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/700...RyClMCNKMULiE=

"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