criterionforum.org

Just received a shipping notification for The Worlds of Lucile Hadžihalilović.
45 days earlier than expected is very welcome.

denti alligator wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 7:38 pm Ah, I didn’t catch that. Makes perfect sense then.

Sorry, my reply was a bit blunt. Doesn’t seem to mention it on their’s store’s page, but was stated with their title announcement. If it stays in print long enough it may well show up on Diabolik etc if you’re lucky. Sometimes it seems to be for an unstated window rather than until it sells out.

Zot! wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 6:51 pm

tenia wrote: Thu May 07, 2026 8:13 am I suppose though that what Severin means is that the BFI supplied them with a 24fps file of the raw scan, which is something completely different, and something that indeed can later be manipulated anyway.

Yeah I think the response came from somebody who doesn't get it...it should be mentioned, that while you can "manipulate it' (like pitch correct), you will never truly be able to get 25fps native footage to appear identical to 24fps footage...the math just doesn't add up. However, as MichaelB mentions the difference for most people is negligible, and US viewers have always consumed everything from Monty Python to Dr. Who at a slightly altered speed. The biggest tell is usually music's pitch.

You can play something recorded at 25fps (25p) at 24fps (24p) with zero problem. You can do this on the fly on your PC even. You can change a field to then just make it a 24p file too. It is the audio that is the issue, not the video as long as you dealing with progressive frames.

Zot is correct, the video will never be the same as you are losing or interpolating that extra frame that is there in 25fps. But as you say you can of course playback 25 at 24, but that isn’t what Zot was saying, he was saying it won’t be the same as playing it at the native framerate.

I have to say that Severin’s response doesn’t really make sense.

Why would you lose or interpolate an extra frame? You just take the exact same stack of images and play them back 24-per-second rather than 25-per-second?

That’s how I’ve always done it, and it’s by far the sanest way.

I’ve seen some 25-to-24 transfers compromised by dropping one frame in every 25, which makes no sense to me whatsoever given that there’s a far more practical alternative.

TMDaines wrote: Tue May 12, 2026 10:42 am Why would you lose or interpolate an extra frame? You just take the exact same stack of images and play them back 24-per-second rather than 25-per-second?

This is a complicated topic, because it can be done many different ways, with varying compromises, but the relevant part is that it is mathematically impossible to represent 25fps within 24fps or vice-versa without doing something visual or temporal. In this case I agree with the assessment that for modern TVs simply doing the telecine 1frame:1frame (and thereby slowing the master down a negligible amount) makes the most sense (as it has been done for The War Game). If you want to do one better, modern digital audio editing allows one to even correct the audio's resulting pitch down. Concert films are often scrutinized for this because for music the pitch is obviously much more critical.