24 fps and "very fast" = STELLAR DVD rips in Handbreak

[newpball]

If you encode a normal film source with Handbrake at 24 fps instead of 23.976 fps the program will insert a duplicate frame every 1001 frames. That will cause a jerk every ~42 seconds.

Really?

That's pretty dumb. When we have a film produced with exactly 24fps butchered by NTSC into 29.97 and we like to restore it to exactly 24fps it is pretty dump to insert a duplicate frame ever so often. Instead they should have an option to correct the speed back to the original film source.

In the digital age there is absolutely no need for those idiotic 29.97 and 23.976 rates but try to explain that to stuffy old engineers.

[hello_hello]

In the digital age there is absolutely no need for those idiotic 29.97 and 23.976 rates but try to explain that to stuffy old engineers.

Does the explanation include any reason why 24fps is so much better than 23.976? If so, could you share?

[sophisticles]

Does the explanation include any reason why 24fps is so much better than 23.976? If so, could you share?

Probably because technically there no such thing as a fractional frame rate, how exactly do you show 23.976 fps? That means that every second you are showing 23 whole frames and .976 of another frame. Absurd.

Fractional frame rates represent an average taken over time, i.e. you have a fixed number of frames and you play all the frames back as such a speed that if you average it out it works out to a fractional rate.

With a whole rate, you actually show that number of frames every second, i.e. if you were to cut up a film into 1 second intervals each segment has exactly 24 frames, obviously the same isn't true with a fractional frame rate. This is why you shoot in whole frame rates, because it's not possible to shoot in a fractional rate.

I actually agree with the previous poster, if PAL could be 25fps why should NTSC be 23.97 or 29.97? Why not stick with 24 or 30fps?

[_Al_]

it's not possible to shoot in a fractional rate

So aliens landing on Earth with different time unit cannot shoot film?

[newpball]

In the digital age there is absolutely no need for those idiotic 29.97 and 23.976 rates but try to explain that to stuffy old engineers.

Does the explanation include any reason why 24fps is so much better than 23.976? If so, could you share?

To make it as simple as possible for you to understand a movie that was shot in exactly 24fps should be viewable at home at exactly the same speed, not faster and not slower and certainly not faster with an occasional frame duplicated to make it look as if it is 24fps because that is really an imbecile idea.

Everybody, except perhaps stuffy old engineers resisting any change, would readily understand that makes sense.

[newpball]

I actually agree with the previous poster, if PAL could be 25fps why should NTSC be 23.97 or 29.97? Why not stick with 24 or 30fps?

There is a valid reason why NTSC had to cut its framerate from 30 to 29.97 in the past to allow for black and white compatibility with the introduction of color however in the digital age, I know I know big nuisance to those who resist change, there is absolutely no need whatsoever.

[sophisticles]

it's not possible to shoot in a fractional rate

So aliens landing on Earth with different time unit cannot shoot film?

It's not the unit of time that needs to be different, time is discrete in nature, it only appears continuous to us, but time can be broken down into discrete units known as a Planck Time, which is the smallest unit of time that has any meaning for us.

Now unless these "aliens" are able to shoot .976 of a whole frame, then they have the same limitations that we do.

[poisondeathray]

It doesn't matter and pointless to argue. We are stuck with it for a long time. Too much $ invested in NTSC infrastructure. Nothing is going to change.

You can convert it to 24.0 if you want, just speed it up with the audio. No frames are dropped

[_Al_]

it's not possible to shoot in a fractional rate

So aliens landing on Earth with different time unit cannot shoot film?

It's not the unit of time that needs to be different, time is discrete in nature, it only appears continuous to us, but time can be broken down into discrete units known as a Planck Time, which is the smallest unit of time that has any meaning for us.

Now unless these "aliens" are able to shoot .976 of a whole frame, then they have the same limitations that we do.

I'd like to see some sense in it , but it is not there. Video is frame rate driven, fps, not time driven spf, I edit video and there is frames not seconds or whatever time unit ...

[newpball]

You can convert it to 24.0 if you want, just speed it up with the audio. No frames are dropped

Exactly that is what should be done and no it is not just sped up it is restored to the original speed.

[El Heggunte]

newpball has a point. But PDR said a bitter truth --- the will to money speaks louder than rationality u_u

As for sophisticles, I'm afraid he still trusts too much the so-called "science journalism" and the half-assed "science stars" such as
Neil DeGrasse Tyson and his mentor Carl Sagan

[hello_hello]

In the digital age there is absolutely no need for those idiotic 29.97 and 23.976 rates but try to explain that to stuffy old engineers.

