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

[hajiketobu]

Originally Posted by Zot!

Right, so I did bring this up back when Antichrist came out, since I thought it curious. The answers that I cobbled together seems to be that the reason Zentropa produces these films in 25fps is because they don't want to update their equipment, and possibly wish to accommodate European TV broadcast standard. The 24fps versions do seem to be fairly "director-approved" however, as that is still most likely what was presented in film festivals (Cannes) and any place that screened the film on film (also the Criterion BD has his approval). Still there doesn't seem to be any excuse for not adjusting the pitch. That should be easily done these days with software. Anybody want to check Antichrist? Some of the classical music could be checked for pitch. At least unlike DVDs, there should be no interlacing, just speed-up.

Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138

It isn't possible to run Blu at anything above 24 FPS, is it? I assume it was shot with PAL cameras? Why'd Europe stay with 25 FPS after digital changeover? I know their TV production infrastructure was largely built that way, but once things went digital, did they have different stands than 720p/1080i?

Blu-Ray specifications don't support anything above 24p, they actually only support 24p in FULLHD they don't even support HFR 50/60p


Even at the verge of 4K, europe has defined it's television standard for 4k to be 50p. This has to do with light flickering at 50 Hz in Europe and at 60 Hz in America. Although minimal, equipment shot with 60fps could produce flicker when used in Europe under artificial lighting. 24fps is in any which way a technically flawed format and should be replaced in the future by HFR framerates higher than 48 fps. The problem is you can't just make a uniform framerate for all media in all regions. Even if let's say 60fps would become standard in the US, it's still problematic because 60 can't be divided by 24. 120 fps seems to be fair, because it can be both divided by 60 and by 24. So an old 24 fps movie can be played without stutter and also a newer 60 fps movie or tv movie. And the problem of light flickering is also eliminated.
That for America. But Europe still has all the 25p, 50p and 50i, so it would need a Standard of 100 fps.

It's still a long way to go for a global uniform framerate

[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.

[Zot!]

Right, so long story short....are you frustrated about most American equipments inability to play 25fps material? Or Europe's adherence to a historical PAL standard? Or BDs limitations? Or all of the above? I don't disagree with any of it, but one can kind of do a work around. There are players and displays (you would need both) sold in the US that can display 50fps based material natively, and you can order the media from Europe. This kind of set-up is also helpful for Silent Films, all PAL DVDs, modern European TVs shows, Concerts (See the Led Zeppelin reunion show BD for a discussion of how they adjusted for exactly this issue) and such. For instance, Hunted, another Danish Zentropa production also has a 25fps BD in Scandinavia. If you watch enough of this stuff it might be worth it to you.

That said, I still think that a 24fps presentation for these films is not unexpected or "wrong", and I expect was how Melancholia premiered at Cannes.

I still think they should pitch correct. It is odd for familiar music especially to be off-pitch.

And yeah, if you don't like 24fps, you don't like film. That has been the standard for more than half a century, and seems to have done pretty well, but I really don't think we should derail this into a discussion of the Hobbit.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Zot!

Right, so long story short....are you frustrated about most American equipments inability to play 25fps material? Or Europe's adherence to a historical PAL standard? Or BDs limitations? Or all of the above? I don't disagree with any of it, but one can kind of do a work around. There are players and displays (you would need both) sold in the US that can display 50fps based material natively, and you can order the media from Europe. This kind of set-up is also helpful for Silent Films, all PAL DVDs, modern European TVs shows, Concerts (See the Led Zeppelin reunion show BD for a discussion of how they adjusted for exactly this issue) and such. For instance, Hunted, another Danish Zentropa production also has a 25fps BD in Scandinavia. If you watch enough of this stuff it might be worth it to you.

That said, I still think that a 24fps presentation for these films is not unexpected or "wrong", and I expect was how Melancholia premiered at Cannes.

I still think they should pitch correct. It is odd for familiar music especially to be off-pitch.

And yeah, if you don't like 24fps, you don't like film. That has been the standard for more than half a century, and seems to have done pretty well, but I really don't think we should derail this into a discussion of the Hobbit.

I need to quote Zot's post because I essentially agree with every single point that is made in it.

A few additional comments:

1. The frustration should not be directed at American equipment -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But people need to realize that limitations exist because there are no universal broadcasting standards for all major markets. And this has nothing to do with Blu-ray, American equipment, etc. It all goes back to poor policies that were implemented before the VHS days. Things are actually a lot, and I mean a lot, better nowadays.

2. 1080/50i and 1080/25 -- the "locking" practice does not exclude interlaced content. If the original content is interlaced, then it can be stored that way. The "trick" is to avoid the spec lock Blu-ray demands -- that's it.

3. Melancholia and Antichrist are both licensed with different speeds. Maybe in some markets adjustments are made, but there are limitations anyhow. Also, I know for a fact that some adjustments have been made for theatrical presentation as well, with Zentropa's knowledge.

4. There are no perceptible differences between the three Antichrist releases. I reviewed the three releases and I still have them with me. They are all good. Supplemental features and price should determine which release works best for you. (Good to see that the higher bitrates = better release nonsense isn't a factor in this discussion).

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

I say support and embrace all framerates, broadcast in different framerates...

This cannot be done. Even in some quite advanced European markets there is no existing infrastructure for this type of standardizing.

Pro-B

[Jason One]

It should be noted that it is possible to present 25fps material at the correct speed on US equipment, through 2-2-3-2-3 pulldown at 1080i/60. In my opinion this solution is preferable to slowdown.

It's actually kind of baffling to me that so many studios and labels (even Criterion!) don't respect the original source speed of these programs, and insist on conforming everything to 1080p/24, to little or no benefit.

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by Jason One

It should be noted that it is possible to present 25fps material at the correct speed on US equipment, through 2-2-3-2-3 pulldown at 1080i/60. In my opinion this solution is preferable to slowdown.

This would introduce true interlacing however, if I'm not mistaken? Would run the correct speed though.

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

1. The frustration should not be directed at American equipment -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But people need to realize that limitations exist because there are no universal broadcasting standards for all major markets. And this has nothing to do with Blu-ray, American equipment, etc. It all goes back to poor policies that were implemented before the VHS days. Things are actually a lot, and I mean a lot, better nowadays.

Actually the intentional crippling of American equipment does seem a little odd to me. The popular Panasonic plasma's european models (VT/ZT series) allow for native 25P display AND native 24p display, while the US versions do NOT play 25P natively. I don't know how much they are saving by excluding this feature, but I have a hard time believing that the cost of running separate assembly lines is really worth it.

[hajiketobu]

after a bit of thinking, i thought that just general support of 100 and 120Hz in all display devices would be enough to deliver. You would just need to be able to switch around between those two modes, or it happens automatic (like in the case of the PS3 that switches automatic to 50Hz when you play PAL videos in the media player) and you can watch 25,50 and 100fps in one mode or 24, 30, 60 and 120 fps in the other. I think this is realistic and no to expensive. A true 600Hz display is of course the best solution, but still seems like something for the future.

pro-bassoonist, can you please explain to me why it is not possible to broadcast in different framerates? is it a problem of a tv studio equipment and a problem of money? or is it simply not technically possible to broadcast in different framerates? i don't know about this stuff.
I remember reading a few weaks ago that Europe announced a framerate of 50p for future 4K Broadcasts. If it's a problem of equipment, i don't see it being a problem, because they would have to change the equipment anyway for 4K, they barely even managed to switch to HD and the people at home would need new equipment as well. So yeah, it would be great if they could broastcast like a local show in 50p but then the movie after in 24p. Because i did not really enjoy this news, since it means that they will still need to speed up 24p movies to PAL speed in the future when 4K is being broadcasted. Really don't understand how this blu-ray and 4k specification people work it's like they work against each other instead of finding good solutions. but maybe this is all about money and cost and they just want to settle with what they have which is legitimate but still i want bigger progress . sorry that i sound so aggressive and militant, i'm just dissatisfied by this stagnation

[Impossible]

Really I just watched the movies *shrug

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

after a bit of thinking, i thought that just general support of 100 and 120Hz in all display devices would be enough to deliver.

I believe all current European BD players and displays do.

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Really I just watched the movies *shrug

Why do you bother watching movies on Blu-ray then? If you don't care about video and sound quality, perhaps DVD would be a more economical choice.