Cheers for the Video clip! Sorry for butting in, I would love your initial thoughts. Have you heard about - Riddleagan handling camera Remedy (erm, check it on google should be there)? It is a good one of a kind product for learning dslr video tricks without the headache. Ive heard some incredible things about it and my best friend Jordan finally got amazing success with it.
Kudos for the video content! Sorry for butting in, I am interested in your initial thoughts. Have you ever tried - Riddleagan handling camera Remedy (just google it)? It is a smashing exclusive guide for learning dslr video tricks minus the normal expense. Ive heard some awesome things about it and my mate after a lifetime of fighting got amazing success with it.
Lovely video content! Sorry for the intrusion, I would love your initial thoughts. Have you researched - Riddleagan handling camera Remedy (google it)? It is a great one off product for learning dslr video tricks minus the normal expense. Ive heard some pretty good things about it and my friend Sam after many years got great results with it.
Nice video content! Forgive me for the intrusion, I would love your initial thoughts. Have you considered - Riddleagan handling camera Remedy (google it)? It is an awesome exclusive product for making sales videos super fast and make money minus the headache. Ive heard some unbelievable things about it and my close friend Aubrey at very last got excellent success with it.
You spoke of the problem of using 30fps footage in a 24fps project making a jerky image. This can be corrected by adjusting the 30fps clip speed to 80% (or using the "Automatic Speed" option in the FCPX retime menu). This will make the clip run perfectly smoothly. This is how the math works - for example, if you shoot a 4 second clip at 30fps you have captured 120 frames. Divide those same 120 frames by 24 and you now 5 seconds of video, which is the same as running the clip at 80% speed. Obviously this slows the footage down a little, so you can't use it with people speaking, but it would have worked perfect for the example clips shown in your video.
I’m a new TH-camr all the way from Namibia … and I must say,from all the videos I’ve gone through seeking clarity on which fps would suits which moment …. This was outstanding …smooth and broken down very nicely 👊
Took me a while to realize why the footage I was getting from my Mavic 2 was stuttering... I was putting it into FCPX at a different frame rate and FCPX was, in effect, dropping frames. The compensation meant that I had to go into my editing program and delete every fifth frame, which had been added by duplicating the previous frame, to get a smooth shot. Yes, frame rates are important, both in shooting and in editing what you've shot!
Lol well said. Hell shoot at 1fps. 24 times as professional and artsy. IMO, more frame rates, more data and information, more fluidity is pretty much always better. The explanation for 24fps being desirable just seemed more like a rhetorical flourish.
Just got my Apeman A80 4K camera and had no clue the differences in resolutions. This video was extremely helpful and has given me a good foundation to start playing around with different shots during different times. Well done and thank you!
Frame rate can have a noticeable effect on the perceived smoothness of slow camera panning shots. The slower the frame rate, the choppier the pan will look, and there's a hidden pitfall those who shoot in 24 fps often encounter. Most monitors and TV's refresh their image at 60 Hz. Since 24 fps does not divide evenly into 60, that 24 fps footage produces an uneven refresh rate when displayed at 60 Hz, which can make slow pans look ragged. To produce the smoothest pans for display on 60 Hz monitors, the best camera frame rates are 60 fps and 30 fps.
Agreed!! I shoot EVERYTHING in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps Timeline. People it’s 2022 so do we really need to be shooting and editing at only 24fps because that’s what they had available in the 1930´s and 40 ‘s with their old metallic mechanical shutters? Many TH-camrs insist on this traditional way of doing things. We now have the technology to do much better. 24fps has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to. Especially when panning or scenes with lots of motion you know what I’m talking about! I have done many side by side tests with this and that is why I shoot at 60fps and EDIT at 60fps that way your audio is still in sync (everything is real-time not slo-mo) but you have more frames to capture crisp, clear, sharp detail and movement in the scene and especially when you pan!! You still get some nice motion blur. A little motion-blur is natural but fuzzy pixels and stuttering jittery motion when panning at 24p drives me crazy. It’s terrible at accurately depicting motion! Yes your files at 60p are larger, doesn’t bother me…I usually try to stick with the 180 degree rule for shutter so 1-125. I will try using it at 1-60 sec shutter as Gerald Undone suggests to minimized the ‘soap opera effect’. SHOOTING AT 60P is so immersive and life-like (Edit in 60 p though) Try it you’ll see….
@@LuxuryRumble There are 3 phases of video making. Shooting, editing and publishing. You wanna make sure you use the right fps for ALL phases, shot 24 fps, edit at 24 fps, publish at 24 fps. If you wanna shot at 24 fps, then 24 fps all the way. Same goes for 30 and 60 fps. That is IF you wanna have slow motion effect, then you can shot at 60 fps, scale down editing at 30 fps, then you'll get the 50% slow motion effect.
One thing that isn't really addressed in this video is shutter angle/speed. If your shooting at 30 fps with a 180 degree shutter and export it to 24 fps you will get that choppy look because your not getting as much motion blur as you would with a 24 fps 180 degree shutter. The real question IMO is what's the best shutter angle to use at higher fps so that you can both slow down the video and capture fast moving objects but also get that cinematic look from the final export.
That's a great question, but there isn't probably a "best" shutter angle that covers all the situations at, say, 120fps, in order to convert to 24fps, 30fps or 60fps...
Of all the videos I’ve watch in explaining frame rates yours is the best.! Wasn’t too long and drawn out and you gave examples and personal experience. Awesome job!
I have just got a dvc and u have showed me the reason for 24,30,or 60 fps,I have never heard of any of that ,am just learning how to use a dvc ,but with your help I now know what it means, cheers pal ,am from the UK 🇬🇧 👍
So glad to hear that about the smooth motion on the TV! I can't stand watching it like that, too. I never knew what was up until you said it like that. Didn't feel like cinema and almost made my eyes and head hurt. Thanks for making me not feel like I was going insane. Love the videos!
If content creators would shoot in 60fps, we wouldn't need TVs to compensate like this. 24fps results in a blurry mess whenever the camera pans or there's too much action in the frame. My TV motion smoothing is set on and locked on because I prefer reality to brush strokes.
+Ed Ricker a nice one! And you were absolutely right when you chose 60 fps timeline for the video with a bunch of clips with different framerates mixed together. But not because "the frame per second container was big enought to house all thee framerates", but because 60 fps is the native framerate of most of the monitors/displays nowadays, because the internal refreshrate for them is 60Hz. So every video no matter how cinematic it is will be converted to 60 fps before go to human eyes. It seems you know the math, so you can't deny that 24 fps can't be converted to 60 without adding some irregularity to frame display times. Conversion process from 24 to 60 is so called 3:2 pulldown: odd frames will be trippled and even frames will be doubled. So that's why you can see that stutter (which is so called judder), but not just because a lack of framerate. Lack of framerate adds just 25% of stutter, but judder adds another 33% to this 25% of stutter. Just a simple math which no one on TH-cam wants to talk about for some reason, but just one kid: th-cam.com/video/pjMtux_zFU4/w-d-xo.html Let's keep that 24 fps dreamy stuttery look to our dreams and start shoot smooth videos, using 30 for everething.
Correct about pulldown, but when people aspire to a "cinematic" look the list of qualities that makes something look "cinematic" includes the framerate -- and shutter speed/angle -- that is the same as cinema, that is, film, which was (and still is, for directors who have the power to insist on film) shot on motion picture film cameras. Of course, there's more to getting that look than just the frame rate & shutter speed/angle (e.g image quality, lighting, aspect ratio, properly-supported camera movement, and pacing (editing for the big screen), and full soundtracks well-recorded in production and expanded and sweetened in post, etc. Pulldown and drop-frame vs. non-drop timecode is complicated, but eventually it's unavoidable for the cinematographer and editor (and postproduction supervisor and assistant editors) to deal with it.
Great information! I'm one of the few who prefers 30fps over 24. There is a jerky-ness to 24 that I don't like. And, when filming a computer screen, or a projected image, like a PowerPoint presentation, or when filming under fluorescent lights, as I've been doing for the past 2 days for a client, I can stick with the rule of 180, at 1/60th shutter speed, and get rid of the flicker caused by these problems. Just a friendly FYI ~ there's no "x" in the word "especially" :)
Nice video Ed. As a point of clarification, the Seinfeld clip you showed was shot on film at 24 fps. When transferred to standard definition video a "3:2 pulldown" was used to convert from 24 to 30 (actually 23.98 to 29.97 at that point). Modern sitcoms are shot digitally at 24 fps.
Ed. Shoot all voice at 24fps. B roll at 30 or 60. For your 30fps to 24 don't drop frames. Expand the footage out so you keep all 6 frames. The slight slow down is VERY dramatic and no loss of quality.
Maybe you could do a video on it :) Granted, this is for those who like the 24 frame cinematic feel, otherwise 30 as the base and 60 are easy. I just love the 30 frames expanded out to 24 timeline look - its very difficult to simulate otherwise.
@@ScottSkywalker Hi Scott, sorry for the late reply but it sounds like he's intending for the final export to be 24fps. So a 24fps timeline, and then slowing down the 30fps clip speed by 20% (30x0.2=6 frames) to achieve a true 24fps clip with minimal slo-mo effect.
As a noob in filmmaking I will have to try this. I've been using 60fps because I am also a video editor and do alot of post editing with slow downs here and there
I love learning new things. Just bought the Mavic Air Drone AND a Sony RX100 mVI, so I need to learn as much about photography, videography, and drone photo/videography as I can, and your explanations are pitched exactly to someone like me, so thanks a lot!
unpopular Oppinion: I actually prefer 25fps over 24. I know its barely a difference and most people wont even notice it but thats exactly what it makes so great for cinematic video. that one fps actually almost takes away the ugly "lag" and "framestuttering" you get when you pan or move the camera while still looking cinematic af. and all it takes is to set your camera to PAL instead on NTSC. like I get that this would be complicated for people from NTSC areas when pressing theyr stuff on Blurays or anything, but if its for TH-cam anyway.. why not go 25fps? Im not sure why so many people are stuck on that 24fps, even here in Germany/Europe everyone shoots 24 while 25fps clearly is the better option.
Totally agreed. 30 fps is the best choise for TH-cam anyway because of 60 Hz displays are the most common thing in the world to display the TH-cam content, but 25 fps definitely looks much better even for my eyes that just can't withstand 24 fps pans. It seems that irregular 25->60 convertion pattern is much more pleasant for human brain rather than regular 3:2:3:2:3:2 pattern for 24->60 convertion.
Actually, you want your frame rate to match the refresh rate of your viewing device, otherwise you get stuttering (unless it is an exact division). Since allmost all modern viewing devices refresh at 60 Hz you should be using 60fps for most stuff.
@@Tugela60 it looks like a bunch of people knows that, even kids are able to understand that, but not "filmmakers" for some reason. I had no luck trying to explain that to a bunch of filmmakers on TH-cam...
