If you take individual frames of movies, they are not sharp. They have blurry objects. The images when made to appear 24 times in a second give us smooth motion. Shooting on ones and shooting on twos means that you either take one frame of film per movement or two frames of film per movement during an action.
If at high resolution p or more, decnt video setting then its really good. But at low resolution than p or low video settings then no, as you are gaining fps by loosing quality. The reasons for using 30fps is strangely complicated and it mainly has to do with television and electricity standards set a long time ago. Additionally, as technology continues to evolve, many smartphones are now capable of recording at 60 fps as well. The next key variable to take into consideration when choosing a frame rate is the amount of motion in your video.
The higher frame rate also allows for more flexibility when editing. Sports are often recorded at a high frame rate so they can be slowed down to show replays while still maintaining crisp, clear video. The way a video is delivered, such as via YouTube or broadcast television, and the device a person uses to view your video can greatly impact the options you have for frame rate.
This is quickly becoming the most common way to deliver video, and many streaming services support a wide array of frame rates. This ensures that your videos look realistic and fit what people expect from broadcast television. Live broadcasts, such as news and sports, are almost always shot at 30fps, whereas TV shows and movies are usually shot at 24fps. Movie theaters and projectors in general are still an incredibly popular way to consume video.
Much like TV broadcasts, the frame rate should be kept to 24fps. The final factors to consider when choosing a frame rate are file size and export times. This variable was eliminated when the Vitaphone process came to town, synchronising sound-to-picture and giving birth to the 'talkies', starting with the The Jazz Singer in which also had the distinction of being the first filmed musical. The standard frame rate was set to 24fps to make the whole process work.
Even though lower budget silent films were still being produced after and newer and better sound recording methods were developed including the addition of recording sound next to the picture along the film strip , filming at 24fps became the standard. It also made economic sense as well. Film stock wasn't cheap and it was decided that a rate of 24 was the best compromise between how much stock would be needed and creating a satisfactory level of realistic motion. Fast forward a few decades to the invention of the television and broadcast standards, including interlaced and the progressives, and different frame rates came into play.
Meanwhile, cinema stayed faithful to the 24fps standard and audiences grew accustomed to it. Even today, if you want to achieve a 'cinematic look' to your home movies, you would use this standard.
There have been attempts in the past to move on, to evoke a similar passion for another standard or look, but so far things have been fruitless.
I remember back in looking forward to Michael Mann's true story gangster movie Public Enemies. The motion seemed so lifelike, some of it was shot with the latest high definition cameras, and it looked set to blow my amateur movie-going mind.
What we got was something different. Not just digital noise in the darker scenes, but the whole affair just looked wrong somehow.
The smooth motion of the actors looked like they had come from segments of a behind the scenes documentary, filmed on someone's smaller camcorder.
Although it was a mixture of film and digital, the setups used e. A more recent example was the backlash against Peter Jackson's choice of releasing his first Hobbit movie back in at 48fps. Many are familiar with this story of course, but despite Jackson's view of "just get over it;" audiences just couldn't move on. Like Public Enemies , it just looked 'too' real, like reality television, instead of a fantasy to escape in.
Effectively speeding up the footage. However I can see this effect in a 25p timeline also. I definitely think with 24fps you have to be very precise when panning or you get that jitter effect. I'm curious herein if what you are seeing is judder from playing 24 fps on a 30 or 60 hz screen or something else. I've never been able to verify that I can see judder personally.
Once hz monitors are the norm, of course judder won't be an issue. I watched that drone video you posted, and at the 28s mark there is definitely something wrong. It's jumping all over the place without that much motion, so I would guess at operator error somewhere.
Certainly dropping a 60fps clip on a 24 fps timeline will cause noticeable problems without good frame blending. All these shots are kinda in motion so might be jitter corrected by the camera.
Maybe do some 24fps tripod shots and see how the motion of the object is flowing? I think with YouTube in general the problem is people are told to set their camera to 24fps because it's the movie standard.
That is fine. But then they go on to record their video without thinking about their frame rate: camera pans that are too fast, subjects moving in the frame too fast, parallaxing shots that are too fast and look weird. I see this commonly with drone shots with parallax shots. Maybe their shutter speed was off, or they filmed in 30fps and then forgot to conform it.
I definitely notice it at the mark in the video. Maybe in the future the world will standardized on PAL or something close and we can just make 25fps the new cinema standard and do away with the weird but genius quirks with NTSC cathode ray tube jiggery they did. The funny thing is, I see that literally all the time in online videos, not as much in Hollywood productions but even some of them have some really bad scenes where it is jittery. I think the biggest problem is that the typical camera doesn't have an option to record at a multiple of 24, they are mostly multiples of 30 i.
So years ago, I concluded Why have to worry about panning speeds, reconforming clips in post, optical flow, frame blending, etc Is all that work and careful planning really worth it in the end for anything less than high end commercial and Hollywood work?
It gets even better You can even add that back in post using Davinci Resolve. I mean come on I watched an excellent video from Gerald Undone years ago when I started questioning my frame rate choices again because I kept seeing people recommending 24FPS, but after watching this video I never questioned my 30FPS decision again.
Shoot what you're happy with. If I listened to every opinion on YouTube or forum, I'd be a confused mess. I've had suggestions even here to shoot p, and 8K and 4K and 6K and then there's the thoughts on 8 bit vs 10 bit vs 12 bit and 60fps and 24fps and 25fps and 30fps.
You can find a YouTube video suggesting each and everyone if you look. Its like upscaling p to 4K, what's the point, when you can shoot 4K. If you want the motion blur of 24p, film it. If not, film something else. I'll use motion blur to correct where I couldn't use the right shutter speed. I won't use it to pretend I'm shooting something I wasn't, unless a client asks me to.
I definitely do that already, It's just incredible to me that so many people release YouTube videos with that kind of stutter and either don't notice it or don't care; yet the rest of the footage is great color grade, camera movements, content, etc. If you see it in YouTubers' shots but not Hollywood shots with similar amounts of motion, then it's user error and not a problem of 24 fps per se.
0コメント