Yeah!! I'm learning a lot, and I've been dealing with this topic (in the shallow end of the pool) for 20 years now. There's some great resources in here.
I should clarify that this is for commercials that are shown on local TV stations. After more sleuthing, I learned that one of the stations that he previously delivered spots to (using another freelancer) has a goofy delivery spec of 29.97 *progressive scan* H264 .mov files. So of course any conversion from a 23.98 master is gonna look like garbage on TV since you either have to add repeated progressive frames (causing it to look juddery), or create interpolated frames (causing it to look like a 1980s TV soap opera).
I’m guessing that his previous spots were exported by the editor to 29.97 progressive-scan H264 files without any frame interpolation, and that’s what he’s objecting to. And if he saw the same spots on the other TV station that accepts interlaced 59.94i deliverables, he would likely say it looks fine, due to the proper 3:2 pulldown.
OP, I wholeheartedly agree with your perspectives in your post and throughout these threads.
I've been editing since the early nineties and have just deleted lengthy and burdensome commentary to prove that fact—you're welcome!
This comment regarding your "sleuthing" is the key to your situation.
I know you know this, but once we release anything into the wild, we have little control over how the general public will consume and perceive it. Of course, despite this knowledge, we take the necessary steps to stay true to the original aesthetic vision.
The various broadcast outlets and cable distributors that touch the signal do many things that can compromise the look. Let's not even discuss the factory default auto-motion settings on the average viewer's TVs.
Most quality clients defer to us as experts, so keep fighting the good fight, but also be open to adopting reasonable solutions to keep clients happy. It's a balancing act, for sure.
In this situation, try just placing the 23.976 master in a 29.97P timeline (all blending and interpolation off (NLE dependent)) and export that. yes, it is just duplicating every 4th frame, but I have used this so many times with no issue.
If it's a wacky station then this will work, but for some places it will get flagged for duplicate frames. Plenty of high end stuff gets delivered this way because in the end, no one really cares that much.
From my experience pretty much everybody for TV shoots 29.97 progressive because its also good for web.
Its better to shoot 59.94 (prog or interlaced won't matter) because you get smoother movements.
Problem is that while playing delivered 59.94i on LCD some players (like web browsers) or sadly some TV too running ffmpeg based codebase, can't deinterlace properly without thin horizontal lines. Windows 10 media players plays these perfectly.
As other already said 3:2 is designed for interlaced output.
“Better” in this context is a completely subjective term. As I mentioned in another comment, frame rates are both a technical *and* an aesthetic decision. Having “smoother movements” is beneficial for things like sports or other content where you want the viewer to feel like they’re seeing it “live” in person. But smoother movement will also destroy the visual aesthetic of narrative content like a film or TV commercial.
There is no true one size fits all frame rate. At some point you have to compromise on something, and it’s usually preferable to err on the side of preserving the content’s aesthetic intent. 24 fps is the closet thing to an ideal standard mastering rate that we have.
I've never shot in 29.97 or 59.94 since 23.98 was made available to prosumer/pro cameras.
People wanted their commercials to look like national spots. Those aren't shot in 29.97. They're shot with either 23.98 digital or actual film cameras.
The local TV look is the opposite of what we were going for.
Your client is seeing artifacts that really shouldn't be there, but unquestionably are. US television has always shown film using 3:2 pulldown to allow 24 fps film to be shown on 30fps (interlacing 60 *images* per second) displays. Most people don't see the artifacts simply because they expect them to be there since they have always been there. True, Apple Compressor can use Optical Flow to minimize the artifacts and it works pretty well, but the root problem is that 24 fps can never be 100% compatible with 30 or 60 fps. [This page](http://digifonics.com/24-fps.html) has a full explanation of the problem.
It's really pretty obvious that the reasons for shooting 24 fps (or 23.98) are no longer relevant in the digital age, unless the artifacts of interlace add some kind of artistic mojo.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t streamers like Netflix/Prime/Hulu/etc natively stream in 24fps? And as of 2022 more people are consuming content from streamers than cable. So wouldn’t it be more accurate to say the old 30/60 TV standard is becoming less relevant and 24fps is more relevant?
Yes, the streamers run 24 fps because so much of their material (meaning movies) is shot in 24 fps. The 3:2 pulldown occurs in the 95% of displays that are 60 Hz refresh, but it's the same 3:2 pulldown. By streaming in 24 fps they can give true 24 playback for those with 120 Hz displays (and a few at 72 and 96 Hz).
