Books on video tech?

S

Samuel Dilworth

Well-known member
I have a reasonable technical understanding of video or at least capacity to understand.

So, for example, I know the mechanism by which 10-bit colour depth gives more freedom to grade than 8-bit and have an intuition for the scale of the difference. I know the basis of the 180-degree shutter angle rule and its limits. I understand when and why an all-intra-frame codec is likely to give better results than a long-GOP codec.

But my knowledge of the history of video is negligible. Even the history of frame rates remains opaque to me after reading or watching countless superficial explanations. Indeed, I don’t even understand why I should choose one frame-rate over another, concretely, beyond simplistic rules that I’ve learned by rote. They’re probably wrong.

I’ve watched some YouTube videos by people who should know this kind of thing – accomplished film-makers – and even they typically don’t know (though many of them think they know). Misinformation is absolutely the norm out there.

Is 24 FPS the same as 23.98 the same as 23.976? I think the latter two are the same and differ from the first, but I’m far from certain and in any case don’t know why these three very similar frame rates persist in the modern world.

My camera offers luminance levels of 0–255, 16–255, or 16–235 (or equivalent 10-bit values). Some historical video baggage, probably, but why precisely? What should I use in which circumstances? What if I connect an external recorder? What does 8-bit really mean if the values are restricted to less than the full range of 8-bit?

Is there a resource that would give some solid structure to my patchy understanding of digital video, aimed at about my level of technical understanding? I prefer books but will take what I can get.
 
I cant suggest a book -

tech is changing pretty fast - books may date.

--

Coments..
Most dont understand 10bit colour (for 8 bit delivery) well done!
Wrong: Long GOP should be better per unit data rate

Frame rates - slow = jerky fast =smooth (and sicky?!)

18 is the miniumum to create an illusion of movement, 24 was picked for cinema to be a bit above this but still cheap as not too much film was expended.

Usually 25 or 30 are picked to match a direct mutiple of the grid mains hz and simply avoid fickering lights. 50 or 60 appear sicky and are aluded with the 'soap opera look'

24 23.98 ? I think it depends for examply my nikon z6 was recording at '30' while my sony at '29.98' put them into an NLE and both were actually at 29.98.
They are different though as siad on the tin.

16-255
Yep in the old days 0-15 were used for sound (! ?)
Recording16-255 will give you less data and is therefore 'worse' assuming you get the final output correct.

You can help yourself with framerates , record at a few and then play them back - can you see a difference ?
 
morgan_moore said:
You can help yourself with framerates , record at a few and then play them back - can you see a difference ?
Click to expand...
Sure, but often the considerations extend beyond what I prefer the look of on my desktop computer.

I’ve read plenty of opinions and have more of my own. There has never been a better supply of opinions than on the internet in 2020. Now I want to hear organised thoughts from people who have spent a long time thinking about these matters. Books are generally still the best way to get that, in my experience.

Razz16mm said:
This one looks like the most up to date general video engineering reference

https://www.amazon.com/How-Video-Works-Broadcast-Cloud-dp-1138786012/dp/1138786012/ref=dp_ob_title_bk#reader_1138786012
Click to expand...

Thanks. This Amazon review makes it sound very close to what I was asking for:

“This is a resource, not a textbook. It lays out the base for understanding digital technology in a concise, thorough way. It includes a history of the legacy technology that evolved into what we use today, and that still underlies some aspects of current systems and tools.”

Will try to get a copy.
 
I would echo Morgan thoughts. FPS isn't that complex. 24fps if you want a film look, 30fps for everything else, 60fps for fast motion like filming sports or nice frame rate to do slow motion. The decimals in the FPS is a hold over from the old broadcast days of tv and is irrelevant today's online delivery. Frame rates are the subject of forum banter. Heck you can't even see the difference what do you thing your non tech savvy viewer is going to notice? There's no harm in learning the history of video standards and how they evolved but it's not going to improve your film making.
 
Last edited:
I'm happy to be corrected by others, but as a general rule I'd say don't ever use "true" 24fps (i.e., 24.00, as is offered on some cameras—notably cinema cameras) unless you know why you're doing it (i.e., you're mixing film and digital).

