24fps vs 25fps

[ZolaScope]

I'm in Europe and everything I've read tells me to shoot (on my DLSR) at 25fps - that 24fps is just for pretentious types who reckon their movie will one day get a film transfer. Oh, and TV people prefer 25fps.

And yet, I now understand that many festivals want DCP format for screening and that the preferred framerate for DCP is 24fps (although you can make 25fps DCP packages).

So now there is doubt where there was once certainty.

Anyone any insight into this?

 

[8salacious9]

My saying is go for 24fps then you can UP it to 25 or 30, I believe 24 is more universal.

however you must only shoot for your intended target, do not stick to a frame rate if you have been asked to shoot at 30fps and you go ahead and shoot in 24, that would just be idiotic.

I think 24 feels nicer too.

 

[ZolaScope]

I agree, 24fps feels nicer than 30fps, but being in Europe I'd never bother with 30fps anyway. And 25 is indistinguishable from 24 in terms of feel. So it's not an aesthetic decision - it's about maximising compatibility with end formats - ie, possible TV use, DCP for festivals etc.

If someone tells me that festivals will be fine with a 25fps DCP, then that solves the problem. I just can't find that information anywhere...

 

[8salacious9]

like i said all that matters is your intended target, check out 3 festivals that you are planning to submit to, then pick the overall majority.

24fps universal (mostly)
25fps PAL
30fps NTSC

I believe there are 2 versions of 24fps but you can google that ..

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong here, was that 25 fps is simply how much detail your camera picks up in basic terms. So for most types of film, 25 frames per second would be fine but if you are doing some sort of activity where actors or things are moving at a faster speed, say a fight scene, or skateboarding video for instance, you should use a 30 fps camera so that the details of the action are still caught sufficiently.

That's my understanding of how fps relates to filming and as I say, I could be wrong.

 

[Will Vincent]

I believe there are 2 versions of 24fps but you can google that ..

Kind of, yes.. There's actually 24p, which is exactly 24 still frames per second, this is what you get with film. Then there's 23.976 which is generally referred to as 24p, but has slightly less frames per second than 24. It actually works out to about 1.5 less frames per minute than 24p.

If I were in a PAL country, as the OP is, I'd probably stick with 25p. Since the power system is 50Hz there, vs the 60Hz here in the states, I believe there'd be less likelihood of weird strobing from lights at 25p in Europe.

That's conjecture, since I'm not in Europe, and haven't shot anything there, but it makes sense that if you shoot 25p, with a 180 degree shutter, your shutter will be open for 1/50th of a second per frame, which would play much nicer with a 50Hz light wavelength than 1/48th of a second per frame. The difference is very minimal though.

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong here, was that 25 fps is simply how much detail your camera picks up in basic terms. So for most types of film, 25 frames per second would be fine but if you are doing some sort of activity where actors or things are moving at a faster speed, say a fight scene, or skateboarding video for instance, you should use a 30 fps camera so that the details of the action are still caught sufficiently.

That's my understanding of how fps relates to filming and as I say, I could be wrong.

You are slightly wrong, yes. Generally speaking, the faster the frame rate, the smoother the motion captured is. However, generally for film, the intended playback rate is going to be 24 frames/second (at least theatrically), so if you were to shoot at a higher frame rate, ideally more than 30 frames/second.. more like 40+, you'd be doing so with the intent of conforming that footage to 24 frames per second, which would then make it slow motion.

Yes, in a manner of speaking, you would capture more detail at a higher framerate, but that's not precisely the intent. Also the difference between 24 and 25 frames per second is negligible. 1 frame per second isn't going to be terribly noticable to most people's eye, and it's still more filmic looking than the NTSC standard of 30 frames/second (or more specifically 29.976 frames per second, or 59.96ish fames per second for 60i footage).

Bascially it works out like this, the higher the frame rate the smoother the motion.. and the higher the playback framerate (30fps vs 24 for example) the more it looks like the 5 o'clock news and the less it looks like a "movie"

That's a big part of the reason that I, for one, think the whole 48fps so-called HFR format that, for example The Hobbit, used is truly dreadful for a filmgoing experience. Aside from some pretty crappy shots in the latest hobbit film (bad compositing and VERY video-looking during the barrel scenes) I'm not too keen on paying $30 for my wife and I to go watch an exciting version of prime time TV on a big screen in a dark room with a bunch of loud people we don't know.

 

[Will Vincent]

As for festival concerns, 25fps fps video can be conformed to 24fps as well. Basically you slow the footage down to the required speed, as well as slowing the audio by about 4%. But that's only if they're unable to accept PAL format in the first place. I'd suspect the submission guidelines for any festival to outline acceptable submisison formats for you.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

Kind of, yes.. There's actually 24p, which is exactly 24 still frames per second, this is what you get with film. Then there's 23.976 which is generally referred to as 24p, but has slightly less frames per second than 24. It actually works out to about 1.5 less frames per minute than 24p.

If I were in a PAL country, as the OP is, I'd probably stick with 25p. Since the power system is 50Hz there, vs the 60Hz here in the states, I believe there'd be less likelihood of weird strobing from lights at 25p in Europe.

That's conjecture, since I'm not in Europe, and haven't shot anything there, but it makes sense that if you shoot 25p, with a 180 degree shutter, your shutter will be open for 1/50th of a second per frame, which would play much nicer with a 50Hz light wavelength than 1/48th of a second per frame. The difference is very minimal though.



