From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see that 
the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps capable 
TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only because it 
is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the "less than 
true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to purchase and 
play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that will irritate me or 
something I could put up with (subjective, I know - but any contribution 
gratefully accepted!).

Chas

On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:

>  From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see 
> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps 
> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only 
> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the 
> "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to 
> purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that 
> will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I know - 
> but any contribution gratefully accepted!).

Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second, 
so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.

On 2008-08-20 09:22:14 +0100, Andy Burns 
 said:

> On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
> 
>>  From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see 
>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps 
>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only 
>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be 
>> the "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose 
>> to purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something 
>> that will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I 
>> know - but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
> 
> Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second, 
> so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.

My new Viera has a 24fps option but I haven't figured out when to use 
it yet. Should it be activated for all Blu Ray movies or only those 
which display a 24fps flag? Presumably the Blu Ray set of a TV series, 
such as Planet Earth, won't benefit from 24fps? TIA.

Stan

"Stan The Man"  wrote in message 
news:48abffd1$0$26077$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On 2008-08-20 09:22:14 +0100, Andy Burns  
> said:
>
>> On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
>>
>>>  From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see 
>>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps 
>>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only 
>>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the 
>>> "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to 
>>> purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that 
>>> will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I know - 
>>> but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>
>> Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second, so 
>> playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.
>
> My new Viera has a 24fps option but I haven't figured out when to use it 
> yet. Should it be activated for all Blu Ray movies or only those which 
> display a 24fps flag? Presumably the Blu Ray set of a TV series, such as 
> Planet Earth, won't benefit from 24fps? TIA.
>

All BD movies play at 24fps (you'll notice that a BD film will run a few 
minutes longer than the same film on PAL DVD, which is 25fps).

On 2008-08-20 12:58:46 +0100, "Brian W" 
 said:

> 
> "Stan The Man"  wrote in message 
> news:48abffd1$0$26077$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On 2008-08-20 09:22:14 +0100, Andy Burns 
>>  said:
>> 
>>> On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
>>> 
>>>>  From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see 
>>>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps 
>>>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only 
>>>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be 
>>>> the "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose 
>>>> to purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something 
>>>> that will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I 
>>>> know - but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>> 
>>> Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second, 
>>> so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.
>> 
>> My new Viera has a 24fps option but I haven't figured out when to use 
>> it yet. Should it be activated for all Blu Ray movies or only those 
>> which display a 24fps flag? Presumably the Blu Ray set of a TV series, 
>> such as Planet Earth, won't benefit from 24fps? TIA.
>> 
> 
> All BD movies play at 24fps (you'll notice that a BD film will run a 
> few minutes longer than the same film on PAL DVD, which is 25fps).

Thanks. Wondering now if I can just leave this option ticked 
permanently: presumably the Viera will only use it when it detects 
suitable material?

Stan

Have you not noticed that for most of our lives, any music in films is just 
slightly jarringly, in some cases, too fast?

I imagine this is an attempt to get over this problem.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Brian W"  wrote in message 
news:0GTqk.40696$lO6.16062@newsfe20.ams2...
>
> "Stan The Man"  wrote in message 
> news:48abffd1$0$26077$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On 2008-08-20 09:22:14 +0100, Andy Burns 
>>  said:
>>
>>> On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
>>>
>>>>  From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see 
>>>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps 
>>>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only 
>>>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be 
>>>> the "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose 
>>>> to purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something 
>>>> that will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I 
>>>> know - but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>>
>>> Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second, 
>>> so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.
>>
>> My new Viera has a 24fps option but I haven't figured out when to use it 
>> yet. Should it be activated for all Blu Ray movies or only those which 
>> display a 24fps flag? Presumably the Blu Ray set of a TV series, such as 
>> Planet Earth, won't benefit from 24fps? TIA.
>>
>
> All BD movies play at 24fps (you'll notice that a BD film will run a few 
> minutes longer than the same film on PAL DVD, which is 25fps).
>

Andy Burns  wrote:
 

>On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
>
>>  From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see 
>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps 
>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only 
>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the 
>> "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to 
>> purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that 
>> will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I know - 
>> but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>
>Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second, 
>so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.

Are you sure about that? My normal/LD/analogue TV will display 24fps
DivX files played through a DVD player without such a glitch.

"Chas Gill"  wrote in message 
news:qrednU-eCbaHTTbVnZ2dnUVZ8jmdnZ2d@bt.com...
> From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see that 
> the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps capable 
> TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only because it 
> is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the "less than 
> true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to purchase and 
> play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that will irritate me 
> or something I could put up with (subjective, I know - but any 
> contribution gratefully accepted!).
>
> Chas
>
>




your eyes will tell you that.
if 24fps capable tvs didn''t exist, would you be happy with how your tv 
looks?
if the answer is yes, just accept that there will always be a more expensive 
tv than you own.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"Brian Gaff"  wrote in message 
news:ywWqk.45530$E41.6665@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Have you not noticed that for most of our lives, any music in films is 
> just slightly jarringly, in some cases, too fast?
>
> I imagine this is an attempt to get over this problem.



that's PAL speedup - you won't get that with a 24fps source unless they 
screw up with the mastering.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

The dog from that film you saw wrote:
> 
> "Brian Gaff"  wrote in message 
> news:ywWqk.45530$E41.6665@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Have you not noticed that for most of our lives, any music in films is 
>> just slightly jarringly, in some cases, too fast?
>>
>> I imagine this is an attempt to get over this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> that's PAL speedup - you won't get that with a 24fps source unless they 
> screw up with the mastering.

To be totally accurate (after all this is Usenet) it's speed-up for any 25 fps 
TV system, and has nothing to do with PAL or any other colour encoding system.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6h337kFiguieU1@mid.individual.net...
> The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>>
>> "Brian Gaff"  wrote in message 
>> news:ywWqk.45530$E41.6665@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Have you not noticed that for most of our lives, any music in films is 
>>> just slightly jarringly, in some cases, too fast?
>>>
>>> I imagine this is an attempt to get over this problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> that's PAL speedup - you won't get that with a 24fps source unless they 
>> screw up with the mastering.
>
> To be totally accurate (after all this is Usenet) it's speed-up for any 25 
> fps TV system, and has nothing to do with PAL or any other colour encoding 
> system.



