Go Back   Fanderson Forum > Public Forum > Harlington Straker Studios > Identified

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 22nd December 2018, 12:59 AM
shermeen shermeen is offline
Griselda
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBattalion8 View Post
It's cute that you think this whole thing is just about my idea of PAL speed. He agrees with me that the Blurays are the wrong speed. Everything you spout chips away at my faith in humanity just a little bit more. No more. Done. Finito. End
I guess Sarah might be right but then you post something that just makes me believe you're not winding up and you think you know what you are talking about.
Firstly, you've not actually said anything about your comments claiming that 24p is PAL speed when everyone knows it isn't.

You say the Blurays are the wrong speed. Well they are running at a different speed to how we see them on British tv and always have done. British tv is 25p while film generally runs at 24p which is what the Blurays are.
There was some debate some years back when British tv shows first appeared on Bluray as to whether they should be done at the true speed of film which is 24p or whether they should be done how we had always seen them which is 25p.
In the case of some modern tv shows which are in HD and shot at 25p (some but not all of Sherlock for one) those appeared on UK Blurays at 25p. IIRC the decision was made to release The Sweeney in 25p too. But ITC shows were all shot on film specifically to get around framerates so it was decided that 24p was the correct rate and that is how all ITC shows including Thunderbirds have been released around the world. If it was a decision fandom didn't like they would have made it known just as they did for ITV's decision to release Thunderbirds in 16:9.

That you think your "revelation" about Blurays running at a different speed to broadcast tv is news says everything we need to know about your level of knowledge

I'm surprised you've not come out with the gem that we should not be buying these shows on Bluray because they were all made "before HD was invented". That was an argument on a similar level to yours that appeared when Bluray was launched.

I'm all for debate and listening to opinions but when those opinions are based on incorrect info and the correct info is rejected it just makes your views worthless

Edit - out of interest go back to posts 9 onwards of this thread. With info also from comments by Derek Meddings.

Last edited by shermeen; 22nd December 2018 at 01:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 22nd December 2018, 01:45 AM
MasterBattalion8 MasterBattalion8 is offline
Cloudbase Doctor
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 25
Default

Alright boys. Riddle me this one why don't ya? I ripped my Captain Scarlet Blurays using a different converter software than what I used for my Thunderbirds converting, at 24 frames per second....And They still got duplicated frames. Whadya know about that?
__________________
Man of sounds, sound of thunder, thunder of birds, birds of hawks, hawks of terror, terror of terror fish, fish of aquaphibians, aquaphibians of space, space of patrol, patrol of wings, wings of angels, angels of the lord, lord of the bishop, bishop of the Secret service, Secret service of Shane Weston. Everything of Gerry Anderson!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 22nd December 2018, 02:38 AM
cham-cham cham-cham is offline
SID
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 42
Default

Not getting into any argument, just curious about this. In idiots terms, are the early 2000s Carlton DVDs & cropped ITV blu rays played at a different speed to the shout factory blu rays?

Also, saw about the Cham Cham speed thing (funnily while I was watching that episode on the 16:9 blu ray). Did a very quick comparison with the version of the episode on my phone which I bought from iTunes, and the blu ray seemed slightly slower and lower pitched (only about a semitone though (someone give me a joke about ultrasonic harmonics & microtones to put in here if you have one)). So which is the “correct” speed? The slower blu ray (which I’m assuming is the same as my Carlton DVD but haven’t checked yet) or the faster iTunes version?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 22nd December 2018, 10:29 AM
shermeen shermeen is offline
Griselda
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cham-cham View Post
Not getting into any argument, just curious about this. In idiots terms, are the early 2000s Carlton DVDs & cropped ITV blu rays played at a different speed to the shout factory blu rays?

Also, saw about the Cham Cham speed thing (funnily while I was watching that episode on the 16:9 blu ray). Did a very quick comparison with the version of the episode on my phone which I bought from iTunes, and the blu ray seemed slightly slower and lower pitched (only about a semitone though (someone give me a joke about ultrasonic harmonics & microtones to put in here if you have one)). So which is the “correct” speed? The slower blu ray (which I’m assuming is the same as my Carlton DVD but haven’t checked yet) or the faster iTunes version?
I can't comment on the Itunes or Twitch broadcasts but as already pointed out, UK dvd's run at 25p while Blurays run at the correct film speed of 24p so all the Bluray episodes will run slower and be between 1 and 2 minutes longer than the UK dvd version. The US dvd's will be the same speed as the Blurays. Both will have a slightly deeper audio sound.
I think someone earlier in the thread mentioned an issue with The Cham Cham episode but not compared the Bluray version of that one.

It's also worth noting that in recent years some releases of movies and tv shows have had pitch correction so while a UK dvd would still run at 25p they sometimes adjust the pitch so it doesn't sound higher than it should.
If Itunes runs at 25p (unlikely) the running time should match the UK dvd.

The Carlton dvd's are 25p but all Bluray editions are 24p (except the Network Filmed in Supermarionation episodes where they did all the episodes of all the shows at 25p).
Of course when Network did the full series release of Scarlet and Joe 90 they are as expected 24p

Last edited by shermeen; 22nd December 2018 at 10:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 22nd December 2018, 03:20 PM
TVR-15 TVR-15 is offline
Battery Boy
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shermeen View Post
Is this guy a troll , 12 years old or has something like Aspergers?
That crosses my mind every time you post here...
For anyone unaware, shermeen = theinspector = gemini man = phelings. And probably sarah bosanquet too.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 22nd December 2018, 04:07 PM
FAB_61 FAB_61 is offline
Commissioner Simmonds
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 298
Default

At the risk of stepping into the middle of this:

Surely this has all got confused between:

The original filming rate - probably 24fps and the frame rate that is provided in the encoded stream on the disc, which isn't necessarily what then gets sent to the display.

My understanding is that a blu ray is typically set to say that the "frame rate" is 23.97fps - that either then gets used to drive a 25fps output for PAL (and hence plays slightly fast), or is used with 3:2 pull-down to present 29.97 for NTSC (so the sound is essentially the right "pitch" (hence why TB in the US in the 65's would have potentially sounded "right") but you have "added" frames in the video stream to make up the diference. For displays that are running at other "overclocked" or "forced" frame rates I hate to think what the players are doing with the underlying datastream to present that at the output - but none of those "output" rate should be confused with the "base" frame rate encoded in the data, or how that relates to the original source - which might have been 24fps film or 25fps video etc.

If you "rip" the disc and set the output to say you want 24fps then it's potentially going to start "adding" frames or other sorts of artifacts to get from the 23.97 to 24 frames it needs.

It's not been helped by DVDs that were set up to say they are 25fps in the underlying data - and hence were playing the underying 24fps film source too fast.

Last edited by FAB_61; 22nd December 2018 at 04:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 22nd December 2018, 09:13 PM
shermeen shermeen is offline
Griselda
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FAB_61 View Post
At the risk of stepping into the middle of this:

Surely this has all got confused between:

The original filming rate - probably 24fps and the frame rate that is provided in the encoded stream on the disc, which isn't necessarily what then gets sent to the display.

My understanding is that a blu ray is typically set to say that the "frame rate" is 23.97fps - that either then gets used to drive a 25fps output for PAL (and hence plays slightly fast), or is used with 3:2 pull-down to present 29.97 for NTSC (so the sound is essentially the right "pitch" (hence why TB in the US in the 65's would have potentially sounded "right") but you have "added" frames in the video stream to make up the diference. For displays that are running at other "overclocked" or "forced" frame rates I hate to think what the players are doing with the underlying datastream to present that at the output - but none of those "output" rate should be confused with the "base" frame rate encoded in the data, or how that relates to the original source - which might have been 24fps film or 25fps video etc.

If you "rip" the disc and set the output to say you want 24fps then it's potentially going to start "adding" frames or other sorts of artifacts to get from the 23.97 to 24 frames it needs.

It's not been helped by DVDs that were set up to say they are 25fps in the underlying data - and hence were playing the underying 24fps film source too fast.
As mentioned earlier, when it comes to Bluray PAL and NTSC are obsolete terms and do not apply in the world of HD.
I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to know if your theory applies. I thought that 3:2 pulldown applied to NTSC video only which is why its 30fps ends up on the screen at the correct film speed and doesn't apply to HD.

As far as I am aware Bluray content is output to the display at the framerate intended so putting the content onto a disc and perhaps just changing one selection to make it compatible in the US and one setting to make it UK compatible seems far too easy.
As you say, it does seem as if ripping material can change content as it was on the disc. I have a program that apparently will allow me to put a PAL dvd disc file on my PC , change it to NTSC then output it but I've never tried that so not sure if its that easy.

