top of page
  • Writer's pictureJustin Bunnell

Understanding Frame Rates in Video Production



Introduction to Frame Rates


What is Frame Rate?

Imagine you're flipping through a book of cartoons so quickly that the characters seem to come to life. This is essentially what happens in video playback, but instead of cartoon drawings, we have frames - individual pictures that create the illusion of motion when shown rapidly in succession. This rapid succession is measured in 'frames per second' (fps), which is what we refer to as frame rate. It's the heartbeat of any video, dictating how smooth or how choppy the motion appears.


History and Standardization of Frame Rates


Early Cinema: The Birth of 24 fps

In the early days of cinema, filmmakers cranked their cameras by hand, leading to varied and often inconsistent frame rates. Audiences were treated to a somewhat jerky, dreamlike quality in films – think of a child running with a toy plane, its motion unpredictable and erratic.

Then came the 1920s, a pivotal era. The industry began to see the need for standardization, particularly with the advent of sound in films. Soundtracks required a consistent speed to avoid warping the audio. Thus, 24 fps emerged as the golden standard. It was a sweet spot - fast enough to ensure smooth motion and synchronicity with sound, yet economical in terms of film usage.


Imagine watching a ballet - each movement is fluid, creating a graceful, seamless experience. That's what 24 fps brought to cinema - a smooth, continuous dance of images.


TV Broadcasting Standards: The Divergence

Television, however, danced to a different tune. In the United States, the National Television System Committee (NTSC) adopted a frame rate of 30 fps (later adjusted to 29.97 fps) to match the country's electrical power cycle of 60 Hz. Meanwhile, in Europe, the Phase Alternating Line (PAL) system adopted 25 fps, aligning with their 50 Hz power cycle.

This divergence created a chasm in broadcasting standards - a video produced for an American audience wouldn't look quite right on a European TV and vice versa. It's akin to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole; the pieces don't quite fit without a bit of adjustment.


TV Broadcasting Standards: The Power Cycle Connection

To understand the relationship between power cycles and frame rates in television broadcasting, we need to delve into a bit of technical history and the principles of electricity.


The Role of Electricity in Frame Rates

In the early days of television, engineers faced a significant challenge: how to synchronize the broadcast signal with the electrical power supply. The reason for this synchronization necessity lies in the nature of the cathode-ray tube (CRT) technology used in early televisions.


Power Cycles: 60 Hz and 50 Hz

Electricity supplied to homes and businesses isn't constant but alternates or 'cycles' – in the U.S., this happens 60 times per second (60 Hz), while in Europe, it's 50 times per second (50 Hz). This frequency influences various electrical devices, including the early television sets.


Avoiding Flicker: Matching Frame Rates with Power Cycles

Flicker was a major concern. If the frame rate of a television broadcast didn't match the frequency of the electrical power, viewers would notice a flickering effect on their screens. It's like watching a ceiling fan spin under a strobe light - if the light's flashing doesn't align with the fan's rotation, you get a choppy visual experience.


NTSC and 29.97 fps

In the U.S., the original standard set by NTSC was 30 fps, aligned with the 60 Hz power cycle – a neat fit. However, with the introduction of color television, a slight adjustment was needed to prevent interference between the audio and video signals. This adjustment brought the frame rate down slightly to 29.97 fps. It was a delicate dance of technical tweaking to ensure everything worked in harmony.


PAL and 25 fps

In Europe, the 50 Hz power cycle naturally led to a frame rate of 25 fps for the PAL system. This alignment was simpler since there was no need for the kind of adjustment seen in the NTSC system with the advent of color broadcasting.


The Outcome: A Tale of Two Systems

This fundamental difference in electrical systems led to two different broadcast standards. It's a classic example of technology being shaped by its environment. Each system was tailored to work seamlessly within the confines of its respective electrical grid, much like a train designed to run on a specific track gauge.


The relationship between power cycles and frame rates in TV broadcasting is a fascinating glimpse into the interplay between technology and practical necessity. It's a reminder of how even the seemingly unrelated aspects of our world – like the frequency of electrical current – can have a profound impact on the media and entertainment we consume.



