Movies speed: NTSC vs PAL

[Mike800]

NTSC movies = 100.1% of the original length.

PAL movies = 96% of the original length.

 

Although the dialogue is sometimes too fast, I personally prefer the PAL system since it has a better pace imo.

I will probably stretch some movies to 98% and test it.

Your thoughts?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Mike800

[Agentbromsnor]

I didn't even know there was any significant difference between NTSC and PAL films... I know about the difference in old games, but I didn't think that would apply for movies.

[Koko Ricky]

This is really bizarre, why are there synching issues? Is it related to 60 vs. 50hz?

[dew]

I remember watching a particularly digestible explanation, let's see...

 

 

[Graf Zahl]

4 hours ago, GoatLord said:

This is really bizarre, why are there synching issues? Is it related to 60 vs. 50hz?

 

The actual speed of movies is 24 Hz, for NTSC 24 * 2.5 = 60, which is manageable because frames get alternatingly displayed either 2x or 3x.

For PAL which is 50 Hz only one out of 24 frames would have to be duplicated to preserve speed and that would not look good so they just sped the whole thing up to 25 hz to get an even factor of 2.

 

Fortunately with BluRay and HD most of this is a thing of the past - that is, unless you depend on broadcast TV which like usual missed the important thing and stuck to 25 Hz for whatever bogus reasons in some countries.

 

[Memfis]

Wtf is this? I watch movies on computer, do I get normal speed or not?

[Graf Zahl]

That entirely depends on how the movie was encoded. Most HD content these days is properly encoded at 24 fps.

 

[Rachael]

24 FPS is extremely slow and it is quite noticeable. HD content does not usually encode this way.

 

Luckily, HDTV signals are compatible in both US and Europe and they are only subject to the restrictions of their local conventions (laws) rather than technology.

 

Unfortunately, the HDTV standard does allow for the odd frame rates, like 29.97, or even as low as 24, but such rates should only ever be used to show classic content. As Graf said, if this happens, the missing frames will simply be duplicated.

[Graf Zahl]

1 hour ago, Rachael said:

24 FPS is extremely slow and it is quite noticeable. HD content does not usually encode this way.

 

Luckily, HDTV signals are compatible in both US and Europe and they are only subject to the restrictions of their local conventions (laws) rather than technology.

 

Unfortunately, the HDTV standard does allow for the odd frame rates, like 29.97, or even as low as 24, but such rates should only ever be used to show classic content. As Graf said, if this happens, the missing frames will simply be duplicated.

24 fps is still the norm for theatrical movies. And of course they should be encoded with their native frame rate. Using some interpolation would only screw things up. All those odd frame rates are allowed to encode everything with their native frame rate, not because those people were stupid.

 

[Bauul]

3 hours ago, Rachael said:

24 FPS is extremely slow

I'm not sure "slow" is the right word. A scene recorded at 24fps and played back at 24fps will take exactly as long to play back as the same scene recorded at 30fps and played back at 30fps.

 

A 24fps recording has blurrier frames than a 30 or 60fps recording, but it's not slower. In fact there's research being done at the moment around how blurrier 24fps frames evoke a kind of more dreamlike, glossier feeling (like how the world looks after a couple of glasses of wine) that people actually prefer (or at least are more used to) in theatrical films.

[Bauul]

5 hours ago, Memfis said:

Wtf is this? I watch movies on computer, do I get normal speed or not?

The OP's question was about NTSC vs PAL encodings of movies, not device you use the watch them. These days NTSC and PAL versions of films only exist for broadcasting them on TV. The modern BluRay or HDTV versions will be at their native frame rate, likely 24fps.

 

That said, a standard 60Hz monitor can't display a 24 fps film perfectly, because 24 doesn't divide into 60. Basically you get micro frame stuttering, just as you would running a game at 24fps with v-sync on. Although it's much much less noticeable as films aren't a series of static images like games are.

 

You'd need to get a 120hz monitor to genuinely view a 24fps film with every frame exactly the same length (I.e. 5 cycles per frame).

[Koko Ricky]

24fps looks fine for movies and modern TV shows. However, camera pans tend to look a bit choppy and when 24fps video is interpolated on a high refresh rate screen, like those 120hz and 240hz TVs, it can look a bit jarring. It's a very weird effect where the video looks so smooth as to appear "fake," and every couple of seconds there's a brief moment where the framerate appears to be significantly less smooth, and so this jittery artifact becomes apparent. I think this is because blending 24 frames into 120 or 240 frames, despite the divisor being an easy number to work with (in this case either 5 or 10) seems to result in visual disturbance.

 

30fps is usually reserved for soap operas, talk shows, cell phone video, the news and live events. Aesthetically it often seems to look cheap, which I think is a result of 24fps being ingrained in most peoples' minds as being ideal due to its longtime use in cinema. 30fps is closer to how human eyes interpret motion and thus it interrupts the suspension of disbelief, that "magical" sense of motion we see in movies. When 24fps video is interpreted by high refresh rate TVs, it looks similar to the smoothness of 30fps and higher videos, reenforcing that sense of cheapness. 30 is half of 60 which is the hertz American TVs have traditionally operated at. You get 60 interlaced frames resulting in 30 "full" frames and this is why VHS tapes look fine in motion, but appear (on CRT sets anyway) super pixilated when paused.

 

60fps is the standard that most modern games aim for. Because of the constant movement of the camera, and the need for precision, 24 and even 30fps doesn't provide enough visual information from second-to-second. Imagine playing Quake Champions at 24fps. With proper motion blur it would likely look gorgeous, but for precision aiming it would be a nightmare. Some films are opting to shoot at 48, 60 or even 120fps because 3D looks better at higher framerates (James Cameron learned this the hard way by filming Avatar at 24fps which causes stuttering when viewed through the 3D glasses).