3 ms·

There literally are some impracticalities, though. For a Blu-ray player to support 60fps at 1080p, it's got to support level 4.2 of the AVC specification. Many

There literally are some impracticalities, though. For a Blu-ray player to support 60fps at 1080p, it's got to support level 4.2 of the AVC specification. Many (most?) players do not do this (and in fact some older models supported only 4.0), because it's more costly to include a decoding chip that can handle the bitrate needed for the uncompressed video stream. Furthermore, much of home entertainment is streamed these days. I imagine introducing 60 fps on top of 4k would increase bandwidth requirements beyond what many consumers have access to. It may also be more than Netflix et al want to pay for, so one imagines they'll want to tack on a surcharge as they did for UHD.

wongarsu 5y ago
The jump from HD to UHD quadruples the number of pixels, the jump from 24 fps to 60 fps only increases framerate by a factor of 2.5. Not to mention that the panels in any old HD TV will happily work with a 60 fps signal via HDMI, while the upgrade to UHD requires a new TV. Yes, more frames means more data, but it creates fewer problems than the 4k/UHD upgrade everyone willingly goes through, while doing more to increase fidelity.
- bscphil 5y ago
  Right, but everyone agrees that UHD is an enormous improvement worth buying new hardware for. You said "there are no technical problems or impracticalities" to high frame rates, but 2.5 times the uncompressed bitrate is a technical problem, and so you have to have a situation where people are willing to pay for an upgrade. Most people seemingly don't care enough.
- toast0 5y ago
  > the 4k/UHD upgrade everyone willingly goes through I looked for 1080p screens when I last bought a TV and couldn't find any. 65", and wanting fairly quality, but no 4k sources so why do I need 4x the pixels? (Sadly, the week after I bought what I bought, I happened across some 65" new in box Plasma TVs at auction... Oh well)
kuschku 5y ago
Why is that an impracticality? TV productions are pretty much all still at 50/60Hz, they get syndicated to Netflix and streamed or sold on Blu-Ray and watched that way every day. There's nothing new that has to be changed to support this, most of the content people are watching is already HFR.
- bscphil 5y ago
  This surprised me and so I wanted to check it out, but I think you're incorrect about this. I checked a number of shows shot in the last 15 years (The Expanse, The Wire, Schitt's Creek, Squid Game, Star Trek: Discovery, Foundation, New Girl, Community, Westworld), and every single one of them is either 24 fps or 23.976 fps in the versions available for streaming on the web.
  - kuschku 5y ago
    Pretty much every TV documentary or larger production (e.g. Eurovision) is still 50/60Hz though. It's only the narrative based shows that try to be "cinematic" which are at those low fps rates. But the technology is there, it works just fine.

wongarsu 5y ago

The jump from HD to UHD quadruples the number of pixels, the jump from 24 fps to 60 fps only increases framerate by a factor of 2.5. Not to mention that the panels in any old HD TV will happily work with a 60 fps signal via HDMI, while the upgrade to UHD requires a new TV. Yes, more frames means more data, but it creates fewer problems than the 4k/UHD upgrade everyone willingly goes through, while doing more to increase fidelity.

bscphil 5y ago
Right, but everyone agrees that UHD is an enormous improvement worth buying new hardware for. You said "there are no technical problems or impracticalities" to high frame rates, but 2.5 times the uncompressed bitrate is a technical problem, and so you have to have a situation where people are willing to pay for an upgrade. Most people seemingly don't care enough.
toast0 5y ago
> the 4k/UHD upgrade everyone willingly goes through I looked for 1080p screens when I last bought a TV and couldn't find any. 65", and wanting fairly quality, but no 4k sources so why do I need 4x the pixels? (Sadly, the week after I bought what I bought, I happened across some 65" new in box Plasma TVs at auction... Oh well)

kuschku 5y ago

Why is that an impracticality? TV productions are pretty much all still at 50/60Hz, they get syndicated to Netflix and streamed or sold on Blu-Ray and watched that way every day. There's nothing new that has to be changed to support this, most of the content people are watching is already HFR.

bscphil 5y ago
This surprised me and so I wanted to check it out, but I think you're incorrect about this. I checked a number of shows shot in the last 15 years (The Expanse, The Wire, Schitt's Creek, Squid Game, Star Trek: Discovery, Foundation, New Girl, Community, Westworld), and every single one of them is either 24 fps or 23.976 fps in the versions available for streaming on the web.
- kuschku 5y ago
  Pretty much every TV documentary or larger production (e.g. Eurovision) is still 50/60Hz though. It's only the narrative based shows that try to be "cinematic" which are at those low fps rates. But the technology is there, it works just fine.