24 FPS

[paulherrin]

ian, i hope you will. the reality is that there is a massive, conservative (as in slow, due to what some thought at the time were 'long-term' investments, i think) infrastructure that is based on an old economy. the new world is moving at the speed of moore's law (or murphy's... it's hard to tell somedays), for better or for worse. we know that now... it's easy to complain, much more difficult to work through the system or outside of the system to make real change happen. you can try the graceful approach or the heavy-handed critical approach, or maybe others... i go back and forth on those. i'd like to believe this kind of thing is just a matter of having reasonable discussions about best practices, but there's actually a lot at stake, as silly as that sounds (and it is silly, there are terrible business models running the shows), so i think ultimately it's up to artists to just show a better way and let other artists follow suit, regardless of the particular industry issue. just do your thing, and certainly get involved with those who are working on the future (i.e. atsc)

grassroots>local movement>regional movement>real reform.

 

[M Most]

I am sure there are some out there but I guess I misspoke. when it comes to 23.98, my problem with it isn't visual, its that it is no longer necessary. It served a purpose and that purpose no longer is around, so why not just trash it

The last time I looked, broadcast was still very much alive and operating in the US and throughout the world. In the US, there is no 24 frame broadcast system. In fact, there isn't any in any country I can think of. In the US, virtually all broadcast is at 59.94, regardless of whether it's NTSC, 1080i, or 720p. So saying that the purpose is no longer around is ignoring the reality that not only is it around, but the owners of broadcast entities - be they over the air or cable - together fund a huge percentage of television production. Not to mention that most of the post production infrastructure is designed around those common standards and there is no real need to change it.

 

[paulherrin]

+ 1

 

[Ian Laurie]

The last time I looked, broadcast was still very much alive and operating in the US and throughout the world. In the US, there is no 24 frame broadcast system. In fact, there isn't any in any country I can think of. In the US, virtually all broadcast is at 59.94, regardless of whether it's NTSC, 1080i, or 720p. So saying that the purpose is no longer around is ignoring the reality that not only is it around, but the owners of broadcast entities - be they over the air or cable - together fund a huge percentage of television production. Not to mention that most of the post production infrastructure is designed around those common standards and there is no real need to change it.

I didn't say broadcast was gone, merely that ANALOG broadcast is gone. And yes the current standard for ATSC broadcasting actually does support 24 fps (as well as basically every other standard) so the system does exist. Just because broadcasting is taking place at 59.98 doesn't mean it is still a requirement. This is a perfect example of what I am saying. The new digital broadcast equipment is more than capable of doing 24 or 30 or 48 or whatever you want (as a side note a lot still ask for ntsc with hd signals, which is unnecessary) Yes the broadcasters are asking for these things, but it is no longer a requirement of the systems, but a habit and practice they are afraid of stepping out of.

 

[Ian Laurie]

Saying that there is no real need to change it is ignoring the fact that it has already changed and we are now putting more effort into maintaining the past than simply allowing the current.

 

[M Most]

Saying that there is no real need to change it is ignoring the fact that it has already changed and we are now putting more effort into maintaining the past than simply allowing the current.

And what exactly would the benefit(s) be for changing it? What is "wrong" with it now, other than an odd (to some) number? You currently have backwards compatibility, one standard frame rate that accommodates both "film like" material and "live" material, industry standardization in terms of deliverable formats, a very, very well established support infrastructure, and many millions of viewers who are just fine with the way things are, as is their equipment. Why do you think it's so important to change that?

I understand that it's easier to do the math with even numbers than with fractional numbers. What I don't see is any other reason to do it.

 

[SUNILPREM]

The most common standard for DCP's is not 23.98, it is 24fps. Post production in the US is usually done at 23.98, but when the DCP is created, the material is "pulled up" to 24fps, both picture and sound. Until the last year or so, with the additions to the SMPTE standard, there was no 23.98 DCP, and even today, most DCPs are not made to the SMPTE standard.

