Thread: Advantages of shooting 24FPS over 30FPS?

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1 Advantages of shooting 24FPS over 30FPS? 
    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.
    When you believe in a thing, believe in it all the way, implicitly and unquestionable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Joseph Coleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    413
    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.
    J.H.C Epic-X #03520 (Sherry Baby)
    http://Coleman-Media.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Brandon Fraley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, Ca.
    Posts
    2,269
    Film is shot at 24 fps. The farther away from that you go, the less it will look like cinema.

    -B
    Brandon Fraley
    Director - Cinematographer
    EPIC-X #2762 "Zo"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    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.
    When you believe in a thing, believe in it all the way, implicitly and unquestionable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Domenic Barbero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Seattle/Portland/LA
    Posts
    1,966
    less motion blur at 30fps. Which will make it appear more lifelike and a little less "cinematic"
    DP/Director/Producer
    www.domenicthedp.com
    www.nw-camera.com

    Alexa Mini/Amira, RED Dragon, Monstro, Canon C500 Mark ii, C300ii, Sony FX9, FS7, UMP G2, Pocket 6k/4k, Sony A7s/r ii, Cooke Panchro Classics, Atlas Anamorphics, Zeiss Cp3, Angenieux EZ1/2, Celere HS set, Leica R Duclos set, DSO Trump series, Sigma Cine Primes, Contax Zeiss Superspeeds, GL Optics 18-35, 50-100, 70-200, tokina 11-16 PL, Laowa 24mm Probe, Movi Pro, Grip Vans, Skypanels, HMI's, Hive, Aputure, Litepanels, Litemats
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Thats more of the answer I was looking for. Thank you I will do some tests.
    When you believe in a thing, believe in it all the way, implicitly and unquestionable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Matt Gerard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    134
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Brandon Fraley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, Ca.
    Posts
    2,269
    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
    Brandon Fraley
    Director - Cinematographer
    EPIC-X #2762 "Zo"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Member Adam Michael Carr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Temecula, CA
    Posts
    94
    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.
    Scarlet Al "Cairo" #2118
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Terry VerHaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    7,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Michael Carr View Post
    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...??
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts