48FPS 3D - At Home? - Projectors?

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by musicpenguy, Dec 21, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    #1
    I am curious - does anyone know the logistics of making at home ways to watch 48FPS 3D movies?

    I currently run my setup with an Epson projector and love it - I know there are plenty of 3D projectors.

    How long will it be until consumers can buy projectors or TVs that support 48FPS 3D content?

    I know the current BluRay spec doesn't support it - so will we need an update there or will it be a digital download only format at the beginning of this new format?

    Any feedback or thoughts - I think as the years go on more and more 3D films will be shot in HFR - Avatar 2/3 I think is going that way.
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #2
    I'm assuming it would need the whole gamut of hardware upgrades -- BD and TVs, maybe HDMI spec and/or receivers.

    I'm guessing this won't be too big of a thing yet because there are only about 500 theaters capable of showing this and only one movie has been shown. Plus the reviews were quite mixed, even though I thought it looked good.

    As far as being a digital download option, I don't think any of Apple's displays are 120Hz yet. I can notice a huge difference between watching movies on my computer and the 120Hz TV. Whether it's practical for computers and iDevices is beyond my knowledge base, but I figure that would be needed first.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    #3
    The reason why you see such a large difference on your TV is not just because of the 120hz feature. While this is certainly helpful, the real reason for such a large change is that your TV comes with software that essentially cleans up the movie/tv show as you watch it. Think of it as a "de-noise" program that optimizes the video for your tv every time you watch it.

    Also, you will most certainly need a new projector at a bare minimum to play the new 48FPS content. Blu ray players may survive with just an update, but thats not really known at this time.
     
  4. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #4
    Is what you describe what Samsung calls MotonPlus or something like that? I know the picture is ridiculously clear compared to other video devices I have.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    #5
    It is the same kind of idea, but what you are talking about is LCD interpolation. Movies have always been filmed and presented in 24 frames per second in the past. The new Hobbit movie is the first to be shot and presented in 48 FPS, doubling the frame rate and therefore providing smoother picture (much like your Samsung).

    The difference here, is that the actual source is in 48FPS. Currently when you buy a blu ray or DVD movie it is still encoded and presented in 24 FPS. Your Samsung TV takes those 24 frames and interpolates them, which is a fancy way of saying that it "guesses" on frames to go in the middle. This often works, but can also end up looking unnatural and weird.

    The OP is asking whether or not his current home projector will support this new 48 FPS standard or not. All of us with LCD TV's should have no problem with the higher frame rate, as LCD and Plasma TV's have a native refresh rate of up to 60hz (or 60 frames per second). All it will require is a software update.

    So you are sort of on the right track, but it is not the same thing.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    #6
    The real question is why would you want to watch it that way even if you could? 24FPS looks better. I hope HFR does not catch on.
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    #7
    I agree. Just watched the Hobbit a couple days ago. If that is the future...I'll be glad to be stuck in the past. At times, you could tell the actors were in front of a screen, they were 3D but background was flat and everything was too bright. I wish Jackson had spent as much effort on mood and story development. I thought the whole thing was cartoonish. And I am a big fan of LOTR. Bought every set released, dvd, BR, BR extended.
     
  8. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #8
    You mean like how half the time in "The Wizard of Oz" you can easily tell it's a set? Does that mean color was a dumb idea? Or now that it has been remastered in Had, is HD a bad idea?

    The motion smoothing I mentioned earlier makes video look "fake" at first when you see it in use. But after a while, you get used to it and it's just a smoother picture.
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    #9
    I'm not anti-technology, obviously as I have adopted most of the latest stuff (except 3D tv). Just saying for me, in the first set of films, he used the latest technology at hand to create an enthralling story. With this one, I think used the story to demonstrate the technology. The result, for me was less than satisfying. I am going to go see the 24fps/2D version to see if it was the story or the technology that put me off.
     
  10. macrumors G3

    charlituna

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #10
    I wouldn't be gunning to watch that filmed at 48 just yet. I saw the Hobbit and yes it was very clear and amazing but the sped up motion made me crazy. I am floored that Jackson did that. Knowingly it seems. Not just the pans, which were bad enough, but when people were moving. Ugh. I can only hope that there were enough negative comments about that to make Jackson go back and rework it before the home video releases. And not do it in the other two.

    ----------

    Is not just 3D. I work in the industry and the current move is HFR and high frame size if only to have more data for image stabilization, motion smoothing, even slowing down fight scenes etc a little to make them easier to see without the puke effect.

