24, 25, or 30 FPS

[Spetnaut]

I have been into DSLR photography for years, but I have never messed with video until now, upon purchasing a M2P. Anyway I am not trying to start a debate on what is “best”, I am just curious of the difference between the three. I would think 24FPS uses the least amount of memory, while not being as crisp as 30. But the difference between the two, let alone three would be negligible.

So which one do you all prefer and why?

 

[DebianDog]

It's kind of depends like shutter speed does on a camera. if you want cinematic you shoot low like 24 sports or action you ramp up the speed. You would also overcrank it if you plan to slow the footage. I like the fluid look of 60 FPS myself. And you want your shutter speed twice the speed of your FPS as a general rule.

 

[CanadaDrone]

I have been into DSLR photography for years, but I have never messed with video until now, upon purchasing a M2P. Anyway I am not trying to start a debate on what is “best”, I am just curious of the difference between the three. I would think 24FPS uses the least amount of memory, while not being as crisp as 30. But the difference between the two, let alone three would be negligible.

So which one do you all prefer and why?

Personally I would stick to 30fps. Not many display devices handle 24fps very well due to the nature of the most common display refresh rates. Also if you like the 2X fps rule for shutter speed, it gives you a higher shutter speed. I regularly use a little faster than 1/60 shutter speeds because if you're flying fast, low, or close to your subject, it's just too blurry for my personal taste. 60fps is really smooth and gives you the option to reduce to 30fps in post, but the M2P can not do 4K60P.

Bitrate for 24/25/30 fps is the same in 4K so you aren't really saving anything with regards to file size, no worries there. On top of that, storage is so cheap it is a non-issue

 

[zocalo]

It's mostly historical. 24fps is what is generally used in cinemas, 25fps is equivalent to the PAL TV standard, and 30fps is equivalent to the NTSC TV standard. Interestingly, when Peter Jackson first used 48fps for a mainstream cinema release ("The Hobbit", IIRC) some people complained because it didn't feel "right", presumably because the motion was a lot smoother than they were conditioned to expect.

As you say, fewer fps needs less memory/CPU to process (although it's also down to the bitrate), but which is "best", at least in terms of smooth output, will depend on your output medium. If that's the web, or random computer monitors, then 30/60fps is generally the better bet as those are more likely to be synced to a monitor refresh rate with less processing. If you're using a TV screen or a monitor with a specific refresh rate for output (e.g. for home viewing) then ideally you want a common factor; e.g. if your monitor has a 60/120Hz refresh, then use 30/60fps, but if your monitor has a 50/75/100Hz refresh, then go for 25/50fps.

Alternatively, if you really want as close to a cinematic look as possible, then just go for 24fps - most computer video players will deal with that reasonably well, especially on a big screen with the lights out!

 

[CanadaDrone]

Interestingly, when Peter Jackson first used 48fps for a mainstream cinema release ("The Hobbit", IIRC) some people complained because it didn't feel "right", presumably because the motion was a lot smoother than they were conditioned to expect.

The 48FPS complaints with the Hobbit and similar movies aren't with motion (they use the higher frame rate specifically for better/smoother fast motion), it's actually with the slower or static scenes - what happens with the faster frame rates is you get the "soap opera" effect in that they look extremely fake overall. It becomes blatantly obvious what is a prop, what is a set, who is holding a plastic weapon, what is a costume, who is wearing makeup, etc. and it looks like you're watching a low-budget live play instead of a multi-million dollar blockbuster. It makes it very difficult to immerse yourself in the film when the audience can see so obviously that everything a prop and a set. Some people are much more sensitive to this than others - for me personally, I am so sensitive to it that I notice it instantly and it ruins the experience, but certainly not everyone is bothered by it to the same degree.

Watching sports is a different story, where the even higher frame rate of 60fps is actually preferred.

 

[DebianDog]

So to answer your question shoot what you like. Most of my audience is going to watch on their phone or tablet so shooting 4K is a waste. I shoot 2k at 60fps then downsample to 1080 or just shoot 1080 if I am traveling and I need to edit on my iPad. Like I said just like the look of it

 

[brett8883]

I have been into DSLR photography for years, but I have never messed with video until now, upon purchasing a M2P. Anyway I am not trying to start a debate on what is “best”, I am just curious of the difference between the three. I would think 24FPS uses the least amount of memory, while not being as crisp as 30. But the difference between the two, let alone three would be negligible.

So which one do you all prefer and why?

The difference between 30 FPS and 24 becomes apparent in post due to the latitude a higher frame rate enables.

I usually shoot in 30 FPS but output video at 24fps. So this gives me 6 extra frames per second to work with as “wiggle room.” So if there’s a part of a clip that I need to slow down I can slow it down up to 20% without a penalty to quality. I’d prefer to shot in 60fps and have even more latitude but hey what are you gonna do.

