30fps vs. 24fps - for TELEVISION DOCUMENTATIES ??

[George D.]

In your opinion, when shooting television documentaries for companies like National Geographic, PBS, Discovery Channel, or Animal Planet, does it matter whether you shoot with the Red-One at 30fps as opposed to 24fps ?

Since television is a 30fps format, I would think it would be advantages to shoot at 30fps, but do these companies have any real problems converting 24fps to 30fps in post ?

And, would there be any real advantages in shooting at 24fps as opposed to 30fps ?

During a production, if some scenes were shot at 24fps and others at 30fps, are there any problems combining those in post ? Does one have to be altered to match the other, and if so, should that be done in Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 during editing ?

Any help or advise would be appreciated, especially from those with experience shooting television documentaries for said companies.

Thanks.

.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Television is only a 30fps format in NTSC countries.

24p or 50i or 60i all are a lot more cross-compatible than 30p.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[axel ebermann]

Those big networks usually give you a tech spec sheet and tell you exactly what they want.
if not - asking them never hurts

 

[Vico Martin]

Allways can conform video and audio to 30 or 25 via pullup, just another step.
Advantages??, maybe more fillage on camera give you some filmic look, but not very noticeable in my experience.

 

[George D.]

Television is only a 30fps format in NTSC countries.

24p or 50i or 60i all are a lot more cross-compatible than 30p.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Maybe so, but WHICH do these documentary companies PREFER ??

.

 

[George D.]

Allways can conform video and audio to 30 or 25 via pullup, just another step.
Advantages??, maybe more fillage on camera give you some filmic look, but not very noticeable in my experience.

Are you saying that 24fps gives a more "film look" than 30fps ?

.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Well, here's what the Discovery Channel (DCI) says about frame rates:

DCI prefers programs to be acquired and mastered in the 1080i 59.94 signal standard. Programs may be acquired in the 720 P 59.94 signal standard and mastered in 1080i 59.94 for delivery. Programs may be acquired and delivered in 1080 psf 23.98 or 25, or 1080i 50 only with prior permission from DCI.

National Geographic says:

NGC supports the production of television programming in the 720p 59.94fps, 25 & 50, 1080i 59.94fps [sic] 25 & 50, and 1080p 24fps formats. All Vendor Masters must be frame rate converted to 59.94fps and delivered at 59.94fps. NGC will not accept Vendor Master delivered in any other frame rate other than 59.94fps. Masters must be converted on acceptable broadcast quality conversion system. Conversion masters will be subjected to NGC’s quality control process and will be rejected if found to contain conversion artifacts or to be of poor quality. NGC does not support productions that are shot on HDV tape formats.

The reality, though, is you can always post your entire show in 23.98, and then convert to 1080i for the deliverables at the very end. Since they probably want drop-frame timecode anyway for broadcast, this can be a wise move.

It's an interesting creative choice as to whether to shoot in 29.97 or in 23.98, simply because the motion characteristics are different. I would argue that 29.97 looks more "real," so it might be a better choice for a news-type shoot (war zones, natural disasters, travelogues, etc.). But 23.98 looks more "filmic," so it might be more appropriate for a story-related shoot (historic recreations, dramatized scenes, etc.). If you have to use stock footage, that might also be a consideration; it's problematic to convert 29.97 material to 23.98 without time and effort, and there's lots of clips, it might actually be better to shoot at 29.97 in the first place.

 

[Matt Johnston]

My contracts with Nat Geo Productions have specifically stated "Material in the 24p format is not accepted"

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Nat Geo (and many if not most other networks) won't air anything mastered in 24p, but that doesn't mean they won't air something acquired at 24p, converted to 29.97 with a 3:2 pulldown, and mastered that way.

 

[Craig Parkes]

23.978p acquisition allows for conversion with the least potential of artifacts to all major broadcast frame-rates - so I would say if your subject matter was not greatly affected by your acquisition frame rate go for 23.978p acquisition.

