Feature Request: Custom Render Frame Rates

We have recently begun to move our production house to Davinci Resolve as we enjoy the interface, however we came across a limitation with the software that won't allow us to progress with our movement. We produce content that requires time adjustment, specifically our workflow requires us having the ability to set non-standard frame rates for our timeline and export at those frame rates. We found we could set custom frame rates for the resolve timeline, but when exporting footage we are stuck with standard frame rates.

Is it possible to implement input for custom frame rates within resolves export functionality? Ex. 23.73

Why on earth would you need such a fps?

That would be my question as well.

You could always export as individual DPX or EXR or TIFF frames and then change the headers to reflect whatever bizarre frame rate you want to invent, but I'd be concerned about what monitors can handle that frame rate.

The type of production we do is primarily re-edits of music videos, source from record label comes in and we have to time stretch the content to match the new audio. When that is done we match the frame rate to the percentage sped up or slowed down in order to prevent lost or duplicated frames. It is strange but it is what has been preferred by our clientele for years.

But...what device will play that back at that same frame rate? Seems like anything besides a computer is going to either retime it for standardized frame rates, which negates your efforts, or just not play it at all.

The type of production we do is primarily re-edits of music videos, source from record label comes in and we have to time stretch the content to match the new audio. When that is done we match the frame rate to the percentage sped up or slowed down in order to prevent lost or duplicated frames. It is strange but it is what has been preferred by our clientele for years.

Sorry, but this workaround is very bad. It's against any standard practice and far from acceptable approach.
You end up with final files at strange fps. This is very bad and of course when you try to watch this on TVs etc it will be jerky anyway.
Your final files should always have standard fps, not 23.65fps etc. Very bad approach. You should re-time video with some motion adaptive engine (so new frames are created and final file stays at standard fps) or adjust edit. Sometimes there are graphics, holds etc which can be trimmed or extended, specially when you need fairly small adjust in length.

In our specific case all the playback is occurring on computers. The software that is used actually functions well with non-standard frame rates, but the point is not really to justify the workflow. The main point is to be able to request this feature. It would be same as requesting the ability to render high speed footage at 240fps. We just want the ability to render custom frame rates.

Such a feature is very specific and as far as you could justify e.g. 96fps, 120fps, 240fps implementing things like 23.67fps (or any random fps export) is unlikely to happen. Reason for this is also to make sure that Resolve keeps standards and is not a source of crazy files.
You have image sequence for this.
As workaround you can use ffmpeg (use -r in front of -i option ) with c:v copy and c:a copy options which will be just re-copying original data and setting correct fps in new file (you can export file from Resolve at any standard fps in this case).

[Peter Chamberlain]

In our specific case all the playback is occurring on computers. The software that is used actually functions well with non-standard frame rates, but the point is not really to justify the workflow. The main point is to be able to request this feature. It would be same as requesting the ability to render high speed footage at 240fps. We just want the ability to render custom frame rates.

Hi, as DaVinci Resolve follows film and TV standards the random frame rate deliverables would need somewhat more consideration. You can PM to me if you like with more background so I can consider the use case and where it fits into the list of engineering projects I have in the queue.

Why on earth would you need such a fps?

We need frame rates Resolve doesn't support, nearly every day.

We work with a lot of archival film, and have to deal with 16, 18, 20 fps material fairly frequently. For Silent film, Marc's suggestion is viable, but annoying and produces a ton of data we don't ultimately need. That is, if the client wants ProRes, we have to first render out, say, 4k DPX, then bring that into Scratch, which can easily export whatever frame rate you want. Resolve should be able to do this natively, so we can skip the extra step. In some cases, we've had to make tens of terabytes of intermediate image sequences at high resolution just to make ProRes files. This can add an extra day to the process on large jobs and it ties up massive amounts of storage resources.

