48 fps - is it the future?

[Musicat]

@squeegee

No, 720p is progressive. No interlace. Hence the “p”.

1080 can be “p” or “i”, but it’s mostly “i” in the HD world, with “p” less widespread.

I’m aware of what the terms mean. I’m not sure what “HD world” means – broadcast or other? My “HD world” is computer or DVD-sourced, not broadcast, so we need to define what you mean.

My basic question was do broadcast stations now control those items (i or p) or do they all broadcast the same, interlaced signal like standard TV used to be?

[AaronX]

@Frylock

I don’t remember reading any of that the link I provided. What I remember reading is that today’s new TVs refresh at 240 fps, and add extra, artificial, produced-by-computation frames to “smooth” things out. But this smoothing (because it essentially creates a higher frame rate) creates the same “soap opera effect” that you get from watching scenes filmed at a high frame rate.

Yes, because soap operas (on TV) have a high frame rate. How can filming in a high frame rate be cheaper than a low frame rate?

[Frylock]

Okay, I understand now you’re focusing on the line from the article that says video is cheaper than film. (It was hard for me to see this because I was more interested in the mechanics and the visual effect–the fact that video is cheaper simply didn’t register on me as I was reading this, it wasn’t part of what I was interested in.)

It would be surprising if shooting at a higher frame rate on film was cheaper than shooting at a lower frame rate on film. But since it’s two different media instead, I’m not surprised at any particular cost differential. It appears that video is just, generally, cheaper than film, whatever the frame rate.

[squeegee]

@Musicat

My basic question was do broadcast stations now control those items (i or p) or do they all broadcast the same, interlaced signal like standard TV used to be?

If you’re asking: “is all broadcast (OTA) HD television interlaced?” then the answer is no. Broadcast HD can be 720p or 1080i. Various stations choose one or the other. Here’s a list of broadcast and cable channels and the HD format they output. Most of the stations listed are cable, but you’ll see there are OTA channels that output 720p (e.g. ABC, CBS, FOX) and others that do 1080i (NBC).

[Mdcastle]

What about watching it on Blu-Ray or DVD then, where the formats don’t allow 48fps.

In a way I’m not surprised at some people not liking newer technology. My stepfather keeps telling me how much he hates HDTV because it looks “too realistic”.

[msmith537]

@jz78817

I’m only being dismissive of the claim that a higher frame rate “ruined” a movie for someone. That is, like, the height of snobbery. But I guess if you want to go tell Peter Jackson he’s doing it wrong, go right ahead. I’m sure he’ll go off to cry in his pile of money.*

No. It’s snobbery to tell people they don’t know what they are talking about when obviously they found the effect unsettling.

[Marley23]

@jz78817

And the complaints I’ve read about The Hobbit boil down to nothing more than the whining of useless snobs who bitch because a director dared to do something other than what they expected.

PROTIP: if the frame rate of a film “ruins” everything for you, then YOU are the one doing it wrong.

Cool it, please. You can make your point without bashing the people who are making the criticism.

[msmith537]

I going to even go so far as to say frame rate must be an artistic consideration as much as color and lighting. For example Speilberg adjusting the frame rate and color saturation to make Saving Private Ryan have an olde tyme news reel look.

@Mdcastle

What about watching it on Blu-Ray or DVD then, where the formats don’t allow 48fps.

In a way I’m not surprised at some people not liking newer technology. My stepfather keeps telling me how much he hates HDTV because it looks “too realistic”.

A valid concern. It can look “realistic” in that on a 50" HDTV you can see that you are looking at a fake set and actors in makeup.