PDA

View Full Version : Advantages of shooting 24FPS over 30FPS?



Elliot Pollaro
08-06-2012, 01:00 PM
I have heard that shooting at 24fps will get you a better "film like look" with the Epic. I was wondering if anyone has done any side by side comparisons of the Epic at 24fps vs 30fps.

Joseph Coleman
08-06-2012, 01:05 PM
Its not just epic...its every camera. It gives a more "Film like" look because films are shot at 24 fps. TV or broadcast is shot at 30fps. That and a some other things like 180 degree shutter and lighting is what give film its look.

Brandon Fraley
08-06-2012, 01:16 PM
Film is shot at 24 fps. The farther away from that you go, the less it will look like cinema.

-B

Elliot Pollaro
08-06-2012, 01:34 PM
So if I was to shoot the same scene at 24FPS, and then shoot it again at 30FPS, the 24FPS version would look and "feel" better? I know its more like cinema, but I am just wondering if there is any visual differences in the image itself.

Domenic Barbero
08-06-2012, 01:39 PM
less motion blur at 30fps. Which will make it appear more lifelike and a little less "cinematic"

Elliot Pollaro
08-06-2012, 01:44 PM
Thats more of the answer I was looking for. Thank you I will do some tests.

Matt Gerard
08-06-2012, 02:22 PM
This is such a subjective subject.

There are so many other factors that go into making a scene look "filmic" than just fps. I deal with that all the time as an editor, i have people bring me footage that was shot at 24, and it doesn't look like cinema, it looks like stuttery jittery motion blurry crap. I think its more of the compisition of the shot, the lighting, the camera moves, matching all that to the subject of the scene.

There are pro's and con's to shooting 30vs24 (or 48 if you're Peter Jackson) with 24 you get more light sensitivity, but limited in pan speeds. With 24 you save on media, but with 30, there is less perceived motion blur and stuttering on faster moving objects.

I think it all comes down to testing. Do what you said, shoot the same scene at 24 and at 30, see what you like. See what matched the scene content, and the need for camera moves. Test, test, test.

Technically, and someone more knowledgable than me will correct me if I'm wrong, 24 lets in more light, so that changes the response of the sensor to what exposure you are trying to achieve. This will change what fstop you use for a given scene, and possible change your iso. Knowing that the iso is metadata, of course.

That's my rambling.

matt

Brandon Fraley
08-06-2012, 02:22 PM
exactly, "Cinematic" is not to imply better. Like anything, it's all a matter of taste and what you're trying to achieve. 24fps definitely has serious drawbacks as well. Motion blur, strobing, a general lack of temporal resolution, but for many things it's the right look. Test and see what works for what you are doing.

-B

Adam Michael Carr
08-06-2012, 03:11 PM
24=BETTER..... always has. 29.97 is a gimmick that the rest of the country has fallen for when we all decided 1080 was the way to go.

Terry VerHaar
08-06-2012, 03:21 PM
24=BETTER..... always has. 29.97 is a gimmick that the rest of the country has fallen for when we all decided 1080 was the way to go.

Whaaaat...?? :huh:

Les C.
08-06-2012, 03:30 PM
24=BETTER..... always has. 29.97 is a gimmick that the rest of the country has fallen for when we all decided 1080 was the way to go.
"Oh, and 8 track was the way to go- one day mankind will realize its mistake." - prescient words from "Hellboy 2"

Paramon Ivanovich
08-06-2012, 10:00 PM
24=BETTER..... always has.

do you even know why it's 24, and not 25 or 23?

Les Dittert
08-06-2012, 10:15 PM
The very first projectors were 48 fps. Yep. Then with film they settled on 1/2 that with a double flash of each frame. Easier on the parts.

I think 24 will go away, along with the signature/artifact of film grain. In time.

Russ Fill
08-06-2012, 10:25 PM
This is a very long and interesting subject that will not go away very soon. I like both frame rates for different reasons.
I heard that the real reason for 24fps was almost purely economic as it was the slowest you could get away with running in the camera and still fool the eye for most situations.
So from what I heard was that this would save on stock when shooting back in the day. Sounds like sound business to me.. And over time we just adopted it as the standard. I know kind of a crude explanation but you get my drift.

Im sure someone else would love to shed a little light on this.

For what its worth. I some time shoot 29.97/30fps and open the shutter/longer exposure.. to give it a little more 24@180 feel, but as it has been stated in earlier post to testing at both and see what you like and if it works for what your doing that is really the most important.

Bob Gundu
08-06-2012, 10:31 PM
The difference between 24 and 30 is mostly experience and has very little to do with quality.

Rob Ruffo
08-09-2012, 06:40 AM
In Europe and anywhere else PAL, 30fps cannot be translated to 25p (PAL) without many issues. The whole world is not North America. If you see your market as only local you will make way less $$$.

24fps can be played anywhere, and looks fine on 30P NTSC and 25p PAL both.

Christopher Mills
08-09-2012, 07:04 AM
I THINK 24fps was originally settled on in the USA because at that speed on our 60hz power grid, the sound recorder gave you one second per foot of sound stock. this made synchronization, even on hand cranked sychronizers simple for editorial.

Perhaps David M, or someone withmore knowledge than I can confirm or correct this idea...

In terms of giving a "filmic" look, the mechanical shutter on some cameras (F65, Alexa) is intended to give the subliminal spacing and exposure time limit per frame that we are conditioned to expect in our film watching experience..

essentially, we are re-creating the feel of emulsion being passed through 2 intemittent movement devices... a film camera, and a film projector.

JR Monteiro
08-09-2012, 02:58 PM
For what it is worth, everything you see on television is 29.97 FPS whether it was shot in 24 (23.98) or 30 (29.97) FPS. Because that is our NTSC television standard. To take it a step further, the NTSC standard is actually not really 30 Frames Per Second but 60 Fields Per Second. A field is half a frame. Not the top half or the bottom half but actually an interlaced series of every other horizontal line on the television screen. To transfer film which was shot in 24 FPS to NTSC video at 30FPS it must go through a conversion process spreading out 24 frames over 60 fields. Since there are six less frames in Film than there are in video, that difference must be made up every second and this is done by process called 3:2 pull down which means that roughly every third frame is spread out over not two but three fields creating a motion blur artifact every third or second frame (3:2). This is a terribly annoying issue for editors who have to do clean green screen keys because there is no way to cleanly key out an object that is in two different places on the same frame. This is why an editor will always tell you to shoot 30FPS and a narrow shutter angle when doing green screen work. The motion blur artifact can be added in later if necessary but there is no way to get it out once it is baked into the file. The only other way around this is to edit on a 24P timeline and convert to 1080i as the final step. If there is no synch sound most of my green screen work is shot at 60 FPS just to give me those extra frames for a clean key.

But Green Screen aside, can the eye detect a motion blur artifact every third frame (1/10 of a second) or does it just make more sense to add a little more motion blur to every frame such as shooting at a 270 degree shutter instead of 180. You guys can argue this forever but for my money, lighting, lens choice, shutter angle and general production value are what create the film look for me.

Rob Ruffo
08-09-2012, 03:54 PM
For what it is worth, everything you see on television is 29.97 FPS whether it was shot in 24 (23.98) or 30 (29.97) FPS. Because that is our NTSC television standard. To take it a step further, the NTSC standard is actually not really 30 Frames Per Second but 60 Fields Per Second. A field is half a frame. Not the top half or the bottom half but actually an interlaced series of every other horizontal line on the television screen. To transfer film which was shot in 24 FPS to NTSC video at 30FPS it must go through a conversion process spreading out 24 frames over 60 fields. Since there are six less frames in Film than there are in video, that difference must be made up every second and this is done by process called 3:2 pull down which means that roughly every third frame is spread out over not two but three fields creating a motion blur artifact every third or second frame (3:2). This is a terribly annoying issue for editors who have to do clean green screen keys because there is no way to cleanly key out an object that is in two different places on the same frame. This is why an editor will always tell you to shoot 30FPS and a narrow shutter angle when doing green screen work. The motion blur artifact can be added in later if necessary but there is no way to get it out once it is baked into the file. The only other way around this is to edit on a 24P timeline and convert to 1080i as the final step. If there is no synch sound most of my green screen work is shot at 60 FPS just to give me those extra frames for a clean key.

