Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

23.98 VS 24

M Most said:
PAL releases of US and Canadian made television programs have been made for years. The general approach today is to make a 23.98 master and create everything from that. For 60i, a 2:3 fielded pulldown pattern is added. For 50i, the material is played 4% faster and fields are created. Most of the world is used to hearing voices that are a bit "higher" than the actual actors' voices because they have been hearing them that way for a long, long time. There are some shows that do pitch correction, but in my experience, not very many. 25 frame HD is a bit of a different story in some cases because there is enough information there to use a "standards conversion" approach, basically an interpolation from 24 to 25 without altering the actual running speed. So that is an alternative assuming there is an HD master, which there always is today.
Click to expand...

Mike, thanks for the breakdown. So, if I understand correctly, just shoot normal 23.978 pictures and audio and you're fine with any PAL conversion.
 
As far as I can tell the same applies in PAL or NTSC regions.

If you are shooting for theatrical, shoot 24fps, broadcast and different region sales are issues consigned to history at this stage.

If you are shooting for broadcast shoot the flavour of your 'home' market and years of post experience with this annoyance can be applied to convert it relatively unscathed for overseas markets.
 
Ivan McCullough said:
As far as I can tell the same applies in PAL or NTSC regions.

If you are shooting for theatrical, shoot 24fps, broadcast and different region sales are issues consigned to history at this stage.
Click to expand...

That is not the case. Nearly all post production in "NTSC" (and I use the term loosely because nobody really works in that format anymore) territories is based on the 23.98/59.94 frame rate convention, regardless of what the project is targeted to. Theatrical, broadcast, it really doesn't matter. The post infrastructure, from picture editorial all the way through sound rerecording is all based on that rate. It is not "consigned to history" any more than gasoline powered cars are, regardless of what people here seem to want to believe. And although there are some productions in those countries that are done at "hard 24," they are very rare.
 
M Most said:
That is not the case. Nearly all post production in "NTSC" (and I use the term loosely because nobody really works in that format anymore) territories is based on the 23.98/59.94 frame rate convention, regardless of what the project is targeted to. Theatrical, broadcast, it really doesn't matter. The post infrastructure, from picture editorial all the way through sound rerecording is all based on that rate. It is not "consigned to history" any more than gasoline powered cars are, regardless of what people here seem to want to believe. And although there are some productions in those countries that are done at "hard 24," they are very rare.
Click to expand...

Wow, when did that happen, the changeover to editing on a computer?
 
Why not 25p, always thought PAL is superior to NTSC and I think 24fps is rather strange to stick around. If we don't want to go 48fps like Peter Jackson, then one more frame shouldn't be that bad. It also feels more mathematically correct
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Why not 25p, always thought PAL is superior to NTSC and I think 24fps is rather strange to stick around. If we don't want to go 48fps like Peter Jackson, then one more frame shouldn't be that bad. It also feels more mathematically correct
Click to expand...

I shot a movie 25fps because post and the director said it would make no difference, It did, it looks different, hard to define in a tangible way (obviously) but 24 (hard 24 if you prefer but i prefer to call 24 24 and 23.whatever something else) looks right. Projected, 25 does not, to me at any rate. (intended) ;-)
 
Ivan McCullough said:
Wow, when did that happen, the changeover to editing on a computer?
Click to expand...

This question has been asked, pondered and answered pretty definitively quite a few time around here and elsewhere. The answer alway seems to be - shoot 23.976, not 24.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
This question has been asked, pondered and answered pretty definitively quite a few time around here and elsewhere. The answer alway seems to be - shoot 23.976, not 24.
Click to expand...

Well in PAL land we shoot traditional 24p or 24fps if its film.
 
Mark Toia said:
I really for sorry for all you 23.98, 24p people... That would be like a TV / FILM curse !
Who ever screwed that up at the start needs a swift kick in the arse... LONG LIVE 25P.... and multiples there of...
Click to expand...
Note that every theater in the world is set up for 24fps, and it's been enmeshed as a standard for sound films for almost 90 years.

Elsie N said:
Marc, your post brings up a question a little off topic. What if a production plans on an NTSC release AND a PAL release? How do you accommodate for that with sound? By that I mean, do you record sound as you normally would for an NTSC release (assuming that is your native tongue '-) and rework the math in post?
Click to expand...
They do what's been done for 50-60 years: speed up the 23.98fps movie to 25fps by 4.08%. Some filmmakers and producers will go to the trouble to pitch-shift the audio so at least the actors don't suffer from the "chipmunk effect"; that was something I did for Magnum P.I. for Universal back in the day, because Tom Selleck was one of those actors who did not sound good when sped up.

But yes: just record sound normally, and let the post people speed the whole project up -- sound and picture -- and it will stay in sync. Not a big deal, particularly with file-based shows.

Ivan McCullough said:
I shot a movie 25fps because post and the director said it would make no difference, It did, it looks different, hard to define in a tangible way (obviously) but 24 (hard 24 if you prefer but i prefer to call 24 24 and 23.whatever something else) looks right. Projected, 25 does not, to me at any rate. (intended) ;-)
Click to expand...
It does make a difference, but not many people will notice. I personally prefer 24fps.

When in doubt: shoot tests first and watch it on a large screen and make the decision. Also, know that much of the world is still looking at films in 24fps, so you'll have to take into account that your movie will get slowed down by 4.08%, which throws off the pacing and will (slightly) lower the pitch of the actors' voices. If it's a small movie where 90% of the market is going to be home video and TV, and most of your market is in Europe and Asia, then 25fps is fine. I think you should also ask the advice of your distributor and editor, plus the post supervisor, and make sure everybody is on the same page as to what speed to use.

