This was such a great video, thank you! 1 thing I noticed - from my experience, re-interpreting footage throws off the timecode in a way that has shot me in the foot in an offline/online workflow. If you want to have all footage playing back without throwing off TC, you can batch adjust the speed in the project panel. So you could select all of your clips, change speed to 40%, then when you cut them into a sequence, they're playing back at 23.98.
Couldn't agree more. Premiere does have issues with this, usually with long gop footage. Working with a good editing codec like prores is a great solution too, if you have the space for it. The 40% speed trick is also a solid approach!
Bro,When we create a 24 fps timline sequence for a movie .which have little different fps clips like 60 fps ,120..etc for slowmotion.should I keep 24fps has timeline sequence.Does the slowmotion work great? Bro Please can you explain?
General rule of thumb is your sequence FPS should match the frame rate of the majority of your clips. Your high frame rate clips for slow motion are also -likely- confirmed to another frame rate, like 24 FPS, so that they will play slower in a timeline.
I've been editing for decades. For you to say that 23.976 is "more cinematic" looking than 29.98 is a tired clichéd trope. Just because film is traditionally 24fps does not mean that 29.97 is more "newsy" is just not true. I could show you the same footage shot both ways and you would never know the difference. Lighting and lens and shot choice is much more important
Well, I bet this fellow would know the difference seeing as most people I know who edit can tell (maybe we're all focused on the wrong things, to your point about composition). I don't know if the general public could really pin it down, but I think similar to the super35 format, 24fps has become so engrained in how movies look that it is part of a larger psychological effect. To simply say it's more cinematic downplays the role of composition and the technicality of filmmaking, sure, but cliches are the most efficient way to convey information, so here we are. I do think the word is overused, though.
Jason, sorry for hitting a pain point, but when crafting a course for people that haven’t been editing for decades, Brinkmann Films is correct - the phrase “cinematic” gets the point across easier. I’ll be the first to admit more goes into a “cinematic” shot than picking a frame rate. I’d be happy to take your cinematic or not frame rate test though. Sounds fun!
This was such a great video, thank you!
1 thing I noticed - from my experience, re-interpreting footage throws off the timecode in a way that has shot me in the foot in an offline/online workflow. If you want to have all footage playing back without throwing off TC, you can batch adjust the speed in the project panel. So you could select all of your clips, change speed to 40%, then when you cut them into a sequence, they're playing back at 23.98.
Couldn't agree more. Premiere does have issues with this, usually with long gop footage. Working with a good editing codec like prores is a great solution too, if you have the space for it. The 40% speed trick is also a solid approach!
Bro,When we create a 24 fps timline sequence for a movie .which have little different fps clips like 60 fps ,120..etc for slowmotion.should I keep 24fps has timeline sequence.Does the slowmotion work great?
Bro Please can you explain?
General rule of thumb is your sequence FPS should match the frame rate of the majority of your clips.
Your high frame rate clips for slow motion are also -likely- confirmed to another frame rate, like 24 FPS, so that they will play slower in a timeline.
I've been editing for decades. For you to say that 23.976 is "more cinematic" looking than 29.98 is a tired clichéd trope. Just because film is traditionally 24fps does not mean that 29.97 is more "newsy" is just not true. I could show you the same footage shot both ways and you would never know the difference. Lighting and lens and shot choice is much more important
Well, I bet this fellow would know the difference seeing as most people I know who edit can tell (maybe we're all focused on the wrong things, to your point about composition). I don't know if the general public could really pin it down, but I think similar to the super35 format, 24fps has become so engrained in how movies look that it is part of a larger psychological effect. To simply say it's more cinematic downplays the role of composition and the technicality of filmmaking, sure, but cliches are the most efficient way to convey information, so here we are. I do think the word is overused, though.
Jason, sorry for hitting a pain point, but when crafting a course for people that haven’t been editing for decades, Brinkmann Films is correct - the phrase “cinematic” gets the point across easier. I’ll be the first to admit more goes into a “cinematic” shot than picking a frame rate.
I’d be happy to take your cinematic or not frame rate test though. Sounds fun!