Do a comparison of something shot in 24 vs 30 etc in a few styles such as Video blog vs a film scene style. This would help new users see what works best for each application.
If you simulate a security camera. (12 FPS) Everything water or fire included. (60 FPS or higher) Timelapse (1fps or lower) If you want to use this shot as a poster or thumbnail (60fps or higher) If you should in Europe interior (25 or 50 (reducing light flicker)) If you plan to use this shot with speed ramps (60fps or higher) That’s it from me. Can’t think of anything else 😊
Cool video but you got it wrong on the animation part. Disney classics, for exemple, were all shot at 24 FPS. With characters being animated on 2's or in 1's (every drawing being held for 1 or 2 frames depending on movement) Japanese animation perfected this technique called frame modulation and basically it's about how more movement on screen needs more frames and less movement doesn't need as much. But backgrounds and things like moving the camera (technically it's the drawing that moves, not the camera btw) always has to be animated on 1's or else you get an unpleasent sense of jitter. Therefore everything from classic to stop motion, to TV shows are almost always shot on 24FPS. As an animator, I felt I had to comment on this ;)
He got it wrong and everything actually If you can't shoot the old movies into 4K they would be getting released into 4K as we speak thirst now 4K old movies
He literally said you cannot use 4K for the old movies because of the old technology or just not true because they're able to re master and bring them into 4K they get to 4K disc if that was the case they would not be the do that because they would Look horrible
DO YOU AGREE WITH MY COMMEND HERE: "WHY? We are in a digital world and you should shoot only at 30fps, 60fps, 120fps, ecc. because otherwise your stupid videos will be a Big Stutter-Fest in every modern device that have a display at 60fps/120fps/240fps (and even more in the future). THIS IS MY PERSONAL WAR AGAINST THE PLETORA OF VIDEOS LIKE THIS ONE THAT SUGGEST TO SHOOT shit videos at 12fps, 16fps, 23,976fps ecc.. THAT ridiculus this days, if you want a particular effect like "cinematic" you can add it in post production because you can! but it's very difficult to fix fps later without speed up or slowdown the video and fuck up with the audio. 30fps should be the new lower and 60fps the standard. For Classic animations it's difficult because you should use 10fps or 15fps to be at least 1:3 or 1:2 of 30fps otherwise you will have stutter on top of low fps. All the shitty fps like 12,16,21, 22 ecc, even 59,97 are RIDICULUS"
For animation, feel free to set it up as 24fps just in case you need the fps for quicker scenes, but you can reuse frames and recreate the looks of 12 fps. If you use the same frame twice its like working in 12fps.
I personally see 48, 96, and 120fps where it is captured that way but the clarity remains even when downsampled to 24 because oversampling is something in various tech/science circles. Regardless of that if you shoot at 24fps and crank up shutter speed/lower the shutter angle you get this weird jerky look that actually works like a beauty for fighting scenes because each frame is no where near as blurry compared to normal shutter angles! You see someone take a punch or a devasting crash and the frames stick in your head more but because it was downsampled you don't get anywhere near the amount of non-blurry frames of 120fps it can make you feel the chaos!
Might have mentioned why low Frame Rate is used: to save money. Film and Animation is more expensive at high Frame Rate, with Digital the expense gets passed on to Storage (which unlike Film is reusable). Shooting at 3 or 4 times the normal Frame Rate (if you have light) allows Slo-mo and if a Frame gets ruined (blow out) you've got a chance to save the Shot. Also Digital Post Stabilization benefits from higher rates, especially when you're outputting at a lower Rate and the Software can choose the best Frame out of 3 or 4. Thanks for these Tutorials, Rob
the TV look is actually 60 FIELDS per second (30fps with interlacing on CRT TVs), so it fools you to seeing smooth motion such as 60fps. Those cameras could record video at 60fps and broadcasting would pull interlaced fields from sequential frames to build out 30i for broadcast that was as smooth as 60fps. Don't use interlacing, PLEASE, but use 60fps source material to make your content flexible enough for 1080i broadcast TV. Also the 48 fps films were actually dual 24fps 3D-only dual projector setups. not a simple 48fps 2D single projector.
You forgot to mention the difference between interlaced and progressive, filming in 30 frames per second interlaced (29,97i) looks very fluid (soap opera), the motion is the same as 60i but with less resolution, while 30 frames per second progressive (in example like most android phones) is very different, it will look very similar to 24 frames per second. So if you want to shoot something for internet that looks like and old TV show with Soap Opera effect, you need to shoot in 60p, not in 30p, because the fluidity of 60p is much more closer to the perceived motion of 29,97i (the frame rate of NTSC)
Old timey animation wasn't shot at 12fps. It was often animated at 12 fps or sometimes 8 fps or even 4 fps. But the films (sound era at least) were shot at 24 fps doubling or tripling the cells to make up the difference. Very rarely was anything ever animated at 24fps (aka complete animation) but that's not the same as the frame rate of the film.
Animations actually had variable frames "drawn per second" so for example in a very still motion scene someone sitting in a chair talking across a room you could expect to see less frames because there wasn't as much movement, but as they stand up and move from one end to the other you would notice more frames drawn per second.
Animation at least from Steamboat Willie (1929) forward is shot and projected at 24 fps like any other film with sync sound. The cels were mostly shot on two's (shooting each drawing twice) to save time and money and because it still fools the eye. For fast scenes or pans, animation still has to be shot on one's (each drawing or cel is shot for only 1 frame) or you get strobing or sliding characters on the BG's. Animation is shot and projected at 24fps.
Jon Hooper Correct! Animation is done in twos, with one notable exception being Roger Rabbit’s ears. While Roger was done in twos his ears were done in ones to bring a more fluid movement to their action.
Since we're here, on RUclips the standard has quickly become 60fps with vloggers, 24fps or higher with animators, 60fps for gameplay footage (with a lower framerate of 30 fps for added facecam), and around 29-27fps for livestreaming. Most of this, I suspect, is because of the encoding limitations that each genre of video has and it's specific relation to RUclips.
RandomFace I've seen animations with 1fps or lower, and at that point, whilst they are still classified as animations, they function more like a slideshow, and seem more like storyboards for an animation company.
RAY Light there are so many things that could be causing this, but the first thing I’d check is that when exporting, make sure you have frame blending turned on. You want to keep all frames in the footage and merge 2 into 1, not drop every second frame. Sorry I can’t be more help without knowing more about your project setup.
Another situation is when using a green/blue screen. If you shoot at higher frame rates, you help the software in understanding the footage better as you reduce motion blur (which is almost impossible to key out!)
genjii931 Yes, but you're now stuck with a maximum 1/120sec shutter speed (1/240sec if using 180° shutter angle) and your motion blur will be unnatural (almost no motion blur visible on human body movements)
Lurm El well you can't really. You can't re-create motion blur that were not shoot in the first place. But if it is just for one shot in a project, it won't be noticeable for most people.
True. And there's the issue of audio, as most cameras capable of 120fps recording don't record audio at the same time. There is no perfect solution to the problem.
For Timelapse shots, you need to compress time and in order to achieve a nice timelapse shot, I'll usually shoot anything from 1 frame per second to 1 frame every 3-5 seconds. Night timelapses and astrolapses could even range up to 1 frame ever 30 seconds.
A lot of misinformation. Yes, silent films were shot at lower frame rates. But they were also PROJECTED at the same frame rate, thus making for motion nearly as fluid as anything you'd watch today. One of the most misrepresented aspects of cinema is showing beautifully lensed silent films sped up to ridiculous fast motion. 24 fps was introduced for sound - not picture. Animation was NOT shot 12 fps. If one wanted to decrease animation cells to shoot, then a single cell could be shot over multiple frames. But as long as it was sound, it was still 24 fps, with Disney creating separate cells for EVERY frame shot. Come on!
Let me help you keep the misinformation at a minimum. Yes, they projected at the rate they shot at (which doesn't help in the least, or look even close to 24fps). I've spent the last three months converting an archive of 16fps film to digital, trust me. Yes, Disney duplicated each frame for the sake of 24fps projectors. 12fps in the animation world is exactly that, 12fps of "motion". Dupicated (held) frames don't count when we talk frame rates in animation.
They did not project at the rate they shot. Early silent film was variable due to both camera and projector being hand-cranked. There was no set fps, that's why all of the restoration for "They Shall Not Grow Old" had to have speeds set shot by shot before introducing the interpolation. Once automated projectors were invented, they went from 18fps on up because 16fps and lower had a tendency to set fire to nitrate film. Even once motorized projectors were introduced and set at 18 or higher, some movies were still shot at 16fps meaning projections were definitely done at differing speeds. There was no regulated set standard of fps in production to projection until sync sound.
You should never use 24 fps for anything. But most importantly, keep your videos at whatever framerate you filmed them at. Changing it makes it look unsmooth, unless it's exactly half or double framerate.
While it is not technically considered a frame rate, I would also include stop motion film - where you capture a series of photographs and convert them to cinema. I have experimented with 1fps or slower to film sunsets, cloud movement, long-distance road trips, slugs/snails and even plant growth/movement. The possibilities are only limited by your imagination.
On a gimbal when audio isn't crucial, shoot at 60fps or higher for even smother looking cinematic playback in a 24p or 30p timeline. It can even help to shoot at just 30fps if that is the best your camera can do and have a 24p timeline.
