23.98 VS 24

[Ivan McCullough]

Ok there are a few questions I have posed still not being answered, I am asking because I am interested not because I am accusing anyone of anything.

First, Mike Most is one of the posters I respect the most here, he is a purveyor of simple home truths and seems to have a constitution lacking in BS, bravo I say.

I would love this answered though Mike. Have a high percentage of theatrical (read cinema) released movies moved over to shooting 23.whatever instead of 24fps/p in order to make post simpler? Is this a byproduct of electronic post-production? (in legacy NTSC enviroments). Or is it the case that pretty much all theatrical released movies shoot true 24fps/p and post then choose to convert to 23.whatever for post and then back to 24fps/p for theatrical release (not before making their broadcast masters at 23.whatever)

I would be really surprised if they have moved away from 24 just because of electronic based post.

24fps/p is the true universal standard, the world was shooting movies this way for decades before video tape was in the home.

23.whatever is a legacy issue from NTSC regions, for broadcast, believe me, most post houses would traditionally have more experience of 24fps/p in PAL regions.

25fps/p is a legacy issue in PAL regions, for broadcast, its not going away either.

Both these seem to have something to do with mains electrical frequencies.

But.... if the phone in my pocket can play any of these then why not choose the common one (24) and long term save ourselves a load of unnecessary converting and re-converting?

 

[M Most]

Have a high percentage of theatrical (read cinema) released movies moved over to shooting 23.whatever instead of 24fps/p in order to make post simpler? Is this a byproduct of electronic post-production? (in legacy NTSC environments). Or is it the case that pretty much all theatrical released movies shoot true 24fps/p and post then choose to convert to 23.whatever for post and then back to 24fps/p for theatrical release (not before making their broadcast masters at 23.whatever)

The first part of the answer is yes, nearly all feature production done in North America (and a significant part of US funded productions abroad) is shot at 23.98, for all of the reasons I've already outlined. Calling it "a byproduct of electronic post production" is a bit of an outdated way of putting it. The truth is that we've been posting electronically for over 20 years now, even longer than that in some circles. When I was at Lorimar from about 1984 through 1990, we began posting all of our film based shows electronically around the time I got there. So in that case it's been almost 30 years. Sound moved over to electronic post around 1986, and went fully digital less than 10 years later. So none of this is new, which is why the infrastructure for it is so well established and entrenched. When HD came into play around 1998-2000, a lot of post - especially offline and sound mixing - was still done with standard definition elements, so the use of those frame rates - already well understood - remained. The fact is that there is really no serious need to change it because the fractional frame rate has the same number of frames as the "hard" frame rate, but allows the use of many consumer level devices that are designed around broadcast, which is, at least in North America, based completely on the fractional frame rates. "Pulling up" for a DCP has never been an issue and is in fact a very simple step that requires no interpolation.

What I wish would stop is the use of the term "drop frame" when referring to 23.98, which has no relation to this subject at all. Drop frame is a counting scheme for 30 frame time code that skips 2 frames in the counting sequence (frames 0 and 1) every minute except for 10 minute multiples to bring the time code in line with "real time." There is no such thing as drop frame time code for anything other than a 30 frame time base, and today it's used almost exclusively for broadcast delivery masters to allow for accurate timing. The fractional frame rate itself has nothing to do with a drop frame counting sequence, and the term "drop frame" should not be used when referring to fractional frame rate frame systems because it's confusing, misleading, and incorrect.

 

[M Most]

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.

It wasn't an "error." It was a correction to allow for color broadcasts with audio that were compatible with the millions of black and white television receivers already in use at the time.

And it wasn't in the 30's. NTSC came about in the mid 1950's.

And it has nothing to do with "drop frame," which is a specifically defined time code counting sequence that doesn't exist in any format other than 59.94 and 60 (and yes, you can have 60 frame drop frame TC - that's how we recorded audio on a number of shows back in the 1980's when electronic post first began....).

And I know that's the Eurpoean view, but it is basically wrong and borne of a lack of understanding of the facts. It's also an attempt to make a mountain out of an ant hill, because the use of the fractional frame rates is almost completely inconsequential, especially in a 23.98/24 frame world (as opposed to 59.94/60). Talking about it repeatedly here is a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

The theme was 23.98 vs 24. But I notice some tips here, which will work practically, but there might be a trap on the long run. I like to share that here, even if it seems like noise in the thread.

===

Changing the practical (final) running time of a movie based on a "switch" instead of a conversation from 24fps to 25p might lead (e.g. in Germany) to consequences how much advertisement can be added during the program.