@@thisisfela in 30 fps man, in 30! Actually, I just want that people would be aware of the problem of these rame rates that just don't fit evenly to refresh rate. No one filmmaker talk about that. If you will search for "why 24 fps is not the best frame rate for TH-cam" you will found just one video about that made by a kid and ton of bullsh*t about "dreamy look" of 24 fps. And this is the problem. People just don't realise that monitor is not a cinema projector.
Thanks so much for explaining this. I made my first short film recently and wondered why it looked too life-like and not cinematic. This is the reason... next film I make will look better thanks to your video
You know, I've watched a lot of these videos that try to explain the different frame rates but none of them make much sense... this one just clicked for me 👍
+Ed Ricker Most "Frame Rate" discussions, yours included, do not address the Video Frame Rate vs Monitor Refresh Rate math and the resulting 6 fps "Judder" playing a 24 fps video on a 30fps, 60 Hz Refresh Rate monitor. It's just simple math where 6 frames per second must be repeated or you'd have a blank frame 6 times per second. Please explain how there would be no "Judder."
Now most of modern tvs do have the capacity of showing many different frame rates. But usually even when edited in 24 fps and sending in ntac through tv at 30 fps is not a problem. They do a workaround and somehow convert it to a 30 fps film. I forgot that freaking name.
Hi Ed, very good explanation of the difference. I understand why large productions still shoot in 24 fps but it does come at a cost. I have seen recent high end movies shot at 24 fps that generally look OK until they try and horizontally pan and the choppy stuttering during the panning looks very amateurish. I am much of the view that higher frame rates can do a lot more as long as the camera work is of the same quality as the cinema tradition. I generally shoot outdoors by hand with an Sony AX700 and in 1080 you have a lot of freedom with panning and movement. Shooting at 4k@30 is more work and at 30 fps you have to pan more carefully to avoid the stuttering. You can compensate with a longer shutter setting but this just smears the movement. I see 24 fps as tripod only video as it is very difficult to shoot decent footage by hand.
Wrong. 24 is our normal eye speed and brain translation. Has nothing to do woth more conematic. Cinema uses 24 fps because it,s what looks the most natural to our brains and eyes. Never above.
@@jamaicanxhoney4606 it is not an opinion. I didn,t say it because i believe it is so. It is scientificaly speaking realy so. Our eyes only work wirk with 24 fps per second. When less frames we percieve a strobe motion. You may know that effect from discos when the light turns off and on constantly. Fast enough. I jever said 60 fps don,t look good. I said it is not life like. Just make a test with your hand a nd th camera. Shoot at 24 fps shutter speed 1/50, then 60fps shutter speed 1/120. You will notice the difference a little bit of motion blur on the 24 fps footage very crisp fast moving image on the 60fps. Drop them on a 24 fps timeline. The subje t your gonna shoot is your hand waving fast enough. Once you did that, justtake your hand in front of you and wave it at same speed. Then please telle me which one of those two frame rates looks mor real ti your real hand wave in front of your eyes.i already know the answer. Then you don,t wanna shoot 24 fps cause it, cinematic but because it lools more natural. Plus when you shoot audio like people talking you will prefershooting at 24 fps. It,s simple math and simple science. In the end, and here is where the opinion comes in, you can shoot whichever way you want to shoot and edit your videos. Nobody is stoping you. I am merely saying that using the word cinematic for 24 fps is a misconception. Just saying it is not right. There is a reason to it. Nothing more nothing less.ihope it helps.
Really good explanations for FPS, I use GoPro Hero 5 Black and as am in UK we do have different Frame rates than yourselves in USA, but this video has really explained everything I need to know about the different rates, so a big thank you from me. I have subscribed to your channel, will follow you now and catch up on your previous vids too.
I want as many frames as possible regardless of situation. I was hoping to get the Mavic 2 Pro but the omission of 4k 60fps broke the deal. If lighting conditions allow I sometimes shoot normal video at 1080p 240fps (no drone involved off course). It runs perfectly on my current monitor when set to 120 Hz and will run even better once I move to 240 Hz. At 27” I’m not so sure 240 Hz would give me much of an improvement but on a much larger screen (and especially in future VR usage) it definitely would still lead to some improvement. Admittedly I do this more as a test rather than anything else at this point since with current tech you tend to sacrifice more than you get regarding resolution and over all image clarity compared to 4k 60fps. But if I could choose between 4k 60fps and 4k 120fps or even 4k 240fps there would be no contest. I always prefer accurate representation rather than some stylized or artistic frame rate such as 24fps. Motion is part of any actual accurate representation and 24fps is terrible at accurately depicting motion for obvious reasons. It isn’t strange that people connect 24fps with cinema like qualities. Except for during the very early days where fps was often times even lower most movies use it while most other things don’t. So through the power of simple psychological association most tend to feel that there is something off if a movie doesn’t sport 24fps or even film grain. If it were up to me and if technology and cost would easily allow it then I’d drop 24fps like a hot potato and move to whatever highest fps the human eye is capable of benefitting from. The kids being born now would then simply see that as the normal cinematic style. And I can almost guarantee that the very same kids wouldn’t just say that 24fps feels “uncinematic”. All the rather they’d most likely say that it looks like rubbish and is unpleasant to look at. Even I cringe when ever I experience a panning shot at 24fps on a large screen. It’s nothing short of epilepsy inducing and it does nothing for my immersion or presence. If anything it pulls me out of it. Over all 24fps has a very unclean and in no way pleasant look to it imo. While I’ve never liked the low frame rates of most movies and videos this has been reinforced over the last decade or so. Ever since we were given the opportunity to easily move to higher frame rates.
I agree completely. I always prefer any video I shoot, or any content I watch to be at least 60fps. But more is better. HFR movies at 120 fps look the best to me honestly. Higher Framerate is always better to me.
YES YES YES!! You get it! I am a TV Producer with 40 yrs experience I shoot EVERYTHING in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps Timeline. People it’s 2022 so do we really need to be shooting and editing at only 24fps because that’s what they had available in the 1930´s and 40 ‘s with their old metallic mechanical shutters? Many TH-camrs insist on this traditional way of doing things. We now have the technology to do much better. 24fps has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to. Especially when panning or scenes with lots of motion you know what I’m talking about! I have done many side by side tests with this and that is why I shoot at 60fps and EDIT at 60fps that way your audio is still in sync (everything is real-time not slo-mo) but you have more frames to capture crisp, clear, sharp detail and movement in the scene and especially when you pan!! You still get some nice motion blur. A little motion-blur is natural but fuzzy pixels and stuttering jittery motion when panning at 24p drives me crazy. It’s terrible at accurately depicting motion! Yes your files at 60p are larger, doesn’t bother me…I usually try to stick with the 180 degree rule for shutter so 1-125. I will try using it at 1-60 sec shutter as Gerald Undone suggests to minimized the ‘soap opera effect’. SHOOTING AT 60P is so immersive and life-like (Edit in 60 p though) Nice to find someone like-minded who is not drinking the 24p Koolaid!! 😉
Thank You Ed, this was a very helpful and interesting, tips and ticks video. Much easier to understand with your video segments showing the differences,again, my thanks!
Thanks for the info. Most of my videos are either motorbike rides or motorcycle maintenance tutorials. I was shooting 1080p60 mostly because my Go Pro and my DJI Osmo seemed to handle those the best. I recently tried 4k 60 on my Osmo, mounted to my helmet and I really liked the look. Because the gimbal stabilises the subject, you can get away with 30 fps and it gives a nice motion blur on the edges but, like you said - it's up to you to create the look that you like. Thanks for the great video - it really explains the differences clearly. It is good that you mention the capabilities of different screens/monitors as that really is something that needs to be considered. Cheers!😁
WOW what a great video ED!! Thank You! Here are my thoughts after 40 years as a TV Producer; I shoot EVERYTHING Sony a7Siii) in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps Timeline. People it’s 2022 so do we really need to be shooting and editing at only 24fps because that’s what they had available in the 1930´s and 40 ‘s with their old metallic mechanical shutters? Many TH-camrs insist on this traditional way of doing things. We now have the technology to do much better. 24fps has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to. Especially when panning or scenes withI shoot EVERYTHING in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps. 24fps for me has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to for the movement. Especially when panning or scenes with lots of motion you know what I’m talking about! I have done many side by side tests with this and that is why I shoot at 60fps and EDIT at 60fps that way your audio is still in sync (everything is real-time not slo-mo) but you have more frames to capture crisp, clear, sharp detail and movement in the scene and especially when you pan!! You still get some nice motion blur. A little motion-blur is natural but fuzzy pixels and stuttering jittery motion when panning at 24p drives me crazy. Yes your files at 60p are larger, doesn’t bother me…I usually try to stick with the 180 degree rule for shutter so 1-125. I will try using it at 1-60 sec shutter as Gerald Undone suggests to minimized the ‘soap opera effect’. SHOOTING AT 60P is so immersive and life-like (Edit in 60p though)
Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter! I think it's like manual vs automatic in a car. There are pros and cons to both, and you'll never convince someone who prefers manual that automatic is better (and vice versa). This whole video medium is largely subjective to personal taste. I still like my 24fps for certain types of projects.
@@EdRickerVlogs You’re right! Just trying to do the best, most watchable videos and 24p has me stumped. I might be missing something though I see many comments now as people explore higher frame rates. FilmicPro has a GREAT video on this. Thanks my friend!
Disagree sorry- It’s also the way it’s shot and lit. I shoot EVERYTHING in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps Timeline. It’s 2022 so do we really need to be shooting and editing at only 24fps because that’s what they had available in the 1930´s and 40 ‘s with their old metallic mechanical shutters? Many TH-camrs insist on this traditional way of doing things. We now have the technology to do much better. 24fps has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to. Especially when panning or scenes with lots of motion you know what I’m talking about! I have done many side by side tests with this and that is why I shoot at 60fps and EDIT at 60fps that way your audio is still in sync (everything is real-time not slo-mo) but you have more frames to capture crisp, clear, sharp detail and movement in the scene and especially when you pan!! You still get some nice motion blur. A little motion-blur is natural but fuzzy pixels and stuttering jittery motion when panning at 24p drives me crazy. Yes your files at 60p are larger, doesn’t bother me…I usually try to stick with the 180 degree rule for shutter so 1-125. I will try using it at 1-60 sec shutter as Gerald Undone suggests to minimized the ‘soap opera effect’. SHOOTING AT 60P is so immersive and life-like (Edit in 60 p though) Try it you’ll see….
How about shooting everything at 60 fps? I have been doing that for a few months now. Even for projects where I know I desire to have a 24fps final product. Ultimately, it gives me much more flexibility to edit and I actually love it!
You can't get a proper amount of motion blur if you are exporting 60 as 24 fps at a normal speed. Also, frames are being dropped unevenly in this case, that can cause jerky motions. 30 fps is a best choise for TH-cam.
