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

[David Peterson]

Soooo.... 23.976 vs 24 doesn't matter in terms of picture (either in terms of post or distribution), except the post production sound guys are most likely to prefer 23.976?

And 2.39:1 is preferred worldwide over 2.35:1 ?

 

[Daniel Reed]

Soooo... And 2.39:1 is preferred worldwide over 2.35:1 ?

In American cinemas, the common projection ratios are 1.85:1 and 2.39:1

You're most likely going to make a 4K DCP file for distro, which is typically "flat - 1.85:1" or "scope - 2.39:1"

however, you can put any aspect ratio in a DCP container with bars


SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package#Picture_MXF_files

and FYI, 23.976 for DCP is depreciated - aka, gone

 

[Kristin Stewart]

Well, a lot of misunderstandings here and there... David you should contact the lab/post-production facility which will handle your footage, or your dop, they'll help you.

 

[Marc Hutchings]

I tend to work mainly on 23.976 for feature films Guardians of the galaxy, exodus were if I remember correctly. 25p for TV stuff. I never questioned why people were using 23.976 so it's been an interesting thread.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

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 ;-)

And if you want a screening at some festivals and you have 25p, you go there with a version they can project. So you spend more time in post adapting material to 24p.

 

[Kristin Stewart]

And if you want a screening at some festivals and you have 25p, you go there with a version they can project. So you spend more time in post adapting material to 24p.

What make you think that they won't be able to project a 25 fps DCP ? We're sending a huge amount of DCP's worldwide for film festivals, and none hasn't been able to screen a 25 fps DCP. It's time to move on, no one is shooting on Hi8 anymore. And American doesn't mean worldwide.

 

[David Peterson]

In American cinemas, the common projection ratios are 1.85:1 and 2.39:1

You're most likely going to make a 4K DCP file for distro, which is typically "flat - 1.85:1" or "scope - 2.39:1"

however, you can put any aspect ratio in a DCP container with bars


SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package#Picture_MXF_files

and FYI, 23.976 for DCP is depreciated - aka, gone

Right, so if aiming for an eventual DCP distribution then 4K DCI 2.39:1 @ 24P would be sensible?

Well, a lot of misunderstandings here and there... David you should contact the lab/post-production facility which will handle your footage, or your dop, they'll help you.

Ah... I'm the DoP! Ha
Thus why I'm trying to 100% sort this out before we start shooting.

And we're ultra low budget (actually... we're less than even that).
So as to who our post house is... ?? Don't know yet!
We'll tackle that hurdle when we reach it.
The hope is the film we make will be so awesome we can get funding to get the post production touches done professionally.
But we might very well need to tackle that ourselves as well.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Soooo.... 23.976 vs 24 doesn't matter in terms of picture (either in terms of post or distribution), except the post production sound guys are most likely to prefer 23.976?

And 2.39:1 is preferred worldwide over 2.35:1 ?

For years, the reason it was easier for sound post to work with 23.976 is that they received a copy of the edited project in NTSC. Even 24 fps film material was telecine transferred at 23.976 fps because of the 59.94 Hz rate for video.

Today it is possible to avoid NTSC altogether in post of course, deliver true 24P quicktime files to post sound companies...

Anamorphic / CinemaScope projection stopped being 2.35 in the early 1970's but the label "2.35" persists today.

CinemaScope originally planned to be 4-perf 35mm full aperture (1.33 : 1 with a 2X optical squeeze, so 2.66 : 1) with sound on interlocked mag like Cinerama, but then a decision was made to get Kodak to make special print stock with smaller perfs (CS perfs) so that magnetic stripes could be added on each side of the picture, which trimmed the width to 2.55 : 1 and the image was centered on the print stock. All early CinemaScope movies were shot and shown this way.

Within a few years, the CS perf print idea was dropped and normal optical sound running on the left side only of the print was adapted, shifting the image to the right side of the print as with Academy and standard 1.85, and the width was shaved further to 2.35 : 1.

Then due to complaints about seeing flashing on the top or bottom of the projected image due to splices, a decision was made in the early 1970's to reduce the height of the projector gate to hide splices better, creating a 2.39 : 1 shape. In the early 1990's, the width of the gate was standardized to being the same as 1.85, but that still ended up being a 2.39 : 1 image once unsqueezed by 2X laterally. Current standard is 0.825 × 0.690 inches (21.0 × 17.5 mm), 1.1956217 : 1, so with a 2X expansion, it becomes 2.3913 : 1.

DCI specs for scope projection using spherical (flat) lenses is 2.3869 : 1 (for 4K, it is 4096 x 1716 pixels).