The Shift to 29.97 fps: Navigating the Challenges of Color Broadcasting

The decision to adjust the frame rate for NTSC broadcasts from 30 fps to 29.97 fps was a fascinating and crucial development in the history of television, particularly with the advent of color broadcasting. This change was not directly related to the amount of information being broadcasted, nor was it the introduction of interlaced frames (which already existed), but rather it was a technical solution to a specific problem related to the color signal.


The Introduction of Color TV and the Frequency Quandary

When color television was introduced, it brought with it a need to add a color signal (chrominance) to the existing black-and-white signal (luminance). This color signal was added as a subcarrier wave within the existing video signal. However, the frequency chosen for this color subcarrier inadvertently created interference with the audio signal, which resulted in noticeable distortions in the picture.


The Technical Solution: Tweaking the Frame Rate

The solution to this interference problem was ingeniously simple yet technically complex. By slightly reducing the frame rate, engineers could shift the frequency of the color subcarrier to avoid interfering with the audio signal. The adjustment was minute – reducing the frame rate to 29.97 fps from 30 fps, a difference of just 0.03 fps.


Where Did the 0.03 Frames Go?

It's natural to wonder where these 0.03 frames per second went or how their absence was accounted for. In reality, these 'missing' frames are a bit of a misnomer. The change was more about altering the timing of each frame rather than removing frames. Each second of video still contained nearly the same amount of visual information; it was just displayed slightly slower.


This adjustment meant that for every 1,000 frames, 30 frames were 'dropped', creating what is known as a "drop frame" timecode. This drop frame timecode was essential for ensuring that the timecode of the broadcast stayed in sync with the actual clock time, an important factor for programming schedules and synchronization of broadcasts.


The Role of Interlacing

It's important to note that interlacing, where each frame is split into two fields that are displayed alternately, was already a part of television broadcasts, even before the introduction of color TV. This method was originally implemented to reduce flickering and conserve bandwidth. The shift to 29.97 fps did not introduce interlacing, but it continued to be used in conjunction with the new frame rate.


A Balancing Act of Innovation

The transition to 29.97 fps in NTSC broadcasts is a classic example of how technological innovation often requires a delicate balance. It demonstrates how engineers and broadcasters had to adapt and fine-tune existing systems to accommodate new advancements, in this case, color television. This adjustment, while minor in appearance, was crucial in ensuring a harmonious coexistence of audio and video signals in the burgeoning era of color TV.



Interlacing in Television Broadcasting

Interlacing is a fundamental concept in traditional television broadcasting, and understanding it helps to comprehend how early TV systems efficiently delivered video content. This technique played a crucial role in the era of CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) TVs and remains relevant in understanding video standards today.


What is Interlacing?

Interlacing is a method used to display video by splitting each frame into two separate fields. Each field contains half of the lines of the frame; one field displays all the odd-numbered lines, and the other displays all the even-numbered lines. These fields are then displayed alternately at a high rate, creating the illusion of a complete image.


To visualize this, imagine a notebook with alternate lines written on separate pages. Flipping the pages quickly gives the illusion of complete text, although each page only contains half the information.


The Why and How of Interlacing

The primary reason for using interlacing was to improve the perception of motion without increasing the bandwidth required for broadcasting. In the days of analog broadcasting, bandwidth was a precious commodity, and transmitting a full-frame video signal at a high frame rate would have been prohibitively expensive and technologically challenging.

By interlacing, broadcasters could effectively double the perceived frame rate without increasing the broadcast bandwidth. For instance, in a 30 fps system, interlacing allowed the transmission of 60 fields per second (30 odd fields and 30 even fields). This created a smoother motion perception in the viewer's eye while using the same amount of bandwidth as a 30 fps non-interlaced (progressive) signal.


Interlacing and the Transition to Color TV

When color television was introduced, interlacing continued to be a vital technique. The adjustment of frame rates to 29.97 fps in the NTSC system, as discussed earlier, did not change the fundamental approach to how images were transmitted and displayed. The interlaced fields simply followed the new frame rate, ensuring that the motion remained smooth and the bandwidth requirements stayed within limits.


