24 or 30fps

[Paul Iddon]

Is one better than the other (for the UK)?

Paul.

 

[akdrone]

No. One is not better. They are just different. 24 will better provide the "cinematic" quality in terms of potential motion blur if you use an ND filter and want to be able to actually have the footage used in a movie or venue that requires it to merge with other 24fps video. If your final result is going to be on the 'net then shooting at 30fps with an ND filter as appropriate will also do well in terms of motion blur. Keep in mind all of this only applies when you are reasonably low to the ground and thus have objects that will actually blur as they move through the frame. Using ND filters from 300 feet is meaningless. I keep going on about ND filters because the entire 24fps preference is so you can have the motion blur cinematic quality that we are used to seeing. I often want to slow my video down so nearly always shoot at 60fps allowing me to slow to 30fps. If you shoot at 24 or 30 you can still slow things down but perhaps not quite as cleanly. Bottom line is for most folks it won't make much difference and those that need one or the other probably know what they want and why.

 

[SkyeHigh]

Is one better than the other (for the UK)?

Paul.

What is your target audience? For yourself, family and friends or YouTube?

 

[slup]

Besides the subtle change in how your videos look in the different framerates (some can't see any difference & some are very sensitive to it)... you have 4 thing's to consider when choosing frame rate.

-Will you record any artificial lightening... in UK you have a 50Hz power grid & should chose frame rates like 25, 50 & 100... this to minimize blinking lights in the video.

-Where will you play the video... if mostly on a computer screen with a refresh rate of 60Hz you should go with 30, 60 & 120 to avoid stuttering depending on a mismatch between your video frame rate & the screen device.

-Will you have fast flights near ground or obstacles, or do faster panning's... then choose higher frame rates, this as the lower frame rate you go with, the slower you need to move the camera in relation to close objects to avoid stuttering.

-Will you combine your drone footage with clips from other cameras... will be good to use the same frame rates on all different camera clips otherwise it's much more difficult to join them in the same time line during edit.

 

[Paul Iddon]

What is your target audience? For yourself, family and friends or YouTube?

YouTube. It's a drone I won, and I just have fun doing a few flights.

Paul.

 

[slup]

YouTube. It's a drone I won, and I just have fun doing a few flights.

Paul.

Then don't bother about it... just go with 25 or 50... or 30 or 60 & be done with it & have fun.

 

[Crash Pro]

I noticed that every once in awhile my footage appeared “jerky” rather than smooth. So I began an paying attention to my settings, frame rate in particular.

It was at 24fps that I noticed a lack of smoothness. 25fps, 30fps and 60fps all worked as you would expect. Needless to say I no longer shoot in 24fps. My guess would be that it has something to do with the refresh rate of monitors? What do I know?

 

[slup]

I noticed that every once in awhile my footage appeared “jerky” rather than smooth. So I began an paying attention to my settings, frame rate in particular.

It was at 24fps that I noticed a lack of smoothness. 25fps, 30fps and 60fps all worked as you would expect. Needless to say I no longer shoot in 24fps. My guess would be that it has something to do with the refresh rate of monitors? What do I know?

The jerkiness you might have using lower frame rates usually originates from point 2 & 3 in post #4 ... viewing device & it's refresh rate and how fast you move the camera in relation to objects.

This might sound like it's safest to go with the highest possible frame rate ... but high fps have drawbacks also, like:

-Larger file sizes (possible storage issue)
-Possible use of other codecs (like H265 instead of H264 where H265 demands much more from the computer)
-Possible need of a higher specced computer to be able to edit smoothly without lag & getting huge rendering times
-Not letting in as much light as the lower fps... (with 24fps slowest shutter 1/24s, with 60fps it's 1/60s)

All this without considering some kind of artistic look some claim is added when using 24fps...

 

[Donnie Frank]

Is one better than the other (for the UK)?

Paul.

