2:3 (sometimes called 3:2) pulldown simply explained in layman's terms

The V10 series has a 96Hz refresh mode for 24Fps content so it handles 24Fps film content by repeating the exact same fram 4x (24Fps x 4 = 96Fps/96Hz). The G10/15 series can either do 2:3 pulldown or output at 48Hz (Fps) which is only 2x or (24Fps x 2 = 48Fps/Hz) but that can produce flicker. BTW, when they show film in theaters they do 48Fps but being analog and not digital there is not as much flicker. On the G10/15 series I recommend using 2:3 pulldown as this effect is HOW you have been watching movies on your TVs for decades. Having an even multiple of 24Fps refresh rate (Hz=Fps) eliminates the judder and slow pans with the camera can show some judder (studdering of movement) but again we have been looking at this like this with films for decades now so our brains mostly ignore this now.

Here is a layman's way of explaining how 2:3 pulldown works. Because 60Hz (Fps) is not divisible by 24 evenly they needed a way to convert film frame rates into the frame rate TVs in the USA have which is 60Hz. How they do it is by:

Repeating the first frame twice then repeating the next frame 3x, then repeating the 3rd frame 2x, and then the next frame 3x, and so on. So it repeats each frame like this; 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3 for the first 10 frames and repeats this each time throughout the movie.

The V10 series having a 96Hz mode when it sees a 24Fps signal just repeats each frame like this; 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 for the first 10 frames and repeats this each time throughout the movie. Here is a visual taken from Panasonics website that shows this:

http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/images/Content/hpq05_image01.gif

No question 96Hz is better than using 2:3 pulldown or only doing 48Hz (Fps), but is it worth $500.00 more for it? There are other things that make the V10 better like better color controls, etc also, but that is a question each individual will have to make.

FYI. Pioneer plasmas use 72Hz for 24Fps sources so just replace the 4 with 3 (24x3=72) in the V10 series above. ;)

The same is true with LCDs with 120Hz or now recently with 240Hz refresh rates, only they ALWAYS use this refresh rate so and do it to try to eliminate the motion blur because LCD pixel response times are over 1000x slower than plasma or CRT. Many complain that because LCD at 120 at 5x and 240Hz at 10x repeating the frames that it makes film look less like film and do not like it.

Hope this helps to explain this.

Thanks for this, but I would like clarification on the last sentence. I was under the impression that the "soap opera" effect was a result of video processing software (Sony's Motionflow, Samsung's Auto Motion Plus) and was not a result of the refresh rate (120 Hz, 240 Hz, etc). In fact, many reviews have claimed that 120 Hz and 240 Hz sets did not differ much from 60 Hz sets. What is the truth here?:confused:

Thanks for this, but I would like clarification on the last sentence. I was under the impression that the "soap opera" effect was a result of video processing software (Sony's Motionflow, Samsung's Auto Motion Plus) and was not a result of the refresh rate (120 Hz, 240 Hz, etc). In fact, many reviews have claimed that 120 Hz and 240 Hz sets did not differ much from 60 Hz sets. What is the truth here?:confused:

There are sets that only interpolate each of the repeat frame rates by changing what the display "thinks" will change during that split second and does the half way to the next frame as it is repeating instead of repeating the exact same original frame 5x or 10x (for a 240Hz model).

It depends on the brand/model LCD. Samsung lets you separately handle judder from the setting for smoothness but many have stated some other brands do not let you separately change one without the other.

I have the last years Panny 800u which does 48 (or 60 w 3:2) and I noticed flicker one time on an all white test screen but never on any program material so I guess I am lucky. Also glad my proj. does at 72 as I have noteiced the difference between 24p (72hz) and 3:2 pulldown on a 100" screen.

what generally confuses me about this is that there's two separate options in my panny G10 for this...there's a 3:2 pulldown (on/off) option and a separate 24p playback (48/60hz) option as well

the 24p option is grayed out until I'm using my blu ray as a source....3:2 pulldown is available when I'm using my cable box..

I was under the impression that the "soap opera" effect was a result of video processing software (Sony's Motionflow, Samsung's Auto Motion Plus) and was not a result of the refresh rate (120 Hz, 240 Hz, etc).

This is correct. The act of simply repeating frames without any interpolation or other processing between the repeated frames will not cause the so-called soap opera affect. It is the processing that is designed to remove blur from the source material that causes the effect. No blur-removal processing, no effect.

The frame rate of film projected in theaters is not 48 fps. It is 24 fps using a three-blade shutter on the projector resulting in an effective frame rate of 72 fps with each frame projected three times. Film is not an electronic medium. The terms analog and digital do not apply. There is analog video that has nothing to do with film.

The frame rate of film projected in theaters is not 48 fps. It is 24 fps using a three-blade shutter on the projector resulting in an effective frame rate of 72 fps with each frame projected three times

Correct with the exception of the dual blade shutter which effectively produces a pseudo 48 fps to the eye. I used to (help?) as a kid in the local 35 cent theater, the projectionist. Carbon rods, huge machines, bad smells and more. What fun!

Doug k

The frame rate of film projected in theaters is not 48 fps. It is 24 fps using a three-blade shutter on the projector resulting in an effective frame rate of 72 fps with each frame projected three times. Film is not an electronic medium. The terms analog and digital do not apply. There is analog video that has nothing to do with film.

Yet film is analog in it's truest meaning of the word as video captured and stored digitally is not film...

Yet film is analog in it's truest meaning of the word as video captured and stored digitally is not film...

How can we maintain the look of film if the studios start using digital cameras? You have to admit the time will come when everything is stored digitally!

They have digital "film" cameras now for some movies and they STILL record at 24Fps to preserve the (motion) "look" of film, and they even add artificial film grain for the same reason. Some movies were shot with both real film and these digital movie cameras and they have to add grain on the digital shots so they match the rest of the movie shot with film. From what I have read it is a slow process to get many directors to move to digital movie cameras, and I remember reading an article about how Steven Spielberg actually likes the "feel" of film stock in his hands when editing the movie.

They have digital "film" cameras now for some movies and they STILL record at 24Fps to preserve the (motion) "look" of film, and they even add artificial film grain for the same reason. Some movies were shot with both real film and these digital movie cameras and they have to add grain on the digital shots so they match the rest of the movie shot with film. From what I have read it is a slow process to get many directors to move to digital movie cameras, and I remember reading an article about how Steven Spielberg actually likes the "feel" of film stock in his hands when editing the movie.

Then maybe it will be longer before Hollywood changes to digital cameras, don't know if that's a bad thing or not. Mmm

I prefer film and everything that goes with it. When everything is digital, it looks fake or unreal, at least to me...

I prefer film and everything that goes with it. When everything is digital, it looks fake or unreal, at least to me...

I hate fake and unreal video, it takes something away from the movie experience! The way things are going it seems as though in about ten years manufacturers will start pumping out 4k x2k displays which is for video and not film. Why can't our TV systems be designed around film rather than video? It's a two headed dragon with one head being film and the other being video!