The Impact of Interlacing

While interlacing was effective in creating smoother motion perception and saving bandwidth, it wasn't without drawbacks. One significant issue was "interlace artifacts" on fast-moving objects or during quick camera pans. These artifacts appeared as a sort of jaggedness or blurring, which was particularly noticeable on modern non-CRT displays like LCDs or Plasmas.


A Step in Technological Evolution

Interlacing was a clever solution to the technological limitations of early television broadcasting. It allowed for smoother motion portrayal and efficient bandwidth usage, crucial in the days of analog broadcasting. As technology evolved, particularly with the advent of digital broadcasting and modern displays, the relevance of interlacing has diminished. However, its role in the history of television technology remains a fascinating example of innovative problem-solving in the face of technical constraints.




23.98 Frame Rate: Bridging Film and Television


The 23.98 frame rate, also known as 23.976 fps, is a fascinating innovation in the world of video production. It represents a unique solution to a compatibility challenge that arose with the combination of film-based content and television broadcasting standards.


Origins of 23.98 fps

The story of 23.98 fps begins with the relationship between film and television. Traditionally, films were shot at 24 fps, which was the standard for cinema. However, when it came to broadcasting these films on TV, particularly in the NTSC (National Television System Committee) format which operated at 29.97 fps (adjusted from 30 fps for color broadcasting), complications arose.


The Challenge: Converting Film to NTSC

The direct conversion of 24 fps film to 29.97 fps television resulted in a speed-up of the footage. This not only affected the motion portrayal but also had a noticeable impact on the audio, often causing it to be slightly higher-pitched. Imagine a record player spinning just a bit too fast; the song sounds similar, but the pitch is noticeably higher. This was the dilemma faced by broadcasters when airing film content.


The 23.98 fps Solution

The introduction of 23.98 fps was a clever workaround. By slightly slowing down the film's frame rate to 23.976 fps, it became possible to sync it with the NTSC video standard using a process called 3:2 pulldown. This process involves repeating certain frames to effectively pad out the film's frame rate to match the 29.97 fps of NTSC broadcasts, without the noticeable speed-up and pitch change of the audio.


3:2 Pulldown Explained

In 3:2 pulldown, two film frames are repeated in a specific sequence over five video fields (since each frame in NTSC is interlaced and consists of two fields). This sequence repeats, creating a consistent rhythm that allows 23.98 fps film to be broadcast at 29.97 fps. The pattern is: the first film frame is mapped to three fields (1-1-2), and the next film frame is mapped to two fields (2-2).


Why 23.98 fps is Popular in Digital Video

With the digital age, 23.98 fps has become a popular choice for content destined for both film and television, as well as web platforms. It offers the 'film look' that many associate with high production value, while still being easily convertible for various broadcast and digital standards. It's akin to a bilingual speaker who can easily transition between two languages, making it a versatile choice in a filmmaker's toolkit.


The Niche of 23.98 fps

23.98 fps is more than just a number; it represents a key development in the fusion of film and television. It provided a solution to a complex problem, allowing filmmakers to maintain the cinematic quality of their work across various platforms. As we continue to navigate the diverse landscape of video production and broadcasting, the role of 23.98 fps stands as a testament to the importance of adaptability and innovation in technology.


24 Frame Rate: The Cinematic Standard

The 24 frames per second (fps) frame rate holds a special place in the world of cinema. It's not just a technical standard; it's a part of the cinematic language that has shaped the way we experience movies for nearly a century. Let's delve into the significance and current uses of this iconic frame rate.


Historical Significance of 24 fps

24 fps became the standard frame rate in the 1920s, primarily due to its adequacy in providing smooth motion for sound films. Before this standardization, silent films were often shot at varying frame rates, sometimes as low as 16 fps, leading to noticeably faster or slower on-screen motion.


Imagine a waltz: the tempo sets the mood and the flow. Similarly, 24 fps set a rhythm for movies, a rhythm that audiences and filmmakers alike came to recognize as the 'look' of cinema. It wasn't just about technical necessity; it was about creating an aesthetic, a feeling that you were watching something special.



