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

imagine being a vfx artist who has to rotoscope frame-by-frame at 60fps horrifying

[QUOTE=mastersrp;46878554]How so? And where have you seen this?[/QUOTE] With my eyes.

[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] Ever get distracted in the real world? Maybe in a theater? You know, a live-action one. The reason people don't like high frame rate movies is that they're used to low frame rate movies and smooth motion seems awkward. I switched to watching everything with frame interpolation a couple months ago, and I really can't stand 24fps video anymore.

Of course people don't like 60 fps movies. They're used to the standard 24fps and have been forever. Just because people aren't used to it doesn't mean it's bad. I think they're just used to 24fps and so they find 60fps really jarring.

[QUOTE=kariko;46880541]Of course people don't like 60 fps movies. They're used to the standard 24fps and have been forever. Just because people aren't used to it doesn't mean it's bad. I think they're just used to 24fps and so they find 60fps really jarring.[/QUOTE] I've always been a little confused with 60FPS. What are the benefits of 60FPS besides it simply looking smoother? How would it help improve the industry and consumers?

I have a plugin called SVP ([url=http://www.svp-team.com/]Smooth Video Project[/url]) and it interpolates frames to be 60FPS. Sure, there are visual artifacts (especially on high-speed action), but I really enjoy the 60 fps interpolation. Motion is much smoother, and after watching it for so long, I don't want to go back to 24 frames.

[QUOTE=megafat;46880778]I've always been a little confused with 60FPS. What are the benefits of 60FPS besides it simply looking smoother? How would it help improve the industry and consumers?[/QUOTE] That is the benefit, they don't need to use motion blur to fake the smoothness that you need to do with 24fps video. It especially helps with things like panning shots (Because due to parallax the objects in the background move too far between frames at low frame rates for our brain to consider it movement), not so much with somebody sitting at a table talking though.

[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] I was kind of thinking that for a while until I saw this video, which really nails what I've been trying to form into words but couldn't wrap my head around. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7M4ZGEA_JQ[/media] Basically he describes 24fps being not quite "real" (as in 60+ fps) and not quite "fake" (as in if you go any lower than 24fps it starts looking choppy), which is what gives it that movie quality. It's just smooth enough to immerse you but not enough to lose that certain magic that movies have. Of course I'm not saying the framerate is what gives it the film look, but I think it's a good standard for most. 60fps I think should be utilized for action movies though, and aside from that I think more directors should be taking a shot at high framerate filmmaking in order to prove that 60fps is not where the soap opera effect comes from, but it's a tool that gives quite a different feeling to a movie, in the same sense that speeding up the shutter gives a different feeling to 24fps movies already.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;46880353]Ever get distracted in the real world? Maybe in a theater? You know, a live-action one. The reason people don't like high frame rate movies is that they're used to low frame rate movies and smooth motion seems awkward. I switched to watching everything with frame interpolation a couple months ago, and I really can't stand 24fps video anymore.[/QUOTE] 24 FPS has been the standard since the invention of cinema. It will not become widespread and directors + cinematographers will certainly not flock to it. That's like asking Wally Pfister to shoot Nolan's next project on 60 FPS. [I]You'll be laughed at.[/I] Not only is the industry not wanting to transfer to 60 FPS, there are too many technical issues behind it that would make the production process much slower. 60 FPS in cinema is a joke. 24 FPS works just fine. There is no beneficial reason to switch it up.

[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;46881224]24 FPS has been the standard since the invention of cinema. It will not become widespread and directors + cinematographers will certainly not flock to it. That's like asking Wally Pfister to shoot Nolan's next project on 60 FPS. [I]You'll be laughed at.[/I] Not only is the industry not wanting to transfer to 60 FPS, there are too many technical issues behind it that would make the production process much slower. 60 FPS in cinema is a joke. 24 FPS works just fine. There is no beneficial reason to switch it up.[/QUOTE] 24 fps makes fast moving scenes a whole lot more disorienting. Its just motion blur everywhere. I don't think ALL film should be 48/60 fps but I would like to see it used more often.

