Recently i was thinking the same... 24 looks choppy 30 looks smooth 60 looks too smooth... on a mobile phone with 60 Hz display.. even TV's, computer screens have 60Hz... But to avoid that choppy look, shoot in 30fps put it in a 24fps timeline and slow it down to 80%.. Now it looks cinematic and smooth too on any 60Hz display...🤩
Is this really a thing? Does this really work? will there be any kind of issues, quality loss of any kind? Is there an example of this anywhere? @@efootballhunter
30fps: UA-cam talking heads, informational videos, tech vids, tutorials, news videos, personal travel vlogs. 24fps: Story telling, short films, travel cinematic videos, music videos, wedding vids. This is the way I see (and feel it) and it has worked perfectly for me.
24fps in music videos is debatable to me, if the video is a live rendition for example - because sometimes with only 24fps you can't perfectly line up the audio with the video (from an external recording device), whereas 30fps gives you a few extra frames to move the audio in editing.
30fps is good for social media and UA-cam because platforms are geared towards 30fps but 24fps is great for a lot of other thing. Just like gear, you have to use the frame rate that works best for a project. Can't use a gimbal for everything and can't use 24fps for everything.
My prediction is soon most content creators will migrate to 30 fps as the new “cinematic” standard as it’s still only around 6 frames more than 24 fps so there’s still some motion blur yet is more smoother to the human eye. Although I do agree 24 fps is the Hollywood standard that we have gotten used to in our lives, the 6 extra frames in 30 fps will just “patch it up” a little to smooth the edges a bit which adds a touch of motion clarity. I live in Australia so we should at 25 fps here, so bumping it to 30 fps isn’t a huge leap but I find my videos still look cinematic but the motion is more smooth.
One thing you mentioned here just saved my day. I couldn't get smooth looking video in 30FPS or 60FPS, no matter what I tried. It was always jerky. Until you mentioned the screen frequency. The monitor I started using for viewing and editing was set by default to 75Hz and once I changed it to 60Hz my footage became buttery smooth...feel like a complete fool but definitely happier than before 😁
Great video man. I've done both for 2 years for different styles of projects and in my opinion 24 has been the hardest to work with. It's definitely harder when the project has varying frame rates.
Hi, thanks, loved the video. This may not be obvious to a lot of people, because anyone that's only been an adult for less than 20 years may have never used anything but digital cameras. But if you're older, the difference between what is or isn't cinematic looking comes from how we shot home movies in the 80s, and how many TV shows were created, vs how movies were made. Video, vs film. We all had big clunky camcorders with video tape, and VHS players at home. Sitcoms are shot on video. Those home movies and TV shows had an identifiable "look". Where Hollywood films were always shot on film. 24 fps more closely resembles that filmic look which makes it look "cinematic", while video has that smoother look from the higher frame rate. Another factor is motion blur, which becomes more obvious at lower frame rates. The view might not be able to really notice it consciously, but it's there, and would be part of the character of Hollywood films, but not in shows and home movies shot on video.
I hate 24fps motion blur with a passion. Looks super unnatural to me. It adds additional blur that wouldnt be there in real life, as our eyes dont see at 24fps.
"24fps" works only if your device is capable of black frame insertion usually at 120hz. Thats something like 1% of the TVs assuming proper configuration was done.
I hope you've all had the chance to experience true 24fps film played back in a movie theater on film. I'm glad that I'm old enough that I've seen that. And 24fps film is infinitely more cinematic than 24fps digital.
I've been working with 29.97, 23.976, 59.54, 24, 30 and 60 for years. 24 remains my aesthetic preference by far. And I've often wondered why -- it's the least "accurate" of the options. Why choose inaccuracy? There's a tangible possibility that's even supported by science: It's the abstraction that is powerful, it mimics the way our memories and imaginations work rather than merely our mechanical senses. (24fps is most correlated with higher alphawave production in the brain.) 60 is just too "real" and leaves us distanced from the experience - ends up being "out there", not in here with us. 18-24 fps is the fuzzy edge where the illusion produced is perceived more as motion than a fast succession of images. In other words, it's just barely fast enough. Whereas over 40-50 fps skates the edge between being able to discern the abstracted motion of film (illusory motion) against the sensory visual perception of real live movement in the world. In other words, 24fps hits that sweet spot between static imagery and motion, whereas 48 fps and above becomes indistinguishable from real-life motion. The latter gets in the way rather than improves the experience precisely because it is technically too realistic for our emotional processing. In fact, an objection you often hear pertaining to "it looks like video", or the "soap opera effect" is that it is "hyper-real", looks too real. How could that be a bad thing? Because watching stories as movies / TV is ultimately a psychological experience tying in deeply with our emotions, and high frame rates simply belie that intent, takes us out of it. The technical realism degrades the aesthetic realism. It's the same truth that the best visual art in the world is not measured by how "realistic' or "accurate" it is (an idea easier to intuit than why filmmakers and audiences writ large invariably stick with 24fps). Now you might be saying, “Well, higher frame rates have not been around very long, they will become more ubiquitous over time. People only prefer 24 fps out of habit, because they associate it with a movie experience.” And you'd be wrong about that. High rate motion has been possible almost since the beginning of motion pictures, and then has been with us in actuality for three-quarters of a century. 24 fps has stubbornly persisted despite efforts to move beyond. We see now that, quite likely, 24fps resonates with our biological / sensory / neural / psychological makeup in the right way. Both slower and faster rates get abandoned. (Again, research backs this up.) VistaVision goes back to the 1950s, and the cameras were capable of shooting and projecting up to 72 fps. Yet, ultimately the studios exploited the high resolution of VistaVision but abandoned the higher frame rates the inventors of VistaVision intentionally made possible. The idea - a part of it - was that VistaVision was far less demanding than IMAX could ever be for a high resolution movie experience while adding to it a high frame rate experience. But, because the high rate part of it was a turn-off instead of a plus, that begged question, "why do we need VistaVision then when we have trusty ol' 70mm?" and thus was largely abandoned. In more recent decades, the only time VistaVision has ended up being used at a high frame rate is for "sensation" at theme parks (like Universal). When an attempt at distribution of the Hobbit in 48 fps was made, it was roundly rejected. You don't see any more 48 fps cinema (except 3d, which, because of the way it works, isn't really perceived the same way). The same story all over again. But, I'm a fan of the proverbial definition of insanity. Let’s try again…. While television since its inception ran at an interleaved 60 half-resolution images per second thanks to interlaced video technology that made television possible (via cathode ray tubes), when videotape recording supplanted kinescope (literally filming a studio TV monitor with a 16mm movie camera) as a way to record, distribute and broadcast shows, the network studios made a point of continuing to shoot on film for non-live content -- often not very good quality 16mm reversal stocks to save some bucks. It just “looked better”, sold better. And that's when talk of "the soap opera effect" reared its head. (I know, because I was there, a kid in the 1970s and coming of age in the 1980s, very into filmmaking even then.) Super low-budget dramatic programming (also things like TV dramas from BBC, which looked really cheap at the time) fell into the realm of "something's off, it looks like the news or a soap opera". Even when high definition video, in place of film, started being exploited to capture episodic TV (as a higher quality future-proofing videotape storage, editing and distribution medium for use while all television broadcasting remained standard definition), STILL.... 24 fps is what was preferred in the end. (So it was necessary at the time to use a technique called 3:2 pulldown to achieve the 24fps effect on videotape. In other words, time, engineering, regular expense went into actually producing a slower frame rate. Extra trouble turned out to be worth it.) A few high-budget shows in 30 frame progressive (not interlaced, ie., half the number of images perceived per second) started appearing. They didn't work as well and disappeared just as fast. (Though it returned in some television later, like the CSI shows.) 24 fps possesses a kind of psychological realism more than a technical realism, and thus it persists. This seems to be the case. High frame rates are best for sports, gaming; but not for storytelling, which always, always falls back to 24fps decade after decade after decade after decade. This is far more than force of habit or nostalgic association. It's biological.
@edwardtheologis5960 To speak to some of your points -- you're right, point well taken, that there is no one frame rate "to rule them all!" and there shouldn't be. I think it is approaching fact that 24fps has very specific, pleasing, concrete effects on experience thanks to biology. BUT, those effects themselves have a place. While it's no accident that for decades we've kept returning to 24fps for storytelling, we also long ago landed on higher frame rates for sports, informational content (the news), and live content (out of necessity). And now gaming. And as virtual reality becomes more accessible (IMHO we won't get there until we can be free of "gear" -- people just aren't inclined to suit up to veg out), seems likely that generalized (gearless) VR will be at higher frame rates, no? A fascinating one to watch out for! So interesting if 24fps pops up even in that medium meant to so closely virtualize real life. As far as the "embarrassment" or "vagueness" of pegging something being more "cinematic", I think "cinematic" in this case simply is a stand in for emotion, memory, imagination, storytelling... very much a part of our psychological, existential realities, part and parcel of our animal makeup. It's "big" rather than "vague", perhaps. It's complex, the thing you're talking about; but more significantly, it's real. It's not being flakey to speak of "cinematic" -- you really are talking about something substantial that, really, isn't about "cinema" per se, rather what cinema represents, what role it fulfills. As far as polling your users whether or not they "noticed" if you shot at 24 vs 30 fps -- that's the wrong question! We're talking about an effect that is unconscious for most people. Audiences are NOT going to notice it... but they WILL be affected by it. Cognitive science is bursting at the seams with research showing that the reasons people -- you, me, we -- articulate for our preferences or making the choices we do, are usually wrong! How can that be? Well, researchers can heavily influence your stated preferences and choices just by changing the color of the room, or having an attractive person in the room, or having played you a certain piece of music five minutes earlier, or placing an unpleasant photograph inconspicuously on the wall. And yet, to a person, we as subjects will state with 100% confidence what we believe are our conscious reasons for our behavior. How a person talking to you looks, where they put their hands or gaze while speaking with you, how far apart their eyes are, whether or not they twitch their cheeks, whether they speak in active or passive tense, what you had for lunch meanwhile, are too often decisive of how we respond. And yet we have no idea at all. We literally are wrong about WHY we do things or prefer the things we do. The real reasons are largely unconscious, not merely the "reasoned" ones we are aware of superficially. I mean, Steve Job's big trick was too ignore what we *said* we wanted, and instead (steal ideas and then) design for us what we actually liked. Presumptuous, yeah, I know… but if you're, like, really good at it like Steve, you get away with it (and go to bed with a billion dollars in your pocket). He had no confidence in "polling" (and frankly, neither do I! How 'bout you? Guess it has its place, but skepticism of responses in context is always warranted, that's the lesson here). It is almost certain that a lay audience will never in a million years _notice_ what frame rate you chose. But it is also almost certain they WILL be influenced by it. I mean you could try some experiments with your channel!
