Blackmagic Forum

I'm about to produce a music video with a potential international distribution. I'm in PAL land, but for this project I wonder if it makes sense to shoot/finish (still in europe) at 24p or 23,97p as opposed to my usual 25p and if this has and up or downsides when the video is converted to both PAL and NTSC standards.

Any thoughts?

If it's music video then different fps deliveries are problematic.

You can't escape from fact that for Europe you need 25 based fps and for USA 23.976 or 29.97.
Pick one which you think is more important- so if Europe then 25p and if USA then e.g. 23.976p.

Other way is to shoot at e.g. 50p and then use Alchemist etc. for 23.976p version. Key point here is to have 50p master for better conversion (not 25p), but this also causes different issues (video look and shutter speed although you can set it for more film effect).

If video is for anything, but broadcast delivery (web, etc) then fps is less of an issue.

I'd shoot 24p so I could add 2:3 and timewarp to 25. You'll see the repeat frames but most do not and any NTSC delivery is a non-issue. Now keep in mind, I'm in the States so I don't have to watch this kind of conversion on a regular basis. I have done a bunch of it though and have on occasion slightly slowed down 25 to create a 24 that I added 2:3 and it looked fine. It all depends on the content.

My personal philosophy is to start with a universal master of 24p.

If US market is vital, shoot and edit in 23.976p (or 24p)
23.976p Pulldown to 59.94i for US TV
23.976p Speedup to 25p for EU TV (with pitch correction)

If US market is less important, shoot and edit 25p
25p Speed down to 23.976p (with pitch correction)
23.976p Pulldown to 59.94i for US TV

For optimal visual quality, there's no cheap or easy way to avoid the 4% speedup/down.

In all those cases you changing speed which for audio video is not desired (depending how "strict" is author of the audio).
Also, badly done (with poor algorithm) pitch correction is about worse than not having it at all.

Before doing any speed change I would rather go and try Alchemist/Tachyon fps conversion. If this ends up with to many artefacts then think about speed change.

Good quality audio time stretch / pitch correction is MUCH easier to accomplish than video fps conversion.

It's definitely a good idea to try both methods, since your mileage may vary.

If you put it in front of the audio guy it's not that clearly "easier" anymore Maybe easier to "hide" for average user?

Pitch correction is very "destructive" process and audio is very difficult medium to work with due to its very "continuous" nature. If audio is 5.1 then ti's another challenge as you need to keep phase between channels intact. Not that many tools can do it right.
I've done many classical music Blu-rays and speed change was never an option. They would simply not allow it.

If you have 50/60p source fps conversion is quite reliable these days assuming good tool is used. For e.g. 25p source it's more prone to artefacts and depends a lot on source nature.

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying that pitch correction is easy.

I'm saying that given ample time, money and reasonably qualified tools, it is much more difficult to change the frame rate of video with 'normal to difficult' motion than it is to resample a piece of contemporary music recorded in stereo, given that the intended level of quality should be accepted as 'good enough' or even 'absolutely fine' by most consumers and professionals.

You may have a different opinion, and thats totally fine.

Yes, process itself is "faster/easier", but end result gives not necessarily better outcome for music videos.
It's not that obvious which method to use when there is a sufficient budget for processing.

It's a common process to change speed and re-pitch, but quite often only because "it's easy to do". Most times this is done as a "shortcut"/cheaper option outside of a real evaluation of the best possible solution.

Shoot 50 or 60p with a fast shutter (90 degrees), convert to 24000/1001 (US) and 25 (EU) using Twixtor with a simulated 180 degree shutter angle. The added motion blur hides motion artefacts, but Twixtor can also be tuned manually if you have the time/budget to do so, for an even better looking result.