Wedding Videographers - What frame rate do you use? 60P (720), 30P or 24P in 1080 HD
- Thread starter Firefox39
- Start date
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
Okay you 25p guys, now answer the other question -- Why?
Michael Carter
Veteran
Because it's "the cool thing to do"?
That's really not much of a reason. If you haven't read anything about the way motion is rendered in 24p vs. other frame rates, I'd start searching the forums here and google it. It's been a major subject for filmmaking since the DVX first appeared, and discussed to death. There are valid reasons to choose a given frame rate, and it's widely, widely discussed.
That's really not much of a reason. If you haven't read anything about the way motion is rendered in 24p vs. other frame rates, I'd start searching the forums here and google it. It's been a major subject for filmmaking since the DVX first appeared, and discussed to death. There are valid reasons to choose a given frame rate, and it's widely, widely discussed.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Because it's the standard PAL frame rate for progressive filming & as near to 24p as makes not difference (4%).
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
I understand that, but the OP never mentions needing PAL format. So why shoot 25p? Just a simple answer will be fine -- don't need to wade through a lengthy discussion on the matter.
wgzn
Veteran
its not a matter of a specific frame rate for shooting a wedding vs shooting some other event. its a matter of what youre looking for in the end result. want to do easy slow mo? shoot in 60. want an easy film vibe? shoot 24. cant imagine why anyone would choose 30. unless they wanted the 60 look but needed to save card space...
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Sorry David, I don't understand your question.
We shoot 25p because it is our only option for fully compatible 1080p in our region using these cameras. What other reason do we need?
I wanted to share here a similar preference I worked
on some years ago. Agreed, I think people prefer to
see 24p. The public prefers that film look and most
professionals I think either shoot at this rate or
edit down to it.
About 20-years ago I was very actively involved with:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/
and the tubes vs solid state thing even today came
up all the time. "Tubes sound better" is/was a common
refrain. "Records sound better". A similar refrain
in the 30/60fps digital thing vs the 24fps on film
thing. So what is it with tubes that makes that
sound better? Clearly something is different.
So after some extensive research and demos within
the BAS it was found that tube electronics, that
being commonly found in the creation of historic
LPs, added about 2% 2nd order harmonic distortion
into the signal stream. We could even take material
recorded totally in the digital domain and feed
that signal through a bunch of test equipment
and add the same 2% 2nd order harmonic distortion
and people, even "golden ears", would prefer the
distorted sound to the original digital sound.
So my point. People for whatever reason prefer the
look and feel of 24fps. If your camera can capture
at this rate to begin with and your editing platform
can deal with it then stay with it.
on some years ago. Agreed, I think people prefer to
see 24p. The public prefers that film look and most
professionals I think either shoot at this rate or
edit down to it.
About 20-years ago I was very actively involved with:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/
and the tubes vs solid state thing even today came
up all the time. "Tubes sound better" is/was a common
refrain. "Records sound better". A similar refrain
in the 30/60fps digital thing vs the 24fps on film
thing. So what is it with tubes that makes that
sound better? Clearly something is different.
So after some extensive research and demos within
the BAS it was found that tube electronics, that
being commonly found in the creation of historic
LPs, added about 2% 2nd order harmonic distortion
into the signal stream. We could even take material
recorded totally in the digital domain and feed
that signal through a bunch of test equipment
and add the same 2% 2nd order harmonic distortion
and people, even "golden ears", would prefer the
distorted sound to the original digital sound.
So my point. People for whatever reason prefer the
look and feel of 24fps. If your camera can capture
at this rate to begin with and your editing platform
can deal with it then stay with it.
I shoot 24p because I don't like the video-ish look of anything higher. Also, 24p uses a slower shutter speed than the others and in very low light scenes without lots of movement I even drop the shutter down to 1/24, giving me a little more natural light.
In addition, I produce DVD's and Blu-Rays so 24p is one of the standard supported resolutions for BD and it seamlessly converts to SD DVD as well.
In addition, I produce DVD's and Blu-Rays so 24p is one of the standard supported resolutions for BD and it seamlessly converts to SD DVD as well.
henryqiu
Well-known member
Can you shoot at 30/60p (or 25/50p if PAL) and edit it down to 24p if required? Even if only 24p is required and shooting raw 24p may save you time, won't 30/60p give you more options in post production? If supported with you camera, I think everything ideally should be shot at 1080p 50/60p, unless storage is a big concern and/or you don't have a super fast editing system that won't slow you down when chewing 1080p 50/60p footage.
I am not sure what you didn't understand about my reply. Most of the world uses PAL for TV & their TVs & monitors have a 50Hz refresh rate. 25fps is the standard frame rate when shooting progressive footage (it's 1/2 the 50Hz screen refresh rate). It is also as near as makes no difference to 24fps 'film' frame rate. It's only in the US that people need to agonise over whether to shoot at 24fps (the 'film' frame rate) or the 'video' rate of 30fps (1/2 the 60Hz screen refresh rate).