However, documentary footage is almost invariably hugely impacted by acquisition frame rate - is it run or gun, or mostly static, long shots. Are you shooting in a 50 hz lighting environment, or 60hz (which affects shutter angle and frame rate) is your subject matter fast moving, or slow (fast moving you may want to be shooting 50 or 60 over 23.978 both for slow mo or for smooth playback).

Effectively, everything gets converted at some point unless it only plays in one territory, so if you are acquiring for a network that is paying the bills, acquire at the frame rate they suggest that makes the most sense for your subject matter.

If you are acquiring for documentary you are planning on selling, acquire knowing that conversions of masters will cost you money in post, so it may be best to acquire in the frame rate most appropriate to your main target market (so you can have less cash out the door before you see cash in the door.), after taking into consideration the practical ramifications of frame rate (like 50hz vs 60 hz lighting etc.)

 

[George Butterfield]

Are you saying that 24fps gives a more "film look" than 30fps ?

.

24fps is indeed "jerkier" than 30fps and in that sense resembles film and "make believe". Unless you're Michael Moore you strive for truth in a Documentary so 30fps is better for a Doc.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

24fps is indeed "jerkier" than 30fps and in that sense resembles film and "make believe". Unless you're Michael Moore you strive for truth in a Documentary so 30fps is better for a Doc.

Unless you have any aspirations at all to show in PAL territories. 24p is the only "show everywhere" framerate that works all over the world without costly and artifact-prone speed changes. Besides, "truth" is pretentious nonsense. It is impossible to not be subjective in any documentary. The stated facts can be correct (although which facts you chose to include is highly subjective) , but the cinematography always lends a layer of meaning, whether intentional or not. Even if you try to not light and just point and shoot, then you will unfairly make everything look drearier and uglier than it does in real life, which is obviously misleading.

 

[Marc Wielage]

24fps is indeed "jerkier" than 30fps and in that sense resembles film and "make believe". Unless you're Michael Moore you strive for truth in a Documentary so 30fps is better for a Doc.

I think I've worked on roughly 1000 documentary projects over the years, all shot at 24fps. But a lot of that was back in the film days. Modern-day reality shows -- one twisted form of documentaries -- are almost always 29.97.

I think it's fair to say that 24fps vs. 30fps is yet another deliberate creative choice the filmmaker has to make. Again, the key questions to ask are a) does the project require stock footage [probably at a different frame rate or standard], b) what equipment is available for production and post, c) what's the budget, and most importantly, d) what is the end market for the project?

If it's intended to be screened in a theater, then 23.98 might make the most sense -- provided you have the means to deal with any 29.97 material that has to be integrated with the show. Conversions can get very messy, complex, and expensive. It's interesting to look at the recent films nominated for Best Documentary by the Academy, and note which were shot at 24 and which were shot at 30. I suspect the vast majority were shot at 24.

I agree with Rob above in that "telling the truth" and frame rates are not always related. You can tell the truth at a variety of frame rates. And almost every documentary I've ever worked on has fudged the truth on occasion. I remember one big-budget Turner NatGeo special where the filmmakers kept live rabbits in a pen off-camera, then would wait for a mountain lion to get close, then shoved one of the rabbits out in hopes of capturing the lion running for his prey. I was pretty appalled, but as the director explained to me, "what, you think we're gonna sit out there in the wilderness and roll all day, hoping to catch that one :10 second moment where the lion kills the rabbit?" I think they went through 7 or 8 rabbits before getting the shot they needed.

 

[Will Keir]

If it's a doc for sure, shoot 30fps. Most docs are 30fps. If you want the cool 24FPS look, you can always use software in post to take out 6 frames/second. It really depends on your subject too. If it's a doc about a musician, I think 24fps would set a nice mood. If you are capturing snakes in the outback, 30fps is gonna be great.

24FPS is a magical space IMO. I like the look better than 25fps (BBC television stuff) and better 30fps (most American TV shows).

In silent film days, before audio, frame per second were anywhere from 14 to 24. There was no audio, there was flexibility in choice.

