As some of you might recall, I'm making an instructional DVD and while it is, yes, simply an instructional DVD, I want to make it look as good as possible and put all of my creativity into so it won't be a stodgy, boring video. I really like the look of film, the 24p look, but I remember reading somewhere that DVDs should be shot at 30fps. I don't know why and I can't recall where I saw it. To throw another wrench in the mix, I'll also be using a GoPro HD that doesn't shoot 1080 at 24, only 30, along with my Canon 60d and (wait for it) the 50mm *f1.2* (yes, it was a helluva splurge). So, can I shoot it all at 1080p 30fps and somehow massage it in post (I'll be using the CS5 suite as soon as I learn to use it) to look like 24fps? Is this even possible? Or am I worrying too much about the cinema look and would 30fps look fine? I don't want it to look like the video you see with 1/2 hour sitcoms, if you know what I mean. Thanks.
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
1080p 24 or 30 fps?
- Thread starter jdham137
- Start date
I think you should stick to 30. You don't want to be mixing frame rates and most people can't even tell the difference between 30 and 24p. Also, if you're uploading your video to the internet on sites like youtube or vimeo, it'll be converted to 30p anyway.
edit: i meant mixing frame rates, not missing.
edit: i meant mixing frame rates, not missing.
Last edited:
I have been told before to use 24, cause 24 has a more movie-ish look where as 30 has a more video-ish look. It's hard to tell on an HD TV but on a projector is where it may be a lot more noticeable. I don't get what they mean by missing frame rates as one pointed out. 24 was invented before 30, back when films were first invented, so since it came before, there was nothing missing to begin with.
Last edited:
I would agree but it does kind of depend on what you're instructing people in.
If it's a fitness video, say, then 30 fps is a bit of a no brainer.
If, however, it's instructions about acting, then that's a different ball game.
Going 25 fps will add a little gloss especially if the production value isn't too great to begin with but all in all you should probably be looking at 30 fps.
Honestly, I really appreciate the fact that you want this to be a worthy project, not "just an instructional video". Dude, I think you should make it as entertaining as possible. Why not make an instructional video fun to watch? Do it!
All that said, the difference between 24p and 30p, for this project, it doesn't matter. Pick one. One of your cameras only shoots at 30p. Decision made. 30p it is!
Frame-rate, in my opinion, has been WAY-overly-attributed to making film look better. Lighting, sound, acting, those kinds of things are all that really matter. As a general rule, only super-nerdy cinefiles can even tell the difference between 24p and 30p.
All that said, the difference between 24p and 30p, for this project, it doesn't matter. Pick one. One of your cameras only shoots at 30p. Decision made. 30p it is!
Frame-rate, in my opinion, has been WAY-overly-attributed to making film look better. Lighting, sound, acting, those kinds of things are all that really matter. As a general rule, only super-nerdy cinefiles can even tell the difference between 24p and 30p.
Since there are (obviously) fewer frames per second with 24p than at 30p, rendering that Holy gloss grail by creating a little more "blur" per frame action, could we tinker with the shutter speed (which creates a whole new set of math problems regarding aperture and focus DOF issues) to slow down individual 30p captured images to the appearance of 24p?
1 / 30 = 0.03333
1 / 24 = 0.04166
0.4166 / 0.3333 = 24.9% longer per frame
Adjust your 30p camera for the lighting and focus issues you'd like, note the metered shutter speed.
Multiply that shutter speed by 0.75 (25% slower) rendering your "emulated" shutter speed.
Manually adjust shutter speed to nearest reasonable "emulated" shutter speed.
Adjust the aperture and focus to compensate/recover.
Yes, this looks like a minor hassle fore each and every [expletive] shot (as I agree, with my untrained and inexperienced eye, that no sensible person gives a sh!t).
I'd be more than happy to try this as an experiment except my camera only records at 60fps and 30fps.
Should take about <30 minutes between setup, shoot 30 seconds at 24p and another at 30p (cars driving down the road and/or people walking should work fine enough), meter, calculation, adjust shutter speed down 25%, adjust aperture, shoot another 30 seconds at 30p-"emulated"-to-24p, load three clips onto 'puter, edit with info, upload set to both youtube (which sets at 30fps) and vimeo (which allows 24fps).
And I guess we don't even want to fool with the p vs. i issue.
1 / 30 = 0.03333
1 / 24 = 0.04166
0.4166 / 0.3333 = 24.9% longer per frame
Adjust your 30p camera for the lighting and focus issues you'd like, note the metered shutter speed.
Multiply that shutter speed by 0.75 (25% slower) rendering your "emulated" shutter speed.
Manually adjust shutter speed to nearest reasonable "emulated" shutter speed.
Adjust the aperture and focus to compensate/recover.
Yes, this looks like a minor hassle fore each and every [expletive] shot (as I agree, with my untrained and inexperienced eye, that no sensible person gives a sh!t).
I'd be more than happy to try this as an experiment except my camera only records at 60fps and 30fps.
Should take about <30 minutes between setup, shoot 30 seconds at 24p and another at 30p (cars driving down the road and/or people walking should work fine enough), meter, calculation, adjust shutter speed down 25%, adjust aperture, shoot another 30 seconds at 30p-"emulated"-to-24p, load three clips onto 'puter, edit with info, upload set to both youtube (which sets at 30fps) and vimeo (which allows 24fps).
