24p vs 30p vs 60p vs 60i
- Thread starter Jonathan12uiz
- Start date
shaocaholica
Well-known member
So when can we expect to drop legacy NTSC and switch to native integer framerate 30p/60p/24p digital broadcast with on the fly framerate switching movie(24)->commercial(30)->commercial(24)->movie(24)->news(30), etc, etc? 10 years?
With interlaced broadcast (we are not talking about 720 now) a TV must make a decision whether incoming stream contains native interlaced or progressive content. The stream may contain flags, but flags are unreliable, so a good TV must analyze fields to make a decision. Distinguishing 2-3 pattern is rather simple, you take three fields, if two fields are the same then presto, you got 24p, recombine and show as a whole frame, 1080 lines. With 2-2 pulldown it is not as simple, and also because there was little 30p content, most TVs sold in the US two-three years ago and yearlier do not care for 2-2. They just switch to video mode and show it as if it were 540p60. Hence, you lose spatial resolution, and you have already temporal resolution when you had shot your video at 30p. Loss-loss.
Read more here (same applies to interlaced broadcast and to Blu-ray, which has no native 30p mode):
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/the-dvd-benchmark/177-dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-scan-dvd.html
Here is a review of a good DVD player:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/dvd-players/284-a-secrets-dvd-player-benchmark-review.html
I hope that support for 30p gets better, but Blu-ray association was stupid enough to not allow native 30p. HD-DVD had it.
Yak
Well-known member
To my knowledge in North America the most used Broadcast frame rates are 59.94 or 29.97 interlaced or progressive. Properly recorded and edited footage which was shot in 30P (29.97) can be broadcast in ether of the most used frame rates with out added artifacts or loss of "vertical resolution"
Broadcasters do not shift frame rates on the fly, and it seems that a regular TV does not expect this either. So I doubt this scenario will happen anytime soon. 60p allows frame-based 2-3 pulldown, so even if the cadence is not recognized, the image will still be displayed with full resolution.
Yak
Well-known member
Yes I have and feel that Larry Warner does a very good job of presenting my point
http://lwp.com/LWP/Film_Look.html
my I offer these other sites which I found to helpful in understanding todays digital motion pictures
the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications
http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part1_480p.html
Yak
Well-known member
The articles which you linked to were about progressive DVD players I have been talking about NTSC broadcast
Barry_Green
Moderator
Wrong. 720p is pure progressive, there is no interlaced at all. And 1080p is codified in the ATSC as a certified broadcast standard, at 24p and 30p. In fact, of the 6 HD standards adopted by the ATSC, five of them are progressive-only, and only one is interlaced.
Furthermore, of the 18 formats (HD, ED, and SD) adopted by the ATSC, only four are interlaced, 14 are pure progressive.
It is not. It is sixty fields per second. Interlaced video never transmists "frames".
Not really. In fact, I can't really think of one. If you were talking about 10 years ago, I'd agree with you. But now, when practically every camera supports 24p and every editing system supports 24p and every delivery medium supports 24p and every broadcast standard supports 24p, there really isn't anything 30p does better. Except slightly smoother pans.
Yes, but don't stop there... if one is creating a production for "the film look" 24p is clearly the way to go. If one is creating a production for DVD release, 24p is preferable over 30p because DVD players inherently support 24p and they do not support 30p. If one is creating a production for blu-ray release, 24p is unquestionably the way to go. If one wants to create a production for the web, 24p is the better choice. If one wants to create a film-looking production for broadcast, 24p is the way to go.
The "movie look" is much more than just frame rate, yes. But if one is attempting to simulate the look of film, they're much more likely to succeed by emulating the inherent characteristics of film production -- and a central cornerstone of that is 24fps progressive capture. 24p does that. 30p doesn't.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, look -- I don't know who Larry Warner is, but I do know that DVXUser has been devoted to 24p origination and broadcast for nearly eight years now. I respectfully submit that we definitely and unquestionably know what we're talking about, and that we are right.