But Green Screen aside, can the eye detect a motion blur artifact every third frame (1/10 of a second) or does it just make more sense to add a little more motion blur to every frame such as shooting at a 270 degree shutter instead of 180. You guys can argue this forever but for my money, lighting, lens choice, shutter angle and general production value are what create the film look for me.

Nothing is mastered or shot in 1080i anymore. Just 24p and 1080p That progressive timeline is then converted to a 1080i container which is in turn de-interlaced back to 1080p24 or 1080p30 by your television. There is no such problem with those taking out greenscreen artifacts because there is no 1080i material to be found anywhere until the final transfer to the 1080i deliverable, which splits into fields, yes, but they both show half of the same point in time/same image.

Anyone shooting or doing effects in 1080i is grossly incompetent, plain and simple.

M Most
08-09-2012, 07:10 PM
Anyone shooting or doing effects in 1080i is grossly incompetent, plain and simple.

Or they're working in live broadcast. Or live sports on any network not owned by Disney or Fox. Or live news. Fact is, there is a lot of production that is not post produced, is not entertainment oriented, and is not shot at 24 fps. And the people involved in those productions likely don't see themselves as "grossly incompetent," they just see themselves doing different types of productions than the ones you happen to work on.

M Most
08-09-2012, 07:14 PM
For what it is worth, everything you see on television is 29.97 FPS whether it was shot in 24 (23.98) or 30 (29.97) FPS. Because that is our NTSC television standard.

NTSC was the standard definition standard. HD broadcast is done under the ATSC standards, which also happen to include 720/59.94p, a standard that does not involve fields at all, but 60 progressive images per second. And while this does involve converting 24 frames to 60, it is not done on an interlaced field basis, it is done by sending full frames in a 2:3 repeating pattern.

Nick Morrison
08-09-2012, 08:23 PM
For whatever it's worth, for the past decade I've been a vendor working for numerous cable companies in New York (History, Lifetime, Sundance, BBC) and almost all their programming masters are delivered 1080p 23.98.

I've also seen many of these vendors simultaneously deliver an "on air" clone that is 1080i.

Mark Britton
08-09-2012, 08:44 PM
Yeah, but it's not REAL news unless it's NTSC upconverted to 1080i. Yup, that's the SD van, keepin' it real....

JR Monteiro
08-12-2012, 06:07 PM
NTSC was the standard definition standard. HD broadcast is done under the ATSC standards, which also happen to include 720/59.94p, a standard that does not involve fields at all, but 60 progressive images per second. And while this does involve converting 24 frames to 60, it is not done on an interlaced field basis, it is done by sending full frames in a 2:3 repeating pattern.

You are right ATSC not NTSC is the high def standard. But 1080i is the predominant broadcast format for most stations and it is comprised of 60 interlaced fields or 60 progressive frames in the case of 720P but the point I was making is that there is no magic in the 24P format that makes it more filmic. The magic actually happens in the 3:2 pulldown when the 24 frames are converted into 30 frames, the six missing frames are essentially a double exposure of the before and after frame in the 24P source material or in effect a 720 degree shutter angle 6 frames out of 30. If you don't believe me play a 24P movie back frame by frame that has been converted into 30P (60i or 60P). So the point I was making, is that if you have three frames at a 180 degree shutter followed by one frame shot with a 720 degree shutter, why not just shoot the whole thing a t a 270 or 360 degree shutter and not have to deal with the strobing artifacts that digital cinema cameras like the Red produce. I find the strobing issues much more annoying and less cinematic than any magic that the 3:2 pull down creates. To top it off now people like Peter Jackson are shooting their films in 48P because the demands of digital effects and compositing require more frames rather than less frames to create a believable cinema effect.

