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

[Craig Parkes]

Will, you can't compare two wildly different shows/projects at 24p versus 25p and claim the frame rate is a major contributor to that look. I guarantee you there are myriad of other things beyond frame rate separating Braveheart and Doctor Who, money and time being the biggest two.

In PAL countries 24fps films are generally just literally played 4% faster. No frame interpolation, they just play them 4% faster and pitch shift the audio back down to the correct pitch in correlation to the speed. No one in PAL countries minds, and if you are even in a PAL country watching a film on television I'd doubt you'd even notice.

If you watched the same scene, shot on the same stock at 24fps and 25fps, and played back at 24fps or 25 fps you almost certainly wouldn't notice any difference, it certainly wouldn't make you react differently to the scene.

You MIGHT notice a difference between 24fps played back at 25fps if you are familiar with the footage and can spot the slight speed up, or 25fps played back at 24fps and notice the slight slow down, but most people (as attributed by the fact that we happily watch 24fps films played back at 25fps in broadcast and PAL DVD in PAL regions) don't notice and it doesn't have an effect (other than maybe in PAL countries we might talk a little bit faster. )

While frame rate makes a difference, 24 vs 25 is not an artistic choice that has any impact on the viewer, it's pretty much purely a technical one.

The frame interpolation you saw was probably motionflow or some other optical flow tecnology if the different was glaringly obvious, a new technology designed by alot of the tv manufacturers to make sports etc look ultra smooth and in the process makes all movies look like shit. This does indeed use frame interpolation to increase the refresh rate to up to about 120hz, creating fake frames between the real frames so everything looks like video.

This isn't pull down, it's something else. Pull down repeats a field every two frames, noticeable but nowhere near as disturbing as motion flow.

If you have watched 24fps orginated DVD on many NTSC televisions (especially any CRT) you have been watching 3:2 pull down. You have likely seen so much of it you don't actually notice it, unless you were brought up in a PAL country where instead we have historically watched media at 25fps, so just 4% faster that it played back in cinemas.

24P playback is available on NTSC DVD's - but the TV would have to been turned onto Progressive mode, which wasn't common until I guess 4 years ago, and I'd wager still a lot of 24p media on dvds is watchend with 3:2 pull down even if the tv is capable of showing it at true 24p.

 

[Marc Wielage]

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

Oh, they had many stories. I also dealt with a husband-and-wife team, award-winning nature documentary filmmakers, who had similar stories. But I studied documentaries in film school in the 1970s -- I know that even 1920s documentaries like Nanook of the North had faked footage, or were at least contrived and heavily manipulated to create the desired results. One of the most successful documentaries of all time was Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, and you don't get more manipulative than that. Truth was not necessarily the goal; it was more about delivering a specific message.

The wildlife nature stuff is a lot tougher, and I'm sympathetic to the filmmakers because you're out in the wilderness, the jungle, whatever, it's 99 degrees and 90% humidity, you've been waiting four days to get a shot, and the battery runs out. Crap like this makes documentaries really, really tough, and it's all the more miraculous that the good crews get the footage as often as they do. The real work to me is the editing, where the story is really crafted. I've seen documentary projects where they hit shooting ratios of 100:1 or even 200:1, hundreds of hours of footage just to cut down to an hour or 90-minute special.

You MIGHT notice a difference between 24fps played back at 25fps if you are familiar with the footage and can spot the slight speed up, or 25fps played back at 24fps and notice the slight slow down, but most people (as attributed by the fact that we happily watch 24fps films played back at 25fps in broadcast and PAL DVD in PAL regions) don't notice and it doesn't have an effect (other than maybe in PAL countries we might talk a little bit faster.

On a related note: I recently watched the British TV series Torchwood on Blu-ray, and was surprised that the 25fps material bothered me as much as it did. It had a much more "electronic" kind of look than I was expecting, definitely not what I'd call "filmic." This is on an American HD set, I assume converted on the fly to 1080i, and it very definitely didn't look progressive or 24fps to me.

I think the choice of frame rate is an important one that does affect the show, but in the specific case of a documentary for TV, to me, a lot of that choice is more often made by the people who pay the bills -- like the network, distributor, or cable channel.

 

[Craig Parkes]

On a related note: I recently watched the British TV series Torchwood on Blu-ray, and was surprised that the 25fps material bothered me as much as it did. It had a much more "electronic" kind of look than I was expecting, definitely not what I'd call "filmic." This is on an American HD set, I assume converted on the fly to 1080i, and it very definitely didn't look progressive or 24fps to me.
.

Hi Marc, this may be due in some part to the fact that somewhere in your setup the 50hz signal is possibly being converted to 60hz. We get the same issues in PAL land playing back 29.97 stuff, for example we have players that can play back NTSC but there is pretty much always a hardware conversion taking place at the player level that is designed for speed rather than looks, and then potentially more conversions are taking place at the TV level (depending if the TV is doing the upscaling or the DVD player). I imagine in the states TV and Blu-ray players, especially cheaper TVs, still may often not be set up to display a 1080 50i signal properly and just use internal hardware to convert EVERYTHING to 1080 60i and always output that, unless it's 23.98 in which case it will play out as progressive (especially if you are running off component rather than HDMI)

So at that point you are watching something at 50i being converted to 60i with introduced, made up 'fields' rather than everything being 25fps in a 50i container, which your tv will interpret differently and it simply will not look as intended, and will certainly have more electronic 'artifacting' in the motion characteristics - introduced at the player and TV end.