Most consumer cameras that say "24p" actually mean 23.976; by all means, stick with this. Especially if you're using multiple digital cameras. This is assuming you want a "film" look to the motion; higher frame rates are nice for smoother motion.

I don't know how technical you want to get, but this book is about as detailed as it gets when it comes to understanding digital video: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007N1KVV2/

Less technical, but more relevant to cinematographers perhaps, is something like this: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0240817915/
 
Peter C. said:
I would echo Morgan thoughts. FPS isn't that complex. 24fps if you want a film look, 30fps for everything else, 60fps for fast motion like filming sports or nice frame rate to do slow motion. The decimals in the FPS is a hold over from the old broadcast days of tv and is irrelevant to day's only delivery. Frame rates are the subject of forum banter. Heck you can't even see the difference what do you thing your non tech savvy viewer is going to notice? There's no harm in learning the history of video standards and how they evolved but it's not going to improve your film making.
Click to expand...

The fractional frame rates for NTSC offsets still apply for broadcast delivery in North America. But they only amount to a 1 frame in 1100 difference in timing. (1000/1001) The main issue you have to watch for is matching audio time codes and samples to the the right video frame rate or your sync will drift on an NLE timeline.
 
Peter C. said:
I would echo Morgan thoughts. FPS isn't that complex. 24fps if you want a film look, 30fps for everything else, 60fps for fast motion like filming sports or nice frame rate to do slow motion. The decimals in the FPS is a hold over from the old broadcast days of tv and is irrelevant today's online delivery. Frame rates are the subject of forum banter. Heck you can't even see the difference what do you thing your non tech savvy viewer is going to notice? There's no harm in learning the history of video standards and how they evolved but it's not going to improve your film making.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Yes, we shot 30 fps(29.97) back in the SD days, BUT it was interlaced. 30(29.97) frames, 60(59.94) fields, so the motion cadence was actually the same as shooting 60 frames. I can pretty much count on one hand the times I have been asked to shoot 30p in HD or higher resolution since I started shooting HD ~17 years ago. It's either 24p(23.98) or 60p(59.94) (and about 1 in 1000 times 60i) for most all of my broadcast, network and corporate clients.

So, if you want it to look like "film"(cadence): 24p(23.98)
Everything else(video): 60p(23.98)

And I agree about non-integer frame rates. They finally killed off interlace with UHD, and I wish they would have killed off the fractional frame rates, too.
 
My project last week (for a BIG tech company) I shot 30 - I wanted it to be kind of slow and filmic (not as filmic as 24 but not as sicko as 60) and also there were lots of 120hz (I enquired in advance) monitors involved and as the job is a) not boradcast b) lots of screens we elected to 30.
 
Razz16mm's recommendation looks great, How Video Works. Your quest for the history of fractional frame rates is found right there in chapter 6.

It sounds like you're looking for a thorough understanding of the technical foundations of video, and I understand why you would like a book. The knowledge gained by hands-on trial-and-error, added to by random Youtube videos, is patchy at best and sometimes just wrong. Maybe one day you can teach us!

I don't know any other books about the specific topics you list, but here are some of my favorite books, websites, and videos about technical video things:

  • Roger N. Clark. This website was ugly even back in the '90s, but if you can get past that, he writes in an approachable way about digital, film, the human eye, etc.
  • Norman Koren. A website very similar in style and substance, this time by the founder of Imatest.
  • Adam Wilt. I loved this guy, back in the DV days. I'm not sure any of hist articles will be of interest to you, but if so, it will be hard to beat.
  • JPEG on Computerphile. This gave me a clear understanding of the formula behind JPEG, MPEG, and ProRes, called the Discrete Cosine Transform (in Part 2). I had tried a few times with books and articles, and it was still mush until I saw this. Excellent explanation!
  • Digital Audio by Monty Montgomery. By far the best explanation of the conversion of analog to digital and back again.
  • Producing Great Sound for Film and Video, by Jay Rose. Okay, this is drifting away from your original topics, but it's the closest thing I own to a book that treats a technical subject from start to finish. Okay, I actually haven't read the whole thing. I keep falling asleep. But it was a highly regarded book, and Jay Rose holds a special place in my heart, from my days as a member of the forum on dv.com. He died this year.
 