24 FPS is movie like, 60 and above makes it look too real. Im one of those people that cannot watch movies in 60FPS, literally cant watch it, looks like cell phone footage.
You are pathetic and moronic. 60fps is nature, why wouldn't any body prefer otherwise? Stupid. I hate those 24fps even 30fps because I hate jumping frame. Smooth transition is what real life is.
Ed, I 'd just like to extend a huge thank you for your drone videos! They have inspired me to buy a Mavic Pro, and also to develope as a drone operator. ❤🤗
Every movie you ever seen was shot at 24 frames per second with three exceptions. Those exceptions are Oklahoma!, 1955, shot and 30 frames per second. Around the World in 80 Days, 1956, shot at 30 frames per second, and The Hobbit 2012, 2013, 2014, shot at 48 frames per second. This would include the vast majority of hour long television shows which were shot on film at 24 frames per second.
The diversity of opinions shows that frame rate considerations are a matter of personal taste. And it's wonderful that we have options to meet those differing preferences. For me, stuttering video breaks the spell. It shifts my focus to the technology instead of watching the video. That's not to say that all slower frame rate videos do this. The determining factor, IMHO, is camera panning. Action scenes viewed with a still camera-no issue to a point. If the action is close to the lens, then the jaggies appear. We have a 65" OLED TV and TH-cam videos shot in high res at 60 are spectacular. If you follow a 60 with a 30, you notice the difference. Cheers!
*Important* is to also adjust the shutter speed to nearly match the reciprocal of the frame rate. This blends each frame into the next and you don't see the frames as a series of individual images. 24 frames per second is obviously the worst in this regard; if you shoot 24 frames per second with a 1/500th shutter speed, you will see individual frames of anything that moves, there will be no sense of motion, it becomes "stroboscopic" in a sense. IN the case of drone, I use a Neutral Density filter to allow slower shutter speed and this has the effect of smoothing pans but it also blurs the propeller blades if they get in the shot. 60 frames per second makes wonderful drone video and achieves a nice sense of smooth motion. It is also the case that the video codec understands how to move an image without using a lot of bandwidth. If there's too much movement between frames the motion detector doesn't work and the entire frame will have to be encoded (not using any portion of the previous frame) and that cuts down quality dramatically producing an abrupt transition in quality while panning.
Yes, it's a good presentation. As all yours, keep it up. But, as always, nothing has been said here about the fact that frame rate should depend on viewers display refresh rate. Which is 60 Hz in most cases. 60 is not dividable to 24 evenly that leads to judder. My "cinematic" experience definitely differs for movies, watched in cinema and for movies, watched home on my PC or laptop. But surprise surprise, I don't watch TH-cam videos in cinema theaters. But 24 fps talking head videos looks perfect at 1.25x speed, because 24 * 1.25 = 30, lol. So, 24 fps is the best frame rate for that sort of videos just becase it's perfect for speedups ;D
Thanks for your views on frame rates. I struggle with making decisions regarding this. In the UK, our TV’s work at 25 and 50 and my camera will produce 4k at 25 or HD at 50. So the struggle is ... greater resolution but slightly jittery on camera movement or less resolution with smooth movement. My preference is 50 because I just can’t get past the slightly ‘removed’ feel of 25 and the panning problems. For still stuff though, I guess 25 might be ok and is close to 24 anyway. I just feel that 25 is on the verge of slow/cinematic where in the USA, 30 is significantly faster. So we either have cinematic or lifelike I guess.
Frame rates and hz refresh rate are a headache ,couldn't understand why my panasonic camcorder 1080p 50fps was so choppy,then i realized the monitor refresh rate was set to 60hz,set it to 50hz all was silky smooth .its a real pain as i have to go into monitor refresh settings on the nivida control panel to change whether or not the type of video framerate is to match,maybe more expensive modern monitors have auto refresh rate like some TVs now do
Thank you for mentioning the smooth motion TVs. I absolutely despise this look, especially on older movies. It looks completely unnatural, and makes every movement of the camera far more noticeable, almost as if the entire movie was shot with a handheld camera.
I prefer higher frame rates as it gives you more options in what you can do with the video whereas lower frame rates really limit what you can do, more so with fast scenes, but I do have to wonder with things like Freesync and VRR being added to HDMI 2.1, if variable frame rate could be an option to offer the best of both worlds depending on the scene at the given time, so lower frame rate when not much is going on and higher frame rate when a lot of action kicks off.
You'll still have the 24fps final product in that case, so technically yes. However, if you're shooting at 60fps you'll have to check on your shutter speed. Many times a 60fps clip has a 1/120 shutter speed (twice the frame rate) or at LEAST 1/60 shutter speed. With that high shutter speed, you won't have motion blur also associated with a filmic look. So the very best case scenario would be to shoot 24fps at 1/48 shutter speed when you intend on exporting at 24fps.
+Alistair Barclay also, you will end up with dropped frames that way because 60 is undividable to 24 evenly. And when your "cinematic" 24 fps will be played back, the opposite conversition process will take a place: 24 fps will be transformed to 60 on the fly because I bet most of your content viewers have a typical 60 Hz monitors/displays. Good luck with that overrated "cinematic look" ;)
I don't get why some people describe 60fps as the most lifelike. To me 60 looks hyper-real. There's a slight artificiality to it. Real life looks closer to 30fps to me. It isn't as smooth a 60fps. Wave you hand in front of your face, slowly even. There's way more motion blur than you would see in 60fps video shot with the proper shutter angle. Personally I'd be happy if everything were shot in 24fps. But I understand 30fps for things that aren't necessarily needing to look cinematic. 60fps should be limited to sports, video games, and slow-motion.
Obviously real life isn't in frames. The analogy isn't literal. I'm talking about what frame rate looks more or less equivalent to how we see. But it nevertheless does not follow that because our eyes don't have a literal "frame rate" that frame rates cannot exceed our vision. That's empirically incorrect. There's cameras which for the sake of slow motion can shoot tens -even hundreds- of thousands of frames per second. Our perceptions of nowhere near it. Real life *looks* more like 30fps.
I suppose it's because the shutter speed for 60fps is set to 120 so that each frame is rendered clear. This means that you have little to no motion blur on the subject and that's what you associate with 'real life' since our eyes create motion blur when we are moving, or look elsewhere quickly. Our eyes actually see in continuous motion so the more frames the closer to real life it actually is, but have this blurring effect would require having a lower shutter speed in relation to the FPS and I'm not sure if a decent shutter speed has been found with motion blur. (At the very least I havent heard anything)
@@rasmachris94 If you see motion blur in real life you will see it in high frame rate video as well. No difference. The only artifacts you should be seeing in any video is stuttering in fast moving objects since individual frames are resolve then spatially. That will be most prevalent at lower frame rates, and become less of an issue as frame rates increase. That is why sport is usually shot at 60 fps, the higher it is the more natural the motion is due to decreased stuttering. If you don't have a lot of motion you can get away with lower frame rates and it won't make a difference. The choice of 24 fps had more to do with minimizing cost in the days of analog film without the frequency being low enough that most motion could be discerned as individual frames. 24 fps was the best compromise. And shutter speeds were chosen to maximize exposure of individual frames while still leaving enough time to get the next frame of the film in place for the next exposure. The choice had nothing to do with some magical special frequency. People who think that 24 fps is somehow special have been conditioned to think like that like Pavlovs dogs by previous generations of film makers who used the 24 fps compromise. But, in any case, fast motion is blurred anyway since everything is encoded and moving objects are the first part of the image to be bottlenecked when bandwidth is tight.
Reality has been scientifically proven to be perceived at approximately 24FPS. Hollywood has known this for years! This is why 60FPS looks SO sterile. It is an artificial representation of reality. It might look clear, but everyday reality is full of motion-blur and imperfections. Our brain fills in the gaps. If you watch something at 60FPS you will soon become exhausted. Your brain subconsciously knows it is being fooled!
@@Tugela60 I really appreciate your input here, but your wrong. Lol, seriously though- it is a fact that higher fps needs more light. If you have a manual camera try it; keep all the settings the same a only change the fps- your 60fps footage will be darker. This is because the sensor is "open" for less time and picks up less light.
@@JermanRamirez On per frame basis yes, on a temporal basis, no. If you want to adjust exposure change aperture, shutter speed or gain. Frame blending works too, if motion is limited.
@@Tugela60 your skirting away from my point, 60fps needs more light. You can work around it and do post processing after the fact, but that's a different argument and those methods can be used to make 24/30fps look even better as well.
You're technically not wrong, but only if you increase the shutter speed of the DSLR to compensate for the increased FPS. Just changing from 24 to 30 to 60 wont actually make the footage any darker (I'd know i literally just tried this), there will just be more frames taken per second but they will be blurrier because the exposure will be too slow (think of a long exposure when taking a picture, it blurs if you or the subject moves). What will change the lighting of the footage is the shutter speed and therefore how long each frame is exposed for. It's recommended to have at least double the shutter speed of your FPS so that the footage is 'clear' and has less motion blur from the long exposure. This means a shutter speed of; 50 for 24/25fps, 60 for 30fps, 100 for 50fps, and finally 120 for 60fps. TL;DR: Shutter speed requires more lighting the higher you go, not FPS. However, to have less motion blur in your higher FPS footage, it's recommended to have higher shutter speeds which will require more lighting.
Im pleased to hear you say 60fps is best for action while so many videographers seemed totally wedded to 24fps because it looks "cinematic" Im afraid to me it looks blurry and seems essentially what it is..or why it is 24 fps..and that has all to do with cost of film...back in the dark ages! But, happy to accept some have grown used to that look and don't just a ccept it but expect it! You did not however deal with the fact that 24fps shown on most TVs now and certainly PC monitors, smart phones etc is going to be displayed at 30fps. You therefore see skipped frames and I can see them in your footage in this video when you are showing 24fps.
Hello, At about 6:25, you discuss smoothing of motion of modern smart TVs.... ‘....because that wasn’t how the cinematographer wanted that show or that movie to be watched’. Perfectly stated. I usually shoot in 30 and Have not tried to downgrade to 24, but with some upcoming landscape scenery I’m about to shoot, I may just film at 24fps. Sometimes I will shoot something in 60 and then decide if I want to downscale to 30. I enjoyed watching your video this morning on 24v30v60 FPS. Thank you for making it 😀 ~Bob
Currently watching Gemini at 60 FPS and it's AMAZING (just the picture, not the plot ^^). Sad thing they didn't release in original 120 FPS it was filmed on (I have 144 Hz monitor and I think it would be even better!).