This comment was worth more than the whole video I'm watching. I was strongly on the side of "24fps is just a myth that people parrot" but now I understand better. Got me thinking too that perhaps there's another factor at play. It could be that less frames results in less image processing for the brain hence a more relaxing state of mind. Those extra frames aren't providing any extra meaningful information for the story that we are there to watch. They simply provide finer motion detail which isn't necessary and might actually be getting in the way by forcing our brains to process extra information. Now that I think about it, when I watch high fps video I feel much more wired compared to watching low fps video. And I really doubt this is an illusion now that I really think about it. High fps is great for games though.
I agree, but have never heard that explained so elequently. Simply put 24fps is not real time, maybe better said, 24fps is low resolution time, like a dream or a memory.
I learned a great trick from another UA-camr. Shoot in 30 FPS and then create a time line which is 24 FPS drop the 30 FPS on the 24 FPS time line and slow it down by 80%. looks amazing. Kind of dreamy. Try it.
@@JorisHermans you know what, some time I think I am going crazy, that I can spot the diference between the 2. I shot everything in pal system but I am having second thoughts
So, I never hear people talk about this, but my reason for switching to 24 FPS from 30 FPS is better low light and more slow mo when shooting for slow mo.
Low light just depends on what shutter you use. You can use 1/50th also when shooting 30fps. I even prefer it that way because I live in Europe and it will prevent flickering lights.
24fps looks more "cinematic" because that's what people are used to and the film industry still shoots/distributes in 24fps. This came about due to sync sound and compromising between enough frames and cost of film. This also can help explain why people are obsessed with "the film look." Its what we're used to, and that's changing as coloring pushes boundaries with newer film makers. It is a matter of what we have come to associate with "what looks like a movie" vs "what looks like TV" vs "what looks like sports" etc. and it is all based on what we are used to... that's all. People didn't like The Hobbit in 48fps because it looked different and unexpected. Its that simple. If we had been shooting 48fps for a hundred years at a certain shutter speed, we'd think 24p at a 180 degree rule looked weird and not cinematic.
I do not think it is a matter of what we are used to. Our brain can only process so much information at a time. Higher frame rate would make a film more realistic as it is a lot more smooth. The reason why films are generally kept at 24 fps is largely due to the fact that you do not want films to look too real because people’s nerve systems simply cannot cope with it. It would only send out the signal as weird, or real at best. It might be ok on smaller screens. But on larger screens like the cinema, people would not be able to cope.
@@andredingstertsao My response is based on history and data, The framerate for film before sync sound was different, more loose, then it changed, and now we are used to what it looks like today. Ask yourself why its 24 fps and not 16, 18, 20, 28, etc. Historically it had to do with a compromise between sync sound and saving money on film. Paired with human's pattern seeking behavior, it follows that if it looks different, there's something off. THis is totally normal human behavior.
I fully agree! As someone who grew up not going to many movie theatres and watching most of movies either on a CRT TV or a computer monitor, I have no preference for 24fps. In fact 24fps looks juddery to me. I cannot stand panning shots when I go to the movies now, it just looks so jarring. I don't understand how people defend it and say it's the best!
@@PouyaMan Its interesting you say that because we see similar things going on with vertical video V horizontal, preference for 60fps for people who are used to looking at video games, and wider angle lens preference for headshots due to the use of smart phones for selfies.
I used to hate soap effects until I got an oled lgc1. I can't stand the jutter now. I set the jutter on 3. I rarely see a ghosting effect. Even when I do see the ghosting, it doesn't compare to the horrible jutter. Im going to order Gemini man to see if I like 60fps. So far, it seems 30fps would be better than 24fps for the 24fps cry babies. lol
24 frames per second is Cinema and always will be! There’s something about the motion that brings a realism, a sense of reality, to take seriously what your watching, 30 frames is great for sports and live events. There’s a hyper sitcom energy vibe with 30 frames, it’s why it doesn’t work for Cinema for the most part.
I am very sensible to stutter, jitter... Not at the movie theater, pure 24 (at 48hz) it's ok for my eyes. I see stutter when it's 24fps on the 60hz monitor even if I set the monitor to 48 or 72 or 24hz. 30 works better for my eyes, maybe the playback is more optimized. I know that many people are less sensible to this, so yes, your video is spot on, there is no reason to convince the others that they are wrong (BUT THEY ARE!!). I only would like that TVs and monitor were optimized to reproduce 24fps videos in PLL sync with the monitor (like they do with video signals).
One of my favorite tricks as a new videographer is to shoot at 30fps the slow it down slightly on CapCut. That will be 9 if you’re using that software. It gives your videos a dreamy feel.
If the camera is stationary and does not pitch/yaw/pan suddenly, 24 FPS will provide a cinematic look. In the "old days" we would save the pitch/yaw/pan shots with wide open aperture, laser precise distances (or spend all the bucks on the best focus puller we could find) to avoid these stutters at 24fps. It also helps to have an ARRI or RED that employs a global shutter to combat this. This is because nothing in the background is moving in relation to the subject. The issue is in the SHUTTER. It always has been. Here is the trick in Mirrorless-land; Most people viewing on UA-cam do so in 60Hz. So making your SHUTTER SPEED divisible by this is most natural. Forget the 180 degrees, sort-of. The 180 rule is what gives you that motion blur. It is actually better to match the shutter speed to your viewing Hz, and then adjust your frame-rate to the 180 rule - backwards. So.... Viewing at 60Hz, and setting your shutter speed to 60, renders a frame-rate of 30Hz, which gives you the same motion blur as a: Motion picture projector, that spins at 24 FPS and had that shot at 48 Shutter Speed. You can't compare the two... because the "projector" is spinning at different speeds. In fact trying to demonstrate the difference between the two on the same projector defeats the experiment/lesson. You get the same effect when you try to play an old 33 at 45 on a record player, and vice versa. The video is correct. Figure out the projector, and shoot for the projector. Because you are shooting to match the projector speed. Period.
First: I like the humor in your smart statements! Second: You really make me curious to give 24 fps a fair chance - after having filmed with 30 fps all the time - and sometimes 60 fps or 120 fps, if I want preserving the opportunity of slow motion. Here in Switzerland I should shoot with PAL 25/50/100 fps - because of the 50 Hz in our electrical grid. I was told that if I don't, artificial light sources would flicker in my Videos. But I made the test and to my surprise this is not the case - I filmed different lights with 30 fps and there was no flickering at all (have no explanation for that). So I am free choosing whatever framerate I want. My stomach and my heart tell me that you can't be wrong with your sense, your perception of 24 fps vs 30 fps. Although my brain is not yet convinced I will film in 24 fps the coming weeks. Thank you so much for sharing your experience, kind regards from Bern country.
both 24 and 30fps looks better on an LCD screen because on LED screens the pixels doesnt respond as fast and you have a motion blur. On OLED however 24 or 30 can look really bad and stuttery in some scenes. It almost looks like 15-20 fps on LCD
3:14 -- From Wikipedia: De gustibus non est disputandum, or de gustibus non disputandum est, is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" (literally "about tastes, it should not be disputed/discussed"). The phrase is commonly rendered in English as "There is no accounting for taste(s)." The implication is that everyone's personal preference is a merely subjective opinion that cannot be right or wrong, so they should never be argued about as if they were.
24fps is the standard frame rate for movies meant for a theater. 30fps (for NTSC countries like the USA) is the fps of television. Moreover, until relatively recently, movies were shot on film and television was shot on interlaced analog video. So that's where my personal differentiation between 24 (for movies or "cinema") and 30 fps (for television) comes from. I'd be curious if Europeans who are predominantly PAL 25 fps care as much about the frame rate. At least before, the bigger differentiation in look and feel "cinematic" vs "not cinematic" came from film vs. video. Now, in the age of digital everything, the differences are more subtle and only sometimes noticeable depending on how much motion is the frame. In the end, they both have a "look" and both can be used depending on the creator's needs.
Its all about the motion blurring if they want the smooth softer look because of the slower shutter speeds of the lower fps. High FPS general produce crisper imagery that we are accustomed from the 59.97 hz of old scan lines of CRT. Personally, I would use high FPS if i were shooting something that I want with crisp clear imagery like a landscape or astronomy showcase but use 24/25 with stuff with lots of bokeh and softer imagery like a short film. I wouldnt want the lead actress's face to be super sharp until all the pores are highly visible.