George Butterfield
08-12-2012, 06:31 PM
So if I was to shoot the same scene at 24FPS, and then shoot it again at 30FPS, the 24FPS version would look and "feel" better? Film was expensive, the more fps the more film you used and the higher the cost. 24fps was picked as the slowest film rate which was still acceptable to view. You can also use longer exposure times with 24fps than with 30fps. The faster film rates produce smoother more realistic images, but use more computer space etc. in post. Shooting at 30fps vs 24fps produces better movies but requires 25% more "film" or storage. It seems the 3D filmmakers have decided they must shoot at 48fps or higher for acceptable viewing. The "film look" of 16fps became unpopular once viewers saw 24fps. When 30fps or 60fps becomes more economical, video filmmakers will drop 24fps. Right now we shoot at 24fps because it is more economical and sell it as "better looking". When movie film projectors become extinct and we project only video images, look to ~60fps to become the standard.

Chuck Z
08-28-2012, 06:55 PM
Nothing is mastered or shot in 1080i anymore. Just 24p and 1080p That progressive timeline is then converted to a 1080i container which is in turn de-interlaced back to 1080p24 or 1080p30 by your television. There is no such problem with those taking out greenscreen artifacts because there is no 1080i material to be found anywhere until the final transfer to the 1080i deliverable, which splits into fields, yes, but they both show half of the same point in time/same image.

Anyone shooting or doing effects in 1080i is grossly incompetent, plain and simple.
Doesn't the Discovery Network require deliverables to be in 1080i/59.94?

Michael Dalton
08-28-2012, 07:03 PM
In Europe and anywhere else PAL, 30fps cannot be translated to 25p (PAL) without many issues. The whole world is not North America. If you see your market as only local you will make way less $$$.

24fps can be played anywhere, and looks fine on 30P NTSC and 25p PAL both.

Would agree with this one. I make shows in Canada, but my largest buyers are everywhere but North America. Shooting 24fps has been very easy to convert to what ever format is required. There is no real reason to shot 30fps for TV.

Discovery requires a 30 frame delivery, not it to be shot in 30fps. Conversion from 30 to 25 are a lot more expensive.

Pawel Achtel
08-28-2012, 08:15 PM
The difference between 24 and 30 is mostly experience and has very little to do with quality.

Depends how you define "quality". I think it has everything to do with quality.

I think 24 fps is inferior to 30 fps, which is inferior to 48 fps, which is inferior to 60 fps, which is inferior to 120 fps, etc...

And, why shouldn't it? Higher temporal resolution will render everything that moves (after all it is motion picture industry we are talking about) with greater sharpness and less blurry and with less stuttering. Higher refresh rate allows for brighter images and therefore higher dynamic range to be projected without our eyes noticing the flicker.

Increasing the refresh rate decreases flickering and eye strain. That's, in my view, quality.

High refresh rates produce smoother, more fluid motion. That's, in my view, quality.

You can always make smooth, high frame rate content, to flicker, if that's your "artistic bend", but you can't put that quality back into the content that has been recorded at lower frame rates.

Mathematically, temporal resolution can be traded (either during acquisition or post) for either dynamic range or/and spacial resolution: and therefore all three define quality: the higher the better :)

Interlacing, for example, used to trade spacial resolution for temporal resolution and motion picture looked just as sharp, even though spacial resolution was essentially halved.

edit: There may be some other factors which would influence your frame rate choice, like cost or compatibility - neither of which has anything to do with quality.

Nick Spiropoulos
08-30-2012, 06:15 AM
24=BETTER..... always has. 29.97 is a gimmick that the rest of the country has fallen for when we all decided 1080 was the way to go.

Bite your tongue, Mr. Carr.

Simon Dunne
08-30-2012, 06:35 AM
Anyone shooting or doing effects in 1080i is grossly incompetent, plain and simple.

Ok, so i shoot everything 1920x1080@50i, edit in the same format, master in the same format and broadcast in that format. I must be a right tool :banghead:

Björn Benckert
08-30-2012, 06:52 AM
less motion blur at 30fps. Which will make it appear more lifelike and a little less "cinematic"

It's not just the motion blur.. if you adjust your shutter two images from the sequences can look identical but the "feel" form the high refresh rate does make the 30fps look more like news coverage that is shot in 50i or 60i. The higher refresh rate (more frames per second in playback) the more it will look like video... and most people find it less pleasing.

for example if you playback a clip shot in 50fps in 24fps or 25fps it will still look cinematic but if you play back the same clip in 50fps then it will just look like... slime.

