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 :)

Shoot in 23.976fps or 24fps for distribution of a feature film?

24 fps for a theatrical distribution. 23.976 for a broadcast one in the NTSC world. If you're in the Pal world, choose 25 fps for both theatrical and broadcast worlds, and you're set ;-)

Kristin
 
NZ is a PAL country, but we live in a worldwide world now, so wouldn't 24 make more sense then than 25? As we're aiming much further than just the small handful of people in our tiny country that might see it.

On a closely related point, what is (roughly generally speaking) the prefered aspect ratio by distributors? 2.35:1 , 2.39:1 , 1.85:1 , or something else?
 
Good luck doing one of those 24h art-concept films in NTSC broadcast and theatrical. The 1/1000 difference means you need almost 90 seconds more content at 24fps than at 23.976. That could totally change everything ;-)
 
By distributor, do you mean theatrical distribution ?

A 25 fps DCP is SMPTE standard and is widely accepted nowadays. We're mastering 80% of the movies we get at 25 fps to stick to their original framerate and the DCP's are worldwide screened without a issue. The advantage of 25 fps is that you won't have to change the sound when going broadcast/theatrical.

As for the aspect ratio, you have two mainstream ones, 2.39:1 and 1.85:1, but I guess it depends where you are ;-) Here we have no preference, you can even find some 1.33:1 ;-)
 
Kristin Stewart said:
A 25 fps DCP is SMPTE standard and is widely accepted nowadays. We're mastering 80% of the movies we get at 25 fps to stick to their original framerate and the DCP's are worldwide screened without a issue. The advantage of 25 fps is that you won't have to change the sound when going broadcast/theatrical.
Click to expand...

How do you conform from 25fps to 23.976fps for your NTSC deliverables? Just run slower and pitch correct the audio?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Looking at the older threads, 25P is relatively new for DCP's so a few theaters in Europe with older equipment might not support it. But perhaps it's not an issue today.
Click to expand...

Not, it isn't anymore. The InterOp norm, even if widely used, is becoming deprecated and the DCI is advising to master now DCP's with the SMPTE norm, which allows more framerates. Cinema servers have been now updated. Sure you'll still find a few ones not updated, as you'll still find people working on Windows 95, but if you want a good screening, you won't go there anyway ;-)
 
David Peterson said:
Am about to start shooting ... would they prefer 23.976fps or 24fps?
Click to expand...

content is king - no producer who likes a work will say... oh you shot in 23.976... sorry can't do it, digital is only full frames

I suspect it doesn't matter, as 23.976 will just be converted to 24p for DCP without a noticeable difference.


I suggest shooting 24p whole frames.
If for some reason you want a 35mm print, you can convert to 23.976 - that will only make a 2 hour movie about 12 secs longer
 
Shoot 16x9 4K HD (3840x2160) and 23.98 ... this is economical and the format that the world's over Four Billion flatscreen users want. They didn't buy flatscreens so they could see bars.
 
we shot 23.98 and they just made it 24p just for the dcp, but it will live in 23.98 for broadcast and online, which is where most people will see it.
 
George Butterfield said:
Shoot 16x9 4K HD (3840x2160) and 23.98 ... this is economical and the format that the world's over Four Billion flatscreen users want. They didn't buy flatscreens so they could see bars.
Click to expand...

The OP asked what frame rate is best for a theatrical distribution.
In most cases, it will be delivered to theaters as a DCP, which is whole frames only, thus 24p.


Sure, if your only target is NTSC TV over-the-air, or film out as I mentioned before, then go nuts with legacy 23.976

Otherwise, everything else supports real 24p/25p whole frame streams in our digital world.
I don't know anyone who still watches anything over the air - but i'm in California, so go figure.

From my understanding, Netflix and most streaming services support source material in both real 24p as well as the old 23.976 for legacy.
Netflix, for example, skips one frame every 41 seconds on 23.976 fps source material streams, and delivers 24p.

Over-the-air is going to be a reduced quality anyways, so I suggest just converting to 23.976 for NTSC over-the-air TV in a multi-platform release plan


I get it, that 23.976 vs 24p may be almost a religious point of view for some,
same as old fat dudes talking about how much better Alexa is at the ASC clubhouse and laughing at the idea of using anything else,
But the reality is, the world is, has, and will continue to move towards 24p/25p and higher whole frame rate speeds.
 
