Ikke for å være vanskelig, men gjorde du dette:Opprinnelig postet av LittOmAlt
Opprinnelig postet av knutinh
Viser resultater 21 til 27 av 27
03-11-2009, 01:49 #21
03-20-2009, 02:47 #22
Hadet bra 24fps, jeg har blitt overbevist: Min Philips 47PFL9603 leverer BÅDE perfekte panoreringer OG superskarpe bilder. Har aldri sett bedre! Jeg kjører 100Hz og Perfect Natural Motion, og lever livet! Klarer faktisk ikke å se film på gamlemåten. Mulig jeg blir lei av "supersmooth amatør-look" en eller annen gang. Men ikke så langt!
03-27-2009, 16:47 #23Opprinnelig postet av ThomasWH
Tror ikke jeg blir lei, foreløpig synes jeg ihvertfall det er mye mer behagelig å se på, enn hakkete panorering.
Jeg irriterer meg også stadig vekk på kino over at det hakker ved panoreringer.
Synes det egentlig er rart at mange argumenterer så sterkt for 24fps. Dette er jo egentlig noe som jeg mener henger igjen fra gamle dager, som jeg regner med at man snarest bør bort fra.
Ja til 1080p50!!
03-27-2009, 16:57 #24
Jeg har en Samsung LE40M71 og den har ubrukbar 100hz. Så lenge det ikke skjer noe så er bildet vanvittig bra selv på halv oppløsning, men så snart det rører på seg så hakker det så mye at jeg ikke gidder å bruke det.
03-28-2009, 02:12 #25Opprinnelig postet av AnonymBruker
Men når det er sagt, skrur jeg noen ganger over til 24p.. Helt til jeg får krampe i øynene (og mentalt) og drar tilbake på super-smooth mode'n!
03-28-2009, 08:56 #26Opprinnelig postet av ThomasWH
Når dataspillene dine gikk fra "10fps" til "60fps" så genererte faktisk fysikk-motoren i spillet alle framene.
Når det er snakk om "100Hz/120Hz" lcd-tver så interpolerer de innholdet ut fra en kilde som er låst til 24fps. Informasjonsinnholdet kan ikke øke, og forbedringen er ikke like opplagt som i spill-eksempelet. Det avhenger f.eks av at interpoleringen ikke gjør ting _verre_.
Jeg synes også at det er rart at noen kan foretrekke det stilistiske ved en hakkete 24fps sekvens framfor ekte 60fps. Men folk foretrekker også kornstøy fra analog film, er ikke det like rart?
03-28-2009, 09:14 #27
Kanskje litt off topic men(3D): Jeg er ikke noen ekspert på tema, men er var for 24fps hakkingen og synes det interessant det James Cameron sier i dette intervjuet (ang. 4K/24 vs 2K/48 ) : James Cameron supercharges 3-D - - Variety
I'm hearing that there are already calls to increase the frame rate to at least 30 fps for digital 3-D because certain camera moves, especially pans, look jumpy in 3-D. I saw that in the Imax 3-D "Beowulf." You've been an advocate for both 3-D and higher frame rates. Have you seen the problem and do you have any thoughts on it?
For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem.
The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed.
Increasing the data-handling capacity of the projectors and servers is not a big deal, if there is demand. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry?
Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.
If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself? Something you can't get at home. An aspect of the film that you can't pirate.
Other than that, for digital 3-D, would you rather see energy going into moving from 2K to 4K, or into moving from 24 fps to 48 or 72 fps, and why?
4K is a concept born in fear. When the studios were looking at converting to digital cinemas, they were afraid of change, and searched for reasons not to do it. One reason they hit upon was that if people were buying HD monitors for the home, with 1080x1920 resolution, and that was virtually the same as the 2K standard being proposed, then why would people go to the cinema? Which ignores the fact that the social situation is entirely different, and that the cinema screen is 100 times larger in area. So they somehow hit on 4K, which people should remember is not twice the amount of picture data, it is four times the data. Meaning servers need to be four times the capacity, as does the delivery pipe to the theater, etc.
But 4K doesn't solve the curse of 24 frames per second. In fact it tends to stand in the way of the solutions to that more fundamental problem. The NBA execs made a bold decision to do the All Star Game 3-D simulcast at 60 frames per second, because they didn't like the judder. The effect of the high-frame-rate 3-D was visually astonishing, a huge crowdpleaser.
I would vastly prefer to see 2K/48 frames per second as a new display standard, than 4K/24 frames per second. This would mean shooting movies at 48 fps, which the digital cameras can easily accommodate. Film cameras can run that fast, but stock costs would go up. However, that could be offset by shooting 3-perf, or even 2-perf, because you'd get the resolution back through the higher display rate. The 48 fps negative or digital master can be skip-printed to generate a 24 fps 35mm DI negative for making release prints, so 48 is the magic number because it remains compatible with the film-based platform which will still be with us for some time, especially internationally. 30 and 60 fps are out for that reason. Anyway the benefit of 30 is not great enough to be worth the effort, especially when 48 is so easy to achieve. SMPTE tests done about 15 years ago showed that above 48 frames the returns diminish dramatically, and 60 fps is overkill. So 48 is the magic number.
Of course, the ideal format is 3-D/2K/48 fps projection. I'd love to have done "Avatar" at 48 frames. But I have to fight these battles one at a time. I'm just happy people are waking up to 3-D.
Maybe on "Avatar 2."
Sony og realD kjører på med 4k:MarketSaw - RealD And Sony Partner On 4K Projector