IS BLU-RAY REALLY A TRUE 24FPS???

[D.J.KRIME]

Now not that I am a nerd or any thing but I take my collection of films very seriously as 99% of you guys and gals do. But on thing that has constantly caused issues with if the DVD you are buying is uncut and identical to the Cinema version was the differnce in running times of DVD due to the differing frame rate of either PAL or NTSC compared to 24FPS of the cinema. So with BD running at 24FPS this old issue sholud be a thing of the past as if both Cinema and BD are running at 24FPS then both should have identical running times.

Well of all the BD's i have checked thus far not a single one matches the Cinema running time, some are shorter and some longer so how can BD be running at a true 24FPS?

Spider-Man was 121m20s at the Cinema yet the BD is 121m12s, Casino Royal was 144m07s at the Cinema yet 144m12 on BD. So how if both are at 24FPS????

 

[Clare Newsome]

Films are often re-edited for DVD/Blu-ray release compared to cinema release - leaving aside the directors/producers having an artistic fiddle, you've got the issue of new credits/openers needing to be added for the disc-distributor (often different to the cinematic distrbutor). And that's without fresh cuts/allowances being made by the censors for home entertainment release...

 

[tvmog]

What are the reference sources for the running times, and what are they using as the start/end points of the film. Are they including producer idents,credits and copyright warnings that may differ between the two versions.

 

[FuzzyinLondon]

Often this can just be put down to different company credits at the beginnings and ends of films or down to the way that the duration has been calculated. Some DVDs have different cards before the films starts depending on who the distribution deal has been done with for that territory. Sometimes the DVD version of a film will have extra credits on the end roller to thank anyone who was involved with the DVD release but not the theatrical release. I can't provide any specific explanation for the examples you've mentioned. They're both Sony releases and don't really follow a pattern. Any of the above could apply in either case. The film release is often calculated from the married print of the film and so can be a few seconds longer if it includes a few seconds of black and/or the BBFC certificate. One thing you can be sure of though, is that it's not a framerate issue. PAL DVDs are sped up to 25fps and so run 4% faster. On a typical 90-100min long film, this would represent a difference of 3-4mins in the running time when compared to the theatrical release.

 

[D.J.KRIME]

[quote user="Clare Newsome"]
Films are often re-edited for DVD/Blu-ray release compared to cinema release - leaving aside the directors/producers having an artistic fiddle, you've got the issue of new credits/openers needing to be added for the disc-distributor (often different to the cinematic distrbutor). And that's without fresh cuts/allowances being made by the censors for home entertainment release...

[/quote]

The films I have quoted are exact to the Cinema versions as cited by both the BBFC and MPAA and this is just 2. Of the 14 BD's I have not a single one has the correct running time all running either less or more that the Cinema.

Fuzzy I am not talking about DVD as I am more than aware of PAL/NTSC differances, I am solely refering to HD at 24FPS.

 

[FuzzyinLondon]

[quote user="D.J.KRIME"]
Fuzzy I am not talking about DVD as I am more than aware of PAL/NTSC differances, I am solely refering to HD at 24FPS.
[/quote]

I know that Krime. I was only stating that for the benefit of others that might be reading and not aware. Sorry if it offended. I know you're pretty tech savvy mate. The fact that the durations are so close means that it must be something relatively minor in each case. Obviously, now that the Blu-Rays are out and the films are gone from the cinema screens it's hard to really compare. The reasons I gave were only speculation. I've been a freelancer in film/tv for a few years now and so am aware of some of the issues, but not all of them. It could be a purely technical reason to do with encoding. For example, I've notice that Panasonic DVD decks can't do frame accurate 25fps recording from a Broadcast master tape. Over 90mins it drifts in duration my 8secs. That's a bit annoying when you're trying to make a frame accurate DVD. This might not have anything to do with your question but is just another example of how nothing is ever 100% accurate when you transfer from one medium to another, especially when there is no standardized compression codec (well, not officially anyway). Hopefully someone might have a definitive answer.

 

[D.J.KRIME]

Maybe it is a simple case then of the encodeing process then as Film stock is true film running at 24FPS as where BD is not really film at all, simply data stored onto a disk to be re-encoded by our BD players, so maybe the issue arises when the Studio encodes the Film stock to the digital medium as at this stage the film is not really running at 24fps but encoded at 24fps buy computers and may suffer issues like you have mentioned FUZZY above somewhere in the process?

