Tell me why you might shoot drone video using a slow frame rate?
- Thread starter canadian drone videos
- Start date
Slower frame rates (FR) result in smaller files and may be fine in your final video if the recorded FR matches the final FR and the movement of the drone or subject matter while recording is slow. Clips with slower FR can also be easier to edit if the editing software and device are less powerful/older.
I like to record in 5k when I want to crop the original footage in post processing. I feel like the 5k allows a greater “zoom” in post without losing detail.
Howard
Slower film rate: motion blur.
5k footage: ability to crop video without losing quality (when exporting to smaller sizes).
SmilingOgre
Well-Known Member
Slower frame rates are thought to be more cinematic e.g. 24~25 fps Us and EU respectively. Comes from film days and what people became accustomed to. Higher frame rates are thought to look unnatural in regard to the blur our eyes see in real life. Not sure how much it all matters on youtube. Pretty much anything goes.
In regard to resolution, I only have opinion. I shoot in 4k because I believe I can see a difference between that and HD. Having said that, I do shoot 120FPS for slow motion in 1080p and upscale it in Resolve and to my eye it fits very nicely in a 4k timeline. I haven't went any higher than 4k as I don't punch in much except for occasional post stabilization which like the upscaled footage fits nicely to my eye. I also keep it down to 4k because of file sizes especially some of the raw 4k which is filling up my hard drives very rapidly, lol.
In regard to resolution, I only have opinion. I shoot in 4k because I believe I can see a difference between that and HD. Having said that, I do shoot 120FPS for slow motion in 1080p and upscale it in Resolve and to my eye it fits very nicely in a 4k timeline. I haven't went any higher than 4k as I don't punch in much except for occasional post stabilization which like the upscaled footage fits nicely to my eye. I also keep it down to 4k because of file sizes especially some of the raw 4k which is filling up my hard drives very rapidly, lol.
Last edited:
For a lot of people the answer is 'no reason to do so' because they are not cinematic aficionados and could care less if there is motion blur that mimics what our eyes see and is typically used for movies. For folks that want to have realistic motion blur on objects that we would normally expect to see motion blur it's the combination of slow (25 or even 30 fps) coupled with a shutter speed 2x that frame rate that does the trick. If you are flying at 400feet shooting from a slow moving drone it will make no difference in terms of motion blur.
24FPS is the world's most common frame rate for film making. Along with ~1/50 shutter speed, the idea is that the motion blur caused by those settings are most similar to what the human eye sees for motion blur in the real world, thereby giving a viewer the most natural experience possible (or "cinematic" look). Obviously there are plenty of reasons to use faster frame rates and shutter speeds, but that is the general reasoning behind 24fps.
You might be wondering why we don't always shoot at the maximum frame rate possible at any given resolution because you can just edit it in a lower FPS timeline if you wish, however the problem becomes the shutter speed - if you are shooting, for example, 4K/120FPS, your shutter speed is probably around 1/240sec. That shutter speed on a 24 or 30fps timeline will have a very different look to it (you will lose much or all of the motion blur) so there is more to consider there.
As for why you would might want to shoot in 5K (or any resolution higher than 4K for that matter) despite it being a non-standard playback resolution, the reasons are exactly the same as why you would want to shoot in 6K, 8K, or any resolution greater than your intended playback or end-use resolution. Just to list a few:
1) More leeway for 'lossless' cropping/panning/zooming. You can worry about composition after the fact and have a buffer for making mistakes. The higher the shooting resolution, the bigger your buffer.
2) The ability to grab higher resolution stills from any frame within your footage which is more than enough for a large print. For 5K this is around ~15MP and for 8K this is around ~33MP - more than enough for a decent print, and quite a lot more than the ~8MP still you can pull from 4K footage.
3) Higher resolutions downsampled to lower resolutions will always result in better image quality than if you had shot the lower resolution natively, all else equal. This is the principle behind oversampling and why it is so often used.
4) Higher resolution gives higher color fidelity and better gradients, even if your end-use resolution will be lower.
Programs like DaVinci Resolve allow proxy editing, so you don't need a computer capable of editing the higher resolution footage in real time. You can do all your post processing work at 1080P or 4K if you wish, even with an 8K shooting resolution and final output resolution.
The largest downside to filming in higher resolutions is storage, which is for the most part dirt cheap these days anyway, especially relative to the drone cost or other video equipment.
