Is it better to shoot a TV commercial in 29.97fps or 30fps?

C

commercialguy

Member
Got this from the Fox Channel as the requirements to broadcast on their channel. It says 59.94fps at 720p. Most cameras shoot at 1920x1080p at 24fps, 29.97fps, and 30fps. So what should you shoot at and convert to?




HD Commercial File Specifications:


  • The file must be black to black, no slates
  • The file should be created as a movie file (.mov extension)
  • PREFERRED CODECS
( Avid DNxHD, H.264, Apple ProRes.)

  • The file should be formatted for 720p.
  • The frame rate should be 59.94fps.
  • The audio should be Two (2) channels 16 bit uncompressed at 48Khz.
  • The File MUST NOT be marked as a read-only
  • Video Bit Rate: 30 to 50meg.

SD Commercial File Specifications:


  • The file must be black to black, no slates
  • The file should be created as a movie file (.mov extension)
  • The file should be formatted for 480p.
  • The frame rate should be 29.97fps.
  • The audio should be Two (2) channels 16 bit uncompressed at 48Khz.
  • The File MUST NOT be marked as a read-only
  • Video Bit Rate: 12 meg.
 
commercialguy said:
HD Commercial File Specifications:


  • The file must be black to black, no slates
  • The file should be created as a movie file (.mov extension)
  • PREFERRED CODECS
( Avid DNxHD, H.264, Apple ProRes.)

  • The file should be formatted for 720p.
  • The frame rate should be 59.94fps.
  • The audio should be Two (2) channels 16 bit uncompressed at 48Khz.
  • The File MUST NOT be marked as a read-only
  • Video Bit Rate: 30 to 50meg.

SD Commercial File Specifications:


  • The file must be black to black, no slates
  • The file should be created as a movie file (.mov extension)
  • The file should be formatted for 480p.
  • The frame rate should be 29.97fps.
  • The audio should be Two (2) channels 16 bit uncompressed at 48Khz.
  • The File MUST NOT be marked as a read-only
  • Video Bit Rate: 12 meg.
Click to expand...

This is a delivery requirement, not a shooting requirement. Shoot whatever frame rate you think is appropriate for the commercial. You can deliver any of it consistent with their specs.

No video camera (that you're using) shoots at 30.000. They shoot at 24p (23.976), 30p (29.97), or 60i/60p (59.94). Even though 1080/60i is called "29.97," it's really 59.94.

All of those can be exported in the required 720p 59.94 stream with no problem at all, and each will retain its particular "look" or motion cadence when you do.
 
David Jimerson said:
No video camera (that you're using) shoots at 30.000. They shoot at 24p (23.976), 30p (29.97), or 60i/60p (59.94). Even though 1080/60i is called "29.97," it's really 59.94.
Click to expand...

29.97 frames per second is the same as 59.94 fields per second so either works. 6 one way, half dozen the other.


-Andrew
 
adkimery said:
29.97 frames per second is the same as 59.94 fields per second so either works. 6 one way, half dozen the other.


-Andrew
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same. It's the same math, but it's not the same motion. With 60i ("29.97" interlaced) you have 60 motions per second. This is the same motion as 60p (59.94 progressive). With 30p (29.97 progressive), you have 30 motions per second. They do not look the same (60i/60p look "live," 30p does not) and you should choose which you use based on how they look.
 
OP, I think your user name should be "questions about commercials guy" until you get up to speed. It's a misnomer as it stands right now.

You guys are saints who provide this dude with extensive camera & editing info, legal documents, storyboards, etc. What we have here is truly a case of "I'll let the internet do the work for me".
 
The Black Magic Design shoots at 23.98p, 24p, 25p, 29.97p, 30p. Using the example above, what would be the best to transfer into something like 720p 59.94fps?

Would you be better of shooting 29.97 or 30p? I thought TV commercials are usually shot in 29.97 and that was the industry standard?
 
Local, cheesy TV commercials are frequently shot in 59.94i. Major-market national spots are almost all shot in 23.976. They are usually DELIVERED on 59.94i or 59.94p, as per the broadcaster's specifications, but they're shot at 24p (aka 23.976) for the motion signature that gives to the spot.
 
David Jimerson said:
No, it's not the same. It's the same math, but it's not the same motion. With 60i ("29.97" interlaced) you have 60 motions per second. This is the same motion as 60p (59.94 progressive). With 30p (29.97 progressive), you have 30 motions per second. They do not look the same (60i/60p look "live," 30p does not) and you should choose which you use based on how they look.
Click to expand...

You said, "Even though 1080/60i is called "29.97," it's really 59.94."

It is really the same. 1080i60 *is* 29.97 FRAMES per second and 1080i60 *is* 59.94 FIELDS per second. Do I think 1080p30 and 1080i60 look the same? No, and I never said that I did. I'm just saying that describing 1080i60 as having 29.97 frames per second or 59.94 fields per second are both accurate.