An experienced DP once told me, "24 FPS for fiction. 30 FPS for non-fiction." 24 FPS is what you will use on a film set pretty much 100% of the time. This is just a rule of thumb with exceptions. But I've been following this rule for about a decade.

D

 

[wwarner]

No. One is not better. They are just different. 24 will better provide the "cinematic" quality in terms of potential motion blur if you use an ND filter and want to be able to actually have the footage used in a movie or venue that requires it to merge with other 24fps video. If your final result is going to be on the 'net then shooting at 30fps with an ND filter as appropriate will also do well in terms of motion blur. Keep in mind all of this only applies when you are reasonably low to the ground and thus have objects that will actually blur as they move through the frame. Using ND filters from 300 feet is meaningless. I keep going on about ND filters because the entire 24fps preference is so you can have the motion blur cinematic quality that we are used to seeing. I often want to slow my video down so nearly always shoot at 60fps allowing me to slow to 30fps. If you shoot at 24 or 30 you can still slow things down but perhaps not quite as cleanly. Bottom line is for most folks it won't make much difference and those that need one or the other probably know what they want and why.

Using an ND filter from 300 feet is meaningless for video maybe. For stills there is plenty of value in having an ND filter at 300 feet.

 

[Donnie Frank]

My understanding of the ND filter's purpose is to allow the photographer to put the camera's settings in the "sweet spot." Because the X3 has a fixed aperture, I used ND filters to facilitate following the 180° shutter rule. Some cameras have an aperture sweet spot in the f5 range. So in extremely bright conditions, instead of shutting the aperture down f16, one uses an ND filter to allow the camera to operate closer to f5.

This is my take on it, anyway.

Discuss.

D

 

[akdrone]

Using an ND filter from 300 feet is meaningless for video maybe. For stills there is plenty of value in having an ND filter at 300 feet.

Why? how?

 

[danieleforyou]

Why? how?

Probably because in video you use the ND filters to obtain the 180* rule (shutter speed faster the double of frame rate). So you can get proper motion blur effect for moving objects or pannings. If you are fliying too high, the landscape in the frame will move too slowly through it not showing motion blur even if you use the slowest possible shutter speed (1/60 for 30fps or 1/48 for 24fps)

 

[RogerDH]

Last year, I saw a video that was ostensibly testing two software motion blur apps and comparing them to using an ND filter and the 180-degree rule, and also to using no filter. All the video was shot at, I'd guess, 150 to 200 feet, in full sunlight. All three of the tests looked like total CRAP compared to the unfiltered video.

 

[wwarner]

Why? how?

Personally, I like to use them to dumb down the light in sunset stills (often times adjusting the aperture alone is not enough), any other brighter subject can make ND filters handy for cutting down brightness, long exposures over (like over shorelines and other water features) make ND filters useful. I'm sure there are plenty more situations that they can be useful for stills. All helpful at 300 feet or above or below.

This with our without polarization. Because let's face it, even with polarization the sun is bright.

 

[akdrone]

Personally, I like to use them to dumb down the light in sunset stills (often times adjusting the aperture alone is not enough), any other brighter subject can make ND filters handy for cutting down brightness, long exposures over (like over shorelines and other water features) make ND filters useful. I'm sure there are plenty more situations that they can be useful for stills. All helpful at 300 feet or above or below.

This with our without polarization. Because let's face it, even with polarization the sun is bright.

It's true that ND filters can be used to great effect if you desire a 30second exposure to capture waterfalls or waves with a blurred effect but I can't think of many other uses for ND filters for day to day images. For typical images shot at 'normal' exposures they are mostly meaningless as in most instances you can simply adjust the shutter speed, ISO and/or aperture to get the same exposure you would with an ND filter. It's unusual to need a greater exposure (and hence an ND filter) for day to day photographs but for those 30sec kind of exposures they are obviously useful.

