Talk:Telecine

message: I have images of the Marconi B3410 telecine which is maintained in working order as part of the Marconi collection at the Sandford Mill Museum in Chelmsford, UK. Images include closeups of the optical block and a line array sensor. I am happy to donate these images to improve this article if someone can tell me where to send them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.174.235 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images available 

message: The pulldown information for film-->video transfer should be summarized in 24p, and the bulk of that info should be in telecine.  However, 24p video-specific pulldown methods such as advanced pulldown belong in 24p. Glennchan 05:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with telecine 

message: I added a piece regarding the newer method of PAL telecine. Does anyone know if it has a proper name? Is this a decent technical explanation for it? -- Lmb71
@Lmb71, above: It is a known method, that's for sure, but the best reference I could find is the MPlayer homepage... It's known as 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 telecine there. Although the technical name is unknown at this stage, I did add the information, in an attempt to make the article more general. Niek Bergboer 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown 

message: Is this original work?  Any chance it could be wikified, if it is? -- Zoe
It is original, as good as my word is for it. -- iluvcapra
"is photographed at 25 frames per second, and the PAL video standard broadcasts at 25" and what' done for movie films at 24 fps this make +4% is it acceptable ?
Ericd
The speeding-up of the motion is no big deal, but a bigger issue is the pitch shift.  Actors with recognizable voices can pitch up and sound unrecognizeable, or at least recognizeably bad.  I worked with a UK crew recently and they told me all UK theatrical features were shot 24fps and projected so, and that only the TV version would suffer.  Pitch shifters are sometimes installed in European theaters for when they project American films, but only if they happen to use a 25 fps projector.  It's apparently a huge mess but nobody seems to mind, since sync doesn't suffer.   Holman covers the issue better in Sound for Film and Television. -- iluvcapra
Great picture!!! iluvcapra
----
This paragraph seems dubious:
:"3:2 pulldown" creates motion artifacts in the video signal that can be clearly seen in the above image. This is one reason why NTSC telecine viewed at home appears to lack smoothness in motion compared to viewing actual film in a cinema.
The fields are displayed in chronological order: A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, D1, D2, D3. Each film frame stays on screen for either 2 or 3 fields, for an overall average rate of 2.5 fields. (2.5*24=60) I can't say this has ever seemed very uneven or non-smooth to me; is that what's being referred to, or the artifacts of freeze-framing on one of the video frames consisting of fields from two film frames? --Brion 20:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The original version of that para was added here, and sounds even more dubious. What it seems to be trying to say is covered in more detail in the reverse telecine section below it, so I'm removing it. --Brion 20:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I simply do not understand why so many movies are still made at 24fps if most of their viewers are watching them on DVD and Video, which operate a higher framerates. On photographic film I can see a rational reason, it saves film. But why do even digital movies still stick to this framerate. And, if 100+ line tv was techically possible even way back in the 1940s, why didn't a 100+ lines analong video format replace cine-film over a decace before digital video was a reality? And what is the origin of the 24p framerate?
Questioner, please leave your name!  We still shoot films at 24fps for many reasons.  First, all the projectors on earth are built to run at 24fps, and adjusting most of them would be technically non-trivial.  As well, movies shot at 30fps would, of course, consume 20% more footage and so be that much more expensive to develop, print, and ship for the same length movie, without a significant gain in motion rendition.  Digital movies shoot at 24 because it's guaranteed to transfer to 35mm film without visible artifacts (it's much easier to do frame conversions from film to a lesser medium, like NTSC, than it is to go to it.)  As well, you need at least a 2000 lines to begin to approach film's rendition, as opposed to 100+, and analogue video can approach this, as you say even in the 50s and 60s (in labs), but the issue was being able to reliably record such a signal and disseminate it on a reasonable piece of bandwidth, which was not practical until recently, with the advent of digital transmission. --iluvcapra
=== "HD advanced telecine" ===
Could you talk about HD Advanced Telecine? a.k.a 1080p 24f --Jack Zhang 20:30, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not familiar with the phrase "HD advanced telecine".  Regardless... there is a 24Psf (23.98fps) format for HDCAM tape.  In this format, no pulldown is required since it's 24fps.  There is also a 24psf format for HD-SDI.  Glennchan 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: Could you talk about HD Advanced Telecine? a.k.a 1080p 24f --Jack Zhang 20:30, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not familiar with the phrase "HD advanced telecine".  Regardless... there is a 24Psf (23.98fps) format for HDCAM tape.  In this format, no pulldown is required since it's 24fps.  There is also a 24psf format for HD-SDI.  Glennchan 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "HD advanced telecine" 