To suggest a simple 24 to 25 "switch" might lower the options to sell the movie in the first place. Investigate your target market before investing in such "change".

http://www.lmk-online.de/faqs/werbung

 

[Ivan McCullough]

Thanks MrMost, was not aware that feature production has adopted tv post so heavly.

I get that TV has been doing this for what seems like aeons but for cinema this is relatively new, no? It can't have come about before Digital image capture became popular?..really?

When would you say for Cinema this started to gain traction?

PS. learning why things are done one way and not another is never a waste of bandwidth as far as I am concerned. I learned in filmschool that film was 24, Pal was 25, NTSC was 30, and there was weird almost 24 for movies for TV in America. Simplistic, sure, but worked for us then 15+ years ago. Now it seems the goalposts have moved somewhat.

 

[Ian Laurie]

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.

Or you could shoot at 24, remain at 24 through post, which is no longer an issue for most places, remain at 24 for bluray and theatrical distribution, and do a fractional frame rate for broadcast. I honestly don't understand this idea that Post infrastructure is not 24 frame friendly. Yes some outdated equipment is no longer friendly. And by all means if that's what you want to use, go for it. But I will never understand this idea that it just shouldn't be done. I see no reason for it if you have no need to support legacy gear. I have none, so I wont. Also the very fact that this 24v23.98 and drop frame/not dropframe conversation arises over and over again, is proof enough that it is not well understood among those new to the industry, or simply uninformed about broadcast systems ( I don't know broadcast, but I do know they have a lot of gear to support). digital distribution online, or through bluray, or theatrical have no reason to concern themselves with 23.98. which is why I don't think about it. If broadcast needs something different, I'll give them something different. Everyone here is welcome to their own opinion. Those who work with 23.98 understand its ins and outs and are happy using it. Those who work with 24 have found their own way and it works just as well for them. I have yet to run into problems with 24, so I will continue with 24. Really see no reason to change, but that may just be me.


P.S. I should have mentioned that I wasn't being sarcastic when I mentioned the legacy broadcast systems. I understand it, even if I don't agree with it. Changing gear is costly, exponentially so when dealing with an entire country worth. But I think it should be phased out rather held onto.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Mike - thanks for the detailed explanation and especially for clearing up the confusion regarding drop frame timecode.

 

[Ian Laurie]

I should also note, that Mike most definitely has a far, far better grasp on all of this than I likely ever will. Just stating in my experience 24 works flawlessly and is very simple to understand and work with. I, personally, use it because I, personally, don't have to deal with legacy systems apart from requests from individual broadcasters. An advantage of a control freak I suppose. If you use a lot of third party post that has a long history and longer gear life, follow the smarter of the arguments and go with the current popular choice, and mikes advice. Its far safer than mine.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Ian - Like you, I don't typically deal with broadcast anymore and have no need to bend to anyone else's dictate. However, I have defaulted to the other side of the argument: I just set my camera at 23.98 and forget about it forever after. And I have never had a problem and I don't see a downside.

No one way is right or wrong. I just don't want to have to explain why I chose 24 in a 23.98 world if something does go wacky. It takes one variable out of the equation.

:smiley:

 

[Ian Laurie]

Ian - Like you, I don't typically deal with broadcast anymore and have no need to bend to anyone else's dictate. However, I have defaulted to the other side of the argument: I just set my camera at 23.98 and forget about it forever after. And I have never had a problem and I don't see a downside.

No one way is right or wrong. I just don't want to have to explain why I chose 24 in a 23.98 world if something does go wacky. It takes one variable out of the equation.

:smiley:

Ironically, I just had a conversation with a DOP who had a pissed off producer on a web spot when he shot 23.98 instead of 30... which is a new one for me.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Or you could shoot at 24, remain at 24 through post, which is no longer an issue for most places, remain at 24 for bluray and theatrical distribution, and do a fractional frame rate for broadcast. I honestly don't understand this idea that Post infrastructure is not 24 frame friendly. Yes some outdated equipment is no longer friendly. And by all means if that's what you want to use, go for it. But I will never understand this idea that it just shouldn't be done. I see no reason for it if you have no need to support legacy gear. I have none, so I wont.

What if you get a famous composer to agree to do the music for your short... and he wants a 23.98 cut of your film?

This happened to a friend of mine: the issue then is that each time you update your cut, you have to do a new 23.98 conversion.

Or you get a good mixing house to do a mix for cheap but the only system they have free is a slightly older system with an A/V setup that only handles 23.98 and 29.97, not 24?