At any rate, one thing is certain and that is that the PAL framerate is not 24p.
Also certain is that all the Blurays are 24p so if he's getting confused because of changes happening during the rip or stream then that's another can of worms.

Had he posted that the correct framerate is 24p in the first place (which is what he is saying now) then there would have been no need for me to reply.
What appears to be the possible issue is that he is seeing the Bluray running slower than anything else that we had seen before and simply doesn't like it.
I was the same when after 30 years of watching Star Trek TOS at 25p I finally got the US dvd's in 1999 and the 24p made everything sound slower and deeper but it doesn't take long to get used to. The fact that it's the original speed helps too.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 22nd December 2018, 10:38 PM
FAB_61 FAB_61 is offline
Commissioner Simmonds
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shermeen View Post
As mentioned earlier, when it comes to Bluray PAL and NTSC are obsolete terms and do not apply in the world of HD.
I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to know if your theory applies. I thought that 3:2 pulldown applied to NTSC video only which is why its 30fps ends up on the screen at the correct film speed and doesn't apply to HD.
I agree - there is a whole mix of terminology being used these days and it's no wonder things get confused.

PAL and NTSC are essentially broadcast standards to allow stuff to to be transmitted and displayed - elements of them got pulled across into the DVD era because the players were essentially connected to the baseband video circuitry of the TVs that existed - essentially needing the signals to be made compatible with what they were expecting - specifically the 25 or 30 fps rates. It was only really later that HD and higher display rates etc really came into play.

Today the players and streaming sources provide underlying video info that is converted in various ways to the "frame rate" of the display being used (and I'd really be guessing if I said I know how that worked in respect of a PC video client displaying to a screen that could be running at several hundred "frames per second", or a blu ray player dealing with a modern UHD dsiplay via HDMI).

Underneath all of that however you only really have stuff that was shot originally at:

24fps if it was on film - which I think gets stored with the data essentially saying it's at 23.97fps, which is to some extent a hang over from DVD when that "rate" made it easy to do the frame padding to get it to the 29.97 used by "NTSC" (or more correctly to get it to a frame rate that would be backwards compatible with an old NTSC TV). A side effect of that is that it just got played faster to work with a "PAL" display at 25fps.

25fps if it was originally from a video shot for "PAL" - which I suspect gets slowed down slightly to 23.97 and then pulled back up for "NTSC".

Potentially 29.97fps if it was originally from a video shot for NTSC - whch would then be pulled down to 25 somehow for PAL.

I've read that there were some "NTSC" (perhaps Region 1 would be a better term) discs mastered that actually had the 3:2 stuff built in i the source had originally come from something with a lower frame rate - i.e. "extra" frames stored on the disc when compared to the underlying 24fps original - presumably on the basis they could be done at a higher quality when the disc was mastered than a player could manage - but it's not clear they were that common.

If you ripped something like that it would end up showing a whole lot of repeated frames, however I suspect you would get the same effect if you took an underlying encoded stream and got a mismatch between the rate it was actually set to and what you told the ripper to produce - specifically a 24fps stream ripped to produce a 25fps file, in that situation a clever bit of software could start sticking extra "frames" in.

All of which leads to a mass of confusion between the underlying frame rate stored on the disc and the frame rate being output from the player. If you are talking about a streamed feed then without the data on the underlying stream and what the player application is doing I suspect it's impossible to tell whether a higher frame rate has been produced at the "source" end or whether it's actually only being streamed as 24fps and then sorted out by the player (though that would explain why a 24fps source originally seen at 25fps on PAL would suddenly "sound" like the US version because you would no longer be getting the speed up to make it work for the legacy transmission system).

Quite why the recent streaming of Thunderbirds used mono for one of the episodes seems a completely different issue - perhaps as simply as someone selecting the wrong audio stream in the underlying dataset.

Not sure any of that helps..........

FAB_61

Edit - Just a footnote on why NTSC is so "odd": The original B&W NTSC was 30fps as it was linked to the 60Hz mains freq in the US. When colour was introduced it got shifted down to 29.97fps due to some issues with interference between the video and audio carriers in the broadcast transmission system due to the limited bandwidth that had been allocated to each (analogue) channel - that led to the idea of "NTSC-flilm" as a frame rate of 23.976fps which could then easily be used to "upconvert" the original 24fps film standard to a frame rate that could be transmitted. All of that then got retained into the DVD and BluRay standards to provide compatibility with displays that couldn't do anything else. Now we have network streaming, PC, tablet and phone disply apps and screens that work at all sorts of higher rates it really makes no sense.......

