Chord DAVE DAC Review (Video)

[HarmonicTHD]

What's the reason that's universally considered that a movie played in 24 fps is more appealing (or cinematic) than if played in a higher fps which, technically, is superior and and gives a more detailed image (less blurred)?

I think it is just another of these marketing myths this time from the film industry. The 24fps initially stems from wanting to save as much physical film material as possible to keep costs low and still get away with it, meaning viewers still perceive it as ok and not too jittery.

Sure there was also some time already in the digital age where higher fps would drive storage and bandwidth costs, but I think that becomes less and less of a factor nowadays.

Higher fps is certainly better and yes there is probably also a threshold where an increase is not perceived any more as better provided one uses a controlled study (similar to SINAD audibility).

 

[Egoist]

I think it is just another of these marketing myths this time from the film industry. The 24fps initially stems from wanting to save as much physical film material as possible to keep costs low and still get away with it, meaning viewers still perceive it as ok and not too jittery.

Sure there was also some time already in the digital age where higher fps would drive storage and bandwidth costs, but I think that becomes less and less of a factor nowadays.

Higher fps is certainly better and yes there is probably also a threshold where an increase is not perceived any more as better provided one uses a controlled study (similar to SINAD audibility).

You are correct about why it began a century ago in 24 fps, but you are not considering the main reason why is it still the main format used today: because in our brains (after many years watching Hollywood movies) the 24 fps slightly blurred look feels natural and right and, as such, higher fps feels unnatural and we associate it to low budget movies with poor cast, argument and direction (the dreaded telefilms of the past).

 

[MoreWatts]

There must be others besides me who always preferred the sharp 'telefilm' look to warm and fuzzy/out of focus film. Maybe because I wear eyeglasses I always expected imagery to be corrected completely to 'perfect' levels. When I see the 'softer image' of 24fps films, I tend to check if my glasses need to be cleaned.

I think it is just another of these marketing myths this time from the film industry. The 24fps initially stems from wanting to save as much physical film material as possible to keep costs low and still get away with it, meaning viewers still perceive it as ok and not too jittery.

Follow the money.

A question. Some new films are still being shot on film, and they usually make sure you know this. What frame rate is used? Do 60 fps film cameras exist? How many miles/km of film is required to finish a 2 hour movie at 60 fps?

 

[MoreWatts]

I gotta admit, this place forces me to look for answers to my own questions...

Modern 'Vario-70' film has a 'gate dimension' of ~2 inches by ~1 inch, from Wikipedia.

So 60 fps is ~ 5 feet per second, which leads to ~18,000 feet, or ~3.4 miles, or 5.5 km per hour.

24 fps is ~2 feet per second, which is ~7200 feet, or 1.36 miles, or 2.2 km per hour.

So those huge spools of film for IMAX are ~7 miles/11km long for a 2 hour movie!?

60 fps vs. 24 fps increases films costs by a factor of 2.5. (duh... )

But I digress. This thread was about an audio DAC.