TV Home Forum

Doctor Who

Series 8 (May 2014)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BA
Bail Moderator
Quote:
Exactly how the 50th Day of the Doctor was shot and transmitted.


Citation needed on that one. It certainly wasn't transmitted at 24fps in the UK.

It was in cinemas where I saw it Smile
BA
Bail Moderator
Neo posted:
Bail posted:
Yes it makes perfect sense.

24fps - Defacto theatrical film release worldwide standard. Derived from actual film negatives captured as 24 frames per second.

50i/25p - Standard UK (PAL) TV formats, one interlaced with 50 "half frames" one progressive with 25 whole frames which produces a "filmic look" due to the lower frame rate, now becoming the standard for many programmes not just drama.

Filming it at 24 fps means the place where it was shot and the people who funded it (though it might also be funded by BBC Worldwide?) will get it at the wrong speed (sped up to 25 fps) when it's broadcast. I don't think that's the best way for a UK production.

No but TV does lots of weird things, I work on alot of US shows for Discovery and Nat Geo for US transmission, all are shot and edited in 25p, but will mostly TX in the US.
NE
Neo
I haven't heard anything it being shown in cinemas, but since cinemas are more and more digital these days, it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that they're capable of showing native 25p/50i material. .

I think the reason for the different frame rates could be that episode 1 of Series 8 will also be shown in some cinemas but the other episodes won't:
http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2014/07/doctor-who-world-premiere-announced.html

But still it's a TV show and 99.999% of people are going to see it on a TV screen not a cinema screen, so should cinema compatibility really have affected the shooting frame rate? Shouldn't they have just slowed it down 4% for the small number of cinemas showing episode 1 (if they can't handle the 25 fps)?
Quote:

Mine showed the Wimbledon final live last year in 3D, which was certainly a 50i source

For the 2011 3D Wimbledon for cinema release the BBC said it was converted to 720p60 "for projector compatibility worldwide".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/aboutthebbc/2011/06/3d-for-wimbledon-the-future-of-tv.shtml
Last edited by Neo on 8 July 2014 4:02pm - 4 times in total
CG
Charlie Gough
Here’s a first look at the opening episode of Doctor Who Series 8, ‘Deep Breath’ courtesy of Entertainment Weekly!

*
ST
Stuart
Bail posted:
24fps - Defacto theatrical film release worldwide standard. Derived from actual film negatives captured as 24 frames per second.

50i/25p - Standard UK (PAL) TV formats, one interlaced with 50 "half frames" one progressive with 25 whole frames which produces a "filmic look" due to the lower frame rate, now becoming the standard for many programmes not just drama.

60i/29.97p - Standard US (NTSC) TV formats, descriptions see above.

Filming a special feature length episode it seems they've sensibly opted for the true 24fps rate, which will be converted for broadcast around the world to the standard required, 29.97 or 25 and shown natively in cinemas as is. Exactly how the 50th Day of the Doctor was shot and transmitted.

I could point out that almost all modern TV sets can play any of these formats quite happily and the NTSC/PAL thing is now outdated but that's for another topic entirely.


As I'm a pen-pushing Civil Servant with little knowledge of these things, it would be nice if someone could finally clarify this for me.

I thought that the more fps you shot, the better the picture quality: so 25 fps would be worse than 29.97 fps.

However, in the bad old days of SD I always thought that US programmes (using NTSC) looked bollock$ on my TV, so I always assumed that NTSC was a worse standard than PAL. But you say PAL is a lower rate at 25 fps.

Was it always just the conversion from NTSC to PAL that made it look so bad?

Since the arrival of HD, I haven't noticed much difference between US and UK programmes, though.
BA
bilky asko
As I'm a pen-pushing Civil Servant with little knowledge of these things, it would be nice if someone could finally clarify this for me.

I thought that the more fps you shot, the better the picture quality: so 25 fps would be worse than 29.97 fps.

