egproductions
Veteran
I'm trying to decide what framerate i should create my animation with. Its being made primarily for youtube. If I animate in 60P can i later convert to 24p or 30p without any issue?
Animation Framerate
- Thread starter egproductions
- Start date
egproductions
Veteran
Actually what if i animate in 120fps, then i could always go to 24/30/60 fps if i ever needed, correct?
Mathematically, sure. How well it works depends on your master (and whatever you do the conversion with).
egproductions
Veteran
So I would have assumed that if I take an exported animation thats 120fps and imported it into a 30fps premiere timeline that it would look the same as if it started off as 30fps since its a clean extraction of 30 frames in a single second. Is this not always true?
Also a followup...is it worth working in an interlaced sequence these days? youtube aside..lets say we are talking about HDTV viewing. Would interlaced be smoother than progressive? Whats better, to let the TV deinterlace it or give it a progressive source to begin with?
Also a followup...is it worth working in an interlaced sequence these days? youtube aside..lets say we are talking about HDTV viewing. Would interlaced be smoother than progressive? Whats better, to let the TV deinterlace it or give it a progressive source to begin with?
well that's all theory, because when you go to the step of producing the animation (provided it requires some handwork) , you will see that producing 4 or 8 times
mores frames not to use them is just silly.
Most studio are barely producing more than 20 fps, most TV cartoon set to 15 fps, even less when they animate only a part of the picture even when frames are produced entirely with computers.
There is no way to broadcast 120 or 60 fps, at best you can 60i.
And result will look jerky, because you throw many pictures, or you will need to add frame blending and that looks bad too.
So why bother....
mores frames not to use them is just silly.
Most studio are barely producing more than 20 fps, most TV cartoon set to 15 fps, even less when they animate only a part of the picture even when frames are produced entirely with computers.
There is no way to broadcast 120 or 60 fps, at best you can 60i.
And result will look jerky, because you throw many pictures, or you will need to add frame blending and that looks bad too.
So why bother....
No, 120 fps converted to 60 won't end up looking jerky. Things only start to look jerky when you get to a slow frame rate, or if there aren't enough frames to make a smooth conversion (like from 30 to 24). You've got plenty of motion information at 120 fps and you've still got plenty at 60 -- and it's a simple matter of dropping every other 120 fps frame, so the result will be identical as if it had been 60 all along -- which is quite smooth. Motion BLUR could have an effect, but that's more akin to shutter speed than frame rate -- and at 60, any effect would be quite mild.
(Now, the software could be really bad at resampling or something, but that's a problem with the software, not with the frame rates.)
(Now, the software could be really bad at resampling or something, but that's a problem with the software, not with the frame rates.)
Well, if it's converted to 30p, then it will look like it had always been 30p, but whether or not that'll happen simply by placing it on the Premiere timeline, I can't say.
No, there's no reason at all to work in an interlaced sequence. If you need it for broadcast, then export it that way after you're done.
Smoothness is about the number of motions per second, not whether it's interlaced or progressive. 60 progressive frames will have the same smoothness as 60 interlaced fields, but it'll be higher-resolution with no interlace artifacts.
well this discussion is just silly. Of course if you go from 120fps to 60, there won't be jerkyness , so i think the guy should render at 2400fps, so he still get more choices.
He said he wants to export for youtube. I am not aware that youtube is able to go up 60fps, neither DVD nor broadcast TV.
So why render to a silly format just for having the pleasure to convert all back to something you can distribute
He said he wants to export for youtube. I am not aware that youtube is able to go up 60fps, neither DVD nor broadcast TV.
So why render to a silly format just for having the pleasure to convert all back to something you can distribute
It wasn't whether he should, but whether he could. The answer is, yeah, he could.
What SHOULD be done is render from the project at whatever frame rate he needs for distribution, each time it needs to be done.
But if he's going to make a master file for that purpose, 120 fps would actually be better than 60 for conversion to 24, because it's an even 5:1 ratio -- leaving whole, non-interpolated frames -- instead of 2.5:1, requiring either interpolation or a slight cadence change.
There IS broadcast, Blu-ray, and DVD at 60 -- not 60p, but 60i -- and you need 60 motion samples for it.
What SHOULD be done is render from the project at whatever frame rate he needs for distribution, each time it needs to be done.
But if he's going to make a master file for that purpose, 120 fps would actually be better than 60 for conversion to 24, because it's an even 5:1 ratio -- leaving whole, non-interpolated frames -- instead of 2.5:1, requiring either interpolation or a slight cadence change.
There IS broadcast, Blu-ray, and DVD at 60 -- not 60p, but 60i -- and you need 60 motion samples for it.
Gord.T
Still "Senior Member"
You didn't mention what kind of animation. Traditional or motion graphics. A big difference as well. I guess there are many different situations.
Seems reasonable to me. Like anything on the web, use your discretion.
Source = (and do not click on the page as it will redirect you to spam.)
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/computer-animation5.htm
Seems reasonable to me. Like anything on the web, use your discretion.
Source = (and do not click on the page as it will redirect you to spam.)
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/computer-animation5.htm
egproductions
Veteran
Exactly, this is an important bit of information I didn't mention which I should have. This is a motion graphic animation in the sense that the animation will be done using keyframes and motion interpolation. It will be just as easy to animate in a 120fps sequence as it will in a 24fps sequence since I'm not hand drawing frames. That being said, David confirmed what I was thinking which is to edit in a 120fps animation sequence and then export at either 24/30/60 fps as needed in the future. For youtube, I will have to decide whether it's going to be 24 or 30 depending on how fast moving the animation is.