This has also happened to several people I know.

Personally I would love it if everything worked great with 24 but I think we're a few years away from having all of the people you might possibly want to collaborate with have systems that work perfectly with 24. Some talented people work on gear that is surprisingly old.

RE: working at 25... I come from a PAL country and used to work at 25. Well, seeing my 25fps comedy slowed down to 23.98 was an enlightening experience! It really does affect timing.

Let's face it: your actors usually give their performances a smidge slower than you want them to. Adding another 4% slowdown usually hurts more than speeding things up 4%.

So for now it's 23.98 for me, with maybe 24 in a few years.

My personal 2c is that if you're going to go to a universal standard, just go to 120 and have flags to indicate repeated frames. It matches digital projection and that way the director has maximum creative control. They can do a 24p film. They can mix a single 48p shot into a 24p film if they want to. They can do 60p or 120p. Etc.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Ian Laurie]

What if you get a famous composer to agree to do the music for your short... and he wants a 23.98 cut of your film?

This happened to a friend of mine: the issue then is that each time you update your cut, you have to do a new 23.98 conversion.

Or you get a good mixing house to do a mix for cheap but the only system they have free is a slightly older system with an A/V setup that only handles 23.98 and 29.97, not 24?

This has also happened to several people I know.

Personally I would love it if everything worked great with 24 but I think we're a few years away from having all of the people you might possibly want to collaborate with have systems that work perfectly with 24. Some talented people work on gear that is surprisingly old.

RE: working at 25... I come from a PAL country and used to work at 25. Well, seeing my 25fps comedy slowed down to 23.98 was an enlightening experience! It really does affect timing.

Let's face it: your actors usually give their performances a smidge slower than you want them to. Adding another 4% slowdown usually hurts more than speeding things up 4%.

So for now it's 23.98 for me, with maybe 24 in a few years.

My personal 2c is that if you're going to go to a universal standard, just go to 120 and have flags to indicate repeated frames. It matches digital projection and that way the director has maximum creative control. They can do a 24p film. They can mix a single 48p shot into a 24p film if they want to. They can do 60p or 120p. Etc.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I see your point. And valid ones at that. But I am actually working with a composer on a project at the moment (admittedly not famous, though not an issue for my projects as neither am I haha) and our plan is 24. I'll admit that these things need to be taken into consideration before hand, but as I stated earlier, I do have the control over that, and that means making informed decisions and helping others to work with you on those decisions. as for the 120, I agree about 1 billion percent. Its what I thought was the point of doing 240 hz and 120hz televisions. so that we could watch 24 as 24 and 30 as 30 etc.

But yes I do see the risks involved of alienating other people. And yes exceptionally accomplished artists often prefer to continue using similar tools ( a big reason why film is still alive in the stills world as well as motion picture world). I am the type of person though that would see if I could find a way to help them expand their options to fit my choice. It wont always work out I am sure, but so far so good.

 

[Dave Blackham]

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 agree but theres also 25fps to consider. For us, its down to who ever is funding the show who specify standards and also location requirements. If we are in a 50Hz country then we often shoot and post 25fps to accommodate any potential flicker issues and deliver 23.98, 24 if theatric release and 25 to those that need it, runtime needs to be considered of course. If we are in a 60Hz country we shoot 23.98, post 23.98 and deliver accordingly for the same reasons. We don't shoot hard 24fps but there no reason why you could not other than legacy kit issues which dictate workflow. Its easier to fit in with conventional workflow practice than buck the trend which may add confusion.

 

[M Most]

I get that TV has been doing this for what seems like aeons but for cinema this is relatively new, no? It can't have come about before Digital image capture became popular?..really?

When would you say for Cinema this started to gain traction?.

Well, if you consider 1992 (which is when Avid introduced the Avid Film Composer, the 24 frame version of Media Composer) "relatively new," then yes, I guess it is. But motion pictures have been cut on electronic systems since the mid 1980's, using systems like Editdroid, Montage Picture Processor, Ediflex (although that was used mostly for television), CMX6000, and other nonlinear tape and videodisc based systems. In other words, it didn't suddenly start with Avid and Final Cut. It's been going on for some time. And, more significantly, audio has been posted electronically since the late 1980's.