Polarization for sunsets is also meaningless. Polarization only works when you are at an angle to the sun. If the sun is directly in back of you or in front of you there is no effect. At 90deg the effect is the strongest. For that reason, polarizing filters have limited use when shooting landscapes with the sky. Landscapes are typically shot with a reasonably wide angle lens (not always...) and the polarizing effect then leaves some of the sky dark and some less dark. They are super helpful with water and plants shot at an angle to the sun or if the sky is shot with a normal to tele lens at an angle but any sky images shot with a polarizing filter need to be viewed carefully to ensure the result doesn't look too wacky.

 

[timc_drone]

If you are going to do slow motion by post editing I would go with the highest FPS you can get.

 

[akdrone]

If you are going to do slow motion by post editing I would go with the highest FPS you can get.

The earlier reference to long exposures was, I think, to still images where it's often desirable to shoot a waterfall at something like 30seconds to create a blurred flowing water effect. Shooting video at a high frame rate doesn't do the same thing. Typically one looks for a shutter speed that is twice the frame rate so if you are shooting at 30fps you look for a shutter speed of 1/60. If you shoot with a a frame rate of 120 or 240 you can slow down the video but what you get is a slow video with each frame sharp as opposed to a much slower frame rate with a matching shutter speed that is 1/2x the frame rate that will result in a "cinematic" blurring effect for moving objects.

 

[wwarner]

It's true that ND filters can be used to great effect if you desire a 30second exposure to capture waterfalls or waves with a blurred effect but I can't think of many other uses for ND filters for day to day images. For typical images shot at 'normal' exposures they are mostly meaningless as in most instances you can simply adjust the shutter speed, ISO and/or aperture to get the same exposure you would with an ND filter. It's unusual to need a greater exposure (and hence an ND filter) for day to day photographs but for those 30sec kind of exposures they are obviously useful.

Polarization for sunsets is also meaningless. Polarization only works when you are at an angle to the sun. If the sun is directly in back of you or in front of you there is no effect. At 90deg the effect is the strongest. For that reason, polarizing filters have limited use when shooting landscapes with the sky. Landscapes are typically shot with a reasonably wide angle lens (not always...) and the polarizing effect then leaves some of the sky dark and some less dark. They are super helpful with water and plants shot at an angle to the sun or if the sky is shot with a normal to tele lens at an angle but any sky images shot with a polarizing filter need to be viewed carefully to ensure the result doesn't look too wacky.

Some polarization lenses (circular ones or ones with an anti reflective coating in particular) as well as certain graduated ND filters are known to be helpful in reducing lens flare which is something that can be a problem when you're directing a camera to a large light source. Further, when pointing the camera directly at the sun (for instance in a sunset photo) a reduction in aperture or an increase in shutter speed is not always enough. Enough to reduce the burn in of excess light or enough to hit the sweet spot in shutter speed/aperture for the lens and camera (Highest shutter speed/ smallest aperture doesn't always make for the best exposure which is true of all camera/lens interactions). And then there are the intentional long exposures you mentioned (I guess I mentioned as well).

So I guess, in general you are correct. Can I function without using an ND filter? Sure. Amazing how many different variations can occur where one might want an ND filter (at least a 4 or 8 step if even to allow for more variable movement within the shutter speed/aperture settings under brighter circumstances) even within those parameters (I know, I named 1 maybe 2 but, in this case, one maybe 2 is enough for me). Even if it's one or 2, that's good enough for me. Best of all, it works for me.

Which is what I was pointing out. The usefulness of an ND filter at an altitude of 300 feet.

 

[wisefish]

I use ND filters all the time when taking stills for cloud/fog hyperlapse videos. The correct exposure values called for, without an ND filter, are often in the 1/2000 sec. range or higher and I like to bring that down to a level where the clouds and fog look softer. The final hyperlapse videos come out looking way smoother. I don't really shoot cloud/fog hyperlapses without an ND filter unless the correct unfiltered exposure value for shutter speed is 1/640 or less (dark cloudy/foggy days). .