:(
i assumed he was viewing PAL material....


-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:42:22 +0100, Stan The Man 
wrote:

>On 2008-08-20 12:58:46 +0100, "Brian W" 
> said:
>
>> 
>> "Stan The Man"  wrote in message 
>> news:48abffd1$0$26077$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> On 2008-08-20 09:22:14 +0100, Andy Burns 
>>>  said:
>>> 
>>>> On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see 
>>>>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps 
>>>>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only 
>>>>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be 
>>>>> the "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose 
>>>>> to purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something 
>>>>> that will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I 
>>>>> know - but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>>> 
>>>> Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second, 
>>>> so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.
>>> 
>>> My new Viera has a 24fps option but I haven't figured out when to use 
>>> it yet. Should it be activated for all Blu Ray movies or only those 
>>> which display a 24fps flag? Presumably the Blu Ray set of a TV series, 
>>> such as Planet Earth, won't benefit from 24fps? TIA.
>>> 
>> 
>> All BD movies play at 24fps (you'll notice that a BD film will run a 
>> few minutes longer than the same film on PAL DVD, which is 25fps).
>
>Thanks. Wondering now if I can just leave this option ticked 
>permanently: presumably the Viera will only use it when it detects 
>suitable material?
>
>Stan

I have a Panny Viera, but I haven't noticed an option to switch 24fps
on or off.  Mine seems automatic.


Marky P.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:13:04 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
 wrote:

>
>"Chas Gill"  wrote in message 
>news:qrednU-eCbaHTTbVnZ2dnUVZ8jmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see that 
>> the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps capable 
>> TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only because it 
>> is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the "less than 
>> true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to purchase and 
>> play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that will irritate me 
>> or something I could put up with (subjective, I know - but any 
>> contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>
>> Chas
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>your eyes will tell you that.
>if 24fps capable tvs didn''t exist, would you be happy with how your tv 
>looks?
>if the answer is yes, just accept that there will always be a more expensive 
>tv than you own.

When I bought my Blu-Ray player I had a 42" plasma that didn't accept
24fps.  The result was jerky movement, most noticeable when panning.
I believe some TV's are better at conversion than others.  Probably
the same with different Blu-Ray players.


Marky P.

Marky P wrote:

> When I bought my Blu-Ray player I had a 42" plasma that didn't accept
> 24fps.  The result was jerky movement, most noticeable when panning.
> I believe some TV's are better at conversion than others.  Probably
> the same with different Blu-Ray players.

No, it's the BluRay player that does the conversion from 24 fps to 25 fps, not 
the TV. The player will output 24 fps, only if the TV/Monitor tells it to, 
otherwise it converts to 25 fps. If you think about it, it has to be that way 
round.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"The dog from that film you saw"  wrote in 
message news:6h2u4tFi5a14U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Chas Gill"  wrote in message 
> news:qrednU-eCbaHTTbVnZ2dnUVZ8jmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see 
>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps 
>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only 
>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the 
>> "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to 
>> purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that 
>> will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I know - 
>> but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>
>> Chas
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> your eyes will tell you that.
> if 24fps capable tvs didn''t exist, would you be happy with how your tv 
> looks?
> if the answer is yes, just accept that there will always be a more 
> expensive tv than you own.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Gareth.

Not really the point.  Until Blu Ray all source material was 25 fps so my 
eyes didn't have a problem.  Oh, and by the way, my TV was VERY expensive 
when I bought it not about 18 months ago (not so now, though :-(  ).  What 
worries me is that my very expensive TV (which performs outstandingly with 
1080i source material from my SKY box) isn't capable of a similar 
outstanding performance from a Blu Ray source, because someone decided that 
Blu Ray had to deliver 24fps because that's what films do.  I didn't buy a 
friggin' projector, I bought a telly. What exactly did the blu ray designer 
have in mind when he was designing a TV source box ?????

On 2008-08-20 20:15:14 +0100, Marky P  said:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:42:22 +0100, Stan The Man 
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2008-08-20 12:58:46 +0100, "Brian W"
>>  said:
>> 
>>> 
>>> "Stan The Man"  wrote in message
>>> news:48abffd1$0$26077$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>> On 2008-08-20 09:22:14 +0100, Andy Burns
>>>>  said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see
>>>>>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps
>>>>>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only
>>>>>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be
>>>>>> the "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose
>>>>>> to purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something
>>>>>> that will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I
>>>>>> know - but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second,
>>>>> so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.
>>>> 
>>>> My new Viera has a 24fps option but I haven't figured out when to use
>>>> it yet. Should it be activated for all Blu Ray movies or only those
>>>> which display a 24fps flag? Presumably the Blu Ray set of a TV series,
>>>> such as Planet Earth, won't benefit from 24fps? TIA.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> All BD movies play at 24fps (you'll notice that a BD film will run a
>>> few minutes longer than the same film on PAL DVD, which is 25fps).
>> 
>> Thanks. Wondering now if I can just leave this option ticked
>> permanently: presumably the Viera will only use it when it detects
>> suitable material?
>> 
>> Stan
> 
> I have a Panny Viera, but I haven't noticed an option to switch 24fps
> on or off.  Mine seems automatic.

To be more precise, the feature is called "Intelligent Frame Creation" 
(TH- 42PZ81B model) and it is configurable to on or off.

Stan

Chas Gill wrote:

> Not really the point.  Until Blu Ray all source material was 25 fps so 
> my eyes didn't have a problem.  Oh, and by the way, my TV was VERY 
> expensive when I bought it not about 18 months ago (not so now, though 
> :-(  ).  What worries me is that my very expensive TV (which performs 
> outstandingly with 1080i source material from my SKY box) isn't capable 
> of a similar outstanding performance from a Blu Ray source, because 
> someone decided that Blu Ray had to deliver 24fps because that's what 
> films do.  I didn't buy a friggin' projector, I bought a telly. What 
> exactly did the blu ray designer have in mind when he was designing a TV 
> source box ?????

24 fps working, 1080-24p is not really a 'BluRay' mode per se, it's one 
of about 24 different valid and mandated HD standards.

The decision to use 24p to master movies on BluRay was taken to avoid 
the 4% speed-up that's been used up until now on all 25fps TV systems, 
mainly of course 625/50 SD. Some high end broadcast electronic cameras 
and production kit also support the format.