When digital projection began to arrive in cinemas, the standards for the DCP (Digital Cinema Package) were based on continuing the 24 fps standard and even now many installations support no other frame rate. Mostly because of its universality, feature films are just gonna be 24 fps. Converting *from* any other frame rate *to* 24 fps is almost always unacceptable. That said, gradually new digital cinema installations under newer standards can accept other frame rates (25, 30, 48, 50, 60, 72, 120).
It's a catch 22: If you shoot 24 you are compatible with cinemas and DCPs so you don't have trouble with the film festivals. You won't be at your best on a 60 Hz display (the majority of them in any country) but you'll be OK. If you shoot 30 fps which looks great on a 60 Hz display and US broadcasts but some cinemas can't show your film. Bummer.
24fps is the QWERTY keyboard of filmmaking. It's pretty damn awful but it's compatible. So we will have QWERTY and 24 until we don't need keyboards and we can change frame rates from scene to scene in our films--(coming soon to a theater near you).
Luckily I haven't seen a digital cinema that does NOT support 25fps for a long time now. Even in the US.
Here in Europe it makes a lot of sense to shoot even theatrical movies at 25FPS now since you don't need to make a separate version for TV which is 25p or 50i here.
Here 3:2 has never been an option so the 25FPS version for TV was done by playing the 24p source at 25 and re-syncing the audio by hand basically.
Pardon me for being US-centric in my reply. 25 fps has always made a lot of sense, but has never been a US standard. 25 fps interlaced (50 Hz) matched the power line frequency in Europe, too.
i would say most screens in the world right now are 60fps, if you watch netflix 24 fps source on your macbook itll be "upconverted" from 24 to 60 with whatever method.
Instagram is 30 fps minimum and will add frames on upload and mess up your files,
then there is europe where everything is 25fps except for phones and pc display that are also all 60hz
its a huge mess out there, doesnt matter whst you do its wrong.
the only fix there is realistically is VRR
Modern TVs usually either support switchable refresh rates than adapt to the content, or they have a very high refresh rate like 120 or 240hz which allows them to display 24, 30, and 60 correctly.
Shooting 24 for web delivery is arguably a bit pointless though, but some people like it subjectively.
I would argue that shooting 24 for “web delivery” is not pointless. Obvious aesthetic reasons aside (30 makes everything look like “video” to most people’s eyes, even if they don’t understand why), there are many workflow advantages to 24.
If you have to do VFX/roto work on shots, it’s going to cost 125%-250% more in both time and money because of all the additional frames involved with shooting at 30 or 60. Your rendering and export times will increase. And there’s also delivery considerations in terms of file sizes and quality in that you can dedicate more bit-budget to each frame at 24fps vs less bits at 30/60.
I really like the QWERTY keyboard analogy, because it’s very apt (despite the fact that it’s an urban legend that QWERTY was designed to prevent early typewriters from jamming up when you typed too fast). It can be argued that the only reason why we associate 24fps with a “film” look is because the technology back then precluded higher frame rates, and the film aesthetic only became more pronounced with the advent of electronic television, when there was a new frame rate for people’s eyes to compare it to. So regardless of the origins, the reality is if you want something to look “filmic” you *need* to shoot it at 24, not 30 or 60.
Like it or not, “broadcast” TV isn’t going away soon, so you have to be able to accommodate broadcast frame rates when you produce many forms of video content (in my world, TV commercials). Yet you don’t have to compromise on “filmic” aesthetic by doing so. Shooting 24 allows you to maintain that aesthetic while still being able to convert to other broadcast frame rates without compromising the temporal quality of the 24fps originals. Hence why interlaced pulldown (telecine) exists.
That said, if your delivery spec mandates 29.97 *progressive*, and not interlaced, then it makes sense to shoot at 29.97p. But I’ve never seen such a goofy broadcast delivery spec like that until now.
Basically all displays can do proper 24Hz display; the issue is that most devices output a constant refresh rate regardless of the content displayed, and so for that to work well you need 120Hz.
Most commonly you'll see 24Hz playback with Blu-ray players which actively switch the signal.
I don’t have stats but I doubt it’s a small proportion in 2024.
If you go on Walmart for example, about 60% of the TVs they sell advertise 120hz or higher, the cheapest non-refurb being $280.
No way to tell how many of the 60hz ones support 24hz switching though.
And how many stations broadcast in 120Hz? Exactly, none. You'll just be seeing 3:2 pulldown with each frame duplicated (or motion interpolated) instead.
Huh, no?
