it's time for 1080p50 and 1080p60

After always running behind -- shooting 16mm until 1995, shooting DV until 2009 -- I tried to step ahead in 2010 by shooting 1080p50.

24p, 25p, 30p frame rates are insufficient for good motion perception. This was long known for cinema, and the 60 fps "Showscan" movies of the early 1980s were impressive for their kinetic realism. On the other hand, interlaced video is aesthetically unpleasant. Pictures shouldn't have unlike horizontal and vertical artifacts. And interlacing is a technical pain in the ass. Even doing high quality rescaling of interlaced video is tough. Thus 50p and 60p video are our necessary future.

Panasonic shot ahead in 2010, breeching the ACVHD standard, with its consumer level 1080p50 and 1080p60 camcorders (HDC-HS700, etc.). There are high-end 1080p50 and 1080p60 displays and projectors. People like the look. But 1080p50 and 1080p60 are not yet standard distribution formats and they get very little attention in this forum.

Now I'm unsure how to release a project done in FCP as 1080p50. I can discard half the image information to make it standard 1080i50. Or I can discard 56% of the image information and make it standard 720p50. Blu-ray would keep the 1080p50. The 36 Mb/s of Blu-ray is more than enough for this project. What codec is recommended for 1080p50 Blu-ray? Can Apple Compressor do the job?

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Quote

24p, 25p, 30p frame rates are insufficient for good motion perception.

Well, this is a matter of opinion, and it's not worth arguing about over the Internet, but bear in mind that the (from where I sit) overwhelming consensus of opinion runs contrary to this. We use 24p and 25p specifically because the motion quality is unrealistic. Higher frame rates are used most notably for things like live sports, but honestly, if you've ever seen any NFL Films footage ? which is all shot at 24p ? you know it's freakin' gorgeous. One of the cable networks ? ESPN Classics, I think it is ? sometimes runs whole games that were transferred from the NFL Films archival footage, and they're beautiful. I, personally, would watch sports in 24p in a heartbeat.

So that's the creative side of it: the look of 24p (and 25p, which is very difficult to distinguish even with a trained eye) is strongly and nigh-universally preferred for artistic reasons.

The practical side of it is that extra frames cost money. At every step in the pipeline, it costs more to shoot a higher frame rate. On set, you need more film or digital mags, and you need more light (because the exposure has to be shorter). In post, you need more hard drives and more powerful computers, and more render time. If you're incorporating visual effects, you need more roto artists, more compositors, more supervisors ? everything has to scale up. And if you're talking about jumping from 24 to 60 everything has to scale up drastically.

And what about distribution? If we're talking about cinemas, all projectors will have to be replaced. Maybe that's less of a big deal today than it was fifteen years ago when d-cinema was first starting, but it's still significant. Especially when you consider that those fancy 2K and 4K projectors that have been installed recently for d-cinema at 24p would all have to be thrown out, or at least upgraded, years before they're paid off.

And television? Forget it. It'd be a transition as technically significant as the switch from SD to HD. New encoding algorithms to squeeze more information into the same bandwidth, all new transmission gear, new televisions for the consumers ? we'd basically have to replace all of television.

And for what? More frames per second? Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense. We went from SD to HD because the difference was both dramatic and universally preferred. You're talking about a change that would be very subtle, and widely disliked! The value proposition just doesn't add up.

Little sidebar here: This past week I was freelancing for a very small post-production house here in DC. When I say "very small" I mean they have fewer than ten full-time employees. Their niche is industrial video ? corporate PR pieces, that kind of thing. Lots and lots of interviews, plenty of motion graphics, stuff like that.

The project I was working on was on the sophisticated end of the spectrum in which these guys operate. A bunch of shots needed to be rotoscoped, because they wanted to have motion graphics behind the interview subject, but pulling a key was not practical. So for a couple of days I just sat there with my iPod going and Nuke running, quietly tracing out the interviewee as she made air quotes and tossed her hair.