I think that all film should be 60fps, so in the future when we're talking about 120fps video everybody can go on about how 60fps video has more charm and is more cinematic than 120fps video, and how nobody would ever want to use higher frame rates.

[QUOTE=Demache;46881322]24 fps makes fast moving scenes a whole lot more disorienting. Its just motion blur everywhere. I don't think ALL film should be 48/60 fps but I would like to see it used more often.[/QUOTE] It's motion blur due to the camera's shutter speed of 1/48th or 1/50th of a second which isn't fast. If you shot at 60, you would have to increase the shutter speed to 1/120th, which would be considerably faster, but you would still have that motion blur. The technical problem of this now lies in exposure. You are now taking in much less light when shooting at 1/120th so it would require the Cinematographer to boost the other settings (such as aperture/ISO) to compensate, and it would require gaffers to re-work how they light scenes. For VFX artists, they now have more than double the frames to rotoscope and track, so that will effectively increase the amount of time it takes to complete a single VFX shot.

I wonder if current blu ray players will be able to run the 4K discs. It would suck to [I]upgrade[/I] to a new player when a lot of us use game consoles for their blu ray capabilities. [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] Is there an advantage to films being 60 FPS? I always though film was ok at 24 FPS because they use motion blur and are viewed in a passive manner.

"Shaky-cam" 60fps movies are terrible. I can't track things cause my head isn't doing the moving, dammit. However there are action scenes that need higher FPS, like the bumper-ship chase scene in GotG in which 24fps didn't do it justice.

If movies are ever going to use 48fps more normally, they will do so in conjunction with 24. For example, I can see a fast paced action scene use 48fps during intense scenes to help convey the sense of speed and intensity. More quiet and dialogue heavy scenes would then be 24.

[QUOTE=synthiac;46882199]Doubled framerate content still demands higher bitrate. Decoder constraints may even necessitate double the bitrate for equivalent image quality.[/QUOTE] Sure, but the ability to contain 60fps video on a Blu-ray is still nothing new or special. That was all I was saying.

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;46880904] Basically he describes 24fps being not quite "real" (as in 60+ fps) and not quite "fake" (as in if you go any lower than 24fps it starts looking choppy), which is what gives it that movie quality. It's just smooth enough to immerse you but not enough to lose that certain magic that movies have. [/QUOTE] exactly what i've been saying. it's fast enough for our brains to recognize it as looking real, but not too fast where it looks 'too real' and starts to look fake, like behind the scenes footage on a set. you know. how higher framerate sitcoms always look and feel exactly like sets in a warehouse. because they are.

[QUOTE=Warship;46876078]Double the framerate =! Double the bitrate required[/QUOTE] Bitrate is per second, so a 24mb/s video at 24 fps = 1MB per frame. 60fps is 2.5x more frames than 24 which means that you now have 400kb per frame. At 1920 resolution, that's going to get real grainy real fast. Now you need a higher bitrate by minimum of 2.5x the previous bitrate.

[QUOTE=Daemon White;46883920]Bitrate is per second, so a 24mb/s video at 24 fps = 1MB per frame. 60fps is 2.5x more frames than 24 which means that you now have 400kb per frame. At 1920 resolution, that's going to get real grainy real fast. Now you need a higher bitrate by minimum of 2.5x the previous bitrate.[/QUOTE] lol no. Keep in mind that the motion in between the frames will be less when the framerate is higher. Compression is some pretty complicated stuff, but to my knowledge it's really more about the amount of movement rather than the amount of frames. In fact, a higher framerate may actually hide compression artifacts better than say 30fps, because the artifacts are changing at a faster pace.