How come in real life I see motion blur when I move my hand back and forth, but if I film it in 60fps I don't? Does my eyes or brain see screens different than real life? Why don't I see motion blur on the screen that I would see in real life? It's the same action at the same speed. My hands aren't blurred in real life or the Camara would see that. My guess is that life has trillions of fps and we only process a small amount of them. The camera cuts down the frame rate to 60 and are brains can get a slightly longer view of each frame before the next frame comes into view. And we see it without blur. This has bugged me for a while now.
Nicely summed up and in a funny way - I think it's just easier for some to be told what is better or what to use instead of actually thinking about it and testing the different frame rates...but it is also useful to study the norms and standards of past and present to know where you may fit in or not as the case may be. Thanks for this video, Joris!
60fps at 1/60 shutter seems to be the best of both worlds imo (at least for Social media stuff per say), 0 jitter, buttery-smooth pans and tilts, you get that lifelike feel and overall feels more modern, But the 1/60th shutter does retain that nice motion blur, looks natural and is better in low light than 1/120. And even if you don't want to necessarily export at 60fps but 30fps,well 60 divides evenly to 30 and you can slow it down by 50/60% whenever you feel like, and the non-slowed down parts will still look good because of that 1/60 shutter, sure the slow motion might look a little blurrier but better than 15fps.
Loved your passion (LOL) . Same arguement when it comes to dance (i.e. Classic Argentine Tango (appilito style vs. Nuevo). Is one better? They both have their place and appropriate music and mood. So it goes...
Great video mate. Awesome explanation and comparison. I've been shooting on 30fps but changing it to play at 80% of the original speed and it is a great look without the jitters. Looks smooth and not slowed down at all. What is your opinion on shooting in one frame rate and slowing it down? Thanks for the video again and keep well. And yes you are always right 😁
I got so used to 30/60FPS that when I go to the cinema 24Hz sometimes bugs me and I have harder time enjoying it (especially with faster camera movement eg. over landscapes). I don't experience that on smaller 24FPS screens thopugh.
It matters on the content I guess. For movies the slower , the 24-30 is better for cinematic experience , the almost real like movements of 60s is better for presentation /unboxing etc , a little bit less then that its better for Tv shows
I think that what it all comes down to is the director's/creators vision. The only people who will really notice the differences are other people who know about framerates, shutter speed and refresh rates. The average people watching will simply not notice. And when you bring in gamers, since they're used to it, they will notice the stutters a lot more. Simply because they're used to always seeing ~120 fps; which may influence their opinion. Anyway, salutjes! 😂😂
60+ is needed nowadays and that is all because the best and most common screens right now are OLEDs, and they are very bad with 24/30 fps at fast motion, unbearable bad, crt/plasmas have super clear motion resolution, but OLEDs require very high fps to be anywhere close to crt/plasma at fast scenes, sports, action scenes, etc.. OLED needs at least 120fps to be anywhere close in motion clarity. 60 fps is ok, but still blurry if camera moves faster. (that is all because of instant pixel response, which is not natural to our eyes at lower FPS). Old tech was much better at motion and 24/30 fps.
Watching 24 fps movie in plasma tv is so glorious just like Lawrence of Arabia its so beautiful.Modern tv suck in motion thats why they add soap epera effect that suck too.60 fps movies is like watching B movie
Sorry for commenting to a old video, but all android phones running Android 11+, modern iPhones, and proper TVs adapt exactly to the content frame rate and thats pretty large percentage of the 60Hz audience. So it may not matter so much as you think. Desktop computers are the only ones that struggle with 24/25p footage. Also, as European I stick with 25fps.
@@gamecubeplayer There is two reasons: 1. 30fps causes terrible flicker 2. As I said, all android phones, most modern iphones and smart TVs adapt to a multiply of the frame rate used. This represents like 80% of the devices used for watching according to yt stats. For example, my 120hz tv changes to 50hz when watching traditional broadcast tv. Of course, gaming content and screen record will always and forever be 60p.
@@laboratorionumerouno2 things: 1. how does 30fps (or 29.97fps) cause terrible flicker? 2. if you used 30fps (or 29.97fps) then everything (including computers) could display it perfectly
@@gamecubeplayer 1. I can upload an example if you wanna see . While phones may have good antiflicker, proper cameras unfortunately dont. 2. Some people (including me) use 75, 144 or 165 hz displays on computers which means even 30fps can't be displayed properly.
@@laboratorionumerounoi have a trick: i have a 143.98hz monitor but if i want to backup (record) a 24fps, 30fps or 60fps youtube video with obs i temporarily set my computer to 119.88hz
Ha, ha first truly honest frame rate video in a while! I use a 2016 model Canon camcorder that shoots at 29.97 FPS, period. Personally, I don't care what looks more "cinematic," whatever that is, all I care about is having reasonable picture and sound on my lectures. I bought the Canon mainly because it has an auxiliary mic input so I can use a lavalier for better sound. I heard a lot of scuttlebutt about the "soap opera effect," which is the real reason I started watching videos about frame rate. So far, I have not seen any convincing demonstrations of 24 vs 30 or 60 FPS, side-by-side that show the difference. Frankly, I just don't see the difference. Supposedly, soap operas look "too real," or "too smooth," and that is supposed to be why a lot of people hate the effect. So far, I am not convinced.
7:55 I just don't get it. How can you say that? Where is the quality aspect here? We have a totally different picture experience in a cinema and on a 60hz computer screen. Never ever i realized this typical UA-cam movement stutter - which is VERY annoying - in a movie theater. I'd do whatever it takes to avoid this terrible chopped motion on youtube camera drives - if i could. Because it spoiles the scenery every time it happens. And no, i don't speak about motion blur. I'm totally fine with motion blur.
It likely has more to do with shutter angle, aka shutter speed, than it does framerate. The shutter speed controls the level of motion blur. It's standard for cameras to shoot 60fps at 1/120 of a second (less motion blur) vs 30fps which is commonly shot at 1/60 of a second (more motion blur) vs 24fps at 1/48 of a second (even more motion blur). Someone could easily decide to shoot 30fps video at 1/48 of a second shutter speed or 60fps at 1/60 of a second. I'm curious to do my own experimentation with this.
You can't be "conditioned" to like higher frame rates because reality always runs at max frame rate and high fps is just the baseline. But it does take conditioning for the brain to accept 24fps as "cinematic" and make positive associations with it.
@@JorisHermans I very rarely watch movies or TV, most of the content I watch is 30 or 60 fps. 60 fps looks a little better to me, but I get it that it's more data to store and that it takes longer to render than 30 fps footage and probably not worth it for video productions that don't contain a lot of motion to begin with (or that you're putting an extremely high amount of effort into).
Joris, This was the best frame-rate video ever. I am going to shoot in 24 all the time since it may help keep my sony cameras cool. Besides, I am really interested in the cine look now as well. Thank you for all you work. craig
Then for more cinematic video the "only" choice is NTSC/24fps with 1/50 of shutter speed, isn't it? (I don't know if exist camera, like as mirrorless, where we can set 1/48 of shutter speed)
Sorry, you didn't address the most important aspect and that is shutter angle... For the motion blur we have become use to, since the invention of sound in like 1929, is the 180 degree shutter or twice the frame rate, 1/48 for 24fps and 1/60 for 30 fps... Before the sound era, films were shot at 16-18 fps, it varied many were "hand cranked" ... When sound came in the film had to move at a faster rate over the record head for better audio quality. 35mm was expensive and 24fps was the least amount of even number ( for easy editing ) frames and still have good sound... We have been used to the motion blur that 1/48 at 24fps ever since... When TV came into play (here in the U.S.) because of operating on 60 cycles per second, 30fps was adopted for video, ( in the US)... Still, the 180 degree shutter rule must be adhered to for the, "cinematic" motion blur we are use to... If you shoot at 30fps with a 1/48 or 1/50 shutter instead of 1/60 it will look "bad"... Sorry for the long winded answer... Thx Moses....
30fps @ 1/50th looks absolutely fine. It's a matter of taste. edit: same for 60fps by the way. For me, 60fps @ 1/60th looks a lot better than @ 1/120 (or 125) because it'll give you a more natural looking motion blur.
@@JorisHermans No, it's more than that and that is why I had looks "bad" in quotes, everything is subjective... If you follow the 180 degree shutter rule, ( the standard regardless of the frame rate ) the "cinematic" motion blur we have become use to will be realized... Shuttle angle is important... and does make a difference... Also. I know that in Europe you use 50 hertz (50 cycles per sec.) and might change things up for video... Thx, again...
@@mosesknows2062 but that the thing, you say "cinematic" motion blur. If you follow the 180degree rule, at every frame rate the motion blur is different because the shutter speed is different. If you like 1/50th as the"cinematic" motion blur that's it because 1/100 or 1/120 looks completely different. The 180degree rule these days is mainly there for when you're slowing down footage because a slow moving object has less motion blur.
@@JorisHermans Sorry you are wrong... The shutter has to be twice the frame rate,... When I say cinematic, I'm referring to the 1/48 shutter at 24fps that we are use to in the movies for the last 80 some years... That's to say shutter has to be twice the frame rate, for a true comparison of different fps... 1/48 (or 1/50 if camera doesn't do 1/48) at 24fps... 1/60 at 30fps... 1/120 at 60fps... The more fps the faster the shutter for similar results, ie. motion blur... I come from film... I shot in 16mm film for about four years before switching to digital, was just too expensive, lol... The fundamentals are the same... Of course shutter can be played with for creative reasons but you can not compare 24 fps say to 30 fps without changing the shutter to match... Thanks again, Moses...
