24 vs 30 or 60

New_Zealand

New_Zealand

Veteran
Okay this may seem like a dumb question but I do have to ask :-) I have always shot 24 since the DVX100 came out than I jump to the HVX and now I'm on the 5d mk3. Never look at the other setting as an option so the question is what makes the reason to shoot either 30 or 60? What have I miss out on? Before anyone ask I shoot mainly short films.
 
Either you want a smoother look or you want to shoot higher frame rates that you then put into a 24fps timeline for slow motion.
 
I shoot higher frame rates when I want slow motion (i.e. often) or when I want a soap opera look (i.e. never).
 
You might want to look into purchasing the "24p" video they advertise here on the forums. It is only $15 bucks, and it seems like it might answer all of your questions and more.
 
One word: STORY. Just do some test shots with the different frame rates and view it for yourself. Ask yourself how does each convey story differently? You need to experiment.

I'm a big sports fan, so to challenge the way I think about framerates, I would take a sports broadcast and see how I would feel if it were done differently with different framerates. Most sports broadcasts (in North America) are done in 60i (30p). Not 24p. So to me 60i or 30p or even 60p for that matter immerses our sports experience more naturally, as if we are right there in the stadium. It mimics our natural eyes. However with 24p, it takes us out of the seat, out of the stadium and allows the story to progress in a very different way.

So story wise, maybe if I was filming Michael Jordan, the greatest athlete ever, then maybe I want to pay tribute to his greatness, to make people feel that he is forever untouchable. In that case I would use 24p or anything below 30p so as to remove the audience from him, not make them feel like they are there, the "untouchable" effect of 24p if you will.

Now I'm not saying I would use 24p for the whole film, maybe just during the sit down interview with Michael. To convey that the most current, most contemporary form of Michael is still untouchable. However I may preserve the 30p experience when showing him with old footage playing with the Bulls, to preserve the usual way we viewed him during his playing days.

And as we cut between the interview shots and the old footage, the audience should feel a difference between then and now. They should feel a better appreciation for his greatness today than in the past.
 
Last edited:
In addition to the reasons that other have already stated, another reason to choose 24P over 30 is the fact that you will need 20% less data to produce an equally compressed image. Not that it's too big of a deal these days but I still consider my frame rate selection based on it's intended method of distribution.
 
ectobuilder said:
One word:
Most sports broadcasts (in North America) are done in 60i (30p). Not 24p. So to me 60i or 30p or even 60p for that matter immerses our sports experience more naturally, as if we are right there in the stadium. It mimics our natural eyes. However with 24p, it takes us out of the seat, out of the stadium and allows the story to progress in a very different way. Quote ]


60i is not 30P 60i has the same temporal motion as 60p 60i is 29.97 fps timecode and frame sync for interlace ( the frame sync is needed to tell downstream equipment that it is the start of a new field sequence so increments every two fields) but there are actually 59.94 exposures a second just like 60P where as 30P only has 30 ( 29.97 ) So both 60i and 60P will have smoother motion for fast action or when panning. 30P and 24P will judder when panned. They will also experience judder in movement in the background. The reason for using shallow depth of field when using these frame rates. The background is blurred so judder is less noticeable .
Click to expand...
 
Ron Evans said:
ectobuilder said:
One word:
Most sports broadcasts (in North America) are done in 60i (30p). Not 24p. So to me 60i or 30p or even 60p for that matter immerses our sports experience more naturally, as if we are right there in the stadium. It mimics our natural eyes. However with 24p, it takes us out of the seat, out of the stadium and allows the story to progress in a very different way. Quote ]


60i is not 30P 60i has the same temporal motion as 60p 60i is 29.97 fps timecode and frame sync for interlace ( the frame sync is needed to tell downstream equipment that it is the start of a new field sequence so increments every two fields) but there are actually 59.94 exposures a second just like 60P where as 30P only has 30 ( 29.97 ) So both 60i and 60P will have smoother motion for fast action or when panning. 30P and 24P will judder when panned. They will also experience judder in movement in the background. The reason for using shallow depth of field when using these frame rates. The background is blurred so judder is less noticeable .
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. Having said that, for my purposes, the judder is a technique used to convey a certain feeling or emotion or portrayal. So in my case we may not need to utilize shallow depth of field in order to eliminate the judder.
Click to expand...
 
