I can't believe that I've been following your channel for more than a year and I missed this video... You just answer my biggest questions about those F***ing jitters I have with my 24p footage. Thank you bro.
Videos like this make youtube great, thanks for taking the time to enlighten us in such a clear concise manner along with visual examples. Very well done!
seriously, just want you to know that there are people out here that are so very thankful for your in depth reviews, breakdowns, and info. You are a godsend to the community. We look forward to every video and tweet you put out, because we push hard to be professional and have a professional understanding of our equipment and how to use it, and you save us time, and effort, which in turn saves us money.
The best video I’ve ever seen at demystifying these conversions and the panning rate I had no idea about was a true bonus. I’m watching this every day for a month until it’s locked into my head. Thank you!!!
You sir have just helped me with one of the biggest issues I've been facing as a newcomer on the video scene, and one that has been impossible to explain to other people as to why it looks bad when looking for help. Thank you!
I honestly had no clue Panning speed was a factor. I've had a few 60fps clips that had a little stutter and I never knew why... But this explains it all. Thank you So much for this video.
@@davidck2456 Yeah you can, just keep in mind that your Shutterspeed will be much faster at 1/250 instead of 1/48 or 1/50. That results in less motionblur and can look "skippy" on your 24p timeline :)
Thank you! After three years of wondering what I've been doing wrong, I've finally found the technical explanation for it on UA-cam University. Bless you and your family and all of your descendants!
I've been shooting in 24p my whole career for no reason other than "it looks more cinematic", but I often run into the stuttering issue that you talk about with moving shots. Your insight on what happens when you view 24p content on a 60hz display was new information to me and you may have convinced me to change my standard frame rate...
Wowsers. I have no idea how you do it, but you just made something that I've known intuitively for the past ten years suddenly make sense to me and it feels amazing. Cheers to this incredible channel of content.
officially my favorite resource for valuable cinematography information. i swear its like you read my mind on topics I've been contemplating. brilliance as usual gerald
Excellent video with great explanation demos. However you forgot that a large part of the world has PAL and 50 fps, so we shoot at either 25 fps or 50 fps. Your explanations are easy to adapt, so I am very glad I watched your video. Thanks a heap.
Oh my gosh, I want to just give you a cyber hug from here! I made a huge newbie mistake of filming A roll in 24 fps, and then experimenting with 60 fps with my B roll shots. Went to edit and had such bad quality of lagging (thought it was my computer at first). This helped me fix my errors when bringing footage into the timeline and I learned a valuable lesson on why all frame rates need to be similar. I also did some fraction/percentages with 24fps/60 fps to slow down footage to 40% in my 24 fps timeline- not perfect but I will make it work. Thank you so much. A time waster for me, but a lesson I will not forget! Thanks for posting great teaching content.
Oh wow this is actually the sort of stuff that could get in handy in the future and i really didn't expect this i kinda watched this because i was bored and this seemed abit interesting but it's very interesting good job Gerald!
I soo like your content. You just cut through all the clutter and misinformation out there. For someone who works as a developer, I really like how you are so well-researched on the subject and presents it in a methodical and scientifically way.
This video helped me understand how frame rates work in various timelines more than any other video. Thank you for pointing out the various aspects of the math here, not just the "how to slow it down!" sorta video. You just made it all click in my head. Thanks!!
In order for my brain not to explode. I had to reduce the playback speed of your video. Thank you for adding so much value to UA-cam and the earth in general. I'm learning so much on your channel man! Never stop undoing ❤️
Wow pan rules! Dude you rule!!! I had become aware of problems with the "filmic" framerate that you could not mess a lot with camera panning, but didn't know there was a rule addressing this. Another day, another lesson. Big up man!
Thank you! Thank you for providing me the video, that I can share now with "filmakers" on UA-cam instead of trying over and over again (with no luck) raise that 24 fps judder problem. Your video is the only one on entire UA-cam which explains almost all disadvantages of messing up with ramertes. Trust me, I tried many time to find some decent one with no luck. Just a bunch of bullshoot about "dreamy look" of 24 fps which is not the same "dreamy look" that we have with a cinema projector, at all... But did I miss something or you really didn't mention that 60 fps footage conformed to 30 fps timeline has not the same amount of motion blur as 30 fps footage (in case of using 180 degree shutter rule for every frame rate of course). But, anyway, please keep shooting in 24. Your content looks perfect at 1.25x speed, which is 30 fps ;) Man, I really think that your channel is one of most underrated channels on UA-cam now, but you are killing it! Keep it up!
Thank you for making this video. It's refreshing to see a video about framerates that get the facts right. I have more of a computer graphics background than most videographers, and it's depressing to see so many professional and experienced videographers lack crucial knowledge about display technology and refresh rates. Just because the content is shot in 24 fps doesn't mean that it's shown to the viewer in actual 24 fps. You can find lots of tutorials about why it's logical to match your timeline framerate with your footage framerate, yet the same people are happy to upload 24 fps content to UA-cam and Facebook where close to 100% of the viewers will watch it on a 60 Hz display, which is effectively a 60 fps timeline... As a side note, I'm actually typing this in front of a G-sync gaming monitor running at 100 Hz. But 1) They are not very common. 2) It still doesn't adapt to and show 24 fps UA-cam content properly 3) The other 7 displays used for UA-cam in my home, TV, phones and tablets, are still the standard 60 Hz. Another side note, some UA-camrs incorrectly choose 25 fps for their content as "they are in a 50 Hz PAL country", and don't realize almost everyone is watching on 60 Hz mobile devices and computer monitors regardless. I'm one of the few people the content happens to get framerate matched for at the 100 Hz monitor. :)
That is not how displays work these days. Most have variable refresh rates, and even older monitors that had to refresh the entire screen each hz, would use something like 3:2 pulldown i think. Anyway, simply using a 60z monitor i not equal to dropping 24p footage in a 60p timeline.
Well Done!! Gerald, you’re putting out excellent material!! You nailed a huge issue and explained it perfectly! I’ll be sharing this one for sure. “All Right” 👍
This is by far the best video on the web regarding this topic. Whether 24p looks good or bad - you should not select this framerate without exactly knowing what you are doing.
You have been putting out some of most o informative info on UA-cam....seriously. Many, thanks. Now I can reason out what frame rates to assign to my memory presets and when to use them
Love this. I've always been taught what frame rates different platforms/medias use but never *why*. I just came here to see if I could save my 24fps footage for my 60fps interviews but I got my answer and more! Thank you.
LOL love that you watch Gerald too. Just know that on this platform, 24p is missing the mark! You need to start a 3rd UA-cam Channel called "24p Conspiracies"
Well, as far as I know for FCPX users you can use Optical Flow option while mixing frame rates on a timeline. It basically creates new frames in between in order to make footage as smooth as possible.
Рік тому
Wow! I was searching a lot to find the information, WHY my video is choppy when I export it in 24fps and I was recording at 60fps, and I finally found the golden video for this topic! Thank you very much, you are awesome! Respect
Man, you really demystified these frame rate issues for me in this video! I always thought my camera or editing software had bugs because I couldn't seem get smooth pans even with a gimbal... I will do some more tests with slower pans and frame rate settings!
just managed to bumped here and found this to be the best explanation on different frames rates and how it all works. One of the best explanations! Thanks much and keep coming with the good content!
Don't know if anyone else has commented about it yet, but I think that I prefer using the "interpret footage" method of slowing down, only because it still allows you to apply post-stabilization to the footage in an easier way than just using the "speed/Duration" dialogue box. Doesn't matter too much if you don't need warp stabilizer, for sure, but for some clips even 1% can add a lot without making it look weird.
You just got a new subscriber. Finally someone who explained perfect, the differences between framerates and how to use them together. Thanks a lot, dude !
A great teacher that i need, its been years ive been studying about frame rates and timeline on my own. Till this day i still can't trust my instincts that I've I've properly learn well or not. But after watching this video it gave me a proper understanding. 👍
Question: i put a 120fps aircraft video on timelime. Then added a pilot/tower audio recorder separately and lined it up to where i hear the people talking to coincide with when the aircraft exits the runway and the speech. Its correct at the last 15 minutes end at least for 10 mins but when i go to the beginning it seems to be like 5 mins off.
Great content! And what about 25p/50p? I am from EU, we have 50Hz mains here and to avoid flicker from artificial fight sources I use 25p. How should I deal with movement? Just by using 25p timeline? Would it be detrimental to the look of the footage on 60Hz displays?
@@tomastuoma id clarify slightly. Yes 25/50 is european PAL standard. But US uses 30/60 NTSC not 24. Both of these are TV standards. 24 is the cinema/film standard and is used worldwide. Ironically 24 was chosen for film purely as a comprimise of cost and just enough motion to look natural, and now its stuck just because thats what people are used to. Just look at how much people were annoyed at the hobbit when it used 48 and complaind it didnt look right.
Gerald I have saved this one in my youtube mystery file. I have not got a clue but trust is everthing with information vids but if Gerald says so, end of. As for aesthetics I will have to watch it again. Great work you are the go to for so many wanting to understand and improve. Merry Christmas.
Awsom tutorial. Will have to watch this several times, have had lots of issues with jerky video. Fantastically explained and hopfully will put me on the right track. Thanks very much for taking the time to do this tutorial. 10 outta 10.
As a fan of the 60p aesthetic, I wish more people used it on UA-cam. The only time I can tolerate 24p is in movies that are projected in theaters because it's being displayed correctly and it contributes to the look we have come to associate with cinema. I don't get why UA-camrs use 24p though as most of the content creators produce nothing that's particularly cinematic and the odd frame rate means there are 3:2 pull down issues on standard 60Hz displays. I liked the look of this video despite the higher noise (which I didn't really notice). Would kinda like to see all future videos in 60p.
Great points. I think for me I'd probably meet you in the middle at 30p. It helps with a lot of the issues, but doesn't have as many efficiency downsides to 60p. And it will work nicely on the web. It will take some getting used to though. As with anything. 😃
Here are my thoughts on this. Take them with a grain of salt. I believe cinema has done a really good job of selling the whole 24p looks more “cinematic” than anything else. But a lot of it is perceived because we are told it’s more “cinematic”. If they decided 30fps (instead of 24; they used 24 to save in film costs) was the standard for cinema people would associate seeing in the theater and it would be the “cinematic” frame rate. The opposite is with sports. 24p is considered junk and everybody wants 60p and they don’t complain about the soap opera effect at all because that’s what people think sports “should” look like. But then, there are the folks who say 24fps has a physiological effect on our brain and this and that about dreams and what not...it gets kinda crazy. I prefer 30 most of the time and use 24 when I want to impart some kind of extra, dreamy cinematic feel for artistic reasons (also 30p doesn’t have much data burden over 24 anyway). I don’t get the whole you must shoot 24 to be cinematic. No, you should cinematic scenes to be well....cinematic as long as you stay under 48fps is a good rule of thumb. Anyway rambling rant over.
You should really watch the video he linked, it gives a REALLY good explination of why we probably won't ever see 60p movies; in short, it's more expensive, more time consuming, more storage, and doesn't really offer any solid benefit. On the other hand, I'd aruge that 24p will become much more enjoyable as 120hz displays become more common, because, contrary to what this video said ALL it has to do is just... not update the screen 4/5ths of the time. It's basically a perfect playback, which was actually part of the reason for choosing 120hz, since it's the smallest framerate that both 60p and 24p divide into. (and it helps that US power is 60hz) The bigger issue is that, right now, only the GH5, (and cameras based on it, like the G9 and GH5) and XT3 can film in 4k 60p, AT ALL. And even on these cameras, you give up something for it; Panasonic cameras can't do it while doing autofocus, (IIRC) plus you give up the 4:2:2 option to do it. That means that only a very small percentage of people can even shoot it to begin with. That's ignoring the fact that it takes more than twice as long to process and upload. Plus it's more storage used up, and all of that for... very little gain to the majority of people. You'd have to buy a specific camera, and give up certain features, (autofocus/subsampling for the Panasonic or the full-width sensor readout for the XT3) that make it a huge pain, even if you had all the processing power and storage in the world. Most people will choose 10bit, 4:2:2, or 4k over 60p. In fact, I'd say nearly everyone on UA-cam would or already has. When every camera has 4k 60p, you'll start seeing some people using it, but by then, there's a decent chance that Sony will have released a 8k or 6k camera, based on the sensors that they've announced. Even though I think anything past 4k is really REALLY pushing the limits of actual perception, I still think many people will choose that over the higher framerates. Higher framerates will be saved for use as slow-mo, as they are now. Again, I recommend that you watch the video by Filmmaker IQ, it gives a VERY strong breakdown of all the reasons why it's unlikely that 60p will ever become the norm for anything other than sports.
@@finnillson4808 Is not that you should listen to what they say about using 24fps as a rule, you can shoot a film in any frame rate you want. For cinema DCPs now support a lot of speeds. For me personally it comes from a place i'm used to, have worked in that frame rate for years since film, and i like the feel. I'm not saying all that thing about feeling like a dream, but 24fps(or similar like 30) are more stroboscopic, less "real" and i think what it makes it suit better for fiction/drama, because it doesn't feel real, and maybe (just maybe) it improves the narrative experience. but it comes all boil to the type of content you wanna make, maybe you want to do a more "realistic" and visceral approach to war, then maybe 60p could enhance the experience. My point is, its a matter of choosing the right "look" for the type of content and feel you want to transmit.
the most informative and crucial must watch for all videographers. Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I keep coming back to this video as a reminder.
