Biggest ATV4 disappointment. No 1080p24

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by dannys1, Nov 2, 2015.

  1. dannys1 Suspended

    dannys1

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    For me this is a game killer. It makes the device nothing more than a casual users device. Being able to watch movies and cinematic TV shows in the native frame rate for me makes a big big difference, the super smooth panning really helps make the movie feel alive. Id much rather watch a movie at 720p24 than 4k60 to be honest, as I find the smoothness a lot more noticeable than a jump in HD solution and I think its comical that people are complaining about no 4k on the Apple TV when it can't even natively output 24fps!

    I mean even the PS3 and the very first Blu-Ray players could do this. My Enigma2 based Satellite box can do it. But not the 4th gen Apple TV. Big oversight and instantly rules it out as a serious device for the movie lover and those who've invested in top end equipment.

    It means i'll keep Plex on my Mac mini and the VU+ Duo2 for now, but its a shame i'll lose out in the all in one place to have apps and the Siri search, a real shame from Apple. Considering sending it back as I don't really have much use for the device and i'm not really interested in silly little games.
     
  2. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #2
    Do we know movies in iTunes Store is 24p? I doubt it. Also, is there any settings in HB that encode to 24p?
    This is a TV. It's not Blu-Ray player.
     
  3. dannys1 thread starter Suspended

    dannys1

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Its not a TV though is it. A TV is what displays the media. Its a set top box. My VU+ Duo2 is a satellite based TV set top box and it can do it.

    I'm certain Handbrake will encode in native resolutions though its not the only way to rip media. Every single movie is recorded in 24fps and most cinematic TV shows too (Breaking Bad, Fargo, Better Call Saul etc) so its not just a movie thing. Netflix supports it, Plex supports it. There's not excuse not to include the functionality at all.
     
  4. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #4
    That is disappointing to hear. Too many strikes against it so far for me. As it stands, it's a no buy for me.
     
  5. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #5


    Well, I shoot movies, for TV commercial, as a profession and for a life of me can't think of a reason why a program made for TV should be shot in 24fps. You do know that 30p material showing in 30p will be smoother than 24p material showing in 24p since there is more frame per second, right?
     
  6. dannys1 thread starter Suspended

    dannys1

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Because its "cinematic" and its what our eyes are used to watching for cinema for years and years. Yes technically higher frame rates are better, but I, for instance, am not fond of 50fps video, I find it looks weird.

    Cinematic TV dramas are shot at 24fps because they want it to look like a cinematic release, not a TV soap opera. This with grading helps achieve that affect. You'd think as its your job you'd know these things!
     
  7. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #7

    You should go read cinema history. People chose 24fps for film for economic reason, not a quality one.
    Stop being spec-obsessed. 24p isn't better than 25p, 30p or any p in itself.
     
  8. dannys1 thread starter Suspended

    dannys1

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Yes thats exactly why every single major 100 million + Hollywood blockbuster continues to shoot at 24fps...for economic reasons

    Cheers for derailing this thread with utter nonsense.
     
  9. tromboneaholic macrumors 6502a

    tromboneaholic

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Clearwater, FL
    #9
    True, but now it's associated with cinema. The reasoning behind the choice doesn't matter. The feeling of "movie magic" is gone for some people. If movies start being made at 60 fps, that will become the new normal.
     
  10. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #10
    Stop being ignorant and educate yourself. They shot it because it's a standard that's backward-compatible with film. Has nothing to do with quality. Use your brain for a second.
     
  11. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #11
    Guess you didn't know there's a movie, in fact a trilogy, called Hobbits.
     
  12. tromboneaholic macrumors 6502a

    tromboneaholic

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Clearwater, FL
    #12
    Why would they need backward compatibility? Just curious...
     
  13. tromboneaholic macrumors 6502a

    tromboneaholic

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Clearwater, FL
    #13
    I do know that. Everyone complained on the Internet about it looking like a soap opera. Where were you?
     
  14. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #14
    Because when digital filming happened, most of the people in industry still shooting film? And they need to be printed to film to show in the theatre that can only handle 24fps?
     
  15. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #15
    Like some people in late 20s used to complain about the film speed that wasn't funny like Charlie Chaplin's?
     
  16. tromboneaholic macrumors 6502a

    tromboneaholic

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Clearwater, FL
    #16
    That's not true today. So why would they still release movies today using 24 fps?
     
  17. dannys1 thread starter Suspended

    dannys1

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Sorry mate, but i've bit my tongue a bit here. You're completely wrong in every reply so its comically you've jumped to "educate yourself and "ignorant" and also claim its your job.

    24fps was settled on with film because of editing, not economics. They could have gone with 25 or 23 and economically it would have been pretty similar. When you're cutting film you could easily judge how much time you were cutting or adding -- half a second is 12 frames, a quarter is 6 frames, an eighth is 3 frames, etc.

    In digital this is no longer need but 24p has been considered the cinema standard now for aesthetic standards. I'm not being funny but even a simple Wikipedia search can teach you this

    "Originally, 24p was used in the non-linear editing of film-originated material. Today, 24p formats are being increasingly used for aesthetic reasons in image acquisition, delivering film-like motion characteristics." - Try to educate yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

    Please don't reply again and get something else wrong in this thread, its embarrassing.

    The original point remains, for HD content its very disappointing that the Apple TV 4th gen still doesn't support native 24hz output for content that supports it. Such a simple implementation.
     
  18. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #18
    Well. Peter Jackson tried, didn't he?
     
  19. tromboneaholic macrumors 6502a

    tromboneaholic

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Clearwater, FL
    #19
    You just made my original point by trying to argue and troll.
     
  20. dannys1 thread starter Suspended

    dannys1

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Wrong again, it was shot at 48p, a double of 24, to create the film effect but shot at a higher frame rate. Come on mate, every reply is wrong!

    "In April 2011, Jackson revealed through his Facebook page that he would film The Hobbit at 48 fps (frames per second) instead of the normal 24 fps" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)

    Its also called The Hobbit, not "Hobbits" :rolleyes:
     
  21. tromboneaholic macrumors 6502a

    tromboneaholic

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Clearwater, FL
    #21
    And failed to move the needle, so I guess you are wrong about 24 fps.
     
  22. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #22
    They use 24fps because it took the least film that can deceivingly gave smooth motion. They can go 30fps or 32fps 36fps and it will be edited just fine but it will waste too many films. Comprendé, internet scholar?
     
  23. tromboneaholic macrumors 6502a

    tromboneaholic

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Clearwater, FL
    #23
    No one uses film anymore, yet they still shoot 24 fps for artistic reasons.
     
  24. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #24
    How? You said why people won't shoot other speed. I said there is. His failure has nothing to do with what you said: that if 24fps is a standard to bridge the gap between film and digital, why now no one shooting different speed.
    We can easily shoot any speed nowadays.
     
  25. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #25
    It's not artistic. It's still economic reason. Think of all those bytes you collected if you shot 3X of data like Jackson did.
     

Share This Page