High Frame Rate (HFR) movies: time to overcome resistance? Also, on anachronistic nostalgia. And why I rarely go to movie theaters these days.

This week, indulge me in staying a little longer with discussions on the video theme; since I view audio and video technologies as members of the same family, there will be references and detours made about audio in this post.

Although I think 4K is plenty of spatial resolution already for home use (discussed years ago at the advent of UHD BluRays), there is one obvious way to increase the perceived resolution of video playback - improve the "time domain" performance.

While basically everything about motion picture technology has evolved - aspect ratio changes from 4:3 (silent film) to widescreen, frame sizes (35mm various forms, 65/70mm, various digital sensor sizes), B&W to color, higher effective resolution, transition from analog film to digital - isn't it amazing that the cinematic framerate has remained at a mere 24fps, and commonly 180° shutter rule for motion blurring (more geeky testing here)? Since the dawn of the "sound film" in 1926 - almost exactly a century ago! 

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies - movies that were filmed and projected at more than the "cinematic" 24fps - typically 48fps or 60fps - have been simply uncommon for feature presentations to this point. Perhaps reminiscent of multichannel music which had its starts and misses over the decades (eg. 4.0-channel quad back in the '70s), HFR also had a time in the '70s and early '80s when the company Showscan was trying to achieve higher image quality with 65-70mm film at 60fps. But like quadraphonic audio, the technology of the day wasn't really good enough for practical, economical, trouble-free high-fidelity visual reproduction.

Imagine what kind of physical demands would have been necessary for this. Showscan ran the film at 4.68ft/s or 281ft/minute! Clearly a costly endeavor (estimated $2-3M just for the negatives and processing to make a movie back in the '80s) plus imagine the pounds of film to send out to all the theaters, maintenance needs, plus potential damage to the film after a number of runs. How many showings would have been needed for a decent return on investment?!

No surprise then that full-length films were never released in this format. (Here's an interesting brochure from 1990 of their High Impact Cinema prototype, and their 1987 company prospectus.)

HDMI Musings: high speed cables, data rates, YCbCr color subsampling, Dolby Vision MEL/FEL, optical cables and +5V injection.

Hey folks, for this post, I thought it would be good to dive a little more into the world of AV technologies after discussing the nVidia Shield TV Pro last week. While "classic" audiophile technology (ie. standard hi-fi analog and digital 2-channel stereo without special DSP advancements) has matured nicely already, this isn't quite the case with modern digital video tech. While many (probably most) features have settled, we can see ongoing evolution of the High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) standard to be mindful of - for example the recent announcement of HDMI 2.2 at CES2025 expanding capabilities well beyond the needs of today.

As usual, it'll take time (years) for this standard to be incorporated into TVs and source devices like GPUs (latest nVidia RTX 5080/5090 are HDMI 2.1b) or something like VR devices being at the forefront of potential generational gains. For more than 20 years, with each significant revision of the HDMI standard, we're seeing doubling of data speed with HDMI 2.2 now aiming at just shy of 100 gigabits-per-second (96Gbps), twice of the 48Gbps bit rate in current HDMI 2.1 products.

This recent update makes HDMI the fastest of all currently-announced consumer Audio-Video connection standards, the one wire that basically does it all - hi-res video (with high dynamic and frame rate), hi-res audio (up to 32 PCM channels at 24/192, with DSD to 8-channel of DSD256), HDCP copy protection, audio return channel, even ethernet (100Mbps).

This level of sophistication (and licensing costs) could make it difficult for small companies with limited R&D capabilities to get in the game with custom designs. This is probably in part why the cottage industry audiophile companies rarely use HDMI other than selling overprices cables (like AudioQuest). Plus frankly, basic 2-channel audio doesn't need the higher technical capabilities anyway (which is basically what Paul McGowan says).

Let's run through a few thoughts about HDMI that might be good to know as general knowledge as tech enthusiasts. I'll provide a few links of interest, touch on tech stuff like color spaces and subsampling, and things you might want to try if you're running longer high-speed HDMI connections and potentially noticing issues.

nVidia Shield TV Pro (2019 version), still relevant in 2025! A listen to Auro-3D & Auro-Matic Upsampler.

