Why they want 60FPS in movies is the real question. I've never even heard of this. You can only see 30 (evenly timed) max anyway. It's not like gaming where fps goes up, and down, and there are bog periods so the higher fps you get the better chance you'll not drop below 30. It seems totally unnecessary for movies.
Well, I can definitely tell the difference between 24 and 30 FPS. I can definitely see a flip-book effect at the movies in high-motion scenes, especially with peripheral vision. Have you ever seen scan lines on a 85+ Hz monitor out of the corner of you eye?
Interesting. I thought Sony might snub MS and go with AVC only. Well now it boils down to disc manufacturing costs. That will be HD-DVDs only saving grace.
Indeed, interesting. Why is this article and many of the articles I'm reading dealing with the adoption of the newer codecs making such a big deal over Microsoft's VC-1/VC-9 codec and not giving much attention to detail as to the H.264 codec? Is this marketing fluff or what? The farther away Microsoft is from my future entertainment as it pertains to HD content, the better in my opinion. Unless someone else knows why their codec is getting so much of the press? It's not any superior to the H.264 codec or anything, is it? Someone enlighten me.
Indeed, interesting. Why is this article and many of the articles I'm reading dealing with the adoption of the newer codecs making such a big deal over Microsoft's VC-1/VC-9 codec and not giving much attention to detail as to the H.264 codec? Is this marketing fluff or what? The farther away Microsoft is from my future entertainment as it pertains to HD content, the better in my opinion. Unless someone else knows why their codec is getting so much of the press? It's not any superior to the H.264 codec or anything, is it? Someone enlighten me.
I notice the same thing over at the AVS forums. Many seem to clamor for WM9 and forget all about AVC. It'll all boil down to the licensing. VC-1 will be used if it's cheap but people forget that VC-1 was the last codec to get approved on HD-DVD after AVC(I believe).
It's funny how Microsoft's mindshare makes normally sane people just leave reality. Even today Microsoft is propelled by two product families. Windows and Office. However if you read the press clipping over the years you will see the same drivel being written today. Every market MS wants they get is what we're told. Hmmmmmmm just a list of MS failed ideas/tech
Microsoft BOB- ummm yeah that went over well
WebTV- Proved MS never "understood" the web.
UltimateTV- Supposed to be a Tivo killer. MS abandoned
Farenheit- MS and SGI team up for a joint venture for graphics. Went no where
Chrome- The graphics technology that was supposed to revolutionize Web graphics and more. Died quietly
Xbox- Much balleyhooed but it hasn't unseated the Playstation and Nintendo believe it or not is still the most profitable system.
MS has searched in vain to get into other lucrative businesses and failed. I will agree that their WM9 HD codec is good but then so are the codecs from companies like Blackmagic and Sheer video. They excel without the funds that MS has.
Now everyone seems to think that MS is going to somehow roll over iTunes and "repeat" history. Nah...they'll lose this one too.
oops strayed Off Topic there. I'm glad Sony has chosen some High Efficiency codecs. Sony disgusts me but they have the superior hardware tech right now and now they've obtained parity in software.
Behold yet another format war with Sony in the midst.
Indeed, interesting. Why is this article and many of the articles I'm reading dealing with the adoption of the newer codecs making such a big deal over Microsoft's VC-1/VC-9 codec and not giving much attention to detail as to the H.264 codec?
H.264 is a done deal, since it's the next version of MPEG. Nothing surprising there. When companies that hate Microsoft start using a Microsoft codec, that's news.
sorry to backtrack a little bit, but isn't standard NTSC video 29 frames per second, where PAL video is 24 fps? and i've heard of that program magic-bullet mentioned by mello. from what i heard, it makes the 29 fps NTSC video into 24 fps PAL video (or at least gives it that PAL look), but can still play on NTSC players, or something. correct me if i'm wrong...
sorry to backtrack a little bit, but isn't standard NTSC video 29 frames per second, where PAL video is 24 fps? and i've heard of that program magic-bullet mentioned by mello. from what i heard, it makes the 29 fps NTSC video into 24 fps PAL video (or at least gives it that PAL look), but can still play on NTSC players, or something. correct me if i'm wrong...
I believe that PAL has a different screen resolution from NTSC. I'm not sure about
Oh and it's 59.94 (60) fields per second instead of per 2 seconds.
