3D TV's

[EvilBoris]

It just means we are going to be stuck in a permanent minor upgrade cycle.

No sooner have we all bought 3D TVs there will be some extra blu ray revision that allows for 3D Tv's with double the horizontal resolution ala 3DS for the 2nd wave of 3D technology. It's so clever, Sony and Co must be laughin in a pile of money, people only bought a new TV every 15 years or so, now they've got them buying a new one every 3!

[Lyris]

To be honest, I doubt that would happen with BD. They must be kicking themselves for not getting 3D into the spec from day one. It's not in the interests of a growing format to say "Ehh....sorry, that was just a test - throw out what you just bought and buy a new player".

[anephric]

It's a misconception that I think stems from the frame rate of film. 24fps was selected because it was the absolute minimum they could get away with to give the illusion of a moving picture on a large screen (keep in mind the weight and length of film reels).

And even then, a shutter had to be used to turn 24fps into "48" fps to give persistence of motion. At a bare minimum. Some projectors would have shutters with more blades to provide more "flashes" of image hence more "smoothness".

[yesteryeargames]

anyone here got a samsung c750 ? 3d tv any thoughts ?

[Shozuki]

Yup, I have the 46" version - its pretty good. Theres nice perception of depth and the colours look good. I also have no problems gaming with it either.

Theres no doubt theres better TV's on the market, but for the price and feature set you get theres not any other sets that offer you as much.

[Sane]

And even then, a shutter had to be used to turn 24fps into "48" fps to give persistence of motion. At a bare minimum. Some projectors would have shutters with more blades to provide more "flashes" of image hence more "smoothness".

Something I never understood is why this wasn't later improved on, I suppose everone is used to 24 fps by now but I do wonder what movies would look like if they were filmed with a much higher framerate.

[Lyris]

I'd guess that since so much cinematic "language" has developed around 24fps (example: developers using slow pans to avoid things looking juddery), it'd just look weird.

Find any of these goofy interpolating TVs and turn on the "Magic Motion" modes and you're pretty much there - it'd just look like that only without the processing errors.

[Matt]

Something I never understood is why this wasn't later improved on, I suppose everone is used to 24 fps by now but I do wonder what movies would look like if they were filmed with a much higher framerate.

Like TV shows Strange as it is, 24fps is such a key component of the Cinema, anything shot higher looks like a camcorder job.

[JP]

Film at 24fps fools us into thinking that it's moving smoothly, it will work down to a frame rate of around 18fps. In the early days of film 18fps was the rough filming speed although they were cranked by hand so it varied depending on how steady the cameraman was.

It's the natural blurring through motion that makes us feel that everything is moving smoothly, our brain perceives natural motion blur very differently to how it does when presented with the artificial motion blur.

Move your hand slowly in front of your eyes but don't follow it as it moves and you'll see it blurring even at a very slow speed and it's that blurring that our mind perceives as natural in film.

You can of course vary the frame rate while filming and depending on the speed of movement in what's being filmed depends on the effect you will get, if you're filming a still scene you could film it at 1fps as nothing is moving and it would look perfectly natural.

When viewing film you need to remember that between the 24fps images you also have 24fps of black as the film rolls passed the shutter and if it was shown at this speed this would cause the image to flicker. Projectors will get around this by showing each frame of film in multiples of 24fps, cinemas will usually show each frame three time which increases the actual fps to 72. This again causes that natural blurring that we need to see to stop films flickering in front of us.

There's no real benefit in speeding up the frame rate for films as standard as different recording/playback speeds produce very different but not necessarily better results.

The reason we've ended up with 60Hz and 50Hz TVs are fairly simple, the 60Hz frequency matched the frequency of the US power grid. I've been trying to think of a good way of explaining this but I can't so I'm going to use a stupid way.

Imagine throwing a tennis ball against a wall once every second to produce a beat, bear with me but that's the image being produced by the TV. Now imagine somebody else doing the same with another tennis ball but doing it at say 50 times a minute which is the frequency of the electricity, you'll essentially get two out of sync sounds.

That's exactly what they would have had if they hadn't synced the TV to the US power grid but with stuttering TV shows...and um, less tennis balls.

Anyway, NTSC is known for the colour issues it produces which other countries didn't want so the issues were remedied very simply by producing the 50Hz PAL format. I have no idea of the science behind how it worked but it did.

I can't even remember what the hell the original question was now??

EDIT:
24fps works perfectly! Other fps aren't bad, they're different so use for different reasons.

[Sane]

Thanks for the explanations guys. I was just wondering about this since if you look at games for example we consider the higher the framerate the better, since things become more smooth that way.

I realise with flims it would look weird, but is this mainly because we have become so used to 24 fps or because it's objectively 'better'? And is the cam corder comparison valid? Would a big budget hollywood movie shot in a higher fps nessesarily look similar to that?

I guess I'm just curious what a proper film shot in high fps would end up looking like.

[yesteryeargames]

Yup, I have the 46" version - its pretty good. Theres nice perception of depth and the colours look good. I also have no problems gaming with it either.

Theres no doubt theres better TV's on the market, but for the price and feature set you get theres not any other sets that offer you as much.

have you tried it on wii? ps3 and 360 and what 3d content have you tried m8?

i currently have a samsung lem840 would this be a big imrpovment on what i have already?

[Shozuki]

have you tried it on wii? ps3 and 360 and what 3d content have you tried m8?

i currently have a samsung lem840 would this be a big imrpovment on what i have already?

To be honest its a really nice set, 360/PS3 look excellent Wii always looks quite bad on any LCD or Plasma imo, hence I use it via the XRGB with scanline emulation.

as for 3D there isnt much in the way of content. I find Sky 3D looks excellent and the 2D - 3D conversion is hit and miss - God of War 3 for example looks excellent whilst Fifa looks abysmal. Its still a nice feature and looks nice in most HD films.

To be honest my Pioneer KRP is the main TV in the house absolutely nothing beats it for 2D and for me 2D is still the biggest thing. I only brought the C750 for the bedroom and fancied sticking a 3D TV there for the sake of it, and the C750 is a bargain for that purpose.

If I were you i'd just stick with the TV you have its probably just as good for 2D and since there isnt much 3D content yet its probably worth waiting for it to really kick in and then upgrade.

All-in-all though if you do fancy the urge i'd wholeheartedly recommend it I think its a lovely set.

[ozzzy189]

like a mate said, he goes to a theme park, but wouldn't put a roller coaster in his garden ! 3d too niche and gimmicky. and longer term effects of forcing the eye to do something it shouldn't be have not been realised yet.

[Yakumo]

I tried the new Panasonic Viera 3D TV today showing a trailer for Christmas Carol or at least that's what it looked like. To be honest the 3D is not so great. Sure, you can see it but it wasn't anywhere near the experience that you get in the cinema. Add the fact that you need to wear those glasses really doesn't make it a worth while option. 3D TV despite the hype ISN'T worth buying.

[Lyris]

To be honest the 3D is not so great. Sure, you can see it but it wasn't anywhere near the experience that you get in the cinema.

Indeed - just like 2D!