Yatess Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 There is no 23.98 framerate in options on my Sound Devices 744t, only 23.976. When I'm told that 23.98 is required on a shoot, can I be assured that the above rates are the same. 23.98 is just a rounding off of 23.976. I read on-line that 23.976 can cause some issues with certain software in post where 23.98 is the requested framerate. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McQueen Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 23.98 is rounding up of 23.976. they are the same thing. and on some cameras its listed at 24p, 24, or 24pN. but then some cameras(red) 24 is actually straight up 24, just have to know the cameras or consult with post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 I read on-line that 23.976 can cause some issues with certain software in post where 23.98 is the requested framerate. Scott Nonsense. They are one in the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfisk Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 I concur, and this was one of the questions I was asked the most when I sold gear. They are both the same. 23.98 is basically "rounding up" when phrasology. But, as Michael rightly pointed out, you need to be very clear with camera people on this. I've had many a sound mixer say that camera told them they were rolling at 24, and so the sound mixer rolled at 24, but camera really meant 23.98. This is when having one of those master timecode generator/reader devices comes in really handy. If you don't think you are being told the correct thing, you can plug it into the camera and it will tell you what the camera is really rolling at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 No camera should ever be running true 24 these days, unless there's film running through it. If someone says "24", they will likely mean 23.976 (23.98). If they say, "No, it's really 24" be sure to check with the producer and editor (if one exists when you start) and get it in writing. Do not trust a camera person or DIT or anyone who tells you to run your machines at 24, unless it comes in writing from the top. Even then, double and triple check. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Tuzo Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 The feature I'm doing now is shooting true 24 (on Alexa). They are posting in France. We had, like, six "are you sure?" conversations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 If someone says "24", they will likely mean 23.976 (23.98). If they say, "No, it's really 24" be sure to check with the producer and editor (if one exists when you start) and get it in writing Exactly. The key phrase to use is, "are you sure you mean 24.00fps" (as in twenty-four-point-zero-zero), or do they mean 23.976 or 23.98? Usually, the only solution is to read the camera manual. In my 13 nutty years of working with HD, I can only recall one show using 24.00fps, and that was the Adam Sandler film Grownups, shot on Panavision Genesis. Funny movie, made a ton o' dough. The first day or so of post was problematic, but after that it was as smooth as glass -- everything got pulled down .1% for dailies, and it all worked fine. And there were numerous 20-minute takes in the film, too, yet they all stayed perfectly in sync (as you would expect). I would say 23.976fps makes much more sense, but we can only make tactful suggestions in post, and ultimately it's the client's decision. I'm doing a 29.97 job right now and could not talk the client out of it; their reasoning was, "23.976 might lead to problems when it's converted to 1080i," which was frustrating because I know that's done every single day, and it works fine. But one bad experience by the client some years ago can influence them forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaAudio Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 In my 13 nutty years of working with HD, I can only recall one show using 24.00fps, and that was the Adam Sandler film Grownups, shot on Panavision Genesis. Funny movie, made a ton o' dough. My daughter worked for a few days as an intern on Grownups. She had a great time but, for some reason, doesn't emphisise it on her resume... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whit Norris Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 No camera should ever be running true 24 these days, unless there's film running through it. If someone says "24", they will likely mean 23.976 (23.98). If they say, "No, it's really 24" be sure to check with the producer and editor (if one exists when you start) and get it in writing. Do not trust a camera person or DIT or anyone who tells you to run your machines at 24, unless it comes in writing from the top. Even then, double and triple check. Robert +1 Also years ago when Sony came out with HD they started calling 23.98 instead of 23.976. That when I first heard 23.98 used. We had always referred to it as 23.976 until the manufactures started calling it 23.98. Cheers, Whit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 ... I read on-line that 23.976 can cause some issues with certain software in post where 23.98 is the requested framerate. You may be confusing this with a discussion of 23.976 vs 29.97. See other threads on this that go into more detail. And, yes, what others have already told you -- 23.98 is just a shorthand way of saying 23.976. BTW, if anyone ever tells you that they're shooting 23.976 drop-frame, run... run... run. There is no such animal as 23.976 drop-frame and they have no clue what they're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yatess Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Thanks for all the replies. I found out yesterday that I'll be working with a Canon C300. Good info here too. http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/pdf/cinema_eos/EOS_C300_Best_Practices_Canon_USA.