It's all about standards again, and the same arguments apply as the DTT 
split NIT saga. If a TV is marked 'HD Ready' it should support 24p working.
Sadly not all do, even from the 'Blue Chip' manufacturers.

Stan The Man  wrote:

>To be more precise, the feature is called "Intelligent Frame Creation" 
>(TH- 42PZ81B model) and it is configurable to on or off.

In the US, the Intelligent Frame Creation (IFC) is used to insert extra
frames to smooth out film judder and is therefore probably a desirable
feature over there.  Unfortunately, over here they've also decided to use
IFC to convert the UK's 50 fps sources to the LCD's 60 fps:

http://panasonic.net/pavc/viera/features/europe.html

However cleverly it's done, it has to cause some blurring or artifacts
compared to an LCD that can be switched to run natively at 50 fps or a
multiple of that.  I've found a number of comments on the web saying that
IFC does seem to make motion smoother, but in a unnatural way, and they
recommend that IFC is left switched off.

True 50 fps seems to me to be much more desirable than true 24 fps for a
television over here.  I'd hope that most TVs sold over here *are*
capable of true 50 fps, but I've not researched this so it might be a
more widespread problem than just these Panasonic Vieras.

-- 
Dave Farrance

Mark Carver wrote:
> It's all about standards again, and the same arguments apply as the DTT 
> split NIT saga. If a TV is marked 'HD Ready' it should support 24p working.
> Sadly not all do, even from the 'Blue Chip' manufacturers.

Not so; the spec for the "HD Ready" logo says nothing about 24 fps at 
all. "HD Ready" means only four things;

1) The minimum native resolution of the display or display engine is 720 
physical lines in wide aspect ratio.

2) The display device accepts HD input via; a) analogue YPbPr and b) DVI 
or HDMI

3) HD capable inputs accept the following HD video formats; a) 1280x720 
@ 50Hz and 60Hz progressive ("720p") and b) 1920x1080 @ 50Hz and 60Hz 
interlaced ("1080i")

4) The HDMI or DVI input supports content protection (HDCP).

That's it. If a TV or monitor can meet those standards then it's "HD 
Ready". Nothing else is required to be met.

See http://www.eicta.org/index.php?id=32&id_article=50 and the "HD Ready 
Logo - License Agreement" PDF linked from there which contains the 
requirements and the testing procedure.

-- 
Angus G Rae                        Science & Engineering Support Team
                                                    Computing Services
                                               University of Edinburgh
The above opinions are mine, and Edinburgh University can't have them

Angus Rae wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
>> It's all about standards again, and the same arguments apply as the 
>> DTT split NIT saga. If a TV is marked 'HD Ready' it should support 24p 
>> working.
>> Sadly not all do, even from the 'Blue Chip' manufacturers.
> 
> Not so; the spec for the "HD Ready" logo says nothing about 24 fps at 
> all. "HD Ready" means only four things;
> 
> 1) The minimum native resolution of the display or display engine is 720 
> physical lines in wide aspect ratio.
> 
> 2) The display device accepts HD input via; a) analogue YPbPr and b) DVI 
> or HDMI
> 
> 3) HD capable inputs accept the following HD video formats; a) 1280x720 
> @ 50Hz and 60Hz progressive ("720p") and b) 1920x1080 @ 50Hz and 60Hz 
> interlaced ("1080i")
> 
> 4) The HDMI or DVI input supports content protection (HDCP).
> 
> That's it. If a TV or monitor can meet those standards then it's "HD 
> Ready". Nothing else is required to be met.
> 
> See http://www.eicta.org/index.php?id=32&id_article=50 and the "HD Ready 
> Logo - License Agreement" PDF linked from there which contains the 
> requirements and the testing procedure.

Just goes to show that the 'HD Ready' logo is not really much use then !

"Chas Gill"  wrote in message 
news:YpudnSJuv7CENDHVRVnyiwA@bt.com...
>


> Not really the point.  Until Blu Ray all source material was 25 fps so my 
> eyes didn't have a problem.  Oh, and by the way, my TV was VERY expensive 
> when I bought it not about 18 months ago (not so now, though :-(  ).  What 
> worries me is that my very expensive TV (which performs outstandingly with 
> 1080i source material from my SKY box) isn't capable of a similar 
> outstanding performance from a Blu Ray source, because someone decided 
> that Blu Ray had to deliver 24fps because that's what films do.  I didn't 
> buy a friggin' projector, I bought a telly. What exactly did the blu ray 
> designer have in mind when he was designing a TV source box ?????
>



blu ray players will happily output a signal that works fine with your tv.
you don't HAVE to use 24fps mode.


-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

In , Dave Farrance
 wrote:

>True 50 fps seems to me to be much more desirable than true 24 fps for a
>television over here.

Well yes, but only in the statistical sense that more people (those that
watch UK television programmes) will need native 50fps than people who
need native 24fps (those that watch Blu-Ray movies) - but both features
are highly desirable. Eventually everyone will need both. It shouldn't be
an either or.

>I'd hope that most TVs sold over here *are*
>capable of true 50 fps, but I've not researched this so it might be a
>more widespread problem than just these Panasonic Vieras.

Hope not - I thought that the days of manufacturers palming off old
60fps-only panels on the public were gone. I didn't realise that this
disgraceful practice was still going on :-(

In , "Chas Gill"
 wrote:

>Not really the point.  Until Blu Ray all source material was 25 fps so my 
>eyes didn't have a problem.

If by "until Blu Ray" you mean films on DVD, only some countries suffered
the PAL speed up. Not even the whole of Region 2 is PAL. Japanese R2 DVDs
as well as the R1 DVDs normally have the film stored on the DVD at the
original 24fps with flags set accordingly.

Old DVD players then turn this 24fps source into 60Hz interlaced NTSC
using 3:2 pulldown. But the good news is that newer DVD players (including
a Blu Ray player) can use the original 24fps material on the disc and send
it to directly to the display at 24fps, with the original audio at the
correct pitch and speed as well.

The vast majority of my DVD collection is non-R2 for this reason alone,
notwithstanding them otherwise being superior, cheaper, uncensored, and
all the other reasons one would normally avoid R2 DVDs.

This has been the case with DVDs for over 10 years now, none of it is new
or a surprise.