@moses knows that's not true. If you want similar motion blur through all the frame rates you have to use the same (or as close as possible) shutter. 1/50 can NEVER look similar to 1/120 no matter what the frame rate is. 60fps looks more "cinematic" when using 1/60 instead of 1/120 because the motion blur looks more like 1/50. ua-cam.com/video/UPPSdCrqcFQ/v-deo.html
For reasons I don't fully understand, most of us, most of the time, seem most comfortable with what we are familiar with. When I was in college, a friend worked at a stereo store. His biggest margin product was speakers. He told me that if he was trying to sell a pair of $1000 speakers, he was most successful when he directed customers to $1000 a pair speakers that sounded most like the $200 a pair speakers his potential customer had been listening to for the last five years. His suggestion, "Don't ask them what they want in a speaker; ask them what they listen to at home." I think the same is true with regard to video frame rates. The most die hard 24 fps people I know are over fifty. They can't butt three sentences together without including the word "cinematic" and they RAIL against 60 fps and higher. IMHO, they've been conditioned for decades to like both the strengths AND the shortcomings of 24 fps content. The "under 20" people I know rarely seem to have that prejudice. I don't know any gamers but my bet is that many of them would eagerly set their TVs to display 60 fps content. I think Geoffrey Chaucer was wrong. I think "familiarity breed content."
I just orded a 4k Blu-ray that the seller upscaled to 30 fps, im worried because i hate soap opera effect, do you guys think it will be super noticable?
It just a (bad) habit, 24 is. It's for poor, it's on edge of slide-show deception. We love it coz of motion blur with 180deg speed (1/48). Now 99% of our screens are 60hz. We can shoot 60fps too, but for the natural blur it should be 1/120 that not always doable. So here comes 30fps with same blur at 1/60 ... except in US electricity flickers at same Hz. But the rest of world is fine. Right?
I prefer 24, i have a 60hz monitor that can do 24hz and a 144hz that can also do 120, i like 24ips in both, if you pause a 24ips frame it looks very blurry in a very special way and that gives it a really beautiful motion that 30 and 60 just can't do.. i do play games on high fps but that's because motion blur in most videogames is just an effect applied after rendering and looks very fake, so 24fps or 30 in games just look horrible
i’ve shot 300 vlogs at 30fps and have some of the most cinematic shots ever by simply slowing down 60fps to 30fps and people have definitely commented on it or mentioned it to me in person. I am more than sure 99% of them don’t know the difference of 24/30 I like 30 because it’s easier to edit sound from clip to clip without having to detach the audio which saves me a bunch of time and i’m one of those crazy people who want their timeline to look neat 😂
I say shoot what ever u like to shoot, if it works it works as for me I love shooting in 60fps and play with it in the editing room and I’ll save it in 30fps and it looks smooth like butter to me👍💯💪
I prefer higher frame rate but I don't mind 24fps, unless they switch frame rate back and forth like in the new Avatar movie which was quite distracting
I have done EXTENSIVE experimentation and have categorically determined that 22.7 fps is the MOST cinematic frame rate; a 186 degree shutter angle is the most cinematic shutter angle. I expect both to be available on professional video cameras by the end of 2024 and on consumer level video cameras and hybrids by the middle of 2025.
24 fps has actual science behind it. On optically stabilized camera setup that is perfection. Vlogs 🤣 actually no one cares. Still camera shot is perfection in 24
Ryan kao slows 30fps to 80% for a unique dreamy playback look. Which would also make shooting the other framerates a bit easier. You'd just slow to 80% on the clips that play back in native 30fps
@@themarksmanABP Yes, but that's slow motion, even if it's just 80% slowed down, your audio will still be unusable. You can't use it for when people are talking...
Since most news channels (here in America) have always been in 30fps I feel like I’ve been conditioned to associate it with information, data, events, reality, trust. On the other hand since 99% of movies have been shot in 24fps I feel like I’ve been conditioned to associate this framerate with Imagination, artistry, fiction, dreams, stories. This is just my perspective
I am about to test this with my z cam too. I’m going for a more “cinematic” look. I feel that 24 can look too stuttery but 30 does make it more like a video rather than film. Grrr.
Gast, twennyfour for life yo. But like you said, its all about taste and personal style and thats all that should matter. Thanks for the vid, testing it out en tot de volgende ✌🏽
Are you refering to NTSC 24fps or Pal-i 24fps as there a difference of 1.001 Fps , My interest is more use-sing both on the same timeline but not getting skidded frames/lossed frames. when encoding the final program out , Any thoughts ?
Hello guys I have a question... When watching on a 120hz screen will you be able to actually watch true 24fps in youtube...? Or not, because the pulldown happens maybe BEFORE the video even reaches your screen... happens in the processing of the video, maybe? so it's kinda baked in? I may do some tests because I can switch my monitor between 120 60 and 165
24 vs 30 both are tools to use for certain things. Wouldn't use a roofing hammer to fix a watch. Same tool different purposes. I rarely use that tiny hammer but glad to have it when i need it.
I love the sarcarstic way you said your opinios is the only one correct. Excellent video to discuss this talking about FPS. Like you said, people should understand the differences to select what they feel is better to the ocasion. But now with vertical videos, i am thinking (for me of course) better 30 than 24. I bought a anamorphic lenses for my iphone, i will follow your advice to film with 24 fps cause i will just use in horizontal videos. Congratulations for the content 🎉
Hi folks. I'm still struggling with my decisions on what frame rate to use. I do a lot of wildlife filming so I usually go for 30 fps in an 24 fps output file. That way I can slow down (by 40%) impressive parts (lion hunting scenes for example). 30 fps also because you can never predict what is going to happen next. Wildlife seldom gives you those seconds of time you need to change your settings. If I detect a scene that could be even more phantastic and I've got time, I even switch to 60 fps One should be very sure before filming what output you desire. Down framing is easier than up framing. Or am I wrong? Cheer film makers Steve
i cant watch a 60 fps movie it just looks like everything is moving fast. even when i record on my phone watching any video thats high frame rate looks just too weird for me
I’m a gamer and I hate 24p! I much prefer higher frame rates like 60p if possible. Of course, due to camera and light limitations, I’ll usually shoot at 30. It’s also a little easier to mix it with 60 and 120p slow motion footage. Just seems more practical and looks more smooth to me!
Problem is motion blur ..... your camera adding motion blur (or having longer exposure, even if it is not necessary) to 24FPS and not to 30+FPS ..... just add motion blur to 30FPS in post processing and will look "cinematic" and much better/smoother than 24FPS.
The problem about the cinematic stuf at 30 was just you dont slow the video to 80%, do the test again i just star doing this and look more dreamy more cinematic, but is just my opinion how you say hahaha
I don’t need sound as im making a music video , will add song later , I want to shoot in 30fps and put on a 24fps timeline and slow footage down 80% , that will look smooth and “cinematic” right ? I feel like it will just add a touch of a dreamy look
Keep it friendly in the comments. I have super powers here... 😎💥
Recently i was thinking the same...
24 looks choppy
30 looks smooth
60 looks too smooth...
on a mobile phone with 60 Hz display..
even TV's, computer screens have 60Hz...
But to avoid that choppy look, shoot in 30fps put it in a 24fps timeline and slow it down to 80%..
Now it looks cinematic and smooth too on any 60Hz display...🤩
Really interesting video, excellent job! :)
But now you still shoot in 24fps
Is this really a thing? Does this really work? will there be any kind of issues, quality loss of any kind? Is there an example of this anywhere? @@efootballhunter
30fps: UA-cam talking heads, informational videos, tech vids, tutorials, news videos, personal travel vlogs.
24fps: Story telling, short films, travel cinematic videos, music videos, wedding vids.
This is the way I see (and feel it) and it has worked perfectly for me.
24fps in music videos is debatable to me, if the video is a live rendition for example - because sometimes with only 24fps you can't perfectly line up the audio with the video (from an external recording device), whereas 30fps gives you a few extra frames to move the audio in editing.
30fps is good for social media and UA-cam because platforms are geared towards 30fps but 24fps is great for a lot of other thing. Just like gear, you have to use the frame rate that works best for a project. Can't use a gimbal for everything and can't use 24fps for everything.
💯
What does it mean that UA-cam and other platforms are “geared towards 30fps”? Im not debating, im asking because im a newbie”. Thanks
@@ShauninParadise he talks about it right at the start of the video. It's about frame pacing.
My prediction is soon most content creators will migrate to 30 fps as the new “cinematic” standard as it’s still only around 6 frames more than 24 fps so there’s still some motion blur yet is more smoother to the human eye. Although I do agree 24 fps is the Hollywood standard that we have gotten used to in our lives, the 6 extra frames in 30 fps will just “patch it up” a little to smooth the edges a bit which adds a touch of motion clarity. I live in Australia so we should at 25 fps here, so bumping it to 30 fps isn’t a huge leap but I find my videos still look cinematic but the motion is more smooth.
I think that 30fps is the best choice when editing several clips with 30 and 60fps, in order to avoid jitter.
One thing you mentioned here just saved my day. I couldn't get smooth looking video in 30FPS or 60FPS, no matter what I tried. It was always jerky. Until you mentioned the screen frequency. The monitor I started using for viewing and editing was set by default to 75Hz and once I changed it to 60Hz my footage became buttery smooth...feel like a complete fool but definitely happier than before 😁
So what should the monitor be set at if you shoot 24fps?
@@royaltykidstv 75Hz or 120Hz or 144Hz
Great video man. I've done both for 2 years for different styles of projects and in my opinion 24 has been the hardest to work with. It's definitely harder when the project has varying frame rates.
