0732: "HDTV"

[memcginn]

Once again, thanks to Randall Munroe, I will remember something technical that I previously did not care about.

The number in ####{p, i} is the vertical resolution, and the {p. i} is progressive vs. interlaced scan.

Also, to anyone who hasn't been bothered by high frame rates: have you ever seen a British sitcom?

I (an American) have some experience with two British TV shows. One is Doctor Who (so far, the whole modern show and most of the First Doctor). The other is The Inbetweeners (which is a sitcom). TBH, the bigger difference, to me, is the whole atmosphere of the show.

Or are you going more for something like the skits of The Catherine Tate Show (of which I have seen clips on YouTube)? I think I almost start to get what you're talking about, if it can be seen on YouTube. Because CT Show definitely looked different there than Doctor Who does on the telly.

[Monotonius]

But on the subject of backwards-compataiblity-ass-hattery, it's 59.94fps, not 60fps.

It's actually 60000/1001 fps. You set a precedent .

I agree that higher frame-rates should be used more frequently, but it is true that 24 fps has different motion characteristics than 60 fps. The cheap look is due to poor production values. However, I have heard film/video experts claim that even higher frame-rate film looks cheap. Also, I would think that it would be more difficult to achieve the staccato effect used in Gladiator (low shutter angle or high shutter speed) at a higher frame rate (I haven't actually got the chance to try this with a camera myself yet).

[J the Ninja]

It bugs me that a lot of people who don't use computers much associate quality with screen size. A lot of the people I've talked to would say that a giant CRT TV is "better" than my laptop's screen simply because it's bigger. Yet, if you hooked my laptop up to that TV and tried to read anything, it would just be a blur. Yet, they insist that they can "see stuff better" on big screens.

The same people can't accept that fact that most laptop screens are, in fact, HD. A lot of laptops screens are currently 1280x800px (16:10) - perfect for 720p content. Though there aren't a ton of laptops that actually have 1920x1080px resolutions, almost all laptops are well suited to view HD content (a lot better than some people's giant TVs).

Another one that bugs me is when people see a small screen (like a 12.1" laptop or a cell phone), they say "Oh, I couldn't read anything on that, the screen's so small!". But if they just tried, they would realize that the resolution is more than high enough for comfortable reading.

And yeah, 24fps is pathetic. People would be upset if some video games ran at such pathetic frame rates, yet, for some reason, it's perfectly acceptable for Blu-Ray movies, the so-called "Best way to experience movies at home. Ever". Yeah right.

IMO, physical size has a big effect on visual impact. For example, the 3 displays in my life (all LCDs)

HDTV: 32" 1366x768
External monitor: 22" 1680x1050
Laptop: 15.4" 1440x900

The HDTV is the most visually impressive of the 3, simply for it's physical size relative to my surroundings. Despite having both the lowest resolution and smallest size in my field of vision. Similarly, the visual impact of the 22" monitor is far greater than the laptop display, a lot more than the 37% more pixels (and lower ppi) would imply. Simply because it is physically larger.

[eviloatmeal]

I have to admit this thread lost me on the subject of frame rate... anyone care to provide some comparison examples?

As for the whole resolution thing, I have 3200x1080 pixels on my desktop, and I always make good use of it. Creating and / or appreciating digital art is very much facilitated by higher resolutions.

[SorryBoringNickName]

Porn in HD?

Gross.

[PhilZombie]

Yes, monitors have been higher resolution for a long time, but the available content has not. Being able to display full-screen video at 1080p, or even 720p is a great advance.

The frame rate thing is really interesting. I'm not sure that Randall's explanation is quite enough. I've no idea what the explanation is, to be honest, but I do know that watching a movie that has been "post-processed" to display at 60fps looks bloody awful. Like cheap video. I'm really interested in whether this is just due to conditioning as Randall suggested, or something more fundamental. I guess it will require some proper scientific testing at some point.

I do know that movies don't look, or sound, "real" at all, really. The colours are graded to invoke a mood, the contrast is cheated, and soundtrack is entirely fabricated for dramatic effect, resulting in a "hyper-real" overall experience. I wonder if the 24fps frame helps sell this 'real-but-not-quite-real' phenomenon, and having it presented at 60fps undoes the effect somewhat. Definitely a question worthy of further study.