It's why 23.98 is the most acceptable setting for universal acquisition, it works delivered at 60i with pull down, it works at 23.98 perfectly, and it looks fine as a speed up film as progressive imagery in a 50i container. The same is not true of 25fps in a 50i container once it is frame converted to 60i.

Unfortunately, there wasn't a standard in HD decided upon for delivering true 25fps progressive footage in the broadcast world in terms of media, so it's all still 1080i50 whether the source is progressive or not. Visually if the TV is setup to handle the 50i signal correctly, there will be no real difference, but if the tv is doing a conversion and assumes it's actually interlaced footage with a temporal difference between fields, it will do a botched job of the conversion and effectively cause it to convert fields rather than whole frames and you will end up with 'interpolated' fields rather than a whole progressive picture.

 

[Dave Blackham]

You MIGHT notice a difference between 24fps played back at 25fps if you are familiar with the footage and can spot the slight speed up, or 25fps played back at 24fps and notice the slight slow down, but most people (as attributed by the fact that we happily watch 24fps films played back at 25fps in broadcast and PAL DVD in PAL regions) don't notice and it doesn't have an effect (other than maybe in PAL countries we might talk a little bit faster. )

If you have watched 24fps orginated DVD on many NTSC televisions (especially any CRT) you have been watching 3:2 pull down. You have likely seen so much of it you don't actually notice it, unless you were brought up in a PAL country where instead we have historically watched media at 25fps, so just 4% faster that it played back in cinemas.
24p.

I think this is a really good point. People used to 3:2 pulldown are conditioned to it and seem to find it perfectly acceptable. People in PAL countries find it very distracting. So some of the issues are really what you are used to watching. personally I find 3:2 very objectionable.

It's why 23.98 is the most acceptable setting for universal acquisition, it works delivered at 60i with pull down, it works at 23.98 perfectly, and it looks fine as a speed up film as progressive imagery in a 50i container. The same is not true of 25fps in a 50i container once it is frame converted to 60i.

im not sure I agree. 23.98 is logical and works fine all be it a little more complex in post but is much simpler these days with complete tapeless workflow, I say that coming living in a PAL country. 25P is also perfectly fine and simple to handle with respect to post. I think it rather depends on how concerned you are about run time issues and who's paying the biggest portion of the bill.

 

[Craig Parkes]

im not sure I agree. 23.98 is logical and works fine all be it a little more complex in post but is much simpler these days with complete tapeless workflow, I say that coming living in a PAL country. 25P is also perfectly fine and simple to handle with respect to post. I think it rather depends on how concerned you are about run time issues and who's paying the biggest portion of the bill.

There are practical issues to be considered, and certainly whoever is producing the show should absolutely make the decision, but if you asked me "What is the best acquisition frame rate from a technical stand point for a project that aims for worldwide distribution" the answer, currently is undoubtedly 23.98. Doesn't mean that's always the correct project frame rate, but given the technology and standards in place, 23.98 fits the easiest through the most pipelines.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

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...

A hueg chunk of network television is shot at 24fps, including virtually all dramas. NO network refuses 24p content. Simple none.

 

[Uli Plank]

Another point to consider, if it ever ends up on Blu-ray too: 25p is not a standard on Blu-ray, while 24p is. 25p would be converted to 50i and the player or display will try to de-interlace it, loosing vertical resolution.

24p is part of the specs and can be shown correctly if the display can handle it and the player is told so (instead of generating 3:2 pulldown).

 

[Robert Berger]

The Human eye and brain looks with 60p, so the real natural way of filming is 60p. It's better for your eyes and your brains, better for 3D.
So the Epic is the only camera in the world who is able to deliver in 60p. I can't wait for the acception of 60p. You can watch film and tv for hours and wil be lest tired as you watch the stuttering movie's at this time. So let the image don't get in the way for the story.Shoot 60p.

Robert M. Berger
Epic-x "ED" 00274 and Red One "FRed" MX ssd 1265.

 

[Marc Wielage]

A hueg chunk of network television is shot at 24fps, including virtually all dramas. NO network refuses 24p content. Simple none.

You are terribly mistaken. I can give you the official delivery documents for all the major U.S. TV networks, and they will not accept 24p. 1080i, yes. I think earlier in this thread, I posted a link to Discovery and (I think) Bravo, and those specifically said "no 1080p." I know of a specific case a few years ago where my tape op got chewed out by an NBC exec because we accidentally shipped a D5 tape in 24p, and this was a major, major show at the time. It didn't help that the tape was mislabeled.

Here's a link to NBC's current specs (as one example):

https://na5.salesforce.com/sfc/p/70000000Ix7FulVHAhF5.RVprZRyClMCNKMULiE=

"NBCU’s delivery format is 1080-line, 1.78 (16:9) aspect ratio, 59.94 fields or 29.97 frames per second as noted in section 1.0 of this document."

You'll find a dozen other cable networks' HD specs at this link:

https://www.nbcunetworks.com/node/881

Of course, it's no problem to post and shoot the show in 24p, but you have to deliver in 1080i for most of these networks. Fox and ABC still require 720P, last time I checked. (Note that we're really talking 23.98, to split hairs.)

 

[MichaelP]

A production master and the broadcast master are not the same things. When referencing the "delivery" it is what will be broadcast. Acquisition can be anything as long as it is delivered per their specs. In NTSC based countries it is 1080i/59.94 or 720p/59.94. When shooting 23.976, it is best to edit that way till the end in order to deliver a master at 1080i with continuous 2:3 cadence from first frame to last frame. But documentaries and such using stock footage and such will have a whole miss-mash of frame rates, and resolution, etc mixed together. Quality of conversion from a variety of sources to a single production master or delivery master is where the real discussion lies.