Technically speaking, the human eye can perceive 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually. The human ear is much more accurate than the eye and so a new standard was set based on audio, with 35mm film.

These days, all of that can change. Directors are out there pushing 48fps and higher (Peter Jackson "The Hobbit," James Cameron with his "Avatar sequels"). The more frames, the more work can be done in POST with after effects, shake, smoke etc... The difference between 24fps and 30fps makes little difference here. Do they put the final film cut back into a 24FPS format for a film look? Dunno.

 

[Craig Parkes]

24FPS is a magical space IMO. I like the look better than 25fps (BBC television stuff) and better 30fps (most American TV shows).

Sorry Will, you are kidding yourself if you think you can tell a noticeable ifference between 24 shot and projected at 24 and 25 shot and projected at 25, if you are talking progressive. So ething shot and or displayed at 50i will have a slightly different feel, and the display technology makes a difference, but the 4% difference between 24 and 25 is very minor.

The frame rate alone is not the key parameter as to what makes certain footage look different, it is mostly just one sometimes overstated factor becausr until recently shooting and projecting at a variety of frame rates was technologically challenging, and people tend to ink the thing they can't do is what makes all the difference, rather than the difference being a rather ephemeral combination of things whichare hard to explain or define without a large amount of experience.

 

[Steve Gibby]

When I watch narrative fiction I expect to have reality suspended, expect to see judder, etc - thus 24 fps.

When I watch a documentary on certain genres of doc subject matter, I may want to have reality somewhat suspended - thus 23.98 fps. But then again on other genres of doc subject matter I may want to be immersed and drawn into the "now" - thus 29.97 fps.

I produce lots of documentaries destined for television. For those dealing with relatively stationary and slow moving subject matter I may choose to acquire in 23.98 fps. But for those docs featuring a lot of rapid action (sports, wildlife, etc.) I usually choose to acquire in 29.97, and overcrank up to high frame rates for the frequent slow motion sequences.

Documentaries destined for television still need to conform to the airing network's Producer's Guidelines, which in many cases will specify the required acquisition format and frame rate, and in all cases the master delivery format and frame rate. If you know in advance on which network the doc will be airing, you simply need to follow their Producer's Guidelines and deliver as that network specifies.

I'm an invited judge each year for multiple national Emmy Awards competitions (Daytime, Sports, News & Documentary), and several film festivals (Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival, Docutah, etc.). When I'm judging submissions (including documentaries) I always initially analyze what frame rate was chosen, if the chosen frame rate was justified by the genre subject matter - or if its obvious that the chosen frame rate came from the pervasive "24 fps for everything" mentality left over from the days of film. In essence, I ask myself "Which frame rate would be best for telling this particular story - and did they choose that best frame rate?" After that I continue with the judging process.

There's a lot more factors to shots looking "filmic" than simply choosing 24 fps - such as camera movement, camera techniques, exposure, lenses, filters, etc. I see some 29.97 footage in certain productions that looks very "filmic" - but also has smooth motion presentation. I also see 24 fps footage that is so over-juddered by camera movement, or movement of subject matter, that its hard for the viewer to relax and have reality suspended in their perception of the piece.

All audiences aren't looking to have us suspend reality for them. Some are, depending on the genre of production and subject matter - and some audiences want to, and expect to be immersed into the "now". Both approaches are perfectly viable and effective.

Professionals learn when to choose which frame rate - and when not to. Artistic choices are just that - but again the demands of producing documentaries destined for television are such that the technical parameters must conform to the Producer's Guidelines, rather than just our own artistic inclinations or biases.

Horses for courses...

 

[Will Keir]

So Braveheart, 24fps right? Looks like a movie, it is a movie. Dr. Who. TV show shot in the UK. 25fps, has a much different, BBC type, look. Axe Men, reality TV series shot 30fps in the US. Looks like a TV show.