Fast motion and action should be shot in higher frame rates, since you can always speed something up, but you can't slow it down unless the original footage is a high framerate. If a fight scene is played at a lower frame rate for a confusing/ disorienting effect, it should still be shot in a higher frame rate, so that you have the option to show the motion as more fluid/ less jittery during some parts, and less fluid at other times. Always shooting in 24fps is very limiting to what you are able to do with the footage, since it can look jittery if there is too much fast motion, and you can't slow it down. 48/60 allows you to slow down, speed up, display duplicate frames for a jittery/ low framerate feel and much more.
from my experience, CGI scenes you usually want to render your scenes at a high frame rate even as high as 1000fps just for that super smooth slow mo on scenes, obviously 1000fps can be overkill but hopefully you get the point (we still edit the scenes in a 24fps or 30fps composition so its technically a 24fps film but the shots rendered at a really high fps)
Please allow me some correction: Walt Disney animation (both short and feature-length) uses mostly 24fps and only some scenes with each frame twice (12fps). Classic Warner Brothers animation (and a lot of others) is in 12fps and a lot of mass produced animation has each frame four times repeated, resulting in just 6fps with some exceptions such as moving background. So 12fps is great for that classic Warner Brothers look. And yes: the vintage video look (NTSC) is 60fps interlaced. The shutter speed also plays a HUGE role. A lot of action scenes are done with short shutter speeds (or if shot on film with a narrow shutter angle) for that strobe effect with (almost) no motion blur.
1:02 Uhh... NTSC was more 59.94fps (PAL 50fps) because of the refresh rate of the TV and before digital... interlaces wasn't on a single frame until we used digital to capture both fields on to one frame which we now can see as the comb effect.
I read silent films were usually about 18fps but a lot of the time it was all over the place. To get fast motion you would turn the crank on the camera slower so when it's played at "regular" speed, the motion is thereby sped up, and opposite for slow motion. Hence when you hear the term "undercranking". Animated cartoons weren't necessarily done at 12fps -- When sound came in and the standard was 24, they always shot 24 fps, however, animators would often draw less frames for something that required less movement and more friends that required more movement. If you wanted to save money, you might shoot on "twos" meaning, 12 frames, but photographed twice for each frame. Warner Bros Animation (Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies, etc) would always shoot on twos. The Walt Disney Studios would vary based on action, so sometimes it was done on twos, sometimes on 1's (1's being every frame aka 24fps).
@@JohanDavid Don't think he means that. Zack Snyder films a lot of slow-motion shots, yes, but they are usually filmed at very high framerates and then rendered at the standard frame rate for the rest of his films, which means you get a smooth and unintrusive slow-motion sequence. If you filmed at a low or even regular framerate and slowed it down, let's say by 50%, each frame would have to be held twice in sequence if you render at 24fps, which would make it look stuttery and very poorly done. Lots of older films did this, probably because the technology didn't exist yet, or production values. Maybe even lack of attention to detail. Good slow-motion sequences are filmed at higher framerates so they can then be slowed down and look very 'clean'. That's why filmmakers like Zack Snyder and David Fincher have some excellent slow-motion shots in their films.
Just a note on the 12 fps for animation section - this isn't strictly true. They might say they are shooting 12fps to simplify things but for any fast actions you will see they choose to animate on "ones" instead of "twos". Frame through the blinks and the page turn in the fantastic mr fox clip used in the video and you'll see it isn't all strictly 12fps. It's always 24fps but mostly using two frames per pose change until more detail is required for a faster or more fluid action. Stop motion is a great example of frame economy.
This is beacuse gamers typically dont want motion blur in game. Its better to see every frame clearly. However, its going to look more cinematic and less "gamey" if you add motion blur and record in 24fps.
Whenever you want the ability to speed ramp, I've found that shooting at anywhere between 60 and 120fps and 180deg (maybe +10/20deg) offers a really nice way to have slomo content that can be sped up to 24fps and not be incredibly obvious to the end viewer, as well as offer flexibility in ramping your speed, which can be really useful in shooting food content, particularly in action shots, such as dipping an item into a...well...dip, picking up a food item, or showing someone being stoked after eating a food item (gives you a real easy way to skip past what might be some non-flattering eating footage and straight to the smiles - and make those actions a bit larger than life)!
I usually shoot at 25fps because I live in the PAL region. This idea that 24fps is somehow more filmic seems to be more of a NTSC thing. The difference between 24 and 25 fps is pretty hard to notice.
Traditional 2D animation goes between 24 and 12 fps as animators choose whether to animate on "ones" or on "twos". The frame rate was always 24fps, but if a cell was photographed twice (essentially cutting the fps in half) it was "twos" and if it was one drawing per frame it was "ones" which is very smooth and usually used for quick movements. Richard Williams is particularly known for animating on ones all the time. Also, a lot of cheap anime is shot on threes and fours and stuff because of time/budget constraints.
Holy shit! Is THAT what it is?? Every time I go to my sisters house and I watch a movie or anything on their TV it looks like I’m watching a soap opera.
Yes, that super high refresh rate allows for that. Some people actually like it. I think it looks like a steamy turd (at 120fps of course), but just an opinion.
Fun fact, Gerry Anderson (Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, UFO, Space 1999 and other classics) filmed everything at rates of 70-120fps as far back as the 60s and scaled it down to 24fps for the final product.
Close up B-Roll footage I shoot 60p-120p depending if I want UHD or FHD. The rest I just shoot 24p because there's really no need for any more frames. Plus that sweet motion blur.
Another use for a non 24fps frame rate is when you want excessive or greater than normal motion blur, yes you are able to general motion blur in post but it never quite matches up to natively setting it. Shooting at a lower frame rate means you have a lower shutter angle (if following the 180shutter rule). This is useful to create effects such as used in the beginning scenes of 'Saving Private Ryan'. Thanks for the video Ted, it's awesome as always. And I'm loving the new studio look! 😊
Valley Films FPS and Shutter angle are different things. If you Just use a lower frame Rate ist doesn't mean you can't keep the 180° ... For Shooting with Motion blur Just use a shorter exposure time. You can also have motion blur on 60fps if you don't keep 180°
Wolleknäul :3 wait do I have this backwards? More motion blur = longer exposure time. 1/20 will have twice the blur as 1/40th (let's ignore frame rate)
You guys are missing the point, you can't exceed a 360 Degree shutter. So a standard frame rate = 24fps has an absolutely maximum of 24th/second shutter. Lower the frame rate, and you can lower the shutter speed.
....Wut. Lowering the shutter speed doesn't reduce motion blur, it increases it. A slower shutter introduces more blur. Faster shutters reduce blur. Saving Private Ryan didn't use a slower shutter speed, it used a faster one to reduce motion blur. They shot at a 90 or 45 degree angle, or in other words 1/96th or 1/198th of a second, respectively.
Japanese anime: they use a method of switching between 3 different speeds by either animating in '1's' which is 1 frame per 1/24th of a second, '2's' which is 1 frame every 2/24ths of a second or '3's' which is 1 frame every 3/24ths of a second. Although in many cases this is to save on budget by animating less when not necessary. A by product of this method is when in early animation planning they can easily establish 3 separate tempos for movement in a scene, being able to easily step up or step down the speed of someone's actions by switching between 1's 2's and 3's. This is why japanese anime movement (particularly action anime like shonen) is considered way better looking, because they can spend more time drawing a detailed frame once then 3 less detailed frames
AFAIA, traditional hand-drawn animation is still 24, it's just typically done "on twos" for most shots, and occasionally three's or four's for less important parts, and on one's for MORE important parts.
ok guys great video, but i'm a bit confused...so, i want the simple modern cinematic look. to get this, i'm supposed to use 24fps. but what i don't understand is the difference between 'shooting' and 'rendering'. if i want the cinematic look, is it important that i shoot at 24fps and render at 24fps, or can i shoot at whatever i want, as long as i finally render at 24fps?
Short answer: yes, it's important. If you want the 24p look in your final project, shoot at 24p. Here's why... Long answer: if the project in the editing timeline is set for 24p, and you introduce a shot that was filmed at 60p (for example), it will play back at 24p. In other words, much slower. This doesn't mean you can't speed up this one shot with the software, but now it's not going to have the filmic look you want without some extra work, and where's the sense in that? If instead you're talking about shooting EVERYTHING at 60fps and convert it to 24p in post, the software is going to be dropping frames where it sees fit to "convert" to 24p. You're still not going to get the look you want, and you're effectively letting the computer make choices about how YOUR film is going to look. That doesn't make much sense either. It's kind of like saying "I'll just shoot everything in long shots with a wide lens, then crop it to look how I want in post." Bottom line: if you're interested in the 24p traditional look, save yourself the trouble and just shoot everything at 24p. The more work you do in pre-pro, on set, and in camera to contribute to the look you want, the better your film will be across the board.
.. to elaborate an issue, the faster your frame rate is, the less motion blur you need, if you speed up a 60fps clip in a 24fps project (therefore dropping frames) you could end up with a flickery video where the motion blur is absent on fast panning or fast moving objects, which is not a pleasant effect.
thanks guys! basically, i've been getting confused with trying to anticipate what i might want in slo mo. if i've understood correctly, seeing as how my camera gives me a 50fps option, to get nice slo mo at 24fps, i should shoot at 50 and then 'interpret' at 24 in adobe. now, if i shoot at 50fps, i need to up the shutter speed to 100 ::: keep iso preferably at the least (100 in my case) ::: f1.7 or best to keep my subject in focus ::: 2.35 or 2.40 aspect ratio in adobe. i have a panasonic lx100 btw. does this all sound right?
