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 :)

24p vs. 23.98p

S

Shaun Au

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.shaunau.com
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before.

I'm trying to decide on the frame rate for a music video project I'm working on. I intend to have my final product in Blue-Ray, HD broadcast, online video, but not in film for North American market. Is 23.98p the right frame rate? The only time you want to have it shot in 24p is when you want your final product printed to film? What would happen when you shot everything in 23.98p and later you decided to print it to film?

Thanks.
 
roubaix said:
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before.

I'm trying to decide on the frame rate for a music video project I'm working on. I intend to have my final product in Blue-Ray, HD broadcast, online video, but not in film for North American market. Is 23.98p the right frame rate? The only time you want to have it shot in 24p is when you want your final product printed to film?
Click to expand...

If you are shooting and/or posting in the US, you never want to shoot 24p. You only want to shoot 23.98. The commonly expressed (at least here) view that somehow 24p is more appropriate for projects ultimately recording to film is erroneous. Both 24p and 23.98 work off a 24 frame per second base, the only difference being that the 23.98 material is played slightly slower in normal use. However, by being 23.98 you achieve compatibility with all commonly used video systems in the US, and with the vast bulk of the sound facility infrastructure as well. When it's recorded to film, it's still 24 images per second. It's just that those 24 images are presented imperceptibly faster when the film projector runs them at a full 24 fps. The sound is "pulled up" for the optical transfer, so everything stays in sync.

Bottom line: in the US, 24p MEANS 23.98p. Forget 24p if the project is US based. You'll be glad you did, even if you doubt it now.
 
Thanks! Makes sense now. :)

mmost said:
If you are shooting and/or posting in the US, you never want to shoot 24p. You only want to shoot 23.98. The commonly expressed (at least here) view that somehow 24p is more appropriate for projects ultimately recording to film is erroneous. Both 24p and 23.98 work off a 24 frame per second base, the only difference being that the 23.98 material is played slightly slower in normal use. However, by being 23.98 you achieve compatibility with all commonly used video systems in the US, and with the vast bulk of the sound facility infrastructure as well. When it's recorded to film, it's still 24 images per second. It's just that those 24 images are presented imperceptibly faster when the film projector runs them at a full 24 fps. The sound is "pulled up" for the optical transfer, so everything stays in sync.

Bottom line: in the US, 24p MEANS 23.98p. Forget 24p if the project is US based. You'll be glad you did, even if you doubt it now.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mike,

Forgive me, I'm, EU-based, so my knowledge of the terrors of the US TV system is somewhat limited - but here's a question I've always wanted to ask of someone in the know:

What's wrong with shooting 24fps, and then slowing that (equally imperceptibly) to 23.976?? How does this change anything from going the other way around?

Like I say, forgive me if it's a foolish question, I just can't see any advantage to going one way rather than the other - is it merely an issue of fitting in with other post processes that don't/can't work at true 24p?

Cheers,
Dom.
 
Dominic Jones said:
Like I say, forgive me if it's a foolish question, I just can't see any advantage to going one way rather than the other - is it merely an issue of fitting in with other post processes that don't/can't work at true 24p?
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. There is an entire industry's worth of infrastructure built around NTSC derived frame rates. It's a lot more sensible - not to mention economical - to continue to make use of that infrastructure. Not to mention that the consumer end of the industry, which tends to supply viewing systems for both consumers and professionals alike today, is based on those rates as well. It's all well and good to say that going to full frame rates is more logical, but there's no real advantage to be gained from it other than to make some people a bit happier. Technically, there's no advantage. And, as I said, practically and financially it's just not feasible or sensible.
 
Useful to know, thanks Mike - I just couldn't see (from a technical point of view) how one would be better or worse than the other, with the framerate being so similar...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I'm damn sure glad I live in PAL country!!

Cheers,
Dom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top