5 ms·
How do you suggest taking 24 FPS and turning it to 29.976 NTSC? A lot of times, they would just convert it 1:1, so the 24 frames would go by in a 24/~30th of a
by ok_dad 3y ago
How do you suggest taking 24 FPS and turning it to 29.976 NTSC? A lot of times, they would just convert it 1:1, so the 24 frames would go by in a 24/~30th of a second, so it looked faster. Further, a lot of old, old film was actually meant to be played at slower FPSes than 24, I think 8mm was like 18 FPS.
Today, we do key-framing and other tricks to make transfers from different FPSes easy and imperceptible (plus with digital stuff we can playback at any FPS), but back in the 80's and 90's the tech was a lot less advanced to turn a film image into an analog or digital format, and in previous decades you didn't even have analog or digital, you just had to use 1:1 frame transfers to get onto a larger or smaller film format.
- charcircuit 3y agoAs professionals they should be shooting at 29.976 fps if that is the fps the end product is supposed to be. Messing up and using the wrong framerate when recording is for amateurs.
- rjmunro 3y agoThe end product is supposed to be 24fps for a cinema. But then a TV company wants to show the already-existing film. It needs to be solved. In PAL countries, 24fps movies are often played a bit fast at 25fps on TV so that each frame fits nicely in the 50hz signal. It's not a "Squeeze more adverts in" thing, it's the best way to show the film, otherwise you'd have to introduce an extra frame every second, which would look jarring.
- sgtnoodle 3y ago24FPS is typically converted to 60Hz using 3:2 pulldown. Show one frame for 3 fields, then the next frame for 2 fields, then 3, then 2, etc.
- thrdbndndn 3y ago> How do you suggest taking 24 FPS and turning it to 29.976 NTSC? 3:2 pulldown, which has been done for decades. You can also just duplicate frames (un-evenly). It will introduce jitter but most of people aren't very sensitive to that, and it's better than playing at wrong speed.