Hey, Gerald. Just a quick response to the recommendation you made. I went to the video Filmmaker IQ made and found plenty of flaws in it which I think you might be interested in. I'm speaking from the point of a cognitive scientist with about 23 years in gaming (most of them on high - not the highest though, never went pr0 - level of competitive gaming) who also happens to be interested in videography/making youtube videos and the technology behind it. I know it's a long read but I hope it interests you. Oh and I just copy/pasted it so it's not directly addressed towards you xD... OR IS IT?!?! *TUM-DUM-DUM-DUM* Also your video is as always a great watch and a food for thought! TL;DR: About 40% of their video is rubbish from a scientific POV. I have no problems with 24FPS but I found more than a few problems with your arguments there and your line of reasoning. 1st. There are plenty of studies that have proven that frame rate is perceived at a way higher rate than 24/30 or for that matter 60 and humans do react to it. And how would you quantify if there is an actual reaction or not? Through video games of course as that would eliminate what you called a meth induced excitement. Just to name one study off the top of my head - "On frame rate and player performance in first person shooter games". I was part of (both as an experimenter and a participant) two additional studies but their focus was entirely different. However they never got published, first and foremost because not all cognitive studies made by students are worth publishing and second and most important, because the speed at which a particular frame appeared was a factor that ultimately destroyed the persons hypothesis. Frame rate can and is perceived at a higher rate than what we usually consume. In fact our reality constantly tests us on that. 2nd. You said in Myth #3 that motion pictures were meant to be experienced as a "fluid motion" and not still frames and then went on to say in Myth #7 that higher frame rate provides an OBJECTIVELY smoother look but then went on to play semantics with the word "better" and "objectively". How would one rank in order which is better? Through subjective experiences. How are objective truths about our perception extrapolated? Through a collection of subjective experiences filtered through a scientific method and put through statistical methods and replications. Now... If we come back to point one or for that matter your claim that higher frame rate is smoother it's only logical to go one step further and claim that 60FPS is BETTER than 24FPS in at least one aspect for example. You really need to hash out these logical discrepancies in such videos. It's easy to spot on and quite dishonest from intellectual point of view whether intended or not. When it comes to your argument of preference. 24FPS has historically been a standard and "suffers" (not really as we all enjoy it) from what is known in the scientific community as "reinforcement of perception". There are plenty of studies about that phenomenon about most of our senses and some even go further about things such as inference etc. Look it up! 3rd. And I know I’m going backwards but in Myth #4 (not even going to say a lot about how the claim is “Higher frame rate has health benefits over 24 fps” and you then follow up with the logical fallacy that people watching 24 FPS didn’t experience adverse effects… this is not how “benefits” work. If you are not doing push-ups, your chest muscles won’t magically shrink unless you are tied to a bed and never use them at all, but if you DO push-ups they will get stronger. Not sure if I conveyed my point the best way but it’s not that important either)… Anyways in Myth #4 you claim that Trumbull’s team are not scientists and there isn’t a mention of study groups etc. Barring the fact that you barely provide any evidence for the claims in this video, as far as I know when it comes to such “studies” made by Hollywood companies (or at least funded by them), they usually focus on questionnaires as well as the data they gathered and very rarely publish their findings. Now I know that it’s a wild claim to jump from what they tested to “HFR is beneficial to your health” (they also never made that claim, YOU did and again it is a flaw of your own logic) but at the very least it begs the question “Is HFR more exciting to watch?” to which the answer is probably yes. At least from the explanation of how it was conducted it seems they did actually have control groups (hence the different frame rates), the equipment used was adequate (I was a cognitive scientist so take my word for it, especially since you seem to struggle with pronouncing the name of some of it - I am not making fun of you, just pointing out the fact that you probably lack the knowledge of what this equipment measures and how it operates). And last but not least when you file a patent such as this it is reviewed by a commission that must have experts in the field. If this patent was approved, that gives these statements at least some credibility although replication is a must for sure and I personally could not find the study or “replicants” (did you catch the ref.?), or for that matter the patent information. As I said though… Your logic is deeply flawed there. Also… That joke about meth… I know it’s meant as a joke but it has nothing to do with any of the things you said before that and when you are using it to actually “diminish” Trumbull’s statements it lands really flat especially when you take into consideration that THERE IS as I stated a mention of control groups and methodology. What you managed to accomplish there was to shine a brighter light on the fact that you lack basic understanding of how a scientific study is conducted or if that is not the case “dishonesty” which imo is worse. Just something to think about. Now… This post is getting quite large and you probably will never read it so I will stop here. If you do read please note that it wasn’t written with ill-intent although part of my remarks had teeth. However I do feel very strongly about some of the topics you brought up and the way you tried to pass some of your claims as “OBJECTIVE” truths when they were anything but that. Last but not least when you are making claims such as "How quickly we respond to visual stimuli:" followed by age, etc., probably links or at least mentions of the studies would be great. I know it's a bit nit-picky since some of these have been replicated quite a lot and should be common knowledge but still. If you are making a video that tries to be "scientific" and educational (which based on the category you placed it under it should be) you need to act like it IS a scientific video => References!
Hey! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate your in-depth analysis. I understand where you're coming from. I agree that their video isn't perfect and some of the arguments are definitely weaker than others, but I do think his reasons for 24p staying are pretty compelling and that's mostly what I tuned in for. Overall, I just found it to be an interesting video that tackled a lot of the common arguments. I do agree with you, however, that higher frame rates are definitely perceptible beyond what was given credit for. I'm basing that on my own experience. As far the "health benefit" factor, I'll defer to you, because I have no credentials to be speaking on that subject. Also, thanks for the kind words about my video. Cheers! 👍😃
@@geraldundone One of the best arguments for 24p is actually one provided in your video and it is the one about noise reduction. It isn't about processing power anymore as higher FPS doesn't hit performance as hard as resolution for example. Obviously on a production scale it is different but the advancements in computing have been much larger than the advancements of what a sensor is capable of. And I'm not sure this is something their video touched upon so another point for you ^^. Also glad you managed to read through my short-story there xD and keep it up. Oh... and I'm sure a lot of people appreciate your engagement with the community so keep it up! It's really refreshing to have a conversation with the creator.
@@DelvingDeeper Hi... can I change the subject? You (Delving) seem to maybe know. The rule of thumb in video is the shutter speed should be 1/2 of the frame rate. Why? It seems like to get proper motion blur, you would want the shutter to be as close to the frame rate (or 1/frame rate) as possible. With today's digital cameras, there isn't a mechanical reason to have the shutter be open just half the time and closed half the time. Has this been studied?