 

[Ivan McCullough]

Well, if you consider 1992 (which is when Avid introduced the Avid Film Composer, the 24 frame version of Media Composer) "relatively new," then yes, I guess it is. But motion pictures have been cut on electronic systems since the mid 1980's, using systems like Editdroid, Montage Picture Processor, Ediflex (although that was used mostly for television), CMX6000, and other nonlinear tape and videodisc based systems. In other words, it didn't suddenly start with Avid and Final Cut. It's been going on for some time. And, more significantly, audio has been posted electronically since the late 1980's.

Yeah...not quite sure where you are going there. 24 or 23.whatever?

I cut a film on the 1st avid in a college in my country in 1998, it was 24fps. simples, apart from the quality of sound on the avid...

What I am asking is when did you guys in NTSC land switch from 24 to 23.98 for cinema? not the 1st time, more when it became an option discussed for almost every theatrical shoot y'know?

It seems to me, and maybe i'm wrong, that as the changeover from steenbeck and the like to electronic methods happened 23.98 slowly gained traction. Maybe it was instant I dunno, im asking. Was it a case of shooting 24 and converting to 23.98 for post and then back again going on for a few years until someone said "hang on, lets throw out 90 odd years of tradition and not tell anyone. Lets shoot movies at the frame-rate we shoot TV!"?

If audio was posted electronically since the late 1980's was that done at 23.98 from a movie shot 24???

 

[M Most]

Yeah...not quite sure where you are going there. 24 or 23.whatever?....
What I am asking is when did you guys in NTSC land switch from 24 to 23.98 for cinema? not the 1st time, more when it became an option discussed for almost every theatrical shoot y'know?

You're not asking the right question. I was trying to explain that electronic post for theatrical projects has been around for a long time. For a good portion of that time, it was based around video equipment and techniques. And there has NEVER been a 24 frame consumer video system. So when "24 frame" based electronic post began, it was always 23.98 because it used HDTV equipment as its basis - which was strictly 23.98 for North America and some other territories. There was never a 24 frame broadcast system, therefore there was never really any use of 24 frame HD. So the question might be when did electronic post switch from 23.98 to 24. The answer to that is "Never." And it still hasn't, at least for most projects. Final distribution, in the form of DCP, is and always has been at 24fps. But final distribution for nearly all other formats (BluRay, DVD, broadcast and subscription TV, even streaming services) is all derived from HD - which is 23.98 based. If you're talking about production, film was always shot at 24 but transferred to either 59.94i standard def or 23.98 HD video formats for editorial and post production. When "digital" cinema capture started, it was all based on HD, and therefore primarily shot at 23.98. It still is, even though HD is not usually the capture medium these days. So once again, the answer to the proper question would be that there was never a time when theatrical material was generally captured electronically at 24 frames. In North America it has always been primarily 23.98.

And BTW, you keep referring to "NTSC." That is no longer a term one should be using because there is no longer any analog broadcast in the U.S. NTSC was and remains an analog broadcast color encoding format. All HD formats and all digital broadcast formats are derived from the ATSC standards, not NTSC.

If audio was posted electronically since the late 1980's was that done at 23.98 from a movie shot 24?

No. It was all done at 59.94 because that was the video system in use at the time, and when doing electronic post, that meant that the picture reference was going to be running at that rate (usually a 3/4 videocassette, but occasionally something else). Everything was "pulled down" to match the film to tape transfer, which typically had the telecine running the film at 23.98 with 3:2 pulldown added to make it 59.94 for standard definition video.

 

[Ivan McCullough]

Fair enough Mike, we come at it from different perspectives. You see post not changing, I see post changing cause I look at it from how Cinema was done and you look at it from the perspective of TV.

And I said "NTSC land", as a shorthand to denote those parts of the world that have traditionally broadcast 60i or 59.94i.

Its a big deal if it is now normal to not shoot traditional 24fps. I was really not aware of that. I find it odd that tradition was sacrificed to fit into a tv based system when what was happening was a new system of making cinema was being developed. I mean, Cameras have and are still doing everything they can to be respectful of the analogue tradition...

Its true there has never been a 24fps consumer video system, thats a shame, it can't be that hard to do it right. (ie respecting the decades of 24fps cinema that we all want to continue to enjoy as was intended)

 

[Marc Wielage]

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.

It's true: 24.00fps can work, but it's a pain in the ass in post. Anyone who feels otherwise has not worked in post. But as long as everybody's on the same page, sure, you can edit in true 24fps. But I think it's a bad idea, simply because doing the pull-up from 23.98 to 24 at the end is accepted, understood, and costs no money. And a 23.98 workflow goes well when you have to deal with a half-dozen different post vendors, which is often the case: dialogue editors, sound effects editors, music editors, ADR recordists, VFX people, picture editors, dailies people, and on and on and on. 1

I have personally only seen one film go through post completely at 24.00fps, and that was the original Grownups (Adam Sandler movie). It was an absolute trainwreck the first couple of days, but then was smooth all the way to the end. So it can work; it just goes against the grain of traditional workflows.