If you have all UK R2 titles however, you're stuck with them being at
25fps and the wrong speed and pitch forever no matter what player you use,
because the audio conversion was done at the DVD mastering stage.

>Oh, and by the way, my TV was VERY expensive 
>when I bought it not about 18 months ago (not so now, though :-(  ).  What 
>worries me is that my very expensive TV (which performs outstandingly with 
>1080i source material from my SKY box) isn't capable of a similar 
>outstanding performance from a Blu Ray source, because someone decided that 
>Blu Ray had to deliver 24fps because that's what films do. 

See above. It's not a new sudden decision. It's a shame you spent a huge
amount of money without taking time to do some research first :-(

>I didn't buy a 
>friggin' projector, I bought a telly. What exactly did the blu ray designer 
>have in mind when he was designing a TV source box ????? 

See above.

"Chas Gill"  wrote in message 
news:qrednU-eCbaHTTbVnZ2dnUVZ8jmdnZ2d@bt.com...
> From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see that 
> the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps capable 
> TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only because it 
> is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the "less than 
> true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to purchase and 
> play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that will irritate me 
> or something I could put up with (subjective, I know - but any 
> contribution gratefully accepted!).
>
> Chas
If your TV won't accept 24p then the player will output Blu-ray as 1080i/p @ 
60Hz, no 4% speed-up conversion to PAL 25/50 as some people are incorrectly 
assuming.

If I disable 24p output on my Panasonic BD50 the BD50 then outputs 1080p @ 
60Hz and you can see 2:3 pulldown artifacts and panning judder. Not wholy 
unacceptable but not as nice as 24p.

Ian_m wrote:

> If your TV won't accept 24p then the player will output Blu-ray as 
> 1080i/p @ 60Hz, no 4% speed-up conversion to PAL 25/50 as some people 
> are incorrectly assuming.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that a BD/DVD player 
will initiate 4% speed up from a 24p disc, when feeding a non 24p 
display, only that they would repeat a frame's worth of material once 
per second. Speed up is only used in broadcasting, and mastering 
R2-625/50 DVDs.

> If I disable 24p output on my Panasonic BD50 the BD50 then outputs 1080p 
> @ 60Hz and you can see 2:3 pulldown artifacts and panning judder. Not 
> wholy unacceptable but not as nice as 24p.

2:3 pulldown for me is the spawn of the Devil !  YMMV.

Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that a BD/DVD player 
>will initiate 4% speed up from a 24p disc, when feeding a non 24p 
>display, only that they would repeat a frame's worth of material once 
>per second. Speed up is only used in broadcasting, and mastering 
>R2-625/50 DVDs.

Repeating a frame looks surprisingly nasty on slow pans making the
picture jolt noticeably once per second.

>> If I disable 24p output on my Panasonic BD50 the BD50 then outputs 1080p 
>> @ 60Hz and you can see 2:3 pulldown artifacts and panning judder. Not 
>> wholy unacceptable but not as nice as 24p.
>
>2:3 pulldown for me is the spawn of the Devil !  YMMV.

2:3 pulldown does create artifacts, but I find it an order of magnitude
more acceptable than adding one frame per second.

-- 
Dave Farrance

Dave Farrance wrote:
> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> 2:3 pulldown for me is the spawn of the Devil !  YMMV.
> 
> 2:3 pulldown does create artifacts, but I find it an order of magnitude
> more acceptable than adding one frame per second.

What does look awful is 2:3 pulldown obviously applied in 525/60, and then 
converted to 625/50 !



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:51:25 +0100, Mike Henry
<{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In , Dave Farrance
> wrote:
>
>>True 50 fps seems to me to be much more desirable than true 24 fps for a
>>television over here.
>
>Well yes, but only in the statistical sense that more people (those that
>watch UK television programmes) will need native 50fps than people who
>need native 24fps (those that watch Blu-Ray movies) - but both features
>are highly desirable. Eventually everyone will need both. It shouldn't be
>an either or.
>
>>I'd hope that most TVs sold over here *are*
>>capable of true 50 fps, but I've not researched this so it might be a
>>more widespread problem than just these Panasonic Vieras.
>
>Hope not - I thought that the days of manufacturers palming off old
>60fps-only panels on the public were gone. I didn't realise that this
>disgraceful practice was still going on :-(

I find the feature works quite well.


Marky P.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:30:17 +0100, Stan The Man 
wrote:

>On 2008-08-20 20:15:14 +0100, Marky P  said:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:42:22 +0100, Stan The Man 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2008-08-20 12:58:46 +0100, "Brian W"
>>>  said:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> "Stan The Man"  wrote in message
>>>> news:48abffd1$0$26077$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>>> On 2008-08-20 09:22:14 +0100, Andy Burns
>>>>>  said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see
>>>>>>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps
>>>>>>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only
>>>>>>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be
>>>>>>> the "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose
>>>>>>> to purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something
>>>>>>> that will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I
>>>>>>> know - but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second,
>>>>>> so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My new Viera has a 24fps option but I haven't figured out when to use
>>>>> it yet. Should it be activated for all Blu Ray movies or only those
>>>>> which display a 24fps flag? Presumably the Blu Ray set of a TV series,
>>>>> such as Planet Earth, won't benefit from 24fps? TIA.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> All BD movies play at 24fps (you'll notice that a BD film will run a
>>>> few minutes longer than the same film on PAL DVD, which is 25fps).
>>> 
>>> Thanks. Wondering now if I can just leave this option ticked
>>> permanently: presumably the Viera will only use it when it detects
>>> suitable material?
>>> 
>>> Stan
>> 
>> I have a Panny Viera, but I haven't noticed an option to switch 24fps
>> on or off.  Mine seems automatic.
>
>To be more precise, the feature is called "Intelligent Frame Creation" 
>(TH- 42PZ81B model) and it is configurable to on or off.
>
>Stan

I find with Blu-Ray, the IFC feature does improve movement.  This is
an additional feature to the 24fps feature.


Marky P.