Of course it still won't appeal to everyone, for example those just wanting to take fun videos and edit them on their iPad or whatever, but higher resolution is always better from an image quality standpoint, all else equal. This goes for still photography as well.
All the same points above also apply (proportionately) to shooting a higher resolution than the intended end-use resolution, regardless of whether you are comparing 1080P to 4K or comparing 8K to 16K sometime in the future.
You might be wondering why we don't always shoot at the maximum frame rate possible at any given resolution because you can just edit it in a lower FPS timeline if you wish, however the problem becomes the shutter speed - if you are shooting, for example, 4K/120FPS, your shutter speed is probably around 1/240sec. That shutter speed on a 24 or 30fps timeline will have a very different look to it (you will lose much or all of the motion blur) so there is more to consider there.
As for why you would might want to shoot in 5K (or any resolution higher than 4K for that matter) despite it being a non-standard playback resolution, the reasons are exactly the same as why you would want to shoot in 6K, 8K, or any resolution greater than your intended playback or end-use resolution. Just to list a few:
1) More leeway for 'lossless' cropping/panning/zooming. You can worry about composition after the fact and have a buffer for making mistakes. The higher the shooting resolution, the bigger your buffer.
2) The ability to grab higher resolution stills from any frame within your footage which is more than enough for a large print. For 5K this is around ~15MP and for 8K this is around ~33MP - more than enough for a decent print, and quite a lot more than the ~8MP still you can pull from 4K footage.
3) Higher resolutions downsampled to lower resolutions will always result in better image quality than if you had shot the lower resolution natively, all else equal. This is the principle behind oversampling and why it is so often used.
4) Higher resolution gives higher color fidelity and better gradients, even if your end-use resolution will be lower.
Programs like DaVinci Resolve allow proxy editing, so you don't need a computer capable of editing the higher resolution footage in real time. You can do all your post processing work at 1080P or 4K if you wish, even with an 8K shooting resolution and final output resolution.
The largest downside to filming in higher resolutions is storage, which is for the most part dirt cheap these days anyway, especially relative to the drone cost or other video equipment.
Of course it still won't appeal to everyone, for example those just wanting to take fun videos and edit them on their iPad or whatever, but higher resolution is always better from an image quality standpoint, all else equal. This goes for still photography as well.
All the same points above also apply (proportionately) to shooting a higher resolution than the intended end-use resolution, regardless of whether you are comparing 1080P to 4K or comparing 8K to 16K sometime in the future.
Last edited:
Pixeldawg
Well-Known Member
Most likely will not see anything above 8K as that is considered the limit for human vision, really no need to go further as it won't be seen unless you are a eagle.
SmilingOgre
Well-Known Member
While the world is busy partaking in resolution wars my interest is in drones moving to true raw files and greater light latitude. I would love to see drones moving toward the 13 to 15 stops of light produced by cine cameras and the ability to work with those files in true raw for color grading. We've got 4/3 sensors now. We're on the cusp of some amazing potential.
Higher resolution does not increase color resolution. Color resolution is determined by the number of bits per pixel, and the color sub sampling ratios used. DJI uses the absolute minimum of both in all their resolutions, as well as small sensors with low dynamic ranges.
Shooting in HD, 4K, 5K , or 8K does not change any of these parameters.
Shooting in HD, 4K, 5K , or 8K does not change any of these parameters.
The goal with a display is to have sufficient resolution so the viewer doesn't see the subpixels, known as pattern visibility. Normal vision can see 25-30 line pairs (one black and one white line) per degree of arc of vision. Consequently, the need for a higher dot pitch display depends upon your viewing distance. For a TV in one's living room viewed at 10-15 ft normal vision cannot see subpixels in an HD display, so 4K is already overkill. For a desktop monitor viewed at 12-24" one needs higher resolution, so 4K makes more sense. The reason that TV makers have pursued 4K and talk about 8K is that the margins have become so low due to oversupply. So, they feel that they can charge more for what consumers can believe is higher quality. We can generally see this quality in a showroom where we stand right next to those TVs. Cellphones have also passed the limits of human vision at 500ppi.
One other thing to keep in mind is that the human vision system primarily sees resolution in luminance, not in chrominance. That is why some photographers initially do postprocessing in monochrome before adding back color. Depending upon where you are on the color spectrum your ability to resolve color is 3-6 times worse than in black and white. It is the worst as we get to the blue part of the spectrum.
When shooting drone footage, the key reason to shoot in 5.1K is to allow for cropping. Even at 4K if your goal is to upload to YouTube it requires an impossibly long time to upload at this resolution. As was said here it mostly makes sense to shoot at 4K but then process at lower resolution in post for the best quality.
One other thing to keep in mind is that the human vision system primarily sees resolution in luminance, not in chrominance. That is why some photographers initially do postprocessing in monochrome before adding back color. Depending upon where you are on the color spectrum your ability to resolve color is 3-6 times worse than in black and white. It is the worst as we get to the blue part of the spectrum.
When shooting drone footage, the key reason to shoot in 5.1K is to allow for cropping. Even at 4K if your goal is to upload to YouTube it requires an impossibly long time to upload at this resolution. As was said here it mostly makes sense to shoot at 4K but then process at lower resolution in post for the best quality.
I always shoot at 4K (& will more with 5K on the M3), but only because I crop in post. It gives me quite a few options that aren't available in camera.
Great thread! Thanks to all of you for sharing - very helpful! Happy New Year!!
Thanks for today’s lesson and it’s inspirational boost to my planned shoot in downtown Austin this afternoon
RocketBrew
Well-Known Member
This is a fun test (of course, it helps if your monitor is color calibrated...)
https://www.xrite.com/hue-test
https://www.xrite.com/hue-test
I think you might be missing the point a little bit - you will notice that all the reasons I listed to shoot a higher resolution actually have nothing to do with actually displaying it in that resolution. This also goes for the Home Theater world - the best thing about a 4K/UHD movie is not the resolution, it's the Rec2020 color, HDR, and uncompressed audio (Dolby Atmos or DTS-X). With 8K video, we will be getting things like instant HDMI switching.
The other thing your comment doesn't take into consideration is image size and viewing distance, which are major factors in determining how much resolution is 'enough'. Most people sit WAY too far away from their TV's, for example. I sit a proper distance from a 120" screen and resolution changes are very noticeable. TV's and projectors are only getting cheaper and larger every year. Computer monitors and phones/tablets are another example.
Remember when Apple said their original retina display was as much resolution as anyone ever needed because the human eye couldn't detect anything higher? Look at what they're up to now
Last edited:
This is actually not true. DJI uses 10bit 4:2:0, far from the absolute minimum value possible in both parameters. It could be much, much worse.
Regarding their sensors, again, what they use are far from the smallest and dynamic range is not low either on an absolute basis or relative to the sensor type used. Not sure what values you're looking at there. They actually have higher dynamic range than the full frame sensors Canon was producing in the not so distant past.
Nobody said resolution changes bit depth or chroma subsampling parameters though, at least that I can see in this thread. The exception being if the device is not capable of shooting certain combinations of resolutions and bit depths. You can, however, recover some color precision with oversampling as you end up with more data points averaged over a larger number of samples, yielding a more accurate result.
Last edited:
Just speculating; I wonder if there is really a product and a market for mass-produced consumer/prosumer drones with 13-15 stops of latitude and higher color resolution for grading.
Because:
a) You can put such a camera on a drone today. Large productions are doing this… at a cost. I’d guesstimate a budget approach at around $20k USD? It’s really not my world, but something like a BlackMagic Designs BMPCC on a Matrice with a 3rd-party gimbal?
b) Raw or raw lite or even ProRes 422/444 is huge and demanding by consumer/prosumer standards. It’s also a major investment in editing and storage.
My sense, again, just speculating, is that people who need a cinema camera on a drone are already doing it, and that a sub-$3000 wide latitude camera drone can’t be brought to market at.a scale to sell into consumer/prosumer.
I do agree that it would be cool!. Hm, what is the latitude on an x7? 13.9 stops? Also nearly $20k USD all in with accessories on an Inspire 2.
SmilingOgre
Well-Known Member
Ya, I have no idea of the realistic cost. I'm just thinking "pie in the sky". My BMPCC 4k gets 13 stops but obviously it would not fit on my Mavic 2P, lol. I can barely get to balance on my DJI Ronin SC2. I'm sure on large productions they are flying some pretty amazing cameras. Just think of the difference it would make in gimbal tilt if you could get that kind of latitude. OMG!!! Sky and ground in the same pic!!!