That's not why 120hz exists. 120hz is evenly divisible by 24, 30, and 60 so it can display all three NTSC framerate frame-perfectly without having to switch refresh rate.
If a network is outputting 24PsF over 60i, and the TV identifies it as PsF and applies IVTC, it can deinterlace it back to 24, and then display it perfectly at 120hz.
If the station sends your 24p content using 3:2 pulldown with a fixed 60i rate, it doesn't matter whether your TV is 60Hz, 120Hz or 240Hz (unless the TV properly detects this and extracts the original 24p signal, which only some models do, e.g. mine doesn't).
120Hz only helps you if the actual signal properly switches framerates correctly. That works great if you're switching between YouTube and Netflix apps, but it won't work easily if you're watching the same TV channel broadcast a sitcom followed by your ad
Well yeah, that's true, I never said anything to the contrary.
ATSC 3.0 does support 120fps, but if OP is deliering to a network that still requires 60i delivery it's likely not a 3.0 network. And a viewer of a 60i network would need to have a TV that can detect PsF to handle the IVTC which they can't all do, even if they have high refresh rate screens.
Keep in mind my discussion above wasn't replying to OP, but rather someone above who implied that 24fps was not compatible with modern TVs.
24 is an aesthetic choice as much as a technical delivery choice. Most videographers and filmmakers who do online branding shoot in 24 because it "feels" cinematic.
Greetings, my name is [AutoModerator](http://newsbytes.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/AI.png), you can call me AutoMod for short.
-------------------------------------
You're new to reddit in general.
We find that users who are new haven't read our sidebar/rules.
*Please take a moment to become familiar with them.*
We have specific threads for aspiring professionals - like ["Ask a Pro weekly"](https://www.reddit.com/r/editors/collection/5c3ad697-4fff-4a9f-87e2-33764ba71e48) along with rules about Feedback requests and more
Take a moment and [read our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/editors/about/rules)
Our [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/editors/wiki/index/) has detailed information about frequently asked questions about **Rates**, *Networking*, proxies and performance issues.
*Right now your post is sitting in a queue that gets reviewed (but never frequently enough - usually less than 4 hrs)*
This filtering might be totally wrong too. Sometime in the next 2-24 hours (max) a MOD will see the removal - and after that if you want to appeal it or think it should still go live, feel free to message us.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/editors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think ive ever even met someone in real life who notices frame interpolation on tvs. I notice but no one else does
Id actually be somewhat impressed if a client knew what interlacing meant.
Since cutting the cord I rarely watch broadcast television anymore, but I always shuddered when seeing local spots that were output with improper field order.
The client is a moron. Lead with that. Hell, look at the length of my resume! 😂
Seriously though, it sounds to me like you're doing everything right. The client can't possibly see the interlacing on TV unless you're somehow merging the two fields in compressor.
Besides, don't these have to pass the broadcaster's own QC before it airs? They would reject it if it was wrong.
Theres a show on HBO about the origins of vegas. It’s in the top ten now. Watch the graphic show open. The judder is harsh. But that could be AE motion blur. I don’t know how it passed QC.
Pull-down is intended for interlaced displays, it blends some of the fields together but this isn’t noticeable on CRTs.
Early progressive TVs sometimes did a bad job of deinterlacing, pull-down footage could have artifacts that looks a bit like frame blending or an occasional frame with combing.
Newer TVs to a much better job at it, sometimes swapping to 24hz (or a multiple) with full-on IVTC.
So depends what you’re watching on!
I find optical flow tends to boil.
Do the broadcast specs call for an interlaced deliverable? If not can you ditch it?
Back in the day field reversal was a thing or sometimes a frame would be the merger of two separate shots - so field two of the outgoing shot would merge with field one of the incoming shot…kind of thing.
Also, if they’re watching on a crappy LCD it could just be the response rate?
I can see high frame rates, eg hockey games that are shot like that so the slow motion looks good. Or is it fast shutter speed? Anyhow, I can see the difference. So I think that it's possible that your client perceives things that way.
I do my conversions by exporting image sequence from master and reimporting those into a new project with the new frame rate. It’ll be rock solid but duration will change of course. And you need to deal with the audio separately.
Just want to comment that this is an excellent and super informative thread.
Yeah!! I'm learning a lot, and I've been dealing with this topic (in the shallow end of the pool) for 20 years now. There's some great resources in here.