 

[Elsie N]

I tend to work mainly on 23.976 for feature films Guardians of the galaxy, exodus were if I remember correctly. 25p for TV stuff. I never questioned why people were using 23.976 so it's been an interesting thread.

And how fortunate we are to have someone with Encyclopedic knowledge, David Mullen, to contribute.

EDIT: Maybe I should have said Wiki-Pedic knowledge to be more in touch with the times.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

What make you think that they won't be able to project a 25 fps DCP ?

An email from a person taking care of the festivals for the last feature we co-produced, where one of those requires 24p. It shouldn't matter today but apparently still does in some places.

 

[David Peterson]

For years, the reason it was easier for sound post to work with 23.976 is that they received a copy of the edited project in NTSC. Even 24 fps film material was telecine transferred at 23.976 fps because of the 59.94 Hz rate for video.

Today it is possible to avoid NTSC altogether in post of course, deliver true 24P quicktime files to post sound companies...

Anamorphic / CinemaScope projection stopped being 2.35 in the early 1970's but the label "2.35" persists today.

CinemaScope originally planned to be 4-perf 35mm full aperture (1.33 : 1 with a 2X optical squeeze, so 2.66 : 1) with sound on interlocked mag like Cinerama, but then a decision was made to get Kodak to make special print stock with smaller perfs (CS perfs) so that magnetic stripes could be added on each side of the picture, which trimmed the width to 2.55 : 1 and the image was centered on the print stock. All early CinemaScope movies were shot and shown this way.

Within a few years, the CS perf print idea was dropped and normal optical sound running on the left side only of the print was adapted, shifting the image to the right side of the print as with Academy and standard 1.85, and the width was shaved further to 2.35 : 1.

Then due to complaints about seeing flashing on the top or bottom of the projected image due to splices, a decision was made in the early 1970's to reduce the height of the projector gate to hide splices better, creating a 2.39 : 1 shape. In the early 1990's, the width of the gate was standardized to being the same as 1.85, but that still ended up being a 2.39 : 1 image once unsqueezed by 2X laterally. Current standard is 0.825 × 0.690 inches (21.0 × 17.5 mm), 1.1956217 : 1, so with a 2X expansion, it becomes 2.3913 : 1.

DCI specs for scope projection using spherical (flat) lenses is 2.3869 : 1 (for 4K, it is 4096 x 1716 pixels).

Thank you once again David Mullen! I see you all over the internet, but even if I am scrolling fast through a thread I slow down to read your replies. As always a gem!

Thank you, this not just reassures me I'm on the right path I think, but also explains the historical basis for it and clarifies where some of the confusion of different options come from and why they're not relevant now.

2.39:1 @24P it is.

 

[Björn Benckert]

In short.

If you shoot in 60hz land. Shoot 24 or 23.97p.
If you shoot in 50Hz land then 25p is a better option.

The above is due to avoid light flicker, especially at higher frame rates.

Then after that it does not matter much, you just do your edit and online in the same fps as you where shooting.

Then if you sub master for a different region and a different frame rate is required you simply change the fps for picture and stretch the audio to match. No biggie. No problem to play back 23.97p as 25p and make sound 1.03fps faster per second. Same as it´s no problem to take the 25p source / edit and play it back at 23.97p and stretch out the final audio mix to fit.

Any sound studio worth the name can deliver a 5.1 mix to fit within minutes. Same with the picture to remake the DCP to fit 24,25,or 23.97p is a minor operation. Same frame sequence is used and the sound is just stretched or speeded up to fit.


So if you got some advanced editing program like final cut pro or premiere or such none of this is even an issue along as your total duration does not need to be an exact number of seconds on all regions, if thats the case then you normally do a reedit and extend tails for the 25p version if mastering in 24 or opposite, cut frames out from the 25p version to make the 24p dub. But thats if you need to have for example 45 second sharp, no more no less for all regions. But for feature stuff the total duration can vary a frame per second without much problem.

 

[Nicholas Austin Skinner]

And how fortunate we are to have someone with Encyclopedic knowledge, David Mullen, to contribute.

EDIT: Maybe I should have said Wiki-Pedic knowledge to be more in touch with the times.

Seriously, I love reading pretty much every one of David Mullen's "master class" posts. Same goes for many others here. Peace from the far East ~NAS

 

[M Most]

In short.

If you shoot in 60hz land. Shoot 24 or 23.97p.
If you shoot in 50Hz land then 25p is a better option.