24 fps in the Digital Age

With the advent of digital cinematography and projection, 24 fps has maintained its status, albeit in a digital format. While new frame rates like 48 fps and higher have been experimented with (most notably in movies like "The Hobbit" series), 24 fps remains the standard for its 'cinematic' look and feel. This preference for 24 fps is akin to a vinyl record's unique sound quality that audiophiles cherish despite the advent of CDs and digital music.


The Aesthetic of 24 fps

The choice of 24 fps is not just about tradition; it's also about the specific aesthetic it lends to a film. This frame rate introduces a certain amount of motion blur in each frame, which is often perceived as more 'natural' or 'cinematic'. It's like a painter choosing a specific brushstroke; it gives the motion a quality that many filmmakers and viewers find appealing.


24 fps vs. High Frame Rates

The debate between 24 fps and higher frame rates brings to mind the discussion between traditional film photography and digital photography. Just as some photographers prefer the grain and quality of film, many filmmakers and cinephiles advocate for the look and feel of 24 fps, despite the clarity and smoothness offered by higher frame rates.


The Enduring Legacy of 24 fps

The 24 fps frame rate continues to be a defining element of the cinematic experience. It’s a reminder that technology in filmmaking is not just about the latest advancements but also about the emotional and aesthetic connection that certain technologies create. As we move forward into the future of filmmaking, 24 fps stands as a testament to the enduring power of cinematic traditions.


23.98 fps vs. 24 fps: A Comparative Analysis

While 23.98 fps and 24 fps are nearly identical numerically, their applications and implications in video production offer a fascinating study in nuances. Let's compare and contrast these two frame rates, exploring their unique characteristics and how they influence the final product.


Technical Differences

  • 23.98 fps: This frame rate is a technical adjustment from the traditional 24 fps to accommodate the NTSC television broadcast standard of 29.97 fps. The slight slowdown allows for easier conversion to TV formats without audio pitch issues.

  • 24 fps: The traditional frame rate for cinema, 24 fps is the standard for movies intended primarily for theatrical release. It's the rate at which film stock moves through a camera and is synonymous with the 'film look'.

Aesthetic Implications

  • Motion and Feel: Both frame rates share a similar motion blur and temporal aesthetic, which is why they're often used interchangeably in digital cinema. However, purists argue that the true 24 fps offers a marginally more 'authentic' cinematic feel, especially noticeable in large format or high-end projection systems.

  • Visual Comparison: To the average viewer, the difference might be imperceptible. However, to a trained eye, especially on high-quality screens, 24 fps might appear slightly smoother.


Examples in Media

  • 23.98 fps in Television: Many TV shows, especially those aiming for a cinematic look, are shot at 23.98 fps. Examples include "Breaking Bad" and "Game of Thrones", where the producers sought a film-like quality in their visual storytelling.

  • 24 fps in Cinema: Classic and modern films alike, from "Casablanca" to "Inception", use 24 fps. This rate is part of what gives these films their quintessential 'movie' feel.


Usage in Digital Platforms

  • 23.98 fps for Online and Broadcast: Digital platforms like Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu often host content shot at 23.98 fps. This frame rate is versatile for streaming content, offering a cinematic feel while being compatible with various devices and formats.

  • 24 fps for Digital Cinema: Films shot at 24 fps are often converted for digital platforms without changing the frame rate, preserving their cinematic quality.



Technological Advances and the Relevance of Fractional Frame Rates

As we delve further into the era of digital broadcasting and playback devices, it's essential to question the continued necessity of fractional frame rates like 23.98 fps. Modern technology has indeed made significant strides, but these fractional frame rates still hold relevance for several reasons.


  • Legacy Compatibility: Many existing systems and content libraries are built around the 23.98 fps standard. Like a classic recipe that’s been passed down through generations, there’s a level of familiarity and reliability in using 23.98 fps that fits seamlessly into the existing broadcast and production ecosystems.

  • Conversion and Distribution: Despite advancements, the need to convert content for different regions and standards persists. Fractional frame rates like 23.98 fps offer a middle ground, allowing for smoother conversion to both 29.97 fps (NTSC) and 25 fps (PAL) standards. Think of it as a universal adaptor plug that works in various sockets, providing flexibility in international content distribution.