Thank you so much for these kinds of videos. I just bought a DJI Mavic Mini which does 2k and a DJI Pocket. I never know what I should be using for our TH-cam channel. The frame rate of 30 is what we usually use.
nothing about 60 fps video quality < 24 fps video quality if we talk settings in camera..not in video...ofcourse if you have 3000$ camera ..you will not really see diff...buuuut if you have phone or dslr under 3k ..u will :) anyway 24 is cinematic 30 is tv 60/120 is commercial and sport and best way is go higher..and then convert ..but its works baaaaaaaaad for low price cameras
this was a great video Ed! Thank you for sharing, I'm just getting into videography that doesn't include hiding a point and shoot camera in the corner to capture candid videos of me and my friends lol
It's so stupid that people keep clinging to 24 FPS because that's how we are used to movies looking. When I first saw 60 FPS it looked like it was fast forward. I had never seen quick movement on screen ever. It didn't look right. I prefered 24 FPS for a long time. Until i got used to it. Now 24 FPS looks wrong. It looks really bad and unnatural to me. Doesn't look more "cinematic" or expensive. It just looks cheap and like a bunch of still images beeing shown after another.
It's not clinging, it's preference. While home tv displays being able to show higher frame rates is more or less new, cinemas have been able to project at different frame rates for as long as the medium has existed. And some filmmakers have played with shooting in higher frame rates going back decades. 24 didn't become the standard arbitrarily. Yes, it is ultimately subjective, but it has stuck for as long as it has because that aesthetic is generally preferred. Personally, I don't think 60 looks lifelike. I think it looks hyper-real, and slightly artificial. The motion you see with your own eyes is probably closer to 30fps, maybe a little more. But reality definitely does not look as smooth as 60fps shot at the correct shutter angle. Wave your hand in front of your face, slowly even. There is much more motion blue than 60fps video.
@@CharmingNewSociety What? early movies had variable frame rates and 24fps became the standard in the late 1920s with the introduction of sound in films because audio was played from a phonograph and changes in speed would either cause the audio to be out of sync or have constant changes in pitch. They didn't do any kind of survey or study when they chose it, they just went with the most widely used frame rate at the time. In fact, the flicker fusion threshold is 48Hz, not 24, which is why frames in 24fps movies are repeated 2 or 3 times to achieve rates of 48 or 72Hz in order to prevent visible flickering, as it would not only look bad but also cause headaches to some viewers. Our eyes don't work the same way as a screen or a projector and humans, on average, are capable of distinguishing a flash of light that lasts for 1/220th of a second (as observed by several studies in the mid to late 20th century). If it was close to 1/30th higher frame rates would barely make a difference at all. If you wave your finger in front of your face it's going to be moving across your visual field much faster than most of the things you are going to see on a screen, and you are also not focusing on it like you do when looking at a moving object in a video where everything is at the same distance from your eyes. These things are not going to change no matter the frame rate that's being used (motion blur can be present in movies of any frame rate too, so that reasoning makes no sense either way). A screen can't make moving images smoother than they are in real life because movement is still perceived by your eyes and is therefore subject to the same limitations as motion in real life, plus the limitations of the screen itself.
First of all... you should have explained video pull-down. Frame rate depends on your distribution target. 29.97 for television. 24 for DCP file generation. What do you mean by the "cinematic look"? Do you mean shallow DOF, or image blurring, or both? FPS has nothing to do with the cinematic look. Shutter speed/shutter angle does. FYI-most "taped" video productions, using studio cams, are shot at 60 FPS.
I'm referring to the framerate when I speak about this particular aspect of "cinematic look". I can change the shutter speed from 1/48 to 1/60 to 1/120 while recording 24FPS and it will ALWAYS look different than those same shutter speeds at 30FPS. The way it looks different is the way I like it to look for many projects, hence the "look" I'm going for. If you don't notice the visual difference between 24fps and 30fps independent of shutter speed, I don't know what to tell you... Also, distribution target is not an issue for most internet video platforms such as TH-cam or Facebook. I can choose to upload 30fps or 24fps or 60fps on a whim in those digital environments based solely on my visual preference. I would also imagine that anyone involved in television or movie production already has a education in frame rates and shutter speeds, so this presentation is not really for them...rather this is for the people who may be creating video projects for the first time and don't need to concern themselves with "pull-down" or television standards. According to my viewership feedback, most people just want to, say, know what frame rate to set their first drone at for tomorrow's maiden flight for example. Simple.
And that particular cinematic look is particular just for movies being watched on a regular 60 Hz display. True cinematic look of 24 FPS that all we can experience in cinema theaters has nothing in common. If you pay attention next time, being watch a movie in cinema theater, you would tell the difference - it looks as smooth as being shot at 30 fps if not smoother. And not only because of a right refresh rate of a cinema projector, but also because a typical LCD monitor adds its own blur to moving objects, but a cinema projector doesn't. Ed Ricker, trying to teach some of the "most people" you should have known some technical details first. Or try to listen to others when they try to provide you information instead of just deny the facts confirmed by a simple math: 24 FPS can't be displayed 60 times a second without a judder. Bye bye smooth pans, that are intact in cinema theaters.
@@diman4010 Ok, you know cinema theater and 60Hz, thanks for the info. I appreciate all info given to me. However, nothing you said addresses what I said in my reply to Jerry. I know what I like, and many people do too. You can't tell me that just because the math is wrong or the Hz is different that we're lying to ourselves about what we prefer to shoot in time after time. I like to view my 24fps footage displayed on the very computer screen I'm typing this message out. Sorry but that's just the case.
@Casi Epico He didn't actually say anything in favour of low frame rates besides the fact that he's used to seeing movies with high production values in 24 fps and he associates that frame rate with them. If frame rate was really an artistic choice every movie would have a different frame rate, but in reality 24 fps is nothing more than a dated standard from a century ago that movie producers are too afraid to change.
@@Oqwert Peter Jackson wasn't afraid, and he shot THE HOBBIT at 48 fps. I haven't seen it, so I can't offer my opinion, but I read that a LOT of people thought it looked "wrong." Maybe like the "soap opera effect" that the Smooth Motion TV sets create? I *have* seen that effect, and I hate it. This gets at the core question of whether we as viewers are only responding to 24 fps / 180 degree shutter as "the standard cinematic look" just because it is what 100 years of cinema used, and we associate it with our emotions about all those thousands of hours of films that we watched (well, some of us...), OR is it because 24 fps @ 180 degree shutter is closer to human visual perception and other framerates aren't?
@@uorvideo767 Even if 24 fps was closer to human perception (it isn't, studies have shown that we can perceive a frame in 1/200th of a second) our eyes are not synced up with the screen, so a 2x increase to 48 fps wouldn't make a perceivable difference at all; you just wouldn't see one in every two frames and movement wouldn't look any different.
60 fps is only good for animation, and some specific scenes. Genberal camra footage in 60fps is just awful. It shgould only be used for making smooth slow motion out of it. All that said, for animation with hard lines 60 fps is must
What would you recommend for shooting fast paced wildlife capture video for a youtube series? Also my videographer can get shaky at times because of the action
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out my video making gear at kit.co/EdRickerVlogs
AirVūz FPV Channel: www.airvuz.com/user/ricker-life-fpv
My drone gear: www.EdRicker.com
Your views and thoughts are interesting.
Cheers for the Video clip! Sorry for butting in, I would love your initial thoughts. Have you heard about - Riddleagan handling camera Remedy (erm, check it on google should be there)? It is a good one of a kind product for learning dslr video tricks without the headache. Ive heard some incredible things about it and my best friend Jordan finally got amazing success with it.
Kudos for the video content! Sorry for butting in, I am interested in your initial thoughts. Have you ever tried - Riddleagan handling camera Remedy (just google it)? It is a smashing exclusive guide for learning dslr video tricks minus the normal expense. Ive heard some awesome things about it and my mate after a lifetime of fighting got amazing success with it.
Lovely video content! Sorry for the intrusion, I would love your initial thoughts. Have you researched - Riddleagan handling camera Remedy (google it)? It is a great one off product for learning dslr video tricks minus the normal expense. Ive heard some pretty good things about it and my friend Sam after many years got great results with it.
Nice video content! Forgive me for the intrusion, I would love your initial thoughts. Have you considered - Riddleagan handling camera Remedy (google it)? It is an awesome exclusive product for making sales videos super fast and make money minus the headache. Ive heard some unbelievable things about it and my close friend Aubrey at very last got excellent success with it.
Best explanation of this I have found. You are the bomb. Everyone else got too technical. I really understand the frame rate setting now. Thank you
You spoke of the problem of using 30fps footage in a 24fps project making a jerky image. This can be corrected by adjusting the 30fps clip speed to 80% (or using the "Automatic Speed" option in the FCPX retime menu). This will make the clip run perfectly smoothly. This is how the math works - for example, if you shoot a 4 second clip at 30fps you have captured 120 frames. Divide those same 120 frames by 24 and you now 5 seconds of video, which is the same as running the clip at 80% speed. Obviously this slows the footage down a little, so you can't use it with people speaking, but it would have worked perfect for the example clips shown in your video.
Honestly, this was probably the most helpful video that I've seen so far. Thanks man.
As someone new to video editing I appreciate this video. I am learning everyday. Thanks
I’m a new TH-camr all the way from Namibia … and I must say,from all the videos I’ve gone through seeking clarity on which fps would suits which moment …. This was outstanding …smooth and broken down very nicely 👊
Took me a while to realize why the footage I was getting from my Mavic 2 was stuttering... I was putting it into FCPX at a different frame rate and FCPX was, in effect, dropping frames. The compensation meant that I had to go into my editing program and delete every fifth frame, which had been added by duplicating the previous frame, to get a smooth shot.
Yes, frame rates are important, both in shooting and in editing what you've shot!
I prefer 12FPS, because it looks twice as cinematic. Twice as expensive and professional.
Bravo!
so animatic
Lol well said.
Hell shoot at 1fps. 24 times as professional and artsy.
IMO, more frame rates, more data and information, more fluidity is pretty much always better. The explanation for 24fps being desirable just seemed more like a rhetorical flourish.
I "feel" its better
0 fps is unbeatable!
Very informative without being overly subjective (or at least, declaring when you’re being subjective).
Have a sub. 😀
Just got my Apeman A80 4K camera and had no clue the differences in resolutions. This video was extremely helpful and has given me a good foundation to start playing around with different shots during different times.
Well done and thank you!
Frame rate can have a noticeable effect on the perceived smoothness of slow camera panning shots. The slower the frame rate, the choppier the pan will look, and there's a hidden pitfall those who shoot in 24 fps often encounter. Most monitors and TV's refresh their image at 60 Hz. Since 24 fps does not divide evenly into 60, that 24 fps footage produces an uneven refresh rate when displayed at 60 Hz, which can make slow pans look ragged. To produce the smoothest pans for display on 60 Hz monitors, the best camera frame rates are 60 fps and 30 fps.