Last edited:
David Stump ASC’s book is pretty good, but it dates quickly too.
https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Cinematography-Fundamentals-Techniques-Workflows-ebook/dp/B00J5EKNYK

Books are difficult too. Many are very US centric and the rest of the world is different.

Re frame rates....Even in this thread it’s interesting to see opinions differ.

24P everywhere in the world EXCPET the US or Japan generally means 24P.

Often in the US and Japan it *really* means 23.98 or 23.976 (they’re the same thing just rounded).

23.98 is a left over from NTSC and it especially dominated in TV centric production because of historical / legacy SOUND post systems. There’s no good reason to keep shooting it TODAY but that’s still what EVERYONE uses if you’re shooting for TV in the US. You can argue with post supervisors till till you’re blue in the face it’s just something that is set in stone.

Films that are intended for ACTUAL cinema release DO tend to be true 24 in the US just to confuse things further.

So. That’s for drama.

For Live TV or reality or broadcast...

Many 50Hz power environments used to shoot 25P OR 50i for a 50Hz TV broadcast environment. (This seems to have been shifting to 24P.)

The US and Japan being 60Hz environments use 30P for a 60Hz TV broadcast environment. Also for sound post reasons, this is often *really* 29.976 or 29.98 (rounded) and not true 30.

Confused ?

Only in the US is it really confusing. Everywhere else it’s actually simple, till people start looking up “hints” and tips from US centric sources ;-)

These days it actually doesn’t matter too much, as long as EVERYONE understands and agrees on the frame rate and is on the same page. It’s a have once global conversation.

JB
 
John Brawley said:
David Stump ASC’s book is pretty good, but it dates quickly too.
https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Cinematography-Fundamentals-Techniques-Workflows-ebook/dp/B00J5EKNYK

Books are difficult too. Many are very US centric and the rest of the world is different.

Re frame rates....Even in this thread it’s interesting to see opinions differ.

24P everywhere in the world EXCPET the US or Japan generally means 24P.

Often in the US and Japan it *really* means 23.98 or 23.976 (they’re the same thing just rounded).

23.98 is a left over from NTSC and it especially dominated in TV centric production because of historical / legacy SOUND post systems. There’s no good reason to keep shooting it TODAY but that’s still what EVERYONE uses if you’re shooting for TV in the US. You can argue with post supervisors till till you’re blue in the face it’s just something that is set in stone.

Films that are intended for ACTUAL cinema release DO tend to be true 24 in the US just to confuse things further.

So. That’s for drama.

For Live TV or reality or broadcast...

Many 50Hz power environments used to shoot 25P OR 50i for a 50Hz TV broadcast environment. (This seems to have been shifting to 24P.)

The US and Japan being 60Hz environments use 30P for a 60Hz TV broadcast environment. Also for sound post reasons, this is often *really* 29.976 or 29.98 (rounded) and not true 30.

Confused ?

Only in the US is it really confusing. Everywhere else it’s actually simple, till people start looking up “hints” and tips from US centric sources ;-)

These days it actually doesn’t matter too much, as long as EVERYONE understands and agrees on the frame rate and is on the same page. It’s a have once global conversation.

JB
Click to expand...

Hey John. Quick note: Loved The Great.

Now on to my post... Once again, I disagree on 30P(29.97) here in the US. I serve largely the broadcast and network market and for acquisition, 99% of the time, it is either 23.98p(for things like features, sit-down interviews, etc.) or 59.94p(very occasionally 59.94i) and everyone is "broadcasting" in either 720/60(59.94) or 1080/60(59.94).

And again, the standards committee dropped the ball with UHD/4K. I understand the historic need, but those limitations are gone.
 
Run&Gun said:
Hey John. Quick note: Loved The Great.