On 2008-08-22 18:32:00 +0100, Marky P  said:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:30:17 +0100, Stan The Man 
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2008-08-20 20:15:14 +0100, Marky P  said:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:42:22 +0100, Stan The Man 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2008-08-20 12:58:46 +0100, "Brian W"
>>>>  said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Stan The Man"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:48abffd1$0$26077$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>>>> On 2008-08-20 09:22:14 +0100, Andy Burns
>>>>>>  said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 20/08/2008 09:04, Chas Gill wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see
>>>>>>>> that the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps
>>>>>>>> capable TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only
>>>>>>>> because it is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be
>>>>>>>> the "less than true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose
>>>>>>>> to purchase and play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something
>>>>>>>> that will irritate me or something I could put up with (subjective, I
>>>>>>>> know - but any contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Every 24th frame will be displayed twice to make 50 fields per second,
>>>>>>> so playback will have a glitch once a second rather than being smooth.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My new Viera has a 24fps option but I haven't figured out when to use
>>>>>> it yet. Should it be activated for all Blu Ray movies or only those
>>>>>> which display a 24fps flag? Presumably the Blu Ray set of a TV series,
>>>>>> such as Planet Earth, won't benefit from 24fps? TIA.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> All BD movies play at 24fps (you'll notice that a BD film will run a
>>>>> few minutes longer than the same film on PAL DVD, which is 25fps).
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks. Wondering now if I can just leave this option ticked
>>>> permanently: presumably the Viera will only use it when it detects
>>>> suitable material?
>>>> 
>>>> Stan
>>> 
>>> I have a Panny Viera, but I haven't noticed an option to switch 24fps
>>> on or off.  Mine seems automatic.
>> 
>> To be more precise, the feature is called "Intelligent Frame Creation"
>> (TH- 42PZ81B model) and it is configurable to on or off.
>> 
>> Stan
> 
> I find with Blu-Ray, the IFC feature does improve movement.  This is
> an additional feature to the 24fps feature.

Yes, I have been confused but my further research confirms that the 
'24p Real Cinema' feature is built in and not user configurable. The 
manual states: "24p Real Cinema: The 24p source data of movies is 
converted into a video signal with 6 frames/0.1 second. This produces 
smoother movie playback."

IFC _is_ configurable and has similar sounding benefits. Again from the 
manual: "Automatically compensates the picture frame rate to make the 
image smooth (Off / On). It is effective when viewing 24p input signal 
with this function set to “On”."

This suggests that IFC may only be effective when viewing Blu-Ray 
movies, in which case I am still confused as it sounds like both 
features do the same job.

A reviewer at Trusted Reviews, writing about IFC on the slightly 
different TH-50PZ800B model, says: "Wrapping up what's basically a 
pretty wondrous performance with our Sweeney Todd Blu-ray is the 
exceptional lack of video noise of any sort, and the extremely clear 
appearance of its moving objects, as the Intelligent Frame Creation 
system does a terrific job of smoothing and sharpening away the usual 
judder and blur. What's more, IFC does this while leaving behind only 
minimal evidence of negative side effects like shimmering around the 
edges of moving objects.

That said, I'd urge you not to leave the IFC feature active for 
everything you watch. For while it works brilliantly with a 1080p/24fps 
movie feed, if I left it running while watching a sporting event it 
sometimes caused balls to ‘glitch' quite alarmingly as they hurtled 
across the turf, seemingly creating three balls where there should only 
be one."

[http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/review/2008/07/25/Panasonic-Viera-TH-50PZ800B-50in-Plasma-TV/p3]

I 

must say that the manual isn't very idiot-friendly and gives no further 
guidance on where and when to turn IFC on.

FWIW, it seems that all Pannys support 24p according to an interesting 
discussion at 
http://www.avforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-653527.html

Stan

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:12:55 +0100, "Ian_m" 
wrote:

>
>"Chas Gill"  wrote in message 
>news:qrednU-eCbaHTTbVnZ2dnUVZ8jmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> From reading some stuff here and also in recent ads for new TVs I see that 
>> the only way to get a "true cinema experience" is to have a 24fps capable 
>> TV.  I don't think my Sony Bravia 2000 series has this, if only because it 
>> is a boasted feature on the 4000 series.  So what will be the "less than 
>> true cinema experience" that I will have should I choose to purchase and 
>> play a Blue Ray player through it?  Is it something that will irritate me 
>> or something I could put up with (subjective, I know - but any 
>> contribution gratefully accepted!).
>>
>> Chas
>If your TV won't accept 24p then the player will output Blu-ray as 1080i/p @ 
>60Hz, no 4% speed-up conversion to PAL 25/50 as some people are incorrectly 
>assuming.
>
>If I disable 24p output on my Panasonic BD50 the BD50 then outputs 1080p @ 
>60Hz and you can see 2:3 pulldown artifacts and panning judder. Not wholy 
>unacceptable but not as nice as 24p. 

I found that if the film is 'involving' enough, you don't notice the
judder so much :-)


Marky P.

"Mike Henry" <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:crara4divnv7pmkicrokdlb93dvmoahfea@4ax.com...
> In , "Chas Gill"
>  wrote:
>
<Snipped for brevity>
>
>>Oh, and by the way, my TV was VERY expensive
>>when I bought it not about 18 months ago (not so now, though :-(  ).  What
>>worries me is that my very expensive TV (which performs outstandingly with
>>1080i source material from my SKY box) isn't capable of a similar
>>outstanding performance from a Blu Ray source, because someone decided 
>>that
>>Blu Ray had to deliver 24fps because that's what films do.
>
> See above. It's not a new sudden decision. It's a shame you spent a huge
> amount of money without taking time to do some research first :-(
>
Well, I try to research these things, I really do - but to be fair this 
whole subject area is pretty complex for those of us average consumers who 
aren't aware of everything that's going on in the industry.  When I bought 
this telly it was the top of the range flagship Sony latest all-singing, 
all-dancing mutts nuts - and the Blu ray vs. HD DVD thing was still going 
on.  It simply never occurred to me (having watched films for donkey's years 
on TV and being blissfully unaware that they were running a bit fast) that 
someone had a solution looking for a problem and that the solution was going 
to degrade my viewing experience unless I had the right sort of TV.  That's 
what it comes down to and that's what brasses me off, especially so when the 
maker of my telly invented the Blu Ray system and must have known when they 
marketed my telly that it was incompatible.   Ultimately the complexity of 
the purchasing decision in cases like this steers many of us to trust the 
retailer and the manufacturer to do the right thing and be up front about 
developments that are around the corner.  How silly to think that they 
might......................  However it's helped with one purchasing 
decision - I shan't be buying a Blu Ray player until my current telly drops 
dead - and hopefully that won't be for a very long time to come.

Chas

In message , Mike Henry 
<{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote

>If you have all UK R2 titles however, you're stuck with them being at
>25fps and the wrong speed and pitch forever no matter what player you use,
>because the audio conversion was done at the DVD mastering stage.

And isn't it amazing that 99.99 percent of the people buying these DVDs 
haven't noticed?

-- 
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Alan wrote:
> In message , Mike Henry
> <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> If you have all UK R2 titles however, you're stuck with them being at
>> 25fps and the wrong speed and pitch forever no matter what player
>> you use, because the audio conversion was done at the DVD mastering
>> stage.
>
> And isn't it amazing that 99.99 percent of the people buying these
> DVDs haven't noticed?

Do you have any evidence to back that figure?

In article , Alan wrote:
> >If you have all UK R2 titles however, you're stuck with them being at
> >25fps and the wrong speed and pitch forever no matter what player you use,
> >because the audio conversion was done at the DVD mastering stage.
> 
> And isn't it amazing that 99.99 percent of the people buying these DVDs 
> haven't noticed?

I think it's curious that the effect has become known as "PAL speedup", even 
though it's always been that way with any cinema film shown on European 
television since before PAL was invented.

And you're right; most people don't notice. It bugs me that we should have 
something inherently wrong built into something that is used by half the 
world, but in real life there are more important things to worry about.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.000004bd.00b8b000@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> In article , Alan wrote:
>> >If you have all UK R2 titles however, you're stuck with them being at
>> >25fps and the wrong speed and pitch forever no matter what player you 
>> >use,
>> >because the audio conversion was done at the DVD mastering stage.
>>
>> And isn't it amazing that 99.99 percent of the people buying these DVDs
>> haven't noticed?
>
> I think it's curious that the effect has become known as "PAL speedup", 
> even
> though it's always been that way with any cinema film shown on European
> television since before PAL was invented.




what did we use before PAL ?


interestingly, visitng my parents yesterday i had to sit through the 
godawful bridget jones 2.
all the music sounded quite normal - then i switched to the french 
soundtrack for some reason - and the PAL speedup kicked in.
the people who did the dvd went to the trouble of pitch correcting the music 
for the english soundtrack - so there's no reason why every company 
shouldn't do the same.
fortunately while i spot the pitch shift straight away the tempo difference 
which must have remained wasn't noticeable to me at all.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

The dog from that film you saw wrote:
> 
> "Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 

>> I think it's curious that the effect has become known as "PAL 
>> speedup", even
>> though it's always been that way with any cinema film shown on European
>> television since before PAL was invented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what did we use before PAL ?

PAL is a colour coding system, before PAL (used first in 1967) everything in 
western Europe was in black and white, i.e. no colour subcarrier. Of course 
the France went their own way with SECAM.

You seem to be confusing CCIR 625/50, with PAL ?



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In , "Adrian"
 wrote:
>Alan wrote:
>> In message , Mike Henry
>> <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> If you have all UK R2 titles however, you're stuck with them being at
>>> 25fps and the wrong speed and pitch forever no matter what player
>>> you use, because the audio conversion was done at the DVD mastering
>>> stage.
>>
>> And isn't it amazing that 99.99 percent of the people buying these
>> DVDs haven't noticed?

Ignoring that figure, it's not amazing at all. There are two groups of
people who will have noticed. The first group is the few people who have
perfect pitch [1] and can hear the difference. (I do and can, and it's
uncomfortable bordering on irritating to listen to 90 minutes of what I
hear as out-of-tune music). The second is the many other people who can
perceive that it's been speeded up in other ways - perhaps by knowing a
piece of music well enough to detect that it's being played too quickly,
or knowing an actor's voice well enough to detect that it sounds
"squeaky", etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch

>Do you have any evidence to back that figure? 

I expect he just made it up.

In article , The dog from that film you 
saw wrote:
> > I think it's curious that the effect has become known as "PAL speedup", 
> > even
> > though it's always been that way with any cinema film shown on European
> > television since before PAL was invented.
> 
> what did we use before PAL ?

625 line 50 fields per second monochrome television. And before that, 405 
line 50 fields per second monochrome television. I can remember seeing 
cinema films shown on both systems. Telecine machines that can show film at 
24fps did exist (and probably still do) but were not always used.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

The message 
from Roderick Stewart 
contains these words:

> In article , The dog from that film you 
> saw wrote:
> > > I think it's curious that the effect has become known as "PAL speedup", 
> > > even
> > > though it's always been that way with any cinema film shown on European
> > > television since before PAL was invented.
> > 
> > what did we use before PAL ?

> 625 line 50 fields per second monochrome television. And before that, 405 
> line 50 fields per second monochrome television. I can remember seeing 
> cinema films shown on both systems. Telecine machines that can show film at 
> 24fps did exist (and probably still do) but were not always used.

 The results of any such 24fps telecine equipment, with the technology
available back then, would surely have been a less perfect solution than
that which is now used universally to display 24fps material at 25fps.

 The one major drawback of raising the pitch by just over quarter of a
semitone was not a serious departure from fidelity. The 4.167% speed
increase would otherwise not be detectable without the aid of a
stopwatch and a knowledge of the running time of the 24fps material.

 Another factor which helped endorse the rather pragmatic solution of
simply allowing 24fps film footage to be dragged through the telecine at
25fps was that the sound track would increase in pitch and sound
slightly 'sharper' which is far more acceptable than if the conversion
needed to go the other way and make the soundtrack sound 'flatter'.

 The modest sharpening of the soundtrack is the least of any of the
other evils involved with alternative high tech conversion algorithms
that may have been entertained over the past 50 odd years. Although it
is now possible to shift the audio down in frequency to compensate, it's
not a good idea since it will upset the harmonic 'balance' and introduce
an even more objectional type of 'distortion'.

-- 
Regards, John.

 Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

In article , Johnny B Good 
wrote:
> Telecine machines that can show film at 
> > 24fps did exist (and probably still do) but were not always used.
> 
>  The results of any such 24fps telecine equipment, with the technology
> available back then, would surely have been a less perfect solution than
> that which is now used universally to display 24fps material at 25fps.

Not necessarily. All that's required is to be able to blend smoothly from 
one film frame to the next so that individual film frames don't have to 
coincide with TV frames. The fact that we do this sort of thing nowadays 
by immensely complicated electronics doesn't mean it's the only way. By 
suitable design, it can be done, and was done, optically.

In the 405 line monochrome 1950s the BBC had a programme called "In Town 
Tonight" (the forerunner of what we would now call a chat show) which used 
a variable speed telecine machine (Mechau?) to slow a film of London 
traffic continuously from normal speed down to zero. I suppose this 
gimmick was supposed to suggest that they were bringing London to a halt 
while the programme took place. I never saw the machine but had it 
described to me by someone who had operated it, and it appears to have 
done its clever stuff by means of a rotating prism. The film would move 
continuously (not intermittently), and the prism would rotate in such a 
way as to present a varying blend of two adjacent film frames to the 
flying-spot CRT, so there was no need for a shutter or any kind of 
intermittent mechanism. It was a long time ago, but from personal 
recollection the effect on screen was very smooth.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article ,
Roderick Stewart  wrote:

> In article , Johnny B Good 
> wrote:
> > Telecine machines that can show film at 
> > > 24fps did exist (and probably still do) but were not always used.
> > 
> >  The results of any such 24fps telecine equipment, with the technology
> > available back then, would surely have been a less perfect solution than
> > that which is now used universally to display 24fps material at 25fps.
> 
> Not necessarily. All that's required is to be able to blend smoothly from 
> one film frame to the next so that individual film frames don't have to 
> coincide with TV frames. The fact that we do this sort of thing nowadays 
> by immensely complicated electronics doesn't mean it's the only way. By 
> suitable design, it can be done, and was done, optically.
> 
> In the 405 line monochrome 1950s the BBC had a programme called "In Town 
> Tonight" (the forerunner of what we would now call a chat show) which used 
> a variable speed telecine machine (Mechau?) to slow a film of London 
> traffic continuously from normal speed down to zero. I suppose this 
> gimmick was supposed to suggest that they were bringing London to a halt 
> while the programme took place. I never saw the machine but had it 
> described to me by someone who had operated it, and it appears to have 
> done its clever stuff by means of a rotating prism. The film would move 
> continuously (not intermittently), and the prism would rotate in such a 
> way as to present a varying blend of two adjacent film frames to the 
> flying-spot CRT, so there was no need for a shutter or any kind of 
> intermittent mechanism. It was a long time ago, but from personal 
> recollection the effect on screen was very smooth.
> 
> Rod.

The disadvantage of the prism-and-mirror system is that in effect it
crossfades one frame into the next. This results in some frames as
transmitted having double images where there is movement: something
which I can detect during viewing and find irritating. It's been used
occasionally, but not usually for full-length films (silent films are a
different problem, running as slow as 16fps). I did see a transmission
of 'Dr. Strangelove' where the BBC decided to repeat every 12th field,
producing a distinctly jerky effect on pans.

The 25fps solution is the least worst. Apart from the occasional person
with perfect pitch, the 4% (2/3 semitone) increase is barely
detectable. Oddly enough, a 4% drop (as with made for British TV films
shown in a cinema) is much more noticeable, producing a distinctly
sluggish sound.

In article <260820081044286678%rfwilmut@nospam.yahoo.com>, Roger Wilmut 
wrote:
> The 25fps solution is the least worst. Apart from the occasional person
> with perfect pitch, the 4% (2/3 semitone) increase is barely
> detectable. Oddly enough, a 4% drop (as with made for British TV films
> shown in a cinema) is much more noticeable, producing a distinctly
> sluggish sound.

Is there some technical reason why they can't show 25fps films in cinemas 
at the right speed? Cameras can do several speeds quite easily just by 
changing a crystal.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article ,
Roderick Stewart  wrote:

> In article <260820081044286678%rfwilmut@nospam.yahoo.com>, Roger Wilmut 
> wrote:
> > The 25fps solution is the least worst. Apart from the occasional person
> > with perfect pitch, the 4% (2/3 semitone) increase is barely
> > detectable. Oddly enough, a 4% drop (as with made for British TV films
> > shown in a cinema) is much more noticeable, producing a distinctly
> > sluggish sound.
> 
> Is there some technical reason why they can't show 25fps films in cinemas 
> at the right speed? Cameras can do several speeds quite easily just by 
> changing a crystal.
> 
> Rod.

I'm not a projectionist, but I should imagine that most cinemas would
never have any reason to show films at other than 24fps and that the
option would not be built into the projector. The National Film
Theatre, which regularly show silent films, can run the projectors
slower, though I don't know how this is regulated; but it's quite
likely that they can't speed them up. However I don't know for sure.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:44:29 GMT, Roger Wilmut 
wrote:

> The 25fps solution is the least worst. Apart from the occasional person
> with perfect pitch, the 4% (2/3 semitone) increase is barely
> detectable.

I haven't got perfect pitch and I can tell quite easily when something has
been speeded up by 4%. It's very noticeable on music, especially if you know
the piece.
When I worked in radio I was told the most you could get away with without
most people noticing was 2%.

In article <slrngc50gp.1gbk.abuse@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe
<abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:44:29 GMT, Roger Wilmut 
> wrote:
> 
> > The 25fps solution is the least worst. Apart from the occasional person
> > with perfect pitch, the 4% (2/3 semitone) increase is barely
> > detectable.
> 
> I haven't got perfect pitch and I can tell quite easily when something has
> been speeded up by 4%. It's very noticeable on music, especially if you know
> the piece.
> When I worked in radio I was told the most you could get away with without
> most people noticing was 2%.

It's more noticeable if you don't have a picture to distract you: and
of course some people notice it more than others. I still think that
showing films at 25 fps with the pitch shift is preferable to the
unpleasant video artefacts which arise with the conversion to 24fps,
but of course the properly implemented BluRay 24fps is the ideal
solution (not that that helps with transmissions).

"Roger Wilmut"  wrote in message 
news:070920081019136447%rfwilmut@nospam.yahoo.com...


> It's more noticeable if you don't have a picture to distract you: and
> of course some people notice it more than others. I still think that
> showing films at 25 fps with the pitch shift is preferable to the
> unpleasant video artefacts which arise with the conversion to 24fps,
> but of course the properly implemented BluRay 24fps is the ideal
> solution (not that that helps with transmissions).
>



pitch shift isnt needed though - there's plenty of dvds out there where for 
the PAL ( yes i know a dvd actually isnt) release they have pitch corrected 
the sound.
sure the tempo is still different but i don't notice that ( or haven't 
yet ).



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

In article <070920081019136447%rfwilmut@nospam.yahoo.com>, Roger Wilmut
 wrote:
> In article <slrngc50gp.1gbk.abuse@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe
> <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:44:29 GMT, Roger Wilmut
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > The 25fps solution is the least worst. Apart from the occasional
> > > person with perfect pitch, the 4% (2/3 semitone) increase is barely
> > > detectable.
> > 
> > I haven't got perfect pitch and I can tell quite easily when something
> > has been speeded up by 4%. It's very noticeable on music, especially if
> > you know the piece. When I worked in radio I was told the most you
> > could get away with without most people noticing was 2%.

> It's more noticeable if you don't have a picture to distract you: and of
> course some people notice it more than others. I still think that showing
> films at 25 fps with the pitch shift is preferable to the unpleasant
> video artefacts which arise with the conversion to 24fps, but of course
> the properly implemented BluRay 24fps is the ideal solution (not that
> that helps with transmissions).

Very few people notice the 4% speed up on tv films.  I did once have
someone complain on the phone about this, but the particular film was about
a composer's life and featured at lot of classical music. The compainant
said he had perfect pitch.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

The dog from that film you saw wrote:

> pitch shift isnt needed though - there's plenty of dvds out there where 
> for the PAL ( yes i know a dvd actually isnt) release they have pitch 
> corrected the sound.
> sure the tempo is still different but i don't notice that ( or haven't 
> yet ).

Almost twenty years ago, one of the small regional ITV companies were looking 
for a customised solution from professional VTR manufacturers to be able to 
speed up or slow down playback, with appropriate pitch correction, so that 
they could make feature films fit into network time slots, without the need to 
edit them.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In message , charles 
 writes
>In article <070920081019136447%rfwilmut@nospam.yahoo.com>, Roger Wilmut
> wrote:
>> In article <slrngc50gp.1gbk.abuse@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe
>> <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>
>> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:44:29 GMT, Roger Wilmut
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> > > The 25fps solution is the least worst. Apart from the occasional
>> > > person with perfect pitch, the 4% (2/3 semitone) increase is barely
>> > > detectable.
>> >
>> > I haven't got perfect pitch and I can tell quite easily when something
>> > has been speeded up by 4%. It's very noticeable on music, especially if
>> > you know the piece. When I worked in radio I was told the most you
>> > could get away with without most people noticing was 2%.
>
>> It's more noticeable if you don't have a picture to distract you: and of
>> course some people notice it more than others. I still think that showing
>> films at 25 fps with the pitch shift is preferable to the unpleasant
>> video artefacts which arise with the conversion to 24fps, but of course
>> the properly implemented BluRay 24fps is the ideal solution (not that
>> that helps with transmissions).
>
>Very few people notice the 4% speed up on tv films.  I did once have
>someone complain on the phone about this, but the particular film was about
>a composer's life and featured at lot of classical music. The compainant
>said he had perfect pitch.
>
When I was a young lad (in the 1950s), and used to play skiffle, I 
couldn't afford one of those pitch pipe devices you could use to tune 
your guitar with. Also, I rarely had access to a piano. Instead, I took 
my pitch reference by playing 78rpm Pye Nixa Lonnie Donegan records. 
These seemed to be accurate. However, the pitch of many other performers 
of the time, on different record labels, could not be relied on to give 
the correct pitch reference. One of these was Elvis Presley who, I 
believe, was on RCA. Unlike skiffle music (which was usually in the 
'natural' guitar keys of E, C, G, D etc) Elvis songs were always in the 
more 'traditional' orchestral keys (in something sharp or something 
flat). More important to me, the pitch was always midway between two 
correct-pitch semitones.

I would have thought that the record companies would have gone to great 
lengths to ensure that they got the pitch correct. Presumably the error 
was caused by something in the chain being processed at the wrong speed. 
Was I mistaken, or was there some subtle reason for these differences?
-- 
Ian

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:49:18 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> Almost twenty years ago, one of the small regional ITV companies were looking 
> for a customised solution from professional VTR manufacturers to be able to 
> speed up or slow down playback, with appropriate pitch correction, so that 
> they could make feature films fit into network time slots, without the need to 
> edit them.

Did Mr. Sony (or whoever) ever produce such a solution? If so, was it used
and how long for?

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6ihmcoFm92o6U1@mid.individual.net...
> The dog from that film you saw wrote:
>
>> pitch shift isnt needed though - there's plenty of dvds out there where 
>> for the PAL ( yes i know a dvd actually isnt) release they have pitch 
>> corrected the sound.
>> sure the tempo is still different but i don't notice that ( or haven't 
>> yet ).
>
> Almost twenty years ago, one of the small regional ITV companies were 
> looking for a customised solution from professional VTR manufacturers to 
> be able to speed up or slow down playback, with appropriate pitch 
> correction, so that they could make feature films fit into network time 
> slots, without the need to edit them.




and then they realised benny hill might sue the film makers mistakenly 
thinking they were ripping him off.



-- 
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"charles"  wrote in message 
news:4fdb03bab5charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> Very few people notice the 4% speed up on tv films.  I did once have
> someone complain on the phone about this, but the particular film was 
> about
> a composer's life and featured at lot of classical music. The compainant
> said he had perfect pitch.

He was just showing off then, really.

Bill

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:49:18 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> Almost twenty years ago, one of the small regional ITV companies were looking 
>> for a customised solution from professional VTR manufacturers to be able to 
>> speed up or slow down playback, with appropriate pitch correction, so that 
>> they could make feature films fit into network time slots, without the need to 
>> edit them.
> 
> Did Mr. Sony (or whoever) ever produce such a solution? If so, was it used
> and how long for?

The idea was to use a D2 digital-composite VTR, which did offer non 'unity' 
playback speeds, lots of experiments were done, but I don't recall it was ever 
used in anger. The ITV company concerned lost its franchise a couple of years 
later anyway.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.