You sure it is per second? I thought since it was interlaced, it was "60" fields every 2 seconds, which give us the "30" fps. Since in each pass it only does half the fields, it is not doing all 60 fields in one pass (that would be progressive scan)
You sure it is per second? I thought since it was interlaced, it was "60" fields every 2 seconds, which give us the "30" fps. Since in each pass it only does half the fields, it is not doing all 60 fields in one pass (that would be progressive scan)
Why are you questioning me? A frame represents a complete image. There are 30 complete frames shown in 1 second. A field is one interlaced portion of a frame...the odd lines or even lines. There are 60 of those in a second.
Think about your statements...
You claim NTSC is 30 frames per second.
Then you claim NTSC is 60 fields per 2 seconds.
If what you said was true, then wouldn't it also be 60 frames per 2 seconds and 30 fields per second?
8 Layer that's impressive. I believe the FMD technology also supported that many layers. I'm guessing we see this technology "commercialized" in 2010 or so after 100GB 4 layer BR discs have been shipping for a while.
i heard that the reason VHS won out over the technically superior Betamax is that Betamax refused to allow porn to be published, while VHS didn't care one way or the other.
it may be just a rumor, but i think it's pretty reasonable.
i heard that the reason VHS won out over the technically superior Betamax is that Betamax refused to allow porn to be published, while VHS didn't care one way or the other.
it may be just a rumor, but i think it's pretty reasonable.
It's totally true. My first sales job was working for Silo and I talked to the "old cats" there about the early days of selling VHS. They said customers wouldn't flinch about spending $1000 for a VHS deck because. At that time you only could see porn in a sleezy theater and you didn't want to be seen frequenting those establishments so the thought of spending a grand and watching your Blue Movies in the safety of your home was an easy proposition. Sony tried to take the moral high ground and lost billions in the process.
Comments
I believe that movies are converted to 29.97 fps for NTSC. The problem with
shooting at 30 fps is that you get that "video" look. There is a program called
magic bullet that is supposed to give you the film-like quality to dv video.
Originally posted by onlooker
Why they want 60FPS in movies is the real question. I've never even heard of this. You can only see 30 (evenly timed) max anyway. It's not like gaming where fps goes up, and down, and there are bog periods so the higher fps you get the better chance you'll not drop below 30. It seems totally unnecessary for movies.
Well, I can definitely tell the difference between 24 and 30 FPS. I can definitely see a flip-book effect at the movies in high-motion scenes, especially with peripheral vision. Have you ever seen scan lines on a 85+ Hz monitor out of the corner of you eye?
video codec?
LINK HERE
Originally posted by marzetta7
Indeed, interesting. Why is this article and many of the articles I'm reading dealing with the adoption of the newer codecs making such a big deal over Microsoft's VC-1/VC-9 codec and not giving much attention to detail as to the H.264 codec? Is this marketing fluff or what? The farther away Microsoft is from my future entertainment as it pertains to HD content, the better in my opinion. Unless someone else knows why their codec is getting so much of the press? It's not any superior to the H.264 codec or anything, is it? Someone enlighten me.
I notice the same thing over at the AVS forums. Many seem to clamor for WM9 and forget all about AVC. It'll all boil down to the licensing. VC-1 will be used if it's cheap but people forget that VC-1 was the last codec to get approved on HD-DVD after AVC(I believe).
It's funny how Microsoft's mindshare makes normally sane people just leave reality. Even today Microsoft is propelled by two product families. Windows and Office. However if you read the press clipping over the years you will see the same drivel being written today. Every market MS wants they get is what we're told. Hmmmmmmm just a list of MS failed ideas/tech
Microsoft BOB- ummm yeah that went over well
WebTV- Proved MS never "understood" the web.
UltimateTV- Supposed to be a Tivo killer. MS abandoned
Farenheit- MS and SGI team up for a joint venture for graphics. Went no where
Chrome- The graphics technology that was supposed to revolutionize Web graphics and more. Died quietly
Xbox- Much balleyhooed but it hasn't unseated the Playstation and Nintendo believe it or not is still the most profitable system.
MS has searched in vain to get into other lucrative businesses and failed. I will agree that their WM9 HD codec is good but then so are the codecs from companies like Blackmagic and Sheer video. They excel without the funds that MS has.