Michael

 

[Marc Wielage]

Absolutely correct, Michael. Acquisition means production and post; delivery means the final air tape (or home video master). The final air tape or file in this case has to be 1080i, as I said.

Mis-matched 2:3 cadence problems can be fixed, but the other problem is motion judder, which is a huge headache. Even with tools like Twixtor, you can wind up with a real mess in shows that try to combine footage from 525, 625, 720p, 1080p, 24 frames, and 30 frames. It can be a huge, huge disaster, especially with short post schedules and tight budgets. God help you if this is all combined with varispeed, where people try to do slo-mo and speed-ups after the fact.

I still see commercials on the air (at least on local LA TV) where there are weird motion artifacts and compression issues -- and this is off-air ASTC with an antenna. No satellite, no cable, no nothin', just crappy pictures. Friends of mine on the inside tell me they're getting deluged with a huge mish-mash of badly-compressed files, wrong formats, bad aspect ratios, timecode issues, frame rate issues, you name it. This can be absolutely disastrous with a longform project like a documentary.

 

[Steve Gibby]

A hueg chunk of network television is shot at 24fps, including virtually all dramas. NO network refuses 24p content. Simple none.

After a long career producing/directing/shooting broadcast and cable network television programs I'm quite aware of the technical end of what's required by networks for delivery. Yes, television dramas are shot and delivered in 23.98 (not 24p), but that's because they are fiction programming and as such there's a need in telling the story to suspend reality in viewers. Its definitely the right choice for such programming. But the fact is that in terms of sheer number of programs produced worldwide each year by far the highest overall percentage is non-fiction programming - and in non-fiction, which is what I work in, we're not trying to suspend reality in the audience, but rather submerse the audience into the "now". For that reason the frame rates of acquisition for most non-fiction programming in the USA is almost always 59.94 or 29.97 (which up-converts to 59.94 easily).

There is no universal "right" frame rate standard for all acquisition - but there are "right" frame rates for certain types of television programming. Yes, a "huge chunk of network television is shot at 24p" (23.98 actually), but a much bigger percentage of the overall number of television programs is shot in 59.94 and 29.97. "No network refuses 24p content". Actually I've produced content and programs for 18 different broadcast and cable networks - and the Producer's Guidelines for some of them, for certain genres of non-fiction programs specify no 23.98 acquisition. An example would be sports television networks, for which I've done a ton of programs. So why is that? Because those programs involve shooting a lot of high action content, and juddered-out 23.98 fast pans and tilts aren't conducive to what the audience wants to see. In summary, the genres of programming seeking to excite the audience into the "present" of non-fiction shoot in higher frame rates - and the genres seeking to put viewers into the imagination of fiction use lower frame rates. Both are the correct choice for their particular programming.

For example, programs for DCI (Discovery) may only be acquired and delivered in 23.98 with prior permission. Nat Geo won't accept programming mastered in 23.98. If by chance a television network leaves acquisition frame rate option up to the producing entity, then artistically the questions are "What frame rate best tells the story we're trying to tell?", "What frame rate is the viewing audience used to for this genre?", and "Does my acquisition frame rate convert easily to the delivery frame rate required by the network?". The general answer to those questions is 23.98 for narrative fiction, and higher frame rates for most non-fiction programming - sometimes 29.97, but more often 59.94 in the USA, 50i in some other areas of the world, etc.

Horses for courses. Fiction is not "better" than non-fiction - they're just different types of programming. Thus 24p (or 23.98) is not "better" than higher fame rates - its just a different approach to acquisition for certain genres of programming. If you choose to work in a "24p or nothing" world, that's fine, this is a big wide industry - stay with narrative work. But others choices for work that calls for higher frame rates to effectively tell their stories is every bit as valid.

As Marc has rightly said, choosing the best frames rates for a program, then sticking with that throughout it, is critical when you get to posting the shows. A big assortment and jumble of frame rates and resolutions in acquisition makes for a very expensive nightmare in post - and time is money. A penny saved is a penny earned...

 

[Rob Ruffo]

After a long career producing/directing/shooting broadcast and cable network television programs I'm quite aware of the technical end of what's required by networks for delivery. Yes, television dramas are shot and delivered in 23.98 (not 24p), but that's because they are fiction programming and as such there's a need in telling the story to suspend reality in viewers. Its definitely the right choice for such programming. But the fact is that in terms of sheer number of programs produced worldwide each year by far the highest overall percentage is non-fiction programming - and in non-fiction, which is what I work in, we're not trying to suspend reality in the audience, but rather submerse the audience into the "now". For that reason the frame rates of acquisition for most non-fiction programming in the USA is almost always 59.94 or 29.97 (which up-converts to 59.94 easily).

There is no universal "right" frame rate standard for all acquisition - but there are "right" frame rates for certain types of television programming. Yes, a "huge chunk of network television is shot at 24p" (23.98 actually), but a much bigger percentage of the overall number of television programs is shot in 59.94 and 29.97. "No network refuses 24p content". Actually I've produced content and programs for 18 different broadcast and cable networks - and the Producer's Guidelines for some of them, for certain genres of non-fiction programs specify no 23.98 acquisition. An example would be sports television networks, for which I've done a ton of programs. So why is that? Because those programs involve shooting a lot of high action content, and juddered-out 23.98 fast pans and tilts aren't conducive to what the audience wants to see. In summary, the genres of programming seeking to excite the audience into the "present" of non-fiction shoot in higher frame rates - and the genres seeking to put viewers into the imagination of fiction use lower frame rates. Both are the correct choice for their particular programming.

