Why are you even trying to convert files to 23.976???
A long time ago, cameras used film to capture programs. The choice of 23.976/24 fps was a compromise. It was the slowest frame change that seemed smooth to most people and yet used the least amount of expensive film stock.
When "filmed" programs were broadcast on television, they had to be converted to either 25fps for the Brits or 29.97 for US to match CRT refresh rates. The usual way was to repeat alternating frames in a 3:2 ratio.
To try to get back to the "true" look of the film, various ways were developed to reverse the telecine process - hence the idea that converting back to 23.976 is a good idea.
It is not!
Most of today's programs are filmed with digital cameras that capture 25, 50, 30 or 60 fps in progressive frames, not interlaced. When broadcast, the original digital video is converted to 720p or 1080i solely to use less bandwidth.
Additionally, the 1080i "interlace" is not the old-time 3:2 telecine that used a constant, predictable pattern from the beginning of a video to the end. Like variable bitrate to allocate more data to detailed scenes or action, variable frames are used in what is called "hybrid interlace" in which some areas of the video are interlaced and some not. There is also not a uniform pattern throughout the video, so "reverse-telecine" filters will make a jerky mess of the hybrid video.
The resulting 23.976 file makes even less sense when you go to play it back. You are not going to watch it on a old theater movie projector that ran at 23.976 film speed. Anything you will play your video on will be a digital screen refreshing at 25/50/30/60 frames per second requiring the video to be converted back to one of those, either reintroducing some sort of telecine scheme or by the GPU trying to interpolate in-between frames on-the-fly.
All of this lessens the final quality, so why do it in first place?
If you ripped a commercial DVD to TS - AND it is already 23.976 because the original was on film - Great! Otherwise, leave the frame rate alone.
Same goes for UK sourced material broadcast on US tele. The conversion from 29.976 back to 25fps will not get you the original UK version back. There will not be a repeatable pattern that can be reversed by a simple de-telecine. I you have cut out any "adverts" or any "pledge" segments, you introduced more discontinuities to the frames.
If your intent was to make the video smaller, think again... modern encoders accomplish their "magic" by comparing frames and encoding their differences. Even with traditional 3:2 telecine, the "repeated" frames take almost no data to encode. Important frames are detailed, but most are encoded with only some details and lots of referances to other frames. The inclusion of any 3:2 repeated frames adds only a handful of bits to the encoded stream - the digital equivalent of "do that one again" as the previous frame has already been decoded and is in the video buffer.
Pnr Status TextNow VPN
