Biggest ATV4 disappointment. No 1080p24

[dannys1]

Read my post again. You're very confused. (Hint: what you said here has nothing to do with what I said)

You're ok, i've got no desire to read anything you write ever again. I think you might need help.

 

[BMox81]

Well we know this, we know that the mass public like utter crap, Adele, X-Factor, the Kardashians, lowest common denominated talentless junk, but still, i expect more from Apple. 4k is not something i'm bothered about really as I don't think its going to make any viewable difference on anything less than a 100inch TV form an unreasonably close distance, yet telecine judder does make a bigger difference. Once you've seen a movie at 24p it doesn't compare to go back to back to just "viewing it any old how" which is what some of these devices do. But i'd expect that from a £35 Fire TV Stick, but fact is, it can stream my Plex movies in as good quality as the £165 Apple TV can!

(P.S. and at least iPods and the iPhone has an optical digital output which is really a step beyond what anyone else does an allows you to have audiophile output of the device if you want it)

What did Adele do to you man?!

 

[dannys1]

What did Adele do to you man?!

Wailed uncontrollably mainly

 

[x-evil-x]

so does this really matter if you have a 120/240hz tv or a plasma(600?)?

 

[newdeal]

so does this really matter if you have a 120/240hz tv or a plasma(600?)?

I would guess it doesn't matter how often the TV is refreshing it will just blink the same image more times if it refreshes faster than the source does

 

[Thun77]

so does this really matter if you have a 120/240hz tv or a plasma(600?)?

For me going from a 60hz TV to a 100hz totaly removed the judder, but it also removes the film look felling that 24hz gives

 

[dannys1]

For me going from a 60hz TV to a 100hz totaly removed the judder, but it also removes the film look felling that 24hz gives

I turned all the 100hz motion stuff off on my TV, it found it really weird. It makes everything (even normal 25fps TV) look like a dream, all the motion is really oddly fluid in a sort of trippy unrealistic dream type way. I know some people like it, but i'd prefer it to just be at 50hz and look the way it was originally filmed to be honest, so obviously the same goes for 24fps/24hz too. Though i've never seen 24fps on a TV that uses a refresh rate that is a multiple of that (120hz+ etc) so I don't know if it'll just display it looking the same or if it'll create that horrible glossy smoothing thing. I'm going to assume that it doesn't have to do all that processing stuff, just because the refresh rate is higher than the frame rate I don't see why it couldn't just show it like it natively looks, i'm sure there's extra processing going in trying to smooth the repeated frames when you turn all that clearmotion type junk on.

 

[Thun77]

Descr

I turned all the 100hz motion stuff off on my TV, it found it really weird. It makes everything (even normal 25fps TV) look like a dream, all the motion is really oddly fluid in a sort of trippy unrealistic dream type way. I know some people like it, but i'd prefer it to just be at 50hz and look the way it was originally filmed to be honest, so obviously the same goes for 24fps/24hz too. Though i've never seen 24fps on a TV that uses a refresh rate that is a multiple of that (120hz+ etc) so I don't know if it'll just display it looking the same or if it'll create that horrible glossy smoothing thing. I'm going to assume that it doesn't have to do all that processing stuff, just because the refresh rate is higher than the frame rate I don't see why it couldn't just show it like it natively looks, i'm sure there's extra processing going in trying to smooth the repeated frames when you turn all that clearmotion type junk on.

Deskription is spot on, and definitely a matter of taste, i dont mind it, but then again i also liked Hobbit in 48hz I not 100% sure how it works, but my understanding is that it generates frames between the original frames, and thats how it smooths it out, not sure about 120hz but I think it should be the same

 

[Snoopy4]

I turned all the 100hz motion stuff off on my TV, it found it really weird. It makes everything (even normal 25fps TV) look like a dream, all the motion is really oddly fluid in a sort of trippy unrealistic dream type way. I know some people like it, but i'd prefer it to just be at 50hz and look the way it was originally filmed to be honest, so obviously the same goes for 24fps/24hz too. Though i've never seen 24fps on a TV that uses a refresh rate that is a multiple of that (120hz+ etc) so I don't know if it'll just display it looking the same or if it'll create that horrible glossy smoothing thing. I'm going to assume that it doesn't have to do all that processing stuff, just because the refresh rate is higher than the frame rate I don't see why it couldn't just show it like it natively looks, i'm sure there's extra processing going in trying to smooth the repeated frames when you turn all that clearmotion type junk on.