    What Jackson did isn't really that shocking to many of us in my corner of things, just the director decisions he made with how he used the tools is shocking. And to me disappointing, as I said earlier. Reminds me of how some directors are so in love with 3D they did post production conversions and didn't have the balls to not release it because it looked like a dog turd.

    ----------

    I don't believe they are. But Apple could be working on one that is 120 or even higher and because that is 'tv quality' folks are thinking its a TV and not just a souped up Cinema Display with 1-2 bigge sizes.

    And then with h.265 on the horizon we have a better shot at file quality without a huge increase in overhead
     
  11. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    #11
    He's not the type to admit he had a bad idea. He re-color graded the LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring for the BR extended version box set and turned in green/blue. Looked awful and dark and he would never admit a problem. So I expect you will continue to see 48fps.
     
  12. macrumors 601

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #12
    If they are going to bring 48fps to consumer equipment, I hope they go ahead and go 60fps with a 48fps option. Sure, movies tend to be shot at 24 and 48 is the double, but video tends to be shot at 30fps with 60fps the double. Might as well address the 60fps option rather than try to sell us all on 48fps upgrades... and then sell us all again on 60fps upgrades (but we all know how that will go, don't we?).

    BTW, we saw Hobbit cut down to 24fps and it was not pleasant. It was obvious that Jackson was counting on the higher frame rate in how quickly he would pan on many scenes. Higher FPS can capture that motion with less jump (we didn't like the jumpy shots when panning). I shoot a lot of sports at 60fps so that fast camera pans still yield smooth motion (I wish I could play the renders through :apple:TV at the full 60fps). Personally, I'd much rather see the smoother motion shot at 48fps (or 60fps) vs. sticking with the very old standard of 24fps (chosen, by the way, not because it was deemed superior... but because it was the cheapest option to still yield an arguably fair perception of motion).

    I wish we purists would "get over it" in that something shot for 48 could be down-converted to 24 if we believe 24 is necessary for that classic "film-like" look. However, it doesn't work well the other way. If nothing else, directors getting some new capabilities means we can get some new looks/experiences in film because they won't be bound to catering all of their shots to a long-in-tooth standard set about 80+ years ago. Else, why don't we cling to mono audio too? B&W? Etc.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    #13


    Half of this is the way he used the HFR technology in his scenes. Normally you should only barely be able to notice the difference, especially after seeing it a couple times (I saw hobbit 3 times in theaters, twice in IMAX, and it still makes me feel a little funny). Unfortunately he used the same directing technique as if filming in 24fps, which just doesn't work. Your brain can't handle the amount of information that is being thrown at you by the screen, so instead you just end up getting nauseous.

    I have a strong feeling James Cameron will end up implementing it right. His story telling ability is often crap (Terminator 2 being an exception), but you have to hand it to him, he knows how to advance technology. He is the first one (and maybe still only one) to do 3D correctly in my opinion, and I'm sure HFR will only help serve his ability to push the boundaries of cinema.
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    #14
    Agreed. It's not 48fps that I didn't like. It was the whole look, overly bright, roller coaster type fast panning, and cartoon like characters. I've got no beef with clarity, detail and smooth motion.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    andymodem

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    #15
    I'd be happy if Apple just let the ATV3 output 24p. :(
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    #16
    If you have a 120hz or higher LED TV the interpolation should take care of any frame judder that occurs at 60hz. I cant speak for all TVs but I know for my D7000 Samsung TV it has no judder whatsoever, and it seems to interpolate the frames at a perfect ratio to combine the 24p and 30p ratio.

    I understand why Apple does 30p as standard, but I will admit that it would be nice to select it. Out of curiosity, does the Apple TV support 50hz for displays? If so, it would only "add" two additional frames per second instead of 12, which could significantly reduce judder on 60hz TVs.
     
  17. JAT
    macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Location:
    Mpls, MN
    #17
    From the specs:

    Generally speaking, it would have to be to cover all the countries they sell in. Although Apple does sometimes ignore such practical matters.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    andymodem

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    #18
    I have a plasma TV, so movies can get some judder affects frequently with iTunes movies. I do most of my movie watching with my Blu Ray player however, and my TV does 3:3 pulldown on 24P content to get 72hz which is as smooth as garlic butter melting on a thick juicy steak. :D If Apple let it output 24P, I'd probably switch to buying from iTunes exclusively because of how easy it is.

    I believe the ATV3 will do 50hz, I haven't tried it though. I suppose I could make mkv's out of my blu rays and play them on my WDTV Live as that does 24P, but man it has a horrible interface. :rolleyes: Might as well stick with blu rays and see if Apple ever enables 24P.
     

Share This Page