[J the Ninja]

I have to admit this thread lost me on the subject of frame rate... anyone care to provide some comparison examples?

As for the whole resolution thing, I have 3200x1080 pixels on my desktop, and I always make good use of it. Creating and / or appreciating digital art is very much facilitated by higher resolutions.

OK, the major ones:

23.976fps (movie retimed for NTSC, sometimes called 23.98.)
24fps (movie)
25fps (PAL TV [Europe/Asia/most of Latin America)
29.97fps (NTSC TV (North America/Japan)
50fps (PAL TV)
59.94fps (NTSC TV)

Forgive me for leaving PAL countries out of the rest of this, I live and edit video in an NTSC country.

29.97fps is the major, common NTSC frame rate. Every standard def NTSC camera films in that rate. Many HDTV cameras do as well, for compatibility, and because it's a good balance between speed and file size. Some HDTV cameras film in 59.94fps. It makes fast motion look smoother, but it also takes up twice as much disk space, both on the camera, and during editing. It also is more strain on the system during editing, since it has to work twice as fast to keep playback working in real time. Movie cameras film at 24fps, and have for ages. For NTSC distribution, this will often be "re-timed" to 23.98 to deal with the NTSC framerate. (That little /1.001 offset comes from when color was added. They decided the best way to implement it without muking the audio or breaking compatibility was to drop the whole frame rate)

Film is sometimes also just retimed to 29.97 or 59.94. Although that looks like crap, unless you use optical flow, and sometimes it still looks funny. Also, optical flow requires either dedicated hardware, or a LOT of processing time.

[eviloatmeal]

I have to admit this thread lost me on the subject of frame rate... anyone care to provide some comparison examples?

As for the whole resolution thing, I have 3200x1080 pixels on my desktop, and I always make good use of it. Creating and / or appreciating digital art is very much facilitated by higher resolutions.

OK, the major ones:

23.976fps (movie retimed for NTSC, sometimes called 23.98.)
24fps (movie)
25fps (PAL TV [Europe/Asia/most of Latin America)
29.97fps (NTSC TV (North America/Japan)
50fps (PAL TV)
59.94fps (NTSC TV)

Forgive me for leaving PAL countries out of the rest of this, I live and edit video in an NTSC country.

29.97fps is the major, common NTSC frame rate. Every standard def NTSC camera films in that rate. Many HDTV cameras do as well, for compatibility, and because it's a good balance between speed and file size. Some HDTV cameras film in 59.94fps. It makes fast motion look smoother, but it also takes up twice as much disk space, both on the camera, and during editing. It also is more strain on the system during editing, since it has to work twice as fast to keep playback working in real time. Movie cameras film at 24fps, and have for ages. For NTSC distribution, this will often be "re-timed" to 23.98 to deal with the NTSC framerate. (That little /1.001 offset comes from when color was added. They decided the best way to implement it without muking the audio or breaking compatibility was to drop the whole frame rate)

Film is sometimes also just retimed to 29.97 or 59.94. Although that looks like crap, unless you use optical flow, and sometimes it still looks funny. Also, optical flow requires either dedicated hardware, or a LOT of processing time.

No, I mean some examples of video at 60fps, Einstein, I know what framerates are.

[tastelikecoke]

^ try using videocam.

I pondered this as well! Why does movies have 24 fps? When using flash, cranking up the fps to 60 makes everything look super fluid. But it looks creepy and 3Dlike. Maybe because our eyes actually takes down frame rates when looking to objects that move (probably to focus) while a screen in front of you don't exhibit such uncanny?

[wackojacko1138]

I've got a 3DTV that can do 240 Hz, giving us 120 Hz 3D image. I suppose that would make 24 fps movies look better, too. I really hate watching standard definition on an HDTV for similar reasons. 1080 does not divide evenly into 480, making standar definition look even worse on a high definition television. But before too long everything will be airing in HD, so I can deal with it by watching 3D Blu-rays.

[Snate]

I totally agree with this xkcd comic.

In fact it finally got me to write a letter I've been meaning to write for a while.

Here's a letter I just sent to Maximum PC in response to their May 2010 editorial "Displays, Not GPUs, Need More Tech Attention."

I've been meaning to write them ever since I got the May 2010 issue in the mail but have forgotten or been busy. This xkcd reminded me of it again so I finally did it.