Does the explanation include any reason why 24fps is so much better than 23.976? If so, could you share?

To make it as simple as possible for you to understand a movie that was shot in exactly 24fps should be viewable at home at exactly the same speed, not faster and not slower

and certainly not faster with an occasional frame duplicated to make it look as if it is 24fps because that is really an imbecile idea.

It's not an imbecile idea. It's simply a lack of understand as to how Handbrake works and what it was designed to do. It's not even "faster with an occasional frame duplicated to make it look at if it was 24fps" as such, it's the same overall speed with an occasional frame duplicated to increase the frame count The duration remains the same.
I think you'll find that's the expected result from most encoder GUI's when changing the frame rate, unless they have specific speeding up or slowing down abilities. PAL speedup/ slowdown is slightly more common because it's a standard type of thing.

Edit: I checked and it appears I was wrong. MeGUI does all the conversions between 23.976 and 25, and between 24fps and 25fps, but there's no 23.976 to 24fps option in it's audio encoder setup. Changing the speed of video is fairly easy to to manually in an ACS Synth script, but MeGUI doesn't seem to have any speedup/slowdown options between 23.976 and and 24

Everybody, except perhaps stuffy old engineers resisting any change, would readily understand that makes sense.

Some GUIs would probably do it. Some do. The encoder GUI I use can. Handbrake doesn't. Not that I speed it up when encoding anyway. For one thing I mostly use my PC as a media player with ReClock changing the frame rate to 25fps while the TV refreshes at 50Hz. And speeding up the video also necessitates speeding up and re-encoding the audio, which means it takes a quality hit, and I'm also not sure if it's easy to resample multi channel audio without messing with the relative channel phasing a tad. MeGUI warns you about it in it's log file. I'd assume most people aren't going to get excited about re-encoding audio if they're only doing it so the frames can go by at a marginally faster rate.

I can set the frame rate on playback to almost anything I desire via Reclock. 24fps. 23.976, or something more exotic if I wanted to. That's just me though.... most people probably use a hardware player.

Sorry, but your explanation as to why a movie shot at 24fps should also be viewable at 24fps at home, didn't in any way describe why that'd be better. The original frame rate doesn't necessarily mean better quality (ask PAL why), especially when the difference is so tiny you'd need bionic censors to pick it.

Maybe stuffy old engineers would understand the NTSC TV refresh rate is 50.940Hz, and that's why the NTSC DVD frame rate is 50.940 or 23..976 with pulldown etc. If you want 24fps video, there's plenty available on Bluray.

I wonder how accurate film cameras tend to be? Film's on the way out anyway, but I wonder if the frames always zip by at exactly 24fps, either when the film's originally shot or when it's projected in a Cinema.

[hello_hello]

Probably because technically there no such thing as a fractional frame rate, how exactly do you show 23.976 fps? That means that every second you are showing 23 whole frames and .976 of another frame. Absurd.

What if the TV is refreshing to match? Where's the rule saying the refresh rate per second has to be a whole number? It's probably a whole number when multiplied into something. Just not seconds....

I actually agree with the previous poster, if PAL could be 25fps why should NTSC be 23.97 or 29.97? Why not stick with 24 or 30fps?

PAL is 25fps because our power is 240V, 50Hz. Your power must be fractional. I'm pretty sure it goes back to the early CRT days and the refresh rate needing to be flcker free....... or something like that. Those sorts of problems are no doubt a thing of the past, but now it's due to standards compatibility. For NTSC, that is. HD/Bluray is 24fps happy. Even in PAL Land we can watch Bluray video at it's original frame rate. We're not stuck on 25fps. That's a PAL thing.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know whether it all makes a great deal of difference. Monitor timings never seem to be 100% accurate. This PC is currently connected to my TV at 50.002Hz, according to Reclock. If I remember correctly, lower refresh rates are a little less accurate.

