Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Are there any small streaming devices on the Market that support 24p?

chirpie

chirpie

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
This is so oddly vexing. Roku, Apple TV, and Chromecast all apparently have one thing in common... they can't output a 24p signal.

I was able to live with it for a couple years but I upgraded the projector in the theater room to a Sony VPL hw40es, and this issue has been magnified now so badly when trying to play 24p through the Apple TV, it makes it almost unwatchable.

Are there any devices on the market I could use that wouldn't cause the need for re-ripping all of my content to 30p?

I'll even entertain workarounds. ;-)
 
chirpie said:
This is so oddly vexing. Roku, Apple TV, and Chromecast all apparently have one thing in common... they can't output a 24p signal.

I was able to live with it for a couple years but I upgraded the projector in the theater room to a Sony VPL hw40es, and this issue has been magnified now so badly when trying to play 24p through the Apple TV, it makes it almost unwatchable.

Are there any devices on the market I could use that wouldn't cause the need for re-ripping all of my content to 30p?

I'll even entertain workarounds. ;-)
Click to expand...

Sadly, the best bet is to use a computer instead. I've got my AppleTV plugged into my projector and the stutter can be annoying but I live with it. I've played those same files on my computer connected to a 24p capable display and they look smooth as silk. No idea why Apple doesn't just add an option to the ATV to allow it to play whatever material at the native frame rate. I have plenty of stuff that is 24, 25 and 30 fps and only the 30fps stuff looks good at 60 but if I switch to 50, then the 24 fps material has much more noticeable judder as does the 30 whereas the ATV seems to do an OK job with 25->60 so it doesn't look any worse than 24->60.
 
GreatDrok said:
Sadly, the best bet is to use a computer instead. I've got my AppleTV plugged into my projector and the stutter can be annoying but I live with it. I've played those same files on my computer connected to a 24p capable display and they look smooth as silk. No idea why Apple doesn't just add an option to the ATV to allow it to play whatever material at the native frame rate. I have plenty of stuff that is 24, 25 and 30 fps and only the 30fps stuff looks good at 60 but if I switch to 50, then the 24 fps material has much more noticeable judder as does the 30 whereas the ATV seems to do an OK job with 25->60 so it doesn't look any worse than 24->60.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the reply back. At least now I know I'm not crazy. It's kind of funny that this isn't supported considering, you know, more than just a few movies have this frame rate.
 
Are you both sure that it's not your TV settings being all smoothed out? I have a Roku, a wirless Bluray player, and play stuff off my laptop and I notice no difference. I'm also a stickler for video presentation and very anti motion smoothing.
 
akhilleus said:
Are you both sure that it's not your TV settings being all smoothed out? I have a Roku, a wirless Bluray player, and play stuff off my laptop and I notice no difference. I'm also a stickler for video presentation and very anti motion smoothing.
Click to expand...

This isn't quite the same as smoothing. (Also known as frame interpolation) I abhor frame interpolation and have shut it all off. What we're wanting is source 24 fps - Display 24 fps. Since the Apple TV doesn't support this, frame jitter results.

Roku themselves (And Apple) state their device doesn't support this, so I'm not specifically surprised, just disappointed. ^_^
 
Last edited:
chirpie said:
This isn't quite the same as smoothing. (Also known as frame interpolation) I abhor frame interpolation and have shut it all off. What we're wanting is source 24 fps - Display 24 fps. Since the Apple TV doesn't support this, frame jitter results.

Roku themselves (And Apple) state their device doesn't support this, so I'm not specifically surprised, just disappointed. ^_^
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I have been weighing Apple TV vs. Mac Mini for permanent hookup to my TV and this info is news to me. Looks like it's another point in the Mac Mini category... just hard to justify a $600 purchase because I'm too annoyed to hook my laptop into my TV all the time.
 
If this is for one room then perhaps you might consider either a good "smart" blue ray player or media player and of course a small htpc.

Some blue ray players can play files via network. Media players such as DUNE have no issues with playing many file formats and at 24p. Similar can be said for small htpc PCs running XBMC or Plex. Of the latter, you can check their respective forums for minimum builds that offer up good playback.

Given that you are using a projector and seem to have invested in quality playback, it would be a pity if the 'system' had a weak link in whatever playback unit you choose. I know many love their mini-media players and don't mind the limitation. For me, I find no use for such players. I found over time it is worth getting the right devices for the right job.

I have used over the past - ATV, WD media players, Mac Mini, DUNE, various PCs and Oppo Blue Ray player. In order of quality playback - Oppo, Dune, PC, Mac Mini, and ATV/WD mini media players.

Here is a link for the Dune devices - check out premium and smart series. There are other makers of similar products as well such as Medi8tor. The smart series might not be as small as the ATV or WD but certainly is a significant step up for file playback (other than iTune movies).

http://dune-hd.com/eng/products/full_hd_media_players/37

As for Blue Ray players, there are certainly other makers than Oppo that deliver the goods at a lower cost.
 
octothorpe8 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p
Click to expand...