Hello,

I read your May 2010 Editorial "Displays, Not GPUs, Need More Tech Attention" and I agree with your assessment that displays, especially for PCs, have become ignored.

The newest xkcd comic actually does a very good job of summarizing the issue (http://xkcd.com/732/).

I hate it that 1920x1200 monitors are much harder to find at a reasonable price now than 1920x1080. In fact there are fewer of them in general.

I have two 1600x1200 (which are now impossible to find at a reasonable price) and I'd eventually like to get a 1920x1200 to go between them.

A search of Newegg.com results in 22 1920x1200 desktop displays ranging from $209.99 to $1,949.99, 95 1920x1080 desktop displays ranging from $149.99 to $429.99, and 5 1600x1200 desktop displays ranging from $799.99 to $2,949.99 (not that I want one of these now but when I bought mine a few years ago they were reasonably priced for the time at $349.99).

So what if HD Movies and TV are at 1920x1080; computers are used for a lot more than playing movies or watching TV.

Thanks for showing interest in display technology. I hope to see what I'm sure will be a great article soon.

[J the Ninja]

No, I mean some examples of video at 60fps, Einstein, I know what framerates are.

I gave you examples of where each one is used.

Anyway,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdEohfi7Ii0


See how the 60i one looks more "fluid" than 24? Anyway, I agree with the person who said 24fps was not for realism. It's more a stylistic thing. As noted, pretty much everything in a movie is faked. Either on set, or in post. Most people are shocked when they learn how little of film audio is recorded on set. On high-budget blockbusters, it's just some of the dialogue, the rest is done in post. Lower budget films won't do automated dialogue replacement, and will try to keep foley (things like footsteps) done on set to keep post-pro time down, but they're still doing the SFX largely from stock libraries and sounds they record themselves. (Guns don't sound like that. Neither do horses galloping. Or most motorcycle engines. And bald eagles do NOT make that noise. Oh, and there is not a deep rumble in space. Or any sound at all for that matter.)

I've got a 3DTV that can do 240 Hz, giving us 120 Hz 3D image. I suppose that would make 24 fps movies look better, too. I really hate watching standard definition on an HDTV for similar reasons. 1080 does not divide evenly into 480, making standar definition look even worse on a high definition television. But before too long everything will be airing in HD, so I can deal with it by watching 3D Blu-rays.

120Hz makes 24fps look better because 120 divides evenly by 24, 60 does not. So you can just show each frame 5 times instead of showing every 3rd frame twice, or whatever it is. (couldn't tell from your post if you got that or not) 480 on a 1080 set is more an issue of sheer size than divisibility, though.

[Isaac20]

I went to a video game store a month ago, and I was shocked that only one shelf had computer games. A whole store had PS3, Wii, XBox 360 games, but only a shelf for computer games. Most of those were for MMOs. My guess is that pirating is really doing damage to the video game industry, and it is much harder to pirate games through XBox live than through the normal internet.

It's not so much the piracy as the advancement of digital distribution.

Good comic, this has been bugging me for a while.

[theta4]

Dammit, Randall! 60p/30i SUCKS BALLS!

This is an important subject to me, Mr. I-rule-the-Internet-and-my-opinions-are-better-than-everybody-else's-because-I-have-a-webcomic-that-even-Google-reads. (That's right, I said Google.)

I absolutely love the way 24p 35mm film looks. I hate the fact that digital is beginning to take over theaters! It would have been amazing to see classics like Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey in theaters in all of their 35mm 24p glory. But now I have to settle for VHS and DVD, sacrificing that genuine, warm projector look. Ah, 24p 35mm projectors. Bliss

I love the sort of flickery look when 24p 35mm is played.
I love the way 35mm looks kinda grainy.
I love the jaggedy but smooth motion of 24p.
I love the warmer look of 35mm.
I love that extra-wide 2.39 aspect ratio.

FILM FOREVER!

So shut the hell up about your damn 60p!

[z-bot]

HDTV makes a lot more sense than surround sound. People seem to like unrealistic echoes right behind their heads and think bass is one distorted frequency boosted 6 or more dB by a port in a cheap box. At least Discovery HD looks good.

Your note on surround is so true. I prefer two channels and two reasonably good speakers over almost anything people put in their houses these days. It is safe to say that 15 years ago, the average living room sounded at least three times as good as today, with all the ill-installed surround thingies, with mp3 being bad compared to even an old and scratched record or tape and with the stuff that comes out of ipod docking stations with 4" speakers and their associated super-enhanced mega bass equlization.

The best part is that it even has back-impacted the music industry: People are used to listen to chart music on their cell phone speakers with no bass and a THD+N of 15%, and if you listen to the stuff currently produced by, e.g., the black eyed peas, there is zero bass at all, already on the master tape, even before being played back on a tiny cell phone speaker. Dude, even if the black eyed peas are not the nastiest hip hop around, here we are, in the year 2010, listening to hip hop with no bass at all, even if we had good speakers. Welcome to the great times of ring tone pop (or whatever you might wanna call this genre).

[Invisiblemoose]

If it's not 24fps, it doesn't look like a movie. That's just how it is.

Let me guess, you guys think it's a travesty that lots of studios still shoot movies on film, too?

[eviloatmeal]

No, I mean some examples of video at 60fps, Einstein, I know what framerates are.

I gave you examples of where each one is used.

Anyway,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdEohfi7Ii0

Thanks, but are you sure this showcases the true difference? How do you encode the first half of a video at 60fps and the second half at 24fps? And does youtube even encode to 60fps? Perhaps some of it is lost in the inevitable re-encode?

[ijuin]

My understanding is that what makes high framerate look bad is when video is shown at a rate different from the rate that it was shot at. For example, if you took a movie that was shot at 24 fps and use interpolation in order to create a 60 fps version, it will look quite inferior to what you would have gotten had you shot it at 60 fps to begin with. This is similar in nature to how some HDTV sets will "upsample" a standard-definition movie (640x480 or less for NTSC) to get a pseudo-HD signal that still looks inferior to native HD.

[Xavios]

Don't see anything funny about HDTV. It's just the industry standard for televisions. Sure, computer monitors can beat it in resolution, but you don't have computer monitors that are 60" LED screens, either. I mean, look at the Bravias - you can't get one that doesn't run Full HD, and you can only get one TV out of the entire new range (...40 TVs or so?) that runs at less than 100hz.

[J the Ninja]

No, I mean some examples of video at 60fps, Einstein, I know what framerates are.

I gave you examples of where each one is used.

Anyway,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdEohfi7Ii0

Thanks, but are you sure this showcases the true difference? How do you encode the first half of a video at 60fps and the second half at 24fps? And does youtube even encode to 60fps? Perhaps some of it is lost in the inevitable re-encode?

Yes, some is lost. You can still kind of see it though, although a lot of that is probably 3:2 pulldown artifacts. Honestly, nobody streams video at 60fps. It's just not worth the bandwidth. I'm afraid you'll need to compare some movies and TV shows to really get a sense of it.

Also, yes, converting 24fps to broadcast frame rates sucks. Optical flow can help, but that's a lot of encoding time when you need to put it on the WHOLE GORRAM MOVIE, plus it still isn't foolproof. And when you are retiming an entire film, you can't set up your shot to make it easier for the computer to get right like you can when using it for bullet-time or a faux slo-mo look in one shot.

[eviloatmeal]

No, I mean some examples of video at 60fps, Einstein, I know what framerates are.

I gave you examples of where each one is used.

Anyway,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdEohfi7Ii0

Thanks, but are you sure this showcases the true difference? How do you encode the first half of a video at 60fps and the second half at 24fps? And does youtube even encode to 60fps? Perhaps some of it is lost in the inevitable re-encode?

Yes, some is lost. You can still kind of see it though, although a lot of that is probably 3:2 pulldown artifacts. Honestly, nobody streams video at 60fps. It's just not worth the bandwidth. I'm afraid you'll need to compare some movies and TV shows to really get a sense of it.

Also, yes, converting 24fps to broadcast frame rates sucks. Optical flow can help, but that's a lot of encoding time when you need to put it on the WHOLE GORRAM MOVIE, plus it still isn't foolproof. And when you are retiming an entire film, you can't set up your shot to make it easier for the computer to get right like you can when using it for bullet-time or a faux slo-mo look in one shot.

Right. Well I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I was just looking for some suggestions of examples of the whole "60fps TV shows look weird". It's not exactly as if the box in the store says "This show is 60fps, other aren't, pick this one to compare.".