So (anyone who knows what they're talking about, feel free top correct me when I'm wrong), many HD Tvs can refresh at either 60Hz or 59.940Hz. My PCs running XP so it'll only connect at 60Hz, but I think Win7 and newer OS's can use either, if a TV supports both. Or Win7 doesn't pretend it's connecting at 60Hz when it's really 59.94Hz, or something like that.....
Anyway,,,,, when it comes to Bluray players, does anyone know if they do any frame rate fiddling? I'm wondering if they'll connect at a particular refresh rate, and if it's not a match for the frame rate, the frame rate might be adjusted a little. I'm not saying it'd change by much if it does, but I have wondered if the TV's refreshing at roughly 60Hz, a player would output roughly 24fps to match (whether the video is officially 23.976 or 24fps). Or do players strictly output the "specified" frame rate?

And what about film mode. I think my TV has one. I've seen it mentioned in the manual. I've never used it as I connect at 50Hz most of the time, but if you stick a 23.976fps video in a Bluray player would it switch the TV to film mode the same as it would for 24fps, or is film mode OCD about the frame rate being 24fps before it'll work?

[newpball]

Probably because technically there no such thing as a fractional frame rate, how exactly do you show 23.976 fps? That means that every second you are showing 23 whole frames and .976 of another frame. Absurd.

Despite that (or just because) your name is sophisticles I will still call out that you are making a logical error.

23.976fps is the same as 24 frames in 1.001 seconds, that means that each frame is held for 0.0417 seconds.
For 24fps each frame is held for 0.04167 seconds.

See how that works?

[smrpix]

You can convert it to 24.0 if you want, just speed it up with the audio. No frames are dropped

Exactly that is what should be done and no it is not just sped up it is restored to the original speed.

--Except of course for all the TV (movies, opera, sports, sitcoms, dramas) that are being shot now originally at 23.97 and 59.94. Doesn't that material deserve to be seen in it's native frame rate as well?

[newpball]

You can convert it to 24.0 if you want, just speed it up with the audio. No frames are dropped

Exactly that is what should be done and no it is not just sped up it is restored to the original speed.

--Except of course for all the TV (movies, opera, sports, sitcoms, dramas) that are being shot now originally at 23.97 and 59.94. Doesn't that material deserve to be seen in it's native frame rate as well?

Yes, unfortunately the totally unnecessary fps zoo in the digital age is ever expanding, 23.97, 24, 25, 29.96, 50, 59.94, 60.

We have to thank stuffy old engineers who want to keep everything compatible all the time, I am surprised they have not enforced 18fps for Nipkow disk compatibility as well.

[sophisticles]

I'd like to see some sense in it , but it is not there. Video is frame rate driven, fps, not time driven spf, I edit video and there is frames not seconds or whatever time unit ...

It's whole frames per unit of time, I can guarantee you that you are editing whole frames, I know you never edited .976th of a frame.

[newpball]

I'd like to see some sense in it , but it is not there. Video is frame rate driven, fps, not time driven spf, I edit video and there is frames not seconds or whatever time unit ...

It's whole frames per unit of time, I can guarantee you that you are editing whole frames, I know you never edited .976th of a frame.

Right so you think that showing one frame per 0.04167 seconds is not a problem but one frame per 0.0417 seconds is?

[hello_hello]

Yes, unfortunately the totally unnecessary fps zoo in the digital age is ever expanding, 23.97, 24, 25, 29.96, 50, 59.94, 60.

They're the same frame rates we've used for probably just a tad longer than forever. What made you decide the number of frame rates has expanded? NTSC and PAL are analogue, not digital. All but two of the frame rates you mentioned are PAL or NTSC.

We have to thank stuffy old engineers who want to keep everything compatible all the time, I am surprised they have not enforced 18fps for Nipkow disk compatibility as well.

Imagine you bought video and couldn't play it using your current hardware? I'm fairly sure the complaining you're doing regarding the 23.976 frame rate would pale into insignificance. Which frame rates should be dropped?
For the record, most modern players don't care about frame rates. You could include every possible frame rate from 10fps to 60fps at up to three decimal places and I doubt you'd find one most modern player won't play. I'm referring to USB players built into Bluray players or TVs, or standalone USB players etc. Even the old AVI capable DVD players I once owned didn't seem to care about the frame rate. The worst that should happen, is if the frame rate doesn't match the refresh rate, the player or renderer or TV will need to add or drop frames accordingly.

You've possibly got it a little backwards anyway. Some formats might require specific frame rates, but thanks to those stuffy old engineers I can put video on a USB thumb drive and play it with my TV's media player regardless of the frame rate. Is that for some reason not a good thing?