You are slightly wrong, yes. Generally speaking, the faster the frame rate, the smoother the motion captured is. However, generally for film, the intended playback rate is going to be 24 frames/second (at least theatrically), so if you were to shoot at a higher frame rate, ideally more than 30 frames/second.. more like 40+, you'd be doing so with the intent of conforming that footage to 24 frames per second, which would then make it slow motion.

Yes, in a manner of speaking, you would capture more detail at a higher framerate, but that's not precisely the intent. Also the difference between 24 and 25 frames per second is negligible. 1 frame per second isn't going to be terribly noticable to most people's eye, and it's still more filmic looking than the NTSC standard of 30 frames/second (or more specifically 29.976 frames per second, or 59.96ish fames per second for 60i footage).

Bascially it works out like this, the higher the frame rate the smoother the motion.. and the higher the playback framerate (30fps vs 24 for example) the more it looks like the 5 o'clock news and the less it looks like a "movie"

That's a big part of the reason that I, for one, think the whole 48fps so-called HFR format that, for example The Hobbit, used is truly dreadful for a filmgoing experience. Aside from some pretty crappy shots in the latest hobbit film (bad compositing and VERY video-looking during the barrel scenes) I'm not too keen on paying $30 for my wife and I to go watch an exciting version of prime time TV on a big screen in a dark room with a bunch of loud people we don't know.

THIS ^ is why I love this site. Just when you think you have a clear understanding, someone comes along and clarifies things that allows for a far better understanding.

Hugely appreciated

 

[AudioPostExpert]

That's my understanding of how fps relates to filming and as I say, I could be wrong.

To a large extent you are wrong I'm afraid.

You need to be filming at the distribution frame rate. 24fps cannot be displayed by PAL TV systems so you have to convert and here is where we start running into difficulties. Once you convert your picture to a different frame rate, all your production sound is now out of sync! Worse still, if you finish your sound mix and then convert the sound with the picture to a new frame rate, you are very likely to create unwanted audio artefacts. Even the top pro software for converting audio mixes to different frame rates frequently introduces unwanted artefacts!

2 points for the OP:

1. Yes, the DCP spec does now allow for a number of different frame rates but the previous spec only allowed for 24fps. Those cinemas with newer or updated projectors would be able to screen a DCP at 25fps but there's no guarantee that a particular cinema has an updated projector, as all commercial feature films are always 24fps many might not have bothered updating. For this reason, it is always recommended to use on 24fps on a DCP, unless you have specific knowledge to the contrary regarding a specific cinema/festival.

2. It is unlikely that your camera can actually film 24fps!! The vast majority of DSLRs and non-pro film cameras cannot shoot film, they can usually ONLY shoot video! Video never has a frame rate of 24fps, even though some of them imply they do by listing a frame rate option of something like 24P. You need to bare in mind that 24P is NOT 24fps, it is 23.98fps. I know it doesn't sound like much of a difference but it is, you'll run into the same problems I mentioned above about the sound drifting out of sync with the picture, but it will drift at a rate of 0.1% rather than 4%. Over a 10 minute film, your sound will be out of sync by just over half a second (about 15 frames), more than easily noticeable!

There's no easy answer to your question, although in all likelihood you don't have as much choice as you thought and 25fps will probably be your only option. If a festival is screening from BluRay disks though, which is not so uncommon with the low tier film festivals, then 23.98 would be an option to consider.

G

 

[jax_rox]

Here's the thing:

What's the visual difference between 24fps and 25fps? Basically nothing. The difference is so miniscule that your eye can barely pick up on it. Not only that, but if you live in PAL land where everything plays at 25fps anyway - the things you think you've been watching at 24fps were probably actually playing back at 25fps!

The only time you would ever shoot at 24fps or 23.976 is if you were delivering your product solely into a territory like the US, or multiple territories where 24fps is the standard.

If delivering in Europe, or any other PAL territory, you'll find everything is much easier with 25fps end-to-end - and then if you do have to conform to 24fps for a US release, a simple pulldown will help you out.

DCP packages are generally 24 true frames per second - this would also be easier to create with 25fps source material - it's a matter of dropping one fps, rather than attempting to add .024 fps.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

DCP packages are generally 24 true frames per second - this would also be easier to create with 25fps source material - it's a matter of dropping one fps, rather than attempting to add .024 fps.

Actually, it's not! It's easier to go from video speed, 23.98fps (23.976 to be accurate) or 29.97fps to film speed, than it is to go from PAL (25fps) to film speed. It's only a 0.1% pull-up from video speed to film speed but a 4% pull-up from PAL. In the days of 35mm film, it was common in Europe to edit at NTSC rate (29.97) rather than edit in PAL, for this very reason, even though it was a pain to have to buy NTSC equipment. Remember, PAL, NTSC and HDTV are all interlaced formats, so with NTSC you're actually spreading 2 frames of film over 3 fields of TV, which makes the conversion easier.

G

 

[jax_rox]

Actually, it's not! It's easier to go from video speed, 23.98fps (23.976 to be accurate) or 29.97fps to film speed, than it is to go from PAL (25fps) to film speed. It's only a 0.1% pull-up from video speed to film speed but a 4% pull-up from PAL. In the days of 35mm film, it was common in Europe to edit at NTSC rate (29.97) rather than edit in PAL, for this very reason, even though it was a pain to have to buy NTSC equipment. Remember, PAL, NTSC and HDTV are all interlaced formats, so with NTSC you're actually spreading 2 frames of film over 3 fields of TV, which makes the conversion easier.

Ah thank you for clarifying. I do vaguely remember this from film school... Haha

 

[ZolaScope]

Thanks for all the info guys. I'm now much better informed, although no closer to a decision because of all the new information to take on board (I'll probably stick with 25fps for now.)