This is topic TV - 24fps or 30 fps? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002546
Posted by Mathias Andersson (Member # 169) on 08-06-2001, 05:38 AM:
Somewhat off topic depending on the answer...
TV-series such Star Trek Voyager and The X-Files, are they shot in 24 fps and then a 3:2 pulldown is applied or are they shot directly in 30 fps? Also, do they use 35 mm film?// Mathias
Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 08-06-2001, 07:37 AM:
I can't be certain about the two shows you mentioned. However, it is my general impression that shows shot on 35mm are filmed at 24 fps. The original Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example, both exhibit 3:2 pulldown artifacts.The simplest way to tell is to tape an episode of the shows and run through it as slow or frame advance. Because VCR frame advance usually treats the video data as frame rather than fields, you'll see every fourth frame repeat in a 3:2 pulldown.
------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 08-06-2001, 07:51 AM:
If the shows are shot at 24fps on 35mm are they simply shown speeded up on uk 25fps tv or will the british versions be converted from the ntsc versions.(p.s shouldn't this be in yack)
Posted by Mathias Andersson (Member # 169) on 08-06-2001, 08:05 AM:
To speed up a 24fps film to 25fps is the best soultion I think. But how does the process work for converting 30fps to 25fps? If the show is shot in 30fps they can't use IVTC and then speed it up to 25fps.// Mathias A
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-06-2001, 08:17 AM:
From the books I have on film technology, I have read that in the UK, they do just speed the film up to 25 FPS. But then, again, the book I refer to dates back to the '70s.
Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 08-06-2001, 08:33 AM:
The upconversion of 24fps to PAL is such a complicated mess (more so than a 3:2 pulldown, since the phase alternates in PAL) that every country I'm aware of in Europe simply scans the film at 25fps. When the whole world goes digital, it won't make a bit of difference.
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 08-06-2001, 08:43 AM:
for movies in the uk the 24fps film is simply sped up to 25fps for tv and video.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 08-06-2001, 08:59 AM:
The original Trek series was shot in 35, as I've seen prints of the episodes------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 08-06-2001, 09:23 AM:
Something I've always wondered about:When a show originates in an area where 50MHz PAL is used, and the shows are converted to 60MHz NTSC, how exactly is that conversion performed, since the number of scan lines are different and the frame rate is different? Any way of doing it that I can think of would create some undesirable artifacts in the picture due to beat patterns going from 625 to 525 scan lines.
Shows such as Monty Python's Flying Circus, Mr. Bean, Absolutely Fabulous, and the Young Ones don't seem to be degraded in any such manner when I watch them. Were they shot on film so that they could be converted from film to NTSC, or were some of the shows videotaped originally in PAL?
------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
Posted by Mathias Andersson (Member # 169) on 08-06-2001, 11:48 AM:
Evans, I've also wondered about that. I think there must be some equivalent formula such as 3:2 pulldown that applies to the PAL --> NTSC conversion.// Mathias
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-06-2001, 12:07 PM:
Here are several links:
http://www.cybercollege.com/tvp009.htm
http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/magazine/19981005/23352.html
http://www.screeneditors.com/news/14a3.htm
http://www.broadcastpapers.com/editing/single01.htm ------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 08-06-2001, 01:08 PM:
Normally when you convert 24fps film to 25fps Pal you also have to run the audio through a pitch shifter (down 4%) to stop it getting too shrill.NTSC: converted to PAL can look nasty, with very jerky pans. It looks very similar to 60i NTSC - printed to 24fps film eg Blair witch.
I think most big US shows are shot at 24fps because there are no skipped frames and its cheaper to shoot at 24fps than 30fps.
If you rent the PAL version of 'Oklahoma' you get the Cinemascope(24fps) version not the TODD-AO(30fps).
Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 08-06-2001, 02:50 PM:
I believe all US film origination destined for TV is 24 FPS. The US TV frame rate is 30 frames/sec. The US system uses interlace scanning such that each frame consists of two fields: the first field of a frame having the even numbered lines and the second field the odd numbered lines. This two fields-per-frame system really improves flicker. Information to syncronize the TV receiver's scanning to the scanning at the station is contained in the blanking interval on the top and side of the picture. You can view the syncronizing pulses (and other stuff sent during the blanking period) by turning the brightness up and tweeking the vertical and horizontal controls.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-06-2001, 05:35 PM:
Star Trek: The Next Generation did something absolutely horrible. While the real life people were shot at 24fps, the special effects were rendered at 60 fields per second, making them look horribly out of place. I don't think Voyager was guilty of this and I've never watched Deep Space Nine. I think ST:TNG was a little too goody two shoes for me.
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-06-2001, 06:38 PM:
I used to have a roommate that watched Voyager, and DS-9 EVERY night. I enjoyed Voyager, but hated DS-9 because it is so S-L-O-W.I've got several 35 prints of TV shows, and they are filmed at 24 fps.
I've got a RCA TP-66 telecine projector out in the garage/future theatre that I use for copying 16 stuff to video. Too bad I cant copy silent stuff at 18 fps or so... I love a flicker-free image with a home camera! On it, the film runs at 24 fps, but the combination of this and the 5-bladed shutter makes it run at 30 image interruptions per second. Fine for NTSC
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-06-2001, 11:43 PM:
The BBC's production format *used* to be exteriors on film, interiors on videotape.There's even a Monty Python bit (one of the few I remember) where some guys walk out of an interior set, cut to street exterior, they look at the camera & say, "Good heavens, we're on FILM!" Then rush back inside.
Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 08-07-2001, 07:08 AM:
This thread is wandering a bit, but just wanted to add a bit to what Joe Redifer said about ST:TNG.The original effects for ST:TNG, including most of the stock effects (flybys, phaser and torpedo firing, saucer separation), were done by Industrial Light & Magic and originated on 35mm like most of their work back in 1987. If you frame advance through the opening credits, you'll see 3:2 pulldown artifacts on all the Enterprise flybys. This continues through the series -- most of the star streaking in warp, for example, was stock, and so even in the last episode these will show 3:2 pulldown artifacts.
A new effects house was brought in sometime later, and that's when the 60 fields per second effects began to be mixed in with the 24 fps action and the older 24 fps effects. There are some really weird artifacts of this that you can see, especially in the later episodes when they did more complex layered effects.
------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-07-2001, 12:13 PM:
I saw 60 fields per second used in the very first episode. When the Enterprise ejected some sort of light beam from the middle of it's saucer section. Looked really really bad. I didn't know much about frames or fields when the show first aired.... I just knew that it looked incredibly bad, and that the series was kind of pansie-assed.
Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 08-07-2001, 03:21 PM:
I do know that some BBC kinescopes were shot at 25FPS. All of the old black-and-white Dr. Who episodes were filmed that way, and if you single-frame through one of the NTSC videotapes, you'll see that every 4th frame is repeated to bring it up to 30 fps.
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 08-07-2001, 04:49 PM:
I've worked on many episodes of TV shows, movies of the week and mini-series projects which were originated on film... both 35mm and 16mm. They were all shot at 24 frames per second. The use of 16mm has dwindled as the networks have increased their committment to HDTV. The only times we have filmed at a different frame rate was when we had to worry about stuff like the flicker on a computer screen. In that case, we could adjust the frame rate and the post crew would simply have to deal with the difference when they did the initial video transfer.Most every 35mm project I've worked on in the last couple of years was done with 3-perf pull-down and Super 35. This gives you an HDTV aspect ratio without "wasting" film. The main action has to take place within the 1.33 aspect ratio in the middle of your 1.78 frame. Then, in theory, the footage will look okay in HDTV or in "pan and scan" NTSC.
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 08-07-2001, 11:07 PM:
BTW, The NTSC television format is 29.9fps
Posted by Mathias Andersson (Member # 169) on 08-08-2001, 05:10 AM:
It's more 30 fps than it is 29.9 fps, since the actual fram rate is 29.97....// Mathias
Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 08-08-2001, 07:26 AM:
Joe, do you remember at which point in "Encounter at Farpoint" the 60 frame per second effects appeared? I'd like to take a look at it again -- of course, all I have is the butchered episode-format show, rather than the original TV movie format, but it might be in both versions.I guess even when ILM did the show, shortcuts were taken. Do you think it might have been computer imagery? Of course the technology wasn't good enough yet to render convincing ships, but ILM might've decided to draw in beams digitally after spending too much time rotoscoping them in.
------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-08-2001, 01:34 PM:
It was at a point in the episode where a white beam shoots down to power something (Michael Bell?) up. It's been about 30 years since I've seen it. But it definitely in the second half I think.
Posted by Jonathan Smiles (Member # 926) on 08-08-2001, 04:44 PM:
Hi all,Let share my expericence of working in a 50/60Hz world.
1, 35mm shoots of US TV shows are shot at 24fps to save film and have 3:2 applied in post production. TV commercials ans some music videos may shoot at 30fps for quality.
2, For standards conversion the best converters are from Snell and Wilcox (http://www.snellwilcox.com), with a USD 100,000 price tag for the Alchemist Phc.
3, Some US shows which are shot 24fps with 3:2 may be converted back to 24fps then sped up to 25fps - Snell Wilcox called it DEFT.
4, Enterprise I believe is being shot in 1080 24p HD, subject to them being able to complete the shows fast enough in HD with no more time than they had for Voyager in SD.
Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 08-11-2001, 05:34 PM:
Some television shows, such as “Bill Nye, The Science Guy” shoot on video, but then convert the footage to give it a film look. Mostly they drop and repeat every fourth frame to make it look 24 frames per second. This effect works well enough if there’s enough motion on the screen, but daytime soap operas that have prime-time specials use this effect too, and when there’s no motion on the screen it looks like video again, and is very distracting. NTSC’s best advantage over other systems is the extra frames for more fluid motion, but some productions throw away those extra frames to make us think the show has a slightly higher production budget.That said, it appears that recent reissues of the Brit-com “Red Dwarf” were enhanced to match a more recent season, which was filmed. Even though the earlier seasons were shot at 25 f.p.s., they somehow managed to cut down the fluid movement to give it a film look. Again, the scenes revert to a video look when there’s no motion. Does anyone know how they managed to do this? Perhaps they only did these enhancements on the NTSC versions of the show, because only cutting out one frame a second from PAL wouldn’t seem to work.