Last edited:
Daniel Reed said:
same as old fat dudes talking about how much better Alexa is at the ASC clubhouse and laughing at the idea of using anything else,
But the reality is, the world is, has, and will continue to move towards 24p/25p and higher whole frame rate speeds.
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not fat, and second of all, no ASC member has any emotional attachment to 23.976 versus 24 because it makes no difference artistically -- we shoot what post production people tell us to shoot, and the majority of digital production for cinema and television TODAY is 23.976 in the U.S. If tomorrow, it is 24, then we'll shoot 24... after all we were shooting 24 fps on film cameras for cinema and television for decades! So suggesting that older cinematographers have some sort of resistance to shooting at 24 fps is ridiculous -- some of them are still getting used to setting their cameras to 23.976...
 
Sorry David, wasn't referring to you in the slightest.
I apologize for it sounding that way

I have a lot of respect for your work and perspective.

I greatly appreciate your contributions, especially all of the countless hours you've dedicated to cinematography advise.

I was referring to an experience i had:
I overheard (standing right next to) a convo maybe 18 months ago, at a clubhouse event, where three guys whom to me resembled rush limbaugh types, were patting themselves on the back about Arri - as if to confirm to one another how much better Alexa is and anything else was a joke.
Obviously, it takes more then a camera to paint a good picture - i was disgusted by the arrogance and assumptions of superiority they expressed.


in terms of the 23.976/24p, I only see it being an advantage for over-the-air delivery or film-out only, as most digital delivery is 24p (netflix, DCP).
From my perspective, those demanding 23.976 for acquisition for anything else, are akin in my mind, to the dialogue the three shared in my experience above.

Obviously, the golden rule alway applies - whoever has the gold makes the rules
When hired for a project, if they demand 23.976, then by all means, thats what they get.

And like you said, 23.976 vs 24p doesn't really make a difference creatively anyways and can be converted pretty easily between the two formats.

Once again David, i'm sorry for ruffling your feathers, and thank you for your continual contributions :cheers2:


David Mullen ASC said:
First of all, I'm not fat, and second of all, no ASC member has any emotional attachment to 23.976 versus 24 because it makes no difference artistically -- we shoot what post production people tell us to shoot, and the majority of digital production for cinema and television TODAY is 23.976 in the U.S. If tomorrow, it is 24, then we'll shoot 24... after all we were shooting 24 fps on film cameras for cinema and television for decades! So suggesting that older cinematographers have some sort of resistance to shooting at 24 fps is ridiculous -- some of them are still getting used to setting their cameras to 23.976...
Click to expand...
 
Daniel Reed said:
in terms of the 23.976/24p, I only see it being an advantage for over-the-air delivery or film-out only, as most digital delivery is 24p (netflix, DCP).
From my perspective, those demanding 23.976 for acquisition for anything else, are akin in my mind, to the dialogue the three shared in my experience above.
Click to expand...

Every Netflix show I've been involved with (including Narcos, Wet Hot American Summer, Sense8, Stranger Things, and others) has been shot and posted in 23.976, as are nearly all shows made in North America. This is not due to any kind of personal attachment, personal preference, or anything else of the sort. It is because there is an existing post infrastructure built up over many years that is designed around the fractional frame rates. This is especially true of post sound companies. All broadcast deliveries in the US and Canada are done at the fractional frame rate because that is how they are broadcast. The ease of post due to the existing infrastructure, coupled with the ease of deriving 24 frame deliverables (i.e., DCPs) is the reason use of these rates continues. People who use them are not fat dinosaurs, they are practical industry professionals who don't want to create new issues by using rates that are, at least in the mainstream US based post industry, a bit non-standard, whether that makes sense logically to those in other parts of the world or not.

That said, there are some studios that are moving towards standardizing the use of full frame rates for feature film shooting and posting. Fox comes to mind, but there are others, particularly when production takes place outside of North America. For broadcast, and for most OTT distribution, however, this is generally not the case.
 
As Mike noted, it is primarily the sound folks who request 23.976 because that's what works most reliably with most industry standard tools. I would also note that conflating an ARRI bias with what frame rate you shoot at is connecting two things that seem unrelated to me. Moreover, your dismissive take on experienced cinematographers is no more, or less, valid then their preference for ARRI. Do I smell troll?

Cheers - #19
 
This discussion comes around on a regular basis and after all the dust clears, the bottom line always seems to come back to the fact that 23.976 is what works best to synch with sound and so that's why it is usually used in a digital world.

I suppose anything can change... eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top