I would answer that a bit differently. If you're shooting and/or posting in North America, 23.976 is the most common frame rate and is used by most post sound vendors unless told otherwise. Virtually all broadcast shows, OTT delivered shows, and most features done in the US and Canada are shot at 23.976. If you're working elsewhere, the larger question is what you're shooting and who you're shooting it for. For most features done in Europe, particularly those done for major US studio entities, production is usually done at 24fps. For nearly all broadcast productions, it's done at either 24 or 25, depending on how influential the foreign sales are. I don't know of anyone shooting at 25 fps for theatrical projects, but then again, I live in the US (although I do deal with many international productions - all of which seem to be shot at 24fps these days).

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I am sort of surprised - and a little confused - that there is insistence here that you can/should ignore issues related to broadcast if you are intending to go to festivals/theatrical. Do folks actually NOT want to go to broadcast eventually, even if they get the option? I know, you can go back and re-master if you want but isn't that just another potentially unnecessary step?

On another - somewhat related - note... I was recently watching a show called Marcella; produced in Britain and showing in the U.S. on Netflix. I couldn't help but really notice how "stuttery" the picture looked and I assumed it was because it was shot and broadcast in the UK at 25 fps. Would this be the issue of are my eyes and brain just wearing out? If that is not the reason (and assuming it isn't just me) is there another explanation? (Apparently shot on Sony F65 at 4K, FWIW). Thanks.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

If shooting 24.000fps in 50Hz PAL land, you can always use a 172.8 degree shutter angle for an exposure time of 1/50, avoiding in-camera flicker issues. Or just use an absolute shutter speed of 1/50 with digital cameras.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I was recently watching a show called Marcella; produced in Britain and showing in the U.S. on Netflix. I couldn't help but really notice how "stuttery" the picture looked and I assumed it was because it was shot and broadcast in the UK at 25 fps. Would this be the issue of are my eyes and brain just wearing out? If that is not the reason (and assuming it isn't just me) is there another explanation? (Apparently shot on Sony F65 at 4K, FWIW). Thanks.

Haven't seen the show, but I doubt 25fps would be the cause. It could be that you are noticing the motion cadence of the F65's optional mechanical shutter, though I have found the difference in look between the mechanical and electronic shutter to be minimal.

 

[Stacey Spears]

I was recently watching a show called Marcella; produced in Britain and showing in the U.S. on Netflix. I couldn't help but really notice how "stuttery" the picture looked and I assumed it was because it was shot and broadcast in the UK at 25 fps.

How does Sherlock (BBC) look on Netflix to you?

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.

Sorry to go off topic, but just wanted to comment on the "they didn't buy flatscreens so they could see bars" comment. I get that customers would like their screen filled, but filmmakers should not be restricted to a fixed aspect ratio to tell their story.

And 2.39:1 is preferred worldwide over 2.35:1 ?

As was going to dig up a few posts from David, over the years, on this very subject, but he beat me to it.

David you should contact the lab/post-production facility which will handle your footage, or your dop, they'll help you.

In the end, this is the best advice.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I would answer that a bit differently. If you're shooting and/or posting in North America, 23.976 is the most common frame rate and is used by most post sound vendors unless told otherwise. Virtually all broadcast shows, OTT delivered shows, and most features done in the US and Canada are shot at 23.976. If you're working elsewhere, the larger question is what you're shooting and who you're shooting it for. For most features done in Europe, particularly those done for major US studio entities, production is usually done at 24fps. For nearly all broadcast productions, it's done at either 24 or 25, depending on how influential the foreign sales are. I don't know of anyone shooting at 25 fps for theatrical projects, but then again, I live in the US (although I do deal with many international productions - all of which seem to be shot at 24fps these days).

What I mean is in europe 25p and 24p is used, Some features are shot 25p but more in 24p, in the US you get in trouble if you shoot 25p due to 60hz flickering lights but 24p does not have the issue, So for instance if you shoot a european feature scene in LA then 24p is a good choice, 25p in the US I had experience of, and that worked...less good. It cost me a client and a shit load of work as there was massive flicker in all the practical light tubes, and we shot film and did not take notice until we where back home. But yes sure 23.97 is the common standard for north america due to the lights at 60 Hz.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The hope is the film we make will be so awesome we can get funding to get the post production touches done professionally.

I have seen many sad and horrible disasters that start with this premise, particularly over the last 20 years. Trust me on this. Nail down your post workflow now and make sure it will work for what you have to deliver.

How does Sherlock (BBC) look on Netflix to you?

Just to add my two cents, I think a lot of the British productions I've seen like Sherlock and Downton Abbey have a kind of "smeary" look to them, a little too smooth and video-ish to me, which I attribute to the conversion from 25fps to 29.97 for PBS in America. It's not terrible, but it's a little weird compared to real 24fps. It doesn't stop me from enjoying either show, but it is noticeable under some conditions.