24fps or 30fps

Teeps

Teeps

Member
I have always just shot in 24fps for more of film kind of look. Anyone got any thoughts if 30fps shoots better for skiing. Or does it look to much like a camcorder.
 
i'd prefer to shoot in 30fps for the ability to slow it down a bit. i'm pretty sure you can easily just drop 20% of the frames and it will look the same as 24fps
 
60But 30 vs 24 I'd say 30 since you can slow it down more, and you can drop the frames if you want it to be 24p, if you like the effect. I personally hate the effect because most of the time it just ends up looking really choppy when you do any sort of movement/pan but thats probably just because I don't know how to film it right (or maybe the T2i is just not good at it, idk)
 
personally, for any type of action i like to have as many frames/second as possible so you have the ability to slow it down if you want and have the picture still be clear.
 
This is not necessarily true. You can shoot at 24p and have your shutter speed be 1/500 and you will have a very crisp image. You can shoot at 60p and set your shutter speed to 1/60 and then conform it to 24p to give you slow motion at 40% of real time. While the slow motion will be smooth, your image will still have a lot of motion blur and won't be crisp at all. Assuming you aren't doing slow motion using frame blending, how crisp your image is will depend more on shutter speed than frame rate.
 
Yeah I kind of assume he was talking about that type of thing, but I just wanted to clear up the frame rate vs. shutter speed thing anyway because I've seen a lot of kids on NS assume that faster frame rate = sharper picture, as through frame rate is the same as shutter speed.
 
For sure.

The way I look at it, it's not even a matter of frame blending and stuff. If you shot at 24, that's it. It's not even worth trying to slow it down for action sports footage because it will look shitty. If you shot at 30, you can conform to 24 to give you slow motion at 80%. So in both situations you'll have an equally crisp shot, but in one scenario you can slow down to 80%, and in the other you just can't at all.
 
I prefer to shoot 24p 90% of the time, even for fast action follow cams. It forces me to be much more cognizant of my movements, making my footage more refined and giving the image a more organic cadence.

30p looks nice when conformed to 24fps, but it doesn't have that raw feeling to it.

60p is nice, but slow motion gets boring after two shots and it looks like garbage if it isn't slowed down.
 
Any artist worth their weight will tell you that this argument is a crock of shit. Your job isn't to give them something they can recognize, it's to toy with their emotions without them knowing it. Unfortunately, this involves taking extra steps towards things that "people won't notice."
 
Not true actually. I remember when the NS player and some other online players began supporting 60p, a lot of filmers who had never exported to 24p before (because online players converted it to 24p for them) began uploading vids at 60p and they were displayed at 60p. The majority of people commented that something looked off, they just couldn't put their finger on it.
 
It has nothing to do with resolution. 60p played back at 60p looks like a soap opera: awful. Whenever I see footage that isn't conformed to 24 fps I can't help but cringe and turn it off. It sucks because I'm sure I'm missing out on some great videos for such a petty reason.
 
Oh. Figured we were talking about conformed to 24p. But yeah 60fps does look pretty bad normally. On a side note, its true that none of these frame rates is goign to be more shaky than another, right? I remember when shooting handheld I always opted for 60fps since it looks a lot smoother, but now that i think about it its all going to be converted down to 30fps on youtube so it's the same. Right?
 
Conversion is not the same as conforming. Conversion strips away excess frames to roughly match a desired output framerate. Conforming keeps all the original frames, but plays them back at a different speed. By definition, slow motion is a higher framerate played back at a slower framerate. A framerate will be "normal speed" if it's played back at its native speed, regardless of what that is. So 30p @ 30fps is regular speed, as is 60p @ 60fps, as is 120p @ 120fps, and so on. It's only when you conform these to a slower rate do they become slow motion.

I feel iffy about converting. There's some weird technological voodoo at play that I don't fully understand. Many methods of conversion produce inconsistent results due to the process, codec, or both. You get weird cadence jumps and I find it distracting.

The reason I don't like playback speeds higher than 24 fps is because there is too much information. The "refresh rate" (which is a term for something completely different, but lets forget that for a moment) of information is too rapid, and there is less obscurity between frames. Books are more personal experiences because they reveal no sensory information, only descriptions, and when you approach certain aspects of visual art with the goal of hyper realism (high frame rate output, 3D, unnecessarily high shutter speed), you kill the illusion; you leave less to the imagination. Art intrinsically has a mystical and fictitious relationship with the viewer, where we as the artists provide "anchors" which are meant to spark an emotive response. But if you overload them with so much information that the process of imagination or inspiration is interrupted, I feel you risk compromising that emotional connection. For the same reason that silence in music counts just as much as the notes, you need to respect the viewer's imagination and let them take over a little bit, even if only for a fraction of a second at a time.
 
Yeah my b. meant to say converted, since youtube obviously just drops the frames (not as in drop frame in editing with timecodes) and doesn't slow them down.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top