Before I get into the "settings" aspect of your question, I'll try to give some general advice about shot choice. Now, I don't know the size and scope of your project, or your exact experience level, so forgive me if some of this comes across as condescending or just completely misses the mark. Have you made a shot list? Or storyboards or anything like that? If not, consider it. Working out these things on paper ahead of time will help you pin down all of the essential elements of your shots so you're getting the final product you want. Personally, I make a shot list, then storyboard it, then shoot a pre-visualization of the entire thing on whatever is handy (phone, cheapo camera, etc.) with a few friends or crew members as stand-ins. You don't need to worry about lighting or acting or anything at this point, they can read right off a copy of the script. After the pre-vis is shot, I make a quick and dirty edit. What this will show you, in real-time, is whether or not your shot choices work for the story you're trying to tell. Should that medium shot be a close-up? Do you need an insert of the knife to make the scene more visually coherent? Is that dolly move even worth the trouble? Now you know, because you can see it with your own two eyes. You can even slow down a given shot to see if it's better at regular speed or slow motion. And you know BEFORE the actors and crew are on set, wasting time and energy and money on shots you now know do not work. Best of all, if you're still not sure about whether you want a given shot to play at regular speed or slow motion, I have some good news: you're shooting digital. For something as simple as a frame rate and shutter change, shoot it both ways and decide later! In other words, shoot a few takes at regular speed, and then reset and shoot a few takes in slow motion. Now you have options in the edit. Just be sure you switch your settings back to "normal" after that shot. As for your camera settings, everything looks good, but I would be very careful about shooting at f/1.7. That's going to give you a VERY shallow depth of field. Of course, shallow DOF is a very "cinematic" look, and I'm assuming that's what you're going for, but f/1.7 is probably more trouble than it's worth unless it's a locked down shot with no movement, and even then... ~f/2.8 is probably a better choice. The reason is because people move. Even when they stand still or sit in a chair they're moving. They wobble, they lean, they shift, they fidget, they look around, etc. and it's very easy for them to move out of that very narrow slice of focus, which ultimately leaves you with a soft or blurry shot. An f/1.7 is going to be shallow enough that a person's eyes can be in focus, but their ears won't. That's not a lot of wiggle room. You want to give your actors a bit of space to "live" in. That's not to say you will never ever want something that shallow, but 99% of the time, you can get the shallow DOF look you want somewhere in the f/2.8 - f/4 range.
I remember studing this topic in film-school and during that time it had nothing to do with creating or mimicing the look of film, rather it had more to do with learning the process of transferring video to film by matching the standard frame-rate of motion picture (which was 24fps). Then properly syncing it to an unmarried print in order to avoid unwanted strobing / ghosting artifacts during playback on 35MM projectors. But now after reading some of the comments under this video, I can tell the topic has changed into something different. Now I'm left scratching my head and asking myself, "What happened and where am I?"
Animation (in the sound era) was always calculated at 24 frames per second. Shooting "on twos" (two exposures for one cel) is done mostly for reasons of economy. "Silent" speed varied between 12 fps and about 22 fps; it depended on how fast the projectionist cranked the projector. When sound caused a standardization, it was Western Electric engineers (part of what is now known as AT&T) who calculated the average frame rate at 24 frames per second. The "persistence of vision" mandated that a frame rate slower than 24 caused noticeable "flicker", because of seeing the inter-frame "lines". Faster than 24 was not economical for the studios, so 24 was settled on as a compromise.
I'm a big fan of shooting my event work at 60fps. I still mostly deliver a 24p package, but especially in the cases where a client wants a little sizzler that they can use to promote their event, it's a great way to guarentee that I will have some interesting B-roll I can cut to and playback in a slo-mo kinda way for performer/guest interviews.
When I'm flying a drone, I feel it is very beneficial to shoot in 30fps so you can slow it down to 24fps (80% speed). This just smooths out the footage slightly and gives a nice fluid motion to landscapes.
That's weird... I usually end up speeding up Drone footage in Editing... This way you can shoot using slower movements so that you can get your drone motion correct in Real Time, then speed it up to give it more dramatic effect in post...
Exactly! In interlaced video, there are 50 or 59.97 fields per second - each containing every other line of a conceptual frame. So while in video terminology there are 25 or 29.97 frames per second, there can in fact be 50 or 59.97 motion updates per second, and that's what gives the telltale video look.
I feel like I always chose the 59.94 FPS option in my camera to shoot everything. You can always create a 24p timeline and export it to 24fps video and it will look the same. but the added benefit of you being able to slow mo it is really good!
It looks jerky (unsmooth) when you change it to 24 fps, since 60 is not a multiple of 24. The majority of monitors have a frequency of 60 hz. 24 fps is not good for anything. Just use 30 ot 60.
@@peterwhitey4992 Try again. 6 is a multiple of 24, so 60 fits within 24 at 0.4. 24FPS is the classic cinematic look that most people are familiar with from movies theatres, and it is perfectly fine on laptops and mobile phones, and "motion smoothing" can be turned off on smart TVs. Get over it, because 24FPS is here to stay for a very long time as the Hollywood standard, hehe.
@@peterwhitey4992 24 FPS (and sometimes 25 FPS) is the worldwide filmmaking standard, and most filmmakers will continue to use these frame rates for many, many years, LOL!! 💪🏽💪🏽
It’s about motion cadence. Cameras like Sony will have a video look even though they can shoot at 24fps. Blackmagic does a great job at motion cadence ( Filmic Look ). A good number of major motion pictures now use Blackmagic cameras as B and C cams. If you truly want the “ Filmic look “Buy a camera that has good motion cadence. The discontinued Canon 1DC is a perfect example of good “ Filmic look “ motion cadence. Research Motion Cadence for filmmaking.
Humble Pie according to a Google query; motion cadence: a term used on the eoshd forum to demonstrate one's elitistist's knowledge about non-quantifiable properties of camera's, thereby giving endless opportunity to continue discussions ad-infinitum.
Michael Schagen Eoshd is not only forum that talks about Motion cadence. Many , many other filmmaking forum websites talk about this subject. Motion Cadence is an old topic. It’s mostly brought up when the topic of sensors come up.
They use Blackmagic cameras as A cameras too of course. They're shooting entire features at Screen Gems with Sony's A7SII. So yeah, many pros can't even tell (let alone the general public). It doesn't really help the "motion cadence" blah, blah, blah argument. About EOSHD. I've used EOSHD profiles for shooting stills to save time, but "colour science" is really for time wasters. After the work in post any pro would do, no body really cares about what so-called science was used.
It's the relationship, between frame rate to shutter speed, that creates the motion blur/film look that viewers have become use to since the invention of sound in movies some eighty years ago... They adopted, 24fps to 1/48th shutter for audio quality and ease in cutting the film... If the shutter speed is twice the frame rate, the motion blur we are all use to can be achieved, the difference between, 24fps to 1/48th, or 30fps to 1/60th, or 25fps to 1/50th is negligible... Thanks, Moses...
Actually 24fps IS often used in animation. If you look at rubber hose cartoons in particular, as well as many dancing and fast action scenes in Snow White it will run at the full frame rate.
old Television was 30i which is really 60 fps (60 changes of motion with interlaced fields) so 60fps looks more like TV did since we don't use 30i anymore.
One issue with 24FPS is to look correct, the shutter speed must be very close to 180 degrees or around 1/48 of a second. If the shutter is 1/120 of a second, the movement looks jerky. At 30p and 60p I don't seem to have that problem. It's a free country, so use what you want or at least what your client wants.
Sony a6300 when at 4K and 24FPS you get a full read out of the sensor, the footage is superior to any other FPS speed on this camera in 4K thus for this camera 24FPS has its advantages.
I had to shoot at 30fps recently and saw that crop when I hit the record button (that I remembered before the firmware update got rid of at 24fps). It's a shame.
For animation. Animated in doubles is what you want to say, not 12 fps. The difference is that sometimes there are pans and whips that you want in 24 fps and sometimes for speed you animate some extra frames. Saying that animation is 12 fps is incorrect. It's >>usually
Sadly, you could be right. Does using ad blocker counts or it does it matter? Because I sure as hell won't wait for ads. It only fuels more click baits and traffic hacks instead of building a proper community and earning loyalty. After all competition is only mouse click away. If they don't respect the viewer, why should we respect them? Attention is expensive and loyalty even more so.
I have it enabled for every video because a) I haven't seen an ad that was no a waste of time for me, b) its annoying, c) I don't like videos who rely on ads for revenue because than that is what they make, videos that bring in traffic, rather than making videos with content that promotes education independent of ads. And for the record I have bunch of videos on my channel and about 8K subscribers but non of my videos have been monetized or have ads. I don't upload there anymore but the point I'm trying to make it that I'm not a hypocrite I'm trying to lead by example. Even if its costing me money, I don't think I want to sell out my integrity.
