25, 30, 60 Frames Per Second

I find it harder to tell that difference. Though I can tell when it's 50hz shown on a 60hz monitor (like watching a DVD or the iPlayer through a PC)- I guess due to the 50>60 conversion.

Though I'm certainly someone who thinks 24/25/30p should be consigned to the dustbin, they really are relics of the past (as has been said- 24fps was picked because it was the lowest they could get away with 90 years ago and therefore the cheapest. Made sense then, makes sense when working with film, but makes little sense working digitally.- it's not like 50/60 on digital is significantly more expensive than 24/25, unlike with film), especially as we're getting to higher resolutions and bigger screens. Yet we're still sticking with framerates with noticable juddering and motion blur (which partly negates the high resolution)? Though instead we're in a period where TV producers are obsessed with sticking that look on pretty much everything (just why is it needed on daytime property shows, Gardener's World and the Antiques Roadshow for god's sake?).

Tuesday 20th, Emmerdale will be focussing on Ashley using similar techniques from the crash week.

I don't have to. I go to the cinema often enough, and used to back in the days when they actually showed film, rather than digital cinema which is what most cinemas are now. I can't make out individual frames in a 24 fps movie. It's one thing to say that something looks demonstrably smoother, but quite another to actually prove it. And by the way, if you work it out, 1/24th of a second is actually longer than 40 milliseconds.

It's not about being able to "make out" individual frames, and it's incredibly easy to prove. The difference is blindingly obvious to most people. It seems a few just can't tell, for whatever reason, but we're not making this up.

I made this test clip a few years ago (check that the quality setting says 720p60):





I don't recall anyone saying otherwise...

Ah, but did it really? Or did you know in advance that you were watching something shot at 50fps? If you did, then you basically pre-programmed your brain to automatically think it was better. We humans are amazingly good at fooling ourselves. When you start to think critically, that's when you notice things you didn't notice before, such as how we can program ourselves to believe something is better because it has more pixels or more frames.


[/quote]

Approximation is fakery. We've seen approximations that didn't actually tell the truth at all. D2MAC vs PAL, Even the HD vs SD approximations in the early years were at best very dodgy.

And according to science, our eyes and brain are capable of handling and processing 60 fps, but again, show people a 24 fps movie, and I promise you, they will not be able to percieve individual frames, it will look like smooth motion. Hence why I think once you get above 120 fps at full speed, you're not going to actually change the quality of what people see.

Yes it did really, and yes, I can easily tell whether or not I'm watching 25fps or 50fps even without being "primed." 50fps to 60fps is a little harder to spot, but I can do it. Anyone who's worked anywhere near the technical side of broadcasting will tell you the same. In fact, most viewers at home will tell you the same. They know the difference between "film" and "soap opera." Monty Python did an entire sketch on it in the 70s.

Why on earth do you think anyone even broadcasts at 50/60fps if no-one could tell the difference from 24fps?



In this case, it's fakery with reasonably accurate science behind it which does portray how a 600fps video would be perceived, and how it would remove motion blur when tracking objects with smooth pursuit. I know what I'm talking about.

The MIT research I saw suggested that at best we can manage 60 fps. Source for your 240 fps number?

And the original came from Mythbusters. Bullet fired vs Bullet dropped.





Where are you getting this stuff from? Yes, 24 fps was chosen because it still looked smooth, and people couldn't percieve individual frames. The rest of the crap about double shuttering is nonsense.


I don't believe you, mainly because I play a game World Of Warcraft and often the video quality of the game drops to around 12 or 13 fps, and it can look a little stuttery, like I can actually see there are individual pictures, and 15 fps is similarly stuttery, but to call it jerky is plain old nonsense.



Duh! I know that! I was countering the argument that the higher the frame rate the better the picture, when frankly at best 60 fps is our limit. I was saying the only use for frame rates higher than 120 fps is when you do slow motion material, like Mythbusters did.

World of Warcraft at 12 fps. Good enough for ya? If not, tough!

Did that, and smell a rat. I checked how it looked as well at 30 fps, by watching it on the standard 480p setting. At that speed, they shouldn't look any different but the left hand looked far worse at 30 fps.

Sorry. Not buying what you're selling.

I could clearly see the difference between 50p and 100p during the BBC IBC demonstration about 5 years ago... And the difference between 25p and 100p was like night and day.

To get the same level of detail on moving elements at 25p you'd have to use a 1/100th or 1/200th second shutter - which would look horrible (as you are then discarding 75% or 175% of the information in a sequence.

You can't set a frame rate just based on the motion you wish to track, you also have to consider the amount of detail you want to capture on moving objects. If you want to avoid motion blur you have to reduce your exposure time. If you do this at a low temporal resolution (i.e. low frame rate) you discard huge amounts of information, and create an unpleasantly jerky result. If you reduce the exposure time AND increase the temporal resolution (i.e. run at a higher frame rate) you get a much more pleasant picture AND decent detail on moving objects.

As spatial resolution increases, temporal resolution needs to also.

If you shoot the same scene at 25p with a 1/50th shutter (which would be normal 'film mode') and shoot the same scene at 100p with a 1/200th shutter you will see much more detail on moving objects at 100p and the same detail will be motion blurred at 25p.

If you shoot 25p with a 1/200th shutter, and 100p with a 1/200th shutter you sill get the same amount of detail and the same motion blur in both 25p and 100p but the 25p sequence will look horribly flickery compared to the 100p as the 100p will have 4 x 1/200th exposures for ever 1 x 1/200th exposure in the 25p sequence.

You will see the difference in both cases. I certainly have.

And on a similar note, why would they bother filmising TV shows if you couldn't tell the difference?

Basically it's the look I think TV drama should be gravitating towards- video look, but with techniques to take it as far away from a 70s studio look as possible.

In fact it's the look that the first "Rock & Chips" episode was made with back in 2010, but for whatever reason they decided to filmise that at the last minute- albeit the 50i version did still appear on BBC HD (presumably BBC HD technically wouldn't accept deinterlaced 50i for broadcast becasuse of the resolution loss?), the Virgin Media iPlayer and the BBC One signed repeat.