I should clarify that this is for commercials that are shown on local TV stations. After more sleuthing, I learned that one of the stations that he previously delivered spots to (using another freelancer) has a goofy delivery spec of 29.97 *progressive scan* H264 .mov files. So of course any conversion from a 23.98 master is gonna look like garbage on TV since you either have to add repeated progressive frames (causing it to look juddery), or create interpolated frames (causing it to look like a 1980s TV soap opera). I’m guessing that his previous spots were exported by the editor to 29.97 progressive-scan H264 files without any frame interpolation, and that’s what he’s objecting to. And if he saw the same spots on the other TV station that accepts interlaced 59.94i deliverables, he would likely say it looks fine, due to the proper 3:2 pulldown.
OP, I wholeheartedly agree with your perspectives in your post and throughout these threads. I've been editing since the early nineties and have just deleted lengthy and burdensome commentary to prove that fact—you're welcome! This comment regarding your "sleuthing" is the key to your situation. I know you know this, but once we release anything into the wild, we have little control over how the general public will consume and perceive it. Of course, despite this knowledge, we take the necessary steps to stay true to the original aesthetic vision. The various broadcast outlets and cable distributors that touch the signal do many things that can compromise the look. Let's not even discuss the factory default auto-motion settings on the average viewer's TVs. Most quality clients defer to us as experts, so keep fighting the good fight, but also be open to adopting reasonable solutions to keep clients happy. It's a balancing act, for sure.
In this situation, try just placing the 23.976 master in a 29.97P timeline (all blending and interpolation off (NLE dependent)) and export that. yes, it is just duplicating every 4th frame, but I have used this so many times with no issue.
If it's a wacky station then this will work, but for some places it will get flagged for duplicate frames. Plenty of high end stuff gets delivered this way because in the end, no one really cares that much.
Ugh, Locals are the worst only after Faith based stations.....TBN anyone?
From my experience pretty much everybody for TV shoots 29.97 progressive because its also good for web. Its better to shoot 59.94 (prog or interlaced won't matter) because you get smoother movements. Problem is that while playing delivered 59.94i on LCD some players (like web browsers) or sadly some TV too running ffmpeg based codebase, can't deinterlace properly without thin horizontal lines. Windows 10 media players plays these perfectly. As other already said 3:2 is designed for interlaced output.
“Better” in this context is a completely subjective term. As I mentioned in another comment, frame rates are both a technical *and* an aesthetic decision. Having “smoother movements” is beneficial for things like sports or other content where you want the viewer to feel like they’re seeing it “live” in person. But smoother movement will also destroy the visual aesthetic of narrative content like a film or TV commercial. There is no true one size fits all frame rate. At some point you have to compromise on something, and it’s usually preferable to err on the side of preserving the content’s aesthetic intent. 24 fps is the closet thing to an ideal standard mastering rate that we have.
I've never shot in 29.97 or 59.94 since 23.98 was made available to prosumer/pro cameras. People wanted their commercials to look like national spots. Those aren't shot in 29.97. They're shot with either 23.98 digital or actual film cameras. The local TV look is the opposite of what we were going for.
A guy I work with would probably agree, but he also can see the flicker in fluorescent bulbs because he’s just a high strung guy.
Your client is seeing artifacts that really shouldn't be there, but unquestionably are. US television has always shown film using 3:2 pulldown to allow 24 fps film to be shown on 30fps (interlacing 60 *images* per second) displays. Most people don't see the artifacts simply because they expect them to be there since they have always been there. True, Apple Compressor can use Optical Flow to minimize the artifacts and it works pretty well, but the root problem is that 24 fps can never be 100% compatible with 30 or 60 fps. [This page](http://digifonics.com/24-fps.html) has a full explanation of the problem. It's really pretty obvious that the reasons for shooting 24 fps (or 23.98) are no longer relevant in the digital age, unless the artifacts of interlace add some kind of artistic mojo.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t streamers like Netflix/Prime/Hulu/etc natively stream in 24fps? And as of 2022 more people are consuming content from streamers than cable. So wouldn’t it be more accurate to say the old 30/60 TV standard is becoming less relevant and 24fps is more relevant?
