I live in the UK and with the resolution I use, I could shoot at 24, 25 or 30fps. Is there a particular one that I should use ? Would there be problems if I used a different one?
Is there a 'correct' frame rate?
- Thread starter PeteS2017
- Start date
Congoblue
Well-Known Member
25(p) or 50 is normal for UK as historically our TVs worked at 50fps. Though nowadays most things will just adapt to suit.
25p has a slightly jerky filmic look to it. 50 or 50p looks more smooth and silky.
If you use 24 or 30 you might get an intermittent stutter on the playback if something tries to play it back at the standard 25 or 50. The other time to worry is if you have to intercut your footage with other material, in that case you need to make sure your settings match the other stuff for best results.
25p has a slightly jerky filmic look to it. 50 or 50p looks more smooth and silky.
If you use 24 or 30 you might get an intermittent stutter on the playback if something tries to play it back at the standard 25 or 50. The other time to worry is if you have to intercut your footage with other material, in that case you need to make sure your settings match the other stuff for best results.
Thwyllo
Well-Known Member
I've never understood why that jerkiness at 25fps is considered 'filmic' when I've never seen a film looking like that. There's obviously some other difference but I don't know what it is.
Congoblue
Well-Known Member
Um, personally I think a film does look like that. I think having watched stories on "film" at 24/25fps and news/reality on "video" at 50/60fps our brains are conditioned to see 25fps as a story, and 50fps as realism. Maybe it's just me, but I know if I present a drone video at 25fps people say it looks "cinematic" but the same video at 50fps just looks like video. Weird.
Thwyllo
Well-Known Member
Maybe we have different refresh rates LOL! Specifically what I mean is if I pan at moderate speed with a DSLR or video camera at 1080p/25fps it's noticeably jerky - I just don't see that in the cinema...?
I guess the other issue here is the best frame rate also depends on the device you're watching the footage on, which is of course variable.
Congoblue
Well-Known Member
They avoid making those sort of camera moves in cinema film, for exactly that reason.
If you watch a film with a lot of camera movement (e.g. the opening sequence of the Bond film Quantum of Solace) I find the frame rate really offputting.
Of course occasionally films are now made at 48hz for digital projection - e.g. the Hobbit films. Lots of people hated that because it looked too "fake" or "real".
If you watch a film with a lot of camera movement (e.g. the opening sequence of the Bond film Quantum of Solace) I find the frame rate really offputting.
Of course occasionally films are now made at 48hz for digital projection - e.g. the Hobbit films. Lots of people hated that because it looked too "fake" or "real".
Thwyllo
Well-Known Member
jaybee2786
Well-Known Member
Its a shame that broadcasting didn't say switch to 24fps for all digital output when digital came into existence. I'm sure that it wouldn't have taken much to get the receiver box to output ether 25fps or 30fps at the end users home.
the same with DVD players, have the content of the disk as 24fps then output at 25 or 30fps from the player.
It is easy to speed up to 25fps or do 2/3pulldown to make 30fps from 24fps as that's been done for years.
When HD came along if 24fps had already been commonplace for SD digital, then HD would have been the same, although nobody would have bothered with converting it to 25fps or 30fps as HDTVs would have just handed that frame rate from the start.
Also all digital SD over HDMI would have been output at 24fps so ending that different forever.
Then UHD could have been agreed to be say 72fps or 96fps and everyone would have been happy.
The biggest plus side would be film transferring, as that would have stayed at 24fps as used by the film industry for years.
the same with DVD players, have the content of the disk as 24fps then output at 25 or 30fps from the player.
It is easy to speed up to 25fps or do 2/3pulldown to make 30fps from 24fps as that's been done for years.
When HD came along if 24fps had already been commonplace for SD digital, then HD would have been the same, although nobody would have bothered with converting it to 25fps or 30fps as HDTVs would have just handed that frame rate from the start.
Also all digital SD over HDMI would have been output at 24fps so ending that different forever.
Then UHD could have been agreed to be say 72fps or 96fps and everyone would have been happy.
The biggest plus side would be film transferring, as that would have stayed at 24fps as used by the film industry for years.
Jerky means you got the panning science all wrong. There is so many variables - lens length, shutter speed, resolution, and panning angle. Look at the science here from the RED cameras. https://www.red.com/red-101/camera-panning-speed
Anyways.. 25fps and 30fps originated from the Alternating Current from electricity. Countries that are 50hz (PAL) use 24/25 fps and countries that are 60hz (NTSC) use 30fps. There is a whole history lesson about this that i wont delve into. Anyways, knowing the Hz will prevent flickering from lights, Tv's etc appearing in your video.
This flickering is now less prevalent as TV's are now replaced with high refreshed rate panels and florescent lights are now all LED.
And also 24fps with correct shutter speeds (twice the fps) is considered filmic because it creates motion blur - a dreamy fantasia effect. Whereas 50/60 fps with hight shutter speeds on the other hand creates hyper-realistic sharp images. This is why the horror movie Blair witch project was able to leave many so terrified. It simulated hand held videos by using 50/60fps.
Similar threads