Yes frame rate can convey the emotion in the project. Early test showed that frame rates less than 48fps gave the impression of "not real " or fiction, and frame rates above 48fps the impression of being real. So if one wants to convince someone that what is being shown is real or fact then a high frame rate is more convincing. So for me shooting a documentary in 24P which was all that was economically possible in film, but now with video I think documentaries should be shot at 50/60P to convey to the audience this is real. Dream sequences, fiction etc are of course really valid at a slow frame rate or any other technique to achieve the effect wanted .
Ron Evans
 
I shoot 30p for a 24 timeline often. It's technically "slow motion" but not as in-your-face. Just gives things little weight (I think of it as sort of gravitas). Blowing hair, fabrics, landscapes with a breeze, etc. Not really for dialog scenes, but for music videos I'll speed up the synch track so it all matches at 24p. Very fond of that look when it's appropriate.
 
We shoot 100% pro work, nothing just playing around. ALL OUR CLIENTS in 2014 ordered us to shoot in 30 or 60. Hardly anyone wants 24p anymore, even the film documentary work we do. First, they can 24p effect it in post if they want AND with 60 the Slow Motion is so clean it looks as if it were filmed in Slow.

Personally, I haven't shot 24p since my first movie short in 2007 and I'll never shoot it again. Moreover, most televisions today with their advanced 120 and 240 hz all take the 24p effect out even on movies from Direct TV. Heck my Vizio makes everything look video quality which I have come to adore. There was a time I didn't like the video look, now I virtually abhor going to the theater and seeing that choppy, jerky, blur of 24p when a producer uses it. I like being the clean brisk leaves in the wind behind the actors even though blurred with DOF but to see them jerk around like "burst" stills, is sorta silly in this age.

Color grading and composition make a movie, not the frame rate (got this from a Hollywood producer who regards to remain anonymous) :-)
 
Joshua_G said:
Indeed. I'd say the script, acting and directing first, then lighting, color grading and composition.
Click to expand...

Certainly (just omitted to simplify), and he added this to the whole phrase, "...and remember my friend, a good script with just an OK production and talent will more than likely still turn out an awesome movie, while a grand production and talent on a terrible script will still be a terrible movie." I liked the whole enchilada.

Thus, Script, Acting, Directing, Production, Lighting, Color Grading, and Composition are key, although his real emphasis was on Script, Color Grading, and Composition, directing my attention to the content and delivery being the most valuable parts in the product. It made sense. As I've watched movies, when I find a really good one, although I see underlit, sound issues, camera position issues, and an occasional scene or script issues, if the script "story" was good, and for the most part the scenes graded and composed right, the movie was more than just OK it was awesome and worthy of repeating over and over.
 
drdimento said:
…
"...and remember my friend, a good script with just an OK production and talent will more than likely still turn out an awesome movie, while a grand production and talent on a terrible script will still be a terrible movie."
…
Thus, Script, Acting, Directing, Production, Lighting, Color Grading, and Composition are key, although his real emphasis was on Script, Color Grading, and Composition, directing my attention to the content and delivery being the most valuable parts in the product. It made sense. As I've watched movies, when I find a really good one, although I see underlit, sound issues, camera position issues, and an occasional scene or script issues, if the script "story" was good, and for the most part the scenes graded and composed right, the movie was more than just OK it was awesome and worthy of repeating over and over.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
For the entire movie, the script, lighting, composition and color grading are the major keys.
For a DP, lighting, camera movement, lens selection, camera angle and composition are the keys.
Of course, if everything is done well, the better.
Anyhow, in what makes good movie, frame rate isn't there at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top