[mythtv-users] High end, state of the art Myth Frontend

[Joseph Fry]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Tyler T <tylernt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't care *what* you do with video, but long form drama should be
>> "film", and needs to have motion blur, or frame judder, or whatever term
>> you choose, for people's minds to wrap around it.
>>
>> Not everyones; I'll get contention here... but the majority, I would say.
>
> I'll contend. "The Hobbit" was an awful movie but I love, love, loved
> the 48fps wide pans. The 24fps pans in "Lord of the Rings" look like
> absolute crap by comparison. The judder takes me out of the movie and
> reminds me that I'm watching technology from 1926. Seriously. 87 years
> old.
>
> If I had any complaint about 48fps, it's that they didn't go far
> enough. 96-120fps would be a good place to start.
>
> If there are people out there that enjoy wearing animal skins, writing
> on stone tablets, and blurry jumpy motion, then give the rest of us
> ~100fps and those luddites can just use 24fps post-processing filters
> on their TV to downgrade the content so it "looks like a film".

Frame rate locked to 30 or 60hz is another thing that could have gone
the way of the dodo.  In 1987, the VGA spec allowed frame rates up to
75hz, and monitors had circuits that would adapt to just about any
framerate up to that.  No reason that the ATSC spec couldn't have said
that televisions must support up to 120hz.

Some TV's might downsample high framerates because their displays
don't support the higher speeds, better tvs would use the full rate
But it would have let content creators/broadcasters have more choice.
For example, why not 480p120 or 720p75 or 1080p25, or for the local
information channels that just display static text, 720p10, would be
VERY low bandwidth.