Talk:Frame rate

message: The flicker fusion section is very good and accurate.  It conflicts though with an innacruate introductory paragraph for the topic:
The top says, "Frame rate...is the measurement of how quickly an imaging device can produce unique consecutive images called frames.  The term applies equally well to computer graphics, video cameras, film cameras, and motion capture systems."  We need to change "equally well", find something truthful to allow for the unusual and significant reality of interlaced video, wherein the term "frame" means something different than it does in film.
Here's the issue.  It has everything to do with the "look" of video versus film, and is important imformation in regards to conversions between film and video.  Traditional interlaced video, NTSC PAL and SECAM (all the major formats still in use, though HD is taking over) has "frames" in video.  However, each "frame" actually contains two unique consecutive images, each called a field.  So the definition above is not true.  For instance, PAL has a "frame" rate of 25 "frames" per second.  BUT, it has 50 unique images every second.  Video is very strange, thanks to interlacing, full resolution only happens on the unmoving parts of images over the span of two fields.  So full resolution sometimes resolves at 25 times per second (on unmoving or overlapping parts), but movement always resolves at 50 times per second. That's why interlaced video looks so hyper-real compared to film.  
Film movement is abstract, often considered pleasing for it, because it is on the congitive perceptal edge of discreet images versus animation, between 15 to 25 images every second; but video is on the other cognitive edge, just beyond the brain's the ability to perceive simulated movement versus real world movement, between 50 and 60 images every second.  So we have to find a way to address this in this topic.  The following statement in the flicker fusion section hints at the basic issue: "...since a conventional television camera will scan the scene again for each field, in many circumstances it may be useful to think of the frame rate as being equal to the field rate."
Cheers! worldpoop.com 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: An anonymous editor just added a bunch of good information to the article, but it really could use tighter integration with what was already here rather than simply being tacked-on at the bottom. Some of the new information is redundant and all of it could be better "factored" into the article. Volunteers? If no, I'll eventually get to it.
Atlant 13:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The recent addition

message: How difficult is it to convert between different frame rates? The article should answer that.
In the particular case of increasing frame rates by 2.5 times, we have 3:2 pulldown. And also the reverse of that. But how about going from 25 or 50 fps to 30 or 60 fps, or the other way around? It's often done, of course, but how?
-- ABostrom 20:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:That whole topic area is called Standards conversion, and encompasses scaling video between resolutions as well. There are lots of different ways to do it: Merging adjacent frames; dropping and doubling frames, intelligent motion compensation; etc etc. It's a big topic. --Dtcdthingy 22:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally it is fairly easy to make LARGE changes in frame rate, but smaller ones create problems.  24 to 60 works well, 24 to 30 can be jerky. Algr (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frame rate conversion 

message: The solution to this problem would be to interpolate the extra frames together in the back-buffer (field multisampling), or simulate the motion blur seen by the human eye in the rendering engine. Currently most video cards can only output a maximum frame rate equal to the refresh rate of the monitor. All extra frames are dropped.
I've heard of triple buffering, but with double buffering usually at least some of each rendered frame makes it (with vsync nothing but potential processing power can go waste; otherwise a new frame can appear if another wasn't completely sent to the monitor yet, resulting in parts of each being shown). I think the last claim should be either adjusted or removed. --62.194.128.232 02:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extra" frames are not always dropped 

message: I wrote about half of this article, and honestly just made it up as I went along. Im pretty smart, so its probly 98% right, but be bold if you disagree with something.
I was just wondering if the Madden reference at the bottom of the article fit in with the rest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.98.1 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feel free to edit 

message: As I've noted in the discussion for the human eye article, there's no information there or in this article about the human eye's "frame rate" which, I have read to be about 60Hz or approximately 24 fps. This, I think is an important fact to include somewhere in these articles (as long as at least one of the articles supported it by a reliable reference). Additionally, this article could have a link to the article on aliasing (or simply the article on the wagon-wheel effect) as this information can help a person understand how the frame rate can affect the perceived motion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Toth (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Eye 

message: PBS said, "Most feature films and many TV shows are shot on 35 mm film that has 64 holes per foot. There are 4 holes on each side of each frame." 
Does this mean that a foot of film corresponds to one second of filming time, i.e., 16 frames per second? When they talk about shooting 300 feet of film, did they mean five minutes (300 = 5 * 60)? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right to me. I gather that sound film runs at 90 feet per minute at 24 fps, or 18 inches per second. That incidentally gives the soundtrack a speed comparable to that of most professional reel to reel tapes (15 ips). Lee M (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 35 mm film runs 18 inches per second at 24 fps. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Feet and frames

message: Is there any way to watch an old movie, which was shot at 12 frames per second, on a modern computer? That is, I'd like to see the film at normal speed, so the action doesn't look sped up. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Watching old movies

