WWE Network Frame Rate

[nitro]

We all know the network is great and looks proper with it's 720p30 resolution. One thing that bothers me a little is the frame rate. The PPVs are recorded with 60 frames per second and this is what you get from the cable networks or the Blu-rays. The Blu-rays are coming with 1080i60. Of course the picture quality is also better, but that's not the point.

The network instead cuts the native frame rate from 60 to 30 frames. It's still ok to watch, but it is not that "ultra-smooth" feeling you have with 60 frames, instead it looks more "cinematic". I guess the reason is, lower traffic and so lower costs. I'm sure most people didn't even realize this. But it's very obvious when you watch something on the Network and after this you put in a WWE PPV Blu-ray.


I contacted the Network via the hompage and facebook, if they are going to add the 60 frames in the future, but didn't get a response.

[Crappler El 0 M]

As you say, it's a cost and logistics issue and only a small number of viewers can probably tell the difference. You don't get Blu-ray quality, but you get a massive library to stream in good quality for a small monthly fee.

[Deleted]

1080i60 is actually only 30 frames per second really because of the way interlaced works.

Heres an explanation that explains it better than I could: www.biscardicreative.com/blog/2011/09/1080i-60-is-not-60fps-repeat-after-me/



no WWE content is shown anywhere at 60 FPS unfortunately.


as a PC gamer I can tell the difference, anyone can, its extremely noticable. the first time I saw some 60FPS content I felt a little sick, I soon adjusted to it though and now I struggle with lower frame rate content, fast paced action sequences in films (which are 24FPS) are pretty much unwatchable to me nowadays.




it pisses me off that content is still at 24FPS and 30 FPS, Really you need a minimum of around 45 FPS for a pleasent viewing experience. Yet when Peter Jackson did Lord Of The Rings at 48FPS everyone bitched and moaned about it (probably because we have become so conditioned to the inferior frame rate - which was only chosen in the first place when film was expensive because 24 was the minimum they could get away with), TV is only 30 because of old technology. Every TV is capable of a higher framerate, most the equipment is nowadays, but we are stuck inm the stoneage because people are resistant to change. All this "cinematic look" stuff is bullshit spewed out by game console makers to excuse for their piss poor hardware. A higher framerate is simply better, there is no subjectiveness to it.


On the subject of the resolution 720p is much preferable to 1080i anyway, especially for sports

[JB]

I felt sick the first time I saw 60fps too

[kidglov3s]

Oct 2, 2014 12:03:03 GMT -5 @graant said:

1080i60 is actually only 30 frames per second really because of the way interlaced works.

Heres an explanation that explains it better than I could: www.biscardicreative.com/blog/2011/09/1080i-60-is-not-60fps-repeat-after-me/



no WWE content is shown anywhere at 60 FPS unfortunately.


as a PC gamer I can tell the difference, anyone can, its extremely noticable. the first time I saw some 60FPS content I felt a little sick, I soon adjusted to it though and now I struggle with lower frame rate content, fast paced action sequences in films (which are 24FPS) are pretty much unwatchable to me nowadays.




it pisses me off that content is still at 24FPS and 30 FPS, Really you need a minimum of around 45 FPS for a pleasent viewing experience. Yet when Peter Jackson did Lord Of The Rings at 48FPS everyone bitched and moaned about it (probably because we have become so conditioned to the inferior frame rate - which was only chosen in the first place when film was expensive because 24 was the minimum they could get away with), TV is only 30 because of old technology. Every TV is capable of a higher framerate, most the equipment is nowadays, but we are stuck inm the stoneage because people are resistant to change. All this "cinematic look" stuff is bullshit spewed out by game console makers to excuse for their piss poor hardware. A higher framerate is simply better, there is no subjectiveness to it.


On the subject of the resolution 720p is much preferable to 1080i anyway, especially for sports

Thanks for clarifying for the thread that WWE content is not presented in 60fps, even if I don't share your opinion on HFR. And film is if anything more expensive than ever, as digital is on the road to more/less thoroughly replacing it as the standard for production/distribution at all levels.

[nitro]

Yes, you are right #3, there are no 60 full frames per second, but 60 half frames. The first comment in your article makes it very clear.

It’s called 1080/60i because there are 60 points in time that an image is captured. Yes, it’s only half a frame, but a single field is captured every 1/60 of a second. In an interlaced format the unit of measurement is a field, so it’s 60 fields per second, and 1080/60i is not only a perfectly appropriate name, it’s the only appropriate name.

If you *actually* put the upper and lower fields together, they wouldn’t equal one frame, as your illustration suggests, because they weren’t captured at the same time. Instead, the combined image would look just a tiny bit “slatted,” because the even lines were captured 1/60 of a second after the odd lines. This is usually only easy to notice on fast-moving footage.

So there really is movement on screen every 60th of a second, at the cost of half of the functional resolution of the image.

The point is the 1080i60 content looks way smoother even it's not real 60 full frames per second than the 720p30 on the network. There are just less picture information.