Melancholia Blu-Ray: American/International releases suffer from 24p-slowdown

[hajiketobu]

It is safe to say that the film was shot and mastered, just like Antichrist, with 25fps. It was then printed on 35mm film and distributed (-> 24fps) as needed for the projectors. The official website states a runtime of 130min and a framerate of 25. In most countries all over the world the Blu-Ray was released with 1080/24p due to no support of 25p in the Blu-Ray specifications and incompatibility with many American hardware devices due to hardware limitations. In Finland and Switzerland, possibly also Sweden, Norway, Denmark and other countries, the Blu-Ray was released with 1080/50i.
I own both the 1080/24p and the 1080/50i transfer and, after some testing, I can tell you that the American/International transfer release is slowed down and the pitch is different. The American/International transfer has a runtime of 136min. The Nordic transfer has a runtime of 130min, like the runtime stated on the official website.

There is an easy way to find out which version is the correct one: By comparing the music of the "Prologue" audio. If you compare the 24p transfer version with the Music CD Version of the Prologue track on the OST and then with the 50i transfer version, you will notice that the Music CD has exactly the same pitch and speed like the 1080/50i transfer.

Another myth that needs to be cleared is the interlacing. Both Antichrist and Melancholia are stored progressively with 25p on the Blu-Ray Disc not 50i. The 50i is just a "container" to trick the Blu-Ray Player and make it take 25p. This is done with some cheating, or probably PsF (Progressive segmented Frame or Progressive Frame segmenting) a way to store progressive video in an interlaced format with 2:2 pulldown. It is even more likely that the film is stored 25p and just flagged 50i with a 2:2 pulldown, much like 60i DVD's contain 23,976 footage flagged with an 2:3 pulldown. Not sure how it is achieved in the case of Melancholia, but the film is in any case progressively stored and recognized as 25fps by for example mediainfo.

But yeah, anyway, it's basically a shame how this film was released, since most of the world watches a slowed down version with the wrong framerate, much like in PAL/NTSC times were people had to watch films in 25/30p instead of the original 24p. But here we are in 2014 with the same problem. Disgusting isn't it? It also baffles me that this topic is not much talked about and just condoned. I'm a purist and I'd like to own a movie in its original representation and not some compromised version. I get the same twitching when I see studios release movies on 25GB single layer Blu-Rays instead of 50GB

Another thing I am certain of: Lars von Trier doesn't give a crap about all this, let alone framerate

[HD Goofnut]

Are you really going to notice a difference of 1 fps?

[hajiketobu]

Yes, the movie is 6 minute longer with one fps less and has a different pitch, preferably noticeable in musical scenes (The Prologue). If you don't know the original, you won't notice that something is odd.

This is like the reverse technique of good old pal dvd speed-up from 24 to 25 fps. I remember finding this always really annoying since some characters in certain movies had some kind of Mickey Mouse pitch. Really annoying. Now in this case we have the opposite: everything is lower, longer and deeper, which matches the theme of the movie so

[jwerk]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

Yes, the movie is 6 minute longer with one fps less

Which means I get 6 more minutes of a movie I love

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by jwerk

Which means I get 6 more minutes of a movie I love

6 more minutes of misery

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Are you really going to notice a difference of 1 fps?

I take it you have never played a PAL disc, have you?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

I take it you have never played a PAL disc, have you?

Well, sure but the difference there is 50fps versus 24fps.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Well, sure but the difference there is 50fps versus 24fps.

Really?

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Well, sure but the difference there is 50fps versus 24fps.

Goof you're getting mixed up.

50Hz = 25fps
60Hz = 30fps

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Well, sure but the difference there is 50fps versus 24fps.

Well, in film terms is actually 25 vs 24, so you get some 4% speed increase and it's certainly very noticeable to human ears.

[Cvalda]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

Another myth that needs to be cleared is the interlacing. Both Antichrist and Melancholia are stored progressively with 25p on the Blu-Ray Disc not 50i. The 50i is just a "container" to trick the Blu-Ray Player and make it take 25p. This is done with some cheating, or probably PsF (Progressive segmented Frame or Progressive Frame segmenting) a way to store progressive video in an interlaced format with 2:2 pulldown. It is even more likely that the film is stored 25p and just flagged 50i with a 2:2 pulldown, much like 60i DVD's contain 23,976 footage flagged with an 2:3 pulldown. Not sure how it is achieved in the case of Melancholia, but the film is in any case progressively stored and recognized as 25fps by for example mediainfo.

25i originally or not, there's no doubt that the Criterion 24p release of Antichrist looks better than its interlaced international releases. More detailed and stable.

[Tech-UK]

This is a strange one. It seems to of been shot at 1080p25, that is 25fps progressive.

I own the UK disc, (scanning it now as we speak, so will update), but as you say, you probably wouldn't notice it unless one has another source to compare it to.

[hajiketobu]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

This is a strange one. It seems to of been shot at 1080p25, that is 25fps progressive.

1080i50 is 25fps interlaced so you are technically losing half the resolution.

In this case losing 1fps, you are still maintaining resolution, but this has created a pitch issue.

I own the UK disc, (scanning it now as we speak, so will update), but as you say, you probably wouldn't notice it unless one has another source to compare it to.

do that! ok, but just for clarification the films (both antichrist and melancholia) were not shot in 50i, they were shot in 25p. 1080/50i is a format for television broadcasts, just like 1080/60i and then there is also the 1440x1080 format. But film cameras, in europe at least, can also shoot at 25 and 50 fps in full hd/4k/8k. the 1080/50i interlacing and the PsF interlacing for 1920x1080/25p are two different things. This trick is only needed because the Blu-Ray specifications don't allow 1080/25p.

"With PsF, a progressive frame is divided into two segments, with the odd lines in one segment and the even lines in the other segment. Technically, the segments are equivalent to interlaced fields, but unlike native interlaced video, there is no motion between the two fields that make up the video frame: both fields represent the same instant in time. This technique allows for a progressive picture to be processed through the same electronic circuitry that is used to store, process and route interlaced video." -[Progressive Frame Segmentation]

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

do that! ok, but just for clarification the films (both antichrist and melancholia) were not shot in 50i, they were shot in 25p. 1080/50i is a format for television broadcasts, just like 1080/60i and then there is also the 1440x1080 format. But film cameras, in europe at least, can also shoot at 25 and 50 fps in full hd/4k/8k. the 1080/50i interlacing and the PsF interlacing for 1920x1080/25p are two different things. This trick is only needed because the Blu-Ray specifications don't allow 1080/25p.

"With PsF, a progressive frame is divided into two segments, with the odd lines in one segment and the even lines in the other segment. Technically, the segments are equivalent to interlaced fields, but unlike native interlaced video, there is no motion between the two fields that make up the video frame: both fields represent the same instant in time. This technique allows for a progressive picture to be processed through the same electronic circuitry that is used to store, process and route interlaced video." -[Progressive Frame Segmentation]

Yep.

I did edit my post before you posted.

Was getting confused.

[Tech-UK]

UK release is 1080p23.976

[hajiketobu]

Originally Posted by Cvalda

25i originally or not, there's no doubt that the Criterion 24p release of Antichrist looks better than its interlaced international releases. More detailed and stable.

that's not true, or are you talking about that shitty uk release? that had only half the bitrate of the other european releases and the criterion release.
the european releases except the uk release are visually and bitrate-wise the same the criterion release. you can look it up here: dvdbeaver

oh and btw it's stored as 25p not 25i, i thought i explained this
the criterion is still an inferior release, because it does not feature the original representation of the film and it lacks a lot of bonus features found on the european release. it may even suffer from slowdown, but i don't know about that since i don't have the criterion edition of antichrist. it may also be possible that it was newly mastered (this was heavily discussed in the past) in 24p and not slowed down, unlike Melancholia which is indeed slowed down.

[Herry Dunston]

I knew there was a pitch problem for both these films, but thanks for explaining WHY this happened. Kinda wish Trier knew a little better about taking the 25-frames approach.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

To the blu-ray.com review of the French release: This was obviously a sloppy review done with incompatible/flawed, probably American, equipment that has problems with PAL material and doesn't support PsF.

Hardly. Actually, I see some pretty wild guesses here.

1. The review was not done with American equipment. It was done with native British equipment.

2. The Criterion release isn't better. And I don't need to look at bitrates as they don't determine "better". I happen to have all three discs with me and I can make direct comparisons.

3. Your comments also make it clear to me that you don't know that there are encoding variations that eliminate 1080/25p/50p encoding limitations (which are not part of Blu-ray's portfolio), though your first comment seems to suggest some familiarity with the issue. You can "lock" progressive content inside a 1080/50i encode -- your player will display 'i", but output is indeed progressive. On these releases the flagging is indeed 1080/50i, as noted in the reviews.

4. The above type of encoding does not work in the U.S. -- there is no 1080/50i and 1080/25i standards here. Hence the reason why Criterion's release is encoded as is.

Pro-B

[hajiketobu]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

1. The review was not done with American equipment. It was done with native British equipment.

Well even if was done with British equipment, the equipment must have been flawed, because there are visible interlacing artifacts, while other reviews of the PAL release, like dvdbeaver or my own copy, even with deinterlacing off don't show interlacing artefacts at all.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

2. The Criterion release isn't better. And I don't need to look at bitrates as they don't determine "better". I happen to have all three discs with me and I can make direct comparisons.

You are right, bitrate solely doesn't make a better encode. And I never said that the criterion release is the better. As I stated previously, both releases have pros and cons. I just formulated that wrongly, I corrected my comment. What i wanted to say is that the criterion has a sharper picture (compare the screenshots) and the bitrate is minimally higher, but suffers from wrong framerate. The european release offers the correct framerate, but is not as sharp as the criterion release, maybe due to the PsF or the different master, or indeed because of lower bitrate. In any which way the european release is still superior, because it's closer to the original representation

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

3. Your comments also make it clear to me that you don't know that there are encoding variations that eliminate 1080/25p/50p encoding limitations (which are not part of Blu-ray's portfolio), though your first comment seems to suggest some familiarity with the issue. You can "lock" progressive content inside a 1080/50i encode -- your player will display 'i", but output is indeed progressive. On these releases the flagging is indeed 1080/50i, as noted in the reviews.

Are you effing kidding me??? That's exactly the reason why i made the opening post; to explain that 25fps progressive video can be stored on a disc with for example PsF without breaking the encoding limitations of the Blu-Ray portfolio and also make clear that Melancholia and Antichrist are indeed stored progressively and just flagged as 50i.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

4. The above type of encoding does not work in the U.S. -- there is no 1080/50i and 1080/25i standards here. Hence the reason why Criterion's release is encoded as is.

I know i said in the opening post that 1080/50i is not supported by most U.S. equipment due to hardware limitations, that's why I also said in a previous comment that the criterion release is the best you can get if you own U.S. equipment.

Please read through the whole thread before talking about "wild guesses" and making rash assumptions. I even said that both releases are flawed, since both are not perfect and that I hope for a correct unflawed 4k release in its original representation without any compromises in the future.

Besides it baffles me that American equipment is so restricted. I mean if I buy here a TV or blu-ray player in europe i never have to worry about such things, because it supports both 30p/60i and 25p/50i without any problems. The problem is not that directors use different framerates, the problem is the limited hardware support in the U.S. in the age of HD and 4K. It was a legitimate issue in the days of PAL and NTSC but today there is no need for such limitations since modern players should play almost any format and adapt to different framerates. People blame directors who use 25p for being stuck in the past, but when indeed they should blame themselves, or their government/companies for using old harware with limitations
But when directors film in 25p just to print it then in 24p, that is indeed stupid and unnecessary, i agree with that. I don't know if there are 25p projectors in cinemas??? maybe some expert here knows. Lars could have gone directly to some higher framerate like 50fps. 24p is a very flawed format and needs to be replaced. Peter Jackson made a good start with the Hobbit in 48p. 50p/60p are better, because of the light flickering in the frequency of 50Hz and 60Hz. 48p is just a remnant of 24p, an unnecessary number. 100p/120p is even better than 50p/60p. But the difference of 100p and 120p will always be there because of the different light frequencies in the different countries of the world. You can't change that.
The dream of a uniform perfect framerate in all countries is a bit troublesome and perhaps unnecessary. The perfect uniform framerate would be as high as 300fps to compensate both the 50Hz and 60Hz frequencies but would lack backwards compatibility for 24fps. A true uniform framerate would be 600fps, but that is insane. It would be a lot of easier to just embrace and acknowledge all those different framerates and create displays or projectors that support all those different framerates. My thoughts on this is a 600Hz display/projector: 600Hz can play 24fps, 25fps, 30fps, 50fps, 60fps, 100fps and 120fps perfectly without any flaws.

For the future of cinema I think 100fps and 120fps should be the norm, since they are needed both due to the different light frequencies in different regions and you can't just change the electricity grid. Physical media like Blu-Rays should indeed support all kind of framerates, except maybe 48, 72 and 96fps. A 600 Hz displays should display all correctly, except 48, 72 and 96fps. The problem is television. American television would be great in 120fps since it could support 24,30,60 and 120fps. And here PAL clearly has disadvantages. European TV in 100fps could only support 25,50 and 100fps. International 24fps movies would still need to be sped up and 60fps movies would need some adjustment too.
So it would be indeed wiser to broadcast in different framerates instead of progressive 50 or 60p like it is planned for 4K Broadcast in the future.

I say support and embrace all framerates, broadcast in different framerates and built 600Hz displays to support all the different framerates.

Sorry for this long as post, but I just needed to say this all

[Tech-UK]

I don't agree that 24fps is a flawed format. Its just that other frame rates can now be used, i.e. the variation of rates due to digital photography. I think in this instance shooting in 25fps wasn't the best decision, knowing that 24fps is the standard format.

I personally do not like these higher frame rates i.e. 48fps, etc.