23.976 FPS provides a cinematic aspect because it's just at the perfect framerate to where we can perceive motion without any indication of frame skipping. You boost it up to 60 FPS and it ruins the motion of the film. Everything becomes too fluid. The new frames take you out of the movie world and distracts you. Even doing 48 FPS, test audiences for The Hobbit were expressing displeasure. [url]http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23698/cinemacon-hobbit-48fps-reactions[/url] There is no advantage to making movies at 60 FPS.[/QUOTE] They were watching an unpolished movie from what one of the quotes said. That's before they do a polished composite into what is released for theatres.

[QUOTE=Warship;46875495]The HD term has always pissed me off. "High" doesn't mean shit.[/QUOTE] It means the definition is high, which when jumping from 720p to 1080p and then from 1080p to 4k is quite literally the case.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46877091]It means the definition is high, which when jumping from 720p to 1080p and then from 1080p to 4k is quite literally the case.[/QUOTE] It's just extremely relative, is my problem. What are they gonna call it after UHD? Super Ultra High Definition? And also, "Standard Definition" isn't really all that standard anymore, is it?

[QUOTE=Warship;46877187]It's just extremely relative, is my problem. What are they gonna call it after UHD? Super Ultra High Definition? And also, "Standard Definition" isn't really all that standard anymore, is it?[/QUOTE] I don't think I've even seen a SD TV lately in stores outside of thrift shops.

[QUOTE=usaokay;46874360]60 FPS needs to be a standard in films. It doesn't matter which kind of film it is, whether if it be action, drama, comedy, porn, horror, sci-fi, porn, artistic, or porn.[/QUOTE] As a 60fps fan. God no. Let the director create the film they want. If that's at 20fps, fine. If it's at 48, fine.

[QUOTE=Warship;46877187]It's just extremely relative, is my problem. What are they gonna call it after UHD? Super Ultra High Definition? And also, "Standard Definition" isn't really all that standard anymore, is it?[/QUOTE] It's the same issue with current gen / last gen / next gen. The exact line is really hard to find between what's still considered new, what's now the full standard and what's completely obsolete. Considering DVDs are still being sold and are also still produced for most movies I think it's fair to say the term SD has a few more years of existence before fading out completely. As of now barely anyone says SD anymore anyway and "HD" keeps its meaning even if it becomes the standard. It's all a matter of most technology related words becoming obsolete roughly a year after they were coined but sticking around for much longer than that because it's convenient.

Finally, video game consoles will be able to show video game content at 1080p, 60fps, with maximum graphical settings.

[QUOTE=Jeremie. B;46874642]Isn't everything digital these days anyway?[/QUOTE] In the US at least, internet speed is being held back due to ISPs and politics and monopolies and such. It's kinda stalled out at a mediocre 10 mb/s or so in most places.

[QUOTE=Hogie bear;46874348]60fps movies. What a time to be alive.[/QUOTE] I don't know if it's just me, but watching cinematic video in 60fps feels weird. like it's not completed or something

60fps looks bad in movies, please stop.

[QUOTE=Warship;46875784]I watched The Fresh Prince of bel-air on DVD and it was 60fps, like the original NTSC broadcasts. Some of the bonus features on a Ghostbusters blu-ray I have are also 60fps. It is certainly not a question of whether "it will fit on the disc" or not, especially seeing as digital video is not locked to a specific bitrate.[/QUOTE] Let's say you have a 25GB BluRay movie in Full HD, where the content is going to be at a maximum of ~25FPS (which it probably is, unless you've got some hidden magic shit that I aint ever seen before), then double that to be about 50FPS. Now granted, it probably wouldn't take up twice the amount of space due to certain compression algorithms, but it'd get pretty close pretty fast. Hence the need for bigger storage mediums. Besides, do you have any sources to back your claims of BluRay movies and features (or even DVDs as you so boldly mentioned) that were actually stored in 60fps format? Because I cannot for the life of me find any. If I play back the original DVDs on my desktop PC with a fast DVD reader and a good playback system, I'm still only getting less than 30FPS, with and without frameskipping, so in order for me to reach 60FPS I would have to lock the frames to that and enable interpolation. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;46878553]60fps looks bad in movies, please stop.[/QUOTE] How so? And where have you seen this?

[QUOTE=mastersrp;46878554] Besides, do you have any sources to back your claims of BluRay movies and features (or even DVDs as you so boldly mentioned) that were actually stored in 60fps format? Because I cannot for the life of me find any. If I play back the original DVDs on my desktop PC with a fast DVD reader and a good playback system, I'm still only getting less than 30FPS, with and without frameskipping, so in order for me to reach 60FPS I would have to lock the frames to that and enable interpolation.[/QUOTE] If you're trying movies, then that's why. Obviously no movies with 50/60fps. But TV shows and documentaries are often that. On the Blu-ray side of things, the AVCHD progressive spec (1080p50/60) is 28Mbps. At 28Mbps, a 25GB disc would hold 2 hours. That's enough for most movies, so that's not the limiting factor like you're claiming.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;46876681]... 24fps has been a standard for a reason, and will continue to be one[/QUOTE] Yeah, because of technical limitations, that are going away. 24fps is awful, people are just really used to it and hold it up as an ideal standard, when in reality it's about the lowest you can go and still have your brain think there's proper motion.