30 vs 60 frames per second I always thought the human eye could detect no more than 30 frames/sec. Am I missing something, or what's the point of 60fps?
482354
Thank you David Simon for your in depth analysis. It sucks that the Zi8 doesn't have it's standard definition also set at 60 fps for my liking since I will not be burning any footage to Blu Ray anytime soon and will be burning to DVD. Sure it's great watching 720p on a High Def TV by connecting to HDMI, but eventually the data will be sent to my hardrive for safe keeping and burning a DVD copy to play on a stand alone player is key for me. For sure though, I'll be using the 720p @ 60fps mode in the near future, ( when I get a Blu-Ray writer, or when I get a high end comp that can handle Hi Def video editing) until then SD quality for me lol. Thank you David Simon for your in depth analysis. It sucks that the Zi8 doesn't have it's standard definition also set at 60 fps for my liking since I will not be burning any footage to Blu Ray anytime soon and will be burning to DVD. Sure it's great watching 720p on a High Def TV by connecting to HDMI, but eventually the data will be sent to my hardrive for safe keeping and burning a DVD copy to play on a stand alone player is key for me. For sure though, I'll be using the 720p @ 60fps mode in the near future, ( when I get a Blu-Ray writer, or when I get a high end comp that can handle Hi... » Read More Thank you David Simon for your in depth analysis. It sucks that the Zi8 doesn't have it's standard definition also set at 60 fps for my liking since I will not be burning any footage to Blu Ray anytime soon and will be burning to DVD. Sure it's great watching 720p on a High Def TV by connecting to HDMI, but eventually the data will be sent to my hardrive for safe keeping and burning a DVD copy to play on a stand alone player is key for me. For sure though, I'll be using the 720p @ 60fps mode in the near future, ( when I get a Blu-Ray writer, or when I get a high end comp that can handle Hi Def video editing) until then SD quality for me lol. « Show Less
482355
Now, that, spending more money on the camcorder instead of the transfer, makes a lot of sense, since the connotation is that is would be far less costly. As I'm sure you know, the worst phrase to use on a shoot is "We'll fix it in post." Thank you for your comments; all this info is really helping!Any suggestions as to what con or prosumer camera (keeping in mind cost, of course) to use? I am not married to any one brand as the tech is fairly similar between them all, I would think, but there are advantages to some, I;m sure.
482356
If you are planning to do a transfer to film, which is preferable, 1080/30, 720/60, or 720/30?
482357
Replaying at 60fps wouldn't make a big difference from 30fps. But being to record at 60fps can be very handy in some situations such as recording a fast moving child.
482358
I may have some details wrong, but I think minimum for motion is 18 fps, film is 24 fps, normal television 30fps. 60fps will just seem a little smoother (also depends on shutter speed). BUT with 60fps you can do much better slow motion, and you can resample to 24fps.
1992990
Hi Jason, I actually just spent two hours on hold waiting for Sony to get to the bottom of the 24p/120hz issue for me, and this TV indeed runs at 60hz, which means it really is not True 24p, because the frame duplication is not equal for every frame, as it would be for 120hz (i.e. each of the 24 frames per second would be replicated five times per second as the TV refreshes 120 times in that second....24x5 = 120). This model is 60hz, so the frames replicate at something like 2:3:3:3:2 and so on (not quite sure how correct that is). I am actually very dissatisfied with this, because the whole reason I upgraded to this TV and Blu Ray was to have ACTUAL True 24p. With the Sony 32 and 37 inch models, they are falsely advertising completely...But most people would never notice a difference. 24p from Blu Ray still looks incredible on this TV, but there ARE times where something just doesn't QUITE look right...and I do notice it. I would have saved up a few extra hundred dollars for the larger, 120hz TVs had I known the technicalities of this back then....