Basic common sense. 24 is outdated and should scratched along with .976 crap and drop non drop frames messy garbage. Should've been so along time ago
Agreed!! I shoot EVERYTHING in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps Timeline. People it’s 2022 so do we really need to be shooting and editing at only 24fps because that’s what they had available in the 1930´s and 40 ‘s with their old metallic mechanical shutters? Many TH-camrs insist on this traditional way of doing things. We now have the technology to do much better. 24fps has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to. Especially when panning or scenes with lots of motion you know what I’m talking about! I have done many side by side tests with this and that is why I shoot at 60fps and EDIT at 60fps that way your audio is still in sync (everything is real-time not slo-mo) but you have more frames to capture crisp, clear, sharp detail and movement in the scene and especially when you pan!! You still get some nice motion blur. A little motion-blur is natural but fuzzy pixels and stuttering jittery motion when panning at 24p drives me crazy. It’s terrible at accurately depicting motion! Yes your files at 60p are larger, doesn’t bother me…I usually try to stick with the 180 degree rule for shutter so 1-125. I will try using it at 1-60 sec shutter as Gerald Undone suggests to minimized the ‘soap opera effect’. SHOOTING AT 60P is so immersive and life-like (Edit in 60 p though) Try it you’ll see….
Totally agree with you,i always shoot at 60fps if shared online ,always looks better on monitors and mobile phones
24fps for vloging no fast movment ,,,,,30fps for walking round and vloggin ,,,,,, 60fps for drone and action :P or eve camra reviews :)
👌
Problem is when you want to mix these 2 then when you do convert 30 to 24 it will look like garbage ! So we have to stick to 30 ->30 or 24->24
@@LuxuryRumble There are 3 phases of video making. Shooting, editing and publishing. You wanna make sure you use the right fps for ALL phases, shot 24 fps, edit at 24 fps, publish at 24 fps. If you wanna shot at 24 fps, then 24 fps all the way. Same goes for 30 and 60 fps. That is IF you wanna have slow motion effect, then you can shot at 60 fps, scale down editing at 30 fps, then you'll get the 50% slow motion effect.
@@nBaqi clear.
@@nBaqi my template video is 50% vlog 50% cinematic (with slow motion effect) .. so i need to set my shot at 60 fps and the rest too right ?
One thing that isn't really addressed in this video is shutter angle/speed. If your shooting at 30 fps with a 180 degree shutter and export it to 24 fps you will get that choppy look because your not getting as much motion blur as you would with a 24 fps 180 degree shutter. The real question IMO is what's the best shutter angle to use at higher fps so that you can both slow down the video and capture fast moving objects but also get that cinematic look from the final export.
That's a great question, but there isn't probably a "best" shutter angle that covers all the situations at, say, 120fps, in order to convert to 24fps, 30fps or 60fps...
Of all the videos I’ve watch in explaining frame rates yours is the best.! Wasn’t too long and drawn out and you gave examples and personal experience. Awesome job!
I am a newbie in learning videography . I so very appreciate this training. Thank you so much!
I have just got a dvc and u have showed me the reason for 24,30,or 60 fps,I have never heard of any of that ,am just learning how to use a dvc ,but with your help I now know what it means, cheers pal ,am from the UK 🇬🇧 👍
So glad to hear that about the smooth motion on the TV! I can't stand watching it like that, too. I never knew what was up until you said it like that. Didn't feel like cinema and almost made my eyes and head hurt. Thanks for making me not feel like I was going insane. Love the videos!
If content creators would shoot in 60fps, we wouldn't need TVs to compensate like this. 24fps results in a blurry mess whenever the camera pans or there's too much action in the frame. My TV motion smoothing is set on and locked on because I prefer reality to brush strokes.
The was the clearest and most straightforward break down I've seen yet, thank you so much!
+Ed Ricker a nice one! And you were absolutely right when you chose 60 fps timeline for the video with a bunch of clips with different framerates mixed together. But not because "the frame per second container was big enought to house all thee framerates", but because 60 fps is the native framerate of most of the monitors/displays nowadays, because the internal refreshrate for them is 60Hz. So every video no matter how cinematic it is will be converted to 60 fps before go to human eyes. It seems you know the math, so you can't deny that 24 fps can't be converted to 60 without adding some irregularity to frame display times. Conversion process from 24 to 60 is so called 3:2 pulldown: odd frames will be trippled and even frames will be doubled. So that's why you can see that stutter (which is so called judder), but not just because a lack of framerate. Lack of framerate adds just 25% of stutter, but judder adds another 33% to this 25% of stutter. Just a simple math which no one on TH-cam wants to talk about for some reason, but just one kid: th-cam.com/video/pjMtux_zFU4/w-d-xo.html Let's keep that 24 fps dreamy stuttery look to our dreams and start shoot smooth videos, using 30 for everething.
Correct about pulldown, but when people aspire to a "cinematic" look the list of qualities that makes something look "cinematic" includes the framerate -- and shutter speed/angle -- that is the same as cinema, that is, film, which was (and still is, for directors who have the power to insist on film) shot on motion picture film cameras. Of course, there's more to getting that look than just the frame rate & shutter speed/angle (e.g image quality, lighting, aspect ratio, properly-supported camera movement, and pacing (editing for the big screen), and full soundtracks well-recorded in production and expanded and sweetened in post, etc.
Pulldown and drop-frame vs. non-drop timecode is complicated, but eventually it's unavoidable for the cinematographer and editor (and postproduction supervisor and assistant editors) to deal with it.
Common sense. 24p has no single advantage
@@uorvideo767 unavoidable cos burgers can't solve simple issue. WTF are .976 and non drop frame doing in the 21 century and for what reason? F none!
Great information! I'm one of the few who prefers 30fps over 24. There is a jerky-ness to 24 that I don't like. And, when filming a computer screen, or a projected image, like a PowerPoint presentation, or when filming under fluorescent lights, as I've been doing for the past 2 days for a client, I can stick with the rule of 180, at 1/60th shutter speed, and get rid of the flicker caused by these problems.
Just a friendly FYI ~ there's no "x" in the word "especially" :)
Animators: how dare you
I prefer 5 fps because it gives me the best cinematic visual and endures professionalism in my videos
I like 1 fps more personally It represents my taste in the finer things in life.
Good troll! Exactly how you should mock those "cinematic" imbeciles
lol
Nice video Ed. As a point of clarification, the Seinfeld clip you showed was shot on film at 24 fps. When transferred to standard definition video a "3:2 pulldown" was used to convert from 24 to 30 (actually 23.98 to 29.97 at that point). Modern sitcoms are shot digitally at 24 fps.
Ed. Shoot all voice at 24fps. B roll at 30 or 60. For your 30fps to 24 don't drop frames. Expand the footage out so you keep all 6 frames. The slight slow down is VERY dramatic and no loss of quality.
Good rule of thumb!
Maybe you could do a video on it :) Granted, this is for those who like the 24 frame cinematic feel, otherwise 30 as the base and 60 are easy. I just love the 30 frames expanded out to 24 timeline look - its very difficult to simulate otherwise.
Hey yeah... that may work well, and I will definitely give it a try....
If using all those FPS, what will you set your sequence setting to? what do you mean by expand the footage?
@@ScottSkywalker Hi Scott, sorry for the late reply but it sounds like he's intending for the final export to be 24fps. So a 24fps timeline, and then slowing down the 30fps clip speed by 20% (30x0.2=6 frames) to achieve a true 24fps clip with minimal slo-mo effect.
A newbie here. Love your videos. Clear explanations. I’ll start recording at 60fps from now on.
As a noob in filmmaking I will have to try this. I've been using 60fps because I am also a video editor and do alot of post editing with slow downs here and there
Excellent walkthrough on frame rates, reasons for each, and tips.
Really nice job. Going to refer all my student tv students to watch.
I love learning new things. Just bought the Mavic Air Drone AND a Sony RX100 mVI, so I need to learn as much about photography, videography, and drone photo/videography as I can, and your explanations are pitched exactly to someone like me, so thanks a lot!
unpopular Oppinion: I actually prefer 25fps over 24. I know its barely a difference and most people wont even notice it but thats exactly what it makes so great for cinematic video. that one fps actually almost takes away the ugly "lag" and "framestuttering" you get when you pan or move the camera while still looking cinematic af. and all it takes is to set your camera to PAL instead on NTSC. like I get that this would be complicated for people from NTSC areas when pressing theyr stuff on Blurays or anything, but if its for TH-cam anyway.. why not go 25fps?
Im not sure why so many people are stuck on that 24fps, even here in Germany/Europe everyone shoots 24 while 25fps clearly is the better option.
Totally agreed. 30 fps is the best choise for TH-cam anyway because of 60 Hz displays are the most common thing in the world to display the TH-cam content, but 25 fps definitely looks much better even for my eyes that just can't withstand 24 fps pans. It seems that irregular 25->60 convertion pattern is much more pleasant for human brain rather than regular 3:2:3:2:3:2 pattern for 24->60 convertion.
Actually, you want your frame rate to match the refresh rate of your viewing device, otherwise you get stuttering (unless it is an exact division). Since allmost all modern viewing devices refresh at 60 Hz you should be using 60fps for most stuff.
@@Tugela60 it looks like a bunch of people knows that, even kids are able to understand that, but not "filmmakers" for some reason. I had no luck trying to explain that to a bunch of filmmakers on TH-cam...
@@diman4010 so what do you want, people doing cinematic film in 60fps? Not gonna happen. It looks weird.
@@thisisfela in 30 fps man, in 30! Actually, I just want that people would be aware of the problem of these rame rates that just don't fit evenly to refresh rate. No one filmmaker talk about that. If you will search for "why 24 fps is not the best frame rate for TH-cam" you will found just one video about that made by a kid and ton of bullsh*t about "dreamy look" of 24 fps. And this is the problem. People just don't realise that monitor is not a cinema projector.
Thanks so much for explaining this. I made my first short film recently and wondered why it looked too life-like and not cinematic. This is the reason... next film I make will look better thanks to your video
You know, I've watched a lot of these videos that try to explain the different frame rates but none of them make much sense... this one just clicked for me 👍
This is extremely well done. I have been working with cameras and vid equipment for years and appreciate the effort to make this clear. Thanks.
+Ed Ricker Most "Frame Rate" discussions, yours included, do not address the Video Frame Rate vs Monitor Refresh Rate math and the resulting 6 fps "Judder" playing a 24 fps video on a 30fps, 60 Hz Refresh Rate monitor. It's just simple math where 6 frames per second must be repeated or you'd have a blank frame 6 times per second. Please explain how there would be no "Judder."
Now most of modern tvs do have the capacity of showing many different frame rates. But usually even when edited in 24 fps and sending in ntac through tv at 30 fps is not a problem. They do a workaround and somehow convert it to a 30 fps film. I forgot that freaking name.