Well that is your personal choice but I fully disagree with you and here is why. a) changing title of the video to get more views instead of building trust and do it with integrity is not something I will ever respect. b) making money of of ads as your primary resource, leads to making videos for views and ads and that leads to commercialization of content and we all know where that leads to... from sub par to crappy content. I don't want to see every video starting with "8 views to do that, 6 views to do this". I don't want buzz feed, thank you very much. Its lame and its crappy content. c) I don't want to come watch video about camera tweaks and sit 30 sec trough someone trying to sell me dog food. period. My time matters to me and I don't want that. d) I use adblocker because its the only sane way to browse internet so that ads don't outnumber the actual content, not to mention malicious software risks. e) Since I use adblocker it would be hypocritical of me to put ads on my own videos and so I don't. Guess what, I instead of being rewarded for not spamming my viewers with ads, youtube punishes me and viewers by not putting any of my videos in suggested or recommend lists. Just because I don't monetize. Screw that. f) You may or may not have heard about RUclips doing their own politically motivated purge on the youtube and de monitizing and blocking content they don't like that deals with anything not on the regressive left. If you mentioned steroids or race you are getting demonized no matter what the context is. I don't support hat kind of sleezy corporate and political tactics. I support free speech for everyone and this is not it. So in a word I will continue to block ads, not use them on my own videos, and if I'm naive enough to waste time because I clicked on crappy click bait, I will give my feedback in form of thumbs down. Thank you very much. Otherwise I will not even watch suspicious ones. Sorry. Try harder. I don't want to support crappy dishonest practices. And by clicking ads and giving likes to those that practice them, I'm an accomplice and supporter of that. And I do not want to be that.
Completely disagree. One would think that if Google knows so much about me, they would know I don't want ads. They just don't care. So I don't care. Simple. And creators can earn their way for users to pay for products, there are more ways to make money than unsolicited ads. I won't support that nor will I support those that tailor their videos for ad revenue. It leads to crappy content. No way. I don't support that.
Many of us start learning to make videos with 24 fps, never aware of other options for different style! Thanks man for consolidating the concept of using different frame rates according to the subject.
24 fps is a bad framerate, that people only use because it's used in film, and they erroneously think that makes it good for anything. The majority of monitors have a frequency of 60 hz. Since that's not a multiple of 24, a 24 fps video will be jittery. 30 and 60 fps are the best to use.
@@peterwhitey4992 24 FPS is the frame rate that your brain is most used to, obviously, for most of your life, and it is beautiful cinematic frame rate that will continue to be used for many, many more years by MOST filmmakers, so get over it, LOL!! 💪🏽💪🏽
If you shoot at 18 and overlay your footage you can create the super 8 film look. It's great when trying to get the home video look or maybe if you want your horror film to have that super 8 creepy vibe.
Silent film was indeed filmed at variable, usually lower frame rates but it looks the way it looks now (fast paced) because it is being played back in a 24 frame per second modern projector like it was a regular movie. If you were to play an old 12 frame film in a proper old timey projector it wouldn't look like that.
As a stop-motion animator, I animate at 24fps on twos, which is two frames per move. This way for subtle or fast moves and I can go on 1s and back to twos. Ends up looking great.
It all depends on what your shooting you use what frames rates are needed for the task but the standard is 24 for a reason it's the perfect balance of having a slower shutter speed allowing more detail per frame to be capture and adds that unique cinematic blur but again different scenarios what they are
All the advice is accurate but one thing that I hate it when people say is that tv is 30 fps. I know that traditional standard def 480i interlaced video only reproduces one "complete" 480 line frame in 1/30th of a second, but when you watch soap operas, news footage, etc its all 60i, not 30p. It will capture 60 unique points in time per second but each point in time happens to be half the resolution of the full frame and spatially shifted so that, when combined, you get a higher apparent resolution without losing motion quality. I feel like a ton of people in the early age of the internet were processing video wrong because they were turning 480i60 into 480p30 and assuming they lost nothing, but it needs to be 480p60 post-deinterlacing if you don't want to lose temporal resolution. This is why sports on 30p streaming services are practically unwatchable because they're NOT 30 fps, and were never 30 fps in the standard def era, its always been 60 fps (its just that the f here is a "field" instead of a "frame.") But sports really need to be 720p60 or 1080p60, because interlacing is a nightmare in fast motion. I realize, thats separate from SHOOTING at 300 fps so you can slow it down or get a nice clean 60 fps native view... just that you can't broadcast non-slowmo sports at 30 fps without it looking bad.
9: when shooting for projections. most projectors used in galleries and events have a refresh rate of 60hz, it's best to shoot at 30 or 60 fps (not 29.97/59.94 if you can avoid it)
I shoot mostly luxury real estate...I always shoot at high frame rates but then slow it down to 24fps BUT I am thinking about 30fps instead as I think it gives a smoother more sleek look for "product videography" like real estate.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
What tutorials would you like to see us make next?
You remind me of Brook from Pokemon. Cool content though. Very good quality too. Keep it up.
Straightforward basic editing video in After Effects?
how about lighting NIGHT exterior sets (moonlight, etc.)
I'd like you to re-do this tutorial and correct the info about sports shooting.
Do a comparison of something shot in 24 vs 30 etc in a few styles such as Video blog vs a film scene style. This would help new users see what works best for each application.
I don't shoot at 24. I shoot at 23.976.
Dylan Bates Films edgy
here's a fun game, try rounding up that number without arriving at 24
23.98
Paul Kiama wise guy, so you're just going to forget about 9 and 8 after the decimal, try shooting that 180 degree shutter angle at 1/47.96 sec
All I did was 'round up that number without arriving at 24'... am I wrong?
If you simulate a security camera. (12 FPS)
Everything water or fire included. (60 FPS or higher)
Timelapse (1fps or lower)
If you want to use this shot as a poster or thumbnail (60fps or higher)
If you should in Europe interior (25 or 50 (reducing light flicker))
If you plan to use this shot with speed ramps (60fps or higher)
That’s it from me. Can’t think of anything else 😊
Infancinema that’s genius. Thank you both. @aputure and @infancinema
What about music videos with very fast and unpredictable motion!? beside the 60fps for b roll!??
Paper Hustles TV depending on if you want it in slomotion or not if slomotion. 60 FPS or more
Thanks
are these the rules of thumb?
Cool video but you got it wrong on the animation part. Disney classics, for exemple, were all shot at 24 FPS. With characters being animated on 2's or in 1's (every drawing being held for 1 or 2 frames depending on movement) Japanese animation perfected this technique called frame modulation and basically it's about how more movement on screen needs more frames and less movement doesn't need as much. But backgrounds and things like moving the camera (technically it's the drawing that moves, not the camera btw) always has to be animated on 1's or else you get an unpleasent sense of jitter. Therefore everything from classic to stop motion, to TV shows are almost always shot on 24FPS. As an animator, I felt I had to comment on this ;)
You are correct and I am an animator also.
He got it wrong and everything actually If you can't shoot the old movies into 4K they would be getting released into 4K as we speak thirst now 4K old movies
He literally said you cannot use 4K for the old movies because of the old technology or just not true because they're able to re master and bring them into 4K they get to 4K disc if that was the case they would not be the do that because they would Look horrible
Félix VIVIER He was talking wayyyy too fast to really understand anyway.
I was about to comment on this, but you explained it better than I could.
Title is not at all what I was expecting and the huge irony of THIS video being 24 FPS
EposVox aaaaand you have 24 thumbs up 👍here’s another here because I don’t want to ruin your 24 !
@@PhoenixFilmTV no, he has 91
Alejandro CaFe I was here a little while ago and I guess the thumbs keep coming !
Yeah, he didn't include RUclipss in when not to use 24fps.
DO YOU AGREE WITH MY COMMEND HERE: "WHY? We are in a digital world and you should shoot only at 30fps, 60fps, 120fps, ecc. because otherwise your stupid videos will be a Big Stutter-Fest in every modern device that have a display at 60fps/120fps/240fps (and even more in the future). THIS IS MY PERSONAL WAR AGAINST THE PLETORA OF VIDEOS LIKE THIS ONE THAT SUGGEST TO SHOOT shit videos at 12fps, 16fps, 23,976fps ecc..
THAT ridiculus this days, if you want a particular effect like "cinematic" you can add it in post production because you can! but it's very difficult to fix fps later without speed up or slowdown the video and fuck up with the audio. 30fps should be the new lower and 60fps the standard. For Classic animations it's difficult because you should use 10fps or 15fps to be at least 1:3 or 1:2 of 30fps otherwise you will have stutter on top of low fps. All the shitty fps like 12,16,21, 22 ecc, even 59,97 are RIDICULUS"
For animation, feel free to set it up as 24fps just in case you need the fps for quicker scenes, but you can reuse frames and recreate the looks of 12 fps. If you use the same frame twice its like working in 12fps.
Even in 24 fps films if you have an action sequence that you are going to slow down later, you can shoot that shot in 48 or 96 FPS.
I personally see 48, 96, and 120fps where it is captured that way but the clarity remains even when downsampled to 24 because oversampling is something in various tech/science circles. Regardless of that if you shoot at 24fps and crank up shutter speed/lower the shutter angle you get this weird jerky look that actually works like a beauty for fighting scenes because each frame is no where near as blurry compared to normal shutter angles! You see someone take a punch or a devasting crash and the frames stick in your head more but because it was downsampled you don't get anywhere near the amount of non-blurry frames of 120fps it can make you feel the chaos!