For example, programs for DCI (Discovery) may only be acquired and delivered in 23.98 with prior permission. Nat Geo won't accept programming mastered in 23.98. If by chance a television network leaves acquisition frame rate option up to the producing entity, then artistically the questions are "What frame rate best tells the story we're trying to tell?", "What frame rate is the viewing audience used to for this genre?", and "Does my acquisition frame rate convert easily to the delivery frame rate required by the network?". The general answer to those questions is 23.98 for narrative fiction, and higher frame rates for most non-fiction programming - sometimes 29.97, but more often 59.94 in the USA, 50i in some other areas of the world, etc.

Horses for courses. Fiction is not "better" than non-fiction - they're just different types of programming. Thus 24p (or 23.98) is not "better" than higher fame rates - its just a different approach to acquisition for certain genres of programming. If you choose to work in a "24p or nothing" world, that's fine, this is a big wide industry - stay with narrative work. But others choices for work that calls for higher frame rates to effectively tell their stories is every bit as valid.

As Marc has rightly said, choosing the best frames rates for a program, then sticking with that throughout it, is critical when you get to posting the shows. A big assortment and jumble of frame rates and resolutions in acquisition makes for a very expensive nightmare in post - and time is money. A penny saved is a penny earned...

I meant 23.976 by 24p just too lazy to type that many numbers.

Acquisition should be "p" never "i" because otherwise progressive panels, like all non CRT displays, will have no way of decoding the 1080i broadcast of that acquisition without combing artifacts.

Also, good luck making enough $$$ off of just one side of sales territories within a specialty market like non-fiction. 30p does not fly in PAL land, which is 25p - there is no really good way of making it look right - 23.976 looks fine everywhere, as does actual 24p, by the way. I would rather shop a show all over the world, but that's me. To me the U.S. is just one sales territory no better or worse than any other for content. Money is money and knows no flags. Non-fiction often brings much more revenue from PAL territories.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I meant 23.976 by 24p just too lazy to type that many numbers.

Acquisition should be "p" never "i" because otherwise progressive panels, like all non CRT displays, will have no way of decoding the 1080i broadcast of that acquisition without combing artifacts.

Also, good luck making enough $$$ off of just one side of sales territories within a specialty market like non-fiction. 30p does not fly in PAL land, which is 25p - there is no really good way of making it look right - 23.976 looks fine everywhere, as does actual 24p, by the way. I would rather shop a show all over the world, but that's me. To me the U.S. is just one sales territory no better or worse than any other for content. Money is money and knows no flags. Non-fiction often brings much more revenue from PAL territories.

I specified 23.98, which is naturally 23.976, because 24p is a film frame rate and 23.976 (aka 23.98) is what those interested in shooting for narrative TV will be using. The guy who opened this thread (George D.) is based in the USA, and asked about frame rates for producing documentaries for USA-based TV networks (Discovery, Nat Geo, etc.) thus my previous posts about 59.94, which will be the mastering and airing frame rate for those NTSC networks, and 29.97 which is a good acquisition frame rate for non-narrative productions airing on NTSC networks.

Whether we acquire images in in progressive or interlace, the fact remains that it will be mastered in interlace for delivery to the broadcasting network or station, and then they will broadcast the program in interlace. Since this is Red User, and Red cameras acquire images only in progressive, advising not to acquire in interlace is really a moot point here.

I've been making very good money in non-fiction TV programs for decades now (several hundred broadcast and cable network TV programs) - I must have just been lucky I guess

Non-fiction TV programming is a "specialty market"? You're kidding, right? NAB and IDATE data clearly show that of the total number of television programs produced each year worldwide, non-fiction programming clearly outnumbers the total of fiction programming. The list of non-fiction genres is long: documentaries, current affairs, sports, news, lifestyle, reality, wildlife, music, travel, food, etc. Due to non-fiction's larger number of overall productions each year than fiction productions, a case could be easily made that the fiction programming market is actually the "specialty market". Its high time for people in this industry to take their traditionalist goggles off and acknowledge the great diversity of today's TV production marketplace - and that Red cameras, with their huge range of frame rates, are used throughout the motion media industry.

Someone independently producing a TV special (one off) or series simply needs to pre-plan the distribution of the programs, the networks planned for airing, then follow the most logical choice of format, resolution, and fps in the acquisition process. If its distribution will be mostly PAL land (Europe, Asia, Pacific), and its a narrative fiction project, then 23.976 makes sense. But if its distribution will be mostly in PAL land and the genre is non-fiction, and its a genre where we're not seeking to suspend reality in the viewers, and/or it involves a lot of high motion subject matter (sports, etc.), then 50fps would make a lot of sense. If the distribution will be mostly into NTSC areas (North America, Cent. Amer., Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan), and its a narrative fiction genre, then 23.976 makes sense. But if the distribution is to NTSC areas, and the genre involves bringing viewers into the "now", and/or it features a lot of high action (sports, etc.), then acquisition in 29.97 or 59.94 makes perfect sense. Its all going to be mastered in 59.94 and broadcast in 59.94 anyway.

If the programs are contract work as a packager for a specific network, then the choice is very simple - producers must exactly follow that network's specifications for acquisition and mastering.

Scores of the TV programs I've produced/directed over the years have aired around the world. I've worked worldwide - been in 70 countries so far.