Hi, thanks, loved the video. This may not be obvious to a lot of people, because anyone that's only been an adult for less than 20 years may have never used anything but digital cameras. But if you're older, the difference between what is or isn't cinematic looking comes from how we shot home movies in the 80s, and how many TV shows were created, vs how movies were made. Video, vs film.
We all had big clunky camcorders with video tape, and VHS players at home. Sitcoms are shot on video. Those home movies and TV shows had an identifiable "look". Where Hollywood films were always shot on film. 24 fps more closely resembles that filmic look which makes it look "cinematic", while video has that smoother look from the higher frame rate.
Another factor is motion blur, which becomes more obvious at lower frame rates. The view might not be able to really notice it consciously, but it's there, and would be part of the character of Hollywood films, but not in shows and home movies shot on video.
The "I'm always right, everyone else is wrong" sarcasm made my day :D
What do you mean "sarcasm" ? 🤔
I love the motion blur of 24fps. It just looks more natural to me. When I shoot 30, it just feels a bit off.
I hate 24fps motion blur with a passion. Looks super unnatural to me. It adds additional blur that wouldnt be there in real life, as our eyes dont see at 24fps.
"24fps" works only if your device is capable of black frame insertion usually at 120hz.
Thats something like 1% of the TVs assuming proper configuration was done.
Very true
If it's just about motion blur, that can easily be added in editing.
I hope you've all had the chance to experience true 24fps film played back in a movie theater on film. I'm glad that I'm old enough that I've seen that. And 24fps film is infinitely more cinematic than 24fps digital.
I've been working with 29.97, 23.976, 59.54, 24, 30 and 60 for years. 24 remains my aesthetic preference by far. And I've often wondered why -- it's the least "accurate" of the options. Why choose inaccuracy? There's a tangible possibility that's even supported by science: It's the abstraction that is powerful, it mimics the way our memories and imaginations work rather than merely our mechanical senses. (24fps is most correlated with higher alphawave production in the brain.) 60 is just too "real" and leaves us distanced from the experience - ends up being "out there", not in here with us. 18-24 fps is the fuzzy edge where the illusion produced is perceived more as motion than a fast succession of images. In other words, it's just barely fast enough. Whereas over 40-50 fps skates the edge between being able to discern the abstracted motion of film (illusory motion) against the sensory visual perception of real live movement in the world. In other words, 24fps hits that sweet spot between static imagery and motion, whereas 48 fps and above becomes indistinguishable from real-life motion. The latter gets in the way rather than improves the experience precisely because it is technically too realistic for our emotional processing. In fact, an objection you often hear pertaining to "it looks like video", or the "soap opera effect" is that it is "hyper-real", looks too real. How could that be a bad thing?
Because watching stories as movies / TV is ultimately a psychological experience tying in deeply with our emotions, and high frame rates simply belie that intent, takes us out of it. The technical realism degrades the aesthetic realism. It's the same truth that the best visual art in the world is not measured by how "realistic' or "accurate" it is (an idea easier to intuit than why filmmakers and audiences writ large invariably stick with 24fps).
Now you might be saying, “Well, higher frame rates have not been around very long, they will become more ubiquitous over time. People only prefer 24 fps out of habit, because they associate it with a movie experience.” And you'd be wrong about that. High rate motion has been possible almost since the beginning of motion pictures, and then has been with us in actuality for three-quarters of a century. 24 fps has stubbornly persisted despite efforts to move beyond. We see now that, quite likely, 24fps resonates with our biological / sensory / neural / psychological makeup in the right way. Both slower and faster rates get abandoned. (Again, research backs this up.)
VistaVision goes back to the 1950s, and the cameras were capable of shooting and projecting up to 72 fps. Yet, ultimately the studios exploited the high resolution of VistaVision but abandoned the higher frame rates the inventors of VistaVision intentionally made possible. The idea - a part of it - was that VistaVision was far less demanding than IMAX could ever be for a high resolution movie experience while adding to it a high frame rate experience. But, because the high rate part of it was a turn-off instead of a plus, that begged question, "why do we need VistaVision then when we have trusty ol' 70mm?" and thus was largely abandoned. In more recent decades, the only time VistaVision has ended up being used at a high frame rate is for "sensation" at theme parks (like Universal).
When an attempt at distribution of the Hobbit in 48 fps was made, it was roundly rejected. You don't see any more 48 fps cinema (except 3d, which, because of the way it works, isn't really perceived the same way). The same story all over again. But, I'm a fan of the proverbial definition of insanity. Let’s try again….
While television since its inception ran at an interleaved 60 half-resolution images per second thanks to interlaced video technology that made television possible (via cathode ray tubes), when videotape recording supplanted kinescope (literally filming a studio TV monitor with a 16mm movie camera) as a way to record, distribute and broadcast shows, the network studios made a point of continuing to shoot on film for non-live content -- often not very good quality 16mm reversal stocks to save some bucks. It just “looked better”, sold better. And that's when talk of "the soap opera effect" reared its head. (I know, because I was there, a kid in the 1970s and coming of age in the 1980s, very into filmmaking even then.) Super low-budget dramatic programming (also things like TV dramas from BBC, which looked really cheap at the time) fell into the realm of "something's off, it looks like the news or a soap opera".
Even when high definition video, in place of film, started being exploited to capture episodic TV (as a higher quality future-proofing videotape storage, editing and distribution medium for use while all television broadcasting remained standard definition), STILL.... 24 fps is what was preferred in the end. (So it was necessary at the time to use a technique called 3:2 pulldown to achieve the 24fps effect on videotape. In other words, time, engineering, regular expense went into actually producing a slower frame rate. Extra trouble turned out to be worth it.) A few high-budget shows in 30 frame progressive (not interlaced, ie., half the number of images perceived per second) started appearing. They didn't work as well and disappeared just as fast. (Though it returned in some television later, like the CSI shows.)
24 fps possesses a kind of psychological realism more than a technical realism, and thus it persists. This seems to be the case. High frame rates are best for sports, gaming; but not for storytelling, which always, always falls back to 24fps decade after decade after decade after decade. This is far more than force of habit or nostalgic association. It's biological.
Wow, what an intriguing analysis from someone with a long lived experience on this issue!
@edwardtheologis5960 To speak to some of your points -- you're right, point well taken, that there is no one frame rate "to rule them all!" and there shouldn't be. I think it is approaching fact that 24fps has very specific, pleasing, concrete effects on experience thanks to biology. BUT, those effects themselves have a place. While it's no accident that for decades we've kept returning to 24fps for storytelling, we also long ago landed on higher frame rates for sports, informational content (the news), and live content (out of necessity). And now gaming. And as virtual reality becomes more accessible (IMHO we won't get there until we can be free of "gear" -- people just aren't inclined to suit up to veg out), seems likely that generalized (gearless) VR will be at higher frame rates, no? A fascinating one to watch out for! So interesting if 24fps pops up even in that medium meant to so closely virtualize real life.
As far as the "embarrassment" or "vagueness" of pegging something being more "cinematic", I think "cinematic" in this case simply is a stand in for emotion, memory, imagination, storytelling... very much a part of our psychological, existential realities, part and parcel of our animal makeup. It's "big" rather than "vague", perhaps. It's complex, the thing you're talking about; but more significantly, it's real. It's not being flakey to speak of "cinematic" -- you really are talking about something substantial that, really, isn't about "cinema" per se, rather what cinema represents, what role it fulfills.
As far as polling your users whether or not they "noticed" if you shot at 24 vs 30 fps -- that's the wrong question! We're talking about an effect that is unconscious for most people. Audiences are NOT going to notice it... but they WILL be affected by it. Cognitive science is bursting at the seams with research showing that the reasons people -- you, me, we -- articulate for our preferences or making the choices we do, are usually wrong!
How can that be? Well, researchers can heavily influence your stated preferences and choices just by changing the color of the room, or having an attractive person in the room, or having played you a certain piece of music five minutes earlier, or placing an unpleasant photograph inconspicuously on the wall. And yet, to a person, we as subjects will state with 100% confidence what we believe are our conscious reasons for our behavior. How a person talking to you looks, where they put their hands or gaze while speaking with you, how far apart their eyes are, whether or not they twitch their cheeks, whether they speak in active or passive tense, what you had for lunch meanwhile, are too often decisive of how we respond. And yet we have no idea at all.
We literally are wrong about WHY we do things or prefer the things we do. The real reasons are largely unconscious, not merely the "reasoned" ones we are aware of superficially. I mean, Steve Job's big trick was too ignore what we *said* we wanted, and instead (steal ideas and then) design for us what we actually liked. Presumptuous, yeah, I know… but if you're, like, really good at it like Steve, you get away with it (and go to bed with a billion dollars in your pocket). He had no confidence in "polling" (and frankly, neither do I! How 'bout you? Guess it has its place, but skepticism of responses in context is always warranted, that's the lesson here).
It is almost certain that a lay audience will never in a million years _notice_ what frame rate you chose. But it is also almost certain they WILL be influenced by it. I mean you could try some experiments with your channel!
Great information! Thank you!
This comment was worth more than the whole video I'm watching. I was strongly on the side of
"24fps is just a myth that people parrot" but now I understand better.
Got me thinking too that perhaps there's another factor at play. It could be that less frames results in
less image processing for the brain hence a more relaxing state of mind.
Those extra frames aren't providing any extra meaningful information for the story that we are there to watch.
They simply provide finer motion detail which isn't necessary and might actually be getting in the way by forcing our brains to
process extra information.
Now that I think about it, when I watch high fps video I feel much more wired compared to watching low fps video.
And I really doubt this is an illusion now that I really think about it. High fps is great for games though.
I agree, but have never heard that explained so elequently. Simply put 24fps is not real time, maybe better said, 24fps is low resolution time, like a dream or a memory.