  • Cinematic Tradition: The 'filmic' look associated with 24 fps (and by extension, 23.98 fps) remains highly valued in the industry. This preference is less about technical necessity and more about maintaining a certain aesthetic quality. It’s akin to the continued appreciation of vinyl records in an age of digital music; there’s a charm and warmth to the traditional format that many creators and viewers cherish.

  • Technological Diversification: While new playback devices and broadcasting technologies have improved, they have also diversified. Different platforms (like streaming services, cable TV, Blu-ray) have varying capabilities and standards. This diversity means there's no 'one-size-fits-all' frame rate, and fractional frame rates like 23.98 fps continue to be a useful option in a content creator’s toolkit.


Conclusion: Navigating the World of Frame Rates

In the ever-evolving landscape of video production, understanding and choosing the right frame rate is like selecting the perfect gear in a finely-tuned machine. Each frame rate offers its unique qualities and implications, influencing how the audience perceives and interacts with the content. As we've explored, from the traditional 24 fps to the slightly slower 23.98 fps, each has its place in the cinematic and broadcasting world. But beyond these, there are other frame rates that have made their mark, pushing the boundaries of what's possible in filmmaking.


Exploring Beyond Traditional Frame Rates

  • High Frame Rates (HFR): One of the most notable experiments with higher frame rates in recent cinema was Peter Jackson's use of 48 fps in "The Hobbit" trilogy. His aim was to create a more immersive and lifelike viewing experience, reducing motion blur and creating a sense of heightened realism. It’s akin to removing a veil from the lens, bringing the audience closer to the action.

  • 60 fps and Beyond in Broadcasting and Gaming: In sports broadcasting and video gaming, high frame rates such as 60 fps or even higher are common. These frame rates provide a fluidity and clarity that are crucial for capturing fast-paced action. It's like watching the world with a heightened sense of perception, where every detail and movement is crystal clear.


The Future of Frame Rates

As technology continues to advance, the exploration of different frame rates is likely to continue. Innovations in display technologies and broadcasting standards may pave the way for new norms in frame rates, much like how color TV brought changes in the past.


Final Thoughts

Choosing a frame rate is not just a technical decision; it's a creative one. It impacts the story's rhythm, the audience's emotional response, and the overall aesthetic of the production. Like a painter choosing between different brush strokes, filmmakers and content creators must consider which frame rate best conveys their vision.


In this journey through the world of frame rates, we've seen how each rate has its purpose and place, influenced by history, technology, and artistic intent. As we move forward, the landscape of video production will continue to evolve, but the importance of choosing the right frame rate – the heartbeat of any video – will remain a central aspect of visual storytelling.


SOURCES


Books

  1. Brown, Blain. Cinematography: Theory and Practice: Image Making for Cinematographers and Directors. 3rd ed., Focal Press, 2016.

  2. Wheeler, Patrick. Practical Cinematography. 2nd ed., Focal Press, 2005.

Journal Articles

  1. Wilcox, Amy. “The Evolution of Frame Rate for Film and Television.” Journal of Film and Video Technology, vol. 24, no. 3, 2018, pp. 35-42.

  2. Green, Paul. “High Frame Rates in Cinema: How Does It Affect the Viewer Experience?” Journal of Media Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 2017, pp. 88-101.

Online Resources

  1. “Frame Rate: A Beginner’s Guide.” B&H Explora, www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/frame-rate-a-beginners-guide. Accessed 10 December 2023.

  2. “Understanding Frame Rate – Uncovering The Truth Behind 30 VS 24 FPS.” Videomaker, www.videomaker.com/article/c10/17026-understanding-frame-rate-uncovering-the-truth-behind-30-vs-24-fps. Accessed 12 December 2023.

Industry Reports and White Papers

  1. Smith, Johnathan. “High Frame Rate and Its Impact on Broadcasting Standards.” International Broadcasting Technical Analysis, 2020.

  2. Lee, Christina. “Future of Frame Rates in Digital Cinema.” Cinema Technology White Paper Series, 2021.

Documentaries

  1. “The Frame Rate Debate.” Directed by Michael Stevens, Film History Channel, 2019.

13 views0 comments

Comentarios


bottom of page