 

[FuzzyinLondon]

That sounds wholly logical to me. Just to make things even more complicated, it's important to remember that most new release DVDs and BDs aren't created from the final married print of the film. They're created from a HD Master which is made before the final film is printed for theatrical distribution. This is essentially a tape (usually a HD CAM or other advanced tape format) or a giant digital file which is created after the grading process has been completed and all the VFX and titles have been completed. After the editing process is completed, the final locked cut of the film is scanned digitally in a special HD telecine suite which recreates the picture from the original negative of everything that was shot. The process is called Digital Intermediates. From that point on the film exists in the digital realm which make it easier for Post Production work - grading, VFX, titling, resizing certain shots and anything else that might be required. The film is then spat back out to a final master negative from which all the prints are made. The film that you see at the cinema has gone film>digital>film. The Blu-Ray and DVD versions are made from the digital source and are recompressed to fit on their respective storage media. With all these processes going on it's a miracle that the film survives at all and it could go some way to explaining the slight disparity in durations that you're referring to. As you rightly point out, when it comes to compression and encoding there is always a chance that something might not end up 100% accurate. The studios are probably relieved when they can get it anywhere near 99.9% accurate.

 

[Anonymous]

Fuzzy, fascinating subject and even more fascinating replies! I have other examples of disparities. I am also a collector of CDs. I have a few 'double dips', where I might have the UK release and say a US or Japanese release of a CD. In theory, the tracklistings are identical, but quite often the 'total' time is a few seconds different. There are some other examples of this on the same CD. Some players will display the genuine 'total' time (including the 2-3 second *table of contents*), whereas some players, quite often portables / mini-systems etc., only display the 'track totals' added together, which is approx 2-3 seconds shorter than the disc total! When you are talking about a 120 minute film, then five or so seconds difference to the cinema release comes as no surprise to me! One thing I have noticed is that many UK BDs have the wrong total time printed on the back - they appear to have replicated the standard DVD (sped up by 4%) time! This has appeared on all labels / studios!

 

[FuzzyinLondon]

Hi Nigel, in a weird way it's kind of re-assuring to hear that film's no the only medium in which it happens. I guess it a lot of cases a certain amount of human error occurs aswell. Repeating the running time of the dvd on the Blu-Ray smacks of laziness. Of course, at the end of the day none of these things should actually affect our enjoyment of the films or music. They're little details that we become interested in from time to time.

 

[Anonymous]

who really cares blu ray won its a great picture great sound (on some) nuff said

 

[D.J.KRIME]

[quote user="nokz"]who really cares blu ray won its a great picture great sound (on some) nuff said[/quote]

Obviously not you! Others on the other hand take their movies very seriously and Personally I cross referance all running times prior to making a purchase of and movie if it be on BD or DVD as I wish to make sure the version I am getting is a complete cut of the film and not a editied version. For example if say you wanted Casino Royal and picked up the UK disk then you are not getting the complete version of the film, but with a little reserch you can get the US uncut version. This is the point of being sure of the frame rate at which you chosen disc is encoded at as this will hold the key to differnt running times and without knowing this for a fact it makes knowing if the film is intact or cut almost impossible.

That was the point behind the origianl post!!!

 

[Clare Newsome]

OK, deep breath, calm down with a cuppa

To be fair, however, the US version of Casino Royale ain't that much different - just the usual more relaxed stateside stance on violence!

 

[D.J.KRIME]

[quote user="Clare Newsome"]
OK, deep breath, calm down with a cuppa

To be fair, however, the US version of Casino Royale ain't that much different - just the usual more relaxed stateside stance on violence!

[/quote] Yes agreed that the differnce between the edited uK version and the unedited US version(carefull if ordering as there are 2 US BD's of this movie) are not massive and total about 14secs in total, but the fact still lies in if it matters to you like it does me that you are getting the complete un-edited cut of the movie, then a correct running time is esentuall. The reason that Casino Royal was Pre-cut here before submitting to the BBFC was that we submitted the US Cinema version which was re-edited to avoid a R rating from the MPAA, so the only real reason we have the edited version was down to lazyness on the distrubitors part here in the UK as they also didn't want a 15 instead of the desired 12.