Phase out fractional frame rates!

jmone said:
I'd settle for any global standard made on clean multiples (though I'd still suggest 25/50/100 makes more cents). The other proposal is that as screen refresh rates move higher the issue is lessened as you can get clean multiples at say 300hz for both 60 and 50 countries (but not 24 though it is close at 288 or 312 in 300 and at that refresh rate it may not be noticeable by most). Others proposed 240hz for clean 24/60 multiples but that still leaves out the 85% in PAL land.

On metric time, we already are hybrid using decimal time for sub 1 sec divisions (eg ms - instead of fractional).
Click to expand...

25 isn't divisible except for 5.

24 can be divided by 2,3,4,6,8 or 12. It really is the perfect math number of frames. In combination with 48, 72 and 96 for higher frame rate material.

25 is also darn near impossible to convert well to anything else and I would argue a bigger PITA than 23.976 is. 24 to 25 for example always had the most horrendous form of pulldown. Either skipped a frame every second which looked about as fantastic as it sounds or shift the audio roughly 4% and remap the 24 frame to 25 frames changing the length of the content.

Plus we have a huge library of good film based content people still enjoy watching vs the crude 50i poor quality TV content that will never look all that great anyway. NTSC TV series will be interesting to convert but the quality of those are subpar anyway so let them go through a crude conversion if we really must keep that content. I'm talking about shows shot on video cameras. Try as we might they will always be 720x480 interlaced 4x3 and not much we can do to make them any better anyway. At least 100+ years of cinema and TV film based content will still be great and need zero conversion.
 
Andy9 said:
If we are (hypothetically) reducing the number of frame rates in the wild and are all agreeing to abide by a new, shorter list of standard frame rates then it's not a foregone conclusion that we would choose 24 over 23.98 fps. I think that's the point he's making.
Click to expand...

Yes it absolutely is a foregone conclusion that we'd choose a round number over a long decimal. That's the whole point. I refer you again to the code snippet I posted earlier which demonstrates just how much extra work is implied by things like drop frame timecode.
 
Phil Rhodes said:
Yes it absolutely is a foregone conclusion that we'd choose a round number over a long decimal. That's the whole point. I refer you again to the code snippet I posted earlier which demonstrates just how much extra work is implied by things like drop frame timecode.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Phil Rhodes said:
Yes it absolutely is a foregone conclusion that we'd choose a round number over a long decimal. That's the whole point. I refer you again to the code snippet I posted earlier which demonstrates just how much extra work is implied by things like drop frame timecode.
Click to expand...

But the key issue is really conforming all content to a standard framerate rather than what that specific framerate is, no?

The only reason to choose the long decimal would be if it were a less costly transition based on the capabilities of legacy hardware. I'm not saying that it necessarily would be. (But it would be for me, for example.)

And you've still done nothing to address the discrepancies between different regional standards. Mixing 24fps and 25fps would still be a headache.

Is the exact same frame dropping or repeating at work with different framerate material playing on youtube?
 
ahalpert said:
But the key issue is really conforming all content to a standard framerate rather than what that specific framerate is, no?
Click to expand...

It's both. If you maintain fractional rates, you have to maintain drop-frame timecode, among other things. I mean, seriously.

ahalpert said:
Is the exact same frame dropping or repeating at work with different framerate material playing on youtube?
Click to expand...

Not specifically, but kind of. Devices like phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers tend to run their displays at fixed rates and simply update the video frame every time they've played back a certain amount of audio. If you've got a device that's decoding a 24fps video with 48KHz audio and running its display at 60fps, which is fairly typical, it'll show a new frame every time it's played 2000 audio samples. This will generally result in a fairly regular pattern of two repeated frames, followed by three repeated frames, although there is generally no specific intent to synchronise anything together. The audio hardware generally isn't phase-locked to the video hardware and as such the pattern will occasionally get broken with an added or deleted video frame somewhere. This is one reason that a Blackmagic or AJA I/O board handles both audio and video; that way, the audio and video timing can be locked together.

This is clearly not ideal, but it's a different issue than the one we're really discussing about fractional frame rates. In the end if you can have two video windows open with video at different frame rates playing back in each one and displayed on the same monitor, there isn't really a good overall solution to that beyond just setting the computer desktop to a high frame rate so that the errors are small.

P
 
Phil Rhodes said:
It's both. If you maintain fractional rates, you have to maintain drop-frame timecode, among other things. I mean, seriously.



Not specifically, but kind of. Devices like phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers tend to run their displays at fixed rates and simply update the video frame every time they've played back a certain amount of audio. If you've got a device that's decoding a 24fps video with 48KHz audio and running its display at 60fps, which is fairly typical, it'll show a new frame every time it's played 2000 audio samples. This will generally result in a fairly regular pattern of two repeated frames, followed by three repeated frames, although there is generally no specific intent to synchronise anything together. The audio hardware generally isn't phase-locked to the video hardware and as such the pattern will occasionally get broken with an added or deleted video frame somewhere. This is one reason that a Blackmagic or AJA I/O board handles both audio and video; that way, the audio and video timing can be locked together.

This is clearly not ideal, but it's a different issue than the one we're really discussing about fractional frame rates. In the end if you can have two video windows open with video at different frame rates playing back in each one and displayed on the same monitor, there isn't really a good overall solution to that beyond just setting the computer desktop to a high frame rate so that the errors are small.

P
Click to expand...

Yet another reason why 25/50 sucks so much. At least 24 has a mathematical way of working within 60. Devices should also shift to all 24/48/96 to make it easier on everybody.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Yet another reason why 25/50 sucks so much. At least 24 has a mathematical way of working within 60. Devices should also shift to all 24/48/96 to make it easier on everybody.
Click to expand...

24 has a mathematical way of working within 60 if you think every alternate frame having 50% more duration is a good idea.

The solution for devices might be something like AMD FreeSync or VESA Adaptive Sync, which allows the software to assume more control over exactly when the display is updated. It was developed to improve the performance of games, but it has application in video playback, too.

Creating displays with the highest possible refresh rate helps, too. Theoretically, the lowest common multiple of 24, 25 and 30 is 600, which is not something current display technology often does, but 100 plus is common. At that point the errors in the display duration of each frame become very small, on the order of 4-5ms, to the point where they're not objectionable. This is the only solution which really solves the issue of having two pieces of video at different frame rates in windows on a single display. It's a brute force solution but it's simple and works without anyone having to change anything.

In any case, the idea isn't to phase out any particular integer frame rates, it's to get rid of fractional frame rates which cause a lot of extra work.
 
I get what you're saying and I see the significance. But as a working cameraman, this issue hardly ever crosses my mind except when I need to double-check the framerate I'm requested to shoot in, which I would still need to do. I don't notice display or sync issues with my material playing online
 
ahalpert said:
I get what you're saying and I see the significance. But as a working cameraman, this issue hardly ever crosses my mind except when I need to double-check the framerate I'm requested to shoot in, which I would still need to do. I don't notice display or sync issues with my material playing online
Click to expand...

This isn't all about you.
 
I would like more specific details on why this is a major issue in terms of cost and complexity. I have done conversions for years and never found it to be complex. surely higher end facilities have and can mastered that skillset. Its not rocket science.

I still stand by what I said before that this only really impacts 1% of 1% of 1% of those who find themselves in a situation where they have to convert. The rest of the population is not impacted by this at all. A pretty low ROI for the FCC to get involved. 24p whole frame is already a standard and yet not everyone wants to use it for a reason. I'm not sure a handful of people should get to dictate forcing the rest of the industry just to save money on storage. An aspect that is not making or breaking a studio. No studio is about to go under due to storage costs. If they actually have the opportunity to make millions with distribution on a TV network the storage cost is barely a blip.

Most of us on here now distribute online. That means you can choose what the heck ever you want. If you shoot 24p and think you need to convert to 23.976 or accidentally do so thats your problem for not understanding what you need to do. If you shoot 23.976 and a film festival for whatever bizarre reason only wants 24 then you happily do the conversion and figure out how to get it right.

I just feel we are going to create more pain in an effort to create less pain. Even if it overlaps for years which it already does this is something that could take a decade or longer to deprecate fractional. Even when we do we have 70+ years of fractional frame rate content out there that will need to be converted. That means a higher cost not a lower cost over the next ten years. Suddenly all those classic TV shows like I Love Lucy will cost more to convert then the ROI will likely be. We will also force owners of that content on DVD and Blu-ray to suddenly buy new copies.

This is just a giant bag of hurt and I don't exactly trust the FCC would do it in a way that benefits everybody. Its a handful of greedy people that want this that will only really benefit themselves and nobody else. Nobody and I mean nobody will benefit from having I Love Lucy in 24 vs 23.976.

The world would benefit a lot more to eliminate both the need for 24 and 25 however. Having two larger markets of content producers in 25 and 30 base formats has been 1000x more complex then the difference between fractional and whole frame rates. When we moved to HD we should have eliminated that major world difference. Its a massive PITA to convert NTSC to/from PAL. There is no clean and decent way to do it. 24p is the one format that could bridge those worlds and has when it comes to film content.

If we really want to potion the FCC to do something that has any form of decent value for 99.9% of the wold they should consider working with the EU or whatever the other forms of the FCC around the world are to create a universal standard once and for all. While doing that we can eliminate fraction but just trying to change fractional on its own is rather pointless right now. We already have true 24p as a standard.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I would like more specific details on why this is a major issue in terms of cost and complexity. I have done conversions for years and never found it to be complex. surely higher end facilities have and can mastered that skillset. Its not rocket science.

I still stand by what I said before that this only really impacts 1% of 1% of 1% of those who find themselves in a situation where they have to convert. The rest of the population is not impacted by this at all. A pretty low ROI for the FCC to get involved. 24p whole frame is already a standard and yet not everyone wants to use it for a reason. I'm not sure a handful of people should get to dictate forcing the rest of the industry just to save money on storage. An aspect that is not making or breaking a studio. No studio is about to go under due to storage costs. If they actually have the opportunity to make millions with distribution on a TV network the storage cost is barely a blip.

Most of us on here now distribute online. That means you can choose what the heck ever you want. If you shoot 24p and think you need to convert to 23.976 or accidentally do so thats your problem for not understanding what you need to do. If you shoot 23.976 and a film festival for whatever bizarre reason only wants 24 then you happily do the conversion and figure out how to get it right.

I just feel we are going to create more pain in an effort to create less pain. Even if it overlaps for years which it already does this is something that could take a decade or longer to deprecate fractional. Even when we do we have 70+ years of fractional frame rate content out there that will need to be converted. That means a higher cost not a lower cost over the next ten years. Suddenly all those classic TV shows like I Love Lucy will cost more to convert then the ROI will likely be. We will also force owners of that content on DVD and Blu-ray to suddenly buy new copies.

This is just a giant bag of hurt and I don't exactly trust the FCC would do it in a way that benefits everybody. Its a handful of greedy people that want this that will only really benefit themselves and nobody else. Nobody and I mean nobody will benefit from having I Love Lucy in 24 vs 23.976.

The world would benefit a lot more to eliminate both the need for 24 and 25 however. Having two larger markets of content producers in 25 and 30 base formats has been 1000x more complex then the difference between fractional and whole frame rates. When we moved to HD we should have eliminated that major world difference. Its a massive PITA to convert NTSC to/from PAL. There is no clean and decent way to do it. 24p is the one format that could bridge those worlds and has when it comes to film content.

If we really want to potion the FCC to do something that has any form of decent value for 99.9% of the wold they should consider working with the EU or whatever the other forms of the FCC around the world are to create a universal standard once and for all. While doing that we can eliminate fraction but just trying to change fractional on its own is rather pointless right now. We already have true 24p as a standard.
Click to expand...

Fractional frame rates didn't come about until color TV. It was a technical "necessity" to make color compatible with the existing B&W system. And I Love Lucy was shot on 35mm film.

Why would anyone have to re-buy their existing DVD's, Blu-ray's, etc.? The idea is to phase it out moving forward for acquisition. Make your "players" able to play anything, but simplify/streamline acquisition moving forward. I'm kind of surprised at the pushback on this. I don't edit or have anything to do with the post chain, really, and I've been for this for years.
 
Run&Gun said:
. I'm kind of surprised at the pushback on this. I don't edit or have anything to do with the post chain, really, and I've been for this for years.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say my reaction is pushback. More like indifference. Except to the fact that I'd have to shitcan some of my cameras. So, I give it a militant 'meh'
 
ahalpert said:
I get what you're saying and I see the significance. But as a working cameraman, this issue hardly ever crosses my mind except when I need to double-check the framerate I'm requested to shoot in, which I would still need to do. I don't notice display or sync issues with my material playing online
Click to expand...

If you don't notice the issues right now, you're very unlikely to if anything does change. What it would do is to make things a lot easier for people doing anything other than the most straightforward workflows, and for engineers on software and hardware. If nothing else it's inevitable that everything that's currently supported is likely to continue being supported for a long transitional period.

There will never be a good time to do during like this. In general, i think it's a nettle well worth grasping.
 
Run&Gun said:
Fractional frame rates didn't come about until color TV. It was a technical "necessity" to make color compatible with the existing B&W system. And I Love Lucy was shot on 35mm film.

Why would anyone have to re-buy their existing DVD's, Blu-ray's, etc.? The idea is to phase it out moving forward for acquisition. Make your "players" able to play anything, but simplify/streamline acquisition moving forward. I'm kind of surprised at the pushback on this. I don't edit or have anything to do with the post chain, really, and I've been for this for years.
Click to expand...

Not pushing back. Just a bit surprised its now being made to be a big deal. I'm also realistic knowing that its actually not that big of a deal. Its at best a first world problem that only impacts 0.1% of the population. Even that may b a very generous number. We can probably count the number of people that run into conversion issues on our hands of those involved in this discussion.

I Love Lucy was a bad example. Producers can already do 24 if they want to. 24 is a standard format on Blu-ray and streaming. So where is the issue exactly? 29.97 and 59.94? Who is converting that?

I just think the world would benefit 1000x more by having a universal global video standard. I find conversion between 24 and 23.976 much easier than the conversion from 60i to 50i or 50p to 60p. If we truly want to create some kind of a crusade to make video frame rates better then we should do it right.

I also don't buy the sync issues. Only those completely clueless or inexperienced have those kind of sync issues.

Should we get rid of fractional frame rates? Of course but we already took the steps to do so. When we moved to HD and Blu-ray we set true 24 as a standard and producers could totally use it for most distribution. I'm just not sure what we are asking the FCC to force here or how that may be practical. I just know myself and most here will be and never are impacted personally by this. Its one thing to say yeah lets do that but its another to say its totally necessary. We already have overlapping features to help phase it out and its just not happening. We need to ask ourselves why?
 
Thomas Smet said:
When we moved to HD and Blu-ray we set true 24 as a standard and producers could totally use it for most distribution. I'm just not sure what we are asking the FCC to force here or how that may be practical. I just know myself and most here will be and never are impacted personally by this. Its one thing to say yeah lets do that but its another to say its totally necessary. We already have overlapping features to help phase it out and its just not happening. We need to ask ourselves why?
Click to expand...
That's not even remotely true. Not even a little bit.

24fps became standard for 35 mm sound film in the 1920s. One hundred years ago!

HD frame rates include the following:
  • 23.976 Hz (film-looking frame rate compatible with NTSC clock speed standards)
  • 24 Hz (international film and ATSC high-definition material)
  • 25 Hz (PAL film, DVB standard-definition and high-definition material)
  • 29.97 Hz (NTSC film and standard-definition material)
  • 30 Hz (NTSC film, ATSC high-definition material)
  • 50 Hz (DVB high-definition material)
  • 59.94 Hz (ATSC high-definition material)
  • 60 Hz (ATSC high-definition material)
HD and Blu ray most emphatically did not set true 24 as a standard.

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Why would producers distribute in outdated 1080p in the year 2021?

Distribute what, exactly? To whom?

Since when did producers distribute anything?

Production companies or distribution companies distribute movies, not producers.

How does whatever in the world you're proposing solve the very real problem of fractional frame rates
for streaming services and broadcasters?

Are you saying that Netflix should return to the model of shipping media by post and leave the streaming business?

"I'm just not sure what we are asking the FCC to force here or how that may be practical".

We weren't aware that anyone was asking the FCC to force anyone to do anything.

Probably because no one was.

"I just know myself and most here will be and never are impacted personally by this."

Will be and never are? Is that even the English language?

"We already have overlapping features to help phase it out and its just not happening."

What in the world is 'overlapping features' supposed to even mean? Oh right, nothing!

Phase what out? What's not happening?

"Its at best a first world problem that only impacts 0.1% of the population".

Broadcast and streaming services generate hundreds of billions every year and the broadcasting industry employs 1/4 million people in the US alone.

The number of subscriptions to online video streaming services worldwide surpassed one billion.

The task of ensuring that audio and captions are synched with video affects everyone.

"Its one thing to say yeah lets do that but its another to say its totally necessary" "We need to ask ourselves why?" SMH
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top