Hey guys, I thought it would be fun to talk about something that's been around quite awhile already but which I still bought in 2025. As per the image above, it's the nVidia Shield TV Pro (US$200, CAD$260). For years, I've been using the Apple TV 4K (2nd Gen, 2021) which is a fine unit with all the bells and UI whistles of the Apple ecosystem. But it is missing something that "serious" movie audio lovers - and even audiophile music lovers - might want; lossless audio bit-streaming for Dolby TrueHD/Atmos and DTS/HDMA/X.

That's right, sadly, after all these years, Apple doesn't care to update the AppleTV to support basic bit-streamed audio. 😢

Note that I don't necessarily blame them as a company, they make no money off local libraries of UHD/BluRay-ripped content. So if I were running the business, I'd also think twice about getting developers to support a feature that at this time in history they will make no streaming subscription revenue from. Streaming services - Apple TV, Apple Music, Netflix, Prime Video - all do not send lossless multichannel audio content, opting typically for lossy Dolby EAC3 with or without Atmos. Not supporting much beyond the basic feature set is nothing new with Apple as part of their KISS closed ecosystem mentality. (The only lossless multichannel I've come across are the few albums on Qobuz.)

Since 2021, without lossless bit-streaming to the receiver, I've been using Infuse PRO on the Apple TV which will decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio to multichannel PCM. Doing this removes the embedded Atmos or DTS:X height effects (can turn on Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS Neural X to extract some content back). At least lossy EAC3-Atmos is sent directly to the receiver.

Therefore in 2025, the only other mainstream choice is still the Shield TV, a device that seems to be catered more to the home-theater enthusiast with lossless audio - thanks nVidia.

Integra DRX-8.4 Multichannel Receiver: Overview, features, build, a few pre-out measurements...

Obviously, value is an important consideration for consumers when it comes to buying and enjoying products. As discussed over the years, I'm not an audiophile who's particularly interested in the luxury aspect of these machines. To me, the ideal of achieving "high fidelity" sound does not care about MSRP or some other determinant of whether a product is artificially exotic/elite, thus "High End Audio" (a.k.a. High Priced Audio) is meaningless to me unless there is evidence of improved sonic performance (whether from plain increased objective fidelity or incorporating technical features) correlating with higher asking price. As such, I believe audiophiles should seriously think about the value of modern AV receivers which over time have also incrementally shown improved sound quality by incorporating higher quality DACs, newer DSP room correction technologies, and potential benefits like balanced connections.

In my opinion, this also means the divide between "home theater" enthusiasts and "audiophiles" is largely artificial when it comes to sonic performance. Subjectively, we're all aiming for an excellent audio experience with high-fidelity to the source with utmost clarity (including time-domain coherence), low distortion, high dynamic range, excellent reproduction of nuances, while achieving realistic/intended soundstage. Objectively, a high quality AV receiver these days should not have difficulty providing hi-fi performance compared to many very expensive products (like the Dan D'Agostino Momentum monoblocks US$80k/pr as an obvious example - other than high power, there's nothing particularly good), plus typically these AV companies provide way more features and modern amenities. The R&D firepower behind these companies are substantial compared to the small-business shops that typically make products for the esoteric 2-channel audiophile niche. Over time, as I hope audiophiles increasingly consider enjoying the new multichannel recordings and remixes, moving into "immersive" audio, these multichannel receivers should be seen as serious options.

The only utilitarian difference between home theater enthusiasts and audiophiles is whether video playback is needed.

In this post, let's start with having a look at the item pictured above, the Integra DRX-8.4 multichannel receiver. (Discussions and measurements of AV receivers are not new on this blog with previous posts on the Yamaha RX-V781 and Onkyo TX-NR1009.)

Despite being the current flagship receiver from Integra, the price is "only" US$3,200 or about CAD$4,000. I bought this item through standard retail channels online because I was interested in it; no company incentives.

Beelink EQ12: Low power Intel N100-based Roon endpoint and Kodi 4K/HDR/60fps player, general Windows 11 computer. A few words on HDR10(+), Dolby Vision, AV1, and Kodi. And hilarious Transparent $$$ cables.

Beelink EQ12 MiniPC, some testing with the RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition.

Since around 2004, I've been using various computer systems for music playback, initially starting with ripped files on PCs and then quickly transitioning to server-endpoint "distributed" playback by something like 2006/2007 when I bought my first Slim Devices Squeezebox 3. I've never really looked back since, as this is IMO the superior way to manage music with a central home server repository and distributing the music around the home. It has been more than a decade since I've cared to use a CD transport other than to rip music and there's no reason why CDs would sound better anyways ("bit perfect" and all that).

