Talk:High frame rate
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The attempted "film being of higher quality" edit.
editI need to remind the person who is attempting to push their opinion as fact of Wikipedia's strict policy of neutral point of view and particularly WP:YESPOV which states:
The three sources used to "support" the opinion are either Kodak which has an obvious conflict of interest as they are a film company, a film theater operator giving his opinion and a single filmmaker giving his opinion. None of these are reliable sources per WP:SOURCES. We'll have to open a case at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if this continues.--Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've added more than enough sources. NickCochrane (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- The sources you've added are all NPOV opinion blogs/articles and you've even chosen Kodak as a source, a company that sells film stock, as one of the most blatant COI sources I've seen. I can throw up "more than enough sources" that state digital video is of higher quality than film,[1][2][3] but won't attempt to add to the article "digital video is of higher quality than film" because that would be a POV edit based on POV sources. You need to follow our neutral point of view policy just like everyone else.--Oakshade (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- My argument for why Kodak's Scientific study is not COI: it's a scientific study. Kodak's chemists led a revolution in the industry for their work, unmatched by any other company, perhaps maybe Fujifilm. I see where you're coming from, but you're so Anti-NickCochrane you can't see straight. NickCochrane (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nick, Kodak are clearly biased towards film, and there a lot of "scientific studies" that are biased. Regardless, there is NO relevance for film being mentioned here whatsoever. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- My argument for why Kodak's Scientific study is not COI: it's a scientific study. Kodak's chemists led a revolution in the industry for their work, unmatched by any other company, perhaps maybe Fujifilm. I see where you're coming from, but you're so Anti-NickCochrane you can't see straight. NickCochrane (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The sources you've added are all NPOV opinion blogs/articles and you've even chosen Kodak as a source, a company that sells film stock, as one of the most blatant COI sources I've seen. I can throw up "more than enough sources" that state digital video is of higher quality than film,[1][2][3] but won't attempt to add to the article "digital video is of higher quality than film" because that would be a POV edit based on POV sources. You need to follow our neutral point of view policy just like everyone else.--Oakshade (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've added more than enough sources. NickCochrane (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That kingsway site has a graphic showing 2K being 10 times smaller then 4k - It's obviously unreliable to me. Algr (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The POV pushing by a single user is going again. No need to repeat the above. The POV pusher is simply ignoring it. An actual POV case will probably be needed to be open if this continues. --Oakshade (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
High Motion article
editThere is more information in the high motion article, although the title seems to be out of date. Algr (talk)
- Hmmm that's interesting. Either the two articles should be merged, or the High Motion deleted and merged. The article seems to be written before the implication of new High Frame Rate techniques. The High Motion article seems quite dated, yes. It's more of a theory than anything practical. NickCochrane (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The High Frame Rate article is currently exclusively about cinema - a merger would bring in lots of focus on television. Is this okay with everyone? Algr (talk)
- Well, maybe not. The cinema and television are currently two very different technologies. NickCochrane (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm late to the discussion, but I agree with merging the articles. I also don't see much difference between current cinema and television technology. K37b8e4fd (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, maybe not. The cinema and television are currently two very different technologies. NickCochrane (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The High Frame Rate article is currently exclusively about cinema - a merger would bring in lots of focus on television. Is this okay with everyone? Algr (talk)
- Hmmm that's interesting. Either the two articles should be merged, or the High Motion deleted and merged. The article seems to be written before the implication of new High Frame Rate techniques. The High Motion article seems quite dated, yes. It's more of a theory than anything practical. NickCochrane (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I support merging. --134.109.240.28 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I also support merging. The concept is the same, and the "high motion" term is rather questionable (and "High Frame Rate" should not be capitalized). And the high motion article is completely unsourced and not well written (and all three of the links in it seem to be dead links). Probably both articles should be merged into the frame rate article. —Mulligatawny (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think the technologies are different, in high frame rate cinema exhibition the entire project should follow a >24fps pipeline (e.g. The Hobbit acquired at 48fps and was exhibited at 48fps). The television 'high motion' approach is one of synthesising frames which so not exist in the source (i.e. for a PAL broadcast at 50i or 25p the device will create tween frames to present, say, 100fps on the display — very different approach. Additionally, for high frame rate stereoscopic cinema exhibition (correctly identified above as being marketed using the HFR-3D moniker) the projected frame rate is actually 96fps as there are two eyes interleaved on the one projector for a single projector setup which is by far the most prevalent commercial exhibition setup. Happy to contribute to this conversation if this line of thought is agreeable. AnthonyBlacklight (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- That is not what either article says. I think you're talking about what I would call "synthetic high frame rate" or "high frame rate synthesis" or "frame rate upconversion". I also suggest to stop looking to PAL as the primary example of video. That's clearly yesterday's technology and is rapidly fading away. 720p video is typically 50 or 60 frames per second (fps), for example, and that is true captured frames per second – not synthesized frames from upconversion. 1080p at 50 and 60 is also emerging. Many people would call 50 or 60 fps high frame rate since it is higher than the frame rates typically used a few decades ago for video. Personally, I think any frame rate above 30 fps is ordinarily considered high frame rate. —Mulligatawny (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I found an article on that topic. It's at Motion interpolation. —Mulligatawny (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Re: Mulligatawny, There is a weird quirk in television terminology where a "frame" actually consists of two different images (called fields) exposed separately and presented separately to the viewer. So viewers of traditional PAL video are indeed seeing 50 separate images per second. (And 60 in NTSC.) Motion from PAL video cameras are thus twice as smooth as film converted to video and shown on the same PAL tv. Motion interpolation is year 2000+ technology, but high motion was visible on TV since the 1930s. Algr (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is not what either article says. I think you're talking about what I would call "synthetic high frame rate" or "high frame rate synthesis" or "frame rate upconversion". I also suggest to stop looking to PAL as the primary example of video. That's clearly yesterday's technology and is rapidly fading away. 720p video is typically 50 or 60 frames per second (fps), for example, and that is true captured frames per second – not synthesized frames from upconversion. 1080p at 50 and 60 is also emerging. Many people would call 50 or 60 fps high frame rate since it is higher than the frame rates typically used a few decades ago for video. Personally, I think any frame rate above 30 fps is ordinarily considered high frame rate. —Mulligatawny (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think the technologies are different, in high frame rate cinema exhibition the entire project should follow a >24fps pipeline (e.g. The Hobbit acquired at 48fps and was exhibited at 48fps). The television 'high motion' approach is one of synthesising frames which so not exist in the source (i.e. for a PAL broadcast at 50i or 25p the device will create tween frames to present, say, 100fps on the display — very different approach. Additionally, for high frame rate stereoscopic cinema exhibition (correctly identified above as being marketed using the HFR-3D moniker) the projected frame rate is actually 96fps as there are two eyes interleaved on the one projector for a single projector setup which is by far the most prevalent commercial exhibition setup. Happy to contribute to this conversation if this line of thought is agreeable. AnthonyBlacklight (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I also support merging. The concept is the same, and the "high motion" term is rather questionable (and "High Frame Rate" should not be capitalized). And the high motion article is completely unsourced and not well written (and all three of the links in it seem to be dead links). Probably both articles should be merged into the frame rate article. —Mulligatawny (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a proper noun
editFrom what I can see in the reliable sources, High Frame Rate is not a proper name, so however the article changes, I believe it should be renamed along the lines of High frame rate film, and the category as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to agree with this. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know. I think there maybe a difference between the term in general and the marketing term. The marketing term is definitely a name, see "High Frame Rate 3D (HFR 3D)" from: http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html --Fluffystar (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to matter to me. I wouldn't name it "High frame rate film" though, definitely "High frame rate". There's a video/tv application, but the movie aspect of it is assumed at the time being. NickCochrane (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The article was created exclusively about the marketing term HFR 3D. Now the article is about Hfr in general. We should definitely think about merging the High-motion and the Hfr articles and perhaps even all two into Frame rate. There is no clear definition if for example 30 frames are already a "high" frame rate or just a normal TV format. Or would 48fps still a high frame rate when 60 fps are the new standard? --Fluffystar (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The reason that it is a "high" frame rate is because it is not the standard, and only one film in the world has been successfully released in this format... but I wouldn't have a problem either of merging it with frame rate. NickCochrane (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Currently I have no time to work on that. But I added a link to High-motion until someone maybe merging the two articles. --Fluffystar (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- The reason that it is a "high" frame rate is because it is not the standard, and only one film in the world has been successfully released in this format... but I wouldn't have a problem either of merging it with frame rate. NickCochrane (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The article was created exclusively about the marketing term HFR 3D. Now the article is about Hfr in general. We should definitely think about merging the High-motion and the Hfr articles and perhaps even all two into Frame rate. There is no clear definition if for example 30 frames are already a "high" frame rate or just a normal TV format. Or would 48fps still a high frame rate when 60 fps are the new standard? --Fluffystar (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to matter to me. I wouldn't name it "High frame rate film" though, definitely "High frame rate". There's a video/tv application, but the movie aspect of it is assumed at the time being. NickCochrane (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know. I think there maybe a difference between the term in general and the marketing term. The marketing term is definitely a name, see "High Frame Rate 3D (HFR 3D)" from: http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html --Fluffystar (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Max Headroom
editThe article doesn't mention the use of HFR in the production of the TV version of Max Headroom. To avoid rolling bars, all the monitors were set at 30fps, and the film camera ran at the same rate. I wondered why what was obviously a filmed production looked like videotape. The answer, of course, is that high frame rates make film look like video, which is why it bothers so many people. Film has an "elegant" look that makes video look "cheap".
A similar effect (which the article fails to mention) occurs when the frame rate of liquid-crystal displays is increased to reduce motion blur. Hopefully, this trend toward high frame rates will be abandoned, and film will continue to look like film. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Max Headroom, Freddy's Nightmares, and Friday the 13th, were all series that experimented with saving money by shooting 16mm at 30fps, rather than 35mm at 24fps. Since these programs were edited on NTSC video, the 30hz rate also made editing easier. However, as you state, the resulting look was not popular. I don't think 30hz is fast enough to count as HDR, and the makers of those programs weren't seeing improved motion as a selling point for their programs. Algr (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on High frame rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High frame rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f16/t001085.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211100602/http://www.hfrmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/ to http://www.hfrmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High frame rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406042108/http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/more_than_ever_the_future_of_f.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/more_than_ever_the_future_of_f.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)