Framerate conversion problems

[Christoffer Glans]

I shot a project primarily to be 25 fps but shot at 30 fps for a bit of slomo. In the edit we decided to go with 30 fps real time instead and keep 30 fps as the timebase.
So all the shots have been speeded by 120% on a 30 fps timeline in order to have all movements correctly smooth.

But when grading in Resolve, the EDL put all the 25 fps slomo clips into a 30 fps timeline with a retime that doesn't create smooth movements.
It's like it converts the clips instead of just using all the frames within 30 fps.

How do I change so that all clips use all their frames within 30 fps?

 

[Björn Benckert]

I think if you just remove the timewarp in resolve first frame should be tc accurate and then the frames would be played back correctly / in 30fps.

But christoffer, 30fps playback is possibly the ugliest thing ever seen next to 30fps interlaced so why go there?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think if you just remove the timewarp in resolve first frame should be tc accurate and then the frames would be played back correctly / in 30fps.

But christoffer, 30fps playback is possibly the ugliest thing ever seen next to 30fps interlaced so why go there?

Didn't work, since the EDL didn't put a timewarp on it, so the timewarp is based on the timebase in Resolve, which means you can't change things. Had to manually replace clips with 30 fps versions of them in Premiere before going to Resolve.

30 fps is because it's filmed footage intercut with gameplay capture, so because the gameplay is 60 fps I went with 30 fps to match their movements together. Otherwise I would have needed to convert either of them.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

But christoffer, 30fps playback is possibly the ugliest thing ever seen next to 30fps interlaced so why go there?

I had luck with 30p on projects before lofts of fast movements. There it makes everything smoother as the camera is panning/tracking an enduro motorbike for example. The thing is I do like 25p when the camera and subjects is moving very little. But when things starts to pick up in pace I hope there soon will be a way to dynmicly ramp upp to higher fps.

It sucks at cinema when there is alot of actions and everything gets eater by motion blur/ or choppy if the filmmaker chooses to use a faster shutter.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I had luck with 30p on projects before lofts of fast movements. There it makes everything smoother as the camera is panning/tracking an enduro motorbike for example. The thing is I do like 25p when the camera and subjects is moving very little. But when things starts to pick up in pace I hope there soon will be a way to dynmicly ramp upp to higher fps.

It sucks at cinema when there is alot of actions and everything gets eater by motion blur/ or choppy if the filmmaker chooses to use a faster shutter.

Not me, I find avoiding strobe / jitter or to much motion blur is part of the challenge. And to be honest I never seen anything that actually looks good in 30fps or higher, except for when there is hardly any motion or camera moves so you dont see it.

Sure PC gaming films is even more challenging as they need to show the game play feel, but then 100fps or such is more like it. But to my findings I never liked the game trailers where they did not rerender the scenes in a cinematic way, i.e. 24 or 25p and motion blur and kept the pans and tilts and what not in line with what such frame rate can handle.

There is experts in this field where Michael Bay is sort of the king. Shit load of knowledge and and experience needed to do all the action stuff he does and do it not only in 24p but a lot of time also with short shutter and still make it look great and without stuttering on the big screen. And normally when going 30 or 60 or what ever high frame rate, people tend to ditch the rules that apply to 24p and to me it simply does not look good even though it does not stutter.

Would love to see if you have a good example of where 30p made things look great. I normally rather see 30fps shot material play back at 25p and get slightly over cranked, its also very possible to slow down sound for such footage without much notice. Doing that just makes it all feel more cinematic where as 30p playback feels like old shitty NTSC to me. But I'm old and worked to much back in the days with 50i and such where we rather dropped vertical resolution in half and ditched a field than actually keep the 50i

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Sure PC gaming films is even more challenging as they need to show the game play feel, but then 100fps or such is more like it. But to my findings I never liked the game trailers where they did not rerender the scenes in a cinematic way, i.e. 24 or 25p and motion blur and kept the pans and tilts and what not in line with what such frame rate can handle.

Most games are played in 60 fps and that is what's mostly shown when working with game commercials and trailers. In 30 fps I can manage a balance or even show 60 fps material intercut with filmed footage and still keep some of the cinematic feel to the filmed material. Actually, for the target audience that the commercial is aimed for I would argue that it's better. It's not meant to communicate us filmmakers desire for cinematic 24 fps, it's meant to communicate to the feel of gamepla

There is experts in this field where Michael Bay is sort of the king. Shit load of knowledge and and experience needed to do all the action stuff he does and do it not only in 24p

I'm not doing the commercial for Michael Bay, but the customers of the game. I prefer 25 fps, but it's not for me.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Here's the commercial:

 

[Björn Benckert]

Hmm,
I stand by my gun here.


So from watching it. I can only say it would look way better if you now put it in a 25p timline and stretched the audio to fit. Even the game sequences as I see it they don't benefit from the 30 instead of 25p, on the conterary. A slight slomo in there would make it look better and the restaurant scene would benefit as well, looking more cinematic instead of videoish.