161400
Hey! 1. There is definitely a considerable increase in quality between 60i and 60p, especially if you are using the camera to shoot movies. For example, for me, I usually add CG elements into my film since I enjoy making short films, and that does not necessarily sit well with 60i footage. The interlacing can cause weird artifacts especially while I'm compositing shots. The more lateral (horizontal) movement you have, the greater the quality of 60i depreciates compared to 60p. However, as much as I hate interlaced footage, i would stress that you consider what you use your camera for. If it is for straightforward home movies or other casual recordings, then you are FINE! You wouldn't necessarily appreciate or find as great a jump in quality. 2. I'm not going to pretend that I have expert knowledge on this. Your point seems valid. However, RAW bit rate is not always an accurate measure of video quality. And keep in mind that for both cases the bit rate corresponds to bits per second, and if there are 60 frames in a second, interlaced or not, each frame contains the same amount of data, with this data being either interpolated in the interlaced case, or actually captured in the progressive case. 60p at 28Mbps would look better than 60i at 25Mbps 3. You would think so right? However, due to standards that were set in the film industry back in the old days, and the reluctance of the industry to let go of these standards, 24fps is what most movies you watch in theaters are recorded/playing at. In essence it is what makes movies look like movies. Usually just after a glance you can tell whether any playing video is a movie or a TV show; It is because you are subconsciously used to movies looking like they do, i.e. at 24fps. Hence, for a short film maker like myself, 24fps mode is a huge plus! I hope i answered your questions, or at least did so partly. Cheers!
1397038
I only watch movies so far. I've been collecting 3d movies for the last several months. All are not created equal. In the upper left hand corner as your movie loads it tells you if it is 1080p, aspect ratio, and refresh. It is getting that from the source. Which I would assume would be the same for vid games. I have neither the new Xbox or ps4 but would bet new games made for them would have the higher refresh rate.
1863992
I don't watch many 3D items, but it is ok. It takes a bit of adjusting for each 3D movie. In either 3D, or 2D, the higher the Hz, the better the action scenes will look. The 240 Hz is less blurry than 120 Hz, which is less blurry than 60Hz. If you are going to watch a lot of fast action sports, action movies, etc, get the highest Hz you can afford. The 600 Hz refresh rate of a Plasma screened TV will be even better. I watch few sports, or action movies, so I didn't need more than 60Hz for my viewing. I watch mostly murder mysteries, and the like, with little fast action. Some of the more cartoon-y 3D stuff is faster paced, and is not as good in 60 Hz as it would be in 120 Hz, or 240 Hz, or 600 Hz. I watch mostly 2D stuff, but have the 3D capability for when I want it. The price I paid for my Sceptre HDTV was very reasonable, and the set has been functioning very well so far. For fast action movies, get as many Hz as you can afford. Sceptre offered some slightly more expensive models with 120 Hz,and 240 Hz, but I don't watch enough fast action stuff to make it worth my buying such for my typical use. You may be different. If you tend to watch sports, movies like Rambo, Die Hard, etc, you should have higher than 60 Hz...the higher the better.
1971347
Dear Anderson, Thank you very much for your e-mail. It can support 24FPS, 23.97, 29.97, and 30FPS. More details as follows,please check it. System Total lines Active lines Frame rate Scanning Aspect ratio 575/50I(PAL) 625 575 25 2:1 interlace 16:9/4:3 480/60I(NTSC) 525 483 30 2:1 interlace 16:9/4:3 576/50P 625 576 50 Progressive 16:9/4:3 480/6P 525 483 60 Progressive 16:9/4:3 640*480/60P 525 480 60 Progressive 4:3 1080/50I 1125 1080 25 2:1 interlace 16:9 1080/60I 1125 1080 30 2:1 interlace 16:9 720/50P 750 720 50 Progressive 16:9 720/60P 750 720 60 Progressive 16:9 1080/50P 1125 1080 50 Progressive 16:9 1080/60P 1125 1080 60 Progressive 16:9 Best regards, Rickey
1623248
You can preview the program in full screen I'm not sure though if its 30 or 60 fps. There's very minimal lag time for the preview so you shouldn't have any problems with that, although I'm sure it depends on your computer. I haven't had any problems with the delay of input in the preview.