As long as the set/projectors refresh rate is a factor of 24 it looks fine. Its when it has to do pull down that things go terribly wrong.

 

[dannys1]

As long as the set/projectors refresh rate is a factor of 24 it looks fine. Its when it has to do pull down that things go terribly wrong.

Yep. The thing is the Apple TV is going to force the display into either 50hz or 60hz as its all it'll output

 

[Snoopy4]

Yep. The thing is the Apple TV is going to force the display into either 50hz or 60hz as its all it'll output

And they wonder why people will continue to buy physical media. LOL

 

[bjdraw]

One one hand I agree it would be nice if the Apple TV would just output content in its native resolution and frame rate. On the other, I'd like to remind everyone that there isn't a 24p TV, so it's getting converted regardless -- although, I'd rather let my 5k HDTV do the conversion, than a $150 streaming box. As long as people don't complain, Apple won't change it and I suspect most will never noticed.

 

[dannys1]

One one hand I agree it would be nice if the Apple TV would just output content in its native resolution and frame rate. On the other, I'd like to remind everyone that there isn't a 24p TV, so it's getting converted regardless -- although, I'd rather let my 5k HDTV do the conversion, than a $150 streaming box. As long as people don't complain, Apple won't change it and I suspect most will never noticed.

Whats all this nonsense about people saying there's no 24hz TV? There's been TV's capable of 1080p24 for about a decade now, hell, even my 40" Samsung from 2006 does it.

 

[Snoopy4]

One one hand I agree it would be nice if the Apple TV would just output content in its native resolution and frame rate. On the other, I'd like to remind everyone that there isn't a 24p TV, so it's getting converted regardless -- although, I'd rather let my 5k HDTV do the conversion, than a $150 streaming box. As long as people don't complain, Apple won't change it and I suspect most will never noticed.

You're confusing resolution with frame rates, 24p would be absolute rubbish. The 24 FPS issue has to do with the disconnect between the frame rate of the film and the refresh rate of the set.

 

[RhythmAndBlues]

You're confusing resolution with frame rates, 24p would be absolute rubbish. The 24 FPS issue has to do with the disconnect between the frame rate of the film and the refresh rate of the set.

In fairness to him/her, I've read before '1080p24' being shortened to '24p'. I may even have used the euphemism myself.

For me, it's a throwback to the early HDTV era - in which many 'HD' television sets displayed 720p/1080i, and didn't necessarily offer 24fps output. If a set was '24p', to me, it meant that it could display a 1080p resolution at a 24fps frame-rate.

Nowadays, absolutely every TV (he says...!!!) is 1080p and includes a 24fps option. Which makes '24p' genuinely confusing.

 

[RhythmAndBlues]

Wailed uncontrollably mainly

Awww, mate... you may not like her music, but the girl has control. It's a great voice - technically speaking, even if you don't like what she sings.

 

[thisismyusername]

If anybody's interested, here's a good read on the whole 24p thing and why people want it: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-test-results/24p.

Note that there are quite a few new TVs (e.g Samsung JU6500 series) that don't support 24p playback.

Also note that some TVs will remove the judder introduced by sending a 24p signal over a 60p signal. In other words, if you have the right TV, the fact that the AppleTV sends a 60p signal won't matter since your TV will remove the duplicated frames and display the 24p source the way it should be.

 

[RhythmAndBlues]

That's interesting to know. Thank you.

I knew I was setting myself up for a fall by writing "absolutely every TV"! Still, it's disappointing that I should be expected to replace a £500 television to improve a £150 Apple TV, rather than the other way around.