Doesn't matter if I am kidding myself or if my eye picks up the details in that "4%." I like the look. If a look comes along that I like better, I'll like that look and use it then. Maybe it's 48fps. I can see the difference between 24fps and 30 fps. Same camera, same location. I also can see the difference between 25p and 24p. The 25p look stands out, it's unattractive to the eye.

Continuing...


Apocalypto

I usually love these types of movies. Green lush jungle, tons of great camera moves, exciting action, tension. Shot 16mm, 35mm and video (HDTV) But the 360 degree shutter had a "VIDEO" look I could not forgive and I couldn't let go of disbelief and sink into the movie. How many FPS was it shot at? Dunno, do you?




Gladiator



Shot 35mm with 180 degree shutter, similar to "Saving Private Ryan." Loved the look, loved the immersion. Probably shot 24fps or done in post.


Valhalla Rising

Finally, a film shot R1. To this day I am still impressed with the look of this film. The film looks great. The guys at Dragon DI did a great job especially the color work by Rob May. I bet they went the 24fps route.

I think there is an evolution for my words and thoughts here. There is something to grasp, grapple with and figure out exactly what I am seeing that I like and why I like it. Just as important, to find what I don't like and to know what choices to stay away from.

Sorry Will, you are kidding yourself if you think you can tell a noticeable ifference between 24 shot and projected at 24 and 25 shot and projected at 25, if you are talking progressive. So ething shot and or displayed at 50i will have a slightly different feel, and the display technology makes a difference, but the 4% difference between 24 and 25 is very minor.

The frame rate alone is not the key parameter as to what makes certain footage look different, it is mostly just one sometimes overstated factor becausr until recently shooting and projecting at a variety of frame rates was technologically challenging, and people tend to ink the thing they can't do is what makes all the difference, rather than the difference being a rather ephemeral combination of things whichare hard to explain or define without a large amount of experience.

 

[Will Keir]

You take so much for granted being an audience member, especially when you are young. Thanks for the story, made me laugh. More recently I watched the "Planet Earth" series and saw the behind the scenes footage of these guys waiting weeks, 8-10 hours a day for shots that could be made into a sequence. From the doc I saw, looks like these dudes are legit, no rabbits in traps on the side.

What a funny story. That could be a great doc in itself, the "true" story, told years later, memoirs of a nature photographer.

I remember one big-budget Turner NatGeo special where the filmmakers kept live rabbits in a pen off-camera, then would wait for a mountain lion to get close, then shoved one of the rabbits out in hopes of capturing the lion running for his prey. I was pretty appalled, but as the director explained to me, "what, you think we're gonna sit out there in the wilderness and roll all day, hoping to catch that one :10 second moment where the lion kills the rabbit?" I think they went through 7 or 8 rabbits before getting the shot they needed.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Frame rate does look different when presented true 23.98 or 29.97 FPS in terms of motion, but whats much more noticeable is pulldown when used to convert from 23.98 to 29.97 for deliverables. In the UK we shoot 25FPS and transmit 25fps and much 23.98 or 24fps is convered by run time conversion ie by playing frame for frame so there arnt any picture artifacts seen. Pitch change to audio can be ajusted if needed. A 3:2 run converting from 23.98 to 29.97 is much more noticable to the eye and I think much more unpleasant to watch.

 

[Will Keir]

I saw a TV playing the Narnia movie "Prince Caspian." The film was 24fps on the DVD but I believe the TV added images and made the whole film look like a video shoot. Is this the 3:2 pulldown at work? Or is frame interpolation different? When the BBC shows 24fps films in 25p, are they adding some frame interpolation?

Frame rate does look different when presented true 23.98 or 29.97 FPS in terms of motion, but whats much more noticeable is pulldown when used to convert from 23.98 to 29.97 for deliverables. In the UK we shoot 25FPS and transmit 25fps and much 23.98 or 24fps is convered by run time conversion ie by playing frame for frame so there arnt any picture artifacts seen. Pitch change to audio can be ajusted if needed. A 3:2 run converting from 23.98 to 29.97 is much more noticable to the eye and I think much more unpleasant to watch.