Indeed. In fact unless you are flying low and there is something fast moving in your scene, it doesn’t really matter with one proviso—turning too quickly. If you are making videos for a film or TV, it would matter. But anyone flying less than an Inspire at the very least isn’t likely to be shooting for anything but B Roll. If you are shooting for YouTube or social media…As a former TV cameraman operating mainly for European markets, I mostly use 25fps, but sometimes 60fps.
Some really great answers here some good knowledge sharing going on. I learnt something and I hope you did too.
To answer my own question.
I shoot in 5k so I can crop the footage. When I fly I think of my flight as a rough cut, I already know I’m going to be reframing the shots a little in post. My flying isn’t perfect, and in post I get all the time in the world to sit and decide the best way to frame what I’ve got. For me the flying is like making a sketch, jotting down what I want in scribbles, the actual painting itself happens in post. 5k allows me to make a bigger sketch.
As for why I use a higher frame rate that’s a little more complicated to explain. I myself don’t worry about motion blur for two reasons, it’s hard to see motion blur on a tablet which is what most of us watch drone videos on, and second, I’m rarely fly fast near objects or doing fast turns where motion blur is created. The possibility for motion blur to be present isn’t even there in in 97% of my footage. I tend to shoot low and slow, and too much speed near objects means more visits to DJI to get a crashed drone fixed lol.
Another reason I tend to shoot in a higher frame rate, what if something unexpected happens while I’m shooting and I want to show it in slow mo, like a bird gracefully flying past the drone.
Last reason I shoot in higher frame rates, for digital pans in post. If I shoot at 24 FPS at 5k then want to do a 1080 or even 720 digital pan using 24 FPS footage, it’s looks bad. When you do a simple straight on crop your fine, but we are magnifying and moving side to side in a digital pan there aren’t enough frames to support that level of editing in post. I learnt that by trial and error, it’s not information your going to see in many how to YouTube videos. Try it for yourself, go shoot a piece of video at 24 then do a digital pan and zoom, you will see dropped frames and stutter, then shoot the same thing in a higher rate and repeat the process, the results are far more satisfactory.
In the old days when 24 FPS was born it worked well, most cameras were stationary didn’t move much and the framing of the shot was always perfect because it was decided in advance. That kind of filming doesn’t apply to a drone, unless your flying high and not near objects. Drones spin and move fast, they have nothing in common with an old school stationary conventional movie camera.
So that’s my opinion, and it’s just that, an opinion. What works for me may not work for you and that’s okay.
To answer my own question.
I shoot in 5k so I can crop the footage. When I fly I think of my flight as a rough cut, I already know I’m going to be reframing the shots a little in post. My flying isn’t perfect, and in post I get all the time in the world to sit and decide the best way to frame what I’ve got. For me the flying is like making a sketch, jotting down what I want in scribbles, the actual painting itself happens in post. 5k allows me to make a bigger sketch.
As for why I use a higher frame rate that’s a little more complicated to explain. I myself don’t worry about motion blur for two reasons, it’s hard to see motion blur on a tablet which is what most of us watch drone videos on, and second, I’m rarely fly fast near objects or doing fast turns where motion blur is created. The possibility for motion blur to be present isn’t even there in in 97% of my footage. I tend to shoot low and slow, and too much speed near objects means more visits to DJI to get a crashed drone fixed lol.
Another reason I tend to shoot in a higher frame rate, what if something unexpected happens while I’m shooting and I want to show it in slow mo, like a bird gracefully flying past the drone.
Last reason I shoot in higher frame rates, for digital pans in post. If I shoot at 24 FPS at 5k then want to do a 1080 or even 720 digital pan using 24 FPS footage, it’s looks bad. When you do a simple straight on crop your fine, but we are magnifying and moving side to side in a digital pan there aren’t enough frames to support that level of editing in post. I learnt that by trial and error, it’s not information your going to see in many how to YouTube videos. Try it for yourself, go shoot a piece of video at 24 then do a digital pan and zoom, you will see dropped frames and stutter, then shoot the same thing in a higher rate and repeat the process, the results are far more satisfactory.
In the old days when 24 FPS was born it worked well, most cameras were stationary didn’t move much and the framing of the shot was always perfect because it was decided in advance. That kind of filming doesn’t apply to a drone, unless your flying high and not near objects. Drones spin and move fast, they have nothing in common with an old school stationary conventional movie camera.
So that’s my opinion, and it’s just that, an opinion. What works for me may not work for you and that’s okay.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
I think the FAA is missing it with the 107 requirements
- Started by edmartin123
- Replies: 3
Forum statistics