@@pedzsan From purely technical point Gerald would be more informed on this. I just watch a lot of videos because I'm curious but I don't have as much experience with actually shooting stuff. I believe he even mentioned it in a few videos before but the general rule of thumb is that the SS should be twice as much as the FR to achieve a normal look, otherwise it either gets "dreamy" if it's below the x2 or it gets like in Gladiator. Perception-wise motion blur has been studied and I could recall at least one article I've read about it but I'm not sure if it is exactly relevant to your question. As it relates to the perception of blur in general and isn't related to movies. There might be a study out there relating to how we perceive motion blur in movies but it would require a really complex methodology. Usually blur studies are done with either pictures (which isn't relevant to your question) or moving bars with added blur at different speeds in order to eliminate any external factors. When it comes to how we register complex images though I'm afraid I haven't read enough on the topic but I did a quick search just now and I wasn't able to find that much. My speculation is... And this is purely speculation with barely any scientific data to back it up other than common knowledge about how we perceive things... It has to do something with a sort of an "before/after-image" effect. Your visual cortex which is essentially located at the back of your brain is obviously spatially disassociated from your eyes (a fancy way of saying it's not right next to them). So try to imagine it as a pipeline. From the time photons hit your retina and reach the visual cortex there is about .1s to .2s. Now… By the time an image gets processed by the brain and you actually “see” an image, another one is already fed into that pipeline but the thing is our brain doesn’t just process the data it receives. It’s actually a prediction machine so it predicts what the next image will be based on the information of the previous one in order to speed up processing in general. If a prediction matches then good. An image is nice and sharp and all is good. That usually happens when there are little discrepancies between Image a) and Image b) (slow moving things) If the prediction is bad then the image gets distorted, hence the blur. Also our eyes do these rapid movements called saccades that are essentially micro-adjustments that would produce a different image than the one before if we were to experience things one image at a time. This usually helps offset motion blur as essentially your eyes never lose track of the moving object in your field of view. Now the time between one saccade and the other is roughly .2s. Not going to get into the nitty-gritty about it all but just imagine these as points on a picture that move rapidly and wherever the point is, that’s where your focus is. So you get a stream if information and then it cuts and goes to another stream of information. Like blinking but we can't exactly perceive it. We have measured it however. Just google saccades . So if you kind of combine these things you get something like this. A saccade would be a dot and the image processing would be a line okay? .--.--.--. Now this is obviously not the exact ratio but a camera does something similar with FPS and SS. So let’s take 12FPS and use them as one unit and it would be a line. The SS is essentially your camera blinking and cutting to stream of information (that’s why we split the 24FPS into 2 units) so it would correspond to the saccades that cut the stream of information from one image to the other. So Shutter Speed would be the dots. And so this would look something like this: .--.--.--. So essentially the speculation is that the x2 ratio preserves our internal ratio. Not sure if I explained it properly or if I even have the right idea (again… this is SPECULATION) but it’s 2AM here and I’m at work and haven’t slept in a while so that’s the best I can do for you xD. Hope it answers your question.
@@DelvingDeeper Thanks! You mentioned gaming so I thought you might have some graphics in your back ground. I'm a computer geek and I have friends deep into graphics but I never got that deep into it. Back around 1985 or so, what became Pixar (I think the place was called Lucas Arts? -- I had a friend working there) there was a paper in ACM about motion blur in graphics. So I would suspect that the graphics guys (the guys who write game engines and hard core movie effects engines) would know what their industry uses but it may not be based upon any human perception experiments. You mentioned something I had forgotten (or perhaps mis-remember)... Original movies used 12 FPS to get smooth motion and each frame was flashed twice to get above the flicker rate. Hope you get some sleep... :-) Thanks again.
Bro idk how anyone can dislike this video... idk, maybe I'm not on that level yet. Anyway, I've learn so much from you today and you've definitely earned another subscriber. Thank you.
Everyone who edits should watch this, it helps a lot understanding why so many videos pan like crap on youtube. Awesome video, stutter is just so annoying.
Thanks Gerald. Lots of great information here. It felt like drinking from a firehose of information the first time I viewed it but after a couple views it all came into focus. This cleared up many of my frame rate questions. Thanks for your time and examples.
Wow... you are a "human wikipedia" (and much better!). All that techno-talk and didn't even break a sweat. Very impressive Sir! Great info and so well presented! THANK YOU!
OMG I was looking for Wow to Fix this problem which was driving me crazy. I thought that was an editing problem but no, was in the capturing. THANK YOU SO MUCH for the explanation
I come back to this video every few months. Im thinking about switching recording framerates. I usually shoot at 60fps and then slow certain clips down to 50 percent, but now I want to experiment with shooting at 30fps, slowing down 80 percent on a 24fps timeline, and for some shots, slowing down by 60 percent using optical flow. But I think I might really like the 30fps slowed by 80 percent look when paired with a gimbal. Thank you Gerald for lending us your brain.
Everytime there is something that I want to know more about I come to you and after I watched the video I always know more than I expected in any way 🤘
I can't believe that I've been following your channel for more than a year and I missed this video... You just answer my biggest questions about those F***ing jitters I have with my 24p footage. Thank you bro.
Glad to hear it! Thanks for saying so. Cheers!
The same here!! So it's not my gimbal, or my hands shaking?! Why nobody told me that earlier. Maybe after you Gerald!! Thanks a lot!
I will second that! If it weren't for Undone, we all would be still SO frustrated! Nobody but him explains this for some reason.
Videos like this make youtube great, thanks for taking the time to enlighten us in such a clear concise manner along with visual examples. Very well done!
seriously, just want you to know that there are people out here that are so very thankful for your in depth reviews, breakdowns, and info. You are a godsend to the community. We look forward to every video and tweet you put out, because we push hard to be professional and have a professional understanding of our equipment and how to use it, and you save us time, and effort, which in turn saves us money.
The best video I’ve ever seen at demystifying these conversions and the panning rate I had no idea about was a true bonus. I’m watching this every day for a month until it’s locked into my head. Thank you!!!
You sir have just helped me with one of the biggest issues I've been facing as a newcomer on the video scene, and one that has been impossible to explain to other people as to why it looks bad when looking for help.
Thank you!
Damn it Undone, you're too good for youtube, love this video!
agreed!!!
Second that
I honestly had no clue Panning speed was a factor. I've had a few 60fps clips that had a little stutter and I never knew why... But this explains it all. Thank you So much for this video.
My pleasure! Thanks for the comment.
30P - 24P (80%)
60P - 24P (40%)
120P- 24P (20%)
cant you just drop 120p on 24p timeline? I mean, 120 is evenly divisible by 24 (120/24 = 5). So you just use every fifth frame.
Then just shoot in 24fps if you want it at 1:1 speed. If you want 5x slow then use 120fps
@@davidck2456 Yeah you can, just keep in mind that your Shutterspeed will be much faster at 1/250 instead of 1/48 or 1/50. That results in less motionblur and can look "skippy" on your 24p timeline :)
Supakul. So not double shutter When higher fps?😁
If i have 24fps clip on timeline and 30fps to slow motion, i need to slow at 80%?
Nice video, thanks! And it all gets weirder when we in Europe generally use 25p and 50p.
Thank you! After three years of wondering what I've been doing wrong, I've finally found the technical explanation for it on UA-cam University. Bless you and your family and all of your descendants!
I've been shooting in 24p my whole career for no reason other than "it looks more cinematic", but I often run into the stuttering issue that you talk about with moving shots. Your insight on what happens when you view 24p content on a 60hz display was new information to me and you may have convinced me to change my standard frame rate...
Same!
Yeah, I don't see the point of using 24fps if you're not producing mainly for cinema. 30fps or 60fps is the future.
Wowsers. I have no idea how you do it, but you just made something that I've known intuitively for the past ten years suddenly make sense to me and it feels amazing. Cheers to this incredible channel of content.
Thanks for this, Jeremy! That's a great compliment and I really appreciate it. Cheers! 😃🙏
officially my favorite resource for valuable cinematography information. i swear its like you read my mind on topics I've been contemplating. brilliance as usual gerald
Awesome! I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for saying so. 😃🙏
I found this out the hard way. This is the first thing new filmmakers and UA-camrs should learn. Great video!
Excellent video with great explanation demos. However you forgot that a large part of the world has PAL and 50 fps, so we shoot at either 25 fps or 50 fps. Your explanations are easy to adapt, so I am very glad I watched your video. Thanks a heap.
At last!! Just followed this logic from camera capture to post edit export and I've finally been able to fix my jumpy pan shots. You legend!