[QUOTE=Daemon White;46883920]Bitrate is per second, so a 24mb/s video at 24 fps = 1MB per frame. 60fps is 2.5x more frames than 24 which means that you now have 400kb per frame. At 1920 resolution, that's going to get real grainy real fast. Now you need a higher bitrate by minimum of 2.5x the previous bitrate.[/QUOTE] except video compression includes persistent colour block algorithms. ever compress a gif in gimp or open a highly compressed one in photoshop? each layer only includes the pixels that needed to be updated on a frame by frame basis. this is why double frame rate does not necessitate double file size. it may mean double the file size if every single one of the 60 frames per second is entirely different, but that basically never happens.

[QUOTE=.Lain;46884039]except video compression includes persistent colour block algorithms. ever compress a gif in gimp or open a highly compressed one in photoshop? each layer only includes the pixels that needed to be updated on a frame by frame basis. this is why double frame rate does not necessitate double file size. it may mean double the file size if every single one of the 60 frames per second is entirely different, but that basically never happens.[/QUOTE] that's on stuff with more compression. the amount of compression on blu-rays is far, far less. that's the whole point of blu-rays. files upwards of 20+ gb. and ones with a very in-tact grain structure, i doubt there's much room for that stuff. pretty much every frame is entirely different because of film grain. not a problem on most dvds because the grain doesn't stay in-tact at that resolution, but in 1080p boy is it there. so i'd wager that yes. double frame would close to double the filesize of a good transfer. [editline]10th January 2015[/editline] keep in mind that even watching a blu-ray frame by frame, a good transfer won't have a single visible compression artifact. check out the aliens blu-ray. it's about 34gb. now imagine if something that quality had it's framerate doubled. now bump that all the way up to 60fps too. it's too massive. companies aren't gonna do this.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46874355]60fps PORN[/QUOTE] meh, not cinematic enough

[QUOTE=Warship;46882197]If movies are ever going to use 48fps more normally, they will do so in conjunction with 24. For example, I can see a fast paced action scene use 48fps during intense scenes to help convey the sense of speed and intensity. More quiet and dialogue heavy scenes would then be 24.[/QUOTE] They do this (for other reasons) in DA:Inquisition. It is awful. You see action in 60 but then it drops to 30 and you're left with what looks slow now. It will be the same in movies. You can't just from very smooth to half of that and expect it to not look crap.

idk how badly movies need 60fps, but this is cool anyway. Especially with 4K. It'll be a while though before 4K TV's are as cheap as 1080 tho, right now they're >£3000

[QUOTE=Rusty100;46891018]that's on stuff with more compression. the amount of compression on blu-rays is far, far less. that's the whole point of blu-rays. files upwards of 20+ gb. and ones with a very in-tact grain structure, i doubt there's much room for that stuff. pretty much every frame is entirely different because of film grain. not a problem on most dvds because the grain doesn't stay in-tact at that resolution, but in 1080p boy is it there. so i'd wager that yes. double frame would close to double the filesize of a good transfer. [editline]10th January 2015[/editline] keep in mind that even watching a blu-ray frame by frame, a good transfer won't have a single visible compression artifact. check out the aliens blu-ray. it's about 34gb. now imagine if something that quality had it's framerate doubled. now bump that all the way up to 60fps too. it's too massive. companies aren't gonna do this.[/QUOTE] Unless you're using lossless encoding then you're always going to have that type of inter-frame difference deal going on, the only difference being how strict the encoder is comparing blocks for differences (High quality settings preserve film grain, low ones don't, etc.) It's even stranger with HEVC where there's a variable block size, something that might be a 32x32 block in one frame could get promoted to 4 16x16 blocks in the next, or vice versa. I'm not sure I get the issue with file size, unless you're ripping it to your computer then the only file size constraint is "Does it fit on the disk", and we're talking about 100GB disks here (And any concerns about cost for the triple layer process will go away in time, dual layer disks originally cost more to make, now they're ubiquitous).

[QUOTE=cqbcat;46881989]I wonder if current blu ray players will be able to run the 4K discs. It would suck to [I]upgrade[/I] to a new player when a lot of us use game consoles for their blu ray capabilities.[/QUOTE] They can't, article in the OP confirms you need a new player