24 fps. what are the advantages

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Brian, Dec 24, 2013.

  1. Brian

    Brian Guest

    Often you find in cameras that can record video an option for recording in
    24 fps which they say are the choice of professional movie makers. I often
    wonder why it would make a difference. In my country we use the PAL system
    which is 25 fps so changing to 24 fps is only one frame less per second.

    Can someone please tell me how I would benefit by recording in 24 fps?
     
    Brian, Dec 24, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. This is one of my "pet-peeves"...;-) Technically, 24P is a hangover
    from film, with its technical (and also financial, in the early days)
    compromise on frame rate between motion-smoothness and practicality.
    24 fps was decided on, and became the standard - and now, many in video
    (a demonstrably superior medium these days, being one that can shoot
    much higher frame rates for superior image-quality and motion-rendering)
    still seek to emulate the "look' of film. UGH! They can have the soft,
    juddery look of 24P if they want it - but I dislike it! It's time to
    move on, and to take advantage of the superior performance level offered
    now by video! 8^)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Dec 24, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Brian

    Brian Guest

    I still don't see how shooting at 24 fps makes a movie look like a film to
    the audience. I also read that there are some problems in panning when
    recording at 24 fps. So I'm wondering why they need to include this option
    unless someone wants to mix film recorded at 24 fps with video which would
    be rare. The 50 fps option is more useful especially if you want slow
    motion.
     
    Brian, Dec 26, 2013
    #3
  4. Yes, and partly these are the same...;-) GREAT, huh? Love those
    backward-turning wagon wheels, the blur-with-panning effect,
    the overall softer look of film - or, with 24P video, that
    "delightful" (unless a slow shutter speed is chosen...;-),
    strobe-like "juddering" effect with motion. Gosh, gimme some
    of that! 8^)
    And better sharpness, better motion-rendering, etc. The ONLY
    reason I can think of for shooting 24P being a good choice is
    if the resulting video will be released ONLY on film copies -
    and how many people do that from amateur-level gear...?!;-)
    Well, actually, there is another reason, MAYBE(!), and that
    is if the final product will go onto Blu-ray, which does not
    currently (generally, but...;-) permit 50/60P at 1920x1080,
    but then 50/60I still may be better for that...;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Dec 26, 2013
    #4
  5. Brian

    Ty Ford Guest

    Odd, I thought that as more of a sound guy it was my careless ignorance of
    visuals that brought me to a similar conclusion.

    Did someone mention that shooting 24fps uses less film than shooting 30 fps?

    Regards,

    Ty Ford

    Try my blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
    Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
    Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
     
    Ty Ford, Jan 12, 2014
    #5
  6. Brian

    Brian Guest

    With the high cost of film then I can understand the reason for using a
    slower frame rate. I wonder why they choose 24fps and not 16 or some other
    frame rate?
     
    Brian, Jan 14, 2014
    #6
  7. Uh, in my first post on this:
    "Technically, 24P is a hangover from film, with its technical
    (and also financial, in the early days) compromise on frame
    rate between motion-smoothness and practicality." 8^)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jan 14, 2014
    #7
  8. 24P was bad enough (but manageable); 16P would have been
    unacceptable in its flickering rate.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jan 14, 2014
    #8
  9. Brian

    Ty Ford Guest

    Ty Ford, Jan 14, 2014
    #9
  10. Brian

    Brian Guest

    You would use 30 or 50 fps if you record in NTSC but its PAL in the country
    I live in which is 25 or 50 fps. I mainly record in 25 fps without any
    problems. I think 25 fps was the slowest you could record in with PAL
    without getting flicker from the screen which makes me wonder if there is
    any real advantage in recording at 24 fps...it tends to be a useless camera
    feature.
     
    Brian, Jan 15, 2014
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.