I see your point. And valid ones at that. But I am actually working with a composer on a project at the moment (admittedly not famous, though not an issue for my projects as neither am I haha) and our plan is 24.

Test your workflow, and make sure you hire an experienced post supervisor to make sure all the memos go out and there are no bottlenecks or potential disasters. I have seen some pretty awful times in post simply due to lack of communication and a failure to test everything first.

 

[Stacey Spears]

Its true there has never been a 24fps consumer video system, thats a shame, it can't be that hard to do it right. (ie respecting the decades of 24fps cinema that we all want to continue to enjoy as was intended)

Blu-ray supports both 23.98 and 24 for 2D. When 3D came along, they decided to only support 23.98. For 4k, the rumor is they only want to support 24. There does seem to be a disconnect between CE companies, standards bodies, content creators, and studios. A good example is 10-bit in the HDMI spec. Those who attended the meetings and voted did not believe anyone would ever use 10-bit, which is why HDMI 2.0 ended up with 60p 10-bit @ 4:2:0. HDMI 2.1 will fix that in a couple of years. Another good example is companies in Asia buying as much 4k content as they can and insisting it be 60p. They want 23.98 content to have pulldown inserted to make it 60. Not very efficient for encoding. Again, disconnect!

I don't know how the BBC show Sherlock was encoded for Blu-ray in the US, but for streaming services in the US, such as Netflix, Amazon, Xbox, and iTunes, its 25p. I found that really interesting.

I have been on the fence about my next project being 23.98 or 24 since 4k Blu-ray is one of the planned formats, but after this thread, I am going to stick with 23.98. Mike and Marc's post's have convinced me its the sane thing to do.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Yeah...not quite sure where you are going there. 24 or 23.whatever?I cut a film on the 1st avid in a college in my country in 1998, it was 24fps. simples, apart from the quality of sound on the avid...

Avid has been in use since 1992, and it gained huge popularity in the 1990s simply because it allowed editors and directors to make massive changes very quickly. I believe the first major film to edit on Avid was Lost in Yonkers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avid_Technology

What I am asking is when did you guys in NTSC land switch from 24 to 23.98 for cinema? not the 1st time, more when it became an option discussed for almost every theatrical shoot y'know?

Video post in America has always been 23.98fps for film, and the reason why was because traditional 525 (aka NTSC) video was based on 29.97 timecode for picture. TV has also become a far bigger market than cinema, plus the theatrical market is transitory; home video and TV syndication lasts forever, and that's all based on 23.98 and 29.97. Heck, most of American HD television is still interlaced and still based on 29.97 dropframe timecode.

If audio was posted electronically since the late 1980's was that done at 23.98 from a movie shot 24???

Sound at the beginning of the 1980s was traditionally done on 35mm sprocketed mag, and only eventually started transitioning to 24-track analog (linear). Pro Tools and on-linear sound mixing and editing didn't really take hold until the early 1990s, and it was always based on 29.97 timecode, and eventually 23.98 timecode.

If you want to know more about this history, read two books:

Timeline: A History of Editing
by John Buck

Guide to Post-Production for TV & Film: Managing the Process
by Barbara Clark

These books will explain the tradition of the post process and why a lot of steps and procedures were developed the way they were. There are good reasons for a lot of them, though I understand why neophytes who aren't familiar with post question often why things have to be done a certain way, just because of ignorance. (And I'm not using the term pejoratively.)

Two key things to remember: hire a good post supervisor. And ask your post house all the important questions before you shoot a frame of footage or record any sound. Don't show up at the very end and expect that they can just handle things the way you've done it, especially if there are significant flaws you haven't anticipated with your methods. I can recall many dark days in post in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s where people would come in to edit and color sessions, and we'd tell them, "well, we're going to have to fix this, this, and this, and it'll take X number of additional days and cost you Y amount of dollars more." And the clients would be in shock, but the sad truth was, if they had just asked first, they could saved days of unnecessary work and many thousands of dollars in fixes.

Combining 23.98fps and 24.00fps timecode is a good example of a trainwreck that can happen. And believe me, nobody in post wants to work additional hours, even if we get to charge more money, because the simple truth is that we'd much rather the client be happy and we go home on time, with zero stress on either of our parts.