I learned a great trick from another UA-camr. Shoot in 30 FPS and then create a time line which is 24 FPS drop the 30 FPS on the 24 FPS time line and slow it down by 80%. looks amazing. Kind of dreamy. Try it.
Sure, I know that. But that's just slow-motion which means no audio.
For us Europeans the question is the following, " can you notice any difference between 24 and 25fps?"
I doubt it 🤔🙂
@@JorisHermans you know what, some time I think I am going crazy, that I can spot the diference between the 2. I shot everything in pal system but I am having second thoughts
@@JCoelho I'd have to try it myself but I've never used Pal because I like the all the options you get in NTSC: 24, 30, 60, 120, 240...
@@JorisHermans I find my self preferring 24fps over 25
@@JorisHermansWhat is the difference between 30 and 29,97?
So, I never hear people talk about this, but my reason for switching to 24 FPS from 30 FPS is better low light and more slow mo when shooting for slow mo.
Low light just depends on what shutter you use. You can use 1/50th also when shooting 30fps. I even prefer it that way because I live in Europe and it will prevent flickering lights.
Been playing with these frame rates on my phone recently. Thanks for diving deeper into this topic!
24fps looks more "cinematic" because that's what people are used to and the film industry still shoots/distributes in 24fps. This came about due to sync sound and compromising between enough frames and cost of film. This also can help explain why people are obsessed with "the film look." Its what we're used to, and that's changing as coloring pushes boundaries with newer film makers.
It is a matter of what we have come to associate with "what looks like a movie" vs "what looks like TV" vs "what looks like sports" etc. and it is all based on what we are used to... that's all. People didn't like The Hobbit in 48fps because it looked different and unexpected. Its that simple. If we had been shooting 48fps for a hundred years at a certain shutter speed, we'd think 24p at a 180 degree rule looked weird and not cinematic.
I do not think it is a matter of what we are used to. Our brain can only process so much information at a time. Higher frame rate would make a film more realistic as it is a lot more smooth. The reason why films are generally kept at 24 fps is largely due to the fact that you do not want films to look too real because people’s nerve systems simply cannot cope with it. It would only send out the signal as weird, or real at best. It might be ok on smaller screens. But on larger screens like the cinema, people would not be able to cope.
@@andredingstertsao My response is based on history and data, The framerate for film before sync sound was different, more loose, then it changed, and now we are used to what it looks like today. Ask yourself why its 24 fps and not 16, 18, 20, 28, etc. Historically it had to do with a compromise between sync sound and saving money on film. Paired with human's pattern seeking behavior, it follows that if it looks different, there's something off. THis is totally normal human behavior.
I fully agree!
As someone who grew up not going to many movie theatres and watching most of movies either on a CRT TV or a computer monitor, I have no preference for 24fps. In fact 24fps looks juddery to me. I cannot stand panning shots when I go to the movies now, it just looks so jarring. I don't understand how people defend it and say it's the best!
@@PouyaMan Its interesting you say that because we see similar things going on with vertical video V horizontal, preference for 60fps for people who are used to looking at video games, and wider angle lens preference for headshots due to the use of smart phones for selfies.
I used to hate soap effects until I got an oled lgc1. I can't stand the jutter now. I set the jutter on 3. I rarely see a ghosting effect. Even when I do see the ghosting, it doesn't compare to the horrible jutter. Im going to order Gemini man to see if I like 60fps. So far, it seems 30fps would be better than 24fps for the 24fps cry babies. lol
24 frames per second is Cinema and always will be! There’s something about the motion that brings a realism, a sense of reality, to take seriously what your watching, 30 frames is great for sports and live events. There’s a hyper sitcom energy vibe with 30 frames, it’s why it doesn’t work for Cinema for the most part.
I am very sensible to stutter, jitter...
Not at the movie theater, pure 24 (at 48hz) it's ok for my eyes.
I see stutter when it's 24fps on the 60hz monitor even if I set the monitor to 48 or 72 or 24hz.
30 works better for my eyes, maybe the playback is more optimized.
I know that many people are less sensible to this, so yes, your video is spot on, there is no reason to convince the others that they are wrong (BUT THEY ARE!!).
I only would like that TVs and monitor were optimized to reproduce 24fps videos in PLL sync with the monitor (like they do with video signals).
One of my favorite tricks as a new videographer is to shoot at 30fps the slow it down slightly on CapCut. That will be 9 if you’re using that software. It gives your videos a dreamy feel.
60fps shot in 1/60 is quite OK in a case you don't know if you will or won't slow it down.
If the camera is stationary and does not pitch/yaw/pan suddenly, 24 FPS will provide a cinematic look. In the "old days" we would save the pitch/yaw/pan shots with wide open aperture, laser precise distances (or spend all the bucks on the best focus puller we could find) to avoid these stutters at 24fps. It also helps to have an ARRI or RED that employs a global shutter to combat this. This is because nothing in the background is moving in relation to the subject.
The issue is in the SHUTTER. It always has been.
Here is the trick in Mirrorless-land;
Most people viewing on UA-cam do so in 60Hz. So making your SHUTTER SPEED divisible by this is most natural. Forget the 180 degrees, sort-of.
The 180 rule is what gives you that motion blur. It is actually better to match the shutter speed to your viewing Hz, and then adjust your frame-rate to the 180 rule - backwards.
So.... Viewing at 60Hz, and setting your shutter speed to 60, renders a frame-rate of 30Hz, which gives you the same motion blur as a:
Motion picture projector, that spins at 24 FPS and had that shot at 48 Shutter Speed.
You can't compare the two... because the "projector" is spinning at different speeds. In fact trying to demonstrate the difference between the two on the same projector defeats the experiment/lesson.
You get the same effect when you try to play an old 33 at 45 on a record player, and vice versa.
The video is correct. Figure out the projector, and shoot for the projector. Because you are shooting to match the projector speed. Period.
First: I like the humor in your smart statements! Second: You really make me curious to give 24 fps a fair chance - after having filmed with 30 fps all the time - and sometimes 60 fps or 120 fps, if I want preserving the opportunity of slow motion. Here in Switzerland I should shoot with PAL 25/50/100 fps - because of the 50 Hz in our electrical grid. I was told that if I don't, artificial light sources would flicker in my Videos. But I made the test and to my surprise this is not the case - I filmed different lights with 30 fps and there was no flickering at all (have no explanation for that). So I am free choosing whatever framerate I want.
My stomach and my heart tell me that you can't be wrong with your sense, your perception of 24 fps vs 30 fps. Although my brain is not yet convinced I will film in 24 fps the coming weeks.
Thank you so much for sharing your experience, kind regards from Bern country.
both 24 and 30fps looks better on an LCD screen because on LED screens the pixels doesnt respond as fast and you have a motion blur. On OLED however 24 or 30 can look really bad and stuttery in some scenes. It almost looks like 15-20 fps on LCD
3:14 -- From Wikipedia: De gustibus non est disputandum, or de gustibus non disputandum est, is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" (literally "about tastes, it should not be disputed/discussed"). The phrase is commonly rendered in English as "There is no accounting for taste(s)." The implication is that everyone's personal preference is a merely subjective opinion that cannot be right or wrong, so they should never be argued about as if they were.
I shoot in 4K 30fps for my channel.. I’ve had no issues, but I would definitely want to dig into 24 and even 60 just to see the differences
I didn't like how Avatar the Way Of Water looked in 40fps but then I saw it again in 24fps and liked it much more.
24fps is the standard frame rate for movies meant for a theater. 30fps (for NTSC countries like the USA) is the fps of television. Moreover, until relatively recently, movies were shot on film and television was shot on interlaced analog video. So that's where my personal differentiation between 24 (for movies or "cinema") and 30 fps (for television) comes from. I'd be curious if Europeans who are predominantly PAL 25 fps care as much about the frame rate. At least before, the bigger differentiation in look and feel "cinematic" vs "not cinematic" came from film vs. video. Now, in the age of digital everything, the differences are more subtle and only sometimes noticeable depending on how much motion is the frame. In the end, they both have a "look" and both can be used depending on the creator's needs.
Its all about the motion blurring if they want the smooth softer look because of the slower shutter speeds of the lower fps. High FPS general produce crisper imagery that we are accustomed from the 59.97 hz of old scan lines of CRT. Personally, I would use high FPS if i were shooting something that I want with crisp clear imagery like a landscape or astronomy showcase but use 24/25 with stuff with lots of bokeh and softer imagery like a short film. I wouldnt want the lead actress's face to be super sharp until all the pores are highly visible.
You just removed the veil from my eyes in relation to this topic
Thumbs up
How come in real life I see motion blur when I move my hand back and forth, but if I film it in 60fps I don't?
Does my eyes or brain see screens different than real life?
Why don't I see motion blur on the screen that I would see in real life? It's the same action at the same speed.
My hands aren't blurred in real life or the Camara would see that.
My guess is that life has trillions of fps and we only process a small amount of them. The camera cuts down the frame rate to 60 and are brains can get a slightly longer view of each frame before the next frame comes into view. And we see it without blur.
This has bugged me for a while now.
Help…my brain. Why?!
Nicely summed up and in a funny way - I think it's just easier for some to be told what is better or what to use instead of actually thinking about it and testing the different frame rates...but it is also useful to study the norms and standards of past and present to know where you may fit in or not as the case may be. Thanks for this video, Joris!
60fps at 1/60 shutter seems to be the best of both worlds imo (at least for Social media stuff per say), 0 jitter, buttery-smooth pans and tilts, you get that lifelike feel and overall feels more modern, But the 1/60th shutter does retain that nice motion blur, looks natural and is better in low light than 1/120.