Such a feature is very specific and as far as you could justify e.g. 96fps, 120fps, 240fps implementing things like 23.67fps (or any random fps export) is unlikely to happen. Reason for this is also to make sure that Resolve keeps standards and is not a source of crazy files.
You have image sequence for this.

This is a really narrow viewpoint, and doesn't take into account the fact there's well over 100 years of film out there that was not shot at modern broadcast frame rates.

Not to mention the nightmare that is 18fps Super8 sound film. Sure, you can do image sequences for silent film, but once you have a soundtrack at 18fps, you now have to decouple the audio from the picture, which isn't good, and brings up the possibility of losing sync.

Just because you can't use this frame rate doesn't mean you should put down those that do need it. Scratch does it. After Effects does it. I'm sure there are others, too. It's really not that hard to do - Resolve already lets you specify a source file's frame rate on import, it lets you play footage back at whatever frame rate you specify in the preferences, it just needs to allow you to export at those frame rates, too, rather than forcing you to the broadcast standard rates.

And if it really bothers you that much that this might cause trouble, then they could simply add in a preference to enable odd frame rates. then it's on the user to know what they're doing.

Seen enough of crap masters over last 15 years to "not to see" a danger in such a fps.
18fps is fine, but 23.456 is not.
There is also a difference in project settings and delivery page settings.

There is also a difference in project settings and delivery page settings.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. In Resolve, you can currently bring a non-broadcast frame rate into the application and it will correctly recognize it. But it will always speed it up or slow it down to the timeline frame rate, which MUST conform to broadcast frame rates. Then on export, you're again tied to the broadcast rates. What I've been asking for (and what will solve the OP's problem) is the ability to specify the input file's frame rate, the timeline frame rate, and the export frame rate.

This works in After Effects.

This works in Scratch.

All you need to do is list the broadcast rates in a pulldown and offer a "Custom" option for the user to specify. If the user specifies something that causes problems, that's on them. I really can't understand why you're against this, when it clearly works in other applications without issues.

You know how to use it- many people have no clue what they do and because Resolve is free it's one of the main software which people try, when they actually have close to 0 knowledge about grading or editing.

I'm not against exports at 18fps or some "other making sense" fps, but things like eg. 23.567 is useless. If you export things like this means you are doing something very wrong -simple as this.

I'm not against exports at 18fps or some "other making sense" fps, but things like eg. 23.567 is useless. If you export things like this means you are doing something very wrong -simple as this.

My sincerest apologies for questioning your all-knowing wisdom. I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, nor does the OP, and we never should have doubted you.

Obviously, you are the sole authority on what is right and wrong and I will return to my place to await further instruction on how to do my job.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ask others- forget about me.
I know that need to export things like 23.576fps comes from "bad" approach to the actual problem.
You're asking about bit different fps than original post creator. They make more sense, but they also most likely at some point have to end up as standard ones for DVD/Blu-ray or broadcast delivery.

We work with a lot of archival film, and have to deal with 16, 18, 20 fps material fairly frequently.

I agree with Perry that 16fps, 18fps, and 20fps truly are very real standards in silent filmmaking and need to exist as an archival standard. I worked on a few silent movie projects in the 1980s with noted film expert Leonard Maltin, and after a few tests with him, we generally opted for 20fps for the silent film segments we did for a couple of his documentaries. This speed didn't feel as lethargic as 18fps, and wasn't crazy/fast as 24fps. But in this case, the end result was 29.97 broadcast video, not a 20fps file. In a file-based world, we need the actual speed baked in.

+1

(I work a lot in 16.667 fps to get out of the 25 fps with interpolation)
Thank you.

I would also point out (again), that both After Effects and Scratch can handle arbitrary frame rates, including the ones being discussed. I just made and rendered simple timelines in both at 23.51fps, just to try it out.

AE has been around for a long time (I've been using it for 22 years), with tens of thousands of users, I'd imagine. And the world has not come crumbling down because it supports arbitrary frame rates.