message: I think that this section would be much easier to understand if it discussed the principle in isolation first, and then added in the complexity due to interlace and the 59.94 frame rate.  Certainly it makes the illustration easier to understand:
Also, IMHO the other version of the image gives too much emphasis to the idea of two video fields making a frame.  Since fields are exposed and viewed one at a time on normal screens it is them, not frames, that are important when discussing fluidity of motion.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Algr (talk • contribs) 07:33, 29 January 2006
: Fields are not viewed one-at-a-time, they are viewed two-at-a-time. One field represents the odd lines on the screen, and the next represents the even lines, alternating. So, it's quite important to show that the image on the screen as seen by a human is made up of two fields. Jhawkinson 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which makes me wonder - why not do 3:2:2:3 or 2:3:3:2, to (perhaps) avoid at least some of the judder? --moof 08:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fields on a CRT ARE viewed one at a time.  The phosphor dims within about 1/600th of a second, so the first field is long gone before the second one is scanned.  Also, the choice of "First" and "Second" fields is arbitrary - Each field appears in the gaps left by the previous one.  Algr (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 3:2 pulldown section 

message: No. It should not be moved to Telecine. Telecine are real time scanning to SDTV or HDTV. Scanners can be real time or as slow as a a few frames per second and go to data files (DPX).
Telecine Guy 06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we keep this discussion in one place? The merge tags specify the discussion location as Talk:Motion picture film scanner. Thanks. jhawkinson 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[:Motion picture film scanner]] 

message: In this revision, 
84.56.228.131 (talk)
changed the justification for 2^11:3 pulldown from based on pitch to based on avoiding the shortening of runtime by 4%. Is there some justification? In my experience (having some 25fps 35mm projectors), the pitch change (and action changes) is quite noticable. But few people care about the runtime changing (especially when it gets shorter! More stuff to program, more commercials, etc.) for its own sake. Can someone justify the change? jhawkinson 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hearing nothing, it's gone. jhawkinson 22:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frame rate differences 

message: :In the case of PAL DVDs using 2:3 pulldown, either soft or hard telecining may be applied.
What PAL DVDs use 2:3 pulldown? That implies the original framerate was something like 21fps. David 18:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL DVDs using 2:3 pulldown? 

message: One of the alternatives to method to pulldown is finding the least common multiple frame rate, and use that as as a sample: 24 fps => 120 fps => 30 fps. Is this ever used in the film industry or just for hobbyists? If it is should it be mentioned? --Voidvector 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not a common method bc there's no standard broadcast signal that accomodates it. The video frame rates are largely a function of the 50 and 60 Hz mains frequencies, which explains the 25 and 30 fps (29.97 is a technical slowdown to accommodate the color subcarrier in the NTSC system). Whereas 24 fps was an economic speed choice for worldwide sound prints, as it was considered the slowest framerate that the available sound-on-film technology could be played at and create an acceptable sound quality - producers wanted the slowest possible speed so as to save on the cost of film stock. Girolamo Savonarola 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: 24fps was the slowest frame rate for silent movies to look natural.  Anything slower looked awkward, jerky and disorienting.  Kakomu (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true, many pre-sound films were recorded at 12 or 16 fps. Maury (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And did they look natural?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.219.253 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least common multiple (120fps) instead of Pulldown 

message: Shouldn't the title of this section be 2^11:3, or 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown, because I count the 2 being repeated eleven times, not twelve, but maybe there's something I'm missing here. Thanks! ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a note at the end that says that "for convenience" the article will refer to this method as "2^12:3." Isn't this original research? ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm taking out the "2^12:3" as original research. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2^12:3, or 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown

message: Wouldn't the origin of the "TK" abbreviation, already noted in contrast with TC for timecode, be likely related to kinescope and/or kinema?  Citation needed, obviously (WP:OR). ENeville (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TK 

message: The article reads: "16 fps (actually 15.985)" but my understanding is that NTSC framerates involve dropping a frame every 1000 frames, or division by 1001, and 16000 / 1001 is roughly 15.984, not 15.985! The other quoted frame rates follow this pattern. Is there something I'm missing? C xong (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it should be 15.984. There is just this thing that 14.985 x 2 is 29.97 and people may have used that, after all 30/1.001 is 29.97003. 109.252.90.143 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  16fps NTSC = 15.985 or 15.984? 

message: It suggests that images A B and D are shown clearly but C is only shown blended, but A isn't shown any more clearly than C.
The sequence is AABBBCCDDD which, assuming the previous frame ‘persists’ one frame, yields AxBBxCxDDx where x is a blended picture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2:3 pulldown image is wrong 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Telecine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618124959/http://www.dft-film.com:80/scanners/scanity.php to http://www.dft-film.com/scanners/scanity.php
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.php?articleId=196603515
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified