I have been really looking at the 24p framerate since I moved to HD a few years ago. I like the look but it often does not fit some projects I shoot. And now I wonder if electronics manufacturers are hesitant to show such a slow framerate for fear people won't like the motion.

I was walking through Sam's club today and they had a Blu-ray of Avatar playing on a 55" TV. The TV was a 240Hz model and I kid you not it looked like it was shot in interlaced. So much for this "film look" everybody with a video camera is trying to get. The new TVs are making film look like video now.

I stood there shaking my head thinking this looks like it was shot with a video camera and it looks like a very nice episode for television.

This seems like a large chasing of the tail to me. Why bend over backwards to work in a slow, often restrictive to movement framerate if the final playback is going to be a much more present feel? Unless they shot Avatar in a faster framerate? There were some pretty quick camera movements in the part I saw.

I really like the narrative qualities of slower framerates and the sort of suspension in time feel. But is 240Hz the future of HD presentation and possible aquisition? I wonder if this is based on market research?

Any thoughts?

I was in a shop the other day, and they had Avatar playing too on all these HD-displays. (at home I still have an old CRT PAL 27" television, which I still like).

I was amazed at the detail in Avatar on the blu-ray that I didn't see on the big screen in 3D (didn't like the movie, btw), and since I have a 27" iMac it's getting used to all that detail and how much difference it makes. And I don't know if I'm ready after DVD to invest again in an optical format which may be declared dead again after a couple of years. (yes, RED, I'm also looking at you with your RedRay compression that gives 4k images in a datarate under DV-rates). And the iMac doesn't have a blu-ray drive, but in Belgium we still have datalimits on our internet connection so downloading HD-movies isn't doable here. (speed isn't a problem here, the data limits are).

That being said - just as background, sorry for the off-topic - at the shop there was one television of all these displays (I didn't look at the specs) that indeed, looked like video framerate. I told it to my friend, also a filmbuff, and he immediately noticed it also and we both really did not like it. I'm guessing we felt very much the same way as you.

Yes, I still very much love the slower framerate for fiction.
If I would choose a new television, that television would be last one I would choose.

BTW: months ago I also saw an HDtelevision with a Blu-Ray of Pirates of the Carabbian (I'm guessing the last one) and it had the same video-like framerate. Also really hated it. Looked like an episode of Big Brother.

Unless they shot Avatar in a faster framerate?

Hi Tim.

Yes, I think a 3D movie like Avatar is about as far away from 24p as you could get.

I was very interested in 3D about 12 months ago and from vague memory I think that 3D systems and techniques like "ZScreen" are projected at something like 72 fps per eye.

I think Avatar was shot on the Pace-Cameron system which I believe is simply two 1080p HDCams.

Ordinarily you wouldn't think that 1080p would be enough for a "big screen epic" like Avatar. But James Cameron has said in an interview, "They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ..."

James Cameron supercharges 3-D - Entertainment News, NAB / Digital Cinema, Media - Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1)

So I think it's highly likely that Avatar was shot at 48 fps (or higher). But I've not seen any definite info about this.

Great information David.

Though I have noticed this video-ish look on other Blu-ray titles like the aformentioned Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

I do think you cannot leave the screen out of the argument. The blu-ray of Avatar played on many screens, and many of them looked like normal 24fps.

To get 24p playback on TV the playback and display have to be compatible. It will always playback with pulldown. Bluray 24p over HDMI to a 120 or 240 TV with 24p recognition switched on will emulate a film projector with multiple blades. IF the film, 24p is not switched on it will take in the 24p and interpolate the extra frames rather than repeating. My 240hz Sony can do both. I dislike 24p so you know where it stays!!!

Ron Evans

Interesting thread,


I m not so fond of 24 P, I do prefer 30 P.

some earlier movies like lord of the rings does not beifit by conversion to blu ray, the graphics do not hold up as well. Flaws can't be seen in DVD.

I very much liked Avatar, so imaginative.

I doubt blu hd will fail.

#D on the other hand will likly fail unless the younger generations think it is the cats meow. 3D is definitely not new!! it was in the theaters 3 decades ago. It might be great for the big screen and Imax, just can't see it for a 50 inch elevision.

time will tell.