message: Why are they no distinct points in the list?
What happens if I play NTSC DVDs in my notebook? Theoretically some fields will be displayed twice? Looking at modern cameras, I see they use 59.94 fps. Do modern notebooks and Desktop LCDs also use this 59.94 fps and there are not troubles at all (I do not think so)? Can we state this explicitly in that point of the list? --Arnero (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  60 fps vs 59.94 fps 

message: I don't know why but when i watching some cartoons like Spongebob (season 1) Hey Arnold (season 1-3) etc i noted that some scenes are sped up twice and it really drives me insane it ruins the theatrical look and it looks like a more video game rather than a film or cartoon itself. Also on Youtube the Spongebob looked pretty choppy like missing frames (Spongebob's arms are not moving when he building a bubblestand) as there are many fast motions here and when it converted to 24 fps the sped up scenes look really choppy like when you watch spongebob with hypercam that had only 10 fps or a cartoon made by Cambria Studios from late 50s and 60s like Clutch Cargo, Space Angel, Captain Fathom which had choppy or no animation at all. It's too bad that YouTube can't play anything faster than 30 fps. 109.174.115.127 (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  48 fps on Spongebob and Hey Arnold!? or it's just me? 

message: The article currently states unter 'Video games', "Motion blur can also induce headaches when people play a game that requires concentration." The source is a single blog post about a single game, with a single commenting person expicitly agreeing. Does that suffice to make that rather strong claim about a health-related effect of a technique? --178.0.155.26 (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backup Evidence for Motion Blur Headache Claim 

message: The Hobbit is not first film to be filmed at 48 fps. The first 48 fps film is Avatar (yup there's a 48 fps version of Avatar floating around the web). Hobbit is actually second. 109.174.115.63 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hobbit isn't first 48 fps film 

message: regarding the line "300 FPS can be converted to both 50 and 60 FPS transmission formats without major issues" would it be appropriate to add ", due in part to the fact that 300 is evenly divisible by both 50 and 60"? I'm just assuming that's the reason, not sure if it's correct. Jchap1590 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  300FPS 

message: The article started with FPS in the lede, switched to fps half-way through, and after that switched back and forth in a seemingly random manner.  I have changed fps to FPS thoughout, for consistency with the lede, but now I wonder whether it should have been FPS changed to fps throughout because a quick google search suggests fps is more common than FPS.  Thoughts?  Is there a standard abbreviation somewhere? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the standard rules of the language(s) and the common sense, the correct form is FPS, as it's an abbreviation, an initialism to be more precise. Written *fps, be it popular or not, it's incorrect, even when most of people don't seem to care. It would be f. p. s., but then again, it's easier and more popular to write FPS, just as AM or PM...
62.83.135.212 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  fps or FPS? 

message: Contrary to the opening paragraph, frame rate is not the same thing as hertz on a progressive scan monitor.  "REFRESH RATE" is hertz, not frame rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate
The refresh rate (most commonly the "vertical refresh rate", "vertical scan rate" for cathode ray tubes) is the number of times in a second that a display hardware updates its buffer. This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcsee1 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe "REFRESH RATE" is hertz, not frame rate. 

message: "In 2011, written on a forum was said that the retina takes about 5 to 12 milliseconds for an electrical impulse to fire and reset, 100 to 1000 rods depending on where in the retina you are, can fire every 7 milliseconds on average or around 140 fps.[11] Another website said that the human eye on average could see up to 150 fps."
I don't see how "a forum" and "a website" can count as reliable sources when people can write whatever they want on those without backing it up with evidence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytrearneindre (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sources 

message: What the heck is "progrsssive" (p) ? Article suddenly jumps into this term and its nowhere explained.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.9.220 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pls explain or link the tech terms  

message: 3322285226 43.250.241.45 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  3322285226 

message: I know right for 48 in my opinion:
48 need 2:1 pulldown (1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2) (frame one = refresh one, frame two = two refreshes)
But i don't know what's pull-down for PAL and SÉCAM refresh rate with NTSC framing rate and same issue from PAL and SÉCAM framerate with NTSC refresh rate...
2A01:E0A:AB0:C580:D1C4:271D:6CF0:560E (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  60 Hz to 25/48/50 FPS vs 50 Hz to 24/30/48/60 FPS... I Need help. 

message: The article uses the term "deformable convolution" without defining it and without giving a simple explanation. Are interpolated frames similar to image-morphing transitions? Does using AI significantly improve the quality of interpolated frames? Are transformations from 29.97 fps (NTSC) to 25 or 30 fps usually done by adding a duplicate or dropping a frame roughly every half minute? Can people notice that? David Spector (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deformable convolution? Adding/dropping frames?