Now on to my post... Once again, I disagree on 30P(29.97) here in the US. I serve largely the broadcast and network market and for acquisition, 99% of the time, it is either 23.98p(for things like features, sit-down interviews, etc.) or 59.94p(very occasionally 59.94i) and everyone is "broadcasting" in either 720/60(59.94) or 1080/60(59.94).

And again, the standards committee dropped the ball with UHD/4K. I understand the historic need, but those limitations are gone.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. My mistake.

Broadcast is 59.94 not 29.98.

JB
 
Thanks, all, especially Razz16mm, drboffa, combatentropy, and John Brawley for the books, a couple of which I intend to get.

Run&Gun said:
And again, the standards committee dropped the ball with UHD/4K. I understand the historic need, but those limitations are gone.
Click to expand...
What should the standards committee have adopted instead?
 
Agree the NTSC offsets are obsolete. One can shoot and post without using them and still export retimed files for NA broadcast if required. Many NA market video cameras still shoot them with no option to do otherwise though, whether they are labelled as such or not.

It can cause problems in post with sync drift of audio files recorded to different time base references, but most DAW’s and some NLE’s can retime audio tracks to correct the issue.
 
When I was starting in the field, I read a couple dozen books with overlapping information, which was a good way to strengthen the memory of certain concepts. Sadly, I dont remember the names of my favorites. But I think that a card to a good library is worth more than any single find.

Also, theres plenty of info to be gleaned from blogs (and podcasts now that Roger Deakins has one). A number of blogs periodically revisit technical concepts. Or there's Newsshooter, which typically focuses on industry news and gear reviews but is chock full of educational info along the way. I have no second thoughts about recommending Newsshooter because Matt Allard et al seem to know their stuff and are less likely to propagate something untrue.

One example of the latter is the idea that larger sensors/larger pixels beget more dynamic range. This is a common misconception that I held for a number of years until some on this forum disabused me of the notion. Now, I believe this is only the case at high ISOs. But that at low/base ISOs, there are other determining factors.

Which brings me to the last point I wanted to make, which is that you can't believe everything you read, even if it's from a knowledgable and trusted source. And that's probably the best reason to acquire knowledge from as many sources as possible and then - resources permitting - test the theory for yourself
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
Thanks, all, especially Razz16mm, drboffa, combatentropy, and John Brawley for the books, a couple of which I intend to get.


What should the standards committee have adopted instead?
Click to expand...

Sorry. I wasn’t real clear on that comment. I was referring to the non-integer/fractional frame rates that we still use here(i.e.: 23.98 instead of 24 or 59.94 instead of 60). They decided to finally do away with interlaced and go strictly progressive when setting the standards for UHD/4K/8K, but left the legacy “fractional frame rates”, even though they are not technically necessary today, like they were 40 years ago. I presume that someone was overly worried about compatibility, but as someone else said, this could have been easily taken care of afterwards and in an automated fashion without any user intervention, when necessary. When I shoot 1080/24P and feed it into my client that broadcasts in 720/60, no one is making any direct(hands-on) conversions, it all happens automatically by the equipment it goes through.
 
Agreed. Movies and commercials shot on film were shot at 24.00 fps, but somehow they worked out.

In fact, in countries that used PAL, they just sped up 35mm movies to 25 fps :Drogar-Shock(DBG):
 
combatentropy said:
Agreed. Movies and commercials shot on film were shot at 24.00 fps, but somehow they worked out.

In fact, in countries that used PAL, they just sped up 35mm movies to 25 fps :Drogar-Shock(DBG):
Click to expand...

I shot 16mm film for video finish for a decade. 24fps was telecined with a 3/2 pulldown film transport where sequential frames alternated between 3 interlace fields and 2 to evenly time out for a 30 frame (59.94 interlaced field rate ) transfer. Much of that work was shooting MOS footage of industrial automated assembly and packaging lines set to light jazz sound tracks with voiceover. The uneven frame cadence was really annoying at times so we wound up shooting our Bolexes at 30 fps to get frame for frame transfers when flying spot scanners became the norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top