1080i or 720p?
 

Asia (Japan, etc.) HDTV broadcast is 1080i only; majority of US HDTV broadcast is 1080i, broadcast in Europe is 1080i only. Future HDTV sets will be 1080p and will display 1080i fine; most of the current ones are anything from 480p plasma, promoted as HDTV compatable, to interlaced CTR HDTV sets, promoted as 1080i, to true 1080p. Future Europe's broadcast will be mixture of 1080i and 720p. 1080i, 720p and 1080p is recommended for HDTV content creation in Europe, regardless of broadcast standard.

Future cinema and HDTV broadcast is likely to be 2k/1080p. 48-60 fps. 3D is more profitable and will be more comon in cinema, probably even in broadcast.

Europe is not 1080i because there is no widespread HD broadcasting there yet - it will certainly be both 720p and 1080i when it happens - SKY in the UK will broadcast in both for example from mid 2006.

I believe the USA has a pretty even mix too with some broadcasters using 1080i and some like FOX using 720p.

The point is no-one is going to broadcast any time soon in 1080p. It's all to do with transmission bandwidth and satellite transponder space - in the the states MPEG 2 is used for transmission, whereas in Europe they will probably adopt MPEG 4. For multi-channel broadcasts of 400 channels and above it is unlikely and impractical that 1080p will ever become the standard.

Cinema could likely be 1080p BUT will remain at 24p, not 48-60p, but we may see the emergence of UHD of 4k. TV will use 50/60p for sport and live events in all probability and 24/25/30p for drama.

3D has never ever been really profitable. Its main problem is the physical discomfit of watching it for long periods of time especially with anaglyph spectacles. It has always been a gimmick in the cinema and will remain so. It may come into its own with videogames and scientific, architectural usage but I would not imagine it will ever gain widespread usage in cinema/TV.

The new digital cinema standard calls for 48p; IMAX high end is 48p.

3D without glasses technology is here now and is improving quickly.

Where does the 'new digital cinema standard' exist for 48p? Filmakers are obsessed with 24p and are not likely to change that. All existing 35mm production is 24fps - filmakers wish to emulate this with digital - 48p looks very different to 24p temporally - it looks significantly less film-like and this will be a concern to most filmkakers. IMAX is not digital but a horizontal 70mm celluloid format and as such is not in widespread usage but used for specialist exhibitions - there are technical reasons why 48fps is used.

"3D without glasses technology is here now and is improving quickly"

Maybe so but it is not very good, and I still maintain is a gimmick in TV and film production and unlikely to catch on in a big way.

I remember seeing a Showscan demo when I was a kid, if I remember correctly it was large format film at 60fps, I don't remember much but a couple scenes one was the illusion of a person behind the screen and I remember buying the effect as real back then.

As far as I was told IMAX running at 48 fps was adopted mainly for two reasons. The use of 3D and because of the tremendously apparent motion judder when you've got a screen/format that large, your camera movement speeds are too limited at 24fps.

I'm afraid that cinematographers might be reluctant to embrace 48fps cinema in most cases (maybe action films?). Steven Poster says it better than I can in his ASC manual bit about frame rates of film vs. video and how the human brain interprets them.

I reserve my comments on 3D, I'm afraid that I'm attached to an IMAX 3D production.

please remove

The theater owners association agreed on 48p (the standard is something like 50 pages long), in addition to 24p, as a future film speed for digital cinema; this was done together with the studios. Top filmmakers always wanted more than 24 fps. The video wanna be filmmakers always wanted 24p. There was 30p 70 mm and the 48 fps IMAX costs a lot more than the 24 fps IMAX.

Just as an example of what a leading member of the ASC has to say about the frame rate topic, of course it's not written on stone and it's open to argument

I just found an online reference that quotes the article I was refering to, here's an exerpt taken directly from http://www.ifvchicago.com/aesthetics...e_030101.shtml

Steven Poster who is the member of American Society of Cinematographers says that "There are productions that are best done on tape and there are productions best done on film. News and sports, special events like variety shows and concerts, news-based and contemporary documentaries, industrials and educational programs are best done on tape."
"Film, however, is best for any storytelling or narrative production." (Poster, Steven, ASC). There some reasons why it is like that.
Storytelling is like a book when you read you use your imagination to see that story in your mind. According to Poster, when we watch a movie we use the imagination as opposed to the video. "Film is shot at 24 frames per second. At that speed, there is a certain amount of blur in the images. There is also a brief time between, when there is no image at all" (Steve Poster, American Cinematographer Video Manual, 350). It makes the audience use their imagination to fill that missing information, adds Poster. The film image usually force our mind to imagine even more than we see on the screen. Video is quite different. During watching the TV screen our mind does not have time for imagination like during watching the film. There is scientific explanation why.