And I guess we don't even want to fool with the p vs. i issue.
Last edited:
I shoot everything at 1080/24p native at 1/48 shutter speed, and edit and export in 24p. That gives me the closest to that "film look" as I can get. Never tried shooting at 30p, but I'm sure it will give you a slightly smoother look, commonly associated with video. When I shot a commercial at 1080/60i at 1/60, using the same lighting techniques and color grading, it had that very obvious "video" look to it.
Sure, you can convert the footage in post, but I've had the best success just shooting it natively to begin with.
Online, they look very similar. I can only tell the difference when watching it on a TV, especially my HDTV which displays native 24p. The difference is very noticeable.
For comparison, this is my commercial shot in 60i:
http://www.vimeo.com/19759890
And this is a trailer for one of our films, shot in 24p:
http://www.vimeo.com/14891349
Both shot with the same camera and lights. There is some tearing in the 60i video, which I assume was due to deinterlacing the 60i footage for the Web.
But really, this is only one part of getting that "film look".
Sure, you can convert the footage in post, but I've had the best success just shooting it natively to begin with.
Online, they look very similar. I can only tell the difference when watching it on a TV, especially my HDTV which displays native 24p. The difference is very noticeable.
For comparison, this is my commercial shot in 60i:
http://www.vimeo.com/19759890
And this is a trailer for one of our films, shot in 24p:
http://www.vimeo.com/14891349
Both shot with the same camera and lights. There is some tearing in the 60i video, which I assume was due to deinterlacing the 60i footage for the Web.
But really, this is only one part of getting that "film look".
For me the commercial has definitly a video look about it (which I personally don't like), even though the lighting etc was good, the second trailer had more of a filmlook, but not enough actual moving scenes for me to make a good judgement.
So for me there is a definit difference to 60i and 24p, but if the same goes for 30p, I don't know but I have a strong feeling it is.. They used to rather film with PAL camcorders so it was closer to 24fps and easier to get a filmlook as with NTSC camcorders which are at 29.xxfps (or close to 30)..
but as was mentioned above, if you have one device that can't do 24p then the answer is easy, as using mixed framerates will certainly be visible.. or replace the device with another device which does 24p or do everyting in 30p..
I shoot in 30 and convert to 24 (OK, OK, 23.98). It's really easy with FCP 7.
The people I know who have done this (both of us), inevitably asked ourselves technical questions about the audio during the conversion and the answer in every case is... "it makes no difference if you do not touch the audio"
Last edited:
Just to get technical for a second, the 24 fps film projection rate was originally established because it was the least number of frames necessary to contain sufficient information for an optical sound track. Prior to "talkies", frame rates were all over the place. The rate just sort of stuck, and over the years became the standard, even though the actual reason for it eventually became moot.
Fast-forward to the video age: the video frame rate of 30 fps was established in the US because it played nice with the 60Hz AC electrical standard used to power tube-type TV sets (the AC standard in Europe is 50Hz, which explains PAL's 25 fps rate). As with film, the digital age has rendered the 30 fps video rate arbitrary, but it remains the standard for NTSC.
So, the technical reasons for both frame rates are essentially irrelevant in the 21st Century, but we still need a standard, so they're as good as any. All video, though, is 30 fps. 24p is merely an intentional 20% degradation of video's full potential. However, since humans have been conditioned for decades to associate that look with "movies" we do it strictly for aesthetics.
I predict that, with the release of the Avatar sequels, James Cameron is finally going to blow that prejudice out of the water once and for all. And good riddance.
Well, since Avatar didn't impress me at all (talk about a bad story and not knowing if he wanted to do a movie or a documentairy), it's exactly aesthetics that makes a movie differ from a homevideo.. I still hate watching movies shot in 'Video'. I really don't like the movements and feel and still associate it with amateur-filmmaking, even good lighting doesn't help a lot.
But I guess you have a different taste as I have, and that's ok...
Interesting; I didn't know the history of that.
Don't forget about both "Hobbit" movies; they're being shot in the higher frame-rate, as well (I can't remember if it's 48 or 60). I've heard that this will make the 3D look even more 3D-y (and might end the headaches that some people get).
Yeah, that's true. Jackson and Cameron together will be a formidable combination.
You've just described the prejudice in a nutshell, SuperDre...and much as I hate to admit it, I'm guilty of it as well. In fact, the feature I just finished was shot in 24p for that very reason. But I will be glad to see it go away. When you think about it, intentionally degrading the images we work so hard to make look their best is just silly.
You've just described the prejudice in a nutshell, SuperDre...and much as I hate to admit it, I'm guilty of it as well. In fact, the feature I just finished was shot in 24p for that very reason. But I will be glad to see it go away. When you think about it, intentionally degrading the images we work so hard to make look their best is just silly.
I'd prefer to compare 24p to using a soft box. You don't want to shine hard bright lights on everything, do you?
It's not only prejudice, I've seen professional films made in HD with good lighting, but it really distracted me due to the so called 'movements'. To me it's just too 'lifelike' or something I just can't express.. I like the smooth look of the 24p 'motionblur'.. it's got nothing to do with prejudice, it's got to do with 'taste', just like some people like the current 'just hold the camera in your hand' (not smooth steadycam) images, whereas other people rather have a more smoother image..
30 for tv, 24 for film 25 for euro tv. I always stick with native formats, as you want as few conversion stages as possible between what you film and the final broadcast or package product.