-
why change frame rate?
first let me start by saying im a noob since i dont know this question by now…
but anyway, i’ve been watching a ton of andrew kramer tutorials online and in some of them he is making his comps 24fpr from 29.97 that im used to being the standard…he never says why he is doing this….do u get a diff look? or what? it just confuses me sometimes when i see him do this, not sure what the purpose is? thx -
11 Replies
-
but why is he using 24fps when he’s just building stuff in AE with no video just gfx? cuz he plans on exporting it as 24fps?
-
he may work with a lot of 24p projects, so it may be a normal setup for him.
as dave mentions there are reasons to shot in 24p (23.976):
if the final destination is a dvd, then being able to create progressive dvd will provide potentially better image quality (i say potentially because it will need to be viewed on a progressive screen to see the benefit).
if it needs to got to both ntsc and pal, the conversion is easier.
if it needs to go to film the conversion is easy.
also, 24p is very popular in the hd world, right now it is about the only way to get 1080p. one day there will be 1080p60 (60 progressive frames per second) but until then it’s 24 frames per second (note: 720p can be 60 fps).
if your destination is sd ntsc broadcast or tape, just plan on working in 29.97, either progressive or interlaced… imho.
Kevin Camp
Senior Designer
KCPQ, KMYQ & KRCW -
Everything you preached about in your little sermon up there means nothing. People, subconsciously, know when the difference between 24p and 25/30. Although you are correct by saying it has nothing to do with aesthetics (and I’m a film student saying this), that doesn’t change the hard-cold fact that the jerky motion of 24p = film look, while other frame rates represent reality/doco films.
The bottom line – 24p is more expensive, and more intricate to work with for a good reason: it looks much much better and more convincing. If you can’t get 24p people will always feel that there’s something amateurish in your film. They can never spot what’s bothering them but once you how them 24p they all go: “Ahhhh! That’s what I meant!”.
End of anti-sermon 😉
-MS
-
But I ask you: Why change something that works? 24p is great. I love it and so do others so why revert to 18fps or go up to 60?! If it’s not broken don’t fix it.
-MS
-
He might have gone to 24 fps because the source footage was video originally shot on film, and so it had pulldown added to make it 29.97 fps, the frame rate of NTSC video.
Pulldown takes 24 fps footage and makes it 29.97 by adding interlaced half-frames here and there. If you have that kind of footage (like most stock footage), and you want to work with the original full frames, you remove pulldown and work at the original 24 fps.
Then you render, adding pulldown to bring it to 29.97 again … if you want to go to NTSC video.
-
I’ve been using PAL 25p for years (been shooting all formats for 12 years) & I have to agree with Dave, I prefer 25p to 24, & just to ask… as film makers or video artists, aren’t we looking for our stories to represent reality?
“that doesn’t change the hard-cold fact that the jerky motion of 24p = film look, while other frame rates represent reality/doco films.”
I for one love my work to be called convincing & represent reality.
“The bottom line – 24p is more expensive, and more intricate to work with for a good reason: it looks much much better and more convincing.”
No offense intended to anyone, film school or other.
Just my opinion. I prefer 25p & Like Mike said “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.“Austen Mathieson
Austentatious Productions -
i don’t think i have any hope of convincing mike that 24p is actually lower quality (and i did study film).
but a 24p piece of video will be seen by about 80% of viewers (ntsc viewers) as interlaced at 30fps. there will be a pulldown added to even if the piece is burned as a progressive dvd unless the dvd is viewed on a screen that can display a progressive image, and most current tvs out there can’t. so, 24p is actually kind of broke…
one day they will, but by then you’ll be able to shoot 1080p at 60fps, and you won’t see much video done in 24p. and, as we had discussed in my film classes some 15 years ago, film will need to start shooting at higher frame rates to compete with the visual quality of broadcast tv.
Kevin Camp
Senior Designer
KCPQ, KMYQ & KRCW -
Excellent point. Big name movie makers and broadcast companies alike, along with alot of big stars are moving towards video for making “films”. It’s the way forward I think for many reasons.
Austen Mathieson
Austentatious Productions -
Just for those who think you can’t use 25fps in a major cinema movie, James Cameron filmed ALIENS in Acton London in UK and the scenes where we see the soldiers roaming around looking for the aliens via their personal helmet cams was shot on 25fps and cut into the 24fps footage, that’s exactly what you see wherever you watch that great movie, and I ask you can you tell or notice any difference whatsoever?
No you can’t. even though it plays at different speed you can’t tell, subconsciously or otherwise.
And they didn’t convert the framerate, it’s still today in it’s native 25 cut into 24.
Austen Mathieson
Austentatious Productions -
Bravo Dave,
Not to mention the fact that so many films have scenes shot at high framerates then are in “slow-mo” when played back at 24p. So by that rationale, … well you see where I’m going.I’m in UK and use PAL 25p. It’s my format. It’s my medium. It’s my preference.
Austen Mathieson
Austentatious Productions
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up