Now doing so would make the spot a bit longer, 5 frames per second. But possibly that does not matter if it's for the web. If not, needit 5 frames away per second to get to 25p is what I would do.

But that's just my taste of course, everyone has their own. 30p just makes me itch.

And don't listen to clients about these things, they early know what's good for them

 

[Christoffer Glans]

And don't listen to clients about these things, they early know what's good for them

No, I don't listen to the clients, I am a gamer myself and I listen to what gamers actually think about trailers and commrcials. Showing gameplay in 25 fps is a big no in the gaming industry because gamers actually skip buying games if they think that's what it looks like. 30 fps is the minimum accepted. As I mentioned, we aren't the ones these are aimed for. If I do a movie for myself I'm definetely going 25 fps, but not when I'm doing communicative work like commercials, then I need to apply the right format for the right product and forum.

 

[Björn Benckert]

No, I don't listen to the clients, I am a gamer myself and I listen to what gamers actually think about trailers and commrcials. Showing gameplay in 25 fps is a big no in the gaming industry because gamers actually skip buying games if they think that's what it looks like. 30 fps is the minimum accepted. As I mentioned, we aren't the ones these are aimed for. If I do a movie for myself I'm definetely going 25 fps, but not when I'm doing communicative work like commercials, then I need to apply the right format for the right product and forum.

Its all opinions and personal taste of course. But I even think the actual game looks better with a less flimsy more robust filmic / slower framerate, not only the acting part. The cartoon stuff looks more Disney and the acting part I find also improve from the slowdown conversion 30-25p. Ignore the artefacts from double dipping in internet compressions.

Here just cooked it for you to show what I mean.

pass: 25p

Then also, if you really want high frame rate for the gaming part. its very possible to lay 25p into a 60fps timeline. thats how most of us see video anyway these days. As most of our screens are not 25hz or 50hz i.e not fully 25p compatible, screens are more likely to be 60hz. So shit actually look the same if doing that way for most computer screens. But again to me 24p looks simply better.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

It's more jarring to mix and match 25 fps filmed footage with 60 fps gameplay. You might prefer this, but the gaming community is used to the framerate world of games, not old soap operas. As said, I'm not doing these for myself, or you, but the gamers. When playing myself, I have no problem with cinematics in games being 30 fps, which is the standard in any realtime rendered sequences of modern games. Those sequences are the ones gamers are used to as 30 fps sequences, so their point of reference is different from yours and it will be more so going further. I personally have no problem with 30 fps since I'm at this time more used to games being the point of reference for 30 fps and not the old times, because I've spent so much time with games it's become that reference point. I don't like cinematics at 48, 50, 60 or 120 fps, because then you start loosing the texture of film motion, but at 30 fps you still have it. It's also more jarring to see sequences in HDR that's pushed to their max nits in 24 fps compared to 30 fps since the rendering smoth out sharper edges better in some movements.

If cinema went 48 fps tomorrow I would protest, but if cinema went 30 fps I wouldn't really mind that much. Because of my visual reference point. Ten years from now there would be even less people with bad experiences as their reference points.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Ten years from now there would be even less people with bad experiences as their reference points.

Not if people like you keep shooting at 30fps! Lol. I'm kidding ;-)

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Had this issue before -scroll to the bottom for the answer - Red really built an amazing bit of post:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?134125-Change-Time-base-in-post

 

[Björn Benckert]

It's more jarring to mix and match 25 fps filmed footage with 60 fps gameplay. You might prefer this, but the gaming community is used to the framerate world of games, not old soap operas. As said, I'm not doing these for myself, or you, but the gamers. When playing myself, I have no problem with cinematics in games being 30 fps, which is the standard in any realtime rendered sequences of modern games. Those sequences are the ones gamers are used to as 30 fps sequences, so their point of reference is different from yours and it will be more so going further. I personally have no problem with 30 fps since I'm at this time more used to games being the point of reference for 30 fps and not the old times, because I've spent so much time with games it's become that reference point. I don't like cinematics at 48, 50, 60 or 120 fps, because then you start loosing the texture of film motion, but at 30 fps you still have it. It's also more jarring to see sequences in HDR that's pushed to their max nits in 24 fps compared to 30 fps since the rendering smoth out sharper edges better in some movements.

If cinema went 48 fps tomorrow I would protest, but if cinema went 30 fps I wouldn't really mind that much. Because of my visual reference point. Ten years from now there would be even less people with bad experiences as their reference points.

We see it differently, I cringe when I see realtime rendered sequences in games showing in 30P. All I can think is why did they first spend all that effort to try to make it look cinematic and nice and then ruining it all by playing it out too fast. Especially considering they could have raised the render quality even more if they aimed for lower refresh rate on those sequences and still not overshoot their bandwidth.

Then the "Old soap opera" look is considered to be 30 timebase / 60i look, no? Same as you do for your commercial.

And just so I get you right, you say this attract more gamers:

Then this would do:

pass: 25p

Possibly thats how it works, just like TV's with a smooth motion function sells better. But still, I'm not a fan of it.