Oh my gosh, I want to just give you a cyber hug from here! I made a huge newbie mistake of filming A roll in 24 fps, and then experimenting with 60 fps with my B roll shots. Went to edit and had such bad quality of lagging (thought it was my computer at first). This helped me fix my errors when bringing footage into the timeline and I learned a valuable lesson on why all frame rates need to be similar. I also did some fraction/percentages with 24fps/60 fps to slow down footage to 40% in my 24 fps timeline- not perfect but I will make it work. Thank you so much. A time waster for me, but a lesson I will not forget! Thanks for posting great teaching content.
Bro, thank you for clearing up the 40% speed for 60 fps, this helped a lot.
Oh wow this is actually the sort of stuff that could get in handy in the future and i really didn't expect this i kinda watched this because i was bored and this seemed abit interesting but it's very interesting good job Gerald!
Honestly, this is by far the best frame rate / playback explainer EVER. Thanks a lot dude!
I soo like your content. You just cut through all the clutter and misinformation out there. For someone who works as a developer, I really like how you are so well-researched on the subject and presents it in a methodical and scientifically way.
Thanks a lot! That's really kind. I'm glad you're loving the content. Cheers!
This video helped me understand how frame rates work in various timelines more than any other video. Thank you for pointing out the various aspects of the math here, not just the "how to slow it down!" sorta video. You just made it all click in my head. Thanks!!
I just threw my camera into a wall.
😂
Legit one of the most random and funny comments I've ever seen on here. 🤣
DAMN, saved a lot of time with this video! Thanks!
In order for my brain not to explode. I had to reduce the playback speed of your video. Thank you for adding so much value to UA-cam and the earth in general. I'm learning so much on your channel man! Never stop undoing ❤️
I'm with you on this. Gerald's brain works so FAST and somehow his mouth keeps up!!!
Wow pan rules! Dude you rule!!! I had become aware of problems with the "filmic" framerate that you could not mess a lot with camera panning, but didn't know there was a rule addressing this. Another day, another lesson. Big up man!
Cheers! Glad it was helpful.
Thank you! Thank you for providing me the video, that I can share now with "filmakers" on UA-cam instead of trying over and over again (with no luck) raise that 24 fps judder problem. Your video is the only one on entire UA-cam which explains almost all disadvantages of messing up with ramertes. Trust me, I tried many time to find some decent one with no luck. Just a bunch of bullshoot about "dreamy look" of 24 fps which is not the same "dreamy look" that we have with a cinema projector, at all... But did I miss something or you really didn't mention that 60 fps footage conformed to 30 fps timeline has not the same amount of motion blur as 30 fps footage (in case of using 180 degree shutter rule for every frame rate of course). But, anyway, please keep shooting in 24. Your content looks perfect at 1.25x speed, which is 30 fps ;)
Man, I really think that your channel is one of most underrated channels on UA-cam now, but you are killing it! Keep it up!
Thank you for making this video. It's refreshing to see a video about framerates that get the facts right. I have more of a computer graphics background than most videographers, and it's depressing to see so many professional and experienced videographers lack crucial knowledge about display technology and refresh rates. Just because the content is shot in 24 fps doesn't mean that it's shown to the viewer in actual 24 fps. You can find lots of tutorials about why it's logical to match your timeline framerate with your footage framerate, yet the same people are happy to upload 24 fps content to UA-cam and Facebook where close to 100% of the viewers will watch it on a 60 Hz display, which is effectively a 60 fps timeline...
As a side note, I'm actually typing this in front of a G-sync gaming monitor running at 100 Hz. But 1) They are not very common. 2) It still doesn't adapt to and show 24 fps UA-cam content properly 3) The other 7 displays used for UA-cam in my home, TV, phones and tablets, are still the standard 60 Hz.
Another side note, some UA-camrs incorrectly choose 25 fps for their content as "they are in a 50 Hz PAL country", and don't realize almost everyone is watching on 60 Hz mobile devices and computer monitors regardless. I'm one of the few people the content happens to get framerate matched for at the 100 Hz monitor. :)
That is not how displays work these days. Most have variable refresh rates, and even older monitors that had to refresh the entire screen each hz, would use something like 3:2 pulldown i think. Anyway, simply using a 60z monitor i not equal to dropping 24p footage in a 60p timeline.
I've been looking for this information for a while and finally found it in this video. Huge thank you!
This is info you don't get in most film classes! Thank you for making it free for us!
Well Done!! Gerald, you’re putting out excellent material!! You nailed a huge issue and explained it perfectly! I’ll be sharing this one for sure. “All Right” 👍
Thanks a bunch! Happy to hear that. 😃🙏
Is that you Fred?
Really, the fact that you backed everything up with a logical and mathematical manner is really helpful!
I always wonder why my 4k 30p stutters ! Thanks for the video. Now I get the science behind stuttering.
This is by far the best video on the web regarding this topic. Whether 24p looks good or bad - you should not select this framerate without exactly knowing what you are doing.
Thanks for the big compliment. Appreciated.
Great job. I hope this video brings you another 5000 subs by itself..... this should be required viewing by the way.
Most complete and clear explanation on youtube (and I watched a ton of videos). You are a natural teacher. Thank you.
Thanks so much! And thanks for subscribing. Cheers!
You have been putting out some of most o informative info on UA-cam....seriously. Many, thanks. Now I can reason out what frame rates to assign to my memory presets and when to use them
Love this. I've always been taught what frame rates different platforms/medias use but never *why*. I just came here to see if I could save my 24fps footage for my 60fps interviews but I got my answer and more! Thank you.
Makes me want to film in 24p now :)
As soon as you do, I'll switch to 30p just to mess with ya.
you need to find the perfect camera first....
Find a good camera but spend on a better lens. ;)
@@geraldundone lol got em !
LOL love that you watch Gerald too. Just know that on this platform, 24p is missing the mark! You need to start a 3rd UA-cam Channel called "24p Conspiracies"
I have been confused about this issue for a while, and I appreciate your very clear explanation!
Well, as far as I know for FCPX users you can use Optical Flow option while mixing frame rates on a timeline. It basically creates new frames in between in order to make footage as smooth as possible.
Wow! I was searching a lot to find the information, WHY my video is choppy when I export it in 24fps and I was recording at 60fps, and I finally found the golden video for this topic! Thank you very much, you are awesome! Respect
Man, you really demystified these frame rate issues for me in this video! I always thought my camera or editing software had bugs because I couldn't seem get smooth pans even with a gimbal... I will do some more tests with slower pans and frame rate settings!
just managed to bumped here and found this to be the best explanation on different frames rates and how it all works. One of the best explanations! Thanks much and keep coming with the good content!
Found you from Dunna Did it! You have some crazy useful videos Gerald, great work sir!
Thanks, Chris! I'm happy to hear they're useful. Glad you came over. 😃🙏
Best video on frame rate. Everyone gushes about 24, but it has drawbacks for social media uploads.
Thank you for everything you’re doing for us Gerald ! I would gladly pay if someday you have online classes or ebooks ;)
He sells merchandise 😉
The best explanation of the cause and management of judder with frame rate mismatch I’ve seen. Top job, thank you.
Thank you for this, you did such a great job! You explained it in a clear and concise manner that finally made sense to me.