Whoever started the mixing of frame rates & field rates in HD naming nomenclature needs to be beat because it leads to all sorts of confusion (as if the fractional frame rates weren't confusing enough).


-Andrew
 
adkimery said:
You said, "Even though 1080/60i is called "29.97," it's really 59.94."

It is really the same. 1080i60 *is* 29.97 FRAMES per second and 1080i60 *is* 59.94 FIELDS per second. Do I think 1080p30 and 1080i60 look the same? No, and I never said that I did. I'm just saying that describing 1080i60 as having 29.97 frames per second or 59.94 fields per second are both accurate.

Whoever started the mixing of frame rates & field rates in HD naming nomenclature needs to be beat because it leads to all sorts of confusion (as if the fractional frame rates weren't confusing enough).


-Andrew
Click to expand...

But 60i video is not made up of frames. It's made up of fields. This is not a distinction without a difference. Each field is from a different moment in time. You don't get a "frame" if you stitch two fields together. You get a mashup of two different pictures. Saying it's the same as a frame is where all the confusion comes from.
 
David Jimerson said:
But 60i video is not made up of frames. It's made up of fields. This is not a distinction without a difference. Each field is from a different moment in time. You don't get a "frame" if you stitch two fields together. You get a mashup of two different pictures. Saying it's the same as a frame is where all the confusion comes from.
Click to expand...

In interlaced video 2 fields = 1 frame. The odd and even fields are interlaced (interweaved) to create a single frame of video, as opposed to progressive video where the whole frame was recorded in a single instance of time. If you Google "interlaced video" you'll get lots of links and they all talk about interlaced frames being made up of fields. SMPTE timecode is based on frames too. Working with 1080p30 gives you the same TC as working in 1080i60. Each second will be made up of frames numbered 00-29 (I'm not factoring DF TC into this). As opposed to 00-23 for 24p or 00-59 for 60p.

What's confusing is the relatively recent (and inconsistent) mixing of fields per second (FPS) and frames per second (FPS) in video nomenclature when, prior to HD, it was all in frame rates. IMO, 1080i30 and 1080p30 is much less confusing than labeling one in fields per second (1080i60) and the other in frames per second (1080p30) even though they both have the same frame rate.


-Andrew
 
adkimery said:
In interlaced video 2 fields = 1 frame.
Click to expand...

Only because because engineers call the mishmash of two separate pictures a "frame." In no real sense is it a frame -- only in the sense that engineers decided to call it that. It's not even ever really displayed on an interlaced screen as a "frame," but as separate fields. When the fields are mashed together on a progressive screen, you get the interlace artifacts which everyone hates and it illustrates exactly why it's not a frame.

What's more important, pretending that those 60 fields make up 30 frames just because they've been called that for so many decades, or the number of actual motions per second? In every visual sense, the latter, not the former. In 60i video, the picture moves 60 times per second. That's what makes it look like it does.

Pretending it's 30 frames per second gives the implication that it's 30 pictures per second, and yes, that trips a LOT of people up. A LOT of people assume "29.97i" and 29.97p are the same because they're both supposedly "29.97." Well, they aren't.

Insisting that 60i is 30 "frames" per second is needlessly technical, and artistically wrong and confusing. If you want to know which frame rate to pick artistically, you worry about how it moves, not how the math works out because an engineer prefers to call it something it isn't.

And the entire point of my post was about how to pick a frame rate. You pick it because it gives you the motion you want.


The odd and even fields are interlaced (interweaved) to create a single frame of video, as opposed to progressive video where the whole frame was recorded in a single instance of time. If you Google "interlaced video" you'll get lots of links and they all talk about interlaced frames being made up of fields.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm well aware of the engineering. But when you're picking a frame rate, the engineering isn't your concern. The art is.


SMPTE timecode is based on frames too. Working with 1080p30 gives you the same TC as working in 1080i60. Each second will be made up of frames numbered 00-29 (I'm not factoring DF TC into this).
Click to expand...

And for 60i, it shouldn't be. The only reason it's that way is because of a compromise made 80 years ago which was never updated when it could have been.

It was all fine when the only video you could even get was 60i video -- didn't matter what you called it; there was no way to get confused. But now, it's really time to start referring to 60i as what it actually is -- 60 distinct images per second.


What's confusing is the relatively recent (and inconsistent) mixing of fields per second (FPS) and frames per second (FPS) in video nomenclature
Click to expand...

IMO, it's a correction of a mistake made a long time ago. And nobody really says "fps," anyway. They just say "60i" or "30p" or "24p" or "60p."

It's perfectly consistent, too -- when you see "60i," you know there are 60 movements per second, but the video is interlaced. When you see "60p," you know there are 60 movements per second, and the video is progressive. When you see "30p," you know there are 30 movements per second, and the video is progressive. When you see "24p," you know there are 24 movements per second, and the video is progressive. This is all very easy to understand.