Ahh wikipedia, incorrect articles, written by incompetent people, that propagate incorrect terminology as correct..

its a vicious feeback loop.

someone somewhere started using 24p instead of 24fps and its now become a wiki article so people think its correct... and thus bad information gets taken into the public as correct information and bad terminology spreads

Quoting Wiki articles as proof of what your talking about = fail.
Wikipedia is the best work of fiction on the internet that occasionally has interesting facts buried in it.
 
Nightarchaon said:
Ahh wikipedia, incorrect articles, written by incompetent people, that propagate incorrect terminology as correct..

its a vicious feeback loop.

someone somewhere started using 24p instead of 24fps and its now become a wiki article so people think its correct... and thus bad information gets taken into the public as correct information and bad terminology spreads

Quoting Wiki articles as proof of what your talking about = fail.
Wikipedia is the best work of fiction on the internet that occasionally has interesting facts buried in it.
Click to expand...


Not to nitpick, but the 24p nomenclature predates Wikipedia and is used for broadcast standards. The p stands in for progressive vs. i for interlaced, exactly as it does when used to differentiate progressive vs. interlaced resolution but is used when you also include the frame rate in your shorthand. ie.

1080/60i or 720/50p vs. 1080i or 720p.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/video-frame-rates-24p-25p-30p-60i.html

or even something from Apple's Final Cut 7 manual:

https://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/index.html#chapter=E&section=1&tasks=true
 
Nightarchaon said:
Ahh wikipedia, incorrect articles, written by incompetent people, that propagate incorrect terminology as correct..

its a vicious feeback loop.

someone somewhere started using 24p instead of 24fps and its now become a wiki article so people think its correct... and thus bad information gets taken into the public as correct information and bad terminology spreads

Quoting Wiki articles as proof of what your talking about = fail.
Wikipedia is the best work of fiction on the internet that occasionally has interesting facts buried in it.
Click to expand...

Have you told the SMPTE they're getting it all wrong too? Here's an example publication where, no doubt, they just copied and pasted from wikipedia...

http://standards.smpte.org/content/...ract?sid=21763588-23e2-420c-94b1-edc307821402

24p is used instead of 25fps because fps is ambiguous when a picture source could be interlaced.
 
Last edited:
BuddyRich said:
Not to nitpick, but the 24p nomenclature predates Wikipedia and is used for broadcast standards. The p stands in for progressive vs. i for interlaced, exactly as it does when used to differentiate progressive vs. interlaced resolution but is used when you also include the frame rate in your shorthand. ie.

1080/60i or 720/50p vs. 1080i or 720p.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/video-frame-rates-24p-25p-30p-60i.html

or even something from Apple's Final Cut 7 manual:

https://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/index.html#chapter=E&section=1&tasks=true
Click to expand...

Thats what i was saying, it hasnt been used as shortand for Frames Per Second, it was always shorthand for "Progressive Scan"

24p would mean 24 lines progressive scan, not 24 Frames Per Second Progressive scan.

Ive checked with a Friend who has worked in the BBC for over 30 years, and he has NEVER heard of 24p as a shorthand for frame rate being used in the industry as a whole, they refer to FPS.. 24p etc seems to be corruption of the "high definition" world and 480p, 720p 1080i 1080p being miss-understood and corrupted by someone who thinks FPS is to long to write

So your first comment above your first link is almost correct, in that it refers to resolution and SCAN, the link however is wrong and refers to FRAME RATE, the correct format would be 1080p/60 not 1080/60p as its 1080 Progressive scan at / 60Hz or 1080i/60 not 1080/60i as its 1080 Interlaced at / 60 Hz
 
I'm surprised you're going after this point, Night.

Even the actual programs that we use for editing like Premiere Pro as well as the cameras we shoot with use 24p in their menus and drop downs so I'm surprised your BBC friend gave you that answer. 🙁

It's used and needed to make sense in context next to 30p, 30i, 50i, 60i, etc. I get that. I also understand that the person who works with video assumes this to be 24 frames per second as well. You get both bits of information at the same time so it makes it feel like the term is being used interchangeably.

You might be able to argue a technicality to victory, but for all intents and purposes the term is understood by most who work with video just fine.
 

Attachments

  • 32886472-2-300-DT3.jpg
    32886472-2-300-DT3.jpg
    65.2 KB · Views: 1,215
  • images.jpg
    images.jpg
    8.5 KB · Views: 1,174
  • imgres.jpg
    imgres.jpg
    5.7 KB · Views: 1,179
Last edited:
Nightarchaon said:
Thats what i was saying, it hasnt been used as shortand for Frames Per Second, it was always shorthand for "Progressive Scan"

24p would mean 24 lines progressive scan, not 24 Frames Per Second Progressive scan.
Click to expand...

p stands for progressive, yes, but it can be appended to either the image size (1080) or the frame rate (24) or both. It is useful in all contexts.

p does not mean frames per second. But 24p does mean 24 progressive frames per second. p does not mean lines, but 1080p means 1080 lines progessively scanned. Because there are a limited number of HD formats, it is left to the reader to infer whether the number refers to lines or frames. It is not usually controversial until someone tries to be a smartass about it.

