From: "JC Soret" To: "Telecine Internet Group" Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:34:24 -0000 Subject: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? Hi, I would like to know if commercials in the US are shot 24 or 30 fps. I thought 30 fps was the logical way: one film frame for one video frame, apparently it is not always the case. I was told today that some films are shot 24fps to save on footage and if there is some post then they get rid of the 3/2 pull down, composite the scene, and put the 3/2 back. Is it common practice? Does this make sense ? I would appreciate your comments. Best regards. JC Colorist London Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:49:40 -0400 From: Ken Robinson To: JC Soret Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? Down here at the end of the world nearly everything is shot at 24. One director now insists on 30 for everything, but mostly only special effects are shot at 30, although one production company now tells me that they are happy with the quality of cine expand etc, so shoot everything at 24! They are the clients and they know best......! What can I say! Ken JC Soret wrote: > Hi, I would like to know if commercials in the US are shot 24 or 30 > fps. I thought 30 fps was the logical way: one film frame for one video -- ***************************** Ken Robinson Imagen Transfer Ltda. Santiago de Chile 186,282.396 miles per second. Not just a good idea..... It's the LAW! From: rob@alegria.com (Rob Lingelbach) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 21:08:54 -0600 To: telecine internet group Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? On Nov 11, 23:34, "JC Soret" wrote: } Subject: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? > Hi, I would like to know if commercials in the US are shot 24 or 30 > fps. I thought 30 fps was the logical way: one film frame for one video JC, my experience is that most commercials shot by US production companies for distribution here are shot and transferred at 24 fps. All of the work I've done in the past few years for Japan, however, was shot and transferred at 30 fps. Most commercials with special effects are shot and transferred at 30 fps. We've debated several times the merits of 24 vs. 30 for various viewing scenaria-- personally, I prefer 24 for theatrical showing, and I'm sure I'll prefer 24P over 30P. (wish I could be at the LA SMPTE meeting tonight that demonstrates 24P/1080i.) I believe the slower framerate is more evocative, and better for telling a story. > they get rid of the 3/2 pull down, composite the scene, and put the 3/2 > back. Is it common practice? perhaps someone will correct me if their experience is different, but I think almost all jobs here in the US that involve compositing are shot and transferred/edited at 30. I do recall working on a few that were shot 24 and cinecompressed/cineexpanded through the effects process, but very much in the minority. --Rob Lingelbach Senior Colorist FWC Dallas -- Rob Lingelbach | "I would give nothing for that man's religion rob@alegria.com | whose very dog and cat are not the better for it." www.alegria.com --Rowland Hill, "Village Dialogues", via A. Lincoln Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:17:31 -0400 From: Ken Robinson To: Telecine Forum Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? Rob Lingelbach wrote: > I believe the slower > framerate is more evocative, and better for telling a story. Except it may seem in a movie I saw the other evening. Eyes of the Serpent with N. Cage, where there was a massive 270deg (or so it seemed) pan inside a casino in Atlantic City, and frankly the flicker was nausea inducing!!! Ken -- ***************************** Ken Robinson Imagen Transfer Ltda. Santiago de Chile 186,282.396 miles per second. Not just a good idea..... It's the LAW! Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 8:44:00 -0600 From: steven flippin To: telecine@alegria.com Subject: RE: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? ===== Original Message from telecine @ alegria.com at 11/11/98 5:34 pm >Hi, I would like to know if commercials in the US are shot 24 or 30 >fps. I thought 30 fps was the logical way: one film frame for one video This is very common practice. Almost all of the commercial work that we do (being about 90% of or work) is shot at 24fps. All compositing is done with Inferno or Fire where the operator has the ability to remove the 3/2, do the effects work, and add the 3/2 sequence back into the scene. Now and again we will see a spot come in that was shot at 30fps, but this is definitely not the norm. We are all very interested to see a 1080P/24fps recording medium that is reported to be shown at NAB this coming year for this very reason. Steven Flippin Chief Engineer Crash & Sue's Film\Video Post Minneapolis, MN From: Basil96009@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:48:27 EST To: rob@alegria.com, telecine@alegria.com Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? In a message dated 98-11-11 22:12:25 