One of the first differences I noticed between good-looking and amateurish movies was the frame rate. Higher frame rates always make viewers think "camcorder" for some reason. My camera has an option on it that seems to make the frame rate a little bit slower. Whether it slows it down to exactly 24 fps, i'm not exactly sure. But it does look quite a bit more cinematic.
However, I could easily use my editing software to lower the frame rate to 24 fps. I guess my question is, if you're not using actual film, when is the time to worry about frame rate? Should the source footage from the camera be the rate you want, or should you take care of all that in post-production?
The reason I ask is because i don't think it's mathematically possible to take 30 fps footage and make it 24 fps without losing fluency... it's not divisible. To evenly distrubute the frames you're dropping, it would be 1 dropped frame for every 6 frames. I would imagine that would look kind of unnatural or jumpy.
However, I could easily use my editing software to lower the frame rate to 24 fps. I guess my question is, if you're not using actual film, when is the time to worry about frame rate? Should the source footage from the camera be the rate you want, or should you take care of all that in post-production?
The reason I ask is because i don't think it's mathematically possible to take 30 fps footage and make it 24 fps without losing fluency... it's not divisible. To evenly distrubute the frames you're dropping, it would be 1 dropped frame for every 6 frames. I would imagine that would look kind of unnatural or jumpy.