Again, see above where the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, known for SMPTE timecode, the fundamental measurement of video frames, disagrees with you.

As for quoting somebody who works at the BBC. So what? The BBC also does regional radio.

Edit: One more, part of a BBC camera assessment report, enjoy the flagrant use of 50p, 25p etc…

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034-ADD68_Sony_PMW-F3.pdf
 
Last edited:
Thank you for 24p media player info - FU to meathead

As someone looking for specifically the information listed in this thread, thank you! (more below and another question).

As someone who likes humor and likes to have a good laugh every day, thank you MEATHEAD. I don't think I have to specify who I am referring to as it is quite obvious. I love it when "smart" people who need to hear themselves talk, ahh, chat, try to "oursmart" someone and is so oblivious they don't realize their "smart" question or comment makes them look as ignorant about a subject as is possible. So again, THANK YOU for making me laugh so hard today!

I have a Sony BDP-S590 which as far as I know will not stream or locally play (USB) files in 24p. Sure it will play off of a properly authored DVD or Bluray disc fine, but not a file. So...someone mentioned getting a good "smart" bluray player above but I have looked and still have not found one other than the Oppo.

Does anyone know of any mainstream Bluray players (will play discs too) that will play files in 24p? Other than spending from what I've seen like $300 or more US Dollars for an Oppo?

I'm really hoping that I've just not noticed any yet...but have looked at multiple Samsung, Sony, LG players and they don't seem to do it.

Thanks for any info.

Ben

PS - I was trying to avoid getting a Bluray player and a media streamer if possible (I saw the WD TV boxes...they look pretty good)
 
akhilleus said:
Gotcha. I have been weighing Apple TV vs. Mac Mini for permanent hookup to my TV and this info is news to me. Looks like it's another point in the Mac Mini category... just hard to justify a $600 purchase because I'm too annoyed to hook my laptop into my TV all the time.
Click to expand...
You don't need a $600 Mac Mini. A $200 Windows box will do the same thing. You don't even need Windows if you put XBMC on it.

bmcelvan said:
Does anyone know of any mainstream Bluray players (will play discs too) that will play files in 24p?
Click to expand...
Pretty much any new player should.
 
oneMadRssn said:
Guy who looks down his nose at people who quote wikipedia for support quotes his supposed friend for support. Irony ensues.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia, editied by the masses, if more people with bad info push that bad info and keep that on the page, than that bad info becomes "common" bad info.

The number of times ive seen "news" articles, even so far as reporters on air quote false information because they got it off wikipedi is absurd.

Wikipedia is a good source of knowledge, but i would never take anything on it as gospel or definitive.

Someone who has worked 25years in an industry however, i will take their word of wikipedia any day.

Generally speaking, if Wikipedia + 2 other sources agree, ill go with wikipedia, if Wikipedia + 1 other source agree, ill be aware that it could be wrong, and if Wikipedia states something and there is no other source i trust, ill ignore wikipedia..
 
Nightarchaon said:
Wikipedia, editied by the masses, if more people with bad info push that bad info and keep that on the page, than that bad info becomes "common" bad info.

The number of times ive seen "news" articles, even so far as reporters on air quote false information because they got it off wikipedi is absurd.

Wikipedia is a good source of knowledge, but i would never take anything on it as gospel or definitive.

Someone who has worked 25years in an industry however, i will take their word of wikipedia any day.

Generally speaking, if Wikipedia + 2 other sources agree, ill go with wikipedia, if Wikipedia + 1 other source agree, ill be aware that it could be wrong, and if Wikipedia states something and there is no other source i trust, ill ignore wikipedia..
Click to expand...

But by your cite, you're not asking us to trust someone that has worked 25 years in the industry - we can't talk to that someone. You're asking us to trust a someone who allegedly knows someone else that has worked in the industry for 25 years. The former is personal knowledge, and usually trustworthy. The latter, what you are citing here, is 100% hearsay and much less trustworthy than a cite to Wikipedia.
 
oneMadRssn said:
But by your cite, you're not asking us to trust someone that has worked 25 years in the industry - we can't talk to that someone. You're asking us to trust a someone who allegedly knows someone else that has worked in the industry for 25 years. The former is personal knowledge, and usually trustworthy. The latter, what you are citing here, is 100% hearsay and much less trustworthy than a cite to Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

That is fair enough, and yes, from your point it is equal to Wikipedia in terms of an accredited source.. what i am saying is, don't quote Wikipedia as "fact" or "proof", it is as likely inaccurate as it is accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back