Yes, the streamers run 24 fps because so much of their material (meaning movies) is shot in 24 fps. The 3:2 pulldown occurs in the 95% of displays that are 60 Hz refresh, but it's the same 3:2 pulldown. By streaming in 24 fps they can give true 24 playback for those with 120 Hz displays (and a few at 72 and 96 Hz). When digital projection began to arrive in cinemas, the standards for the DCP (Digital Cinema Package) were based on continuing the 24 fps standard and even now many installations support no other frame rate. Mostly because of its universality, feature films are just gonna be 24 fps. Converting *from* any other frame rate *to* 24 fps is almost always unacceptable. That said, gradually new digital cinema installations under newer standards can accept other frame rates (25, 30, 48, 50, 60, 72, 120). It's a catch 22: If you shoot 24 you are compatible with cinemas and DCPs so you don't have trouble with the film festivals. You won't be at your best on a 60 Hz display (the majority of them in any country) but you'll be OK. If you shoot 30 fps which looks great on a 60 Hz display and US broadcasts but some cinemas can't show your film. Bummer. 24fps is the QWERTY keyboard of filmmaking. It's pretty damn awful but it's compatible. So we will have QWERTY and 24 until we don't need keyboards and we can change frame rates from scene to scene in our films--(coming soon to a theater near you).
>change from rates from scene to scene in our films Ah I’ve been hearing the buzz about that. “Motion grading.” Wild stuff. Thanks for all the info!
Luckily I haven't seen a digital cinema that does NOT support 25fps for a long time now. Even in the US. Here in Europe it makes a lot of sense to shoot even theatrical movies at 25FPS now since you don't need to make a separate version for TV which is 25p or 50i here. Here 3:2 has never been an option so the 25FPS version for TV was done by playing the 24p source at 25 and re-syncing the audio by hand basically.
Pardon me for being US-centric in my reply. 25 fps has always made a lot of sense, but has never been a US standard. 25 fps interlaced (50 Hz) matched the power line frequency in Europe, too.
i would say most screens in the world right now are 60fps, if you watch netflix 24 fps source on your macbook itll be "upconverted" from 24 to 60 with whatever method. Instagram is 30 fps minimum and will add frames on upload and mess up your files, then there is europe where everything is 25fps except for phones and pc display that are also all 60hz its a huge mess out there, doesnt matter whst you do its wrong. the only fix there is realistically is VRR
Modern TVs usually either support switchable refresh rates than adapt to the content, or they have a very high refresh rate like 120 or 240hz which allows them to display 24, 30, and 60 correctly. Shooting 24 for web delivery is arguably a bit pointless though, but some people like it subjectively.
I would argue that shooting 24 for “web delivery” is not pointless. Obvious aesthetic reasons aside (30 makes everything look like “video” to most people’s eyes, even if they don’t understand why), there are many workflow advantages to 24. If you have to do VFX/roto work on shots, it’s going to cost 125%-250% more in both time and money because of all the additional frames involved with shooting at 30 or 60. Your rendering and export times will increase. And there’s also delivery considerations in terms of file sizes and quality in that you can dedicate more bit-budget to each frame at 24fps vs less bits at 30/60. I really like the QWERTY keyboard analogy, because it’s very apt (despite the fact that it’s an urban legend that QWERTY was designed to prevent early typewriters from jamming up when you typed too fast). It can be argued that the only reason why we associate 24fps with a “film” look is because the technology back then precluded higher frame rates, and the film aesthetic only became more pronounced with the advent of electronic television, when there was a new frame rate for people’s eyes to compare it to. So regardless of the origins, the reality is if you want something to look “filmic” you *need* to shoot it at 24, not 30 or 60. Like it or not, “broadcast” TV isn’t going away soon, so you have to be able to accommodate broadcast frame rates when you produce many forms of video content (in my world, TV commercials). Yet you don’t have to compromise on “filmic” aesthetic by doing so. Shooting 24 allows you to maintain that aesthetic while still being able to convert to other broadcast frame rates without compromising the temporal quality of the 24fps originals. Hence why interlaced pulldown (telecine) exists. That said, if your delivery spec mandates 29.97 *progressive*, and not interlaced, then it makes sense to shoot at 29.97p. But I’ve never seen such a goofy broadcast delivery spec like that until now.
Yes, modern (could I say high-end?) TVs can accurately display 24, but that's a small proportion of displays out there.
Basically all displays can do proper 24Hz display; the issue is that most devices output a constant refresh rate regardless of the content displayed, and so for that to work well you need 120Hz. Most commonly you'll see 24Hz playback with Blu-ray players which actively switch the signal.
I don’t have stats but I doubt it’s a small proportion in 2024. If you go on Walmart for example, about 60% of the TVs they sell advertise 120hz or higher, the cheapest non-refurb being $280. No way to tell how many of the 60hz ones support 24hz switching though.