And even if you don't want to necessarily export at 60fps but 30fps,well 60 divides evenly to 30 and you can slow it down by 50/60% whenever you feel like, and the non-slowed down parts will still look good because of that 1/60 shutter, sure the slow motion might look a little blurrier but better than 15fps.
Is is not cinematic then. 60fps with 1/120 (180deg angle as they call it), no?
Oh boy, you're young
@@unotoli 60fps at 1/60 retains the same motion blur, just looks 2.5x smoother.
That's exactly what I think, look at the Gerald Undone vid about that, 60 fps at 1/60 looks the best IMHO.
Loved your passion (LOL) . Same arguement when it comes to dance (i.e. Classic Argentine Tango (appilito style vs. Nuevo). Is one better? They both have their place and appropriate music and mood. So it goes...
Great video mate. Awesome explanation and comparison. I've been shooting on 30fps but changing it to play at 80% of the original speed and it is a great look without the jitters. Looks smooth and not slowed down at all. What is your opinion on shooting in one frame rate and slowing it down? Thanks for the video again and keep well. And yes you are always right 😁
I got so used to 30/60FPS that when I go to the cinema 24Hz sometimes bugs me and I have harder time enjoying it (especially with faster camera movement eg. over landscapes).
I don't experience that on smaller 24FPS screens thopugh.
It matters on the content I guess.
For movies the slower , the 24-30 is better for cinematic experience , the almost real like movements of 60s is better for presentation /unboxing etc , a little bit less then that its better for Tv shows
24fps is standard. You can correct the motion blur by adjusting the shutter speed
what standard? 24fps was the standard for film cameras but on modern digital cameras "24fps" is usually actually 23.976fps
I think that what it all comes down to is the director's/creators vision. The only people who will really notice the differences are other people who know about framerates, shutter speed and refresh rates.
The average people watching will simply not notice. And when you bring in gamers, since they're used to it, they will notice the stutters a lot more. Simply because they're used to always seeing ~120 fps; which may influence their opinion.
Anyway, salutjes! 😂😂
60+ is needed nowadays and that is all because the best and most common screens right now are OLEDs, and they are very bad with 24/30 fps at fast motion, unbearable bad, crt/plasmas have super clear motion resolution, but OLEDs require very high fps to be anywhere close to crt/plasma at fast scenes, sports, action scenes, etc.. OLED needs at least 120fps to be anywhere close in motion clarity. 60 fps is ok, but still blurry if camera moves faster. (that is all because of instant pixel response, which is not natural to our eyes at lower FPS).
Old tech was much better at motion and 24/30 fps.
Watching 24 fps movie in plasma tv is so glorious just like Lawrence of Arabia its so beautiful.Modern tv suck in motion thats why they add soap epera effect that suck too.60 fps movies is like watching B movie
Your opinions are very valid sir. I actually agree with you. Thank you so much for this video.
Wave a hand in real life or walk then see it in 60 30 24 24 looks like how are eyes see reality so cinematic
But when you shoot at 30fps, do you edit in a 30fps timeline and export at 30fps?
Of course.
Let artists be artists, amen.
Sorry for commenting to a old video, but all android phones running Android 11+, modern iPhones, and proper TVs adapt exactly to the content frame rate and thats pretty large percentage of the 60Hz audience. So it may not matter so much as you think. Desktop computers are the only ones that struggle with 24/25p footage. Also, as European I stick with 25fps.
why do you stick with 25fps as european? almost all modern european displays are 59.94hz, 60hz, 119.88hz or 120hz
@@gamecubeplayer There is two reasons: 1. 30fps causes terrible flicker 2. As I said, all android phones, most modern iphones and smart TVs adapt to a multiply of the frame rate used. This represents like 80% of the devices used for watching according to yt stats. For example, my 120hz tv changes to 50hz when watching traditional broadcast tv. Of course, gaming content and screen record will always and forever be 60p.
@@laboratorionumerouno2 things:
1. how does 30fps (or 29.97fps) cause terrible flicker?
2. if you used 30fps (or 29.97fps) then everything (including computers) could display it perfectly
@@gamecubeplayer 1. I can upload an example if you wanna see . While phones may have good antiflicker, proper cameras unfortunately dont. 2. Some people (including me) use 75, 144 or 165 hz displays on computers which means even 30fps can't be displayed properly.
@@laboratorionumerounoi have a trick:
i have a 143.98hz monitor but if i want to backup (record) a 24fps, 30fps or 60fps youtube video with obs i temporarily set my computer to 119.88hz
Like your honesty, like your humility, like your comments!
I would prefer 18 fps for Chaplin look.
Nice.
Ha, ha first truly honest frame rate video in a while! I use a 2016 model Canon camcorder that shoots at 29.97 FPS, period. Personally, I don't care what looks more "cinematic," whatever that is, all I care about is having reasonable picture and sound on my lectures. I bought the Canon mainly because it has an auxiliary mic input so I can use a lavalier for better sound. I heard a lot of scuttlebutt about the "soap opera effect," which is the real reason I started watching videos about frame rate. So far, I have not seen any convincing demonstrations of 24 vs 30 or 60 FPS, side-by-side that show the difference. Frankly, I just don't see the difference. Supposedly, soap operas look "too real," or "too smooth," and that is supposed to be why a lot of people hate the effect. So far, I am not convinced.
Started liking your videos at the start because the quality is so consistent I know it's gonna be a banger!
7:55 I just don't get it. How can you say that? Where is the quality aspect here?
We have a totally different picture experience in a cinema and on a 60hz computer screen. Never ever i realized this typical UA-cam movement stutter - which is VERY annoying - in a movie theater.
I'd do whatever it takes to avoid this terrible chopped motion on youtube camera drives - if i could. Because it spoiles the scenery every time it happens.
And no, i don't speak about motion blur. I'm totally fine with motion blur.
It likely has more to do with shutter angle, aka shutter speed, than it does framerate. The shutter speed controls the level of motion blur. It's standard for cameras to shoot 60fps at 1/120 of a second (less motion blur) vs 30fps which is commonly shot at 1/60 of a second (more motion blur) vs 24fps at 1/48 of a second (even more motion blur).
Someone could easily decide to shoot 30fps video at 1/48 of a second shutter speed or 60fps at 1/60 of a second. I'm curious to do my own experimentation with this.
You can't be "conditioned" to like higher frame rates because reality always runs at max frame rate and high fps is just the baseline. But it does take conditioning for the brain to accept 24fps as "cinematic" and make positive associations with it.
You're already conditioned to watching movies and tv in 24 or 30 because it's been the standard for years.
@@JorisHermans I very rarely watch movies or TV, most of the content I watch is 30 or 60 fps. 60 fps looks a little better to me, but I get it that it's more data to store and that it takes longer to render than 30 fps footage and probably not worth it for video productions that don't contain a lot of motion to begin with (or that you're putting an extremely high amount of effort into).
Joris, This was the best frame-rate video ever. I am going to shoot in 24 all the time since it may help keep my sony cameras cool. Besides, I am really interested in the cine look now as well. Thank you for all you work. craig
So what you saying the glass is what will alter the look ...🤔 I film sicila media content in 30 fps and it works
So to understand.
Great video. Thanks for this one Joris
Then for more cinematic video the "only" choice is NTSC/24fps with 1/50 of shutter speed, isn't it? (I don't know if exist camera, like as mirrorless, where we can set 1/48 of shutter speed)
Sorry, you didn't address the most important aspect and that is shutter angle... For the motion blur we have become use to,
since the invention of sound in like 1929, is the 180 degree shutter or twice the frame rate, 1/48 for 24fps and 1/60 for 30 fps...
Before the sound era, films were shot at 16-18 fps, it varied many were "hand cranked" ... When sound came in the film had to
move at a faster rate over the record head for better audio quality. 35mm was expensive and 24fps was the least amount of
even number ( for easy editing ) frames and still have good sound... We have been used to the motion blur that 1/48 at 24fps
ever since... When TV came into play (here in the U.S.) because of operating on 60 cycles per second, 30fps was adopted for
video, ( in the US)... Still, the 180 degree shutter rule must be adhered to for the, "cinematic" motion blur we are use to... If you
shoot at 30fps with a 1/48 or 1/50 shutter instead of 1/60 it will look "bad"... Sorry for the long winded answer... Thx Moses....
30fps @ 1/50th looks absolutely fine. It's a matter of taste. edit: same for 60fps by the way. For me, 60fps @ 1/60th looks a lot better than @ 1/120 (or 125) because it'll give you a more natural looking motion blur.
@@JorisHermans No, it's more than that and that is why I had looks "bad" in quotes, everything is subjective...
If you follow the 180 degree shutter rule, ( the standard regardless of the frame rate ) the "cinematic" motion
blur we have become use to will be realized... Shuttle angle is important... and does make a difference... Also.
I know that in Europe you use 50 hertz (50 cycles per sec.) and might change things up for video... Thx, again...
@@mosesknows2062 but that the thing, you say "cinematic" motion blur. If you follow the 180degree rule, at every frame rate the motion blur is different because the shutter speed is different. If you like 1/50th as the"cinematic" motion blur that's it because 1/100 or 1/120 looks completely different. The 180degree rule these days is mainly there for when you're slowing down footage because a slow moving object has less motion blur.