[Emperor_Z]

I had no idea that high frame rate was the source of the "home movie effect". Superior is inferior, I am baffled

[phillipsjk]

I've got a 3DTV that can do 240 Hz, giving us 120 Hz 3D image. I suppose that would make 24 fps movies look better, too. I really hate watching standard definition on an HDTV for similar reasons. 1080 does not divide evenly into 480, making standar definition look even worse on a high definition television. But before too long everything will be airing in HD, so I can deal with it by watching 3D Blu-rays.

You don't have a "3D" TV; you have a stereoscopic TV. Without lenses (setting the TV distance to "infinity") and a carefully chosen seating position, you may be better off just using it in 2D mode (doubly true if your only see the world in 2 1/2 dimensions to start with).

Anyway, I think I figured out how the HD resolutions were derived: back in the day, many movies were shot with the 16:9 aspect ratio. These days, many movies are shot in the more extreme 2:1 aspect ratio, but that is beside the point.

When they were coming up with the resolutions, "Standard Definition" was about 640x480 (a 4:3 aspect ratio) (exact resolution varies). What happens to the resolution when you "letter box" a 16:9 movie on a 640x480 display?

640/16=40
40*9=360

So the effective resolution of a 16:9 signal on a SD display is 640x360.
Doubled: 1280x720
Tripled: 1920x1080

Of course, throwing a monkey wrench into all this is my 27 inch TV that can convert itself into a 24 inch widescreen TV by squeezing the picture. In widescreen mode I can get that full 640x480 SD resolution; no letter boxing required. I have not been able to train my family to take advantage of that though. If I leave the DVD player in widescreen mode, they are content to watch the picture vertically stretched.

I also hate widescreen TVs displaying a 4:3 signal horizontally stretched. I can understand why people do it though: Imagine your have some "content" with a 16:9 aspect ratio, but you (a TV broadcaster) are still broadcasting a 4:3 SD signal. You have to letter box with horizontal black bars, sacrificing 120 lines of resolution. Your viewer has a brand new HD TV with a 16:9 native resolution. To preserve the aspect ratio, vertical black bars must now be applied. The result is a black frame all the way around the picture. Your 30 inch TV is essentially converted into a 22 inch TV. That is why some models let you zoom in to actually use the whole screen when this occurs.

[logixoul]

Guys, I'm really curious about the 60fps vs 24fps fake feeling. Can you point me to a sample vid with two versions, one "film-like" and one "camcorder-like"?

Edit: GammaRay256, 24fps is ok for movies but it's not for games. Quite simply, because movies don't have interaction, so there's no "reaction latency" you need to care for. Having someone shoot at me in CS and trying to turn around and respond in a split-second would be a huge pain in 24fps.

[J the Ninja]

Guys, I'm really curious about the 60fps vs 24fps fake feeling. Can you point me to a sample vid with two versions, one "film-like" and one "camcorder-like"?

Scroll up for some attempts and explanations of why this is hard to find.

[EricSeverson]

tune into a soap opera sometime for a good example
because its shot on a 30 fps video it looks strangely different. More realistic, yes, but also unsettling (at least in my opinion)
this is where the term "soap-opera effect" comes from to describe the video-like quality of higher frame rates

[Mo6eB]

Don't see anything funny about HDTV. It's just the industry standard for televisions. Sure, computer monitors can beat it in resolution, but you don't have computer monitors that are 60" LED screens, either. I mean, look at the Bravias - you can't get one that doesn't run Full HD, and you can only get one TV out of the entire new range (...40 TVs or so?) that runs at less than 100hz.

HDTVs are pretty normal. What's funny is the entire "Golly Gosh Darn Gee Wiz it's DA FUTURE" thing about them. It feels like a printing company now coming up with a method to print on twice thinner paper than was possible before and touting it as "A revolutionary invention that doubles mankind's information storage density".

Edit: I typed О М F G and the fora software made it more awesome. Thanks, word filter .

[SenorKaffee]

Don't forget that "film-look" is more than using the 24p-mode on your camcorder. There is also the much talked-about 180 degree shutter rule. Long story short - for a film camera it's physically impossible to have slower shutter than half the frame rate. So - 24 frames = 1/48 max , 30 frames = 1/60 max, the beloved slomo recorded at 120 frames = 1/240 max. Digital cameras can easily go to 1/24 or 1/12 shutter speed - which is tempting for the operator, because you get more light in the camera. On a real film camera this would be an impossible 360 and 720 degree shutter.

In the end, it's all about expectations. In the west, we expect a certain "big-budget, dreamy Hollywood" look. Other regions also accept the "cheap realistic video" look.

[SirJefferE]

Actually, Digital Distribution like Steam or those other less convenient services are pushing PC games out of stores. PC gaming is as big as it ever was, even discounting MMOs. Piracy is still pretty manageable.

That's basically it. I haven't seen a reason to go to a game store in years. When I can buy online and download the game basically any time I want at any computer I happen to be on, I can't real advantage to owning a CD or DVD of it, especially considering that DVDs can get lost or broken, while any game downloads (Depending on the service) can be re-downloaded any time you want.

I suppose on some 10-15 gb games there might be a point to buying a CD, but even then I don't mind buying online and having it shipped to me. Game stores just have such terrible prices, and you're rarely (if ever) supporting the actual developers when buying there anyways. Especially with their whole, "Trade 10 games and get one for just ten dollars!" strategies where they resell games five or six times each.

Basically, PC gaming is going on just fine, and has been for years. It's just been moved out of the stores. (It's also fairly likely that within 5-10 years that all gaming will have moved out of the stores. At a certain point in time somebody is going to wonder why boxing/shipping/shelves/etc are needed at all anymore.)

[Anubis]

I've got a 3DTV that can do 240 Hz, giving us 120 Hz 3D image. I suppose that would make 24 fps movies look better, too. I really hate watching standard definition on an HDTV for similar reasons. 1080 does not divide evenly into 480, making standar definition look even worse on a high definition television. But before too long everything will be airing in HD, so I can deal with it by watching 3D Blu-rays.

You don't have a "3D" TV; you have a stereoscopic TV. Without lenses (setting the TV distance to "infinity") and a carefully chosen seating position, you may be better off just using it in 2D mode (doubly true if your only see the world in 2 1/2 dimensions to start with).

How do you know what kind of TV he has? They do make actual 3D screens, you know. The pixels are at slight angles so that if you view them from the right area the image appears to project from the screen (one eye primarily sees one set of pixels and the other eye sees the other).

Anyway, I also have no idea what he is talking about with the frame rate thing. I've never noticed a difference on anything I've watched (although, to be fair, I watch most of my TV online, where frame rate is probably lower anyway).

[phillipsjk]

Two streams of images == stereoscopic.

Holographic projection that can be viewed from any angle == "3D"

"3D" Video cards are allowed to use the term because they actually manipulate and render virtual 3D objects in real-time: despite typically projecting the result on a 2D (rather than stereoscopic) screen.

All my humble opinion of course

[JeromeWest]

I still haven't got around to buying an HDTV, but I did just pick up an HTC Desire. I like freaking people out by telling them my cell phone has a higher screen resolution than my television.

[keiranhalcyon31]

back in the day, many movies were shot with the 16:9 aspect ratio.

16:9 is a relatively recent invention. You were probably thinking of 1.85:1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematogr ... nd_framing

I recently bought a 24" 1920x1080 monitor, and I'm relatively pleased with it. Currently I'm driving it (at 60 Hz) over the VGA cable it came with, without any percieved flicker (which was a problem when i drove my previous 1280x1024 monitor at less than about 70 Hz) or apparant loss of quality, so I pose a different question: What's the fuss over HDMI? (Or DisplayPort, or DVI, for that matter?)

[SuprXY]

You really are comparing apples to oranges. Watching a bluray on my HDTV looks way better than watching it on my monitor with 150% of the resolution. And the comment about crappy camcorders is really misleading. It didn't look fake because of the framerate, it looks fake because of the cheap processors used by the cameras. Besides, as a comic largely about science should know, the human eye is incapable of detecting more than 24 fps. It is a term that doesn't REALLY mean the same thing in different formats like videogames vs movies.

[Kalos]

Too bad most video (especially streaming, what's most commonly watched on the magic computer-box, which still isn't there for the most part) hasn't been in and HD format until HDTV became a somewhat popular format, the most popular gaming platforms haven't taken advantage of it (due to being consoles) until HDTVs became a rather popular format, too bad home video formats didn't take advantage of it by upgrading formats until about the same time that game consoles did.

You can continue to be a smug douche-bag about HDTVs, despite being objectively wrong about your assessment of their significance.