But there is some that says that the higher frame rate in playback the better. I do not agree.. But it think Peter jackson would like to have even more than 48fps if he could which I kind of understand.. it makes it less flickering and hard on the eye for 3D projections but still I think it will look terrible.

One other thing that is now missing in all of this is the nice thing with the shutter of the old projectors they actually showed just as much pure black as picture. i.e they shut of the light in between each frame, so that each frame is showed a 1/48 of a second and then 1/48 of a second of black. This gives the brain a strobe sensation that I find more pleasing than some new digital projectors that shows the frames 1/24 of a second. i.e showing picture the whole time /one frame right after the other.

The strobe sensation makes the brain remember each frame better which I prefer... something that differs old film projectors from the new gear sadly.

Björn Benckert
08-30-2012, 07:02 AM
It's also so that posting in 30fps is much harder than at 24p since mattes, tracking, compositing rnedering will not only demand 6 more frames they will all also need much higher (read much higher as more than you can imagine) precision. Think of it like this... a painted key at 2 frames per second of a guy running is probably going to look quite good since there is so much difference in between the frames. Then you add more frames, not only do you have to render more frames, but the similarities of the frames increase so the "paint error" is in the end the only thing sticking out.. so posting at 50i is far more difficult than at 24p.

And there is other reasons, as light flicker, electricity frequency etc. thats why we in europe go to 25p instead of 24p. making a screen in europe run in 24p is simply not that easy.

George Butterfield
08-30-2012, 07:10 AM
The strobe sensation makes the brain remember each frame better which I prefer... The "nice" thing about being in the Arts is that we can make totally unscientific claims and no one will challenge us. I guess you would really prefer the old Silent Film rate of 14fps. In the "Arts" we never have to place a Man on the Moon, so we are allowed to utter gibberish, unchallenged. The Engineers picked 24fps because it was the most economical rate that they could, "get away with". A low frame rate is still used today, for reasons of economy.

Peter Moretti
08-30-2012, 07:18 AM
You are right ATSC not NTSC is the high def standard. But 1080i is the predominant broadcast format for most stations and it is comprised of 60 interlaced fields or 60 progressive frames in the case of 720P but the point I was making is that there is no magic in the 24P format that makes it more filmic. The magic actually happens in the 3:2 pulldown when the 24 frames are converted into 30 frames, the six missing frames are essentially a double exposure of the before and after frame in the 24P source material or in effect a 720 degree shutter angle 6 frames out of 30. If you don't believe me play a 24P movie back frame by frame that has been converted into 30P (60i or 60P). So the point I was making, is that if you have three frames at a 180 degree shutter followed by one frame shot with a 720 degree shutter, why not just shoot the whole thing a t a 270 or 360 degree shutter and not have to deal with the strobing artifacts that digital cinema cameras like the Red produce. I find the strobing issues much more annoying and less cinematic than any magic that the 3:2 pull down creates. To top it off now people like Peter Jackson are shooting their films in 48P because the demands of digital effects and compositing require more frames rather than less frames to create a believable cinema effect.

JR, I don't believe that adding a pulldown is the only way to convert 24P to 30P, 60i or 60P. Aren't some algorithms are more sophisticated than that? But if you are delivering only in a broadcast format, then it certainly seems to make sense to shoot in that format, or a close relative of it.

Brian Merlen
08-30-2012, 07:34 AM
"Its all about that judder baby"

Björn Benckert
08-30-2012, 07:51 AM
JR, I don't believe that adding a pulldown is the only way to convert 24P to 30P, 60i or 60P. Aren't some algorithms are more sophisticated than that? But if you are delivering only in a broadcast format, then it certainly seems to make sense to shoot in that format, or a close relative of it.

I give up, try it and maybe you like it. But do you honestly think they been shooting film in in 24fps and done this terrible 3:2 expand and collapse process all this time just for fun? when doing commericals it's quite a slim difference in budget if you shoot 30fps or 24fps on film still everyone one does the 24fps. And today transfer in 24p and post in 24p and then make ugly transition masters in NTSC framerate. Why because it does actually look better than shooting in NTCS standard. A shitty standard that became what it is because the us has 60Hz 120v electricity.