This question is getting more and more complicated these days, particularly with filmmakers making the deliberate creative choice to shoot 48fps or 60fps or (in Doug Trumball's case) 120fps. Me, I think 24fps is fine and I think the temporal effects add to the dreamlike nature of the film experience. But if I wanted it to look absolutely real, then I would consider a variation of 30fps or 60fps, like for a documentary or nature show. If it's a scripted dramatic production, the last thing I'd want is for it to look more real, but that's my creative opinion.
 
I can't believe I just got a reply from someone who's work I was hearing in a show I saw 30 odd years ago!

At the time (more than 10 years ago now) when I was told to shoot 25fps I was so happy to be asked to shoot a 35mm feature I did not want to risk rocking the boat. I regret that, I agree that 24fps has temporal effects that are preferable to other frame rates.

Importantly though, is it true as M Most seems to be suggesting Theatrical movies are regularly shot 23.98fps (or whatever it is) because of post sound workflow considerations, and if so was this because of the changeover to electronic editing?
 
another argument pro 24 fps or 23,98 is internet and computer playback : 24 is less data than 25 or 30fps, and all computerdisplays are optimised for 60hz, for which a 24fps movie can do a 3/2 pulldown for optimised fullscreen-playback on 60hz displays. If you show a 25fps movie fullscreen on a computerdisplay, and have pan's or moving objects, you will see some temporal motionartefacts.. not with 23,98 or 24.
 
Filip Vandoorne said:
another argument pro 24 fps or 23,98 is internet and computer playback : 24 is less data than 25 or 30fps, and all computerdisplays are optimised for 60hz, for which a 24fps movie can do a 3/2 pulldown for optimised fullscreen-playback on 60hz displays. If you show a 25fps movie fullscreen on a computerdisplay, and have pan's or moving objects, you will see some temporal motionartefacts.. not with 23,98 or 24.
Click to expand...

? Never had this problem...

I shoot 25p for theater DCP 4k release.

Pat
 
I really think the global industry should decide on a global standard instead of having a whole industry loosing money on conversions and post production procedures that would be totally unnecessary if everybody would just stop making arguments why 24fps is better then 25fps or vice versa. It's ridiculous to the point of absurd in my opinion.
 
I have worked on a few features and to be honest, have always encouraged 24 over 23.98. Yes there were many technical limitations in the past, but I have not seen software or hardware that is anywhere near current, designed for theatrical film processes, that can't do true 24. sound and picture. I have had audio guys tell me it can't be done, and then convinced them it could and it did. I have had post houses tell me it wouldn't work, but it did. I honestly believe that the majority (not all mind you) of the 23.98 is needed crowd are simply going off past experience. Not having been heavily involved until red camera's gave the option, I jumped in with true 24 right from the start and other than a few arguments about its feasibility, have had no issues. Some people even still believe that its not possible to do true 24 on any digital camera. Had to get one Camera Assistant to even phone red just to convince him it wasn't a digital limitation. I understand Broadcasts reluctance, as they have a lot of legacy gear to deal with, outside of that though, I see no reason to continue with 23.98.
 
Ian, the legacy issue of broadcast is real, and it's not about to change, so it's easy to flip your argument on its head.

Going from shooting 24 - 23.976 for editorial and online is the same as going from shooting 23.976 - 24 for online, except many more edit suites and accompanying hardware are setup to handle 23.976 than are setup to handle true 24 through to mastering... This may be the fault of legacy standards and issues, but it's reality.

If you are going to have a 23.976 broadcast master at the end of the day anyway (which you will) and you can easily convert that to true 24 at the end of the process (which you can) and by doing so you know going into post that more edit suites worldwide will have hardware setup for you to view the broadcast standard of 23.976 than would true 24, on all their hardware, then what is the actual advantage of shooting true 24 over 23.976?

I mean, of course you can shoot true 24fps - film is still shot that way and will continue to be done so - but in reality, as of right now, shooting 23.976 is far better supported by the post infrastructure that exists in the world - with a preponderance of broadcast infrastructure in existence, why not stay broadcast infrastructure friendly until the last possible point, if it's not going to make any aesthetic difference.
 
I like Craig's post, very accurate and sensible.

I would add that when there is a "normal" convention already in place, one which just about everyone understands and there is no real pressing need to change it, you're always much better off staying with that convention for the simple reason that everyone along the post chain already knows what to do with it. The moment you change simply because of some personal whim is the moment that somewhere along the line your material is going to be mishandled by someone who falsely assumes that it was recorded the "normal" way.

You "can" sell a right hand drive car in the US, but other than a select few, who would actually drive it, especially when the entire road infrastructure is designed around left hand drive? And why should they want to?
 
M Most said:
you're always much better off staying with that convention for the simple reason that everyone along the post chain already knows what to do with it.
Click to expand...

Your NTSC folk are locked in that drop frame convention because of an error made in the 30's. Please teach people to get out of it and make the step : 24p doesn't hurt.

That's my European point of view.


Pat
 
Patrick Tresch said:
For an UNIVERSAL 25p master. TV, Net, Cinema, BluRay, DVD. This was what was sold when HD was launched. Kill Secam, Pal, Ntsc and those locking and odd frame rates.

Pat
Click to expand...

Universal 25P handily ignores the reality of 60hz versus 50hz power supply issues, especially in the consumer realm - so again, isn't going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top