I've done entire television series in 24p. Every super bowl commercial you watched in January was shot in 24p. Every network television series uses 24p (except for "reality shows" which use 60p or 60i). Every episode of ER or House or 24 or ... ANY film-looking network series, is either shot on 35mm film (at 24fps) or 24p video. And then broadcasted.
The simple fact is: NOBODY uses 30p for much of anything. 24p is used for the film look (and yes, for broadcast) and 60p/60i is used for the live look, and that's about it.
Yak
Well-known member
from Larry Warner’s Resume (found on his website posted above)
Freelance Television Production / Director of Photography
Freelance camera operator primarily for all CBS News magazine programs (60 Minutes, 48 Hours Mystery, Sunday Morning, The Early Show, and The Evening News). Also: NBC (Dateline), ABC (Prime Time, 20/20), and PBS (The News Hour.) Director of Photography / Producer for Police Women (TLC) Season I / II / III. Corporate television clients included Oracle, Intel, Wells Fargo, McKesson, and Adobe. Nonlinear editor with FCP 6. Embed during the 2003 Iraq war. Well versed in HD acquisition and postproduction. Produced and directed a documentary in HD on prison baseball that was on the film festival circuit and aired on PBSʼs POV documentary program.
Freelance Since April 1993.
Like Larry, yourself and others on this site I also have over 30 years experience in motion picture creation. I have never meant to imply that my view is the only "right" point of view, I have only tried to point out that there are other points of view on the question of whether 24P is the only way to create electronic moving images which do not look like "Video"
Yak
Well-known member
From wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
Countries and territories using NTSC
North America
Canada, Over-the-air NTSC broadcasting scheduled to be abandoned by August 2011, simulcast in ATSC [17]
Mexico, Over-the-air NTSC broadcasting scheduled to be abandoned on December 31, 2021 simulcast in ATSC [18]
United States, High-power over-the-air NTSC broadcasting was switched off on June 12, 2009[19][20] in favor of ATSC. Low-power stations, Class A stations and translators are not immediately affected, nor are remaining analog cable television systems. NTSC also remains in use as an interconnect standard for A/V devices such as televisions and DVD players.
by the way I happen to live in Canada and as you can see till August 2011 NTSC will continue to be used
Barry_Green
Moderator
I'm sure he's a very talented camera operator. How that translates into being the ultimate arbiter of what 24p is good for, I don't quite follow. And it all comes down to this: the facts are what the facts are, regardless of who says it. And the facts are as I outlined them above. The entire video industry has embraced 24p, from top to bottom. Coincidentally the PDW700 is about the only broadcast camcorder from any of the major manufacturers that *doesn't* offer 24p.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Sorry, I do tend to be a bit US-centric as the vast majority of DVXUser members are USA-based.
Yak
Well-known member
Well I would not say all
From a interview with John Galt by Creative Cow
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
"You often hear cinematographers saying, there's something special about movies at 24 frames per second. This may be true, but I'll tell you one of the problems of 24 fps, it’s the reason we watch such a dim picture on a movie screen, because if you pump up the screen brightness, you would notice the flicker from the 24 fps motion capture.
So when you are watching in a dark surround and a dark movie theater, the eye and brain gets into this state called mesopic, that is neither photopic, which is full color vision in bright light, or scotopic which is night vision and no color. It's the in-between state between full color and no color vision. What happens there, the brain takes longer to integrate an image, so it fuses the motion better and we are less sensitive to flicker, but we also lose color acuity.
But we have to remember that 24 frames was never designed from an imaging standpoint. It was designed for sound."
and whom you may ask is John Galt
"John Galt, Panavision Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging, led the team that created the Genesis camera, was responsible for the F900 "Star Wars" camera, and continues to play a leading role in guiding future digital cinema technologies."