Don't know if anyone else has commented about it yet, but I think that I prefer using the "interpret footage" method of slowing down, only because it still allows you to apply post-stabilization to the footage in an easier way than just using the "speed/Duration" dialogue box. Doesn't matter too much if you don't need warp stabilizer, for sure, but for some clips even 1% can add a lot without making it look weird.
Can't you just nest the clip and then just as easily add the warp stabilizer to it??
@witless X Correct! Do you consider that as a bad thing?
You just got a new subscriber. Finally someone who explained perfect, the differences between framerates and how to use them together. Thanks a lot, dude !
Thanks a bunch! I'm glad you liked the video and I'm glad to have a new subscriber. Cheers! 😃🙏
You are a freak Gerald! And the only freak I watch. Is thier any video you have NOT done? Rhis was so incredibly helpful
This is by far the best explanation of mixing frame rates i came across on UA-cam. Thank you sir, good job
You have a way on making videos that are useful to me. Well that came out a bit narcissistic but you probably know what I mean.
Haha. That's a good thing! I'm glad they're useful. Thanks for saying so. 😃👍
A great teacher that i need, its been years ive been studying about frame rates and timeline on my own. Till this day i still can't trust my instincts that I've I've properly learn well or not. But after watching this video it gave me a proper understanding. 👍
Very, very excellent info
Cheers heaps 👍
Thanks Gerald - the first video that understood what I was looking to learn. Man just type one item and that is all you get from the net.
Question: i put a 120fps aircraft video on timelime. Then added a pilot/tower audio recorder separately and lined it up to where i hear the people talking to coincide with when the aircraft exits the runway and the speech. Its correct at the last 15 minutes end at least for 10 mins but when i go to the beginning it seems to be like 5 mins off.
But what framerate timeline did you drop it in to?
Always time well spent.
Great info!
Thank you for the time in.
Nice tutorial. Thanks
I clicked on this video to have one question answered and it has answer more questions than I had! Thanks for this video!
I fully expected you to say... “today’s video is going to look different because I tied my hair back”
Hahaha! I love it. Kinda wish I would have done that and then said, "Nah, just kidding, it's because I'm shooting in 60p!"
MAN you are a scientist! A 1000 thanks and a HUMONGOUS thumbs up from me!
That was interesting. I've learned something here.
Thank you Gerald for re-assuring my understanding towards the basics of FPS.
Great content! And what about 25p/50p? I am from EU, we have 50Hz mains here and to avoid flicker from artificial fight sources I use 25p. How should I deal with movement? Just by using 25p timeline? Would it be detrimental to the look of the footage on 60Hz displays?
Pretty much everyone on Europe uses 25p. 24 is for Americans, and not something you should think about unless producing content for american cinema.
@@tomastuoma id clarify slightly. Yes 25/50 is european PAL standard. But US uses 30/60 NTSC not 24. Both of these are TV standards. 24 is the cinema/film standard and is used worldwide. Ironically 24 was chosen for film purely as a comprimise of cost and just enough motion to look natural, and now its stuck just because thats what people are used to. Just look at how much people were annoyed at the hobbit when it used 48 and complaind it didnt look right.
Gerald I have saved this one in my youtube mystery file. I have not got a clue but trust is everthing with information vids but if Gerald says so, end of. As for aesthetics I will have to watch it again. Great work you are the go to for so many wanting to understand and improve. Merry Christmas.
That's a big compliment! Thank you for your trust. I'll try not to let you down. Merry Christmas to you as well! 😃🙏
This guy ups my game, everytime. #UnDone
Awsom tutorial. Will have to watch this several times, have had lots of issues with jerky video. Fantastically explained and hopfully will put me on the right track. Thanks very much for taking the time to do this tutorial. 10 outta 10.
As a fan of the 60p aesthetic, I wish more people used it on UA-cam. The only time I can tolerate 24p is in movies that are projected in theaters because it's being displayed correctly and it contributes to the look we have come to associate with cinema. I don't get why UA-camrs use 24p though as most of the content creators produce nothing that's particularly cinematic and the odd frame rate means there are 3:2 pull down issues on standard 60Hz displays. I liked the look of this video despite the higher noise (which I didn't really notice). Would kinda like to see all future videos in 60p.
Great points. I think for me I'd probably meet you in the middle at 30p. It helps with a lot of the issues, but doesn't have as many efficiency downsides to 60p. And it will work nicely on the web. It will take some getting used to though. As with anything. 😃
Here are my thoughts on this. Take them with a grain of salt. I believe cinema has done a really good job of selling the whole 24p looks more “cinematic” than anything else. But a lot of it is perceived because we are told it’s more “cinematic”. If they decided 30fps (instead of 24; they used 24 to save in film costs) was the standard for cinema people would associate seeing in the theater and it would be the “cinematic” frame rate. The opposite is with sports. 24p is considered junk and everybody wants 60p and they don’t complain about the soap opera effect at all because that’s what people think sports “should” look like. But then, there are the folks who say 24fps has a physiological effect on our brain and this and that about dreams and what not...it gets kinda crazy.
I prefer 30 most of the time and use 24 when I want to impart some kind of extra, dreamy cinematic feel for artistic reasons (also 30p doesn’t have much data burden over 24 anyway). I don’t get the whole you must shoot 24 to be cinematic. No, you should cinematic scenes to be well....cinematic as long as you stay under 48fps is a good rule of thumb.
Anyway rambling rant over.
Lol
You should really watch the video he linked, it gives a REALLY good explination of why we probably won't ever see 60p movies; in short, it's more expensive, more time consuming, more storage, and doesn't really offer any solid benefit. On the other hand, I'd aruge that 24p will become much more enjoyable as 120hz displays become more common, because, contrary to what this video said ALL it has to do is just... not update the screen 4/5ths of the time. It's basically a perfect playback, which was actually part of the reason for choosing 120hz, since it's the smallest framerate that both 60p and 24p divide into. (and it helps that US power is 60hz)
The bigger issue is that, right now, only the GH5, (and cameras based on it, like the G9 and GH5) and XT3 can film in 4k 60p, AT ALL. And even on these cameras, you give up something for it; Panasonic cameras can't do it while doing autofocus, (IIRC) plus you give up the 4:2:2 option to do it. That means that only a very small percentage of people can even shoot it to begin with. That's ignoring the fact that it takes more than twice as long to process and upload. Plus it's more storage used up, and all of that for... very little gain to the majority of people. You'd have to buy a specific camera, and give up certain features, (autofocus/subsampling for the Panasonic or the full-width sensor readout for the XT3) that make it a huge pain, even if you had all the processing power and storage in the world.
Most people will choose 10bit, 4:2:2, or 4k over 60p. In fact, I'd say nearly everyone on UA-cam would or already has. When every camera has 4k 60p, you'll start seeing some people using it, but by then, there's a decent chance that Sony will have released a 8k or 6k camera, based on the sensors that they've announced. Even though I think anything past 4k is really REALLY pushing the limits of actual perception, I still think many people will choose that over the higher framerates. Higher framerates will be saved for use as slow-mo, as they are now.
Again, I recommend that you watch the video by Filmmaker IQ, it gives a VERY strong breakdown of all the reasons why it's unlikely that 60p will ever become the norm for anything other than sports.
@@finnillson4808 Is not that you should listen to what they say about using 24fps as a rule, you can shoot a film in any frame rate you want. For cinema DCPs now support a lot of speeds. For me personally it comes from a place i'm used to, have worked in that frame rate for years since film, and i like the feel. I'm not saying all that thing about feeling like a dream, but 24fps(or similar like 30) are more stroboscopic, less "real" and i think what it makes it suit better for fiction/drama, because it doesn't feel real, and maybe (just maybe) it improves the narrative experience. but it comes all boil to the type of content you wanna make, maybe you want to do a more "realistic" and visceral approach to war, then maybe 60p could enhance the experience.
My point is, its a matter of choosing the right "look" for the type of content and feel you want to transmit.
the most informative and crucial must watch for all videographers. Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I keep coming back to this video as a reminder.
tfw when you’re on a european 50hz display and even the first "smooth" video is stuttering... can’t get it right for everybody!
I am on a Macbook Pro and it stutters on 50Hz and 60Hz display refresh rate...
I've been looking for a video like this. Crystal clear explanation. Thank you very much!
Ayyyyyyyyyy
Legitimately the best video I've seen on the topic. Thank you mate!
Thank you so much. Big compliment. Really appreciated. Cheers!
Hey, Gerald. Just a quick response to the recommendation you made. I went to the video Filmmaker IQ made and found plenty of flaws in it which I think you might be interested in. I'm speaking from the point of a cognitive scientist with about 23 years in gaming (most of them on high - not the highest though, never went pr0 - level of competitive gaming) who also happens to be interested in videography/making youtube videos and the technology behind it. I know it's a long read but I hope it interests you. Oh and I just copy/pasted it so it's not directly addressed towards you xD... OR IS IT?!?! *TUM-DUM-DUM-DUM*
Also your video is as always a great watch and a food for thought!
TL;DR: About 40% of their video is rubbish from a scientific POV.
I have no problems with 24FPS but I found more than a few problems with your arguments there and your line of reasoning.
1st. There are plenty of studies that have proven that frame rate is perceived at a way higher rate than 24/30 or for that matter 60 and humans do react to it. And how would you quantify if there is an actual reaction or not? Through video games of course as that would eliminate what you called a meth induced excitement. Just to name one study off the top of my head - "On frame rate and player performance in first person shooter games". I was part of (both as an experimenter and a participant) two additional studies but their focus was entirely different. However they never got published, first and foremost because not all cognitive studies made by students are worth publishing and second and most important, because the speed at which a particular frame appeared was a factor that ultimately destroyed the persons hypothesis.
Frame rate can and is perceived at a higher rate than what we usually consume. In fact our reality constantly tests us on that.
2nd. You said in Myth #3 that motion pictures were meant to be experienced as a "fluid motion" and not still frames and then went on to say in Myth #7 that higher frame rate provides an OBJECTIVELY smoother look but then went on to play semantics with the word "better" and "objectively". How would one rank in order which is better? Through subjective experiences. How are objective truths about our perception extrapolated? Through a collection of subjective experiences filtered through a scientific method and put through statistical methods and replications. Now... If we come back to point one or for that matter your claim that higher frame rate is smoother it's only logical to go one step further and claim that 60FPS is BETTER than 24FPS in at least one aspect for example. You really need to hash out these logical discrepancies in such videos. It's easy to spot on and quite dishonest from intellectual point of view whether intended or not. When it comes to your argument of preference. 24FPS has historically been a standard and "suffers" (not really as we all enjoy it) from what is known in the scientific community as "reinforcement of perception". There are plenty of studies about that phenomenon about most of our senses and some even go further about things such as inference etc. Look it up!
3rd. And I know I’m going backwards but in Myth #4 (not even going to say a lot about how the claim is “Higher frame rate has health benefits over 24 fps” and you then follow up with the logical fallacy that people watching 24 FPS didn’t experience adverse effects… this is not how “benefits” work. If you are not doing push-ups, your chest muscles won’t magically shrink unless you are tied to a bed and never use them at all, but if you DO push-ups they will get stronger. Not sure if I conveyed my point the best way but it’s not that important either)… Anyways in Myth #4 you claim that Trumbull’s team are not scientists and there isn’t a mention of study groups etc. Barring the fact that you barely provide any evidence for the claims in this video, as far as I know when it comes to such “studies” made by Hollywood companies (or at least funded by them), they usually focus on questionnaires as well as the data they gathered and very rarely publish their findings. Now I know that it’s a wild claim to jump from what they tested to “HFR is beneficial to your health” (they also never made that claim, YOU did and again it is a flaw of your own logic) but at the very least it begs the question “Is HFR more exciting to watch?” to which the answer is probably yes. At least from the explanation of how it was conducted it seems they did actually have control groups (hence the different frame rates), the equipment used was adequate (I was a cognitive scientist so take my word for it, especially since you seem to struggle with pronouncing the name of some of it - I am not making fun of you, just pointing out the fact that you probably lack the knowledge of what this equipment measures and how it operates). And last but not least when you file a patent such as this it is reviewed by a commission that must have experts in the field. If this patent was approved, that gives these statements at least some credibility although replication is a must for sure and I personally could not find the study or “replicants” (did you catch the ref.?), or for that matter the patent information.
As I said though… Your logic is deeply flawed there. Also… That joke about meth… I know it’s meant as a joke but it has nothing to do with any of the things you said before that and when you are using it to actually “diminish” Trumbull’s statements it lands really flat especially when you take into consideration that THERE IS as I stated a mention of control groups and methodology. What you managed to accomplish there was to shine a brighter light on the fact that you lack basic understanding of how a scientific study is conducted or if that is not the case “dishonesty” which imo is worse. Just something to think about.
Now… This post is getting quite large and you probably will never read it so I will stop here. If you do read please note that it wasn’t written with ill-intent although part of my remarks had teeth. However I do feel very strongly about some of the topics you brought up and the way you tried to pass some of your claims as “OBJECTIVE” truths when they were anything but that.
Last but not least when you are making claims such as "How quickly we respond to visual stimuli:" followed by age, etc., probably links or at least mentions of the studies would be great. I know it's a bit nit-picky since some of these have been replicated quite a lot and should be common knowledge but still. If you are making a video that tries to be "scientific" and educational (which based on the category you placed it under it should be) you need to act like it IS a scientific video => References!
Hey! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate your in-depth analysis. I understand where you're coming from. I agree that their video isn't perfect and some of the arguments are definitely weaker than others, but I do think his reasons for 24p staying are pretty compelling and that's mostly what I tuned in for. Overall, I just found it to be an interesting video that tackled a lot of the common arguments. I do agree with you, however, that higher frame rates are definitely perceptible beyond what was given credit for. I'm basing that on my own experience. As far the "health benefit" factor, I'll defer to you, because I have no credentials to be speaking on that subject.
Also, thanks for the kind words about my video. Cheers! 👍😃
@@geraldundone One of the best arguments for 24p is actually one provided in your video and it is the one about noise reduction. It isn't about processing power anymore as higher FPS doesn't hit performance as hard as resolution for example. Obviously on a production scale it is different but the advancements in computing have been much larger than the advancements of what a sensor is capable of. And I'm not sure this is something their video touched upon so another point for you ^^. Also glad you managed to read through my short-story there xD and keep it up. Oh... and I'm sure a lot of people appreciate your engagement with the community so keep it up! It's really refreshing to have a conversation with the creator.
