24fps vs 60fps

R

richardwalter

Carbonite Member
I am trying to get a firm understanding of the differences between 24 FPS and 60FPS. While I don't truley know the difference, I typically use the 24 FPS when I want a movie look and 60FPS for my son's sports and low light situations.
 
In an attempt to show a replication of what the human eyes see, light is captured either onto film or a digital sensor to be processed, as still images that when displayed at a certain number of frames per second fools our brain into perceiving motion like how we see life, hence the term "Motion Picture". We found out long ago in the film days that 15-18 frames per second was still a tad too low amount of frames per second to fool most human eyes into perceiving smooth enough motion, but lower frame rates saved money on film and processing. It was discovered that 24fps and 180 degree shutter seemed to be the ideal sweet spot compromise price/performance ratio and well-known look of cinematic film as it provided an aesthetic not akin to real life, but more surreal and dreamlike, which sucked you in to the story with its smooth motion yet with slightly more motion blur, whereas 60fps is more similar to the number of frames our eyes can perceive, which is around 150 or so on average on up.

So 60fps or higher is going to give you more of that "LIVE" news look, "Soap Opera" look, or documentary look in ultra smooth motion with very little motion blur due to it being closer to how many frames per second the human eye can perceive. 60fps is not so good for cinematic or "filmic" with most narrative tales not looking for that hyper-realistic motion, but great for when you need slow-motion, because more frames generally equals smoother slow-motion. 24fps, given that it's less frames than 60 by a decent margin, just provides a certain motion quality aesthetic that's long been associated & appreciated as the cinematic look that is smooth enough and yet has enough motion blur for a surrealistic dreamlike quality to the motion that makes it not appear as though you're looking through a window into a live play like 60p does, which can be off putting for many cinema goers. It's been tried (high frame rates in cinema), and people mostly hated and panned the look of it. Although James Cameron is trying with Avatar, and I think with he might could pull it off and be the exception to the rule, mostly due to the other worldly concept and material. 24FPS is better for low light though if it has at least a 1/24th shutter vs 1/30th for the 60p.
 
Just to add a little. With the introduction of sound to film the technology was an optical track and 24fps was about the minimum film speed through the sensor to get reasonable sound quality so it stuck as in those days every cinema needed several reels of film so the expense in producing this was considerable. Economics won out as usual. Until film was not used in cinemas the economics still was significant so frame rate hasn't changed. Yes people have got used to the look but one shouldn't forget the reason we have this film rate is economics. The initial goal was to make it look real and back then they new that to do that they needed around 48fps they just could not afford that and it would have had even better sound too !!! The film industry has introduced all sorts of features to be competitive and economically viable. Anamorphic lens use to get a wide screen when competition from TV was 4:3 etc.
 
richardwalter said:
I am trying to get a firm understanding of the differences between 24 FPS and 60FPS. While I don't truley know the difference, I typically use the 24 FPS when I want a movie look and 60FPS for my son's sports and low light situations.
















About Me:
I'm new in this forum, I am a consultant and have worked with multiple firms
You can check Project management software video example one of my work.
Click to expand...

You've got the right idea here, though a slower frame rate and slower shutter, with a longer exposure time, is going to do better in "low-light."

Your questions and the matters discussed here are exactly why I created the 24p & Frame Rates tutorial. It explains everything you'd want to know about frame rates, how to choose which one to use, shooting and editing 24p, relative shutter speeds, and more.
 
Cary Knoop said:
For 60p you need at least 1/60th.

Recommended is to double the shutter speed, so 1/48 for 24p and 1/120 for 60p.
Click to expand...

That works when you're trying to simulate a 180 degree - physical rotary shutter. Modern Digital Cinema Cameras typically do away with the physical shutter, though some high end models offer it. Also, many shutters are variable, allowing for narrow shutter (higher shutter speed) photography, like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Gladiator". These would go to 90 degrees, 45 degrees, and even lower. With the resulting shutter speed getting higher and higher. This makes every frame sharper, adding a staccato strobing effect to the motion. Without a physical shutter, Digital Cinema Cameras can allow longer exposures per frame. For instance you could simulate a 360 degree shutter, which would be impossible with an actual film camera. This gives you 1/24 of a second exposure at 24 fps. Nice when you need more light, but gives more blur per frame on moving subjects.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I think there is nothing wrong with recommending to double the shutter speed, almost all movies are done that way and in my opinion it is a sound advice.
Click to expand...