However, in the bad old days of SD I always thought that US programmes (using NTSC) looked bollocks on my TV, so I always assumed that NTSC was a worse standard than PAL. But you say PAL is a lower rate at 25 fps.

Was it always just the conversion from NTSC to PAL that made it look so bad?

Since the arrival of HD, I haven't noticed much difference between US and UK programmes, though.


This post comes with the caveat that I'm no expert either

PAL SD broadcasts (and SECAM, for that matter) are 625 lines, or 576i in digital terms. NTSC SD broadcasts are 525 lines, or 480i. This lower resolution, combined with the smeary and jumpy effect you get with the frame rate conversion, leaves you with a poor picture.

It's less noticeable with HD because the resolutions are standardised globally (720p, 1080i, etc.), and because so many US programmes are produced in 24p (with the resultant increase in pitch you get with the audio). This is why there's also less picture degradation when a US programme was produced on film in 24p (such as Murder She Wrote), along with the ability to create HD versions.
NG
noggin Founding member
Bail posted:
24fps - Defacto theatrical film release worldwide standard. Derived from actual film negatives captured as 24 frames per second.

50i/25p - Standard UK (PAL) TV formats, one interlaced with 50 "half frames" one progressive with 25 whole frames which produces a "filmic look" due to the lower frame rate, now becoming the standard for many programmes not just drama.

60i/29.97p - Standard US (NTSC) TV formats, descriptions see above.

Filming a special feature length episode it seems they've sensibly opted for the true 24fps rate, which will be converted for broadcast around the world to the standard required, 29.97 or 25 and shown natively in cinemas as is. Exactly how the 50th Day of the Doctor was shot and transmitted.

I could point out that almost all modern TV sets can play any of these formats quite happily and the NTSC/PAL thing is now outdated but that's for another topic entirely.


As I'm a pen-pushing Civil Servant with little knowledge of these things, it would be nice if someone could finally clarify this for me.

I thought that the more fps you shot, the better the picture quality: so 25 fps would be worse than 29.97 fps.

However, in the bad old days of SD I always thought that US programmes (using NTSC) looked bollock$ on my TV, so I always assumed that NTSC was a worse standard than PAL. But you say PAL is a lower rate at 25 fps.

NTSC ran at approx 480 lines 60Hz (30Hz) (*)
PAL ran at 576 lines 50Hz (25Hz) (**)

However NTSC composite analogue ran in 6MHz channels with a colour subcarrier at around 3.58MHz and their colour format was pretty fragile. European PAL composite analogue ran in 7-8Mhz channels with a colour subcarrier at around 4.43MHz and with a more robust colour format.

This meant that although NTSC had more pictures a second, it had lower resolution AND the colour quality was poorer. PAL had fewer pictures per second but higher resolution and higher colour quality - in the main.

However the reason most US video stuff shown in the UK looked so bad was that conversion between PAL and NTSC was (and remains) actually quite difficult to do well. So it was usually done quite badly. And thus the stuff we saw looked a lot worse than it did in the US, because the conversion had mangled it.
Quote:

Was it always just the conversion from NTSC to PAL that made it look so bad?


It played a part - but NTSC wasn't as good as PAL, and needed a lot more looking after during production. The sources for the UK standards conversions were also often not very good, and if you don't keep NTSC pristine it can get very nasty very quickly. (PAL and SECAM are a lot easier to handle.)

Quote:

Since the arrival of HD, I haven't noticed much difference between US and UK programmes, though.


Most US stuff we see (apart from sport and entertainment) is shot at 24fps and sped up to 25fps for European 50Hz broadcasts. This gives a slightly speed increase (same as movies) but ensures no quality loss due to frame interpolation in conversion.

Stuff shot natively 60Hz (sport, entertainment etc.) is converted using real time standards converters. These got a lot better with the advent of Snell's Alchemist, which uses BBC developed Phase Correlation motion detection to create much higher quality interpolated (i.e. made up) frames. They aren't perfect, but they are a lot better than the conversions we had in the 80s - which were often soft and juddery with multiple imaging artefacts.