Barry_Green
Moderator
So are you arguing that John Galt doesn't embrace 24p? Seeing as he was responsible for the invention of 24p in video cameras? Sounds like he's embraced it just fine. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that the entirety of Panavision's business is based around 24fps equipment.
I don't think anyone is arguing that 24fps is flawless. 24p looks like hell during medium-speed pans. Sports and live events look "wrong" in 24p. But for cinematic use, it is the de facto unquestioned unrivaled industry standard, that is something that just can't be argued.
I don't think anyone is arguing that 24fps is flawless. 24p looks like hell during medium-speed pans. Sports and live events look "wrong" in 24p. But for cinematic use, it is the de facto unquestioned unrivaled industry standard, that is something that just can't be argued.
Yak
Well-known member
Berry I am not saying that 30p is the industry standard, what I am saying is that shooting in 30p(29.97) overcomes some of the problems of 24P has while retaining some of the advantages of a Progressive frame rate.
5 years ago if some one told me that a DSLR would be use to record parts of a major TV show I would have thought them out of there mind. As we all are aware there are new technologies offering new ways of telling stories with moving pictures, as we work with these new tools I suggest that we keep a open mind to how and why we work the way that we do. It is not enough to think because it is the "industry standard" today it will always be that way. It is also just as important not just to know what the standards are but to try and understand why they became the standard.
I like to work in 30P(29.97) because not only does it work well with North American Broadcast standards but I can create a look with that frame rate that I can not with 60i and as you mentioned 24P poses other problems ("24p looks like hell during medium-speed pans. Sports and live events look "wrong" in 24p") and for my self those problems are greater than the different look that the slower rate offers.
5 years ago if some one told me that a DSLR would be use to record parts of a major TV show I would have thought them out of there mind. As we all are aware there are new technologies offering new ways of telling stories with moving pictures, as we work with these new tools I suggest that we keep a open mind to how and why we work the way that we do. It is not enough to think because it is the "industry standard" today it will always be that way. It is also just as important not just to know what the standards are but to try and understand why they became the standard.
I like to work in 30P(29.97) because not only does it work well with North American Broadcast standards but I can create a look with that frame rate that I can not with 60i and as you mentioned 24P poses other problems ("24p looks like hell during medium-speed pans. Sports and live events look "wrong" in 24p") and for my self those problems are greater than the different look that the slower rate offers.
shaocaholica
Well-known member
I'm talking about the future, not the present. You could easily do this digitally by encoding the frame duration for each frame. Your TV set would hold a frame for its duration and then show the next frame. Your TV wouldn't even have to know the framerate, it just keeps showing frames as they come. This would even allow broadcasters to use any framerate they wanted at any time and switch between them at will if the content changes. Getting rid of pulldown will save on bandwidth.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
That's fine, but it doesn't merit blanket statements like the following:
That might be true for you, but it certainly isn't for many of us, so please don't present your opinion as fact. You can take some reversal film stock (which has limited latitude/DR like video), put it in a camera with a closed-down aperture, and shoot outdoors like an amateur, but to most eyes, it will still look like film. And it's not just because it actually is film; the 24 fps will be immediately apparent, even if the shallow DOF and cinematic composition, lighting, movement, and production design aren't there.
I can't imagine anybody disagreeing with the notion that 30p is technically superior to 24p. It seems inarguable to me. But what's important is that 24 fps is almost universally considered to be aesthetically superior to 30p for narrative/fiction/drama. And that's why every single narrative TV show that isn't specifically going for a reality or documentary style is shot at 24 fps. Even some verite-style shows, such as "Arrested Development," are shot in 24p.
You said yourself, "It is also just as important not just to know what the standards are but to try and understand why they became the standard." The industry has had the technology to shoot everything at 30 fps (including film) for many years. And yet professionals still choose 24 fps as the standard. Do you honestly think that it's because of some blind adherence to tradition? 24 fps has become a convention, a cornerstone of "film grammar," just like the close-up and shot-reverse-shot are part of film grammar. It's used because it means something; it's used to express something.