+10
If you want release in theater you stick with 24fps.if you want broadcast in pal countries you should do with 25fps.In North America is 30fps for broadcasting,and theatrical release is 24fps.The most common standard for DCP's are 24fps.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

And what exactly would the benefit(s) be for changing it? What is "wrong" with it now, other than an odd (to some) number? You currently have backwards compatibility, one standard frame rate that accommodates both "film like" material and "live" material, industry standardization in terms of deliverable formats, a very, very well established support infrastructure, and many millions of viewers who are just fine with the way things are, as is their equipment. Why do you think it's so important to change that?

I understand that it's easier to do the math with even numbers than with fractional numbers. What I don't see is any other reason to do it.

One master for Theater AND TV. No sound pitching, doubling the finishing process / mixing / mastering. And if you need a 29,976 master do the convertion for the US TV. Remember 25p DCP is in the SMPTE norm and can be screened as is in the US.

Pat

 

[M Most]

+10
If you want release in theater you stick with 24fps.if you want broadcast in pal countries you should do with 25fps.In North America is 30fps for broadcasting,and theatrical release is 24fps.The most common standard for DCP's are 24fps.

The US broadcast standard is not 30fps. It is 59.94 FIELDS per second. That frame rate is commonly used for production only on live events or material that is intended to look like a live event. The most common production standard for dramas and comedies intended for North American television delivery is 23.976fps, which is then converted to 59.94 for broadcast delivery (but not posted that way).

 

[M Most]

One master for Theater AND TV. No sound pitching, doubling the finishing process / mixing / mastering. And if you need a 29,976 master do the convertion for the US TV. Remember 25p DCP is in the SMPTE norm and can be screened as is in the US.

Pat

That's only relevant for a production that is targeted for a theatrical release. That's not the case with television production, which is arguably a larger production market.

I think people here make a big deal about the 23.976/24 thing, when in point of fact it's not a big deal at all. It's all handled by the equipment itself, it doesn't create any human detectable difference from pure 24fps, and it's already widely used and deeply entrenched. So really, what's the big deal?

 

[Ian Laurie]

The problem is that there is no choice. Sure if someone actually wants to do 23.98 go for it, but there should be the choice to screen as shot whether 24 30 48 60 or the slightly off variants, especially when there is absolutely no technical barrier in the system. Also, 24 and 23.98 are not televised as such, again not because of the technicals, but because of past barriers they are, as you mentioned, converted to 1080 60i which is downright stupid ( interlaced is ugly as hell, and you know it) when there is absolutely no need for it anymore. If they broadcast digital ( which is the only option in US and Canada now) then they have no reason not to broadcast as intended.

 

[Ian Laurie]

It's like demanding your fuel injected car still have a carburetor because your old one did.

 

[Ian Laurie]

Also annoying is the 7.5 IRE noise floor still enforced by the broadcasters that again is no longer a technical requirement but a historical one that remains in place for no other reason than "why change it if it still works?". This is like listening to all the post houses who tried to edit red footage on a ten year old avid and complained that red was difficult to work with. It's because they are holding onto technical achievements made by necessary limitations that no longer exist. All I want is the option to broadcast as intended. No conversion, no limiting, and certainly no pull down interlacing, at what ever frame rate I choose ( within the standards). When the system used to do that and the ability is there, I am not willing to settle for "it's what's always been done"

 

[Ian Laurie]

To be more clear and succinct, my issue lies not in 23.98 as a recording format ( despite its lack of necessity) or in broadcast at 59.94 ( ditto), it's the lack of choice to broadcast in true24 or any other format that requires no conversion, is supported fully by the systems in place and is being barred from use because of archaic outdated technological limitations.

 

[M Most]

To be more clear and succinct, my issue lies not in 23.98 as a recording format ( despite its lack of necessity) or in broadcast at 59.94 ( ditto), it's the lack of choice to broadcast in true24 or any other format that requires no conversion, is supported fully by the systems in place and is being barred from use because of archaic outdated technological limitations.