Hi Ed, very good explanation of the difference. I understand why large productions still shoot in 24 fps but it does come at a cost. I have seen recent high end movies shot at 24 fps that generally look OK until they try and horizontally pan and the choppy stuttering during the panning looks very amateurish. I am much of the view that higher frame rates can do a lot more as long as the camera work is of the same quality as the cinema tradition. I generally shoot outdoors by hand with an Sony AX700 and in 1080 you have a lot of freedom with panning and movement. Shooting at 4k@30 is more work and at 30 fps you have to pan more carefully to avoid the stuttering. You can compensate with a longer shutter setting but this just smears the movement. I see 24 fps as tripod only video as it is very difficult to shoot decent footage by hand.
Totally!!
24 FPS Is only for cinematic if you got a good hand but I prefer 60 I love that high quality official loook it gives ❤️
Jamaican X Honey same
Clint Golub it’s just looks so live! ✨
Wrong. 24 is our normal eye speed and brain translation. Has nothing to do woth more conematic. Cinema uses 24 fps because it,s what looks the most natural to our brains and eyes. Never above.
Stephane Gregory your entitled to your opinion lol moving on....
@@jamaicanxhoney4606 it is not an opinion. I didn,t say it because i believe it is so. It is scientificaly speaking realy so. Our eyes only work wirk with 24 fps per second. When less frames we percieve a strobe motion. You may know that effect from discos when the light turns off and on constantly. Fast enough. I jever said 60 fps don,t look good. I said it is not life like. Just make a test with your hand a nd th camera. Shoot at 24 fps shutter speed 1/50, then 60fps shutter speed 1/120. You will notice the difference a little bit of motion blur on the 24 fps footage very crisp fast moving image on the 60fps. Drop them on a 24 fps timeline. The subje t your gonna shoot is your hand waving fast enough. Once you did that, justtake your hand in front of you and wave it at same speed. Then please telle me which one of those two frame rates looks mor real ti your real hand wave in front of your eyes.i already know the answer. Then you don,t wanna shoot 24 fps cause it, cinematic but because it lools more natural. Plus when you shoot audio like people talking you will prefershooting at 24 fps. It,s simple math and simple science. In the end, and here is where the opinion comes in, you can shoot whichever way you want to shoot and edit your videos. Nobody is stoping you. I am merely saying that using the word cinematic for 24 fps is a misconception. Just saying it is not right. There is a reason to it. Nothing more nothing less.ihope it helps.
Best explanation of the differences I've seen yet. Great video! I need to put this to the test now to see what I prefer.
Really good explanations for FPS, I use GoPro Hero 5 Black and as am in UK we do have different Frame rates than yourselves in USA, but this video has really explained everything I need to know about the different rates, so a big thank you from me. I have subscribed to your channel, will follow you now and catch up on your previous vids too.
I want as many frames as possible regardless of situation.
I was hoping to get the Mavic 2 Pro but the omission of 4k 60fps broke the deal.
If lighting conditions allow I sometimes shoot normal video at 1080p 240fps (no drone involved off course). It runs perfectly on my current monitor when set to 120 Hz and will run even better once I move to 240 Hz. At 27” I’m not so sure 240 Hz would give me much of an improvement but on a much larger screen (and especially in future VR usage) it definitely would still lead to some improvement.
Admittedly I do this more as a test rather than anything else at this point since with current tech you tend to sacrifice more than you get regarding resolution and over all image clarity compared to 4k 60fps. But if I could choose between 4k 60fps and 4k 120fps or even 4k 240fps there would be no contest. I always prefer accurate representation rather than some stylized or artistic frame rate such as 24fps. Motion is part of any actual accurate representation and 24fps is terrible at accurately depicting motion for obvious reasons.
It isn’t strange that people connect 24fps with cinema like qualities. Except for during the very early days where fps was often times even lower most movies use it while most other things don’t. So through the power of simple psychological association most tend to feel that there is something off if a movie doesn’t sport 24fps or even film grain.
If it were up to me and if technology and cost would easily allow it then I’d drop 24fps like a hot potato and move to whatever highest fps the human eye is capable of benefitting from. The kids being born now would then simply see that as the normal cinematic style. And I can almost guarantee that the very same kids wouldn’t just say that 24fps feels “uncinematic”. All the rather they’d most likely say that it looks like rubbish and is unpleasant to look at. Even I cringe when ever I experience a panning shot at 24fps on a large screen. It’s nothing short of epilepsy inducing and it does nothing for my immersion or presence. If anything it pulls me out of it. Over all 24fps has a very unclean and in no way pleasant look to it imo. While I’ve never liked the low frame rates of most movies and videos this has been reinforced over the last decade or so. Ever since we were given the opportunity to easily move to higher frame rates.
I agree completely. I always prefer any video I shoot, or any content I watch to be at least 60fps. But more is better. HFR movies at 120 fps look the best to me honestly. Higher Framerate is always better to me.
YES YES YES!! You get it! I am a TV Producer with 40 yrs experience
I shoot EVERYTHING in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps Timeline. People it’s 2022 so do we really need to be shooting and editing at only 24fps because that’s what they had available in the 1930´s and 40 ‘s with their old metallic mechanical shutters? Many TH-camrs insist on this traditional way of doing things. We now have the technology to do much better. 24fps has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to. Especially when panning or scenes with lots of motion you know what I’m talking about! I have done many side by side tests with this and that is why I shoot at 60fps and EDIT at 60fps that way your audio is still in sync (everything is real-time not slo-mo) but you have more frames to capture crisp, clear, sharp detail and movement in the scene and especially when you pan!! You still get some nice motion blur. A little motion-blur is natural but fuzzy pixels and stuttering jittery motion when panning at 24p drives me crazy. It’s terrible at accurately depicting motion! Yes your files at 60p are larger, doesn’t bother me…I usually try to stick with the 180 degree rule for shutter so 1-125. I will try using it at 1-60 sec shutter as Gerald Undone suggests to minimized the ‘soap opera effect’. SHOOTING AT 60P is so immersive and life-like (Edit in 60 p though) Nice to find someone like-minded who is not drinking the 24p Koolaid!! 😉
Thank You Ed, this was a very helpful and interesting, tips and ticks video. Much easier to understand with your video segments showing the differences,again, my thanks!
Thank you, for this explanatory video ... makes a lot more sense! You go straight to the point and without being boring.
At 4:07 I forgot everything in this video.
what video?
Ha ha ha...
Thanks for the info. Most of my videos are either motorbike rides or motorcycle maintenance tutorials. I was shooting 1080p60 mostly because my Go Pro and my DJI Osmo seemed to handle those the best. I recently tried 4k 60 on my Osmo, mounted to my helmet and I really liked the look. Because the gimbal stabilises the subject, you can get away with 30 fps and it gives a nice motion blur on the edges but, like you said - it's up to you to create the look that you like. Thanks for the great video - it really explains the differences clearly. It is good that you mention the capabilities of different screens/monitors as that really is something that needs to be considered. Cheers!😁
In cinema a 35mm film, 4-perf format at 24fps is 27.4 meters per minute, at 30fps is 34.3 meters per minute..
Another excellent concise video without the hystrionics found elsewhere.
I live in a PAL country, yet I prefer 30 and 60fps for all my cameras.
WOW what a great video ED!! Thank You!
Here are my thoughts after 40 years as a TV Producer; I shoot EVERYTHING Sony a7Siii) in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps Timeline. People it’s 2022 so do we really need to be shooting and editing at only 24fps because that’s what they had available in the 1930´s and 40 ‘s with their old metallic mechanical shutters? Many TH-camrs insist on this traditional way of doing things. We now have the technology to do much better. 24fps has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to. Especially when panning or scenes withI shoot EVERYTHING in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps. 24fps for me has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to for the movement. Especially when panning or scenes with lots of motion you know what I’m talking about! I have done many side by side tests with this and that is why I shoot at 60fps and EDIT at 60fps that way your audio is still in sync (everything is real-time not slo-mo) but you have more frames to capture crisp, clear, sharp detail and movement in the scene and especially when you pan!! You still get some nice motion blur. A little motion-blur is natural but fuzzy pixels and stuttering jittery motion when panning at 24p drives me crazy. Yes your files at 60p are larger, doesn’t bother me…I usually try to stick with the 180 degree rule for shutter so 1-125. I will try using it at 1-60 sec shutter as Gerald Undone suggests to minimized the ‘soap opera effect’. SHOOTING AT 60P is so immersive and life-like (Edit in 60p though)
Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter! I think it's like manual vs automatic in a car. There are pros and cons to both, and you'll never convince someone who prefers manual that automatic is better (and vice versa). This whole video medium is largely subjective to personal taste. I still like my 24fps for certain types of projects.
@@EdRickerVlogs You’re right! Just trying to do the best, most watchable videos and 24p has me stumped. I might be missing something though I see many comments now as people explore higher frame rates. FilmicPro has a GREAT video on this. Thanks my friend!
I like 60 frames per second because, for my eyes, that is what looks closest to reality.
Higher frame rates and the smooth motion feature makes things look like they were shot on a cheap home video camera. Thanks a million for sharing man.
Disagree sorry- It’s also the way it’s shot and lit. I shoot EVERYTHING in 60fps and then EDIT in a 60fps Timeline. It’s 2022 so do we really need to be shooting and editing at only 24fps because that’s what they had available in the 1930´s and 40 ‘s with their old metallic mechanical shutters? Many TH-camrs insist on this traditional way of doing things. We now have the technology to do much better. 24fps has too much choppiness and motion-blur as there are too few frames for the processor to write to. Especially when panning or scenes with lots of motion you know what I’m talking about! I have done many side by side tests with this and that is why I shoot at 60fps and EDIT at 60fps that way your audio is still in sync (everything is real-time not slo-mo) but you have more frames to capture crisp, clear, sharp detail and movement in the scene and especially when you pan!! You still get some nice motion blur. A little motion-blur is natural but fuzzy pixels and stuttering jittery motion when panning at 24p drives me crazy. Yes your files at 60p are larger, doesn’t bother me…I usually try to stick with the 180 degree rule for shutter so 1-125. I will try using it at 1-60 sec shutter as Gerald Undone suggests to minimized the ‘soap opera effect’. SHOOTING AT 60P is so immersive and life-like (Edit in 60 p though) Try it you’ll see….
How about shooting everything at 60 fps? I have been doing that for a few months now. Even for projects where I know I desire to have a 24fps final product. Ultimately, it gives me much more flexibility to edit and I actually love it!
You can't get a proper amount of motion blur if you are exporting 60 as 24 fps at a normal speed. Also, frames are being dropped unevenly in this case, that can cause jerky motions. 30 fps is a best choise for TH-cam.
Lalo racer wich is best for mobile video
@@diman4010 what is best fps for mobile video for best quality
I’m cringing so hard at myself reading this now. 🤦♂️ 60 fps always means lost frames and not ideal motion blur. I was dumb
@@RijoeDamy6444 Hi there! 30 fps for video is ideal!
