Advantages of shooting 24FPS over 30FPS?

[M Most]

For what it is worth, everything you see on television is 29.97 FPS whether it was shot in 24 (23.98) or 30 (29.97) FPS. Because that is our NTSC television standard.

NTSC was the standard definition standard. HD broadcast is done under the ATSC standards, which also happen to include 720/59.94p, a standard that does not involve fields at all, but 60 progressive images per second. And while this does involve converting 24 frames to 60, it is not done on an interlaced field basis, it is done by sending full frames in a 2:3 repeating pattern.

 

[Nick Morrison]

For whatever it's worth, for the past decade I've been a vendor working for numerous cable companies in New York (History, Lifetime, Sundance, BBC) and almost all their programming masters are delivered 1080p 23.98.

I've also seen many of these vendors simultaneously deliver an "on air" clone that is 1080i.

 

[Mark Britton]

Yeah, but it's not REAL news unless it's NTSC upconverted to 1080i. Yup, that's the SD van, keepin' it real....

 

[JR Monteiro]

NTSC was the standard definition standard. HD broadcast is done under the ATSC standards, which also happen to include 720/59.94p, a standard that does not involve fields at all, but 60 progressive images per second. And while this does involve converting 24 frames to 60, it is not done on an interlaced field basis, it is done by sending full frames in a 2:3 repeating pattern.

You are right ATSC not NTSC is the high def standard. But 1080i is the predominant broadcast format for most stations and it is comprised of 60 interlaced fields or 60 progressive frames in the case of 720P but the point I was making is that there is no magic in the 24P format that makes it more filmic. The magic actually happens in the 3:2 pulldown when the 24 frames are converted into 30 frames, the six missing frames are essentially a double exposure of the before and after frame in the 24P source material or in effect a 720 degree shutter angle 6 frames out of 30. If you don't believe me play a 24P movie back frame by frame that has been converted into 30P (60i or 60P). So the point I was making, is that if you have three frames at a 180 degree shutter followed by one frame shot with a 720 degree shutter, why not just shoot the whole thing a t a 270 or 360 degree shutter and not have to deal with the strobing artifacts that digital cinema cameras like the Red produce. I find the strobing issues much more annoying and less cinematic than any magic that the 3:2 pull down creates. To top it off now people like Peter Jackson are shooting their films in 48P because the demands of digital effects and compositing require more frames rather than less frames to create a believable cinema effect.

 

[George Butterfield]

So if I was to shoot the same scene at 24FPS, and then shoot it again at 30FPS, the 24FPS version would look and "feel" better?

Film was expensive, the more fps the more film you used and the higher the cost. 24fps was picked as the slowest film rate which was still acceptable to view. You can also use longer exposure times with 24fps than with 30fps. The faster film rates produce smoother more realistic images, but use more computer space etc. in post. Shooting at 30fps vs 24fps produces better movies but requires 25% more "film" or storage. It seems the 3D filmmakers have decided they must shoot at 48fps or higher for acceptable viewing. The "film look" of 16fps became unpopular once viewers saw 24fps. When 30fps or 60fps becomes more economical, video filmmakers will drop 24fps. Right now we shoot at 24fps because it is more economical and sell it as "better looking". When movie film projectors become extinct and we project only video images, look to ~60fps to become the standard.

 

[Chuck Z]

Nothing is mastered or shot in 1080i anymore. Just 24p and 1080p That progressive timeline is then converted to a 1080i container which is in turn de-interlaced back to 1080p24 or 1080p30 by your television. There is no such problem with those taking out greenscreen artifacts because there is no 1080i material to be found anywhere until the final transfer to the 1080i deliverable, which splits into fields, yes, but they both show half of the same point in time/same image.

Anyone shooting or doing effects in 1080i is grossly incompetent, plain and simple.

Doesn't the Discovery Network require deliverables to be in 1080i/59.94?

 

[Michael Dalton]

In Europe and anywhere else PAL, 30fps cannot be translated to 25p (PAL) without many issues. The whole world is not North America. If you see your market as only local you will make way less $$$.

24fps can be played anywhere, and looks fine on 30P NTSC and 25p PAL both.

Would agree with this one. I make shows in Canada, but my largest buyers are everywhere but North America. Shooting 24fps has been very easy to convert to what ever format is required. There is no real reason to shot 30fps for TV.

Discovery requires a 30 frame delivery, not it to be shot in 30fps. Conversion from 30 to 25 are a lot more expensive.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

The difference between 24 and 30 is mostly experience and has very little to do with quality.

Depends how you define "quality". I think it has everything to do with quality.

I think 24 fps is inferior to 30 fps, which is inferior to 48 fps, which is inferior to 60 fps, which is inferior to 120 fps, etc...

And, why shouldn't it? Higher temporal resolution will render everything that moves (after all it is motion picture industry we are talking about) with greater sharpness and less blurry and with less stuttering. Higher refresh rate allows for brighter images and therefore higher dynamic range to be projected without our eyes noticing the flicker.

Increasing the refresh rate decreases flickering and eye strain. That's, in my view, quality.

High refresh rates produce smoother, more fluid motion. That's, in my view, quality.

You can always make smooth, high frame rate content, to flicker, if that's your "artistic bend", but you can't put that quality back into the content that has been recorded at lower frame rates.