960869
HDMI 1.3- No. That is a feature of the step up 89 series, not 87 series. See 6189s. The caveat here is that 1.3 has become standard for a while now and Samsung's parts bin may contain all 1.3 parts by now. So the 87s MIGHT be 1.3 now, by default. Certainly would not count on it. 24p- yes, they can and do display 24 fps. HOWEVER they will only do this if the player can "force" 24 fps. The PS3 and some Panasonic bluray's can do this. Don't know about the xbox 360. In PS3, you have to change 24p setting from "automatic" to "on" in order to force it to tv. 120hz- sorta. It is listed as doing 120hz. But this is because it is wobulated, as are all single chip DLP sets (which is all of them). In reality, the DLP chip is not 1080p, it has to quickly fill in and effectively double the pixels in order to produce a 1080 image. The 120hz helps to accomplish this even faster. Also these sets are 3D capable which is the true reason they have 120hz. I say true reason because LCD's offered this higher refresh rate to help combat motion blur, or "smooth" the picture with their 4-8ms response time. DLP response time is about 15ms, IIRC. But in DLP's case that's "microseconds" not "milliseconds"- it is light years faster than any LCD panel and so 120hz is not really needed with DLP tech- motion blur was never a problem. It's used for 3D (and 24p) capability. The newer models coming in April are supposedly 240hz. Hope this helps
1259876
I've played the following games with at least 30 frames per second; NASCAR '13, F1 2013, Civilization 5, Left 4 Dead 2, Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, The Witcher 1 (but not 2, doesn't run well for Witcher 2). The following site is really good about giving framerate indication for a lot of games from the past few years:http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7660G.69830.0.html
38659
Sorry, not sure. It's adjustable. I would estimate at it's slowest, it's about two flashes per second, and at it's fastest, it's like an old-time movie (maybe 14-24 frames or flashes per second).
1093281
220 hz minimises Motion blur for high speed video action , ie football, games etc. i did not do a side by side, but talked to tech heads at my office who said the difference was negligable, but present. For my money- I went with 240 hz for best processing capability. Research on line for technical info
2070957
The video latency is not particularly noticeable. I was able to play an online FPS competitively with no noticeable lag. Quicktime X player provides a full screen solution. Invariably, after some random amount of time, it'll crash and require a reboot. Quicktime 7 Pro hasn't yet crashed, but it doesn't allow full screen mode during video capture/playback.
1923639
It's the scan speed of the TV Picture. For the human eye not to detect flicker a scan speed of 60 Hz is minimum, but a 120 Hz scan is better for fast action events and 240 Hz is even better and needed for 3D TVs.(2 pics Tx at a time right and left view)
2070821
Most DIY systems max out at 30fps. Though unknown with this system for sure, I would suspect it follows the industry standard. Also, in doing research on Q-See and other manufacturers, it likely (should) has the capability of reducing the fps rate in order to save space on the HD. If it were set to say, 7fps, a walking person would appear then the next image would show them a pace further, and so on. Keep in mind, the higher fps and more cameras on the system using the best recording setting results in less recording time before the system starts recording over the earliest recordings (looping). When a manufacturer gives you a spec of "1 month of recording time" they are referring to the recording time using only 1 camera set at the lowest setting of resolution. My 4 channel Defender system with a 500GB HD set to the best levels will record 2 weeks worth before looping. I'd guess with 8 cameras set to the best recording level, you'll get 1 weeks worth of recordings. That would be fine for most unless you'll be gone for 2 weeks and something happened within the first week of your departure (of course, you can always turn off a few selected cameras through the control panel using the mouse to gain retained recording time).
1680507
Have used it for 3 weeks seen no motion blur. In fact 60hz is preferred if you don't want that soap opera look that can be seen in the new Hobbit film.
735004
Technically yes, but the vast majority of games that are released on PS4/XB1 target 30 or 60 frames per second, which essentially means you wouldn't be fully utilizing the refresh rate of this monitor.
2189598
Screen "refresh rate" refers to how many times the horizontal lines on the display are rendered or "drawn" in one second. Though a higher rate does not guarantee that no motion blur will occur, it certainly helps. I own both the H5500 and the 120 Hz H6350, and the H6350 looks MUCH better.