24F vs 30F at DVinfo.net

Che Butterfield · December 22nd, 2006, 04:21 PM

Was getting ready to work on a personal project and can't decide on 24F or 30F. Would hate to get going in one standard to find that I preferred the other after aquiring most of my footage.

I know this about 30F:
Smoother motion / more frames
Crisper frames (Shutter at 1/60)
Not as sensative to low light as shutter speed is higher

I know this about 24F
More motion blur
Better light sensitivity (Shutter at 1/48)
Closer to film motion properties

Is it all about a look or is there a reason I would want to have smoother, more crisp frames? I am leaning toward the 24F as I would have an extra half stop to play with but the frame judder in the view finder is almost distracting at times. 30F seems more solid and 60i hints at a video look.

Holly Rognan · December 22nd, 2006, 05:43 PM

If you are worried about the low light then you are correct that 24f will be better.

If you want a filmic cadence, then choose 24f as well.

I have only shot in 30f once (as to match with my 30p sd) but I prefer 24f for most of my shots.

Bill Pryor · December 22nd, 2006, 07:23 PM

The viewfinder judder is not recorded on tape. It was a little annoying at first but now I'm accustomed to it and it doesn't bother me.

Che Butterfield · December 22nd, 2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Wisniewski

What's the project about?

It is more of a working reel that I can use for promotional purposes. It will never see tape unless I decide to archive it on HDV stock. It will more than likely end up 720p for web delivery. Probably smaller as I don't want it to hog all of my available bandwidth.

Deke Ryland · December 22nd, 2006, 09:08 PM

I have found 30F to be far superior in almost all video applications other than when you do want that "film" look. I've found 24F to be exceptionally juttery and rather jagged due to the fact of the shorter frame rate and HDV compression. I'm not too big on the film look, so I am a bit biased. However, for most purposes, I believe 30F is the way to go.

Dave Perry · December 22nd, 2006, 10:18 PM

I'm leaning towards 30p as well. It has enough judder to give it film look and fits in nicely with my current workflow. I have never really tried much with 24p however and may love it after I learn it.

Steve Nunez · December 23rd, 2006, 11:27 PM

I too prefer 30F to that of 24F......60F would be ideal but not currently available in any current HDV camera in 1080 mode....otherwise 30f is ideal for my purposes.

Khoi Pham · December 24th, 2006, 11:40 AM

I played with it a little bit but I see more video noise in low light when I use 30f at 1/30th and 24f at 24th than 60i at 60th of a second, do you guys see that?

Kaku Ito · December 24th, 2006, 12:16 PM

Why films are still on 24 frames? Because people are used to watching the amount of information in the format of 24 frames in story telling.
30 frames or 60i would give more amount of information so that the information coming in by watching leans towards the motion images itself, rather than the story itself. The amount of information with 24 frames gives the time for watcher to think while they are watching. Of course the viewer's ablities differ depending on thier skills, but there are the certain average abilities and the average might get higher by the development of technologies and environment at that time.

Not only the format of 24 frame itself lessens the amount of information, but shooting in 24 frames itself lessens the amount of information that you are recording, for example, you have to pan the camera slower than 30 frame format in order to avoid the frame judder, thus the contents would have slower tempo, give viewer for time to understand and think.

I hope more experts should chime in to explain this better, but my understanding here is based on studies in american academic field.

Che Butterfield · December 24th, 2006, 01:54 PM

"The characteristics of film differ from video in many ways: resolution, colour depth, contrast, grain and frame rate, to name a few. 24p addresses the issue of frame rate. Normal NTSC video is shot at 60 (actually 59.94) interlaced fields per second (60i). Because we see 60 discrete intervals of time per second represented in the video, motion is very smooth, however, this motion is a dead give-away that video was used, not film. Even to non-techies, film is associated with quality and expense, so one of the easiest ways you can make your video look like film is to shoot it at the frame rate that film is shot at, and that rate is 24 frames per second...

...24p has advantages as well as disadvantages. The disadvantages are that if you shoot 24p, it's very hard to get it looking like video again if that's what you really wanted. You also have to be much more careful with your camerawork because if you move the camera too fast, the motion will look jumpy and choppy. The advantages are that it gets you nearer the look of film, and, if you remove the extra frames and edit in a 23.98p timeline, you can make a 24p DVD (See pages 45 and 90 of the DVD Studio Pro 3 manual for full details on making a 24p DVD) which will look better than the same video as a "normal" 29.97 DVD because less frames of video have to be fit on the disc and hence a higher bit rate can be used for the remaining frames.
While editing video at 23.98 frames per second, you will also find that you can render faster as your hard drives have to send less frames per second to FCP, and the Mac's processors have less work to do."

From Beyond DV with FCP HD by Graeme Nattress

Full Article: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage..._nattress.html

Alex Leith · December 24th, 2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaku Ito

Why films are still on 24 frames? Because people are used to watching the amount of information in the format of 24 frames in story telling.

I think a big reason that films are still on 24fps is also due to cost. Many projectors would need to be changed to play films at speeds other than 24fps. And distribution prints would cost more because of the extra footage.

Of course this may change in the future, as more films are shot digitally and digital cinema grows - though there are a hell of a lot of paying audience out there to consider before studios are going to do anything that prevents people from being able to see their movies.

They did some experiments using higher frame rates during the 80's (I think) running films at up to 100fps. At that time audiences didn't like it because it looked "too realistic"(!)

The human eye sees images as "moving" (as opposed to a sequence of still images) at about 12 frames per second. At around 18-21 frames per second we percieve the motion to be smooth. However, we are still see flicker up to somewhere between 48 to 75Hz (depending on the brightness of what we're watching). Most cinema projectors have two or three blade shutters, which expose each frame twice or three times to decrease the perception of flicker.

Personally I'm glad I'm working with 25f/p, which avoids the problems with pull-down judder that people sometimes see on moving shots.

December 22nd, 2006, 04:21 PM	#1
Che Butterfield New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 24	24F vs 30F Was getting ready to work on a personal project and can't decide on 24F or 30F. Would hate to get going in one standard to find that I preferred the other after aquiring most of my footage. I know this about 30F: Smoother motion / more frames Crisper frames (Shutter at 1/60) Not as sensative to low light as shutter speed is higher I know this about 24F More motion blur Better light sensitivity (Shutter at 1/48) Closer to film motion properties Is it all about a look or is there a reason I would want to have smoother, more crisp frames? I am leaning toward the 24F as I would have an extra half stop to play with but the frame judder in the view finder is almost distracting at times. 30F seems more solid and 60i hints at a video look. Last edited by Che Butterfield; December 22nd, 2006 at 05:07 PM.

December 22nd, 2006, 10:18 PM	#6
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	I'm leaning towards 30p as well. It has enough judder to give it film look and fits in nicely with my current workflow. I have never really tried much with 24p however and may love it after I learn it. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

December 23rd, 2006, 11:27 PM	#7
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	I too prefer 30F to that of 24F......60F would be ideal but not currently available in any current HDV camera in 1080 mode....otherwise 30f is ideal for my purposes. __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

December 24th, 2006, 11:40 AM	#8
Khoi Pham Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Posts: 747	I played with it a little bit but I see more video noise in low light when I use 30f at 1/30th and 24f at 24th than 60i at 60th of a second, do you guys see that? __________________ Khoi Pham www.proeditproductions.com

December 24th, 2006, 01:54 PM	#10
Che Butterfield New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 24	"The characteristics of film differ from video in many ways: resolution, colour depth, contrast, grain and frame rate, to name a few. 24p addresses the issue of frame rate. Normal NTSC video is shot at 60 (actually 59.94) interlaced fields per second (60i). Because we see 60 discrete intervals of time per second represented in the video, motion is very smooth, however, this motion is a dead give-away that video was used, not film. Even to non-techies, film is associated with quality and expense, so one of the easiest ways you can make your video look like film is to shoot it at the frame rate that film is shot at, and that rate is 24 frames per second... ...24p has advantages as well as disadvantages. The disadvantages are that if you shoot 24p, it's very hard to get it looking like video again if that's what you really wanted. You also have to be much more careful with your camerawork because if you move the camera too fast, the motion will look jumpy and choppy. The advantages are that it gets you nearer the look of film, and, if you remove the extra frames and edit in a 23.98p timeline, you can make a 24p DVD (See pages 45 and 90 of the DVD Studio Pro 3 manual for full details on making a 24p DVD) which will look better than the same video as a "normal" 29.97 DVD because less frames of video have to be fit on the disc and hence a higher bit rate can be used for the remaining frames. While editing video at 23.98 frames per second, you will also find that you can render faster as your hard drives have to send less frames per second to FCP, and the Mac's processors have less work to do." From Beyond DV with FCP HD by Graeme Nattress Full Article: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage..._nattress.html Last edited by Che Butterfield; December 24th, 2006 at 02:38 PM.

December 22nd, 2006, 05:43 PM	#2
Holly Rognan Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Coalville America Posts: 244	If you are worried about the low light then you are correct that 24f will be better. If you want a filmic cadence, then choose 24f as well. I have only shot in 30f once (as to match with my 30p sd) but I prefer 24f for most of my shots.

December 22nd, 2006, 07:23 PM	#3
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	The viewfinder judder is not recorded on tape. It was a little annoying at first but now I'm accustomed to it and it doesn't bother me.

December 22nd, 2006, 09:08 PM	#5
Deke Ryland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Washington, USA Posts: 213	I have found 30F to be far superior in almost all video applications other than when you do want that "film" look. I've found 24F to be exceptionally juttery and rather jagged due to the fact of the shorter frame rate and HDV compression. I'm not too big on the film look, so I am a bit biased. However, for most purposes, I believe 30F is the way to go.

December 24th, 2006, 12:16 PM	#9
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	Why films are still on 24 frames? Because people are used to watching the amount of information in the format of 24 frames in story telling. 30 frames or 60i would give more amount of information so that the information coming in by watching leans towards the motion images itself, rather than the story itself. The amount of information with 24 frames gives the time for watcher to think while they are watching. Of course the viewer's ablities differ depending on thier skills, but there are the certain average abilities and the average might get higher by the development of technologies and environment at that time. Not only the format of 24 frame itself lessens the amount of information, but shooting in 24 frames itself lessens the amount of information that you are recording, for example, you have to pan the camera slower than 30 frame format in order to avoid the frame judder, thus the contents would have slower tempo, give viewer for time to understand and think. I hope more experts should chime in to explain this better, but my understanding here is based on studies in american academic field.