 

[Spetnaut]

Thanks all for your answers, think I have a better understanding now.
Just came back from flying around, can surly see the difference between 24 and 30, or perhaps its my 144hz monitor. But 30 seemed much smoother to me, 24 would get distorted during quick maneuvers.

 

[zocalo]

The 48FPS complaints with the Hobbit and similar movies aren't with motion (they use the higher frame rate specifically for better/smoother fast motion), it's actually with the slower or static scenes - what happens with the faster frame rates is you get the "soap opera" effect in that they look extremely fake overall.

Ah, OK, that makes sense. It didn't have that effect on me, so while I did take note that there was an issue for some I literally couldn't see what the problem was, and forgot some of the details since. There were plenty of discussions at the time about "what people were used to seeing" and so on, and I guess filmmakers have now figured out how to manage the issue since 48fps films are much more common these days and there seem to be far fewer complaints.

FWIW, there's a related issue with 1080p+ video in that close-ups more readily show skin blemishes and are a lot less forgiving of any flaws in make-up, costumes, set detail, or that stray bit of garbage/coffee cups that weren't removed from the set. Personally I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in the case of skin blemishes since it pops the "beautiful people" bubble that too many people obsess over. The rest just needs more attention to detail in your costumes, props, and scene prep, none of which are a bad thing for the viewer.

 

[CanadaDrone]

Ah, OK, that makes sense. It didn't have that effect on me, so while I did take note that there was an issue for some I literally couldn't see what the problem was, and forgot some of the details since. There were plenty of discussions at the time about "what people were used to seeing" and so on, and I guess filmmakers have now figured out how to manage the issue since 48fps films are much more common these days and there seem to be far fewer complaints.

FWIW, there's a related issue with 1080p+ video in that close-ups more readily show skin blemishes and are a lot less forgiving of any flaws in make-up, costumes, set detail, or that stray bit of garbage/coffee cups that weren't removed from the set. Personally I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in the case of skin blemishes since it pops the "beautiful people" bubble that too many people obsess over. The rest just needs more attention to detail in your costumes, props, and scene prep, none of which are a bad thing for the viewer.

Yeah, the faster FPS is absolutely more noticeable to some people than others, ranging from "I don't know what you're talking about" to "this is unwatchable". I am unfortunately in the latter camp, but I am also very picky about everything haha. I wish I was not sensitive to it, to be honest. In the action scenes it's not really a problem as it's doing it's job, you still get some blur but not as much as with 24-30FPS, so everything appears smoother and you don't typically get the soap opera effect if there is lots of motion.

Higher resolution will always show more details, flattering or not, but at least you have the option to soften it back down in post processing - it's much harder to do the reverse You run into the same scenario with still photography, particularly portraits - not long ago 12MP was considered high resolution, and now not only are lenses better but you have 45-50MP cameras being mainstream, with 80-100MP medium format cameras available at unheard of pricing (under $10K compared to $30-40K in the past).

 

[runeOfRune]

60fps whenever you can, otherwise 30. The rates are pretty much just a relic of mechanical cameras and phase-locked displays - think old 60Hz black-and-white TVs and 59.94Hz color TVs because of a boring technicality related to color encoding.

24 seems to have been agreed upon because someone some time ago decided it's the minimum for fluid movement, and now some people try and create videophile ideology around this. You don't want 24fps on a 60fps TV/monitor becasue then the driver has to interpolate, resulting in blended frames (or even worse, screen tearing if the display is really shoddy. Or EVEN WORSE, it's going to repeat frames making your video hiccup), since 60 is not a multiple of 24. With 30fps, it just has to display each frame twice. Most displays are at least 60fps nowadays. Which is why you should fall back to 30 (double frames), not 25 or 24 (blended frames, repeats, tearing).

So, always use the maximum framerate available. Got 120? Great, use it! The more, the better. SD cards are cheap. Many people have 120fps screens, and 60fps screens can just skip every second frame.

It's kind of depends like shutter speed does on a camera.

Your editing software reencodes the video anyway, and then YouTube most likely will reencode it again. This isn't analog photography anymore.

if your monitor has a 50/75/100Hz refresh

I don't think anyone makes screens without 60fps anymore. And then you should render against your audience's most popular devices, not your own

 

[Dronage]

Soo much to learn..!!!!

 

[kilomikebravo]

Soo much to learn..!!!!

Hang in there, brutha, most of us were where you are at one time or another. You'll get there, trust me.

 

[Dronage]

Hang in there, brutha, most of us were where you are at one time or another. You'll get there, trust me.

After some tough years, it's a joy.. thanks to u lot amongst others..!

 

[Harro]

If you live in the US (or use NTSC equipment, TV or video cameras, then use 24 fps ("cinematic" look) or 30 fps. If you live in PAL countries then use 25 fps. Many, if not all, US TV's won't display PAL video properly, whereas PAL TVs will display NTSC ones correctly.