EST, rob@alegria.com writes: << We've debated several times the merits of 24 vs. 30 for various viewing scenaria-- personally, I prefer 24 for theatrical showing >> I don't believe many people have had the opportunity to view 30fps theatrical projection, since the modifications required to the projectors are not widely available. I did attend a seminar in NYC at the Ziegfeld Theater presented by Doug Trumbull, where he demonstrated, side by side, the exact same scenes shot at 24 vs 30 fps, and projected in their native frame rates. The 30 fps was the clear winner, with reduced strobing, flicker, and a much brighter image. The benefits were apparent in still scenes, but much more noticable any time the camera moved. At the time, Trumbull was developing Showscan, a process that shoots/projects at 60fps using a 65mm vertical format negative. He presented a theory that the vastly increased image information available to the viewer would create an almost lifelike reality, and when I finally saw it a year later, the effect was spectacular. Trumbull was a proponent at the time of trying to change the world theatrical standard to 30fps, but the reality of increased film budgets and worldwide hardware retooling, for what most viewers would see as a modest gain, spelled doom for the proposal. This was in 1978. Now, we're seeing a similar debate in the video world with HDTV. I viewed the Glenn shuttle launch in HDTV and was quite impressed with the clarity, especially in the wide shots. Equally clear were all of the wrinkles on the female broadcaster's face. I did walk away from the broadcast realizing that 35mm film projection, regardless of frame rate, is still a superior medium. Back in the NTSC world, I've always preferred the look of 30fps film origination transferred to video, for all of the same reasons Trumbull presented 20 years ago. Pulldown has it's own way of distorting reality, not to mention film matchback lists. Who needs it? Basil Pappas CBS NY From: rob@alegria.com (Rob Lingelbach) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:34:17 -0600 To: telecine internet group Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? On Nov 12, 16:48, Basil96009@aol.com wrote: } Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? > The 30 fps was the clear winner, with reduced strobing, flicker, > and a much brighter image. The benefits were apparent in still > scenes, but much more noticable any time the camera moved. once again to flay this tired horse, the benefits may be apparent on non-fiction, reality-based images, but for me the clear winner for story-telling is 24 fps. > ...Trumbull was developing Showscan... > shoots/projects at 60fps using a 65mm vertical format negative. > .... > when I finally saw it a year later, the effect was spectacular. personally, I find increases in temporal resolution, for theatrical projection of features of fiction, not to be worthwhile. > with the clarity, especially in the wide shots. Equally clear were all > of the wrinkles on the female broadcaster's face. for immediate, news-gathering types of images, increased framerates will be valuable. For feature films, I prefer 24. 30 and higher framerates evoke video origination for me. > Pulldown has it's own way of distorting > reality, not to mention film matchback lists. Who needs it? who wants reality? :] --Rob Lingelbach FWC Dallas -- Rob Lingelbach | "I would give nothing for that man's religion rob@alegria.com | whose very dog and cat are not the better for it." www.alegria.com --Rowland Hill, "Village Dialogues", via A. Lincoln From: Basil96009@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:02:59 EST To: rob@alegria.com, telecine@alegria.com Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? In a message dated 98-11-12 17:38:29 EST, rob@alegria.com writes: << the benefits may be apparent on non-fiction, reality-based images, but for me the clear winner for story-telling is 24 fps. >> The 30fps projected images I saw WERE story telling scenes from a feature film. I am interested in the basis of your observation. Where were you able to compare dramatic film shot and projected at the the 2 different frame rates? Was it 35mm? Why does 24fps become preferrable simply because the subject is dramatic nonfiction? Basil Pappas CBS NY From: rob@alegria.com (Rob Lingelbach) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:21:44 -0600 To: telecine internet group Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? On Nov 12, 20:02, Basil96009@aol.com wrote: } Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? > The 30fps projected images I saw WERE story telling scenes > from a feature film. I am interested in the basis of your observation. > Where were you able to compare dramatic film shot and projected > at the the 2 different frame rates? Was it 35mm? Why does 24fps > become preferrable simply because the subject is dramatic nonfiction? make that 'dramatic fiction', if I wasn't clear about it. I've spent some time comparing film shot at 30 vs. 24, projected, transferred, etc. ..well, I