By the end of the first day, I was ? as is typical of people who don't do exclusively roto work for a living ? contemplating violent and public suicide. I bitched idly, like you do, at the young guy on staff there who shot the interviews. "Why did you shoot this crap at 30psf?" I asked him. "If you'd shot 24 like a normal person, I'd have twenty percent fewer frames to roto."

He replied first by patting me on the head and saying "Poor baby" ? which is exactly the right way to treat a grouchy VFX artist ? and then said the he hates the look of 24, and would have shot everything in 60 if his camera had supported that frame rate.

An enthusiastic difference of opinion ensued ? with good-natured profanity ? which concluded by my encouraging him to do some side-by-side tests. Go out with his 7D and shoot some stuff at both 30 and 24, then compare.

So he did.

A couple days later, he came back to me chagrined, and said that while he hated to admit it to my face, when he looked at the stuff side-by-side he agreed that the 30psf material looked like crap by comparison. It looked, in his words, "cheap, like a soap opera."

The point of that rambling and long-winded story is simply this: There's a reason why 24 is practically unanimously preferred over any other frame rate. Do some side-by-side tests and see for yourself. If, on the other side, you still cling to the notion that more frames is somehow better, that's fine. But I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to the feeling of being in the minority opinion, at least for the rest of our lifetimes.

That's just my two cents, anyway.

Don't do either. Use ClipWrap to transcode the media to ProRes 1080p50. Make a custom 1080 sequence that's at 50fps with no field dominance. Edit. Output.

All the best,

Tom

Jeff Harrell, I have done the experiment and seen with my own eyes the perceptual advantage of higher frame rates.
When your client did the experiment, did he do it correctly? For example, if his camera compressed the 30p footage more than the 24p footage in order to achieve a certain bitrate that's not the experiment.

Your client pronounced the 30p footage "cheap, like a soap opera". This probably means that the client identifies 24p with high-class cinema and all else with low-class television. That's just prejudice. We're talking here about basic perception -- robustness of motion illusion.

We did the experiment in the film department of the SAIC in the early 1980's. We shot moving subjects at 48 fps and projected at 48 fps (this being the speed limit of our projector). I with many film students (with very good eyes) were amazed by the sheer realism of the moving image. We realized what we were missing at 24 fps. Possibly with my older eyes the results would be different today.

I claimed aesthetic superiority for p over i. I did not claim aesthetic superiority for higher p rates -- only greater kinetic realism. We realized after our 48 fps experiment that the perceptual change was so great that it was an open question whether good cinematic art could make use of it. This open aesthetic question now passes to video.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Tom, that's exactly what I've done. It's been edited in ProRes 1080p50. The question is about how now to output it.

Output to where? Blu-ray? You'd need to use an application that supports it. I don't think Compressor does. You could try Toast or Adobe Media Encoder.

All the best,

Tom

Quote

I with many film students (with very good eyes) were amazed by the sheer realism of the moving image.

And if you're making a ride film, realism is exactly what you want. In all other cases, though, it detracts from the storytelling. And storytelling is what we're all doing here.

The argument you're making, that excessive realism detracts from storytelling, is an argument for reading the book and not seeing the film at all.

Films and videos are not just for "storytelling".

Such a priori arguments have been made against the use of color vs. B&W, against fine grain vs coarse grain, against sound vs silent, against sharp lenses vs old uncoated lenses vs pinholes, against 3D, etc. Anyhow, a filmmaker can add realism in one way and subtract it another way and keep the total constant.

Ah, two dozen frames per second, the perfect compromise between too realistic and not realistic enough motion. 24 fps wasn't arrived at scientifically or through aesthetic evolution. Silent films -- not a low point in the art -- were 16 or 18 fps. The change to 24 fps was just to accommodate sound fidelity. Higher frame rates were unthinkable because of cost, weight of film in the camera, wear to sprocketed plastic, need for extra illumination, etc. Higher frame rates weren't tried in either mainline or avant-garde film, only for spectacle (Showscan). The serious aesthetic experimentation with 50p and 60p has not yet been done.