 

[runeOfRune]

^ this used to be the case 10 years ago before HDTV screens capable of both 50 and 60 fps, and switching between them as necessary, became widespread. And don't even get me started about mobile.

There's nothing "cinematic" about 24fps. Hollywood bubble is still stuck producing it because they have a systemic problem: manufacturers sell overpriced equipment, are unable to adapt production tech to the point where a gopro footage looks better than a $50k camera. Decades of marketing trying to make people beleive 24 frames - the cheapest option back at the time where movies were shot on actual film - is "cinematic", also doesn't help.

Try watching esports in 24 frames, you can't see what's going on. Then try in 60fps and switch back to watching anything 24fps. You'll know what I mean. It's a crowd mentality issue - people think sub-60 framerates look good becasue that's all they've been looking at for their entire lives. Once you make a switch to 60+fps and realize how crisp all the movement becomes, it's hard to go back.

More frames = smoother video = better. Yawing at sub-60 looks garbage. You can't see anything mid-yaw.

 

[DebianDog]

.

Your editing software reencodes the video anyway, and then YouTube most likely will reencode it again. This isn't analog photography anymore.

I don't think anyone makes screens without 60fps anymore. And then you should render against your audience's most popular devices, not your own

reencoding and frame rate have nothing to do with each other. YouTube will always re-encode it to the size and frame rate you uploaded and then down sample it from there.

I love 60 frames per second but it doesn't look cinematic at all.

iPhone X screen refresh rate is still at 60 Hz. Like most phones

Shutter speed is still very important regardless of frames per second.

How shutter speeds work when shooting video - The Video Mode

Stills photographers will know that the shutter speed is used to control how movement and motion is recorded in your scene. So if you’re taking a picture of running water, for example, a slower shutter speed will give you blurred or smooth water, whereas a fast shutter speed will freeze the...

www.thevideomode.com

 

[zocalo]

More frames = smoother video = better. Yawing at sub-60 looks garbage. You can't see anything mid-yaw.

In an ideal situation, sure. However, if you are trying to use 50/60fps, or even 120fps+ if you have a suitable camera on your drone, in low light then that might not be the best idea. To state the obvious, in order to get 60fps, your maximum possible shutter speed is 1/60s, and ideally you want 2x the frame rate, or 1/120s, for the best results. If you're in low light - e.g. around dawn or dusk - then that might entail a high enough ISO that signal noise lowers your image quality more than you find acceptable.

Where that transition point lies is down to the viewer's preference, but isn't something you should discount just because the highest possible framerate gives you the smoothest footage. It'll also depend on what you are shooting and how much you are moving the camera around (e.g. the need to avoid fast pans). For the right subject I generally prefer low-noise 25/30fps to noisy 50/60fps, but, obviously, YMMV and (perhaps more importantly), so might that of your audience.

 

[runeOfRune]

To state the obvious, in order to get 60fps, your maximum possible shutter speed is 1/60s, and ideally you want 2x the frame rate, or 1/120s, for the best results.

No, this is a myth. I don't know where you guys are getting this but if you really believe this holds, please explain to me how do you believe shutter works in DIGITAL cameras.

 

[zocalo]

No, this is a myth. I don't know where you guys are getting this but if you really believe this holds, please explain to me how do you believe shutter works in DIGITAL cameras.

I know very well how a "shutter" works on a digital camera - it's a row-by-row reading of the contents of the sensor or, on more expensive sensors, by reading multiple rows in parallel (more $ = more parallelism).

Regardless, I was using shutter speed as a reference to the exposure time, which need not (and usually isn't) the same as the frame rate, but *must* be faster than it. Not sure, but it seems like you may have missed that point?

To put it another way: in order to get 60fps output, irrespective of how you do it, you need to make an exposure 60 times a second, including any "housekeeping" like resetting the sensor values for the next frame or advancing the film. That means you have a *maximum* of 1/60s of a second to capture all the light you need for the required exposure. That does not, however, preclude you from getting the required exposure in less than 1/60s, e.g. in bright levels.

Aiming to double it is just a rule of thumb, but it does seem to hold because it strikes a reasonable balance between the following two effects in typical outdoor lighting conditions:

1. The shorter your exposure, the less chance there is for rolling shutter effects as objects in motion won't have as much time to move during the exposure.
2. The longer your exposure (within reason) the smoother motion will appear in playback - e.g. avoiding "stop motion" effects.

This is why videographers tend to use ND filters on their cameras; to control their exposure time and hopefully find a sweet spot between the above two effects. As usual for rules of thumb, there are scenarios where it won't hold and you'll need to do something different, but that's getting way beyond the expertise level of the question posed by the OP.