But when you see "30i"? Are there 30 movements per second, with the video interlaced? No. There are 60 movements per second, not 30. THAT'S the real inconsistency.

To ME, THAT'S far more confusing. And indeed, as I said, I've seen many people make that mistake because 60i video is called "29.97."


when, prior to HD, it was all in frame rates.
Click to expand...

No, not prior to HD. The differentiation was made when more than just standard video was available on video cameras, which was more than just HD.


IMO, 1080i30 and 1080p30 is much less confusing than labeling one in fields per second (1080i60) and the other in frames per second (1080p30) even though they both have the same frame rate.
Click to expand...

"60i" tells you what to expect from the motion far better than "30i" does. You would expect it to look/move the same as 60p, and it does.
 
Interlaced video is inherently profoundly confusing. And sometimes people get hung up on that whole "two fields make a frame" thing, when -- as David has pointed out, there's nothing about a "frame" when you put two fields together.

I think it would be vastly more understandable (but less technically accurate) if, instead of 1920x1080i, we called it 1920x540p. Because that's really what it is -- instead of 30 "frames", it's 60 "fields", and each field has half the resolution of a real frame. Intellectually it helps to illustrate the difference (especially because 1280x720x60p and 1920x540x60p are visually indistinguishable in terms of motion). 60p and 60i look the same, the only difference is in the presence of a level of artifacting.

We are, unfortunately, stuck with the "29.97" misnomer because it's been with us forever, it's what Avid calls their timelines, etc. But that doesn't make it correct. The ONLY thing about interlaced video that could be said to be "29.97" is the TIMECODE. Not the visual display, but the timecode.

Fortunately, interlaced video is in its last iteration. Still highly prevalent, but hopefully it will never, ever be forced upon us again. The future of video is all progressive all the time, and interlaced will die someday, and all this confusion will go away with it.

Until that happens, we are stuck with interlaced as a delivery format. We no longer have to originate in interlaced, we can originate in 24p or 30p or 60p, and we can edit in 24p or 30p or 60p, but we do still have to deliver in interlaced for broadcast in standard-def or in 1080i. And when mastering out the deliverables, we can convert our edited format to the required delivery format of 60i (even if they ask for 29.97).
 
Barry_Green said:
IWe are, unfortunately, stuck with the "29.97" misnomer because it's been with us forever, it's what Avid calls their timelines, etc. But that doesn't make it correct. The ONLY thing about interlaced video that could be said to be "29.97" is the TIMECODE. Not the visual display, but the timecode.
Click to expand...

Correct. And what is the advantage of that? Nothing. Not a thing. And in fact, it prevents you from effecting movement-accurate edits on a SMPTE 29.97 timeline.
 
David Jimerson said:
It's all explained and thoroughly demonstrated in the 24p & Frame Rates tutorial. :)
Click to expand...
LOL, don't get me wrong, I know that info is important (why I read the thread in the first place).........

But these days, it's just audio.......weapons ...........and still photography work for me. Maybe I am getting too old for the video side of it.
 
David Jimerson said:
Pretending it's 30 frames per second gives the implication that it's 30 pictures per second, and yes, that trips a LOT of people up. A LOT of people assume "29.97i" and 29.97p are the same because they're both supposedly "29.97." Well, they aren't.
Click to expand...

I ran into the opposite problem all the time when HD was new and people thought 1080i60 meant 60 interlaced frames per second (aka 120 fields per second). That would always lead to a succinct discussion about SD always being talked about in frames per second but HD mixes both frames per second and fields per second in its nomenclature.


But when you're picking a frame rate, the engineering isn't your concern. The art is.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The only thing I've ever talked about is that saying a video is 60 fields per second is the same as saying it's 30 interlaced frames per second.


Barry_Green said:
Interlaced video is inherently profoundly confusing. And sometimes people get hung up on that whole "two fields make a frame" thing, when -- as David has pointed out, there's nothing about a "frame" when you put two fields together.
Click to expand...

Expect that with regards to interlaced video two fields captured 1/60th (or 1/50th) appart make up a unit of time called we've decided to call a frame. ;)

I was thinking about this on the drive to work after I'd posted and it dawned on me that David and I were coming at this from two different perspectives. When I think about frames and footage the first thing that comes to me is a defined unit of time. It can be made up of a progressive image, an interlaced image, a multiple exposure image, etc., but the frame is the fraction of a second I get to cut with. 1/30, 1/24, 1/60 etc.,. It's whatever image that falls within that unit of time we call a frame.

We could debate semantics about what should and should not qualify as a frame but that seems like debating about the whether or not football should be the name of a sport that doesn't really involve the feet nor a ball. Sure, 'football' might not be the most accurate name to describe the sport but never the less it is the name of the sport. Fields per second would be technically be more accurate in describing interlaced video, but the standards creating bodies went with frames (presumably a hold over from film) so, coming full circle, 60 fields per second and 30 interlaced frames per second are two ways to describe the same thing.


-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top