Then I suggest you start your own broadcast network, using whatever equipment you think will let you do that, and sending that out via whatever infrastructure you think can pass it, to whatever viewers you think can display it. But until you do that, you and I and everyone else need to deal with the reality of the way the world has been built for the foreseeable future.

 

[Ian Laurie]

Then I suggest you start your own broadcast network, using whatever equipment you think will let you do that, and sending that out via whatever infrastructure you think can pass it, to whatever viewers you think can display it. But until you do that, you and I and everyone else need to deal with the reality of the way the world has been built for the foreseeable future.

"just accept things as they are." yeah that's gonna get the world far. You clearly aren't catching what I am saying so let me be very simple. The infrastructure is already in place. This is not a matter of spending billions to upgrade infrastructure, its a matter of simply sending the signal. The current, in use, unmodified structure is capable. Every set with an atsc tuner or a digital to analog receiver is capable, which is to say every single set in the US that is currently receiving televised signals by any means. The world has been built, we just aren't using it that way. So stop acting like its something that would only be possible with massive investments of financial will. Go read what is CURRENTLY in place for all digital broadcast systems (in US read that as ALL broadcast systems). these are not major leaps or engineering feats, they are available now, by every broadcast medium, but due to people like yourself who seem to be fine with the status quo, it is not being made an option.

 

[Craig Parkes]

Specs and infrastructure are different things Ian.

Every broadcaster has physical boxes, which cost money, with electronic components them, that do certain things to the signal to make their workflow work.

Your suggestion is that they should simply pull all that out and replace it with new stuff that can do whatever you want to broadcast. But what happens when multiple types of content are to be screened on the same channel, will TV's ACTUALLY switch between the different frame rates seamlessly, or will they have issues. What about editing ads into shows. What about sub frame differences when switching between differing frame rates introducing frame drops when commercials shot at different frame rates have to be dropped in.

Your argument that these are fully supported by the systems in place doesn't actually hold water when you actually have to put 24 hours a day of content through the broadcasting chain and deliver it to peoples televisions.

Mike isn't being facetious when he says start your own broadcast network, he's being literal - Change only comes about when someone offers an alternative, and it's actually a heck of a lot easier/cheaper for a new player to innovate than existing players in the market place, because they can build for the capabilities of the day.

Accepting the status quo or complaining about it is the same thing - doing something about it is the only way to change it, and to do something about it you need to create end to end demand for equipment that does what you say should be able to be done now.

 

[Mark Britton]

Accepting the status quo or complaining about it is the same thing - doing something about it is the only way to change it.

Well said.

 

[M Most]

Thank you, Craig, for having the patience to explain what I was losing patience with explaining. :thumbup1:

 

[Ian Laurie]

yes specs and infrastructure are different things. The only reason I am making this argument is because in order to broadcast digitally, the infrastructure has already had to be put into place. This has happened. it is not a future spec, to be aimed at, it is in place. The infrastructure has been built. Those boxes you mentioned are capable. Now having to change the signal for each spot is a legitimate thing to be concerned with, and would need to be tested, but this cant happen if we are all concerned with just maintaining the status quo. Complaining and accepting are not the same thing, the old phrase "squeaky wheel gets the grease" comes to mind. It would take a large group of content creators to make it loud enough, but its worth voicing. I would love to open my own network, I just don't see how that could happen at this time. Maybe the answer is to convince them to give it a try on a 2 am showing of some old movie. few people are watching, a nice small sample audience to test bouncing from 24 to 59.94 for ads. But I don't think the answer is to just accept it as is with out voicing the need for change. I can't financially start a network, but I can speak what I would like to see. You make a very good argument for the reverse, Craig, and one I can listen to. But I still think that someone with the clout to do it needs to push for it, even if its a one off experiment.

Mike, your argument was based on "it's good enough, why change it". and that isn't something I could listen too. But I learned long ago that if you feed bears they keep coming back, so I will stop feeding the bears now.