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toy Robot Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 And very clearly put in their manual, I might add: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 That is a very clear, very well-written entry! Somebody at Canon really knew their stuff. I think for the first few years of HD in post (circa 1999-2002 or so), we generally called it "1080 24p" as shorthand for "23.976." That was used interchangeably with 23.98. We always made sure all paperwork specified "23.98" and was approved by the client's post department. Not much post-production gear -- certainly not Sony VTRs or editing software -- called it 23.976, except for Spirit Telecine Scanners, daVinci color correctors, and a few other arcane devices. I think even Pro Tools still calls it 23.98, which is perfectly reasonable. Sound Devices is an engineering-driven company, so it figures that they would be sticklers for accuracy. No harm in that -- we know what they mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Denton Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 On 8 June 2012 at 6:29 PM, RPSharman said: No camera should ever be running true 24 these days, unless there's film running through it. If someone says "24", they will likely mean 23.976 (23.98). If they say, "No, it's really 24" be sure to check with the producer and editor (if one exists when you start) and get it in writing. Do not trust a camera person or DIT or anyone who tells you to run your machines at 24, unless it comes in writing from the top. Even then, double and triple check. Robert Why should no camera be running true 24fps? Perhaps this is a US thing. We shoot true 24fps all the time in Aus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Ed Denton said: Why should no camera be running true 24fps? Perhaps this is a US thing. We shoot true 24fps all the time in Aus. It is a US / NTSC thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 It's also a 2012 thing. 24fps is still very rare in the US, and 23.98fps is starting to creep into the UK, oddly, on studio shoots where US work flow is used. But 24fps is certainly more common than in was in 2012 when I made my comment. Even now, if you're on anything with any affiliation to an American company, it'd be wise to verify they really mean 24fps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismedr Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 the only place where i think 23.98 is rightfully used is in camera menus where there is no space for triple digits after the dot. in nearly all other cases, it seems silly to me to write 23.98 instead of 23.976 - saves one digit and possibly adds a lot of confusion (but at least a lot less silly and a lot less confusion then writing 23.976 as 24p). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al mcguire Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 I've have camera ac's remove a 23.976 slate label and replace it with a 23.98 one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 2 hours ago, chrismedr said: the only place where i think 23.98 is rightfully used is in camera menus where there is no space for triple digits after the dot. in nearly all other cases, it seems silly to me to write 23.98 instead of 23.976 - saves one digit and possibly adds a lot of confusion (but at least a lot less silly and a lot less confusion then writing 23.976 as 24p). Why? Even 23.976 is a round up number. The actual speed is 24/1.001 which is 23.9760239760239760.......... Personally i think 23.98 is a reasonable expression, and there is no competing term that could cause confusion like there is with calling it 24. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismedr Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 6 hours ago, Wandering Ear said: Why? Even 23.976 is a round up number. The actual speed is 24/1.001 which is 23.9760239760239760.......... Personally i think 23.98 is a reasonable expression, and there is no competing term that could cause confusion like there is with calling it 24. hmm, good point. haven't thought about it this way. personally I still prefer 23.976 because it makes makes it obvious that the math for the pull down to 29.97 works out, but you're right, it shouldn't add any confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Wandering Ear said: Personally i think 23.98 is a reasonable expression, and there is no competing term that could cause confusion like there is with calling it 24. I agree. As far as I'm concerned, everybody in production and post understands that 23.98 = 23.976 for our purposes. And most technical people grasp that 24fps and 23.98fps are not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Wandering Ear said: Why? Even 23.976 is a round up number. The actual speed is 24/1.001 which is 23.9760239760239760.......... ... .001 x 24 = .024 Therefore: 24 - .024 = 23.976 Just like: .001 x 30 = .030 Therefore: 30 - .030 = 29.97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 On 7/2/2016 at 2:00 AM, John Blankenship said: .001 x 24 = .024 Therefore: 24 - .024 = 23.976 Just like: .001 x 30 = .030 Therefore: 30 - .030 = 29.97 Here's a post from Tom Duffy discussing the TC math. There is little to no practical difference in using 23.98 vs 24/1.001, but at the end of a day the calculated Tc values could be off by a couple frames if a program only uses the rounded 23.98 for calculating instead of 24/1.001. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it should be calculated the way I did it, as 23.976 is supposed to be 24fps slowed down by exactly 1/10th of 1% as 29.97 is also supposed to be 30fps slowed down by exactly 1/10th of 1%. Look at the math another way, if someone sells an item for 20% off of the original $100 price, you should pay $80, not $83.33 (and 1/3 cent) you'd get by dividing $100 by 1.2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted July 5, 2016 Report Share Posted July 5, 2016 Unlike your store analogy, .1% of frames are not being subtracted from the frame rate, the length of the frame is longer. 30 frames per 1 second (30/1) became 30 frames per 1.001 seconds (30/1.001). The frame rate was tied to the color sub carrier, the math comes from the relationship of the horizontal line rate ((5*7*9/(8*11) MHZ)*2/455 MHZ) over the number of lines per frame (525), which equates to 29.97002997..... which is equal to 30/1.001 History and math referenced from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.279748a58a2b862b7aa5f3b84126e232.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.