24fps vs 60fps

doubledark said:
This site can’t be reached www.macvideo.tv refused to connect.
Click to expand...

It's the Russians, and/or CIA, Koreans, Chinese :-)

I had a lot of problems suddenly app are over the weekend and it turned out to be the MTU on the router needed adjusting.

That said I can't see www.MACVideo.tv either but I can see "everything" else and I am in the UK , the opposite side of the world to you. So I would think the problem is at MacVideo.
 
It's a very old interview, I hadn't noticed the website has gone dark!! I just looked for it on YT and didn't find it, what a pity.
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
Except that at 24fps, I would consider 1/24th shutter speed too smeary and completely unusable.
Click to expand...

I've used it many times for stationary or barely moving subjects in extremely low light, looked fine to me and the clients, no complaints. I agree with you if it was moving subjects.
 
Is there anyone else on here that thinks "don't cross the axis" or "don't break the plane" when they hear "180 degree rule", since thats what the term is actually referring to?

Back to the original topic. Here is what I've told producers and clients going back to the early days of HD and 24P(there are still some that don't get it after all this time): Shoot 24 if you want it to "look like film" and 60 if you want it to "look like video". Also, if you do not know what you are going to do with it yet, shoot 60 and you can go either way in post. I prefer 24 in-camera, because I run different set-ups for that than I do 60 "video"(not slo-mo). As far as shutter speed, this can get subjective, because someone may be going for a "look", BUT with that being said I generally shoot 1/48(180 degree) shutter when I shoot 24P and 1/60 when shooting 60P "video". There really isn't much need in normal circumstances to shoot over 1/60 when shooting 60 frame "video". Years ago, I used to shoot 1/120 when shooting 60 to give it a slight "pop"(It was kind of a hold-over from my Beta SD days) without it looking strobey or flat, but some of the video guys in the truck asked me to stop and it really wasn't necessary in HD. Going back to 24, if there is any real motion, it gets to be a smeary mess with no shutter(1/24). I have forgotten it before on sit-downs when I went in with the camera previously set for 60 and I switched over and forgot to turn the shutter on, but there generally isn't enough motion in sit-down interviews to tell.
 
Run&Gun said:
Is there anyone else on here that thinks "don't cross the axis" or "don't break the plane" when they hear "180 degree rule", since thats what the term is actually referring to?

Back to the original topic. Here is what I've told producers and clients going back to the early days of HD and 24P(there are still some that don't get it after all this time): Shoot 24 if you want it to "look like film" and 60 if you want it to "look like video". Also, if you do not know what you are going to do with it yet, shoot 60 and you can go either way in post. I prefer 24 in-camera, because I run different set-ups for that than I do 60 "video"(not slo-mo). As far as shutter speed, this can get subjective, because someone may be going for a "look", BUT with that being said I generally shoot 1/48(180 degree) shutter when I shoot 24P and 1/60 when shooting 60P "video". There really isn't much need in normal circumstances to shoot over 1/60 when shooting 60 frame "video". Years ago, I used to shoot 1/120 when shooting 60 to give it a slight "pop"(It was kind of a hold-over from my Beta SD days) without it looking strobey or flat, but some of the video guys in the truck asked me to stop and it really wasn't necessary in HD. Going back to 24, if there is any real motion, it gets to be a smeary mess with no shutter(1/24). I have forgotten it before on sit-downs when I went in with the camera previously set for 60 and I switched over and forgot to turn the shutter on, but there generally isn't enough motion in sit-down interviews to tell.
Click to expand...

Two issues here:

I stopped saying "looks like film" and "looks like video" a long time ago, because it doesn't really apply anymore. Video used be all 60i, so it was an easy either-or back then. But it isn't anywhere near that way anymore. It's better to say 24p "looks fictional" and 60i/60p looks "live." It gives a better idea of what the relative merits of the frame rates are.

Shooting 60p and then converting in post is an option, but there are a couple of BIG caveats --

1) Conversion to 24p always costs something. It's not as much of an issue when going from 60p to 24p, but if you go from 60i to 24p, you lose resolution.

2) If you shoot 60i/60p and convert it later, you may run into camera movement issues. You MUST move the camera much more slowly if you shoot 24p, or you get a stutter/choppiness. Slow pans, slow tilts, slow slides, slow camera movement of all kinds, even slower when zoomed in. THIS IS STILL A PROBLEM when shooting 60i/60p and converting later to 24p. If you move the camera too quickly when shooting 60i/60p, you won't see a problem in your footage UNTIL you convert it to 24p, and THEN you will have all the same problems with stutter/choppiness as if you had shot at 24p originally. If you want to shoot 60i/60p and convert it later, you MUST handle the camera as though you're shooting 24p. In which case, you should just be shooting 24p. (This, of course, doesn't apply to shooting 60p for slo-mo purposes.)

Better, obviously, just to know ahead of time what you want and shoot the right frame rate from the get-go.
 