Hi Ed! Thanks so much for being straight to the point, clear, and concise. This video saved me a ton of headaches in the very near future :)
24 FPS is movie like, 60 and above makes it look too real. Im one of those people that cannot watch movies in 60FPS, literally cant watch it, looks like cell phone footage.
You are pathetic and moronic. 60fps is nature, why wouldn't any body prefer otherwise? Stupid. I hate those 24fps even 30fps because I hate jumping frame. Smooth transition is what real life is.
@@TshaajThomas nope 99% of movies are 24fps so Ur wrong dumb bitch
@@bigpoppaHH69 Moron.
@@TshaajThomas hahahaha Ur a massive prick
@@TshaajThomas moron
Ed, I 'd just like to extend a huge thank you for your drone videos! They have inspired me to buy a Mavic Pro, and also to develope as a drone operator. ❤🤗
Every movie you ever seen was shot at 24 frames per second with three exceptions. Those exceptions are Oklahoma!, 1955, shot and 30 frames per second. Around the World in 80 Days, 1956, shot at 30 frames per second, and The Hobbit 2012, 2013, 2014, shot at 48 frames per second. This would include the vast majority of hour long television shows which were shot on film at 24 frames per second.
Watched a bunch of your videos to get a hang of filming and my drone! So helpful and clear!
I prefer 2fps, it looks much more professional
Excellent presentation ! Love this. Accurate, precise, easy to understand and very well done. Thanks for sharing
One added benefit of 24fps is that it it works better with animation. It just integrates better especially if you do any 3/1 2/1 animations
The diversity of opinions shows that frame rate considerations are a matter of personal taste. And it's wonderful that we have options to meet those differing preferences.
For me, stuttering video breaks the spell. It shifts my focus to the technology instead of watching the video. That's not to say that all slower frame rate videos do this. The determining factor, IMHO, is camera panning. Action scenes viewed with a still camera-no issue to a point. If the action is close to the lens, then the jaggies appear.
We have a 65" OLED TV and TH-cam videos shot in high res at 60 are spectacular. If you follow a 60 with a 30, you notice the difference.
Cheers!
4:06 When you watch a video to learn something, and suddenly something unexpectedly good shows up.
yeah...that blondie is HOT
*Important* is to also adjust the shutter speed to nearly match the reciprocal of the frame rate. This blends each frame into the next and you don't see the frames as a series of individual images. 24 frames per second is obviously the worst in this regard; if you shoot 24 frames per second with a 1/500th shutter speed, you will see individual frames of anything that moves, there will be no sense of motion, it becomes "stroboscopic" in a sense.
IN the case of drone, I use a Neutral Density filter to allow slower shutter speed and this has the effect of smoothing pans but it also blurs the propeller blades if they get in the shot.
60 frames per second makes wonderful drone video and achieves a nice sense of smooth motion. It is also the case that the video codec understands how to move an image without using a lot of bandwidth. If there's too much movement between frames the motion detector doesn't work and the entire frame will have to be encoded (not using any portion of the previous frame) and that cuts down quality dramatically producing an abrupt transition in quality while panning.
Good video. I enjoyed your presentation. You have a good flow and you held my attention. Thanks! 👍😃
Yes, it's a good presentation. As all yours, keep it up. But, as always, nothing has been said here about the fact that frame rate should depend on viewers display refresh rate. Which is 60 Hz in most cases. 60 is not dividable to 24 evenly that leads to judder. My "cinematic" experience definitely differs for movies, watched in cinema and for movies, watched home on my PC or laptop. But surprise surprise, I don't watch TH-cam videos in cinema theaters. But 24 fps talking head videos looks perfect at 1.25x speed, because 24 * 1.25 = 30, lol. So, 24 fps is the best frame rate for that sort of videos just becase it's perfect for speedups ;D
Thanks for breaking it down !
I feel like it finally got through my thick head
A friend of mine shoots wedding at 60 fps and then after editing he exports out to 29 fps.
exactly, there's really no point of shooting in 24 fps when you can edit videos anyway
How?
I shot in 60 for a video that I want to make cinematic (I didn’t know a lot) and now I’m trying to save it as 24 but it came out not smooth at all. 🥲
Thanks for your views on frame rates. I struggle with making decisions regarding this. In the UK, our TV’s work at 25 and 50 and my camera will produce 4k at 25 or HD at 50. So the struggle is ... greater resolution but slightly jittery on camera movement or less resolution with smooth movement. My preference is 50 because I just can’t get past the slightly ‘removed’ feel of 25 and the panning problems. For still stuff though, I guess 25 might be ok and is close to 24 anyway. I just feel that 25 is on the verge of slow/cinematic where in the USA, 30 is significantly faster. So we either have cinematic or lifelike I guess.
Frame rates and hz refresh rate are a headache ,couldn't understand why my panasonic camcorder 1080p 50fps was so choppy,then i realized the monitor refresh rate was set to 60hz,set it to 50hz all was silky smooth .its a real pain as i have to go into monitor refresh settings on the nivida control panel to change whether or not the type of video framerate is to match,maybe more expensive modern monitors have auto refresh rate like some TVs now do
for low fps you MUST have a long shutter speed to get motion blur, i like better a smooth clear video over a stuttering washed video
Thank you for mentioning the smooth motion TVs. I absolutely despise this look, especially on older movies. It looks completely unnatural, and makes every movement of the camera far more noticeable, almost as if the entire movie was shot with a handheld camera.
1:11 Shows Jimmy Fallon even though that's 60fps. smh
I prefer higher frame rates as it gives you more options in what you can do with the video whereas lower frame rates really limit what you can do, more so with fast scenes, but I do have to wonder with things like Freesync and VRR being added to HDMI 2.1, if variable frame rate could be an option to offer the best of both worlds depending on the scene at the given time, so lower frame rate when not much is going on and higher frame rate when a lot of action kicks off.
excuse my ignorance but if I shoot at 6ofps but export as 24fps does this not give the same "filmic" look as if filmed at 24fps?
You'll still have the 24fps final product in that case, so technically yes. However, if you're shooting at 60fps you'll have to check on your shutter speed. Many times a 60fps clip has a 1/120 shutter speed (twice the frame rate) or at LEAST 1/60 shutter speed. With that high shutter speed, you won't have motion blur also associated with a filmic look. So the very best case scenario would be to shoot 24fps at 1/48 shutter speed when you intend on exporting at 24fps.
Ed Ricker , thanks, and yes I had not thought of the 1/120 shutter speed and the effect that would have
+Alistair Barclay also, you will end up with dropped frames that way because 60 is undividable to 24 evenly. And when your "cinematic" 24 fps will be played back, the opposite conversition process will take a place: 24 fps will be transformed to 60 on the fly because I bet most of your content viewers have a typical 60 Hz monitors/displays. Good luck with that overrated "cinematic look" ;)
Great info! We're trying to get a ton of different shots for our music videos and vlogs and this helps a lot!!
I don't get why some people describe 60fps as the most lifelike. To me 60 looks hyper-real. There's a slight artificiality to it. Real life looks closer to 30fps to me. It isn't as smooth a 60fps. Wave you hand in front of your face, slowly even. There's way more motion blur than you would see in 60fps video shot with the proper shutter angle.
Personally I'd be happy if everything were shot in 24fps. But I understand 30fps for things that aren't necessarily needing to look cinematic. 60fps should be limited to sports, video games, and slow-motion.
Real life is no frames per second, lol.
The higher the frame rate the closer you get to reality. Life does not proceed in frames.
Obviously real life isn't in frames. The analogy isn't literal. I'm talking about what frame rate looks more or less equivalent to how we see. But it nevertheless does not follow that because our eyes don't have a literal "frame rate" that frame rates cannot exceed our vision. That's empirically incorrect. There's cameras which for the sake of slow motion can shoot tens -even hundreds- of thousands of frames per second. Our perceptions of nowhere near it. Real life *looks* more like 30fps.
I suppose it's because the shutter speed for 60fps is set to 120 so that each frame is rendered clear.
This means that you have little to no motion blur on the subject and that's what you associate with 'real life' since our eyes create motion blur when we are moving, or look elsewhere quickly. Our eyes actually see in continuous motion so the more frames the closer to real life it actually is, but have this blurring effect would require having a lower shutter speed in relation to the FPS and I'm not sure if a decent shutter speed has been found with motion blur. (At the very least I havent heard anything)
@@rasmachris94 If you see motion blur in real life you will see it in high frame rate video as well. No difference. The only artifacts you should be seeing in any video is stuttering in fast moving objects since individual frames are resolve then spatially. That will be most prevalent at lower frame rates, and become less of an issue as frame rates increase. That is why sport is usually shot at 60 fps, the higher it is the more natural the motion is due to decreased stuttering. If you don't have a lot of motion you can get away with lower frame rates and it won't make a difference.
The choice of 24 fps had more to do with minimizing cost in the days of analog film without the frequency being low enough that most motion could be discerned as individual frames. 24 fps was the best compromise. And shutter speeds were chosen to maximize exposure of individual frames while still leaving enough time to get the next frame of the film in place for the next exposure. The choice had nothing to do with some magical special frequency. People who think that 24 fps is somehow special have been conditioned to think like that like Pavlovs dogs by previous generations of film makers who used the 24 fps compromise.
But, in any case, fast motion is blurred anyway since everything is encoded and moving objects are the first part of the image to be bottlenecked when bandwidth is tight.
Reality has been scientifically proven to be perceived at approximately 24FPS. Hollywood has known this for years! This is why 60FPS looks SO sterile. It is an artificial representation of reality. It might look clear, but everyday reality is full of motion-blur and imperfections. Our brain fills in the gaps. If you watch something at 60FPS you will soon become exhausted. Your brain subconsciously knows it is being fooled!
Best explanation so far. What should you use for gimbal work?
60fps also needs more light, so unless you have a great camera, your footage may come out too dark.
Ummm....no.
@@Tugela60 I really appreciate your input here, but your wrong.
Lol, seriously though- it is a fact that higher fps needs more light. If you have a manual camera try it; keep all the settings the same a only change the fps- your 60fps footage will be darker. This is because the sensor is "open" for less time and picks up less light.
@@JermanRamirez On per frame basis yes, on a temporal basis, no.
If you want to adjust exposure change aperture, shutter speed or gain. Frame blending works too, if motion is limited.
@@Tugela60 your skirting away from my point, 60fps needs more light.
You can work around it and do post processing after the fact, but that's a different argument and those methods can be used to make 24/30fps look even better as well.
You're technically not wrong, but only if you increase the shutter speed of the DSLR to compensate for the increased FPS.
Just changing from 24 to 30 to 60 wont actually make the footage any darker (I'd know i literally just tried this), there will just be more frames taken per second but they will be blurrier because the exposure will be too slow (think of a long exposure when taking a picture, it blurs if you or the subject moves). What will change the lighting of the footage is the shutter speed and therefore how long each frame is exposed for.
It's recommended to have at least double the shutter speed of your FPS so that the footage is 'clear' and has less motion blur from the long exposure.
This means a shutter speed of; 50 for 24/25fps, 60 for 30fps, 100 for 50fps, and finally 120 for 60fps.
TL;DR:
Shutter speed requires more lighting the higher you go, not FPS.
However, to have less motion blur in your higher FPS footage, it's recommended to have higher shutter speeds which will require more lighting.
Im pleased to hear you say 60fps is best for action while so many videographers seemed totally wedded to 24fps because it looks "cinematic" Im afraid to me it looks blurry and seems essentially what it is..or why it is 24 fps..and that has all to do with cost of film...back in the dark ages! But, happy to accept some have grown used to that look and don't just a ccept it but expect it! You did not however deal with the fact that 24fps shown on most TVs now and certainly PC monitors, smart phones etc is going to be displayed at 30fps. You therefore see skipped frames and I can see them in your footage in this video when you are showing 24fps.
I used to think fps stood for “faps per second”
Best explanation I could find related to FPS! Thanks a lot!👍
I prefer 2.4 FPS, because it looks ten times as cinematic. Ten times more expensive and professional.
I shoot alot like you do with mixed frame rates, action, sports, wedding, so this was very, very helpful!!
Can I just shoot everything in 60fps (just in case I need to make it slo-mo), and render it in 24fps?
no
Hello,
At about 6:25, you discuss smoothing of motion of modern smart TVs....
‘....because that wasn’t how the cinematographer wanted that show or that movie to be watched’.
Perfectly stated.
I usually shoot in 30 and Have not tried to downgrade to 24, but with some upcoming landscape scenery I’m about to shoot, I may just film at 24fps.
Sometimes I will shoot something in 60 and then decide if I want to downscale to 30.
I enjoyed watching your video this morning on 24v30v60 FPS. Thank you for making it 😀
~Bob
The best looking movie I have ever seen was the hobbit in imax at 48fps
Currently watching Gemini at 60 FPS and it's AMAZING (just the picture, not the plot ^^). Sad thing they didn't release in original 120 FPS it was filmed on (I have 144 Hz monitor and I think it would be even better!).
Thank you so much for these kinds of videos. I just bought a DJI Mavic Mini which does 2k and a DJI Pocket. I never know what I should be using for our TH-cam channel. The frame rate of 30 is what we usually use.
nothing about 60 fps video quality < 24 fps video quality if we talk settings in camera..not in video...ofcourse if you have 3000$ camera ..you will not really see diff...buuuut if you have phone or dslr under 3k ..u will :)
anyway 24 is cinematic
30 is tv
60/120 is commercial and sport
and best way is go higher..and then convert ..but its works baaaaaaaaad for low price cameras
this was a great video Ed! Thank you for sharing, I'm just getting into videography that doesn't include hiding a point and shoot camera in the corner to capture candid videos of me and my friends lol
24 fps hurts my eyes to look at. I will aways shoot 60fps. this make any slo mo better as well
This is spot on. GREAT job Ed
Great video and very helpful! But please you gotta stop saying "exspecially".
You gotta change your R to a D
You get my upvote because I didn't expect the drone FPV footage. Damn I need to fix my quad and get out again!
It's so stupid that people keep clinging to 24 FPS because that's how we are used to movies looking. When I first saw 60 FPS it looked like it was fast forward. I had never seen quick movement on screen ever. It didn't look right. I prefered 24 FPS for a long time. Until i got used to it. Now 24 FPS looks wrong. It looks really bad and unnatural to me. Doesn't look more "cinematic" or expensive. It just looks cheap and like a bunch of still images beeing shown after another.
It's not clinging, it's preference. While home tv displays being able to show higher frame rates is more or less new, cinemas have been able to project at different frame rates for as long as the medium has existed. And some filmmakers have played with shooting in higher frame rates going back decades. 24 didn't become the standard arbitrarily. Yes, it is ultimately subjective, but it has stuck for as long as it has because that aesthetic is generally preferred.
Personally, I don't think 60 looks lifelike. I think it looks hyper-real, and slightly artificial. The motion you see with your own eyes is probably closer to 30fps, maybe a little more. But reality definitely does not look as smooth as 60fps shot at the correct shutter angle. Wave your hand in front of your face, slowly even. There is much more motion blue than 60fps video.
Yea well thats just like, your interpretation, man.
that's your opinion ig
@@CharmingNewSociety What? early movies had variable frame rates and 24fps became the standard in the late 1920s with the introduction of sound in films because audio was played from a phonograph and changes in speed would either cause the audio to be out of sync or have constant changes in pitch. They didn't do any kind of survey or study when they chose it, they just went with the most widely used frame rate at the time. In fact, the flicker fusion threshold is 48Hz, not 24, which is why frames in 24fps movies are repeated 2 or 3 times to achieve rates of 48 or 72Hz in order to prevent visible flickering, as it would not only look bad but also cause headaches to some viewers.
Our eyes don't work the same way as a screen or a projector and humans, on average, are capable of distinguishing a flash of light that lasts for 1/220th of a second (as observed by several studies in the mid to late 20th century). If it was close to 1/30th higher frame rates would barely make a difference at all.
If you wave your finger in front of your face it's going to be moving across your visual field much faster than most of the things you are going to see on a screen, and you are also not focusing on it like you do when looking at a moving object in a video where everything is at the same distance from your eyes. These things are not going to change no matter the frame rate that's being used (motion blur can be present in movies of any frame rate too, so that reasoning makes no sense either way).
A screen can't make moving images smoother than they are in real life because movement is still perceived by your eyes and is therefore subject to the same limitations as motion in real life, plus the limitations of the screen itself.
Great way explaining this! It's crazy the difference between 24, and 30..
No it's not that much of a difference... if you use the propper shutterspeed: 1/double the framerate.
I think 24 fps is just the result of blatant unprofessionalism
I get great results at 1080p 60fps using and ND 8 or 16 filter on a sunny day (drone). That little bit of motion blur looks great
First of all... you should have explained video pull-down. Frame rate depends on your distribution target. 29.97 for television. 24 for DCP file generation. What do you mean by the "cinematic look"? Do you mean shallow DOF, or image blurring, or both? FPS has nothing to do with the cinematic look. Shutter speed/shutter angle does. FYI-most "taped" video productions, using studio cams, are shot at 60 FPS.
I'm referring to the framerate when I speak about this particular aspect of "cinematic look". I can change the shutter speed from 1/48 to 1/60 to 1/120 while recording 24FPS and it will ALWAYS look different than those same shutter speeds at 30FPS. The way it looks different is the way I like it to look for many projects, hence the "look" I'm going for. If you don't notice the visual difference between 24fps and 30fps independent of shutter speed, I don't know what to tell you...
Also, distribution target is not an issue for most internet video platforms such as TH-cam or Facebook. I can choose to upload 30fps or 24fps or 60fps on a whim in those digital environments based solely on my visual preference.
I would also imagine that anyone involved in television or movie production already has a education in frame rates and shutter speeds, so this presentation is not really for them...rather this is for the people who may be creating video projects for the first time and don't need to concern themselves with "pull-down" or television standards. According to my viewership feedback, most people just want to, say, know what frame rate to set their first drone at for tomorrow's maiden flight for example. Simple.
And that particular cinematic look is particular just for movies being watched on a regular 60 Hz display. True cinematic look of 24 FPS that all we can experience in cinema theaters has nothing in common. If you pay attention next time, being watch a movie in cinema theater, you would tell the difference - it looks as smooth as being shot at 30 fps if not smoother. And not only because of a right refresh rate of a cinema projector, but also because a typical LCD monitor adds its own blur to moving objects, but a cinema projector doesn't. Ed Ricker, trying to teach some of the "most people" you should have known some technical details first. Or try to listen to others when they try to provide you information instead of just deny the facts confirmed by a simple math: 24 FPS can't be displayed 60 times a second without a judder. Bye bye smooth pans, that are intact in cinema theaters.
@@diman4010 Ok, you know cinema theater and 60Hz, thanks for the info. I appreciate all info given to me. However, nothing you said addresses what I said in my reply to Jerry. I know what I like, and many people do too. You can't tell me that just because the math is wrong or the Hz is different that we're lying to ourselves about what we prefer to shoot in time after time. I like to view my 24fps footage displayed on the very computer screen I'm typing this message out. Sorry but that's just the case.
Why is there always some blowhard know it all on EVERY tutorial TH-cam video comment section?
@jerry..very informative. now i know, its the shutter angle that makes cinematic looks not the frame rate🙂
Thank you!!! I just bought a vlogging camera and did not know which frame rate to choose. This is very helpful!!!
Scott Luther thanks so much Scott! Im really enjoying learning about vlogging!
60FPS should be the STANDARD FOR EVERYTHING!
@Juan Mancinas you're right... I meant to say 60FPS+..... Lol
@Casi Epico He didn't actually say anything in favour of low frame rates besides the fact that he's used to seeing movies with high production values in 24 fps and he associates that frame rate with them. If frame rate was really an artistic choice every movie would have a different frame rate, but in reality 24 fps is nothing more than a dated standard from a century ago that movie producers are too afraid to change.
@@Oqwert Peter Jackson wasn't afraid, and he shot THE HOBBIT at 48 fps. I haven't seen it, so I can't offer my opinion, but I read that a LOT of people thought it looked "wrong." Maybe like the "soap opera effect" that the Smooth Motion TV sets create? I *have* seen that effect, and I hate it.
This gets at the core question of whether we as viewers are only responding to 24 fps / 180 degree shutter as "the standard cinematic look" just because it is what 100 years of cinema used, and we associate it with our emotions about all those thousands of hours of films that we watched (well, some of us...), OR is it because 24 fps @ 180 degree shutter is closer to human visual perception and other framerates aren't?
@@uorvideo767 Even if 24 fps was closer to human perception (it isn't, studies have shown that we can perceive a frame in 1/200th of a second) our eyes are not synced up with the screen, so a 2x increase to 48 fps wouldn't make a perceivable difference at all; you just wouldn't see one in every two frames and movement wouldn't look any different.
I just posted a video of me receiving a Canon G7x Mark II off eBay. Check the video out and let me know if I got a good deal or not, Thanks!
60FPS is the best
It looks like artificial garbage.
60fps is great. Being used to a crap 24 doesn't make it any less shitty
144
60 fps is only good for animation, and some specific scenes. Genberal camra footage in 60fps is just awful. It shgould only be used for making smooth slow motion out of it. All that said, for animation with hard lines 60 fps is must
Very nicely done Ed. I’m hoping this will help my videos look less jerky which I hate with with a passion.
If you listen to him, then you will produce jerky videos, because he is giving you bad advice.
Great explanation without unnecessary philosophy :) Thank you
What would you recommend for shooting fast paced wildlife capture video for a youtube series? Also my videographer can get shaky at times because of the action