guess about 22 years now anyway. It is something like the use of certain artistic filters on the camera lens: hard to justify on a news film, but can be quite wonderful on a feature. I've worked on Showscan in telecine doing frame-per-field transfer, and it can look amazing, temporally, but I don't like it for dramatic film, nor even do I like the 'immediate' look of 30 (vs 24), as it is that much closer to video. This is my opinion, and I think you feel differently. --Rob -- Rob Lingelbach | "I would give nothing for that man's religion rob@alegria.com | whose very dog and cat are not the better for it." www.alegria.com --Rowland Hill, "Village Dialogues", via A. Lincoln From: Basil96009@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:02:57 EST To: rob@alegria.com, telecine@alegria.com Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? In a message dated 98-11-12 20:26:11 EST, rob@alegria.com writes: << I've spent some time comparing film shot at 30 vs. 24, projected, transferred, etc. ..well, I guess about 22 years now anyway. >> I respect your body of experience in the video world, however the context of the comparison is strictly projected film, where there is no pulldown in either scenario. This is quite different than viewing comparisons made in telecine. It is here that I believe very few of us have ever had the opportunity of comparing film shot and *projected* in these 24/30 native rates. When we look at images that are 40 feet by 60 feet, the undesirable qualities of strobing and flicker take on a much different look than those same images do on a 20 inch diagonal screen. This was the case Trumbull was making for changing the world standard, and I don't believe the same comparisons or conclusions can be derived from telecine viewing. His case was a strong one, when viewed on the big screen. Basil Pappas CBS NY From: rob@alegria.com (Rob Lingelbach) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:40:37 -0600 To: telecine internet group Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? On Nov 12, 21:02, Basil96009@aol.com wrote: } Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? > of comparing film shot and *projected* in these 24/30 native rates. > When we look at images that are 40 feet by 60 feet, the undesirable Though I can't say I've seen the sort of side-by-side --or one after the other-- demonstrations you mention, I've seen 35mm 30 fps prints projected, and have to say I still prefer 24, for aesthetic reasons, on films of dramatic subjects. I'm not particularly fond of 2:3 pulldown, per se-- just the slower framerate. Perhaps I should attend a demonstration such as you have... I'm sure strobing and flicker are reduced, and the demo is most likely weighted toward showing the advantages of 30 in bright scenes, and faster panning shots.. but I've preferred a framerate of 24 fps over 30 certainly for reasons other than its propensities for strobe and flicker. --Rob -- Rob Lingelbach | "I would give nothing for that man's religion rob@alegria.com | whose very dog and cat are not the better for it." www.alegria.com --Rowland Hill, "Village Dialogues", via A. Lincoln From: "JC Soret" To: "telecine internet group" Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:36:52 -0000 Many thanks to all for your responses, it seems that the reason films are shot 24fps is purely aesthetic, not for saving footage as I was told and 3/2 pull down is not so much a problem in post. Once again the TIG is an unvaluable source of info, thanks Rob. JC London From: "Rich Torpey" Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:40:40 -0500 To: telecine@alegria.com Subject: [TIG] 24 or 30FPS On Nov 15, 6:06pm, JC Soret wrote: > Subject: Re: [TIG] 24 or 30 fps ? > > > Many thanks to all for your responses, it seems that the reason films > are shot 24fps is purely aesthetic, not for saving footage as I was > told and 3/2 pull down is not so much a problem in post. Once again the > TIG is an unvaluable source of info, thanks Rob. > JC, Sorry I haven't had time to chime in earlier - however, I've been a little surprised that no one has mentioned the differences in look between 24 and 30fps due to scanning differences. Particularly with older machines (MkIII's) there was a significant difference - in 24 you are using a much larger portion of the crt face for the scan patch while in 30 most of the vertical deflection came from the motion of the film through the gate. This led to a scan patch that was only a few lines high and often a visible veiling or waterfall effect as slow scan moved the patch. The problem has been minimized with such advances as Dave Corbitt's afterglow mod on burn correction and the Ursa scanning has removed most concerns. Much of the effects work we do is still shot at 24, the compositing artists then cinecompress (remove pulldown to convert from 30 to 24fps) and process the 24fps material at a significant reduction in render time. It's a simple conversion from 24 to 30 fps to output or to combine with other 30fps material. -- Rich Torpey LBTL