Might have mentioned why low Frame Rate is used: to save money.
Film and Animation is more expensive at high Frame Rate, with Digital the expense gets passed on to Storage (which unlike Film is reusable).
Shooting at 3 or 4 times the normal Frame Rate (if you have light) allows Slo-mo and if a Frame gets ruined (blow out) you've got a chance to save the Shot.
Also Digital Post Stabilization benefits from higher rates, especially when you're outputting at a lower Rate and the Software can choose the best Frame out of 3 or 4.
Thanks for these Tutorials,
Rob
What about if you re in Australia and you want to eliminate light flicker by shooting at 50fps?
Fact
Y'all can't adjust shutter speed in Aus? P.s. thanks for Crash Bandicoot
You can't bro, unless u change the shutter speed, or get a global shutter camera (expensive).
@@concernedblackman1913 Adjust = Change; you may have to readjust your aperture, or iso to get correct exposure, but at least you can control the FPS.
Quick and straight to the point. Thank you
Hey Hey Collin!!
@@dudemynameiscat Hey Hey Cat!
the TV look is actually 60 FIELDS per second (30fps with interlacing on CRT TVs), so it fools you to seeing smooth motion such as 60fps.
Those cameras could record video at 60fps and broadcasting would pull interlaced fields from sequential frames to build out 30i for broadcast that was as smooth as 60fps.
Don't use interlacing, PLEASE, but use 60fps source material to make your content flexible enough for 1080i broadcast TV.
Also the 48 fps films were actually dual 24fps 3D-only dual projector setups. not a simple 48fps 2D single projector.
This video was shot and delivered in 24fps...
What about it? It looks great in 24fps
It can look better
kevin J Ramos Rosa 60 frames would look good
@@IsaacNeff nope
You forgot to mention the difference between interlaced and progressive, filming in 30 frames per second interlaced (29,97i) looks very fluid (soap opera), the motion is the same as 60i but with less resolution, while 30 frames per second progressive (in example like most android phones) is very different, it will look very similar to 24 frames per second.
So if you want to shoot something for internet that looks like and old TV show with Soap Opera effect, you need to shoot in 60p, not in 30p, because the fluidity of 60p is much more closer to the perceived motion of 29,97i (the frame rate of NTSC)
Old timey animation wasn't shot at 12fps. It was often animated at 12 fps or sometimes 8 fps or even 4 fps. But the films (sound era at least) were shot at 24 fps doubling or tripling the cells to make up the difference. Very rarely was anything ever animated at 24fps (aka complete animation) but that's not the same as the frame rate of the film.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about films prior to the sound era. He showed a silent film as an example, which were mostly shot in 16fps like he said
Animations actually had variable frames "drawn per second" so for example in a very still motion scene someone sitting in a chair talking across a room you could expect to see less frames because there wasn't as much movement, but as they stand up and move from one end to the other you would notice more frames drawn per second.
I have no idea about cinema, but i think at 4 fps it's jusf a slideshow
Animation at least from Steamboat Willie (1929) forward is shot and projected at 24 fps like any other film with sync sound. The cels were mostly shot on two's (shooting each drawing twice) to save time and money and because it still fools the eye. For fast scenes or pans, animation still has to be shot on one's (each drawing or cel is shot for only 1 frame) or you get strobing or sliding characters on the BG's. Animation is shot and projected at 24fps.
Jon Hooper Correct! Animation is done in twos, with one notable exception being Roger Rabbit’s ears. While Roger was done in twos his ears were done in ones to bring a more fluid movement to their action.
Since we're here, on RUclips the standard has quickly become 60fps with vloggers, 24fps or higher with animators, 60fps for gameplay footage (with a lower framerate of 30 fps for added facecam), and around 29-27fps for livestreaming.
Most of this, I suspect, is because of the encoding limitations that each genre of video has and it's specific relation to RUclips.
RandomFace I've seen animations with 1fps or lower, and at that point, whilst they are still classified as animations, they function more like a slideshow, and seem more like storyboards for an animation company.
IneptOrange Well, at that point I'd think it's more of an art show or a comic.
Akidachi No?
The most common frame rate uploaded to RUclips is 25fps. This is because almost all countries use that as their main broadcast and shooting format.
25fps if you shoot in Pal land
Very important! A lot of the world shoots at 25fps PAL.
That's only for TV and internet. We do 23.976 or 23.98 for cinema.
Correct, especially with 50Hz
NDFilmNZ TV is 50i FYI
RAY Light there are so many things that could be causing this, but the first thing I’d check is that when exporting, make sure you have frame blending turned on. You want to keep all frames in the footage and merge 2 into 1, not drop every second frame.
Sorry I can’t be more help without knowing more about your project setup.
Another situation is when using a green/blue screen. If you shoot at higher frame rates, you help the software in understanding the footage better as you reduce motion blur (which is almost impossible to key out!)
Shoot in 120fps if you can, and if you need to output to both 24 and 30fps; it's evenly divisible to both.
genjii931 Yes, but you're now stuck with a maximum 1/120sec shutter speed (1/240sec if using 180° shutter angle) and your motion blur will be unnatural (almost no motion blur visible on human body movements)
How to fix this? That it looks natural if I output 120 fps to 30?
Lurm El well you can't really. You can't re-create motion blur that were not shoot in the first place. But if it is just for one shot in a project, it won't be noticeable for most people.
True. And there's the issue of audio, as most cameras capable of 120fps recording don't record audio at the same time. There is no perfect solution to the problem.
Too little light and motion blur, too large file sizes.
For Timelapse shots, you need to compress time and in order to achieve a nice timelapse shot, I'll usually shoot anything from 1 frame per second to 1 frame every 3-5 seconds. Night timelapses and astrolapses could even range up to 1 frame ever 30 seconds.
A lot of misinformation. Yes, silent films were shot at lower frame rates. But they were also PROJECTED at the same frame rate, thus making for motion nearly as fluid as anything you'd watch today. One of the most misrepresented aspects of cinema is showing beautifully lensed silent films sped up to ridiculous fast motion. 24 fps was introduced for sound - not picture. Animation was NOT shot 12 fps. If one wanted to decrease animation cells to shoot, then a single cell could be shot over multiple frames. But as long as it was sound, it was still 24 fps, with Disney creating separate cells for EVERY frame shot. Come on!
You're God Damn Right! Animation is in 24 mostly and more and more at 25 !
Let me help you keep the misinformation at a minimum. Yes, they projected at the rate they shot at (which doesn't help in the least, or look even close to 24fps). I've spent the last three months converting an archive of 16fps film to digital, trust me. Yes, Disney duplicated each frame for the sake of 24fps projectors. 12fps in the animation world is exactly that, 12fps of "motion". Dupicated (held) frames don't count when we talk frame rates in animation.
They did not project at the rate they shot. Early silent film was variable due to both camera and projector being hand-cranked. There was no set fps, that's why all of the restoration for "They Shall Not Grow Old" had to have speeds set shot by shot before introducing the interpolation. Once automated projectors were invented, they went from 18fps on up because 16fps and lower had a tendency to set fire to nitrate film.
Even once motorized projectors were introduced and set at 18 or higher, some movies were still shot at 16fps meaning projections were definitely done at differing speeds. There was no regulated set standard of fps in production to projection until sync sound.
You should never use 24 fps for anything. But most importantly, keep your videos at whatever framerate you filmed them at. Changing it makes it look unsmooth, unless it's exactly half or double framerate.
Sherlock actually shot fight scenes at a much higher frame rate for slow motion, choosing to speed it up in POST when necessary.
While it is not technically considered a frame rate, I would also include stop motion film - where you capture a series of photographs and convert them to cinema. I have experimented with 1fps or slower to film sunsets, cloud movement, long-distance road trips, slugs/snails and even plant growth/movement. The possibilities are only limited by your imagination.
Slideshows at 1-8 seconds per frame. And if your pictures are amazing you can use 24 secs per frame!
On a gimbal when audio isn't crucial, shoot at 60fps or higher for even smother looking cinematic playback in a 24p or 30p timeline. It can even help to shoot at just 30fps if that is the best your camera can do and have a 24p timeline.
ANSWER: Another example is a 29.97 is during Interview!!!
and 24 is usually actually 23.98
Panasonic cameras from GH4 and above shoot in true 24fps if you want (Cinema)
**23.976
@@MarCuseus ***23.976023976023976023976023976024 (24000 / 1001)
Fast motion and action should be shot in higher frame rates, since you can always speed something up, but you can't slow it down unless the original footage is a high framerate.
If a fight scene is played at a lower frame rate for a confusing/ disorienting effect, it should still be shot in a higher frame rate, so that you have the option to show the motion as more fluid/ less jittery during some parts, and less fluid at other times.
Always shooting in 24fps is very limiting to what you are able to do with the footage, since it can look jittery if there is too much fast motion, and you can't slow it down. 48/60 allows you to slow down, speed up, display duplicate frames for a jittery/ low framerate feel and much more.
from my experience, CGI scenes you usually want to render your scenes at a high frame rate even as high as 1000fps just for that super smooth slow mo on scenes, obviously 1000fps can be overkill but hopefully you get the point (we still edit the scenes in a 24fps or 30fps composition so its technically a 24fps film but the shots rendered at a really high fps)
Great content guys!
Please allow me some correction: Walt Disney animation (both short and feature-length) uses mostly 24fps and only some scenes with each frame twice (12fps). Classic Warner Brothers animation (and a lot of others) is in 12fps and a lot of mass produced animation has each frame four times repeated, resulting in just 6fps with some exceptions such as moving background. So 12fps is great for that classic Warner Brothers look.
And yes: the vintage video look (NTSC) is 60fps interlaced.
The shutter speed also plays a HUGE role. A lot of action scenes are done with short shutter speeds (or if shot on film with a narrow shutter angle) for that strobe effect with (almost) no motion blur.
Science: T R I L L I O N F R A M E S
1:02 Uhh... NTSC was more 59.94fps (PAL 50fps) because of the refresh rate of the TV and before digital... interlaces wasn't on a single frame until we used digital to capture both fields on to one frame which we now can see as the comb effect.
What's your favorite frame rate to shoot in?
Great video bud. I love shooting in 24 for that cinematic look, its my favourite. But for slow mo I shoot in 1080 conformed to 24.
23.976
1,500fps with my Phantom Miro LC320S :)
Aputure
24fps
60 (59.94) and editing at 30 (29.97). Perfect ½ speed playback anytime.
I read silent films were usually about 18fps but a lot of the time it was all over the place. To get fast motion you would turn the crank on the camera slower so when it's played at "regular" speed, the motion is thereby sped up, and opposite for slow motion. Hence when you hear the term "undercranking". Animated cartoons weren't necessarily done at 12fps -- When sound came in and the standard was 24, they always shot 24 fps, however, animators would often draw less frames for something that required less movement and more friends that required more movement. If you wanted to save money, you might shoot on "twos" meaning, 12 frames, but photographed twice for each frame. Warner Bros Animation (Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies, etc) would always shoot on twos. The Walt Disney Studios would vary based on action, so sometimes it was done on twos, sometimes on 1's (1's being every frame aka 24fps).
Hate when films have low fps slow mo sequences. Looks horrific
iT's CiNeMaTiC >:((((
I think some are done really well. Only example I can come up right now is the office space but i know ive seen more with a nice feeling to it
Never try Zack Snyder films.
@@JohanDavid Don't think he means that. Zack Snyder films a lot of slow-motion shots, yes, but they are usually filmed at very high framerates and then rendered at the standard frame rate for the rest of his films, which means you get a smooth and unintrusive slow-motion sequence.
If you filmed at a low or even regular framerate and slowed it down, let's say by 50%, each frame would have to be held twice in sequence if you render at 24fps, which would make it look stuttery and very poorly done.
Lots of older films did this, probably because the technology didn't exist yet, or production values. Maybe even lack of attention to detail.
Good slow-motion sequences are filmed at higher framerates so they can then be slowed down and look very 'clean'. That's why filmmakers like Zack Snyder and David Fincher have some excellent slow-motion shots in their films.
Just a note on the 12 fps for animation section - this isn't strictly true. They might say they are shooting 12fps to simplify things but for any fast actions you will see they choose to animate on "ones" instead of "twos". Frame through the blinks and the page turn in the fantastic mr fox clip used in the video and you'll see it isn't all strictly 12fps. It's always 24fps but mostly using two frames per pose change until more detail is required for a faster or more fluid action. Stop motion is a great example of frame economy.
When "shooting" Gaming Videos, you always want 60fps because games only Look smooth the way they do on your Screen.
Guitar3000LP But you would use a external recorder or software
This is beacuse gamers typically dont want motion blur in game. Its better to see every frame clearly. However, its going to look more cinematic and less "gamey" if you add motion blur and record in 24fps.
camtesia records in 24fps thats why you should use QuickTime. It has 60 fps screen recording.
Whenever you want the ability to speed ramp, I've found that shooting at anywhere between 60 and 120fps and 180deg (maybe +10/20deg) offers a really nice way to have slomo content that can be sped up to 24fps and not be incredibly obvious to the end viewer, as well as offer flexibility in ramping your speed, which can be really useful in shooting food content, particularly in action shots, such as dipping an item into a...well...dip, picking up a food item, or showing someone being stoked after eating a food item (gives you a real easy way to skip past what might be some non-flattering eating footage and straight to the smiles - and make those actions a bit larger than life)!
I usually shoot at 25fps because I live in the PAL region. This idea that 24fps is somehow more filmic seems to be more of a NTSC thing. The difference between 24 and 25 fps is pretty hard to notice.
CyborgCollective its very noticeable for me :|
I agree almost not noticeable for me (German)
Same here.
That's for tv broadcast (which are 30/60 in ntsc regions), for movies its the same everywhere.
🎉 25
Traditional 2D animation goes between 24 and 12 fps
as animators choose whether to animate on "ones" or on "twos". The frame rate was always 24fps, but if a cell was photographed twice (essentially cutting the fps in half) it was "twos" and if it was one drawing per frame it was "ones" which is very smooth and usually used for quick movements.
Richard Williams is particularly known for animating on ones all the time.
Also, a lot of cheap anime is shot on threes and fours and stuff because of time/budget constraints.
Also if you own a modern TV turn off the awful motion feature that is on by default. It makes everything look like cheap video.
Thank goodness others have noticed this. I thought I was nuts.
I totally agree, I shut it off the day I purchased a new LCD TV, makes everything look un-film like and takes away from the experience.
Keith Hopkin is that the feature that makes it look like anything is on a super high fps?
Holy shit! Is THAT what it is?? Every time I go to my sisters house and I watch a movie or anything on their TV it looks like I’m watching a soap opera.
Yes, that super high refresh rate allows for that. Some people actually like it. I think it looks like a steamy turd (at 120fps of course), but just an opinion.
Fun fact, Gerry Anderson (Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, UFO, Space 1999 and other classics) filmed everything at rates of 70-120fps as far back as the 60s and scaled it down to 24fps for the final product.
You forgot PAL video format (25 fps)
andrearusky who gives a fuck
Europe
You can when the sound starts drifting out of sync, due to it being played back at 25 fps... have fun with that
If you want to make the video look like actual PAL television, you'll want to shoot at 50fps. PAL displays 50 fields per second.
it is abut SHOOTING .YOu HAVE to shoot in 25 when you are using a lightsource otherwise it will flicker
Close up B-Roll footage I shoot 60p-120p depending if I want UHD or FHD. The rest I just shoot 24p because there's really no need for any more frames. Plus that sweet motion blur.
Another use for a non 24fps frame rate is when you want excessive or greater than normal motion blur, yes you are able to general motion blur in post but it never quite matches up to natively setting it. Shooting at a lower frame rate means you have a lower shutter angle (if following the 180shutter rule). This is useful to create effects such as used in the beginning scenes of 'Saving Private Ryan'.
Thanks for the video Ted, it's awesome as always. And I'm loving the new studio look! 😊
Saving Private Ryan didn't have a low frame rate, just a small shutter angle.
Valley Films
FPS and Shutter angle are different things.
If you Just use a lower frame Rate ist doesn't mean you can't keep the 180° ... For Shooting with Motion blur Just use a shorter exposure time. You can also have motion blur on 60fps if you don't keep 180°
Wolleknäul :3 wait do I have this backwards? More motion blur = longer exposure time. 1/20 will have twice the blur as 1/40th (let's ignore frame rate)
You guys are missing the point, you can't exceed a 360 Degree shutter. So a standard frame rate = 24fps has an absolutely maximum of 24th/second shutter. Lower the frame rate, and you can lower the shutter speed.
....Wut. Lowering the shutter speed doesn't reduce motion blur, it increases it. A slower shutter introduces more blur. Faster shutters reduce blur. Saving Private Ryan didn't use a slower shutter speed, it used a faster one to reduce motion blur. They shot at a 90 or 45 degree angle, or in other words 1/96th or 1/198th of a second, respectively.
Dude is talking with his eyes closed. How skilled is he!
24fps? Weakk
I shoot at 23.976!
Copied
Almost same bruh
Japanese anime: they use a method of switching between 3 different speeds by either animating in '1's' which is 1 frame per 1/24th of a second, '2's' which is 1 frame every 2/24ths of a second or '3's' which is 1 frame every 3/24ths of a second. Although in many cases this is to save on budget by animating less when not necessary. A by product of this method is when in early animation planning they can easily establish 3 separate tempos for movement in a scene, being able to easily step up or step down the speed of someone's actions by switching between 1's 2's and 3's. This is why japanese anime movement (particularly action anime like shonen) is considered way better looking, because they can spend more time drawing a detailed frame once then 3 less detailed frames
random question, do you see us in 2.39:1?
Am I crazy in believing that the filmic look is actually about the shutter being at 50? Not the frame rate being 24?
Misleading title
AFAIA, traditional hand-drawn animation is still 24, it's just typically done "on twos" for most shots, and occasionally three's or four's for less important parts, and on one's for MORE important parts.
ok guys great video, but i'm a bit confused...so, i want the simple modern cinematic look. to get this, i'm supposed to use 24fps. but what i don't understand is the difference between 'shooting' and 'rendering'. if i want the cinematic look, is it important that i shoot at 24fps and render at 24fps, or can i shoot at whatever i want, as long as i finally render at 24fps?
Short answer: yes, it's important. If you want the 24p look in your final project, shoot at 24p. Here's why...