There's one key element, specified in the original post, that you're neglecting here: low light. As has been stated already in this thread, the 180° rule may not the best option for low-light situations when you want the camera to gather as much light as possible.

Of course, the "in a perfect world" solution is to avoid true low-light by lighting the scene, but that's not always in the budget especially for home movies.
 
Alex H. said:
Of course, the "in a perfect world" solution is to avoid true low-light by lighting the scene, but that's not always in the budget especially for home movies.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ LED lights are really cheap now and their quality has improved a lot the last few years.

Fact is you cannot make a good looking video in bad light even with a million dollar camera!
 
Richard,

The best way to learn is to experiment with different settings on your camera and play them back on your television to see the differences. You already know the basics - 24p for storytelling and 60p for live. Now how to film with these different frame rates is key. That is where the experimentation comes in. Especially with 24p as you can not operate the camera in 24p like you can get away with in 60p.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I beg to differ LED lights are really cheap now and their quality has improved a lot the last few years.

Fact is you cannot make a good looking video in bad light even with a million dollar camera!
Click to expand...

I agree with you Cary, I have a bachelor's degree in Digital Film & Video Production and they always promoted the 180 degree rule when I was in school. Now can rules be cheated of course and advanced DP's do sometimes cheat the rules, but that depends on the situation. Experienced DP's do not have sets that are poorly lite, I have a host of led lights with cri ratings of 93 or higher. Stick to the 180 degree rule as Cary said Richard it's sound advice.
 
Last edited:
I think there are big differences when we talk about shooting 24P and 60P. 24P has to be shot like a film camera with all the same rules to mask the slow frame rate. No fast camera movements choice of shutter speed to get the image blur just right. Very different when one is shooting 60P for playback at 60P. Shutter speed then is to achieve acceptable image blur within the available light. In most instances 1/60 is fine. Shootiing 60P at 1/60 is correct 180 rule to edit this 60P file on a 30P timeline for instance. Not slowed, I mean take every other frame. You then have two outputs available to you. I shoot what you may call events and have no control over lighting at all. Shutter speed is the thing I fix, control is iris, gain and ND.
 
StarCoreFilms said:
In an attempt to show a replication of what the human eyes see, light is captured either onto film or a digital sensor to be processed, as still images that when displayed at a certain number of frames per second fools our brain into perceiving motion like how we see life, hence the term "Motion Picture". We found out long ago in the film days that 15-18 frames per second was still a tad too low amount of frames per second to fool most human eyes into perceiving smooth enough motion, but lower frame rates saved money on film and processing. It was discovered that 24fps and 180 degree shutter seemed to be the ideal sweet spot compromise price/performance ratio and well-known look of cinematic film as it provided an aesthetic not akin to real life, but more surreal and dreamlike, which sucked you in to the story with its smooth motion yet with slightly more motion blur, whereas 60fps is more similar to the number of frames our eyes can perceive, which is around 150 or so on average on up.

So 60fps or higher is going to give you more of that "LIVE" news look, "Soap Opera" look, or documentary look in ultra smooth motion with very little motion blur due to it being closer to how many frames per second the human eye can perceive. 60fps is not so good for cinematic or "filmic" with most narrative tales not looking for that hyper-realistic motion, but great for when you need slow-motion, because more frames generally equals smoother slow-motion. 24fps, given that it's less frames than 60 by a decent margin, just provides a certain motion quality aesthetic that's long been associated & appreciated as the cinematic look that is smooth enough and yet has enough motion blur for a surrealistic dreamlike quality to the motion that makes it not appear as though you're looking through a window into a live play like 60p does, which can be off putting for many cinema goers. It's been tried (high frame rates in cinema), and people mostly hated and panned the look of it. Although James Cameron is trying with Avatar, and I think with he might could pull it off and be the exception to the rule, mostly due to the other worldly concept and material. 24FPS is better for low light though if it has at least a 1/24th shutter vs 1/30th for the 60p.
Click to expand...

Excellent summary of the differences, thanks StarCore!
 
I agree with the 180 rule. Try sticking to it as a general rule, though I generally use 172° myself, but that's because that's what I prefer. If you go to 1/24 your motion blur will look awful, but if that's the look you're going for then that'll work. Test, test, and test some more to find what works for you and what will help tell your story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top