The sensuous qualities of films and videos matter to their meaning. The textures of timeflow pervade the whole work. A skillful artist can control these. For example, 60p can drop to 30p for a scene or for a moment, by frame duplication. Many many more timeflow effects are possible starting with 60p than were dreamed of with film's 24p. Also the camera shutter can be varied to change the timeflow.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

That's all well and good, and reasonable people can disagree. But it doesn't change the fact that no cinema can show 60 fps, and no television can play 1080p60.

Quote
Jeff
Higher frame rates are used most notably for things like live sports, but honestly, if you've ever seen any NFL Films footage ? which is all shot at 24p ? you know it's freakin' gorgeous. One of the cable networks ? ESPN Classics, I think it is ? sometimes runs whole games that were transferred from the NFL Films archival footage, and they're beautiful. I, personally, would watch sports in 24p in a heartbeat.

I know this is picking a nit, but NFL Films uses more frame rates than just 24. I have worked as a freelance editor for them quite a bit over the last 20 years. They DO use 24fps for sound shots, but most of the action footage shoots between higher rates up to 96 fps. That is what accounts for their beautiful slow motion look. You are right about the costs though, they burn a LOT of film.

-Vance

No matter what you opinion, Jeff is right about distribution. DVDs, BluRay, and broadcast TV only do 23.98 and 29.97 or in PAL country, 25fps. Yes, you can shoot 96fps, or 200fps, but it is brought down to 23.98, 25 or 29.97 for editing and broadcast. No network airs 50-60 fps. No DVD or BluRay plays it. So shooting that format, at least with current distribution, is pointless.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Imagine this conversation...

YOU: "I have this great show that is 1080p60. 60fps! Looks nice. How can I get it to you?"

TV NETWORK: "We would like a 1080i 29.97 show master. Either on tape, or a Broadcast MPEG-2 file will do."

YOU: "But my show is 60fps. It looks GREAT at 60fps."

TV NETWORK: "We're glad that it looks good at 60fps. But we don't broadcast 60fps. We broadcast 29.97fps. So we need a 29.97fps master. And note, that no tape format does 60fps...nor does the MPEG-2 Broadcast file we require. Please give us 29.97 at 1080i."

YOU: "Drat! OK...Movie theatre guys. Can I give you a 60fps project?"

MOVIE THEATRE GUY: "No thank you. We do 24fps here. Even digitally projected...our systems are set for 24fps."

YOU: "DRAT! OK...BluRay. Hey guys, how about I encode to BluRay?"

OTHER GUYS: "Sure...23.98 or 29.97. BluRay doesn't do 60fps..."

YOU: "DOUBLE DRAT!"


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Nice! Thanks for making it simple Shane.

------------------------
Dean

"When I see you floating down the gutter I'll give you a bottle of wine."
Captain Beefheart, Trout Mask Replica.

There's the web.



www.strypesinpost.com

Not all that sure there are that many computers that can play 1080p60 either.

Oh, and thanks for the clarification, Vance. They do of course shoot at high frame rates, but as you said, that's just shooting off-speed for slow motion, same as always. It plays back at 24.

Shane Ross is right. The Blu-ray specification does not include 1920x1080 50p or 60p. The disc capacity and data-rate are sufficient, but BD is not playing leader. The Wikipedia statement on Blu-ray 1080p is misleading.

There are already many displays and projectors with 1920x1080 50p/60p capability, and now popular cameras shooting it, so I expect there will be a distribution medium soon.

The EBU officially recommended 1920x1080 50p broadcast in 2005. Also in 2005 the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation, saying "we consider the goal of HDTV is to give viewers a visual experience with a strong sensation of reality and superb picture quality" recommended 1920x1080 50p/60p. Change takes some time.

Shane says "shooting that format, at least with current distribution, is pointless". Hopefully some of the videos some of us work on will have distribution lives of more than a year. We don't know what distribution media will be available in a year. As the EBU put it:

Quote
Programme production in 1080 lines progressive would offer many advantages. These will include higher quality headroom with easier high quality conversions to all delivery formats and to formats used in
different regions of the world. ...While a range of different production formats for exchange is available today, only a 1080 lines progressive format at either 50 or 60 Hz could provide a world-wide basis for programme production and exchange.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Have you gone into a large electronic store where they have an HDTV set up a "special way" to play video in what they call "super HD?" They are like 60Hz TV sets. What they do to 24fps...by making it 30fps...or like 60fps? UGH! Horrid! ABSOLUTELY HORRID!! If you have seen that...seen what they do with 24fps smoothing it out to 60fps...and you say that you WANT that? Ugh...I hope not.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

What?s really needed is a method so that a producer/director can choose any frame-rate ? somewhere between 18fps and 200fps.

None of the current frame-rate standards were chosen for aesthetic effect. They were chosen for purely technical reasons ? primarily power-line frequency. 24fps in the US to provide sufficient audio quality and to allow a projector to be driven properly by an 1800rpm synchronous motor powered by 60Hz. 25fps in Europe for the same reasons. 60i, again, was chosen for countries with 60Hz power line frequency, and 50Hz for countries with 50Hz power line frequencies. This was because power supplies in televisions and production equipment produced a bit of ripple, and transformers would induce mechanical vibration which would show up in a CRT. If the scanning rate was different from the power-line frequency, you would see even a slight amount of distortion, because it would roll up or down the screen. These problems don?t show up in digital production, so we can choose any frame rate we want ? so long as we have a way to distribute it.

Interlaced was chosen for video, because the viewer can?t discern much difference between video shot at 60i and 60p. ? They ?trick? the viewer into perceiving that the frame-rate is double, at half the bandwidth.

A few years back, some advertising people did some research into film vs. tape. They found that for some reason, people remembered commercials shot at 24fps much better than 60i video. Since then, almost all high-end advertisements have been shot at 24fps.

What we haven?t done, is to find out if maybe other frame rates might provide other aesthetic advantages for particular productions. How about 40fps, or 90? Would 27fps give us a better artistic experience for say, a documentary? Would 32.5fps make us recall images better?

We now have the technical ability to produce and distribute at any frame rate we want. A film producer can choose aspect ratio for a particular project, why not frame-rate too?

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

Travis: Douglas Trumbull did research frame rates for his "Showscan" system, finding that nothing changes beyond 60 fps. That is plausible.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Shane Ross Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you gone into a large electronic store where
> they have an HDTV set up a "special way" to play
> video in what they call "super HD?" They are like
> 60Hz TV sets. What they do to 24fps...by making
> it 30fps...or like 60fps? UGH! Horrid!
> ABSOLUTELY HORRID!! If you have seen that...seen
> what they do with 24fps smoothing it out to
> 60fps...and you say that you WANT that? Ugh...I
> hope not.

Not at all. What is wanted is video shot at 60p and displayed at 60p.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Well, go look at the TVs there...that is essentially what they are doing. Playing back at 60p. To me that is WAY too real. I only want to see that in sports or news...maybe documentary, but more and more I like 24p. Most people do. That's why people are clammoring for 24p shooting for all devices. People like that. You are one of the few that I know that wants 60p.

be aware of your market...


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

The people who are clamoring for 24p are clamoring for the 'p' not for the '24', and it's because interlaced video looks fake. Simple people are not afraid of too much realism. Only high aesthetes worry about that.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

60p to me looks exactly like 60i...smooth interlaced motion. Realistic. I don't want that in my TV content or movies. Nor do many many people.

Do a test. Shoot in 60p. Edit something in that format. Then output and convert that to 24p. Show the 60p and the 24p to someone...a BUNCH of people, and then ask what they liked better.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

What Shane said. And don't load the questions. Don't ask which was more "realistic," or whatever. Just ask them which they prefer. Which they like better. Because that's what matters.

