What is with the fixation on 60fps *or* 30fps with consoles?

[jimpo]

You are wrong.

Broadcasts run at 30fps. End of story. Screen grabs have nothing to do with your opinion over this.

If you wanna keep thinking that you're watching F1 broadcasts at 60fps, keep thinking that, it seems you're not going to listen to us anyway.

I only spend time explain things if people listen.

Can you tell me why screen grabs have nothing to do with this?

And what have you said that I haven't listened? I think you are the one who is not listening.

You keep yapping about your "explanations", which are like this:

Broadcasts and DVDs (and any other recording, including future HDDVD/BluRay) runs at 30fps, so we will see 30 "movements" each second, on screen that update the image 60 times in a second.

Your explanation is in effect "broadcast runs at 30fps, since it is so". You have explained nothing, proved nothing, offered no links, or whatever. And still you keep lecturing me. Give me something logical, valid, links backing up your opinion, and I will listen. And if I am wrong I'll admit it. But so far I see nothing.

I am at work now, but once I get home I can upload a frame grab of broadcasted racing to offer something concrete to this discussion.

And if you are starting to get confused - what we are debating here is whether one frame of broadcasted signal of racing contains samples from a) one point in time - your opinion, or b) two points of time, different points of time for odd and even lines - my opinion. I have never claimed that broadcasted signal would be technically 50/60fps.

Sure the recordings are 30fps. But that is not relevant for the user experience. User experiences effectively 60fps refresh rate.

Each frame contains both odd and even lines. Let's say recording has frames 1, 2, 3...29, 30 for one second. What viewer sees is 60 separate frames 1odd, 1even, 2odd, 2even....30odd, 30even. Frame 1odd is from a separate point of time than frame 1even. Going by your racing example, viewer sees the F1 car in 60 separate positions during one second.

What this means is that both 60fps refresh rate AND good motion blur are required for same experience of fluidity as viewing racing from TV broadcast. What many racing games offer, 30fps and no motion blur, is quite far from that.

Nope, my example explained that looking at broadcasts and DVDs (for example), we only see a car (or anything else) in a different position 30 times in one second. The screen just updates the image 60 times every second.

 

[DrPetter]

(I'm not allowed to edit, so I'll make an addition instead
All regular content is 50 fps, but movies are broadcast at 25 fps since that's closer to the original 24 fps they were recorded in. The result is what you describe, that each frame consists of two fields that contain the even or odd lines of the exact same image. That's not true for sports, news etc though (where motion is clearly more fluid than in movies).

 

[London Geezer]

I'm sorry for writing Hz instead of fps in my last post, I view them as being the same thing since essentially they are. jimpo IS correct, they are broadcast at 60 frames per second, see the first four image sequences in my link.
Of course I can't pretend that I know exactly how F1 broadcasts work in your area, but all television content in Sweden is broadcast at 50 fps interlaced and that's a fact.

Are you serious? I seriously have never heard of broadcasters doing that in here.
I was pretty confident that all recorded material, at least in the whole of Europe, was at 30fps (25 in fact, since we're all PAL).

Well then, if some countries have 50/60fps (not Hz) broadcasts, then i stand corrected, i seriously had never heard of that. It surely doesn't work that way in the UK.

I assume all recorded material like TV series and movies will run at 25fps but things like sports run at 50fps in Sweden? Well in that case i'm jealous.

 

[jimpo]

You are wrong.

Broadcasts run at 30fps. End of story. Screen grabs have nothing to do with your opinion over this. And it's not an "opinion". You are wrong because you are wrong.

If you wanna keep thinking that you're watching F1 broadcasts at 60fps, keep thinking that, it seems you're not going to listen to us anyway.

I only spend time explaining things if people listen.

Damn, I wish I would learn to listen!

 

[London Geezer]

Damn, I wish I would learn to listen!

Man you're a slow replier!! go on, there are like 4 more replies after that!

Anyway, i was basing my facts on this common knowledge:



[size=+1]

[size=+1]Formats[/size]
The reason that broadcasters can create sub-channels is because digital TV standards allow several different formats. Broadcasters can choose between three formats:

• 480i - The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
• 480p - The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
• 720p - The picture is 1280x720 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
• 1080i - The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
• 1080p - The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.

(The "p" and "i" designations stand for "progressive" and "interlaced." In a progressive format, the full picture updates every sixtieth of a second. In an interlaced format, half of the picture updates every sixtieth of a second.)

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/dtv3.htm

But if you're saying that in the country you live in, they do 50fps broadcasts, then that's different. I still can't find anything on the net about 50/60fps broadcasts though.



My post has gone crazy!!! Why is it so big?! Can't even change it![/size]

 

[function]

Lots of stuff in the UK is broadcst at 50hz too. You don't get full height (two fields making one frame) but you get a much smoother moving image.

 

[London Geezer]

Lots of stuff in the UK is broadcst at 50hz too. You don't get full height (two fields making one frame) but you get a much smoother moving image.

50fps? Well i'll be damned but i still get the choppiness so i'm definately doing something wrong.
Even Wimbledon shows signs of 25fps, and that should really be faster.

 

[jimpo]

[size=+1]
But if you're saying that in the country you live in, they do 50fps broadcasts, then that's different. I still can't find anything on the net about 50/60fps broadcasts though.[/size]

It's hardly my fault that you get yourself confused, is it?

No need to pretend that this is some weird Sweden-only method of broadcasting. You have it too. It's common practise everywhere. You just did not know your facts and were talking out of your ass. And being pretty obnoxious at it, I might add.

 

[London Geezer]

Again, i still can't find anything to tell me about 50fps broadcasts.

So basically you're telling me that i've lived under a rock since this was decided:

NTSC (National Television Systems Committee), PAL (Phase Alteration Line) and SECAM (Systeme Electronique Couleur Avec Memoire, electronic color system with memory) are the primary worldwide video standards currently in use. With 525 vertical lines of video information moving at 30 frames per second, NTSC is the system used in the United States and all of North America, most of the Western Hemisphere, Japan and various other countries, including South Vietnam, South Korea and the Philippines. PAL and SECAM both have 625 vertical lines of video information moving at 25 frames per second. PAL, often called "the European format," is the traditional system of Britain and its Commonwealth countries, Germany, Holland, Spain and their commerce partners. SECAM, originally a French/Soviet co-venture, has fallen into disuse since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and has been largely replaced by PAL.

http://www.ascentmedia.com/library/videoformat_faq.aspx

And that now there are 50/60fps broadcasts...? Well colour me impressed. And no need to go all bitchy, i admitted that i was wrong (if i actually am, still not 100% convinced). And i had lots of links to prove my points, you still haven't provided any.

and were talking out of your ass. And being pretty obnoxious at it, I might add.

Congrats on that part by the way... I was obviously not talking out of my ass, seeing the links

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's been a while since I was involved with video work so I'm might well be out. Still, AFAIK a PAL video camera captures an image of something like 720x576 every 25th of a second. That's 25 frames a second with each frame shown for two refreshes. If you do a full 25th/second screen grab, you capture two fields. If you start on the SECOND field update, you get a scross over of field two of image a, and field 1 of image b, which has pronounced shimmer on contrasty and/or fast moving images as jimpo describes.

BUT maybe a more modern approach is to film 720x288 (or 720x576 and take every other line) at 50 images per second, and broadcast 50 different images showing alternating lines of subsequent frames? There's nothing in the broadcast standard to prevent this as transmissions are of fields, not frames, so the TV can cope. This should result in smoother broadcasts but I can't say I've ever noticed any improvement or seen it in effect.

If so this is certainly news to me

 

[London Geezer]

It's been a while since I was involved with video work so I'm might well be out. Still, AFAIK a PAL video camera captures an image of something like 720x576 every 25th of a second. That's 25 frames a second with each frame shown for two refreshes. If you do a full 25th/second screen grab, you capture two fields. If you start on the SECOND field update, you get a scross over of field two of image a, and field 1 of image b, which has pronounced shimmer on contrasty and/or fast moving images as jimpo describes.

BUT maybe a more modern approach is to film 720x288 (or 720x576 and take every other line) at 50 images per second, and broadcast 50 different images showing alternating lines of subsequent frames? There's nothing in the broadcast standard to prevent this as transmissions are of fields, not frames, so the TV can cope. This should result in smoother broadcasts but I can't say I've ever noticed any improvement or seen it in effect.

If so this is certainly news to me

Makes two of us then.


EDIT: And more links, since i don't like talking out of my ass. Still can't find one single source anywhere regarding 50fps broadcasts in Europe, or 60fps in the rest of the world Everything says 50Hz/25fps and 60Hz/30fps. And i'm a pretty good Googler.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&q=pal%20frame%20rate

 

[jimpo]

Again, i still can't find anything to tell me about 50fps broadcasts.
And that now there are 50/60fps broadcasts...? Well colour me impressed.

So, now that you are starting to accept that you were wrong, you chance tactics, and twist the facts so that I said they broadcast a 50/60fps signal? I never claimed that, I even went and explained it to you again in my post:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=574227&postcount=61

And i had lots of links to prove my points, you still haven't provided any.

I believe I provided a link before you did any:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=574203&postcount=49


No matter how you try to twist it, I still know: I was right, you were wrong. You did not know at all what you were talking about. I offered explanations and facts, but you did not listen, you were too busy shouting accusations and showing hostility.

 

[Apoc]

BUT maybe a more modern approach is to film 720x288 (or 720x576 and take every other line) at 50 images per second, and broadcast 50 different images showing alternating lines of subsequent frames? There's nothing in the broadcast standard to prevent this as transmissions are of fields, not frames, so the TV can cope. This should result in smoother broadcasts but I can't say I've ever noticed any improvement or seen it in effect.

If so this is certainly news to me

Yes, that's the way cameras work. They capture 50/60 half-heigth frames, so there are two of them embedded in each frame. It makes the image MUCH smoother (that's why DVD's movies are more "jumpy" than tv movies) but at the cost of reducing the vertical resolution (they increase the shimmering). You have noticed no improvement because they always worked that way.

Now film directors use cameras that capture frames at 50/60 PROGRESSIVE frames since a few years because they have better quality when showed in cinemas, and when interlaced to produce tv movies they provide 2x vertical antialiasing, thus reducing shimmering.

 

[London Geezer]

No matter how you try to twist it, I still know: I was right, you were wrong. You did not know at all what you were talking about. I offered explanations and facts, but you did not listen, you were too busy shouting accusations and showing hostility.

Gee man you SO need to chill...

After admitting defeat not once but TWICE, you still attack me? Fine be like that.

 

[Phil]

So, now that you are starting to accept that you were wrong, you chance tactics, and twist the facts so that I said they broadcast a 50/60fps signal? I never claimed that, I even went and explained it to you again in my post:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=574227&postcount=61



I believe I provided a link before you did any:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=574203&postcount=49


No matter how you try to twist it, I still know: I was right, you were wrong. You did not know at all what you were talking about. I offered explanations and facts, but you did not listen, you were too busy shouting accusations and showing hostility.

I am not going to argue at what framerate material is broadcasted, but I'm not quite sure I agree with your original post -->

Sure the recordings are 30fps. But that is not relevant for the user experience. User experiences effectively 60fps refresh rate.

If the source material is 30 fps, you're getting 30 full-frames-per-second. If these are refreshed as odd/even lines at 60Hz or a 120Hz still doesn't change the fact that the source material is at 30 full-frames-per-second.

You'd be effectively showing the odd/even lines of the same image in 2 refreshes. While that may make it a bit more smooth for the user, it's still not as smooth as if you'd be refreshing 60 fullframe-per-second material on a 60Hz display.

 

[London Geezer]

So, now that you are starting to accept that you were wrong, you chance tactics, and twist the facts so that I said they broadcast a 50/60fps signal? I never claimed that

No need to twist, you kinda did say that...

But people are not watching 30fps rate in the broadcast. It is effectively 60fps, since each broadcasted frame contains two different frames that are displayed to the viewer separately.

There really is no need for this thread to become abusive, so cut it out.

 

[Gerry]

I think the trouble here is that people are simply getting confused as to what other people mean by "fps".

Jimpo originally stated "effectively" 60fps. I think people may have assumed he meant 60 full video frames per second, which is of course wrong. I assume by use of the word "effectively" he meant 60 half-frames per second. Now I'd say calling this 60fps is going against the grain of what the normal definition of what fps means.

L-b's definition of fps is "how many full frames are displayed a second", which is undoubtedly 30 for NTSC (25 PAL).

What complicates matters is that interlacing never displays a complete frame as such since the second half of the frame is captured 1/60th of a second later, which leads to a smoother image. But even taking that into account it's still only 30 full frames a second.

Of course I could be getting just as confused as to what everybody else is thinking myself. If so, then I apologise profusely right now, because I don't want to get shouted at.

 

[London Geezer]

I think the trouble here is that people are simply getting confused as to what other people mean by "fps".

Jimpo originally stated "effectively" 60fps. I think people may have assumed he meant 60 full video frames per second, which is of course wrong. I assume by use of the word "effectively" he meant 60 half-frames per second. Now I'd say calling this 60fps is going against the grain of what the normal definition of what fps means.

L-b's definition of fps is "how many full frames are displayed a second", which is undoubtedly 30 for NTSC (25 PAL).

Thank you.

 

[Apoc]

I think the trouble here is that people are simply getting confused as to what other people mean by "fps".

Jimpo originally stated "effectively" 60fps. I think people may have assumed he meant 60 full video frames per second, which is of course wrong. I assume by use of the word "effectively" he meant 60 half-frames per second. Now I'd say calling this 60fps is going against the grain of what the normal definition of what fps means.

L-b's definition of fps is "how many full frames are displayed a second", which is undoubtedly 30 for NTSC (25 PAL).

What complicates matters is that interlacing never displays a complete frame as such since the second half of the frame is captured 1/60th of a second later, which leads to a smoother image. But even taking that into account it's still only 30 full frames a second.

Of course I could be getting just as confused as to what everybody else is thinking myself. If so, then I apologise profusely right now, because I don't want to get shouted at.

No,you got it right. As i said before, in each frame there are two unique half-heigth frames. That makes for 30 fps material having two different half-frames in each of them.

 

[Phil]

I just wanted to say that the two half-frames are never identical because when you have a full-frame image that i.e. is 640x480 pixels, the half-frame consisting of only odd lines will result in a 640x240 frame. The even lines that are refreshed next is the frame of the other 640x240 pixels of the same 640x480 full-frame image. Hope that clears it up why odd and even lines are different (they're not from the same coordinates within the pictures, it's just the other half of the information that wasn't displayed the previous refresh).