"The U.S. is just one sales territory no better or worse than any other for content. Money is money and knows no flags". Here's the real facts on that:

According to IDATE data the worldwide TV market in 2009 was 1,217 million households. The Asia/Pacific market was 52%, Europe was 22%, North America 10.8%, and Latin America 9.7%. But also according to IDATE data the U.S. television market was the largest TV market in the entire world in terms of revenue. The second largest was Europe, and the third largest was Asia. Huge amounts of the programming aired in Europe and Asia is produced in the U.S., by U.S. owned production companies - thus the U.S. being the world leader in TV revenue. Add to that the figure that over 80% of the world's total volume of entertainment media is still produced within the United States. Thus your statement that the U.S. is "just one sales territory, no better or worse", is way erroneous. Those TV revenue facts I quoted above also illustrate clearly where the largest single potential source of revenue for a TV producer is - its in the United States - whether said producer is indie or in-house with a network.

I find it curious that you live right next to the United States, in Canada, and yet you minimize the USA as just another sales territory. Lets compare the U.S. and Canada:
Television households according to Nielsen and IDATE: USA = 115.9 million. Canada = 13.6 million. Seems to me if you want to make money you should stop minimizing the importance of U.S. TV market, and produce programs for airing in the U.S. - its a market with over 10 times the TV households of Canada, and the number one TV revenue country in the entire world. Why not cash in on some of that revenue?

 

[Russ Fill]

Is there an answer to shooting 29.98 and adjusting the shutter to give it a 23.97 180 degree smooth look?

And on another note. I thought the only reason they used 24 fps was it was the slowest you could run film through a camera and still have generally smooth movement that would be pleasing to the eye in most situations back in the day. Purely a cost effect reason nothing to do with art just lets save some film and see how long we can make a roll last and still fool the audience.

 

[David Kudell]

Speaking of which, what's the best software to convert a 23.98 Red-spot to 29.97i (3:2 pull down) for broadcast? FCP doesn't do it right (just repeats every 4th frame) so the only way I can get it to look right is to output via my Kona 3 card and recapture as 29.97i on another system.

There has to be better software to accomplish this. I've tried Compressor's frame controls but instead of 3:2 pull down it wants to interpolate new frames which looks artificially smooth, and After Effects seems to just repeat every 4th frame like FCP does. I've heard Natress makes some FCP plug-ins for this, but I haven't tried them yet. Any suggestions?

Edit: did a search and came across the answer!

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/8/1070377

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I specified 23.98, which is naturally 23.976, because 24p is a film frame rate and 23.976 (aka 23.98) is what those interested in shooting for narrative TV will be using. The guy who opened this thread (George D.) is based in the USA, and asked about frame rates for producing documentaries for USA-based TV networks (Discovery, Nat Geo, etc.) thus my previous posts about 59.94, which will be the mastering and airing frame rate for those NTSC networks, and 29.97 which is a good acquisition frame rate for non-narrative productions airing on NTSC networks.

Whether we acquire images in in progressive or interlace, the fact remains that it will be mastered in interlace for delivery to the broadcasting network or station, and then they will broadcast the program in interlace. Since this is Red User, and Red cameras acquire images only in progressive, advising not to acquire in interlace is really a moot point here.

I've been making very good money in non-fiction TV programs for decades now (several hundred broadcast and cable network TV programs) - I must have just been lucky I guess

Non-fiction TV programming is a "specialty market"? You're kidding, right? NAB and IDATE data clearly show that of the total number of television programs produced each year worldwide, non-fiction programming clearly outnumbers the total of fiction programming. The list of non-fiction genres is long: documentaries, current affairs, sports, news, lifestyle, reality, wildlife, music, travel, food, etc. Due to non-fiction's larger number of overall productions each year than fiction productions, a case could be easily made that the fiction programming market is actually the "specialty market". Its high time for people in this industry to take their traditionalist goggles off and acknowledge the great diversity of today's TV production marketplace - and that Red cameras, with their huge range of frame rates, are used throughout the motion media industry.

Someone independently producing a TV special (one off) or series simply needs to pre-plan the distribution of the programs, the networks planned for airing, then follow the most logical choice of format, resolution, and fps in the acquisition process. If its distribution will be mostly PAL land (Europe, Asia, Pacific), and its a narrative fiction project, then 23.976 makes sense. But if its distribution will be mostly in PAL land and the genre is non-fiction, and its a genre where we're not seeking to suspend reality in the viewers, and/or it involves a lot of high motion subject matter (sports, etc.), then 50fps would make a lot of sense. If the distribution will be mostly into NTSC areas (North America, Cent. Amer., Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan), and its a narrative fiction genre, then 23.976 makes sense. But if the distribution is to NTSC areas, and the genre involves bringing viewers into the "now", and/or it features a lot of high action (sports, etc.), then acquisition in 29.97 or 59.94 makes perfect sense. Its all going to be mastered in 59.94 and broadcast in 59.94 anyway.

If the programs are contract work as a packager for a specific network, then the choice is very simple - producers must exactly follow that network's specifications for acquisition and mastering.

Scores of the TV programs I've produced/directed over the years have aired around the world. I've worked worldwide - been in 70 countries so far.