As far as the "looks fake" thing goes, it has a lot to do with the camera work in movies and video games (which are often run at whatever the display or other hardware limits them to but let's just ignore that for the sake of discussion) attempt to use more visceral, and "immersive" camera work, as opposed to the fixed "fourth wall" perspective of most television, or the "ass-butt" work of most amateur film.

[funda]

...
I absolutely love the way 24p 35mm film looks. I hate the fact that digital is beginning to take over theaters! It would have been amazing to see classics like Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey in theaters in all of their 35mm 24p glory. But now I have to settle for VHS and DVD, sacrificing that genuine, warm projector look. Ah, 24p 35mm projectors. Bliss

I love the sort of flickery look when 24p 35mm is played.
I love the way 35mm looks kinda grainy.
I love the jaggedy but smooth motion of 24p.
I love the warmer look of 35mm.
I love that extra-wide 2.39 aspect ratio.

FILM FOREVER!
...

I love explosions !


Boom de yada ! Boom de yada !

[Kaijyuu]

Concerning framerates:

I never consciously noticed it before, but yes, high framerates do seem to bother me for movies. Looks like it's filmed with a home video camera.

[Technical Ben]

Once again, thanks to Randall Munroe, I will remember something technical that I previously did not care about.

The number in ####{p, i} is the vertical resolution, and the {p. i} is progressive vs. interlaced scan.

Also, to anyone who hasn't been bothered by high frame rates: have you ever seen a British sitcom?

I (an American) have some experience with two British TV shows. One is Doctor Who (so far, the whole modern show and most of the First Doctor). The other is The Inbetweeners (which is a sitcom). TBH, the bigger difference, to me, is the whole atmosphere of the show.

Or are you going more for something like the skits of The Catherine Tate Show (of which I have seen clips on YouTube)? I think I almost start to get what you're talking about, if it can be seen on YouTube. Because CT Show definitely looked different there than Doctor Who does on the telly.

I agree with the atmosphere, but also add that we tend to use better cameras. Except for the high budget (Lost, 24 etc) American shows, most seem to be shot with low res, shaky cameras. Recently a TV chef went on a road show, off his own back and money, and took anti shake/wobble cameras with him. That shows commitment to getting a good image on the screen, not just churning out shows with no regard for quality. Dr Who is also shot in HD now. Not to mention UK TV standards are slightly highter (PAL V NTSC) than American.
[edit] Oh, I also agree that we should insist 3D TV is re termed "Stereoscopic TV"

I'd also think the high frame rates is just a lack of correct implementation, or bad conversion of lower 25fps films. Once your use to it, it is fine. A bit like going from B/W to colour!

[Peripatetic]

I was looking for some good comparisons of frame rates when I came across this informative discussion on avsforum. There's a link on the second page to a video showing Casablanca and Casino Royale [2006] at 24 and 60 frames per second (mediafire link: http://www.mediafire.com/file/2uzidxymqkm/casa.wmv). I have to admit I hate the look of both Casino Royale scenes at 60fps.

I have some baseless speculation as to why: it shows too much movement. A lower frame rate will tend to filter out the small, quick movements of inadvertent motion of the actors, leaving only the deliberate scripted movements (Nyquist theorem and all that). It's similar to the way that scripted dialogue doesn't contain "um" or other extraneous sounds of natural speech. 60fps looks unprofessional because it's not screening out the unscripted parts.

Of course, for games, you want to see everything in as much detail as possible because the action is unscripted and you have to respond to it. So, the frame rate should be as high as possible.

Movies and games are different and have different frame rate needs. Even different kinds of movies may have different frame rate needs. Movies telling fictional stories may be best shot at a lower frame rate than documentaries.

Again, lots of baseless speculation here.

[ausmax]

There is a fairly simple explanation for why 24 frames per second tends to look better. Usually the source was shot on film, and if the playback frame rate matches the recorded frame rate, the displayed video will look better. Film is shot at a low frame rate partially because it allows more light per frame than a higher frame rate would. If you're seeing a movie at 60 frames per second, it was most likely either shot on video, which has worse color resolution than film, or was shot at 24 frames per second and then converted to 60 fps. So yeah, it's really not just psychological. In practice, the 24 frames per second video you're watching most likely actually looks better than the 60 frames per second video.