It's perfectly reasonable for an artist to bemoan the philistines who don't get his vision. We all do that. But sooner or later, you've gotta take the audience's desires into account. Assuming we want to do this for a living, anyway.

To Shane: that's a poorly designed experiment since material shot in 60p can't be cleanly transformed to 24p. To do the experiment right you must either shoot twice, once at 24p / once at 60p, or else you can shoot at 120p and then derive both the 60p and the 24p from it. Shooting twice is quite a problem both for the Heraclitan reason and because shooting at 60p requires 2.5x more light in order to achieve same exposure with same f/stop. Another approach is to substitute 30p for 24p. Unlike 24p, 30p can be cleanly made from 60p. I disagree with Jeff Harrell's claim that 24p looks much better than 30p. (It's perceptually implausible that material shot and displayed at 24p looks very different from material shot and displayed at 30p.

Second, what material should be shot, and in what style? Jeff Harrell says ride films (whatever those are) are better in 60p. Scenes aping Hollywood style are obviously better in 24p. Choice of material and style will bias the results. As I said 23 posts ago "We realized after our 48 fps experiment that the perceptual change was so great that it was an open question whether good cinematic art could make use of it. This open aesthetic question now passes to video." You won't answer it by a few random subjects in random styles and a jury deciding which looks better.

A better experiment is this: induce artists to make videos which make use of the perceptual properties of 60p. The whole video doesn't have to be shot 60p, but parts must be. The whole video must be displayed 60p. If successful, the videos will be good and won't hold up in 24p (or 30p). We shouldn't be asking, "if there must be one frame rate for shooting and display, what's the best one?" The high frame rates subsume the lower frame rates and allow more possibilities. Adding capabilities to a medium is not necessarily good. Video added many capabilities to film, and maybe video is the inferior medium for that. (I know people who only take seriously B&W silent films.) Art is an experiment, and we don't yet know the result.

I shot and projected film at 48 fps once, nearly 30 years ago, and was amazed by the appearance. Maybe what's impressive hyperrealism in film looks cheap in video. That would be a pity and require explanation.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

dcouzin,

In short, I agree with you. Apparently this is a very unsympathetic crowd. 24p bothers me. Even in film. Maybe it's how my brain handles persistence of vision. Maybe it's the motion blur. I don't like it. I also want to scream every time I see teal color grading. I like hyperrealism. I like high temporal resolution.

When doing "commercial work" targeted for mass consumption you may have to follow the market demands.

Sometimes an artist wants to create a perception and it begins by using a "brush," a style that runs against the "accepted norms." The DaDaists, the Cubists, the Surrealists, even the Impressionists were ridiculed. Maybe at some point some people will appreciate a different vision.

Maybe what seems against the norm today becomes the noted innovation in the future.

Your brain likes 60p. It makes sense to you along with whatever else goes into YOUR AESTHETIC.

90% like the formula for pop tunes. Some people like Milton Babbitt.

Antonio Salieri tells you your video has too many frames.

Good point Craig...


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Actually, most lcds deinterlace an interlace stream and play them out as 50/60p.



www.strypesinpost.com

To Craig, they're really hooked on 24p. It's an LA-based crowd, from movieland, and that movie look (and lack) has a hold on some. But they overestimate the love for 24p in the broader video and TV market. The public was excited by the first photos, the first movies, the first color movies, and the first sound movies because aesthetic distance is the opposite of what the public wants. I think they will be similarly excited by 60p. Granted, not every realism-upgrade to the medium has worked. Notably 3-D has struggled, and this case should be studied. (I believe Arnheim offered parallel "proofs" that sound movies and 3-D movies wouldn't work.) 60p has had no full-fledged trial. In Showscan's early 1980s trial the range of films was limited and the tickets too expensive.

Instead of reciting the norms of their guild, the pros here should peek at what youngsters are doing with video on line and what "consumers" are doing with camcorders at home to better judge the public's wishes.

Could you please explain your last sentence off line.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany