23.976p or 24p for Blu-ray?

[Mr. Rabbit]

Hi, I know that Blu-Ray is capable of both 23.976p and true 24p, and I'm under the impression that film is shot at true24p, but I read somewhere that many Blu-Ray films were being released with the 23.976p frame rate. is this is true and if so why

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Mr. Rabbit

Hi, I know that Blu-Ray is capable of both 23.976p and true 24p, and I'm under the impression that film is shot at true24p, but I read somewhere that many Blu-Ray films were being released with the 23.976p frame rate. is this is true and if so why

I think >95% of 24fps films are released on Blu-ray as 23.976fps and <5% are released as 24.000fps (I'm excluding films that are released in 1080i here).

Since Blu-ray is capable of both, I don't see why they don't go with 24.0fps really as it should be simpler, especially on modern HDTVs - if they supported it properly.

It's because of the analogue NTSC standard. When they introduced colour into NTSC they changed it from 60hz to 59.94 (or 60/1.001?) or something like that. See the Wikipedia entry for NTSC. It says it was to "reduce interference between the chrominance signal and FM sound carrier".

Now that we have digital HDTVs I don't see why they don't use the simpler 24.0, 60.0, 120.0 etc. What do modern HDTVs do when they get a true 24.0fps signal - convert it to 23.976? I assume most/all 60hz TVs are really running about 59.94 and 120hz ones are really running about 59.94*2=119.88Hz?

I bet they're usually using 59.94 and 23.976 for compatibility with most of the existing TVs. 23.976 should be easier to display on current TVs if they're actually 59.94 or 119.88hz (by applying 3:2 pull-down or frame duplication. 23.976*5=119.88).

[syncguy]

Yes, most blu-ray movies are transferred at 23.976P rather than 24P.

In some cases I have seen people complaining when transfer rate is 24P because their equipment is dropping frames. Some equipment e.g. external scalers, displays etc. could be less agile to frequency variations and manifest annoying frame slips when transferred at 24P.

I expect all new equipment capable of 24P and multiples (96, 120 hz etc.) are capable of syncing at multiples of 23.976. Therefore 23.976 transfers have universal compatibility while a pure 24P transfer may encounter problems with some oldish equipment.

[X400]

i was under the impression that 24p=23.976p just like 30=29.9 etc

thought they just rounded it up for marketing

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by X400

i was under the impression that 24p=23.976p just like 30=29.9 etc

thought they just rounded it up for marketing

No they are not marketing roundups. They are different frequency transfers.

[Mr. Rabbit]

anyone know where you can find a list of Blu-Ray films and their fps?

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Mr. Rabbit

anyone know where you can find a list of Blu-Ray films and their fps?

This thread has a list:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338

All titles in the list with no fps listed are 1080p23.976 according to the list.

[FritzKubrick]

I know this is an extremely old thread but is this still the case? What about UHD; do they show the correct frame rate?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FritzKubrick

I know this is an extremely old thread but is this still the case? What about UHD; do they show the correct frame rate?

No, most stuff produced by the major studios is still encoded at 23.98. European distributors like StudioCanal have no need for such legacy concerns so they encode their BDs and UHDs at 24 exactly, some of which have been released in the US by Lionsgate (they're SC's American distributor so use the same masters).

[FritzKubrick]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, most stuff produced by the major studios is still encoded at 23.98. European distributors like StudioCanal have no need for such legacy concerns so they encode their BDs and UHDs at 24 exactly, some of which have been released in the US by Lionsgate (they're SC's American distributor so use the same masters).

Interesting! Do you know if all European distributors encode their releases at 24?

[Lee A Stewart]

Filmmakers urge TV industry to phase out fractional frame rates (e.g. 23.976fps)

20 Aug 2021

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1629438832

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FritzKubrick

Interesting! Do you know if all European distributors encode their releases at 24?

Most UK labels still use 23.98 I think, but apart from StudioCanal I don’t know what mainland European labels get up to.

[lgans316]

I wouldn't mind the industry switching to HFR on a permanent basis (at least for the ones shot digitally). Adapt or perish.

Gemini Man and Billy Lynn looks pretty good to me.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by lgans316

I wouldn't mind the industry switching to HFR on a permanent basis (at least for the ones shot digitally). Adapt or perish.

Gemini Man and Billy Lynn looks pretty good to me.

Just going from 24 to 30 FPS would make a huge difference with zero "soap opera effect."

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by lgans316

I wouldn't mind the industry switching to HFR on a permanent basis (at least for the ones shot digitally). Adapt or perish.

Gemini Man and Billy Lynn looks pretty good to me.

Such a shame that The Hobbit series wasn't released on physical media with it.

[FritzKubrick]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Most UK labels still use 23.98 I think, but apart from StudioCanal I don’t know what mainland European labels get up to.

Thanks. I just don’t understand why though. If the films were shot at 24 and the players and TVs can do 24 then why not encode at 24?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FritzKubrick

Thanks. I just don’t understand why though. If the films were shot at 24 and the players and TVs can do 24 then why not encode at 24?

Because the legacy of the 23.98 frame rate runs deep, it’s going back almost 70 years after all and it’s going to take a lot for US studios to break with that tradition. But, as noted in Lee’s article above, some stuff for streaming is now being made in 24 so that might start the move away from 23.98.

But, funnily enough, the new Avatars were shot in a non-integer frame rate too, 47.95 rather than 48 I think the post production guy said?

[Lee A Stewart]

Cameron On “Avatar 2” Imagery & Year Delay

“It will be in 3D and selective high-frame rates in certain sections. We’re picking those as we go along. The whole thing will be projected at high-frame rate, but it won’t necessarily be displayed that way. It’s kind of complicated, but the projectors have to run at 24 or 48 fps – you have to pick – we’re running at 48. But a lot of it will be rendered at 24 fps. I’ve tried to explain this before, and people sort of get it and don’t get it. All I can say is, it will be seamless. But I’m not touting it as some brand-new format.”

https://www.darkhorizons.com/cameron...ry-year-delay/

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Cameron On “Avatar 2” Imagery & Year Delay



https://www.darkhorizons.com/cameron...ry-year-delay/

Makes sense, it's like my plasma TV showing 24fps content at 96 Hz to minimize flicker. You just show each frame 4 times to keep the same speed.

So if you want 48fps projectors to show 24fps content natively, just show each frame twice. If there are scenes where you want it at 48, show one frame with no doubling.

[FritzKubrick]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Because the legacy of the 23.98 frame rate runs deep, it’s going back almost 70 years after all and it’s going to take a lot for US studios to break with that tradition. But, as noted in Lee’s article above, some stuff for streaming is now being made in 24 so that might start the move away from 23.98.

But, funnily enough, the new Avatars were shot in a non-integer frame rate too, 47.95 rather than 48 I think the post production guy said?

I’m sorry to be pestering you about this but do you have any insight how European boutique labels deal with this? Let’s say you recieve a newly scanned master (of an old film) from Bologna or London, surely you encode it at the correct speed?