 

[jerwin]

Most movies are recorded at 24 Hz, and shown at 72 Hz in the theater, there's a rotary shutter that blanks each frame three times before advancing to the next frame. Televisions are conventially 60 Hz, so displaying a film means that some frames get displayed more than others, and this can make for slightly stuttery action. A bluray player can be configured to either send a 60 Hz signal which is just displayed by the television as is. Or it can send a 24 Hz signal, which usually prompts the TV to change its framerate -48 Hz-- display each frame twice; 72 Hz, three times; 120 Hz, 5 times; 240 Hz, 10 times. As a result the film looks smoother.

Most apple TV content is encoded to use 24 frames per second. But the AppleTV only emits 60 Hz signals. as a result, most video from the AppleTV will be stuttery-- unless the TV is clever enough to compensate. Apple should have included a 1080p24 option so that people with capable TVs could enjoy the content without the utterly superfluous "24 fps--> 60 fps--> 24 fps with jitter" conversion.

 

[RhythmAndBlues]

Most movies are recorded at 24 Hz, and shown at 72 Hz in the theater--

I didn't know that - thank you. Though at least that's a multiple of 24.

Still, someone who knows that, surely, appreciates why it's a multiple of 24? Rather than 50 or 60...?

 

[bjdraw]

Whats all this nonsense about people saying there's no 24hz TV? There's been TV's capable of 1080p24 for about a decade now, hell, even my 40" Samsung from 2006 does it.

Just because your TV accepts 24p input, doesn't mean it displays it at 24hz. My 2008 Pioneer Kuro was one of the first TVs that would accept 24p, but it actually displays it at 72hz (each frame 3 times).

This is really old, but is still mostly true (there are more TVs that do it correctly there there used to be).
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/21/can-your-hdtv-even-properly-display-1080p24/

 

[bjdraw]

You're confusing resolution with frame rates, 24p would be absolute rubbish. The 24 FPS issue has to do with the disconnect between the frame rate of the film and the refresh rate of the set.

I'm not confusing them, just saying the same thing you are in a different way.

 

[thirdeyeopen666]

If anybody's interested, here's a good read on the whole 24p thing and why people want it: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-test-results/24p.

Note that there are quite a few new TVs (e.g Samsung JU6500 series) that don't support 24p playback.

Also note that some TVs will remove the judder introduced by sending a 24p signal over a 60p signal. In other words, if you have the right TV, the fact that the AppleTV sends a 60p signal won't matter since your TV will remove the duplicated frames and display the 24p source the way it should be.

Out of curiosity... what's this feature normally called? I'll make sure to look for it when I purchase my next TV.

 

[jerwin]

I didn't know that - thank you. Though at least that's a multiple of 24.

Still, someone who knows that, surely, appreciates why it's a multiple of 24? Rather than 50 or 60...?

wikipedia says

A commonly held misconception is that film projection is simply a series of individual frames dragged very quickly past the projector's intense light source. This is not the case; if a roll of film were merely passed between the light source and the lens of the projector, all that would be visible on screen would be a continuous blurred series of images sliding from one edge to the other. It is the shutter that gives the illusion of one full frame being replaced exactly on top of another full frame. A rotating petal or gated cylindrical shutter interrupts the emitted light during the time the film is advanced to the next frame. The viewer does not see the transition, thus tricking the brain into believing a moving image is on screen. Modern shutters are designed with a flicker-rate of two times (48 Hz) or even sometimes three times (72 Hz) the frame rate of the film, so as to reduce the perception of screen flickering. (See Frame rate and Flicker fusion threshold.) Higher rate shutters are less light efficient, requiring more powerful light sources for the same light on screen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector

as to why the base frame rate is so low, film stock costs (or at least did cost) money. And for a 90 minute film, there might be 6 hours of footage--perhaps a good deal more. $13,500 worth of film stock, according to this blog:
http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/

So there was quite a lot of incentive not to film at 30 fps, or 60 fps-- even if the projectors were compatible.

 

[RhythmAndBlues]

Apple should have included a 1080p24 option so that people with capable TVs could enjoy the content without the utterly superfluous "24 fps--> 60 fps--> 24 fps with jitter" conversion.

Yeah, damn straight.