Long answer: if the project in the editing timeline is set for 24p, and you introduce a shot that was filmed at 60p (for example), it will play back at 24p. In other words, much slower. This doesn't mean you can't speed up this one shot with the software, but now it's not going to have the filmic look you want without some extra work, and where's the sense in that? If instead you're talking about shooting EVERYTHING at 60fps and convert it to 24p in post, the software is going to be dropping frames where it sees fit to "convert" to 24p. You're still not going to get the look you want, and you're effectively letting the computer make choices about how YOUR film is going to look. That doesn't make much sense either. It's kind of like saying "I'll just shoot everything in long shots with a wide lens, then crop it to look how I want in post." Bottom line: if you're interested in the 24p traditional look, save yourself the trouble and just shoot everything at 24p. The more work you do in pre-pro, on set, and in camera to contribute to the look you want, the better your film will be across the board.
cool. well explained! thanks for the quick response!!!
.. to elaborate an issue, the faster your frame rate is, the less motion blur you need, if you speed up a 60fps clip in a 24fps project (therefore dropping frames) you could end up with a flickery video where the motion blur is absent on fast panning or fast moving objects, which is not a pleasant effect.
thanks guys! basically, i've been getting confused with trying to anticipate what i might want in slo mo. if i've understood correctly, seeing as how my camera gives me a 50fps option, to get nice slo mo at 24fps, i should shoot at 50 and then 'interpret' at 24 in adobe. now, if i shoot at 50fps, i need to up the shutter speed to 100 ::: keep iso preferably at the least (100 in my case) ::: f1.7 or best to keep my subject in focus ::: 2.35 or 2.40 aspect ratio in adobe. i have a panasonic lx100 btw. does this all sound right?
Before I get into the "settings" aspect of your question, I'll try to give some general advice about shot choice. Now, I don't know the size and scope of your project, or your exact experience level, so forgive me if some of this comes across as condescending or just completely misses the mark. Have you made a shot list? Or storyboards or anything like that? If not, consider it. Working out these things on paper ahead of time will help you pin down all of the essential elements of your shots so you're getting the final product you want. Personally, I make a shot list, then storyboard it, then shoot a pre-visualization of the entire thing on whatever is handy (phone, cheapo camera, etc.) with a few friends or crew members as stand-ins. You don't need to worry about lighting or acting or anything at this point, they can read right off a copy of the script.
After the pre-vis is shot, I make a quick and dirty edit. What this will show you, in real-time, is whether or not your shot choices work for the story you're trying to tell. Should that medium shot be a close-up? Do you need an insert of the knife to make the scene more visually coherent? Is that dolly move even worth the trouble? Now you know, because you can see it with your own two eyes. You can even slow down a given shot to see if it's better at regular speed or slow motion. And you know BEFORE the actors and crew are on set, wasting time and energy and money on shots you now know do not work. Best of all, if you're still not sure about whether you want a given shot to play at regular speed or slow motion, I have some good news: you're shooting digital. For something as simple as a frame rate and shutter change, shoot it both ways and decide later! In other words, shoot a few takes at regular speed, and then reset and shoot a few takes in slow motion. Now you have options in the edit. Just be sure you switch your settings back to "normal" after that shot.
As for your camera settings, everything looks good, but I would be very careful about shooting at f/1.7. That's going to give you a VERY shallow depth of field. Of course, shallow DOF is a very "cinematic" look, and I'm assuming that's what you're going for, but f/1.7 is probably more trouble than it's worth unless it's a locked down shot with no movement, and even then... ~f/2.8 is probably a better choice. The reason is because people move. Even when they stand still or sit in a chair they're moving. They wobble, they lean, they shift, they fidget, they look around, etc. and it's very easy for them to move out of that very narrow slice of focus, which ultimately leaves you with a soft or blurry shot. An f/1.7 is going to be shallow enough that a person's eyes can be in focus, but their ears won't. That's not a lot of wiggle room. You want to give your actors a bit of space to "live" in. That's not to say you will never ever want something that shallow, but 99% of the time, you can get the shallow DOF look you want somewhere in the f/2.8 - f/4 range.
I remember studing this topic in film-school and during that time it had nothing to do with creating or mimicing the look of film, rather it had more to do with learning the process of transferring video to film by matching the standard frame-rate of motion picture (which was 24fps). Then properly syncing it to an unmarried print in order to avoid unwanted strobing / ghosting artifacts during playback on 35MM projectors. But now after reading some of the comments under this video, I can tell the topic has changed into something different. Now I'm left scratching my head and asking myself, "What happened and where am I?"
"Lower fps is cInEmAtIc >:((("
Obviously don't choose 60fps or it'll be a little odd looking, and end up looking like a student film.
@@happygofishing7590 in a bad way
Animation (in the sound era) was always calculated at 24 frames per second. Shooting "on twos" (two exposures for one cel) is done mostly for reasons of economy.
"Silent" speed varied between 12 fps and about 22 fps; it depended on how fast the projectionist cranked the projector. When sound caused a standardization, it was Western Electric engineers (part of what is now known as AT&T) who calculated the average frame rate at 24 frames per second. The "persistence of vision" mandated that a frame rate slower than 24 caused noticeable "flicker", because of seeing the inter-frame "lines". Faster than 24 was not economical for the studios, so 24 was settled on as a compromise.
when you see an alien: 3 fps
Also be sure to have the slowest shutter speed possible to make sure that unidentified flying object stays unidentifiable
@@wolfstadt_ Hahaha I love i!
I'm a big fan of shooting my event work at 60fps. I still mostly deliver a 24p package, but especially in the cases where a client wants a little sizzler that they can use to promote their event, it's a great way to guarentee that I will have some interesting B-roll I can cut to and playback in a slo-mo kinda way for performer/guest interviews.
I was out when the first title says: "Scenaros"
When I'm flying a drone, I feel it is very beneficial to shoot in 30fps so you can slow it down to 24fps (80% speed). This just smooths out the footage slightly and gives a nice fluid motion to landscapes.
That's weird... I usually end up speeding up Drone footage in Editing... This way you can shoot using slower movements so that you can get your drone motion correct in Real Time, then speed it up to give it more dramatic effect in post...
I've never tried that. I'll definitely give that a shot!
My eyes cannot watch 24fps. I am one of the 2% people with fast eye reaction, who can see rainbow effect in DLP projectors.
Also dimmed LED display flicker. I know that feel.
Does 3D make you nauseous?
I shot video at 24 fps a while back on the older generation iPad. It looks great and I never had a problem with the presentation of it.
So many triggered people in the comments, damn.
*online editors
With 3:2 pulldown, you can always bring 24 up to TV rates to maintain a cinema look. It's harder to bring 29.97 video look down to 24.
You don't ever need to change 30 fps down to 24, because there's no need to ever make a video in 24 fps. It looks jittery and bad.
THE VIDEO LOOK IS NOT 30 FPS! It should be recorded at 60, since videos used interlaced scanning.
I think we can call 30p the soap opera look.
Exactly!
In interlaced video, there are 50 or 59.97 fields per second - each containing every other line of a conceptual frame. So while in video terminology there are 25 or 29.97 frames per second, there can in fact be 50 or 59.97 motion updates per second, and that's what gives the telltale video look.
Ariel Wollinger yes, the OLD video look shot at 60i. It's not the "video look" now (shot at 29.97p).
I feel like I always chose the 59.94 FPS option in my camera to shoot everything. You can always create a 24p timeline and export it to 24fps video and it will look the same. but the added benefit of you being able to slow mo it is really good!
It looks jerky (unsmooth) when you change it to 24 fps, since 60 is not a multiple of 24. The majority of monitors have a frequency of 60 hz. 24 fps is not good for anything. Just use 30 ot 60.
@@peterwhitey4992 Try again. 6 is a multiple of 24, so 60 fits within 24 at 0.4. 24FPS is the classic cinematic look that most people are familiar with from movies theatres, and it is perfectly fine on laptops and mobile phones, and "motion smoothing" can be turned off on smart TVs. Get over it, because 24FPS is here to stay for a very long time as the Hollywood standard, hehe.
@@peterwhitey4992 24 FPS (and sometimes 25 FPS) is the worldwide filmmaking standard, and most filmmakers will continue to use these frame rates for many, many years, LOL!! 💪🏽💪🏽
It’s about motion cadence. Cameras like Sony will have a video look even though they can shoot at 24fps. Blackmagic does a great job at motion cadence ( Filmic Look ). A good number of major motion pictures now use Blackmagic cameras as B and C cams. If you truly want the “ Filmic look “Buy a camera that has good motion cadence. The discontinued Canon 1DC is a perfect example of good “ Filmic look “ motion cadence. Research Motion Cadence for filmmaking.
Humble Pie according to a Google query; motion cadence: a term used on the eoshd forum to demonstrate one's elitistist's knowledge about non-quantifiable properties of camera's, thereby giving endless opportunity to continue discussions ad-infinitum.
Michael Schagen Eoshd is not only forum that talks about Motion cadence. Many , many other filmmaking forum websites talk about this subject. Motion Cadence is an old topic. It’s mostly brought up when the topic of sensors come up.
They use Blackmagic cameras as A cameras too of course. They're shooting entire features at Screen Gems with Sony's A7SII. So yeah, many pros can't even tell (let alone the general public). It doesn't really help the "motion cadence" blah, blah, blah argument. About EOSHD. I've used EOSHD profiles for shooting stills to save time, but "colour science" is really for time wasters. After the work in post any pro would do, no body really cares about what so-called science was used.
It's the relationship, between frame rate to shutter speed, that creates the motion blur/film look that viewers have
become use to since the invention of sound in movies some eighty years ago... They adopted, 24fps to 1/48th shutter
for audio quality and ease in cutting the film... If the shutter speed is twice the frame rate, the motion blur we are all
use to can be achieved, the difference between, 24fps to 1/48th, or 30fps to 1/60th, or 25fps to 1/50th is negligible...
Thanks, Moses...
4k @60 fps come on @Sony #a6300 update 😏
Actually 24fps IS often used in animation. If you look at rubber hose cartoons in particular, as well as many dancing and fast action scenes in Snow White it will run at the full frame rate.
1 trillian fps??!! omg;; I wanna know exact file size for that one ~!
About 10000gb a second I thincc I think it's 100 bytes a frame 1 gb is 100000000 bytes idk
It's not for continuous shooting.
old Television was 30i which is really 60 fps (60 changes of motion with interlaced fields) so 60fps looks more like TV did since we don't use 30i anymore.
I do like the more realistic look then the "film" look. I shoot everything at 60fps
Doesn't that result in weird amateurish looking film or have you gotten around that?
That "realistic look" distracts me when I watch stuff in 60 fps or frame rates like that. It feels too smooth if anything, unnatural to me.
One issue with 24FPS is to look correct, the shutter speed must be very close to 180 degrees or around 1/48 of a second. If the shutter is 1/120 of a second, the movement looks jerky. At 30p and 60p I don't seem to have that problem. It's a free country, so use what you want or at least what your client wants.
Sony a6300 when at 4K and 24FPS you get a full read out of the sensor, the footage is superior to any other FPS speed on this camera in 4K thus for this camera 24FPS has its advantages.
I had to shoot at 30fps recently and saw that crop when I hit the record button (that I remembered before the firmware update got rid of at 24fps). It's a shame.
For animation. Animated in doubles is what you want to say, not 12 fps. The difference is that sometimes there are pans and whips that you want in 24 fps and sometimes for speed you animate some extra frames. Saying that animation is 12 fps is incorrect. It's >>usually
Never knew that sports required 300fps
Another scenario is when you want your frame rate to match your mains electricity frequency in order to work better with consumer lighting.
I wish the title was 8 times when you shouldn't... and not why you shouldn't shoot in 24fps. Click bait = thumb down. Sorry guys, try harder.
Haha!! The whole purpose of RUclips videos is click bait :D They don't care about thumb down, you clicked ;)
Sadly, you could be right. Does using ad blocker counts or it does it matter? Because I sure as hell won't wait for ads. It only fuels more click baits and traffic hacks instead of building a proper community and earning loyalty. After all competition is only mouse click away. If they don't respect the viewer, why should we respect them? Attention is expensive and loyalty even more so.
I have it enabled for every video because a) I haven't seen an ad that was no a waste of time for me, b) its annoying, c) I don't like videos who rely on ads for revenue because than that is what they make, videos that bring in traffic, rather than making videos with content that promotes education independent of ads. And for the record I have bunch of videos on my channel and about 8K subscribers but non of my videos have been monetized or have ads. I don't upload there anymore but the point I'm trying to make it that I'm not a hypocrite I'm trying to lead by example. Even if its costing me money, I don't think I want to sell out my integrity.
Well that is your personal choice but I fully disagree with you and here is why.
a) changing title of the video to get more views instead of building trust and do it with integrity is not something I will ever respect.
b) making money of of ads as your primary resource, leads to making videos for views and ads and that leads to commercialization of content and we all know where that leads to... from sub par to crappy content. I don't want to see every video starting with "8 views to do that, 6 views to do this". I don't want buzz feed, thank you very much. Its lame and its crappy content.
c) I don't want to come watch video about camera tweaks and sit 30 sec trough someone trying to sell me dog food. period. My time matters to me and I don't want that.
d) I use adblocker because its the only sane way to browse internet so that ads don't outnumber the actual content, not to mention malicious software risks.
e) Since I use adblocker it would be hypocritical of me to put ads on my own videos and so I don't. Guess what, I instead of being rewarded for not spamming my viewers with ads, youtube punishes me and viewers by not putting any of my videos in suggested or recommend lists. Just because I don't monetize. Screw that.
f) You may or may not have heard about RUclips doing their own politically motivated purge on the youtube and de monitizing and blocking content they don't like that deals with anything not on the regressive left. If you mentioned steroids or race you are getting demonized no matter what the context is. I don't support hat kind of sleezy corporate and political tactics. I support free speech for everyone and this is not it.
So in a word I will continue to block ads, not use them on my own videos, and if I'm naive enough to waste time because I clicked on crappy click bait, I will give my feedback in form of thumbs down. Thank you very much. Otherwise I will not even watch suspicious ones. Sorry. Try harder. I don't want to support crappy dishonest practices. And by clicking ads and giving likes to those that practice them, I'm an accomplice and supporter of that. And I do not want to be that.
Completely disagree. One would think that if Google knows so much about me, they would know I don't want ads. They just don't care. So I don't care. Simple. And creators can earn their way for users to pay for products, there are more ways to make money than unsolicited ads. I won't support that nor will I support those that tailor their videos for ad revenue. It leads to crappy content. No way. I don't support that.
Correction: A lot of vintage TV shows were shot in 60i, which is closer to 60p, instead of of 30p, as far as capturing motion.
We get it, you're a filmmaker who went to the second day of film school
When shooting a music video and want a slightly slowed down look for drama, you can shoot at 30fps and slow it down 80% to conform to a 24p timeline.
Downvote for clickbait title
This isn't Reddit.
In modern animation, 24 is being used but the animators will stretch frames twice as long depending on the motion.
60FPS output >
In animation, they were doing 12fps, but to make up for it, they were doubling each frame which makes it 24fps.
"The Video Look"...we are NOT fans of that.
Then it looks like you selected the right name for your Vlog!
Many of us start learning to make videos with 24 fps, never aware of other options for different style! Thanks man for consolidating the concept of using different frame rates according to the subject.
24 fps is a bad framerate, that people only use because it's used in film, and they erroneously think that makes it good for anything. The majority of monitors have a frequency of 60 hz. Since that's not a multiple of 24, a 24 fps video will be jittery. 30 and 60 fps are the best to use.
@@peterwhitey4992 24 FPS is the frame rate that your brain is most used to, obviously, for most of your life, and it is beautiful cinematic frame rate that will continue to be used for many, many more years by MOST filmmakers, so get over it, LOL!! 💪🏽💪🏽
the thumbnail was so clickbaity
If you shoot at 18 and overlay your footage you can create the super 8 film look. It's great when trying to get the home video look or maybe if you want your horror film to have that super 8 creepy vibe.
Only reason to shoot 24fps is to reduce file size.
Nick Paquette uh no
Nah buddy
Insightful video! Your analysis of when to avoid shooting in 24 FPS is both informative and practical.
*_uploads in 30 fps to accurately show 48 fps Hobbit footage and 60 fps commercials_*
Silent film was indeed filmed at variable, usually lower frame rates but it looks the way it looks now (fast paced) because it is being played back in a 24 frame per second modern projector like it was a regular movie. If you were to play an old 12 frame film in a proper old timey projector it wouldn't look like that.
As a stop-motion animator, I animate at 24fps on twos, which is two frames per move. This way for subtle or fast moves and I can go on 1s and back to twos. Ends up looking great.
It all depends on what your shooting you use what frames rates are needed for the task but the standard is 24 for a reason it's the perfect balance of having a slower shutter speed allowing more detail per frame to be capture and adds that unique cinematic blur but again different scenarios what they are
All the advice is accurate but one thing that I hate it when people say is that tv is 30 fps. I know that traditional standard def 480i interlaced video only reproduces one "complete" 480 line frame in 1/30th of a second, but when you watch soap operas, news footage, etc its all 60i, not 30p. It will capture 60 unique points in time per second but each point in time happens to be half the resolution of the full frame and spatially shifted so that, when combined, you get a higher apparent resolution without losing motion quality.
I feel like a ton of people in the early age of the internet were processing video wrong because they were turning 480i60 into 480p30 and assuming they lost nothing, but it needs to be 480p60 post-deinterlacing if you don't want to lose temporal resolution.
This is why sports on 30p streaming services are practically unwatchable because they're NOT 30 fps, and were never 30 fps in the standard def era, its always been 60 fps (its just that the f here is a "field" instead of a "frame.") But sports really need to be 720p60 or 1080p60, because interlacing is a nightmare in fast motion. I realize, thats separate from SHOOTING at 300 fps so you can slow it down or get a nice clean 60 fps native view... just that you can't broadcast non-slowmo sports at 30 fps without it looking bad.
9: when shooting for projections. most projectors used in galleries and events have a refresh rate of 60hz, it's best to shoot at 30 or 60 fps (not 29.97/59.94 if you can avoid it)
I shoot mostly luxury real estate...I always shoot at high frame rates but then slow it down to 24fps BUT I am thinking about 30fps instead as I think it gives a smoother more sleek look for "product videography" like real estate.
In animation you have 12 final drawings per second, but the final footage is still 24fps, you only repeat each drawing twice...