@@JorisHermans Sorry you are wrong... The shutter has to be twice the frame rate,... When I say cinematic, I'm
referring to the 1/48 shutter at 24fps that we are use to in the movies for the last 80 some years... That's to say
shutter has to be twice the frame rate, for a true comparison of different fps... 1/48 (or 1/50 if camera doesn't
do 1/48) at 24fps... 1/60 at 30fps... 1/120 at 60fps... The more fps the faster the shutter for similar results, ie.
motion blur... I come from film... I shot in 16mm film for about four years before switching to digital, was just too
expensive, lol... The fundamentals are the same... Of course shutter can be played with for creative reasons but
you can not compare 24 fps say to 30 fps without changing the shutter to match... Thanks again, Moses...
@moses knows that's not true. If you want similar motion blur through all the frame rates you have to use the same (or as close as possible) shutter. 1/50 can NEVER look similar to 1/120 no matter what the frame rate is. 60fps looks more "cinematic" when using 1/60 instead of 1/120 because the motion blur looks more like 1/50. ua-cam.com/video/UPPSdCrqcFQ/v-deo.html
For reasons I don't fully understand, most of us, most of the time, seem most comfortable with what we are familiar with. When I was in college, a friend worked at a stereo store. His biggest margin product was speakers. He told me that if he was trying to sell a pair of $1000 speakers, he was most successful when he directed customers to $1000 a pair speakers that sounded most like the $200 a pair speakers his potential customer had been listening to for the last five years. His suggestion, "Don't ask them what they want in a speaker; ask them what they listen to at home."
I think the same is true with regard to video frame rates. The most die hard 24 fps people I know are over fifty. They can't butt three sentences together without including the word "cinematic" and they RAIL against 60 fps and higher. IMHO, they've been conditioned for decades to like both the strengths AND the shortcomings of 24 fps content. The "under 20" people I know rarely seem to have that prejudice. I don't know any gamers but my bet is that many of them would eagerly set their TVs to display 60 fps content.
I think Geoffrey Chaucer was wrong. I think "familiarity breed content."
It's interesting hearing someone besides me who is always right about everything.
😁👊🏻💥
I just orded a 4k Blu-ray that the seller upscaled to 30 fps, im worried because i hate soap opera effect, do you guys think it will be super noticable?
It just a (bad) habit, 24 is. It's for poor, it's on edge of slide-show deception. We love it coz of motion blur with 180deg speed (1/48).
Now 99% of our screens are 60hz. We can shoot 60fps too, but for the natural blur it should be 1/120 that not always doable.
So here comes 30fps with same blur at 1/60 ... except in US electricity flickers at same Hz. But the rest of world is fine. Right?
I'm liking the look of the new studio, especially the lightning bolt in the upper left corner of the screen. You sure know your lighting, sir.
Well thank you very much 🙏🏻
24fps look like more natural for humans eyes. “Cinematic” is just a fancy word to say “natural”.
I prefer 24, i have a 60hz monitor that can do 24hz and a 144hz that can also do 120, i like 24ips in both, if you pause a 24ips frame it looks very blurry in a very special way and that gives it a really beautiful motion that 30 and 60 just can't do.. i do play games on high fps but that's because motion blur in most videogames is just an effect applied after rendering and looks very fake, so 24fps or 30 in games just look horrible
i’ve shot 300 vlogs at 30fps and have some of the most cinematic shots ever by simply slowing down 60fps to 30fps and people have definitely commented on it or mentioned it to me in person. I am more than sure 99% of them don’t know the difference of 24/30
I like 30 because it’s easier to edit sound from clip to clip without having to detach the audio which saves me a bunch of time and i’m one of those crazy people who want their timeline to look neat 😂
Why do you have to detach in 24 and not 30? I also like a neat timeline 😂
@@ShauninParadisei want to know the reason too.
I started to like 30p. True. It’s smoother.
I say shoot what ever u like to shoot, if it works it works as for me I love shooting in 60fps and play with it in the editing room and I’ll save it in 30fps and it looks smooth like butter to me👍💯💪
... "Sony, you're letting me down!" LOL 😆 . Nice video 👍🏻
The word "cinematic" makes sense ,- it's the frame rate traditionally seen projected in a cinema (which you call a "movie theatre).
I prefer higher frame rate but I don't mind 24fps, unless they switch frame rate back and forth like in the new Avatar movie which was quite distracting
I have done EXTENSIVE experimentation and have categorically determined that 22.7 fps is the MOST cinematic frame rate; a 186 degree shutter angle is the most cinematic shutter angle. I expect both to be available on professional video cameras by the end of 2024 and on consumer level video cameras and hybrids by the middle of 2025.
You right! I alaways find low is best for family or sitting in chat and talk with friends
I've been experimenting with different frame rates lately - cheers for deep diving this topic 🙏🏻
24 fps has actual science behind it. On optically stabilized camera setup that is perfection. Vlogs 🤣 actually no one cares. Still camera shot is perfection in 24
Such quality content! You got my sub pal
30fps with the correct filter looks cinematic. 24fps with the wrong filter won't look cinematic.
Ryan kao slows 30fps to 80% for a unique dreamy playback look. Which would also make shooting the other framerates a bit easier. You'd just slow to 80% on the clips that play back in native 30fps
Well, sure, but that's slow-motion so you lose the audio. I'm talking about real-time 24fps or 30fps, no slow-motion.
@@JorisHermans I think he plays real time 30fps back at 80% unless im confused lol. The vid is on his page, cool vid
@@themarksmanABP Yes, but that's slow motion, even if it's just 80% slowed down, your audio will still be unusable. You can't use it for when people are talking...
for me, 60fps looks really real. 60fps gives amazing real experience.
Since most news channels (here in America) have always been in 30fps I feel like I’ve been conditioned to associate it with information, data, events, reality, trust.
On the other hand since 99% of movies have been shot in 24fps I feel like I’ve been conditioned to associate this framerate with Imagination, artistry, fiction, dreams, stories.
This is just my perspective
I am about to test this with my z cam too. I’m going for a more “cinematic” look. I feel that 24 can look too stuttery but 30 does make it more like a video rather than film. Grrr.
Gast, twennyfour for life yo. But like you said, its all about taste and personal style and thats all that should matter. Thanks for the vid, testing it out en tot de volgende ✌🏽
🇧🇪👊🏻💥
I agree. The motion blur makes it more cinematic
What does more cinematic mean? more like how have you always watched 3:2:3:2 jerky movies through a ntsc tv? is this cinematic?
Are you refering to NTSC 24fps or Pal-i 24fps as there a difference of 1.001 Fps , My interest is more use-sing both on the same timeline but not getting skidded frames/lossed frames. when encoding the final program out , Any thoughts ?
What's the FPS on this video?
Hello guys I have a question... When watching on a 120hz screen will you be able to actually watch true 24fps in youtube...? Or not, because the pulldown happens maybe BEFORE the video even reaches your screen... happens in the processing of the video, maybe? so it's kinda baked in? I may do some tests because I can switch my monitor between 120 60 and 165
i don't think the pulldown happens before the video reaches your screen but there's the 23.976fps problem
24 vs 30 both are tools to use for certain things. Wouldn't use a roofing hammer to fix a watch. Same tool different purposes. I rarely use that tiny hammer but glad to have it when i need it.
I love the sarcarstic way you said your opinios is the only one correct. Excellent video to discuss this talking about FPS. Like you said, people should understand the differences to select what they feel is better to the ocasion. But now with vertical videos, i am thinking (for me of course) better 30 than 24. I bought a anamorphic lenses for my iphone, i will follow your advice to film with 24 fps cause i will just use in horizontal videos. Congratulations for the content 🎉
Hi Joris amazing video, i would like to know how much bitrate did you use for this entire video please
Hi folks. I'm still struggling with my decisions on what frame rate to use. I do a lot of wildlife filming so I usually go for 30 fps in an 24 fps output file. That way I can slow down (by 40%) impressive parts (lion hunting scenes for example). 30 fps also because you can never predict what is going to happen next. Wildlife seldom gives you those seconds of time you need to change your settings. If I detect a scene that could be even more phantastic and I've got time, I even switch to 60 fps
One should be very sure before filming what output you desire. Down framing is easier than up framing. Or am I wrong?
Cheer film makers
Steve
i cant watch a 60 fps movie it just looks like everything is moving fast. even when i record on my phone watching any video thats high frame rate looks just too weird for me
You're such a natural on camera! Love it!
He's the reason why i did subscribe... He's so natural.
I’m a gamer and I hate 24p! I much prefer higher frame rates like 60p if possible. Of course, due to camera and light limitations, I’ll usually shoot at 30. It’s also a little easier to mix it with 60 and 120p slow motion footage. Just seems more practical and looks more smooth to me!
I eat potato’s wtf gas I’m a gamer got to do with this games are not video or movies
Problem is motion blur ..... your camera adding motion blur (or having longer exposure, even if it is not necessary) to 24FPS and not to 30+FPS ..... just add motion blur to 30FPS in post processing and will look "cinematic" and much better/smoother than 24FPS.
No.
Which FPS would be good for a motovlogger? 24 or 30? Thank you ❤
I think at 24fps, every frame gets more bitrate or data as compared to 30fps.
and 24 i/s is less cinematic on 60hz tv than 24 i/s on 50hz TV?
60fps is the best. it's so much more detailed and smoother. People are just used to lower fps
That’s my outlook on it
You can gradually see the difference if you interview somebody with cars moving in the background.
The problem about the cinematic stuf at 30 was just you dont slow the video to 80%, do the test again i just star doing this and look more dreamy more cinematic, but is just my opinion how you say hahaha
Yeah, but I want sound so 🤷🏻♂️
@@JorisHermans okkk in this case sure
I don’t need sound as im making a music video , will add song later , I want to shoot in 30fps and put on a 24fps timeline and slow footage down 80% , that will look smooth and “cinematic” right ? I feel like it will just add a touch of a dreamy look
For a music video it looks nice, yeah.