Are those the average bitrates listed for those movies? I have the "Kingdom of Heaven" Director's Cut on Blu-Ray and on certain scenes the video bitrate spikes all the way up to 45 Mbps.
Quote from: andy o on 17 April, 2011, 11:43:48 PMPlease read the post I was replying to. onkl was actually defending your position, but s/he was suggesting that bandwidth that is saved by going 720 can be used for higher frame rate.Right. I wasn't suggesting to use frame interpolation either. But for some contents it's feasible to lower the resolution and use the bandwidth for something else. Animation for example could easily be rendered with more then 24 frames or future productions that want to stay within Blu-ray specs. So 720p60 could be supperior to 1080p24 depending on the source material, that's what this discussion was about.
Please read the post I was replying to. onkl was actually defending your position, but s/he was suggesting that bandwidth that is saved by going 720 can be used for higher frame rate.
There are actually quite a few releases on Blu-ray where their DVD counterparts being upscaled actually produce results that are either the same as the Blu-ray release or better (even without the increased color gamut).
Me too TVs/projectors usually double the frame rate anyways in 24fps mode, generally the stutter you get is the conversion to 50 or 60fps but I see your point.
There is no increased color gamut.-k
It's a little more complicated, actually... while the available gamuts for MPEG-2 and H.264 are technically the same, the problem is that using MPEG-2 encoding tends to reduce color saturation in practice (it wants to discard detail in dark areas), so even if you bump up the saturation or contrast on your playback device, the loss of information yields a "stretched" saturation curve. Even though the extreme values are still present in the output stream, the gamut available in the source material is not displayed. I guess the actual issue is that you get increased quantization or banding of the colors and it's difficult to compensate for this on the display in a way that doesn't make the image look even worse.It's even worse if the lab which created the DVD used DV as a waypoint during the processing (most studios would have no reason to do this); this causes further loss in saturation/apparent gamut and it's fairly common in DVDs authored using Final Cut or other NLEs.
Actually what Cameron proposed was raising the framerate for smoother motion, 48fps was for regular "2D" movies. The "soap opera effect" though is gonna be tough to get out of people's minds. It even looks bad to me when directors use 360 degree shutter with regular 24fps movies shot digitally (like Public Enemies, and I've seen other Michael Mann movies criticized for this as well). Even if it's purely psychological, I don't think it's gonna be easy for people to swallow. On the other hand, those 120Hz TVs and their interpolation modes are pretty popular, so maybe I'm wrong, and most people won't care.
I think it's odd to pick 48fps though? Why not 50fps? At least we have 1080p50 as a standard already don't we?
i'd say 360 degree shutter and post-interpolation are two different thingies (1st has really low motion-blur, with 2nd; motion-blur will still depend on how the movie was shot).