@@DelvingDeeper Hi... can I change the subject? You (Delving) seem to maybe know. The rule of thumb in video is the shutter speed should be 1/2 of the frame rate. Why? It seems like to get proper motion blur, you would want the shutter to be as close to the frame rate (or 1/frame rate) as possible. With today's digital cameras, there isn't a mechanical reason to have the shutter be open just half the time and closed half the time. Has this been studied?
@@pedzsan From purely technical point Gerald would be more informed on this. I just watch a lot of videos because I'm curious but I don't have as much experience with actually shooting stuff. I believe he even mentioned it in a few videos before but the general rule of thumb is that the SS should be twice as much as the FR to achieve a normal look, otherwise it either gets "dreamy" if it's below the x2 or it gets like in Gladiator.
Perception-wise motion blur has been studied and I could recall at least one article I've read about it but I'm not sure if it is exactly relevant to your question. As it relates to the perception of blur in general and isn't related to movies. There might be a study out there relating to how we perceive motion blur in movies but it would require a really complex methodology. Usually blur studies are done with either pictures (which isn't relevant to your question) or moving bars with added blur at different speeds in order to eliminate any external factors.
When it comes to how we register complex images though I'm afraid I haven't read enough on the topic but I did a quick search just now and I wasn't able to find that much.
My speculation is... And this is purely speculation with barely any scientific data to back it up other than common knowledge about how we perceive things... It has to do something with a sort of an "before/after-image" effect. Your visual cortex which is essentially located at the back of your brain is obviously spatially disassociated from your eyes (a fancy way of saying it's not right next to them). So try to imagine it as a pipeline.
From the time photons hit your retina and reach the visual cortex there is about .1s to .2s. Now… By the time an image gets processed by the brain and you actually “see” an image, another one is already fed into that pipeline but the thing is our brain doesn’t just process the data it receives. It’s actually a prediction machine so it predicts what the next image will be based on the information of the previous one in order to speed up processing in general. If a prediction matches then good. An image is nice and sharp and all is good. That usually happens when there are little discrepancies between Image a) and Image b) (slow moving things) If the prediction is bad then the image gets distorted, hence the blur.
Also our eyes do these rapid movements called saccades that are essentially micro-adjustments that would produce a different image than the one before if we were to experience things one image at a time. This usually helps offset motion blur as essentially your eyes never lose track of the moving object in your field of view. Now the time between one saccade and the other is roughly .2s. Not going to get into the nitty-gritty about it all but just imagine these as points on a picture that move rapidly and wherever the point is, that’s where your focus is. So you get a stream if information and then it cuts and goes to another stream of information. Like blinking but we can't exactly perceive it. We have measured it however. Just google saccades .
So if you kind of combine these things you get something like this. A saccade would be a dot and the image processing would be a line okay?
.--.--.--.
Now this is obviously not the exact ratio but a camera does something similar with FPS and SS. So let’s take 12FPS and use them as one unit and it would be a line. The SS is essentially your camera blinking and cutting to stream of information (that’s why we split the 24FPS into 2 units) so it would correspond to the saccades that cut the stream of information from one image to the other. So Shutter Speed would be the dots. And so this would look something like this:
.--.--.--.
So essentially the speculation is that the x2 ratio preserves our internal ratio. Not sure if I explained it properly or if I even have the right idea (again… this is SPECULATION) but it’s 2AM here and I’m at work and haven’t slept in a while so that’s the best I can do for you xD. Hope it answers your question.
@@DelvingDeeper Thanks! You mentioned gaming so I thought you might have some graphics in your back ground. I'm a computer geek and I have friends deep into graphics but I never got that deep into it. Back around 1985 or so, what became Pixar (I think the place was called Lucas Arts? -- I had a friend working there) there was a paper in ACM about motion blur in graphics. So I would suspect that the graphics guys (the guys who write game engines and hard core movie effects engines) would know what their industry uses but it may not be based upon any human perception experiments.
You mentioned something I had forgotten (or perhaps mis-remember)... Original movies used 12 FPS to get smooth motion and each frame was flashed twice to get above the flicker rate.
Hope you get some sleep... :-) Thanks again.
I learn so much from this channel. I feel like I just got a highly condensed college course in frame rates. Love it!
PAL and 50, 25 FPS?
Most of the world doesn't use NTSC,
yeap ! what % speed duration i need for 60fps to slow it at 25fps properly ???
Incredibly useful. Can't believe I never ran across pan rates before and had to discover the problem on my own and look up an explanation
Bro idk how anyone can dislike this video... idk, maybe I'm not on that level yet. Anyway, I've learn so much from you today and you've definitely earned another subscriber. Thank you.
Happy to hear that. Thanks a lot!
Amazing video! I know I'll be coming back to this once in a while to get things right before starting a new project.
Man, I've learned SO friggin much from you, Gerald! Thank you VERY much for all your time and expertise!!
Everyone who edits should watch this, it helps a lot understanding why so many videos pan like crap on youtube. Awesome video, stutter is just so annoying.
Thanks Gerald. Lots of great information here. It felt like drinking from a firehose of information the first time I viewed it but after a couple views it all came into focus. This cleared up many of my frame rate questions. Thanks for your time and examples.
At last a no nonsense u-tuber knowledgeable and articulate. Subscribed. Mahalo.
Wow... you are a "human wikipedia" (and much better!). All that techno-talk and didn't even break a sweat. Very impressive Sir! Great info and so well presented! THANK YOU!
You have no idea just how MUCH this helped me mate, thanks so much! Incredible, have subscribed
Fantastic! I'm really glad to hear that. Thanks for saying so.
And I'm also happy to have a new subscriber!
Thanks mate, I've watched a bunch of videos on this topic, you've made things clear for me.
Thank you! I’ve been waiting for someone to finally explain this.
Excellent tutorial. I have been looking for this info for a while and this video is by far the best I found. Thank you.
Thank you. What an amazing video. You made it very easy to understand and follow. Keep up the great work.
Thank you! Been searching for months for a tutorial that explains it at my level 👍
OMG I was looking for Wow to Fix this problem which was driving me crazy. I thought that was an editing problem but no, was in the capturing. THANK YOU SO MUCH for the explanation
You're very welcome. Happy to help. Thanks for the comment.
Thank you for this thorough explanation of interpreting footage vs speed/ duration! This helped me tremendously with my recent video project.
I come back to this video every few months. Im thinking about switching recording framerates. I usually shoot at 60fps and then slow certain clips down to 50 percent, but now I want to experiment with shooting at 30fps, slowing down 80 percent on a 24fps timeline, and for some shots, slowing down by 60 percent using optical flow. But I think I might really like the 30fps slowed by 80 percent look when paired with a gimbal. Thank you Gerald for lending us your brain.
The information density is insane, I love it.
As someone new to video i’ve had this issue many times and this has really helped me to consider frame rates and slow motion
Awesome! Glad it was helpful. Thanks for saying so. 😃
Everytime there is something that I want to know more about I come to you and after I watched the video I always know more than I expected in any way 🤘
Wow no one talks about this! Good Job Gerald Bravo!
I have been working in video for 20+ years and even though I get it... This made so much more sense and explained it so well.