The TV set shows 60 interlaced images per second and it has a special purpose why. "Douglas Trumbull did psychological and physiological tests on all kind of audience and determined that 60 images a second is the maximum visual information that can be transmitted through the optic nerve to the brain."( 350).No blank spots where our brain has time to imagine something besides. We can close our eyes and see nothing or we can watch the television screen with no imagination or mind interpretation. What we see on TV our brain accepts as a complete image with no room for our brain interpretation. "When we see video images we’re getting a direct implant of images; we are not having to use our imagination to fill in the blanks." (Steve Poster, ASC). Our eyes don’t see the difference of transmitting information between film and video because of the vision perception. However, we feel the difference in our brain or our brain sees the difference. Probably you have noticed that what you have just seen on TV you accepted fully as it is. Unless you turn off the TV set and think about it. The opinion that TV manipulates our thoughts is proved by science. Not only journalists have a big part in it, but also technicians.

Do you want to stay at home to watch a movie and have no conclusions or thoughts about it and for instance think that all women on any beach look like "Baywatch" actress; or rather is it better to go to the movie theater and use some of your imagination? If we want to live an image from a media as it is we should depend on TV sets, but if we want to live the image in our head with our mind interpretation it is better to watch film format.

"The theater owners association agreed on 48p (the standard is something like 50 pages long), in addition to 24p, as a future film speed for digital cinema; this was done together with the studios. Top filmmakers always wanted more than 24 fps. The video wanna be filmmakers always wanted 24p. There was 30p 70 mm and the 48 fps IMAX costs a lot more than the 24 fps IMAX."

Petr, I don't know where you get your info from but if you're going to make such definitive statements then sources please.

Since when did theatre owners decide on film standards? Which studios propose 48p? You admit 48p is proposed in ADDITION to 24p. Which top filmakers have gone on record as wanting more than 24p? Are you sure they don't mean digital variable rates for slow-motion and such like rather than a projection standard? I'm not saying that 24p is the holy grail myself you understand but it is percieved to be by both industry professionals and 'video wanna be filmmakers' - that is why Cine-Alta and Varicam use 24p.

There have been a variety frame-rates used in cinema - 24fps has been THE standard since the introduction of the talkies in 1929. Todd-AO used 30fps when intoduced but quickly dropped it. IMAX is a specialist format - a 'fun-ride' format if you will. Subjects are often short, such as roller-coaster rides and the overall desire is to produce as 'life-like' an experience as possible (this was especially the case before the advent of HD) therefore so the theory goes 48fps looks more 'lifelike' than 24fps - for the very same reasons it does in video.

As everyone wants to go digital to save $, and the studios are financing this digital theater transition, there is a new standard that calls for 4K/24 fps and 2K/24&48 fps. As I said, the standard is some 50 pages long. You'll just have to Google the net.

As the new digital projector theaters will have 48 fps capability, you'll see move towards 48 fps production by Cameron, Lucas, and other top filmmakers. There will still be 24 fps prints made for the non-converted theaters though. The 48 fps also converts fine to 50&60i/p for HDTV/Blu-Ray, etc.

"As everyone wants to go digital to save $, and the studios are financing this digital theater transition, there is a new standard that calls for 4K/24 fps and 2K/24&48 fps. As I said, the standard is some 50 pages long. You'll just have to Google the net."

No - the burden of proof rests with you when you assert something, that's how it works - I'm not going to google it, you'll have to provide a link to not only the standard but the the top filmakers statements on wanting something other than 24p.

Well, in all fairness if there were applications for 48fps film projection, there are applications for 48fps digital projection.

It's just my best guess that your everyday cinematographers aren't going to stop shooting the bulk of projects at 24fps just because they have a higher frame rate available. If we do have a transition to shooting and projecting 48fps as the future standard, it's going to be a slow, slow one. The only reason that that's my bet is because 99% of mainstream motion pictures are still shot and exhibited on film almost 10 years after the digital cinema hype began and that was a much more anticipated technology.

Perhaps so, but don't be too sure we aren't on the verge of a digital cinema transition. It took less than ten years from the introduction of the first affordable digital still cameras to this week's announcement that Nikon is halting production of most of their 35mm film cameras; if digital theater is taking longer it's only because it's a more technically demanding task. At some point the quality and cost-effectiveness of digital video will wipe out movie film just as surely as digital photography has largely wiped out film photography. It's just a matter of time now.

there is no logical basis for comparing digital still cameras with digital theater.

digital theater infrastructure is growing very slowly because 1)there isn't any media for it 2)it costs a whole lot of money to install a digital theatre.

neither of which is the slightest bit applicable to digital cameras.

I love 24p, I love that kind of... blurryness (don't know if that's the exact word)...
I don't want movies to begin to look like soap operas (60p)