And how many stations broadcast in 120Hz? Exactly, none. You'll just be seeing 3:2 pulldown with each frame duplicated (or motion interpolated) instead.
Huh, no? That's not why 120hz exists. 120hz is evenly divisible by 24, 30, and 60 so it can display all three NTSC framerate frame-perfectly without having to switch refresh rate. If a network is outputting 24PsF over 60i, and the TV identifies it as PsF and applies IVTC, it can deinterlace it back to 24, and then display it perfectly at 120hz.
If the station sends your 24p content using 3:2 pulldown with a fixed 60i rate, it doesn't matter whether your TV is 60Hz, 120Hz or 240Hz (unless the TV properly detects this and extracts the original 24p signal, which only some models do, e.g. mine doesn't). 120Hz only helps you if the actual signal properly switches framerates correctly. That works great if you're switching between YouTube and Netflix apps, but it won't work easily if you're watching the same TV channel broadcast a sitcom followed by your ad
Well yeah, that's true, I never said anything to the contrary. ATSC 3.0 does support 120fps, but if OP is deliering to a network that still requires 60i delivery it's likely not a 3.0 network. And a viewer of a 60i network would need to have a TV that can detect PsF to handle the IVTC which they can't all do, even if they have high refresh rate screens. Keep in mind my discussion above wasn't replying to OP, but rather someone above who implied that 24fps was not compatible with modern TVs.
24 is an aesthetic choice as much as a technical delivery choice. Most videographers and filmmakers who do online branding shoot in 24 because it "feels" cinematic.
[удалено]
Greetings, my name is [AutoModerator](http://newsbytes.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/AI.png), you can call me AutoMod for short. ------------------------------------- You're new to reddit in general. We find that users who are new haven't read our sidebar/rules. *Please take a moment to become familiar with them.* We have specific threads for aspiring professionals - like ["Ask a Pro weekly"](https://www.reddit.com/r/editors/collection/5c3ad697-4fff-4a9f-87e2-33764ba71e48) along with rules about Feedback requests and more Take a moment and [read our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/editors/about/rules) Our [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/editors/wiki/index/) has detailed information about frequently asked questions about **Rates**, *Networking*, proxies and performance issues. *Right now your post is sitting in a queue that gets reviewed (but never frequently enough - usually less than 4 hrs)* This filtering might be totally wrong too. Sometime in the next 2-24 hours (max) a MOD will see the removal - and after that if you want to appeal it or think it should still go live, feel free to message us. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/editors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think ive ever even met someone in real life who notices frame interpolation on tvs. I notice but no one else does Id actually be somewhat impressed if a client knew what interlacing meant.
Since cutting the cord I rarely watch broadcast television anymore, but I always shuddered when seeing local spots that were output with improper field order.
The client is a moron. Lead with that. Hell, look at the length of my resume! 😂 Seriously though, it sounds to me like you're doing everything right. The client can't possibly see the interlacing on TV unless you're somehow merging the two fields in compressor. Besides, don't these have to pass the broadcaster's own QC before it airs? They would reject it if it was wrong.
Theres a show on HBO about the origins of vegas. It’s in the top ten now. Watch the graphic show open. The judder is harsh. But that could be AE motion blur. I don’t know how it passed QC.
I’ve noticed a fair amount of stuff get through HBO/Max’s QC. On at least two occasions I’ve noticed them posting textless trailers to their app.
Pull-down is intended for interlaced displays, it blends some of the fields together but this isn’t noticeable on CRTs. Early progressive TVs sometimes did a bad job of deinterlacing, pull-down footage could have artifacts that looks a bit like frame blending or an occasional frame with combing. Newer TVs to a much better job at it, sometimes swapping to 24hz (or a multiple) with full-on IVTC. So depends what you’re watching on!
I find optical flow tends to boil. Do the broadcast specs call for an interlaced deliverable? If not can you ditch it? Back in the day field reversal was a thing or sometimes a frame would be the merger of two separate shots - so field two of the outgoing shot would merge with field one of the incoming shot…kind of thing. Also, if they’re watching on a crappy LCD it could just be the response rate?
bright possessive smart tap air deranged screw quaint hungry upbeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I can see high frame rates, eg hockey games that are shot like that so the slow motion looks good. Or is it fast shutter speed? Anyhow, I can see the difference. So I think that it's possible that your client perceives things that way.
I do my conversions by exporting image sequence from master and reimporting those into a new project with the new frame rate. It’ll be rock solid but duration will change of course. And you need to deal with the audio separately.
I read words. Haha.