Also - with HD we run with the same resolution (and colour systems) whether we are at 50 or 60Hz - so there are no resolution or quality benefits to one system or the other.

(*) 60=59.94 and 30=29.94 and 24=23.976 usually. This is a legacy of the US TV standard moving from 60Hz to 59.94Hz field rate when they moved introduced colour. There was a fear that the colour subcarrier that would be required for 60Hz would interfere with the broadcast TV sound subcarrier.

(**) There is a 60Hz PAL - PAL-M - which is used in Brazil (or was). This was 480 lines with a 3.58ish MHz subcarrier, using 6MHz channels, but it used PAL colour encoding (which is the more robust system) instead of NTSC.

As to the Doctor Who question. The show was shot at 25p. It was broadcast 50i with no speed changing on the BBC.

However the Cinema release was 24fps - as was the Blu-ray (as there isn't a 25p full resolution 3D Blu-ray option - and I believe this was done using a slow-down with pitch correction - though I may be wrong. (Running time will tell us - if the Blu-ray is longer than the TV show then it was a slow-down, if it was the same length then it was an interpolation)
NG
noggin Founding member
Bail posted:

Filming a special feature length episode it seems they've sensibly opted for the true 24fps rate, which will be converted for broadcast around the world to the standard required, 29.97 or 25 and shown natively in cinemas as is. Exactly how the 50th Day of the Doctor was shot and transmitted.

Except that Day of the Doctor was shot 25p not 24p I believe.

It was converted to 24p for cinema release, and had to be released 24p on 3D Blu-ray because there isn't an option for 25p on that format.

There are still very good reasons for shooting 25p in the UK. Lighting flicker is a significant one. (Streetlights can do nasty things at 24p)
DA
davidhorman
Quote:
It was converted to 24p for cinema release, and had to be released 24p on 3D Blu-ray because there isn't an option for 25p on that format.


There is... sort of. 25p has never been strictly available on Blu-ray in 2D or 3D, because it can be encapsulated in 50i, which is in spec. For whatever reason, though, the powers that be have decided that 1920x1080 @ 50i is just too good for us to enjoy in 3D, so only 1280x720 @ 50p (and therefore 25p) is available. I'm forced to grudgingly agree that 1920x1080 @ 23.976fps (slowed down, and hopefully with good pitch correction) was the right choice for Day of the Doctor .

As for Blu-rays in general, Doctor Who had a checkered history before now. The David Tennant specials were a 60i mess, for (I assume) the sake of saving money with a single global distribution.

Quote:
These got a lot better with the advent of Snell's Alchemist, which uses BBC developed Phase Correlation motion detection


Is Phase Correlation still considered the bee's knees? I thought I'd read somewhere that block matching methods had over-taken it, with the availability of cheaper computing power.
JA
JAS84
As if the scripts weren't bad enough, a rough cut of episode 1 has turned up on The Pirate Bay.
DJ
DJGM
JAS84 posted:

As if the scripts weren't bad enough, a rough cut of episode 1 has turned up on The Pirate Bay.


It seems episode 2 has found it's way into that particular Bay as well. DW S8 is getting more leaky than a sieve! One or more people at BBC Wales are possibly about to get their employment (ex)terminated for this! This could be seriously embarrassing for the BBC, and the Moff's seriously going to be cheesed off about this.
Last edited by DJGM on 12 July 2014 7:09pm - 3 times in total
DE
declan
DJGM posted:
JAS84 posted:

As if the scripts weren't bad enough, a rough cut of episode 1 has turned up on The Pirate Bay.


It seems episode 2 has found it's way into that particular Bay as well. DW S8 is getting more leaky than a sieve! One or more people at BBC Wales are possibly about to get their employment (ex)terminated for this! This could be seriously embarrassing for the BBC, and the Moff's seriously going to be cheesed off about this.


How would one set his ship in the direction of these episodes?

Newer posts