Best shooting format for distribution of 3D to TV

[Rudi Herbert]

Gentlemen,

I'm prepping a 6 episode underwater show that will, primarily, be sold on Blu-Ray and DVD in Europe, but my producers tell me they may try to negotiate its sale to two TV networks, one European and one American. So far, I've done plenty of 3D but it has been always aimed at either theatrical or disc distribution, so I've always shot at 24p. What is the usual, if such thing exists, format of TV broadcasters when it comes to 3D? Is it 60i or 50i in Europe? I'm trying to figure out what is the best format from which I could convert to 50 or 60 interlaced if needed while still keeping my 24p deliverables intact. I've always tried to bypass any interlacing for 3D, but I'm wondering if I will need to deliver a 60i version if I shouldn't shoot something other than 24p...

Thanks for any help,

[Björn Benckert]

I would shoot 2x 48p and then I would "stretch the audio" to fit to the different standards. In other words having 2x48p you can deal away half the frames and have 24p masters, also you can speed up the sound slightly and have 50p masters and or 25p masters. And you could probably play it back in 60p with out to much audio artifacts. So just like jackson, if you go for 48p you are future proof and market/standard proof.

48p is basically the best for all worlds.

[Marc Wielage]

All the 3D projects I've worked on for the past few years have been 23.976fps, and they've had no problems converting for foreign delivery. My advice would be to talk to the distributors first and ask them what they expect in terms of deliverables.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Shoot @ 48fps... The amount of detail you will get and diminished Motion Blur will serve 3D well... ;)

[Pedro Guimaraes]

Just be careful.....shooting at 48 in 3D you will be accumulating data faster than you can buy harddrives.....all so that you can deliver to HD specs.

Here is my .02 c

My recomendation is the following.

Shoot at 23.976

Why? If you ever need a 24 version of the program (for theatrical or other such application) you already have it.

Then you can simply apply a 2-3 pulldown you can easily make 23.976 into 29.97

Consequently 29.97 is the SAME as 59.94

59.94 is what they "call" 60i

So in conclusion if you shoot 23.976 as your master you can easily have 3 versions of your footage
23.97
29.97
59.94

The problem occurs when you shoot something in 59.94 and then try to make it 23.976. Looks ugly and is very hard to do in 3D especially (remember both eyes have to be exactly the same). Just ask the folks that made that mistake on the XGames 3D feature a few years ago! My close friends/coworkers were involved in converting the footage in that movie....was a massive undertaking....especially in 3d and under thier timeframe.

So you see the most economical way is to shoot 23.976 which is why of course it is the proffered timebase in most projects. It gives you the most flexibility.

In addition if you choose to shoot 29.97 as I pointed out earlier you use more TB's of data......if you choose to shoot 59.94 or 48fps then we DOUBLE our data consumption!!!! At 5k that is no joking matter.

Also the EPIC doesn't record interlace so we would have actually have to capture 60p. And that is a pain to convert to 59.94. Shooting at 60p or 60fps is not the same as 59.94!

Do not underestimate the power of the EPIC to consume HDD space!!...... I have shot my share of 6TB days this year in 3D epic configurations.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Agreed with you there Pedro... However 48fps, does indeed make miracles out of 3D imagery, for this I would prefer to spend the extra money in storage as we already did, and shoot at 48fps.

But again, to be considered here is the final delivery needs, its no coincidence that PJ, has chosen to go 48fps for the Half Billion two Part Hobbits... ;)

[Rudi Herbert]

Thanks everybody,

Pedro, that basically sums up my feelings, it's what I had thought I would do. I agree that 48p would be beautiful, and I've shot my fair share of personal projects up to 60fps, I am neither Cameron nor Jackson to demand my clients use these, as of yet, not mainstream frame rates. So 23.97fps will indeed allow me the most freedom AND be the most economical in terms of storage. Anyway, I don't even think I will end up using Epics for this project, I'm leaning towards these smaller housings that will allow me fly-throughs in canyon walls and reefs and I cannot fit the Epics in them, so most likely I'll have to use something else and leave the Epics for surface footage.

Anyway, thanks again

[Pedro Guimaraes]

Agreed with you there Pedro... However 48fps, does indeed make miracles out of 3D imagery, for this I would prefer to spend the extra money in storage as we already did, and shoot at 48fps.

But again, to be considered here is the final delivery needs, its no coincidence that PJ, has chosen to go 48fps for the Half Billion two Part Hobbits... ;)

I agree that i should deliver and improvement but what projector you know can even project 48? more importantly how many projectors in the scope of your distribution network can and will project 48? that is the chicken and egg issue at the moment.

Cameron and Jackson are hoping thier product will force many to upgrade and deliver 48fps projection. The same thing they accomplished with theaters going to digital projectors tey are hoping to do with framerates....

I would be cautious in making the decision to shoot 48fps at this moment in the framerate revolution movement....

[KETCH ROSSi]

I agree that i should deliver and improvement but what projector you know can even project 48? more importantly how many projectors in the scope of your distribution network can and will project 48? that is the chicken and egg issue at the moment.

Cameron and Jackson are hoping thier product will force many to upgrade and deliver 48fps projection. The same thing they accomplished with theaters going to digital projectors tey are hoping to do with framerates....

I would be cautious in making the decision to shoot 48fps at this moment in the framerate revolution movement....

Your concerns are well founded Pedro, however they are more 48fps capable play back Digital projectors out there then you think, remember that all the Digital upgrades made for all 3D and 4k ready systems all play 48fps,
just need to be calibrated for it.

Again, what I'm suggesting is what is the best looking images in 3D, Distribution however needs to be well considered, however,
I would spend more money inn storage, and be sure to have the 48fps version, even so the first one out is 24fps, so I'm future proofing my work, not that any one knows the future any ways... ;)

[geoffboyle]

Maybe people should read the original question.

A 3D movie for Blu_Ray and Euro TV distribution.

48fps is absolutely of no use to this guy.

Go with Pedro's advice.