"The U.S. is just one sales territory no better or worse than any other for content. Money is money and knows no flags". Here's the real facts on that:

According to IDATE data the worldwide TV market in 2009 was 1,217 million households. The Asia/Pacific market was 52%, Europe was 22%, North America 10.8%, and Latin America 9.7%. But also according to IDATE data the U.S. television market was the largest TV market in the entire world in terms of revenue. The second largest was Europe, and the third largest was Asia. Huge amounts of the programming aired in Europe and Asia is produced in the U.S., by U.S. owned production companies - thus the U.S. being the world leader in TV revenue. Add to that the figure that over 80% of the world's total volume of entertainment media is still produced within the United States. Thus your statement that the U.S. is "just one sales territory, no better or worse", is way erroneous. Those TV revenue facts I quoted above also illustrate clearly where the largest single potential source of revenue for a TV producer is - its in the United States - whether said producer is indie or in-house with a network.

I find it curious that you live right next to the United States, in Canada, and yet you minimize the USA as just another sales territory. Lets compare the U.S. and Canada:
Television households according to Nielsen and IDATE: USA = 115.9 million. Canada = 13.6 million. Seems to me if you want to make money you should stop minimizing the importance of U.S. TV market, and produce programs for airing in the U.S. - its a market with over 10 times the TV households of Canada, and the number one TV revenue country in the entire world. Why not cash in on some of that revenue?

Uh, Steve, Canada uses the same television standard as the U.S., it is NTSC. Also, I could care less about Canada as a market, I just live here. It's very small, the networks are often annoying and for our current project we are not even really bothering with Canada. I can call France and the U.K. just like the U.S., and send samples anywhere via a web link. To me any country with $$ for content is as good as any other, plus Europeans are much more interested in watching non-fiction than AMericans are as a whole, the E.U. is wealthier overall (sorry, but it's true), and, put together, the E.U. has a much bigger population than the U.S. (add Australia/Japan, other Pal territories, and you get MUCH bigger). I'm sorry Steve, but there is a lot more to the world than the U.S.A., and as someone who is not even a citizen of your country, to me it's just another foreign market. Nothing against Americans, but it sounds almost like you expect me to be patriotic about the U.S. or something. I'm not even a particularly patriotic Canadian.

Yes there are many non-fiction shows being made because they are cheap to produce, so more people try, but unless you consider Survivor and the like non-fiction (which is a stretch) they are a small market with a small audience compared to fiction, especially when you look at the flood of product competing for that audience. Budgets are also often very, very low, as are sales prices, so every dollar counts. Thus why, I say, it is not wise to limit your market to NTSC territories only.

You want to stick with a progressive timeline in this day and age. 1080i is merely a container where two progressive fields are split into two so that they can fit into broadcast pipelines that were implemented in the CRT days. There is no such thing as a plasma or LCD capable of displaying a "truly interlaced" program (one where each of the 60 fields represents a different slice of time) correctly. Few people are watching CRTs anymore. Conversion from progressive to interlaced format is automatic as it merely requires splitting each progressive frame into two fields, that are later sewn back together as one progressive frame by your plasma or LCD for display. You can hand in a 23.976p program to any modern day network and they will run it through a box converting it to 1080i, (no problem, not even a thought) but that 1080i, after the conversion, will contain "matched pairs" of fields that are halves of single progressive frames, not unique fields. This will look much better when converted for progressive display on any modern television. All the "p"s will look very different when converted to 1080i than a 1080i source (Or Red footage with 1080i titles/3d animation applied. I don't know what you mean by "mastered". Blu-ray, broadcast to 1080i or 720p, these are all just conversions from a timeline/D.I. output. It is not advisable to create a timeline in 1080i, with 1080i titles, that will only play correctly on a CRT, and no major networks do that.

No network cannot be talked out 30p toward 23.976p, unless they are fronting all production costs, which in non-fiction is far from always the case. They only dictate if they have the $$ to back it up. The OP sounded like they were producing on spec. In the end, you can make way more money on spec if things turn out well. The more potential markets you have, the more likely that will be. Its' simple math.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Uh, Steve, Canada uses the same television standard as the U.S., it is NTSC. Also, I could care less about Canada as a market, I just live here. It's very small, the networks are often annoying and for our current project we are not even really bothering with Canada. I can call France and the U.K. just like the U.S., and send samples anywhere via a web link. To me any country with $$ for content is as good as any other, plus Europeans are much more interested in watching non-fiction than AMericans are as a whole, the E.U. is wealthier overall (sorry, but it's true), and, put together, the E.U. has a much bigger population than the U.S. (add Australia/Japan, other Pal territories, and you get MUCH bigger). I'm sorry Steve, but there is a lot more to the world than the U.S.A., and as someone who is not even a citizen of your country, to me it's just another foreign market. Nothing against Americans, but it sounds almost like you expect me to be patriotic about the U.S. or something. I'm not even a particularly patriotic Canadian.

I’m quite aware that Canada is NTSC – several of the TV programs I’ve produced or co-produced have aired there. If any country with $$ is of your interest, then as I illustrated in my last post, backed up by hard figures from IDATE, Nielsen, and NAB, the country with the largest industry TV revenue in the world (more TV revenue than all of Europe combined, and more TV revenue than all of Asia combined), which produces over 80% of the world’s entertainment content, is right next to you – the United States. Also according to those sources both Europe and Asia license vast amounts of USA-produced television programming for airing there – both fiction and non-fiction. Those are the facts, and if you’re in this business, and as you say interested in any country that has $$ you can make, then it makes no sense to pass such a huge market off as “just another foreign country”. In this business its not about population, its partially about TV households, but the bottom line is where revenue can be generated from a) production work and b) downstream revenue from it if its an independently produced one off or series. This business isn’t about patriotism – its about doing production and syndication where solid revenue can be generated. Yes we’re artists, but we must also be good business people if we want to compete and survive. It’s not my concern whether you like America or not. I’m talking business strategy here – not politics.