View attachment 120619

Oh the horror. Somebody is using 172.8 shutter instead of 180 degrees. what will the world do?

180 is not a hard golden rule it is a method. It was just spread around the internet, schools, friend circles so much that it stuck as some sort of norm. Sure 180 degrees may be used a lot but it is not a hard rule. Use what is best for the project. I sometimes use 1/40th so there you go.
 
Thomas Smet said:
View attachment 120619

Oh the horror. Somebody is using 172.8 shutter instead of 180 degrees. what will the world do?

180 is not a hard golden rule it is a method. It was just spread around the internet, schools, friend circles so much that it stuck as some sort of norm. Sure 180 degrees may be used a lot but it is not a hard rule. Use what is best for the project. I sometimes use 1/40th so there you go.
Click to expand...

The 180 rule is a general rule and it has already been stated that there are times when you can break it when the circumstances permit, but someone just getting started would not know this nor have the experience to do so.
If someone is using 1/24th shutter just to bring in more light they might want to consider taking a lighting class on what to bring to a shoot.
 
StarCoreFilms said:
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...

Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit with dual RED Epic cameras on a 3D rig and he chose to shoot it at 48 frames per second.
 
David Jimerson said:
Two issues here:

I stopped saying "looks like film" and "looks like video" a long time ago, because it doesn't really apply anymore. Video used be all 60i, so it was an easy either-or back then. But it isn't anywhere near that way anymore. It's better to say 24p "looks fictional" and 60i/60p looks "live." It gives a better idea of what the relative merits of the frame rates are.

Shooting 60p and then converting in post is an option, but there are a couple of BIG caveats --

1) Conversion to 24p always costs something. It's not as much of an issue when going from 60p to 24p, but if you go from 60i to 24p, you lose resolution.

2) If you shoot 60i/60p and convert it later, you may run into camera movement issues. You MUST move the camera much more slowly if you shoot 24p, or you get a stutter/choppiness. Slow pans, slow tilts, slow slides, slow camera movement of all kinds, even slower when zoomed in. THIS IS STILL A PROBLEM when shooting 60i/60p and converting later to 24p. If you move the camera too quickly when shooting 60i/60p, you won't see a problem in your footage UNTIL you convert it to 24p, and THEN you will have all the same problems with stutter/choppiness as if you had shot at 24p originally. If you want to shoot 60i/60p and convert it later, you MUST handle the camera as though you're shooting 24p. In which case, you should just be shooting 24p. (This, of course, doesn't apply to shooting 60p for slo-mo purposes.)

Better, obviously, just to know ahead of time what you want and shoot the right frame rate from the get-go.
Click to expand...

I guess old habits die hard, because very little film is being shot relative to the amount of movies being released, yet people still say they are "making a film" or they are "filming something" when they are really "making a video" or "videoing something". Saying "making a movie" could be used just as easily and cover both mediums, but lot's of people still don't. I think were arguing semantics, because the point is probably made to most people and they understand if you make the distinction between 24 and 60 as one "looks like film" and the other "video", especially since 24P video was created to mimic film. We understand these things, but there are still a lot of people that we have to deal with that do not, even today, and that has been the easiest and most universally accepted/understood analogy that I've used that everyone seems to understand right away and without further explanation.

I am with you, if you're going to do 24, do it in-camera from the get-go. It almost never looks as good doing it in post as originating it in 24. To me, part of the "filmic" look isn't just the frame rate/motion, it's lighting and the "look" of the camera(among other things). When I shoot 24, I run a different "look" that lends itself more to that than the look when I'm shooting 60P "video". But there are some clients who need it/want it in 60 for immediate use(think networks), but will use it later in a feature and you don't have a choice but to shoot 60. This just happened to a friend a few weeks ago. They got an interview and did it as a sit-down. He wanted to shoot it 24, BUT they wanted to run a bite from it that night, so it had to be fed in and they told him he couldn't feed 24 back because it wasn't technically possible with their(the clients) system, which was not true, because I had fed in 1080/24P the week before for a feature I had shot(this is a 720 net, btw).
 
Run&Gun said:
And it was pretty much universally panned by fans and critics for the way it looked.
Click to expand...
Because they didn't make The Hobbit first and Lord of the Rings second I get more hung up on the stupid makeup job they did on Ian McKellen to try and get a younger Gandalf with an almost 10 years older person!
 
Run&Gun said:
I guess old habits die hard, because very little film is being shot relative to the amount of movies being released, yet people still say they are "making a film" or they are "filming something" when they are really "making a video" or "videoing something". Saying "making a movie" could be used just as easily and cover both mediums, but lot's of people still don't. I think were arguing semantics, because the point is probably made to most people and they understand if you make the distinction between 24 and 60 as one "looks like film" and the other "video", especially since 24P video was created to mimic film. We understand these things, but there are still a lot of people that we have to deal with that do not, even today, and that has been the easiest and most universally accepted/understood analogy that I've used that everyone seems to understand right away and without further explanation.

I am with you, if you're going to do 24, do it in-camera from the get-go. It almost never looks as good doing it in post as originating it in 24. To me, part of the "filmic" look isn't just the frame rate/motion, it's lighting and the "look" of the camera(among other things). When I shoot 24, I run a different "look" that lends itself more to that than the look when I'm shooting 60P "video". But there are some clients who need it/want it in 60 for immediate use(think networks), but will use it later in a feature and you don't have a choice but to shoot 60. This just happened to a friend a few weeks ago. They got an interview and did it as a sit-down. He wanted to shoot it 24, BUT they wanted to run a bite from it that night, so it had to be fed in and they told him he couldn't feed 24 back because it wasn't technically possible with their(the clients) system, which was not true, because I had fed in 1080/24P the week before for a feature I had shot(this is a 720 net, btw).
Click to expand...

You can always feed 24p footage within a 60p/60i stream. I suppose that's harder to do in a time crunch if your camera won't record 24p within a 60 stream; you'd have to render it out from software.

To me, the simplest explanation of the difference between frame rates, which gets the most information across in the fewest words, is "24p looks fictional, like a movie," and "60i/60p looks live, like news or sports."
 
Ron Evans said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. It may be surprising, but people don't speed up when you are filming them at 60P. :happy:

One of the primary reasons (now) for the 1/48th shutter when shooting 24P is the speed at which people move and the speed at which the camera operator jostles the camera create too much motion blur. When you move up to 60P that is not the case. I often shoot 1/120th for 60P to get sharper stills, but by no means do I think it is necessary for the video. Also I tend to shoot in 60P, but edit in 30P. In this case, the 1/60th of a second shutter is 180 degrees for the finished product. Now if you intend to slow down your 60P footage by 50%, you'd be better of shooting 1/120 shutter.

So my bottom line is, 180 degree shutter for 24P should be used, except in cases of controlled motion and low-light. For 60P, ignore the "rule" and just do what works.
 
David Jimerson said:
You can always feed 24p footage within a 60p/60i stream. I suppose that's harder to do in a time crunch if your camera won't record 24p within a 60 stream; you'd have to render it out from software.

To me, the simplest explanation of the difference between frame rates, which gets the most information across in the fewest words, is "24p looks fictional, like a movie," and "60i/60p looks live, like news or sports."
Click to expand...

In the past when we've shot mostly on VariCam's, HDX-900's, etc. it wasn't a big deal feeding, because it was 720/60(59.94) and 720/24(23.98)(wrapped in 60). The problem was the older cell backpack units were only set-up to accept 720 and when someone would try to feed 1080/24 it wouldn't even recognize it. Flash forward to now and the newer packs they use DO accept it, because I've done it personally(I've fed 720/59.94P, 720/23.98P, 1080/23.98P & 1080/59.94P), but there are still people who don't think they accept it, insist they don't accept it and won't "risk" it not working. Taking five minutes to make a test feed would clear it up to them, but some people... Well, you know... I actually have a Decimator DUCC(Down Up Cross Converter) from the days when you still at times needed to down convert from HD to SD and I carry it in my vehicle and have it set to output 720/59.94P, "just in case".
 
One thing to perhaps add to this discussion... though maybe a bit off topic - is that at least in my small TV market - local spots cannot accept files at 24p for airing. Or if they do, the sound will not be synced with the video since broadcasters are sending 29.97. So even if you shoot 24p, you will need to output at 30p. Maybe this is not the case universally and has always made me scratch my head a bit
 
markfpv said:
One thing to perhaps add to this discussion... though maybe a bit off topic - is that at least in my small TV market - local spots cannot accept files at 24p for airing. Or if they do, the sound will not be synced with the video since broadcasters are sending 29.97. So even if you shoot 24p, you will need to output at 30p. Maybe this is not the case universally and has always made me scratch my head a bit
Click to expand...

You never output at 30p for TV.

TV is broadcast at 59.94, whether it's 60i or 60p. You can ALWAYS deliver 24p content, with pulldown, in a 60i or 60p stream.

You NEVER want to deliver 24p in a 30p stream. There is no pulldown or conversion which will give you good results, and that's more true the more motion you have.

Stuff like this is why I created the 24p & Frame Rates tutorial. All of this stuff is explained in detail, with illustrations and examples.
 
David - then I guess I do need a refresher course. (by 30p I did mean 29.97) It was my understanding that the NTSC standard was originally 60i but ever since color tv's it's become 29.97 (for broadcast in the US only).
 
markfpv said:
David - then I guess I do need a refresher course. (by 30p I did mean 29.97) It was my understanding that the NTSC standard was originally 60i but ever since color tv's it's become 29.97 (for broadcast in the US only).
Click to expand...
The 29.97 and the 59.94i refers to the same thing but with different naming conventions, once refers to frames while the other to fields.

NTSC video is 29.97 frames per second, which because it is in interlaced format is equivalent to 59.94 fields per second.
One frame consists of two fields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top