24p

Real film is 24fps, and is encoded on Blu-Rays at 24p.

Dear Mr "mikejonas",

And do they use "real film" in modern filmmaking? I mean all those digital cameras, "Matrix" movies, modern equipment, etc. Is "24p" still popular today?

And if I have a usual LCD TV without "24p" feature, will it show a Blu-Ray movie OK?

Thanks

'Lyubi minya, kak ya tibya i budim verniye druzya.'

1) "Real film" is definitely used quite often in modern filmmaking. Yes, digital cameras are becoming quite common as well, but a lot of filmmakers still swear by film. And rightfully so, for the time being at least.

2) All three Matrix movies were shot on film.

3) All movies, whether filmed on film or digital, are made up of frames. Every movie ever made is essentially a "slideshow". It's just an assload of slides going by very fast (24 slides per second).

Conventional standard definition video, which is what home video has been for the past few decades, is typically 30 frames per second. The reason for this is that electricity runs at 60 cycles per second, and 30 fits into that nicely, so there's no flicker problems.
When movies that were shot at 24 fps were transferred to video for home release, there was a process in which they converted it to a makeshift framerate of 23.98 frames, which somehow worked into 60 cycles or something. Basically, with standard definition for the past few decades, movies have never been able to be presented in their true framerate. Motion has never been as smooth as it is with true 24 fps.

Now with high definition and 120 hz tvs (60 fits into 120, as does 24), 24 fps can now be presented on home video. So motion is smoother.


I don't know why you're saying it looks terrible. Maybe you're thinking of something else, like MotionFlo or TruMotion or some other motion smoothing filter that the tv makers thought made it look better, but actually looks distracting and unnatural. Turn anything like that to the "Off" setting.

If you don't have a 24p tv, then it's fine. Someone like you (who obviously doesn't have a strong grasp on technical aspects of film and video) probably won't notice any difference anyway. It's really not anything major.

<<<<>>>>

I, and many others, will disagree with you here. Though 24p is the true frame rate of almost all film, it is not smooth. Filmmakers have always struggled to shoot with such a relatively small number of frames per second, especially with action and most definitely with panning and scanning. There is a smoothness to 60 fields per second or 30p, that film cannot replicate. Not that 24 frames is bad, or shouldn't be the goal for home viewing, but it is more about displaying the film as it was originally shot (or nostalgia) than about properly capturing what the eye can see.

<<<<<>>>>>

Unfortunately, not so simple. Many 120hz (and plasma sets) cannot properly handle 24fps, despite the simple math. A lot of 120hz LCDs will not even attempt to properly handle it, and will use a 3:2:2:3 algorithm to display 24p content. The biggest selling point of 120hz should be refresh rate, as it eliminates ghosting and blur associated with high moving objects. There is a working list of tvs that properly display 24p, and some that do are so lousy that the end result is unwatcheable. 3:2/2:3 actually helps to smooth the picture to compensate for the inability of 24 frames per second film.

<<<<<<>>>>>>>

I would be surprised if your TV properly displayed 24p. Surprisingly the end result is very choppy on a panning shot. I like the effect, it allows me to see the film exactly as the director did, taking into account the technical limitations as well as his vision in making the film. Many people do not.

True 24fps is smoother than NTSC's equivalent of 24fps: 23.98fps.

Content that is shot at 30fps will obviously be smoother when viewed at 30fps than 24fps viewed at 24fps. But content that is shot at 24fps, and then converted to NTSC, will not be as smooth as when viewed at 24fps. Watch credits on DVDs. They're pretty jumpy as they move up the screen. On Blu-Ray, at 24fps, it's smoother. Yes, there's still "choppiness"... but in this case, it's indicative of the source, not the transfer.


I have a projector, and it is 24fps compatible. And you're right, panning shots do tend to still strobe a little, but overall motion is smoother than it is on DVD. Like I said, it's nothing major. It isn't a big difference. You have to really be looking for it to even notice anything.

24fps content displayed on a TV that is 120hz or more and does not properly display 24p will look more smooth but less consistent than a TV that can display it properly. 24fps on a capable set will be more consistent but more choppy.