Last edited by FAB_61; 22nd December 2018 at 11:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 22nd December 2018, 10:54 PM
shermeen shermeen is offline
Griselda
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 138
Default

I think the reason dvd was the way it was is because it matched the broadcast formats for each country. The US has always been 24p (after pulldown) so matched film from day one. And 99.9% of UK dvd's used 25p for the same reason and because many displays would not display anything else.
To this day many US collectors still cannot display 25p material some 30 years after most UK gear started supporting both.

Thanks for your input, it shows what a minefield these technical differences are.
As an aside, I do know that framerate is not an issue on a PC. So a US collector who might not be able to display 25p/50hz material on his tv would be able to play it on his PC ( assuming region coding is not a problem).

At any rate , the Thunderbirds Blurays are great quality and it was nice to finally get the original sound back (on the US discs) without the additional sound effects for the first time since VHS.

I wonder if we'll ever see a 4k UHD release of any ITC material considering how long it's taken for them to get really moving with 1080p

Not mentioned yet also that 1080/25p is not supported as a format on Bluray which is why 25p Blurays are 1080i, the same as UK HD channels

Last edited by shermeen; 22nd December 2018 at 10:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 22nd December 2018, 11:34 PM
FAB_61 FAB_61 is offline
Commissioner Simmonds
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shermeen View Post
I think the reason dvd was the way it was is because it matched the broadcast formats for each country. The US has always been 24p (after pulldown) so matched film from day one. And 99.9% of UK dvd's used 25p for the same reason and because many displays would not display anything else.
To this day many US collectors still cannot display 25p material some 30 years after most UK gear started supporting both.

Thanks for your input, it shows what a minefield these technical differences are.
As an aside, I do know that framerate is not an issue on a PC. So a US collector who might not be able to display 25p/50hz material on his tv would be able to play it on his PC ( assuming region coding is not a problem).

At any rate , the Thunderbirds Blurays are great quality and it was nice to finally get the original sound back (on the US discs) without the additional sound effects for the first time since VHS.

I wonder if we'll ever see a 4k UHD release of any ITC material considering how long it's taken for them to get really moving with 1080p

Not mentioned yet also that 1080/25p is not supported as a format on Bluray which is why 25p Blurays are 1080i, the same as UK HD channels
The relative capability between equipment sold in the US compared to the UK is interesting - and in some cases deliberate: We lived in the US for a while and I did a lot of checking to see if the HD TV we bought there would work in the UK.

It turned out that exactly the same set was sold in the UK (apart from the analogue tuner bit) and whilst the US set supposedly didn't do 25fps and the UK one did - a lot of digging then revealed it was purely because it had been deliberately turned off in the firmware by the manufacturer. Presumably to stop "grey imports" undercutting the higher price they were charging for the same set in Europe (a form of "Region Locking" by another mechanism).

The whole "source to screen" processing path is now a complete nightmare: You have the underying data stream (be that from a disc or the internet), the decoding and potential upscaling and frame rate adjustment in the player (or PC etc) and then the potential for the display itself to be adjusting things - either to match the frame rate to the natural rate of the panel, or to rescale the picture again (because the actual resolution of the panel is not the same as the stated input capability).

Playing a disc (or a stream or a stored file) on a PC would probably completely ignore anything to do with "PAL" or "NTSC" it would just take whatever the datastream said the framerate was and then convert it to whatever the display is working at.

In a true "digital" set up the old PAL and NTSC frame rates are nothing to do with it - the real limit is the detail in the encoded data (given that even 4K is only a sampling of what might be a higher resoution master) and the stored frame rate (which today might actually be a lot less than something was captured in - which is why even bluray can't cope with some things and the future is probably very high bandwidth streaming of a source that has been directly captured at a significantly higher frame rate than used to be possible).

FAB_61

Last edited by FAB_61; 22nd December 2018 at 11:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:44 AM.


Fanderson - The Official Gerry Anderson Appreciation Society is a non-profit making organisation endorsed by Anderson
Entertainment Ltd., The Indestructible Production Company Ltd., ITV Global Entertainment and ITC Entertainment Group Ltd.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.