Mathematically, temporal resolution can be traded (either during acquisition or post) for either dynamic range or/and spacial resolution: and therefore all three define quality: the higher the better

Interlacing, for example, used to trade spacial resolution for temporal resolution and motion picture looked just as sharp, even though spacial resolution was essentially halved.

edit: There may be some other factors which would influence your frame rate choice, like cost or compatibility - neither of which has anything to do with quality.

 

[Nick Spiropoulos]

24=BETTER..... always has. 29.97 is a gimmick that the rest of the country has fallen for when we all decided 1080 was the way to go.

Bite your tongue, Mr. Carr.

 

[Simon Dunne]

Anyone shooting or doing effects in 1080i is grossly incompetent, plain and simple.

Ok, so i shoot everything 1920x1080@50i, edit in the same format, master in the same format and broadcast in that format. I must be a right tool :banghead:

 

[Björn Benckert]

less motion blur at 30fps. Which will make it appear more lifelike and a little less "cinematic"

It's not just the motion blur.. if you adjust your shutter two images from the sequences can look identical but the "feel" form the high refresh rate does make the 30fps look more like news coverage that is shot in 50i or 60i. The higher refresh rate (more frames per second in playback) the more it will look like video... and most people find it less pleasing.

for example if you playback a clip shot in 50fps in 24fps or 25fps it will still look cinematic but if you play back the same clip in 50fps then it will just look like... slime.

But there is some that says that the higher frame rate in playback the better. I do not agree.. But it think Peter jackson would like to have even more than 48fps if he could which I kind of understand.. it makes it less flickering and hard on the eye for 3D projections but still I think it will look terrible.

One other thing that is now missing in all of this is the nice thing with the shutter of the old projectors they actually showed just as much pure black as picture. i.e they shut of the light in between each frame, so that each frame is showed a 1/48 of a second and then 1/48 of a second of black. This gives the brain a strobe sensation that I find more pleasing than some new digital projectors that shows the frames 1/24 of a second. i.e showing picture the whole time /one frame right after the other.

The strobe sensation makes the brain remember each frame better which I prefer... something that differs old film projectors from the new gear sadly.

 

[Björn Benckert]

It's also so that posting in 30fps is much harder than at 24p since mattes, tracking, compositing rnedering will not only demand 6 more frames they will all also need much higher (read much higher as more than you can imagine) precision. Think of it like this... a painted key at 2 frames per second of a guy running is probably going to look quite good since there is so much difference in between the frames. Then you add more frames, not only do you have to render more frames, but the similarities of the frames increase so the "paint error" is in the end the only thing sticking out.. so posting at 50i is far more difficult than at 24p.

And there is other reasons, as light flicker, electricity frequency etc. thats why we in europe go to 25p instead of 24p. making a screen in europe run in 24p is simply not that easy.

 

[George Butterfield]

The strobe sensation makes the brain remember each frame better which I prefer...

The "nice" thing about being in the Arts is that we can make totally unscientific claims and no one will challenge us. I guess you would really prefer the old Silent Film rate of 14fps. In the "Arts" we never have to place a Man on the Moon, so we are allowed to utter gibberish, unchallenged. The Engineers picked 24fps because it was the most economical rate that they could, "get away with". A low frame rate is still used today, for reasons of economy.

 

[Peter Moretti]

You are right ATSC not NTSC is the high def standard. But 1080i is the predominant broadcast format for most stations and it is comprised of 60 interlaced fields or 60 progressive frames in the case of 720P but the point I was making is that there is no magic in the 24P format that makes it more filmic. The magic actually happens in the 3:2 pulldown when the 24 frames are converted into 30 frames, the six missing frames are essentially a double exposure of the before and after frame in the 24P source material or in effect a 720 degree shutter angle 6 frames out of 30. If you don't believe me play a 24P movie back frame by frame that has been converted into 30P (60i or 60P). So the point I was making, is that if you have three frames at a 180 degree shutter followed by one frame shot with a 720 degree shutter, why not just shoot the whole thing a t a 270 or 360 degree shutter and not have to deal with the strobing artifacts that digital cinema cameras like the Red produce. I find the strobing issues much more annoying and less cinematic than any magic that the 3:2 pull down creates. To top it off now people like Peter Jackson are shooting their films in 48P because the demands of digital effects and compositing require more frames rather than less frames to create a believable cinema effect.

JR, I don't believe that adding a pulldown is the only way to convert 24P to 30P, 60i or 60P. Aren't some algorithms are more sophisticated than that? But if you are delivering only in a broadcast format, then it certainly seems to make sense to shoot in that format, or a close relative of it.

 

[Brian Merlen]

"Its all about that judder baby"

 

[Björn Benckert]

JR, I don't believe that adding a pulldown is the only way to convert 24P to 30P, 60i or 60P. Aren't some algorithms are more sophisticated than that? But if you are delivering only in a broadcast format, then it certainly seems to make sense to shoot in that format, or a close relative of it.

I give up, try it and maybe you like it. But do you honestly think they been shooting film in in 24fps and done this terrible 3:2 expand and collapse process all this time just for fun? when doing commericals it's quite a slim difference in budget if you shoot 30fps or 24fps on film still everyone one does the 24fps. And today transfer in 24p and post in 24p and then make ugly transition masters in NTSC framerate. Why because it does actually look better than shooting in NTCS standard. A shitty standard that became what it is because the us has 60Hz 120v electricity.