ahalpert
Major Contributor
This is totally uncalled for
Phase out fractional frame rates!
- Thread starter jonpais
- Start date
This is totally uncalled for
jonpais
Well-known member
Replaced with the more appropriate SMH
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Ok this is getting unnecessarily ugly now and not a tone this forum should accept. You have been reported.
I'm not sure why you are getting so angry about all of this. Why is this upsetting you so much? You are not going to make your case by being rude and insulting about it. Thats not how you win over people. Its not even that big of a deal and you are turning this into some kind of global catastrophe. If you would listen we all agree we would be better off without fractional frame rates. The point some of us are making is that its not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.
No duh Blu-ray didn't invent 24p. It was the first format to add it as a standard supported format however. For the first time content could be distributed to consumers as true 24p if producers/studios/Tom,Dick&Harry/Whoever wanted to. That is a fact my friend. Same goes for streaming content. Vimeo and YouTube doesn't care what the frame rate is and producers and the rest of us can stay true 24p if we want to. Today if one actually has a camera capable of shooting true 24p they very likely will stay true 24p unless they get some kind of a TV deal. If they actually do then great for them and the money they will make will utterly dwarf the storage and conversion cost if they do have to convert to 23.976.
You clearly don't know how to convert media if you think this impacts billions of consumers. Very few are ever impacted by a 23.976 to 24 conversion unless an amateur screws up. I have never had a single conversion ever mess up or purchased a single DVD, Blu-ray or watched any HD or 4k stream that had sync issues due to this. You are really trying very hard to turn ant hills into mountains and convince the rest of us that the sky is falling.
I brought up the FCC because this isn't just up to the manufacturers. The FCC dictates what formats we have in the US. They create the standard and not Sony or Samsung. This is a pointless exercise and campaign and anyone that knows anything about the FCC and broadcast would know that. Even the website you posted is a joke. Its a wishful thinking blog post and nothing more. This isn't even a serious initiative but an online petition.
Now if you really want to be serious then you should attempt to get the FCC involved but I think you will need to go much further than this.
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
I think that phasing out fractional frame rates moves us closer to that, or at least in the right direction. We don’t have to worry about interlace anymore, when shooting 4K and beyond. And this would get rid of four more variables/differences(actually five, because 119.88p is an UHD frame rate).
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I'm not convinced that would get us any closer. 29.97 or 30 to 25 is still an equal challenge. Same with 59.94 or 60 to 50. In fact fractional or whole frames are pretty much equal effort to convert to PAL formats.
The only ones that really benefit from this are those that may mix fractional or whole frame content like 24p video with 23.976p video for example. I'm willing to bet the majority that back this petition are users of 23.976 and 24p cameras and have had to deal with mixing the two together.
Technically 29.97 and 30p are not common broadcast formats anyway. Its 23.976, 24, 59.94 and 60 that are the common formats. Its only video cameras that have really pushed 30p as some kind of a budget format. Those actually using 29.97p I doubt are mixing a lot of true 30p and 29.97p content. I guess it could happen but are there any cameras that can only shoot true 30p and not 29.97p? If there are just how common is it to mix the two? Most shooters of 29.97p are not worrying about broadcast distribution and use it because its easier than 24p or budget cameras don't include a 24p option and don't yet have the ability to shoot 4k 60p. I just don't think its nearly as common as it is with 24p to mix whole and fractional. Who the heck is creating a true 30p master and then complaining about needing a 29.97p master? Likely very few if anybody.
Its exceptionally rare to deal with 59.94p vs 60p conversion. Most shooting 59.94 are either doing so for slow motion or because they plan on staying in a plain old everyday 59.94 look for video. I would argue if one accidentally shoots 59.94 and 60p thats kind of on them for making that mistake. I can't think of any cameras that can shoot true 60p only and not 59.94. I also don't know of any distribution method that only works with true 60p. So if one is mastering at true 60p they are making a huge mistake.
Same goes for 120p. Anyone actually shooting it is going to stay in the standard 119.88p format. There is absolutely no reason not to. If its going to go through any kind of conversion its likely 99% of the time going to be to 59.94 and not to whole frames. Unless again if its slow motion but then it doesn't really matter.
I would rather see it all done at once and not baby steps if we must do something. Any online petition should be to try to create a global standard which also includes eliminating fractional frame rates.
I also find this petition flawed because like I said earlier it mentions nothing about the FCC. The manufacturers do not dictate if we keep fractional or not. The FCC does. Now if the petition would want manufacturers to always include the option of whole frames thats fine but the FCC determines if fractional ends or not.
Phil Rhodes
Well-known member
I'm surprised at some of the responses.
What we're talking about here is phasing something out, with emphasis on phasing. This stuff would need to be supported for years, probably decades, precisely so as not to break backward compatibility with things exactly like people's DVD collections.
People have suggested the status quo isn't a problem, and they're right; we cope. What I would say is that if you aren't seeing a problem, that's only possible because an awful lot of complicated, difficult, fault-prone, ultimately expensive engineering has been done, and you're the one paying for that engineering either way. If you aren't noticing that, great - that's how it's supposed to be, but don't overlook the enormous amount of work that's being done, that you aren't really aware of, in order to make that happen.
As to who makes the decision it isn't ideally either the manufacturers or the FCC; this is certainly not just an American problem. This sort of thing should come from the standards bodies, outfits like the SMPTE and EBU. Bear in mind that those bodies are often made up of people who work at the manufacturers anyway, so it tends to work out quite well; we end up with standards that are reasonably practical (HDR and rec. 2020 notwithstanding, but I digress).
Even if this were to be implemented it's not a big deal. It's a process. As I say, there's a bit of a nettle to grasp, but there'll never be a time when that's not the case.
P
What we're talking about here is phasing something out, with emphasis on phasing. This stuff would need to be supported for years, probably decades, precisely so as not to break backward compatibility with things exactly like people's DVD collections.
People have suggested the status quo isn't a problem, and they're right; we cope. What I would say is that if you aren't seeing a problem, that's only possible because an awful lot of complicated, difficult, fault-prone, ultimately expensive engineering has been done, and you're the one paying for that engineering either way. If you aren't noticing that, great - that's how it's supposed to be, but don't overlook the enormous amount of work that's being done, that you aren't really aware of, in order to make that happen.
As to who makes the decision it isn't ideally either the manufacturers or the FCC; this is certainly not just an American problem. This sort of thing should come from the standards bodies, outfits like the SMPTE and EBU. Bear in mind that those bodies are often made up of people who work at the manufacturers anyway, so it tends to work out quite well; we end up with standards that are reasonably practical (HDR and rec. 2020 notwithstanding, but I digress).
Even if this were to be implemented it's not a big deal. It's a process. As I say, there's a bit of a nettle to grasp, but there'll never be a time when that's not the case.
P
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I'm not opposed to the change. I'm opposed to this method of the change. Every person on the planet would like whole frames myself included. I'm being 100% honest when I say I just don't think this online petition in its current form will go anywhere. I'm not trying to be rude about it but realistic. I would think we would want to adapt the movement and try to make it more effective instead of just saying oh hey neat and then forget about it for the next five years.
My point was always that for many we already have that option. We have had support for whole 24p for a long time now to start the phasing out. We can use full 30 or full 60 on YouTube if we wish. 99% of us will only ever distribute with methods that already support whole frames. It is also a hard fact that the majority don't even think of this stuff. They shoot 29.97 in their camera, edit in 29.97 and deliver in 29.97. I 10000000% agree we should start phasing out 23.976 and we actually have started that many years ago. My GH4 is a seven year old camera that can shoot whole 24. Blu-ray supports whole 24p and most streaming platforms we use like YouTube and Vimeo support whole 24p. We can host our own video on CDNs in whole 24p if we want to. BMD cameras including the $1,300 P4k can shoot whole 24p. We can already start phasing out 23.976 and some of us in fact have. How many shooting with 23.976 only DSLRs are mixing into broadcast projects?
I have converted video for decades between whole, fractional, NTSC and PAL and I have never found it overly complex or problematic. To me converting 23.976 or 24 to 25 is the exact same effort and cost. Again since I apparently need to spell it out I'm ok with eliminating fractional. I just want to see it done in an effective way that does not negatively impact consumers. Its a issue but not serious enough or impacting enough people to justify making the lives of consumers more complicated or expensive. There is phasing out in a smart way and phasing out in a not so smart way. I just think its important to weigh the impacts and come up with a phasing out plan that does not hurt anybody. Just when is a good time to drop 23.976 support from TVs? Should they keep it forever just in case?
This is also not going to change overnight. We could be looking at many years to phase it out in the least obtrusive way. I think this petition needs a lot more fleshing out of the details of how to make this happen. Its half baked right now and sadly I think it is going to fizzle out because of that which puts us nowhere.
I'm also surprised at some of the responses that make this out to be a huge deal. I get we all want it but I just don't see it as that complex of an issue to pretend like the world will end if we don't do this. I see the difference between 30/60 and 25/50 to be a much bigger issue and would rather see that happen first or at the same time.
My point was always that for many we already have that option. We have had support for whole 24p for a long time now to start the phasing out. We can use full 30 or full 60 on YouTube if we wish. 99% of us will only ever distribute with methods that already support whole frames. It is also a hard fact that the majority don't even think of this stuff. They shoot 29.97 in their camera, edit in 29.97 and deliver in 29.97. I 10000000% agree we should start phasing out 23.976 and we actually have started that many years ago. My GH4 is a seven year old camera that can shoot whole 24. Blu-ray supports whole 24p and most streaming platforms we use like YouTube and Vimeo support whole 24p. We can host our own video on CDNs in whole 24p if we want to. BMD cameras including the $1,300 P4k can shoot whole 24p. We can already start phasing out 23.976 and some of us in fact have. How many shooting with 23.976 only DSLRs are mixing into broadcast projects?
I have converted video for decades between whole, fractional, NTSC and PAL and I have never found it overly complex or problematic. To me converting 23.976 or 24 to 25 is the exact same effort and cost. Again since I apparently need to spell it out I'm ok with eliminating fractional. I just want to see it done in an effective way that does not negatively impact consumers. Its a issue but not serious enough or impacting enough people to justify making the lives of consumers more complicated or expensive. There is phasing out in a smart way and phasing out in a not so smart way. I just think its important to weigh the impacts and come up with a phasing out plan that does not hurt anybody. Just when is a good time to drop 23.976 support from TVs? Should they keep it forever just in case?
This is also not going to change overnight. We could be looking at many years to phase it out in the least obtrusive way. I think this petition needs a lot more fleshing out of the details of how to make this happen. Its half baked right now and sadly I think it is going to fizzle out because of that which puts us nowhere.
I'm also surprised at some of the responses that make this out to be a huge deal. I get we all want it but I just don't see it as that complex of an issue to pretend like the world will end if we don't do this. I see the difference between 30/60 and 25/50 to be a much bigger issue and would rather see that happen first or at the same time.