-
To Drop or not to Drop
Our production company has been around for 32 years. We produce mainly commercials and non-broadcast marketing videos. We’ve always edited “non-drop” frame. I’m having a go around with Data Video corp, (they’re actually trying to come up with a good answer and are being very nice). We own their dv/analog converter and I just found out it only supports “drop frame”. They say this is the standard for NTSC timecode, (this particular project I’m pulling from Beta SP). I hold that “drop frame” is really only for long form broadcast stuff. For the rest of us “non-drop” is correct.
Could someone chime in with an opinion as to what’s correct here? I’m thinking I am, (of course), and just probably need to purchase a different box.
Thanks for any thoughts here.Mark D’Agostino
http://www.synergeticproductions.com -
13 Replies
-
It’s standard for any NTSC broadcast material, not just long form and it is a “defacto” standard for NTSC editing. But of course, for non-broadcast it’s not required.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR
The new Color Training DVD now available from the Creative Cow! -
My 2 cents. You are better of with a Kona or Decklink interface to capture beta SP. That will give you proper machine control and any timecode rate you want, plus a proper monitor output.
-
For broadcast, it’s helpful when the time on the VTR decks matches the clock on the wall. This is where drop frame comes in handy.
I work a lot with film telecine to video, and for that purpose the one to one relation of frames makes non-drop less confusing, especially when lists have to reference back to film for cutting negative.
-
[Dave LaRonde] “Until NTSC video abandons 29.97 and goes with 30 fps (fat chance of that happening), it’s the best we’ve got.”
Every day I bless the PAL format that I work with. When I have to work in NTSC rates I think back to that fateful day when a tech thought of the idea of shifting the frame rate off 30 rather than fix the problem with color and 60 Hz. I wonder if anyone knows his name and if his offspring are still living.
-
There were other systems for color when it was added in the early 1950s, but they would not have allowed black and white receivers to still decode the broadcasts.
When the color subcarrier was added, the frequency had to be shifted to avoid interference with the FM sound carrier.
Considering this technical requirement, it was really an amazing engineering feat to add color, and only shift the scan frequency by 1 part in 1000.
The legacy is that when timecode came around, there had to be an adjustment of 108 frames per hour to keep up with the clock, so dropping 2 frame numbers every minute, except the ten minutes, was the solution.
-
[Steven Gonzales] “Considering this technical requirement, it was really an amazing engineering feat to add color, and only shift the scan frequency by 1 part in 1000.”
When coloUr was added to PAL they didn’t have to shift frequency. There was a slight net like pattern on the image on old b&w teles. Perhaps they should have shifted the FM subcarrier frequency instead of the frame rate. I always understood the solution was far from good engineering actually. My father was a microwave developer and made links for broadcast and he would always say it was lazy engineering to shift.
I have often wondered why the problem in NTSC wasn’t fixed when timecode was being developed.
-
A lot of great stuff here to take in. From this and surfing a bunch of other sites I’ve gotten answers from “drop frame is a slam dunk” to “whatever works for you works as long as absolute time precision isn’t critical”. I hope more folks chime in because opinions on this aren’t as universal as I thought.
By the way, we’ve always used non-drop for video and never had issues because our stuff is either non-broadcast or commercials that run regionally where stations don’t require drop frame.
Thanks so much for listening and offering your time and professional opinions!
MarkMark D’Agostino
http://www.synergeticproductions.com -
Mark,
I think the conclusion is that there is no consensus, and each “flavor” has it’s advantages.
I’d ask just one question when deciding which way to go: Do you have to meet precise “duration” requirements (like for broadcast)? If so, use “Drop Frame”. Yes, that’s a slam dunk.
For anything else, it’s really your call, dependent on your workflow and the nature of your projects. Personally, I wouldn’t buy a piece of equipment that COULDN’T handle both.
Mark
-
Keep in mind that PAL was developed with color from the start. There was no need to be backwards compatible with existing televisions. Also, PAL was actually developed *from* NTSC and are very similar. Had the NTSC standard been given a clean sheet of paper in the early 1960’s, our standard would probably have been given the advancements that PAL has enjoyed.
-
Hi
“I have often wondered why the problem in NTSC wasn’t fixed when timecode was being developed.”
I have often wondered why the problem wasnt fixed when they developed ATSC/HD? The first thing that should have been done was make it all 30.00fps, but noooooo, now we have the mess we have now, which is why two thirds of the posts on this forum are about formats and standards.
oh well, guess that’s why i get paid the big bucks!
bee eph
“I like video because its so fast!”
Bob Flood
Greer & Associates, Inc.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up