Yes there are many non-fiction shows being made because they are cheap to produce, so more people try, but unless you consider Survivor and the like non-fiction (which is a stretch) they are a small market with a small audience compared to fiction, especially when you look at the flood of product competing for that audience. Budgets are also often very, very low, as are sales prices, so every dollar counts. Thus why, I say, it is not wise to limit your market to NTSC territories only.

According to IDATE, NAB, and Nielsen data not only are there more non-fiction TV programs produced each year worldwide, but the overall audience for non-fiction is significantly larger for non-fiction than fiction. Just one example is sports. There is a massive audience each year worldwide for sports programming – and it is non-fiction programming. Production values and budgets vary widely for non-fiction programming – but when you’re approaching the TV production business as a business, its not what you gross, it’s about what you net. If you produce non-fiction programs, and are good at maximizing technology while minimizing costs, the net profit can be very handsome. Who limits their market to NTSC areas? I don’t, and never posted that I did. In fact I posted that I work worldwide, as do lots of other producers. But the same analytical principles I previously posted still apply when choosing a frame rate for a production 1) Where is its largest intended market? 2) What is its genre? 3) What are the airing network’s technical delivery guidelines? 4) What acquisition frame rate best suits the nature of the content? As I illustrated multiple times in my past posts on this thread the answers to those questions determine the acquisition frame rate.

I don't know what you mean by "mastered". Blu-ray, broadcast to 1080i or 720p, these are all just conversions from a timeline/D.I. output. It is not advisable to create a timeline in 1080i, with 1080i titles, that will only play correctly on a CRT, and no major networks do that.

For the sake of brevity I didn’t quote your entire paragraph on progressive, interlace, monitors, etc. I fully understand the tech end of this business, so no need to review it for me. It surprises me that you don’t know what the term “mastered” means in this business. When a TV program is produced, whether that be as an indie production, as a packager for a network, or as an in-house production, a master file (or in some cases master tape) is created of the finished program. An airing master is what is delivered to the network. It must comply with the entire tech parameters specified by that network in order to be accepted for airing. Who suggested creating a 1080i timeline? I never did. But for most HD airing networks the airing master must be in 1080i at the network-specified frame rate - no matter whether the footage was acquired and edited in progressive, and what the acquisition frame rate was. There are a few networks that broadcast HD in 720p – ABC, ESPN, and a few others.

No network cannot be talked out 30p toward 23.976p, unless they are fronting all production costs, which in non-fiction is far from always the case. They only dictate if they have the $$ to back it up. The OP sounded like they were producing on spec. In the end, you can make way more money on spec if things turn out well. The more potential markets you have, the more likely that will be. Its' simple math.

Huh? As myself and many others on this thread have itemized, each network sets their producer’s guidelines for the tech parameters of mastered programs for airing on that network – and those tech guidelines must be followed without exception whether you’re an indie producer, packaging producer, or in-house producer. The network program dictates delivery specifications in all cases – you follow them or the programs don’t air. Beyond that, as myself and others have detailed, the networks also usually specify in their producer’s guidelines what kinds of cameras, resolutions, and frame rates can or cannot be used for footage acquisition – and depending on the genre of programs produced that can and sometimes does restrict the use of 23.976.


--------------------------------------


Myself and other highly experienced veterans of international television production have taken the time on this thread to detail and share with others what we know about production, in this case about producing documentaries. We're here to help others with our insight - basically giving back to an industry which has been very good to us. If you choose to take exception with what we’ve posted, then how about if you share with us your exact background in this field. It would help us to understand your objections.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I’m quite aware that Canada is NTSC – several of the TV programs I’ve produced or co-produced have aired there. If any country with $$ is of your interest, then as I illustrated in my last post, backed up by hard figures from IDATE, Nielsen, and NAB, the country with the largest industry TV revenue in the world (more TV revenue than all of Europe combined, and more TV revenue than all of Asia combined), which produces over 80% of the world’s entertainment content, is right next to you – the United States. Also according to those sources both Europe and Asia license vast amounts of USA-produced television programming for airing there – both fiction and non-fiction. Those are the facts, and if you’re in this business, and as you say interested in any country that has $$ you can make, then it makes no sense to pass such a huge market off as “just another foreign country”. In this business its not about population, its partially about TV households, but the bottom line is where revenue can be generated from a) production work and b) downstream revenue from it if its an independently produced one off or series. This business isn’t about patriotism – its about doing production and syndication where solid revenue can be generated. Yes we’re artists, but we must also be good business people if we want to compete and survive. It’s not my concern whether you like America or not. I’m talking business strategy here – not politics.

For fiction programming (and I include Survivor et all in fiction) the United States is a big market. For true non-fiction, still a big market, but less so. Few Americans ever watch real documentaries, but most Europeans do on a regular basis. American networks are also much more conservative about what you can or cannot say on air. For example, if your show questions the value of consumerism or suburban living you might struggle quite a bit. If your show deals with sexuality in a frank way, then the U.S.A. might not be a T.V. market at all. Every household in Europe (well, I think it's about 90%) has a TV. What's a "TV household" then but a parity count of population? Americans watch much, much more TV though, that's true, but still. This TV household count sounds suspect.

According to IDATE, NAB, and Nielsen data not only are there more non-fiction TV programs produced each year worldwide, but the overall audience for non-fiction is significantly larger for non-fiction than fiction. Just one example is sports. There is a massive audience each year worldwide for sports programming – and it is non-fiction programming. Production values and budgets vary widely for non-fiction programming – but when you’re approaching the TV production business as a business, its not what you gross, it’s about what you net. If you produce non-fiction programs, and are good at maximizing technology while minimizing costs, the net profit can be very handsome. Who limits their market to NTSC areas? I don’t, and never posted that I did. In fact I posted that I work worldwide, as do lots of other producers. But the same analytical principles I previously posted still apply when choosing a frame rate for a production 1) Where is its largest intended market? 2) What is its genre? 3) What are the airing network’s technical delivery guidelines? 4) What acquisition frame rate best suits the nature of the content? As I illustrated multiple times in my past posts on this thread the answers to those questions determine the acquisition frame rate.

OK, but I don't know of any PAL networks that will happily accept 29.97 content. It looks terrible when converted to PAL. So by your statement, which I agree with, 29.97 only "suits the content" if your program has zero sales potential outside NTSC territories. When I say "non-fiction" I really mean documentary, which is what the OP is talking about. There is no way that more people watch documentaries than fiction (or quasi-fiction like Survivor). I have yet to encounter a network that refused a 23.976p timeline-based program in their specs. Most accept it with no conversion. Some demand that you hand in something converted to 1080i or 720p or whatever. Such a conversion never costs more than $100, maybe $250, depending on HD cam tape prices. So it's really not an issue. However, try converting 29.97 to 25p/50i for Pal and you are in for a world of hurt.[/QUOTE]

the sake of brevity I didn’t quote your entire paragraph on progressive, interlace, monitors, etc. I fully understand the tech end of this business, so no need to review it for me. It surprises me that you don’t know what the term “mastered” means in this business. When a TV program is produced, whether that be as an indie production, as a packager for a network, or as an in-house production, a master file (or in some cases master tape) is created of the finished program. An airing master is what is delivered to the network. It must comply with the entire tech parameters specified by that network in order to be accepted for airing. Who suggested creating a 1080i timeline? I never did. But for most HD airing networks the airing master must be in 1080i at the network-specified frame rate - no matter whether the footage was acquired and edited in progressive, and what the acquisition frame rate was. There are a few networks that broadcast HD in 720p – ABC, ESPN, and a few others.

I know what the term means, but most shows I work on master in 1080p23.976. Out of that comes a prores file. Then there are many conversions made, for many markets/networks/media types. 59.976 is not a very practical mastering format unless your show will never leave NTSC territory broadcast, and if your timelines is set to that, all your titles will look funny on a plasma or LCD. The explanation wasn't just for you (or really for you at all) it was to clear up a common source of confusion. In the digital world the term mastering is being used less and less, at least around here. I hear "timeline render" more and more. You can make a render at any resolution, at any time, depending on need. Even colorspace varies, so you want that RAW timeline kept as your "master", not some HDcam tape.

Huh? As myself and many others on this thread have itemized, each network sets their producer’s guidelines for the tech parameters of mastered programs for airing on that network – and those tech guidelines must be followed without exception whether you’re an indie producer, packaging producer, or in-house producer. The network program dictates delivery specifications in all cases – you follow them or the programs don’t air. Beyond that, as myself and others have detailed, the networks also usually specify in their producer’s guidelines what kinds of cameras, resolutions, and frame rates can or cannot be used for footage acquisition – and depending on the genre of programs produced that can and sometimes does restrict the use of 23.976.


Myself and other highly experienced veterans of international television production have taken the time on this thread to detail and share with others what we know about production, in this case about producing documentaries. We're here to help others with our insight - basically giving back to an industry which has been very good to us. If you choose to take exception with what we’ve posted, then how about if you share with us your exact background in this field. It would help us to understand your objections.

We produce content for air + web. We have music videos, commercials and have two non-fiction TV series on the plate, one a little more currently active than the other, this through private spec financing. I used to own a post-prod boutique that did 2D and 3D for mainstream commercials. As advert directors my wife and I are represented (as a team) in Toronto at a top-flight boutique where our specialization is fashion and romantic spots. I used to be represented in L.A. as a screenwriter, but missed sets, so I went back to production, joining creative forces with my wife. I am am well under 40, but nonetheless I know my s__t, as do you, I'm sure, but I think we have very different visions of the world, live in different worlds and sell ourselves to different people in very different ways. You seem to have taken all this a bit personally, it was not meant that way. To me a post on Reduser is a post to the general Red user public, to anyone specific.

 

[Mark Allen]

I agree with lots of what Craig says (after the first sentence, though I'm not disagreeing with that one either)... but I will add:

As a US based producer... Unless it's for theatrical film projection, I shoot everything at 29.97 progressive - and if a client requests 23.976 I do my best to persuade them to use 29.97P instead. And note the progressive vs. interlaced. As for interlaced, I've found that at some point (almost always when going to the web), things get messed up and the files look terrible. I don't want to embarrass some of my national brand clients by naming them, but when you look at their videos on their sites - all of them but ours suffer really terrible interlace artifacting. And while in theory shooting 24p will convert well, invariably it ends up being converted (interlaced) to 29.97 and then changed and squeezed onto the web or some other format.

The only time that 29.97P isn't going to work (other than for theatrical presentation) is maybe sports which moves super fast and can benefit from the interlacing or going to PAL 25. However, I don't really feel a good conversion from 29.97p to 25 is much worse than a good 23,976 to 25.

But... best thing is - know your end market and (if they have them) your delivery requirements.

And all this said... I've done spots for Europe and of course that was our prime target, so we shot 25.