Of course back in the day, especially prior to 2010, putting a computer in the sound room was likely going to be fraught with noise issues. In the 2nd decade of the 21st Century now, with much lower CPU/memory/motherboard power demands while capable of excellent speed, silent SSD drives, and small form factor MiniPCs, it's actually rather trivial these days to maintain cool and quiet, unobtrusive computers that perform well as AV "appliances". These machines will not contribute to acoustic or electrical noise pollution in listening rooms even with low ambient noise levels provided the hobbyist approaches device selection and optimization with some basic care.

Today, let's convert that little Beelink EQ12 Intel N100-based computer (discussed/reviewed last time) into something I would use as a Windows audio streamer and movie player in my media room. Let's talk about some BIOS settings, Windows set-up suggestions to consider, and computational potential.

1080P Blu-Ray vs. 4K UHD Blu-Ray: "Blade Runner 2049" - Digital "Nearly 4K" Filmmaking (3.4K)

Another excellent movie! It might be heresy to those who adored the first Blade Runner, but I thought this was an even better flick than the first; kudos to Denis Villeneuve.

I want to continue in this series of comparisons showing resolution of 1080P Blu-Ray versus the 4K UHD Blu-Ray version of the same film. If you've been following along, so far we're actually not seeing much if any significant improvement in spatial resolution comparing typical "analogue" film-to-4K movie conversions. This goes for Interstellar's 35mm portions, the original Blade Runner, and last week with The Prestige. As expected, 2K Digital Intermediate movies like Pacific Rim can benefit from HDR color/contrast regrading, but there would be no resolution enhancement. Of the movies I've looked at, Dunkirk and the 70mm IMAX filmmaking process clearly provided a resolution enhancement.

For this post, I want to show you what a "nearly 4K" movie presented on UHD Blu-Ray looks like resolution-wise. Blade Runner 2049 was filmed digitally using ARRI Alexa cameras using the ARRIRAW 3.4K format (3414 x 2198) then converted to a 4K Digital Intermediate and special effects were said to be rendered in 3.4K as well. Let's have a peek...

1080P Blu-Ray vs. 4K UHD Blu-Ray: "The Prestige" - Modern 35mm Filmmaking

I love this movie! It was one of those flicks I walked into with no expectations and came out realizing that I just had to grab the video for the home movie collection...

At its heart, The Prestige (2006) is a drama with sci-fi/fantasy elements based on the 1995 novel by Christopher Priest which was nominated for the Arthur C. Clarke Award and won the World Fantasy Award in 1996. I know that the fantastical elements may be a turn-off for some, but given the historical mystique of a character like Nikola Tesla, I was willing to suspend belief to enjoy the themes of ambition, sacrifice, and redemption.

Technically, like the movie we looked at last time (Blade Runner: Final Cut), this movie was filmed in 35mm anamorphic primarily using Panavision's Panaflex camera with Kodak film. It was created more than 20 years after Blade Runner. While visual effects were rendered in 2K, the Digital Intermediate was done in 4K. Just like others in the recently-released Christopher Nolan 4K Collection, this film was advertised as "remastered by the director in a stunning new format". 

So... The question is, does a more "modern" 35mm movie benefit resolution-wise from a 4K release?

1080P Blu-Ray vs. 4K UHD Blu-Ray: "Blade Runner (Final Cut)" - Classic 35mm Filmmaking

Ahhhh, Blade Runner!

Here's an example of a "classic" from 1982. While arguably, the film was more style than substance, it certainly has left an enduring mark in the world of science fiction. Remember that Ridley Scott started his career in TV advertising which must have informed his visual aesthetic to create some iconic imagery such as this vision of Los Angeles in 2019 (alas, technological advancement and climate change must have been much more severe in this alternate universe).

As you know, beyond the detective film noir and some action sequences, it does touch on important science fiction themes of sentience, rights, the soul, genetics and transcendence. Of course, as a music lover, I very much enjoyed the soundtrack from Vangelis (for the completist, the 3-CD 25th Anniversary Edition contains everything)!

Blade Runner was filmed in 35mm with some special effects filmed in 65mm. Aspect ratio of 2.35:1. Over the years, it has undergone a number of revisions; the main ones being the original Theatrical Release, 1992's Director's Cut, and the 2007 Final Cut. When they did the 2007 Final Cut, the frames were digitally cleaned up, continuity errors fixed, new CGI effects added, 65mm footage were scanned to 8K, and everything finished as a 4K Digital Intermediate which is what ultimately ended up here on the UHD Blu-Ray with added HDR color grading.