Right so you think that showing one frame per 0.04167 seconds is not a problem but one frame per 0.0417 seconds is?

Errrr....... didn't you start this frame rate discussion by claiming one frame per 0.0417 seconds is the work of Satan, but when the frames have a 0.0416 duration, the quality is better, or however it works....

[newpball]

For the record, most modern players don't care about frame rates. You could include every possible frame rate from 10fps to 60fps up to three decimal places and I doubt you'd find one most modern player won't play. I'm referring to USB players built into Bluray players or TVs, or standalone USB players etc.

And that is a great thing, but I am sure to the chagrin of some stuffy old engineers who insist on "the standards".

You've possibly got it a little backwards anyway. Some formats might require specific frame rates, but thanks to those stuffy old enginners I can put video on a USB thumb drive and play it with my TV's media player regardless of the frame rate. Is that for some reason not a good thing?

That is a very good thing but I don't think the stuffy old engineers should get the credit for that. If they had it their way the only format would still be interlaced SD NTSC while they would reluctantly setup a proposal for a tentative committee to do a preliminary study to consider a new format in 2030 (as long as it is interlaced of course).

And you are right, the industry has moved on, most modern TVs can display all kind of stuff now. SOEs must get madder and madder about it.

Errrr....... didn't you start this discussion by claiming one frame per 0.0417 second is the work of Satan, but when the frames have a 0.0416 duration there's perfect harmony throughout the universe because that's the "original" frame rate?

Eh, no! I did not claim anything like that.

I was referring to the fact that in 2014, the digital age, we have trouble displaying a movie in its original framerate because standards made in 1953, yes over 60 years old, are still holy for stuffy old engineers.

[rdeffley]

Read somewhere recently that HDTV's are 24hz and if the frame rate differs from the HZ level, you get occasional stutter. My Samsung bluray player plays everything @ 24fps by default. I'm guessing that other bluray players do as well. So that's why bluray's, DVD's, and files watched through the player get smooth playback.

But when you use VLC or Media Player Classic Home Cinema for example, both play the file @ the original frame rate of 23.976. Since that differs from the HZ level of the TV, that's why you get the occasional stutter during playback. So anytime I watch something I personally encoded @ 24fps through my computer it's fine. However, if it's a file that somebody else encoded (almost always @ 23.976), I watch through my bluray player.

[hello_hello]

And that is a great thing, but I am sure to the chagrin of some stuffy old engineers who insist on "the standards"......

You're just waffling now.

Eh, no! I did not claim anything like that.

I was referring to the fact that in 2014, the digital age, we have trouble displaying a movie in its original framerate because standards made in 1953, yes over 60 years old, are still holy for stuffy old engineers.

No you said video should be viewable at it's original 24fps frame rate, which implies that it'd in some way offer a better viewing experience than the same video at 23.976fps, but so far you've not really managed an explanation as to why.

I've explained why you're wrong. There's no problem playing video at it's original frame rate these days if it's released that way, as Bluray supports 24fps. I've explained that modern players support almost any frame rate. Do you expect an older format like DVD to somehow retrospectively become a newer standard? It's going to contain "film" at 23.976fps. For some reason you seem oblivious to the fact DVDs weren't invented in 2014, but around 20 years ago. Bluray was released around 2006 and one of it's "features" is "film mode". You'll be complaining your DVD video isn't 3D next.

Do you think the people who create the free encoder GUI's we all use are "stuffy old engineers", or when exactly do these "stuffy old engineers" figure into this discussion? If there was an advantage to speeding up 23.976fps "film" to 24fps when re-encoding I'm sure most encoder GUI's would offer the option. Obviously it can be done. I wonder if there's a reason why they don't?

[newpball]

Do you expect an older format like DVD to somehow retrospectively become a newer standard?

I am glad you agree that DVD is an older format, I would prefer the term old format though.

It's going to contain "film" at 23.976fps.

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch. Wouldn't you agree that the countless butchered full screen/ non anamorphic widescreen botched telecines, compressed and edge 'enhanced' to idiotic levels prove the opposite? Done by brilliant engineers perhaps?

Bluray was released around 2006 and one of it's "features" is "film mode".

Yes, and that is a great thing! I am sure brilliant engineers could not wait to put all the movies that way on blu-ray disks!
Oh wait.......

[hello_hello]

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.

I'd say expecting an intelligent discussion from you would be more than a stretch.