Now everyone seems to think that MS is going to somehow roll over iTunes and "repeat" history. Nah...they'll lose this one too.
oops strayed Off Topic there. I'm glad Sony has chosen some High Efficiency codecs. Sony disgusts me but they have the superior hardware tech right now and now they've obtained parity in software.
Behold yet another format war with Sony in the midst.
Originally posted by marzetta7
Indeed, interesting. Why is this article and many of the articles I'm reading dealing with the adoption of the newer codecs making such a big deal over Microsoft's VC-1/VC-9 codec and not giving much attention to detail as to the H.264 codec?
H.264 is a done deal, since it's the next version of MPEG. Nothing surprising there. When companies that hate Microsoft start using a Microsoft codec, that's news.
Originally posted by exhibit_13
sorry to backtrack a little bit, but isn't standard NTSC video 29 frames per second, where PAL video is 24 fps? and i've heard of that program magic-bullet mentioned by mello. from what i heard, it makes the 29 fps NTSC video into 24 fps PAL video (or at least gives it that PAL look), but can still play on NTSC players, or something. correct me if i'm wrong...
I believe that PAL has a different screen resolution from NTSC. I'm not sure about
the framerates.
Originally posted by mello
I believe that PAL has a different screen resolution from NTSC. I'm not sure about
the framerates.
NTSC is, roughly, 720x480 29.97 fps (more like 59.94 fields every 2 seconds since it is interlaced)
PAL is, roughly, 720x576 25 fps.
Originally posted by kupan787
NTSC is, roughly, 720x480 29.97 fps (more like 59.94 fields every 2 seconds since it is interlaced)
PAL is, roughly, 720x576 25 fps.
Traditionally described as...
PAL = 625 lines, 25 FPS
NTSC = 525 lines, 29.97 FPS (close enough to 30 FPS)
Oh and it's 59.94 (60) fields per second instead of per 2 seconds.
Originally posted by Eugene
Oh and it's 59.94 (60) fields per second instead of per 2 seconds.
You sure it is per second? I thought since it was interlaced, it was "60" fields every 2 seconds, which give us the "30" fps. Since in each pass it only does half the fields, it is not doing all 60 fields in one pass (that would be progressive scan)
Originally posted by kupan787
You sure it is per second? I thought since it was interlaced, it was "60" fields every 2 seconds, which give us the "30" fps. Since in each pass it only does half the fields, it is not doing all 60 fields in one pass (that would be progressive scan)
Why are you questioning me? A frame represents a complete image. There are 30 complete frames shown in 1 second. A field is one interlaced portion of a frame...the odd lines or even lines. There are 60 of those in a second.
Think about your statements...
You claim NTSC is 30 frames per second.
Then you claim NTSC is 60 fields per 2 seconds.
If what you said was true, then wouldn't it also be 60 frames per 2 seconds and 30 fields per second?
Originally posted by Eugene
Why are you questioning me?
Because that is just how I am as a person, I tend to question things. I didn't mean to hurt you. At least now I have a better understanding of this.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040913/lam139_1.html
STORY HERE.
Originally posted by mello
New story about 200GB eight-layer blu-ray discs!
STORY HERE.
8 Layer that's impressive. I believe the FMD technology also supported that many layers. I'm guessing we see this technology "commercialized" in 2010 or so after 100GB 4 layer BR discs have been shipping for a while.
i heard that the reason VHS won out over the technically superior Betamax is that Betamax refused to allow porn to be published, while VHS didn't care one way or the other.
it may be just a rumor, but i think it's pretty reasonable.
Originally posted by spud
by the way,
i heard that the reason VHS won out over the technically superior Betamax is that Betamax refused to allow porn to be published, while VHS didn't care one way or the other.
it may be just a rumor, but i think it's pretty reasonable.
It's totally true. My first sales job was working for Silo and I talked to the "old cats" there about the early days of selling VHS. They said customers wouldn't flinch about spending $1000 for a VHS deck because. At that time you only could see porn in a sleezy theater and you didn't want to be seen frequenting those establishments so the thought of spending a grand and watching your Blue Movies in the safety of your home was an easy proposition. Sony tried to take the moral high ground and lost billions in the process.