24/29 FPS Visual Differences

[Sam Roberts]

Given the same shutter speed what are the visual/aesthetic differences between 24fps and 29.97 fps? And what are the differences when it comes to both camera movement and movement of an object within the frame?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If you are talking about showing both at their respective speeds, not showing the 30 fps footage at 24 fps (or 29.97 fps footage at 23.976 fps), for normal motion, and if by same shutter speed you mean same shutter angle (180 degrees, so 1/48th for 24P and 1/60th for 30 fps)...

... basically the motion of the 30 fps footage will be smoother.

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

What David said is right, but keep in mind the 30 fps footage will have a much more video type look, and so will look more like a tv show than the 24 fps footage will.

 

[Andyv]

There where a couple episodes of the Twilight zone shot on video that are good comparisons to the other episodes shot on film for comparisons sake.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, but just remember that 30P footage shown at 60i (NTSC or HDTV) looks different than 60i footage does.

30P looks smoother than 24P when shown on 60i displays, maybe slightly video-ish... but it definitely doesn't look as video-ish as 60i photography, which has twice as many motion samples per second as does 30P.

If you look at the Region 1 DVD of "Oklahoma!" I believe it was transferred from the 30 fps Todd-AO 65mm source, so you can see the effect of 30 fps photography. It looks smoother than 24P, but it is not a radical difference.

 

[Sam Roberts]

Thank you. I was hoping the answer would be a smoother look- something that would be difficult to achieve in post. The video "look" is another story though, any number of post filters can make it look pretty much like anything you want.

 

[Michael Brennan]

When the f900 first began to be used for TV drama we assumed that 29.97p would be the obvious choice in the States but 23.98p was preferred, one reason given was that 29.97p was too smooth and video like.

With 23.98p you get both less frames per sec AND 3:2 pull down motion asthetic once broadcast.

Viewers seem not to notice difference when it comes to motion artifacts, but there is little science on the subject, especially considering new 100hz displays that make everything look like video.
Watched a John Wayne western recently on a 100hz (Australian) Panasonic HD set that looked like a modern cheap video soap.. freaky!

Mike Brennan

 

[David Rasberry]

I used to prefer shooting 16mm for video industrials at 29.97 to get a 1:1 frame transfer for video and eliminate the 3:2 pull down conversion. For some reason I have always found that annoying.