As a comparison, I thought it would be interesting to grab a number of scenes to see the difference between a standard Blu-Ray release from 2011 (VC1 codec, ~17Mb/s) and the UHD version released in 2017 (HEVC 10-bit HDR10, ~50Mbps)... Is it worthwhile upgrading to a higher resolution version even with an old (35 years old!) movie originating in 35mm?

1080P Blu-Ray vs. 4K UHD Blu-Ray: "Pacific Rim" - Digital "2K" Filmmaking (and a look at Blue Planet II)

Having looked at Dunkirk (70mm IMAX - 65/15-perf and 65/5-perf) and Interstellar (hybrid of 35mm and 65-15-perf) previously, over the next few weeks, when possible I'm going to try for a survey of comparisons using different types of movies and show the kind of resolution difference one might see going to 4K.

Today, let's consider a very common type of movie production - digitally filmed movies mastered to a 2K Digital Intermediate (DI). In Real or Fake 4K, these would of course be classified as "Fake 4K" movies that would need to be upsampled going from 2K/1080P to the 4K/2160P on your shiny new UHD Blu-Ray disc and 4K screen.

Pacific Rim would be a good example of this type of production in a big budget movie (said to be ~US$190M back in 2013). It was captured on Red Epic cameras capable of up to 5K (5120x2560) raw frame quality, then downsampled to a 2K Digital Intermediate mixed with 2K rendered visual effects.

While admittedly not a great movie, for guys and gals who like steam punk themes, monsters, and of course really big robot mechs, Guillermo del Toro serves up quite a feast of a real-live action anime. Nothing wrong with turning your brain off and enjoying some mech-on-monster brawl once awhile :-).

1080P Blu-Ray vs. 4K UHD Blu-Ray: Does "Interstellar" actually benefit from 4K!?

Compromised quality?

As you know, Christopher Nolan is known for demanding the best out of his work visually. A few weeks back, I had a look at Dunkirk and was able to appreciate the difference the 4K/UHD Blu-Ray made compared to standard HD 1080P Blu-Ray. Despite the plot holes and nitpicks (it is sci-fi after all), I very much enjoyed Interstellar in the standard digital IMAX theater when it first came out in 2014. As I was watching the recently released UHD Blu-Ray, while the HDR effect looks ok (I wouldn't say great), I was rather disappointed by the apparent lack of resolution enhancement moving from 1080P... Even in the IMAX 70mm scenes, everything seemed less defined than I had expected coming from Dunkirk. Seemed a bit strange especially since it's claimed that this was "released under the supervision of the director himself, approving the 4K scan and colour timing".

Let's have a closer look shall we?

DEMO: Dunkirk - Resolution difference between 1080P Blu-Ray and 4K/2160P UHD Blu-Ray (It's CES 2018 also!)

A friend who works in the world of video production saw my post a few weeks back about "4K, Dunkirk and 70mm IMAX" sent me some segments of Dunkirk from the recently released UHD Blu-Ray set so I could have a look at the differences between 4K compared to standard 1080P Blu-Ray. Remember as discussed a few weeks back, this movie was filmed to a large extent with 70mm IMAX (65mm/15perf) gear, we know the VFX rendering was done using >4K with a true 4K digital intermediate. It represents the "pinnacle" of analogue film technology mixed with the best of today's digital effects and processing. I highly doubt we'll see much more of this level of literal "film-making" over the years. As such it's a nice "benchmark" for comparisons.

MUSINGS: Thoughts on fake 4K, post-truth and film "format folly" (70mm film & Christopher Nolan).

Since returning from my Asia trip. I see that new toys for Christmas have now been released including the new Xbox One X (which I mentioned a few months back).

Although it seems like there may be issues that need to be fixed, one nice feature of the Xbox One S and X machines is the ability to play the new Blu-Ray UHD disks which have been available since March 2016. Though there are a number of disks out there now, I suspect the growth has not been spectacular... Not unexpected really since the jump from 2K (1080P) to 4K (2160P) resolution does require the right conditions as laid out previously to be truly appreciated, plus, like music, movies have gone "virtual" with streaming being the primary mechanism of consumption.

For this post, I thought I'd put together a few discussion items about video IMO worth thinking about as we are very much in the era of the 4K videophile!

MUSINGS: End of 2016 - Video Encoding (HEVC 10-bits, the HDR "Trinity"), Multichannel Streaming, and Other Thoughts...

For those of you into video, I suspect you're already very excited about the "next generation" H.265/HEVC encoding format. About a year back, I already made mention of the impressive results I was seeing with playback of HEVC on the Skylake HTPC I was putting together. A year down the road, we see the ongoing development of software harnessing the power of the new encoding technique - even lower bitrate for very high quality output.

As we say goodbye to 2016, I thought I'd just "shoot the breeze" a bit and meander down some related topics. Let's talk about video encoding, what I've been doing, what I've found useful/interesting, and some speculation of what I think would be in the not too distant future as it applies to high dynamic range (HDR) video...

MUSINGS: 4K UHD TV, HFR, 3D, HDR, etc... Thoughts on video technology and the consumer.

As you saw a couple weeks back, when in China, I visited a number of electronics stores, especially the "big box" places in Beijing and Guangzhou. Many of these stores had on display a whole floor of 4K TVs made by all kinds of brands (many local China brands like TCL, Hisense, Skyworth, Changhong as well as the usual Samsung, LG, Sharp, Sony, etc...) and one could easily walk around and compare image quality. Of course, this is ultimately a limited comparison because the TVs are all displaying the manufacturer default settings and this usually means extremely bright, color saturated, extreme sharpness, and max'ed out contrast settings playing typically pristine demo videos so as to catch the consumer's gaze.

Even though this is primarily an audio blog, I see no need to confine ourselves to just one sensory modality... I've been wanting to upgrade to a 4K TV for awhile, certainly since my 4K computer monitor upgrade early last year. For today, I thought it would be good to think about the world of TVs and where the home visual technologies are leading us. Let's talk about some of the technology around visual quality and the parameters we should be keeping in mind, and perhaps even consider the future and what's down the pipeline. Perhaps most importantly, I like to think as a consumer in the big picture and even speculate a little bit about what might happen down the road.

MUSINGS: HTPC Rebuild - time for Intel Skylake and ready for 4K... (Part I)

For many of us, I suspect the image above would be familiar... The 'old' Windows Media Center (WMC) software. Alas, as of this year, with the release of Windows 10, the Media Center functionality has died (although arguably after a long period of being on life support since 2009). Not that I ever used the software much but I do recall the hey-day of when Microsoft was promoting the PC as the center of the home theater hub. In fact one of my early Home Theater PC's (HTPC) was built around a reasonably fast AMD processor and running WMC as a PVR with a TV card installed back in the early 2000's.

Now in the 2010's, functions promised of by the HTPC can be handled by Smart TV's and all those standalone boxes like the AppleTV, Amazon's FireTV, or the myriad of inexpensive devices like this. Perhaps wisely from a revenue perspective, Microsoft has shifted the focus on development of media access through their Xbox One game system (and Sony in their PlayStation 4).

Personally, I still love the idea of a full-functioning HTPC in the media room. A machine that can handle whatever audio and video format I can throw at it (I posted some thoughts back in early 2014). And when not watching a movie or listening to music, something I can turn on and use for software like REW or Acourate, surfing, the occasional game, or computer-based karaoke when friends come over :-). Software for HTPC functions have grown nicely over the years - check out some options here. And for those who insist, there's even a hack to get WMC on a Win 10 install.

MUSINGS: Gone 4K / UHD - A "Look" At Ultra-High-Definition...

This week, I thought I'd take a break from just the audio stuff and discuss a new "toy" I got 5 weeks ago. That's right, as the title suggests, a 4K / UHD screen; it's a computer monitor to be exact:

A view from behind the commander's chair :-). BenQ BL3201PH on the table.

Remember that there's a separate "body" defining 4K movies at the local movieplex - the Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI). They have "true" 4000 pixel horizontal resolution like the 4096x1716 (2.39:1 aspect), or the very close 3996x2160 (1.85:1) resolutions. Whereas for the smaller screens like computer monitors and TV's, we have the UHD "Ultra High Definition" standard defined as 3840x2160 (16:9 / 1.78:1). So although it's not exactly "4K" horizontally, it's close and I guess "4K" is a better advertising catch-phrase than "2160P". Needless to say 3840x2160 is 2x the linear resolution of 1080P or 4x the actual number of pixels.