24fps Download

[Annegret Haldiman]

Ishot some footage at 60fps (D800 1/125s and tried 1/60s). In Premiere, I created a new sequence set at 24fps. I have tried both Speed/Duration (40%) and Interpret Footage > Assume Frame Rate: 24fps. With the Speed/Duration route, I tried all three options for Time Interpolation: Frame Sampling, Frame Blending and Optical Flow and all seem to provide the same result...

In the 8 years of shooting I've never had this issue. I shot at 60 fps with a shutter of 1/125 and then dropped it into a 23.976 timeline and slowed it down by 40% and it's extremely choppy. Usually when doing this I get buttery smooth slow motion footage. I've tried exporting with optical flow and frame blending like explained above but still getting the same issue. I need help!

Ive never had a problem with Premiere pro doing this until now. I shot at 59 fps and then use Interpret footage to set the clip to match my 23.976 timeline - this used to result in nice smooth slow motion, now it is choppy, what has changed??

I've shot 18fps predominantly in Super 8, whereas I've shot both 18 & 24 in 16mm. I have to say that when projecting the film through a film projector I can't tell a difference. Now I have shot 24fps on certain shots where I may be moving the camera around a lot or in situations where there will be more camera shake, i.e. a out the roof of a car or long end of the zoom. I then project that back at 18fps and it smoothes out the shakes and movements some.

18fps also lets you achieve "slower" slow-motion as 36fps becomes 100% slower, rather than 50% slower when shooting 24fps. I'd shoot both ways, say using one cart, 1/2 at 18fps and 1/2 at 24fps. Shoot something inbetween to help you note where the speed change is. Then project it and/or transfer it at those rates and see how you like it.

24 fps is the standard in the united states and some other countries for syncing sound to picture. But if only it was that easy, the camera must be crystal sync to achieve perfectly synced sound. Although if you are shooting at 24 fps without crystal sync you can manage to stay in sync for roughly 25 secs,if you run the camera longer than that your sync will drift when syncing in post.

18 fps, as stated before is "the home movie standard." Sound cannot be synced to 18fps, and when 18 fps is projected at 24 fps the picture appears to be sped up (in the 24 fps world 18fps is called undercranking) All the films you watch at the theater are projected at 24 fps, if theres any fast motion in the film you are watching at the theater then it was shot at a lower frame rate (undercranked.) The opposite is overcranking= slow motion (36fps, 48fps etc.) when projected at 24 fps.

I recently shot a super 8 short that used both 24 and 18 fps and the difference, at least at home on a television, is very small. For the bits in the story that take place in reality I used 24, but in fantastic or unreal situations, I used 18 for a slightly dream like look.

Though this isn't the best indicator at all, use any editing system that can render the footage at different frame rates and save a video file at both 18 and 24 fps. True, there are a lot of other factors in film, but the video test is a start.

While I am not a "24fps" snob, I have shot all my movies (R-8mm, S-8mm, 16mm) at 24fps. I like the quality and smoothness. Back in the day when we all edited our films using a splicer, the splices were much less visable on screen at 24fps. In that vein, defects on the film are also less noticeable as well. Lots of reasons to shoot in 24fps, but 18fps is certainly OK if that is your preference.

Note that it would be tough to get a professional blow up or even video transfer to beta or other video format at 18. I am sure a few places can do it but the accepted norm is still 24 for released theatrical films. It would be like expecting a PAL video to be accepted here in the US. It can be converted to our US NTSC standard but why not just shoot it right in the first place. Sure, it can be cool or you can use it for an old time hand cranked feel, like the really old Chaplin films or something. Unless you want higher speed playback, the opposite fo Slow-Mo, it is more a bother than it's worth I would think.

You really won't save all that much film if you are going 18 vs 24 anyway, at least for a short. Would make a big difference of you were doing a feature, but if you were doing a feature, you would want to shoot the accepted norm of 24 fps.

Here's my question: I hear people make reference to 24 "frames per second", and I see all over the place 24"p". What is the difference (if any) between 24fps and 24p? Same with 30fps and 30p?

24 frames per second is the playback or acquisition rate. It applies to both film and video, but it merely refers to how many frames are played back, and not necessarily the content or any other information in those frames.

24 p "progressive" can refer to a couple of different video terms. It does not really apply to film because film does not record in interlacing or "fields" like video dows, that can only happen when it is transferred to video... so in essence every major contemporary film is recorded and played back at 24 frames per second. Where the term progressive comes into play is the odd and even video fields of a frame are not scanned all odd lines then all even lines to produce a frame (which can cause irregular looking frames on progressive displays like HDTV's)... they are scanned odd even odd even producing no irregular looking movement, just solid "film like" movement at 24fps, replicating film movement and cadence. On the playback side, 24p often refers to a method on DVD called flagging where a DVD player can automatically adjust your 24p movie for regular television at 30fps, and still display it normally. 24p is the ideal method for acquisition with video when you are going to do a filmout because technically the frames should directly equate to a very similar to film acquired cadence and structure, not needed more than some color correction and prep and certainly nowhere close to trying to get an interlaced source structure to prep for a filmmout.

I know this is probably very controversial, but I ask myself this question every time I see a video shot in the USA at 24FPS instead of 30FPS; why did they do that? I am mainly talking about the USA because I know overseas there is PAL and 50Hz refresh rates and some other things involved in that formatting which I know nothing about. I will assume that if my TV was set to PAL and the frame rate was 25FPS it would look the same to my eyes as my TV set to NTSC and the frame rate set to 30FPS. So back to shooting at 24FPS or 23.97FPS in the USA...I just don't get it; I have never seen 24FPS footage (that I am aware of) anywhere other than Hollywood that does not look like its is stuttering badly at 24FPS. If there is no motion, or its a talking head, then sure I can't tell the difference; but most of the time the footage looks great....except it is stuttering along due to the frame rate when there is fast motion.

To me and the TVs and monitors that I use to view YouTube and online content, I can almost always tell when its not 30FPS and there's nothing "cinematic" about it. I even researched the history of frame rates and I know they started out that way to save tape media, but those days are long gone. Motion simply isn't smooth if it is not shot at 29.97FPS (30FPS) in my opinion. Somehow Hollywood gets away with it, maybe its their post processing, their camera equipment, etc. but every other footage at that frame rate is just a stuttering mess to me if its fast action or a lot of things change between frames. I have also watched a lot of videos on frame rates and they describe the problems that occur when you shoot in 59.97FPS then try to slow the footage down to 50% on a 24FPS timeline....let alone to 23.97FPS.

Even with Hollywood, playing a movie straight from a DVD, there's been scenes that were hard for me to watch because the frames appeared to be stuttering. So am I the only one that thinks this way? Is it something with H.265/H.264, YouTube compression, LongGOP compression, bitrates, or something else that makes 24FPS look so terrible most of the time when motion is involved?

I see that too. A mantra, repeating what they heard. Cinema Look Pull Down 3: 2. I also disagree with the dogma 1/48 shutter expose. I understand the 180o shutter for the rotating reflex camera, but today it is no longer necessary, the blur drag is not too bad compared to what it offers in quality of movement, not to mention increased exposure, when necessary.

That translates to others in the video world wanting to film in 24 fps because they think it's more "cinematic" even if they're just YouTubers in their "studio" (aka converted guest room.) The jittering you're noticing might be related to shutter speed more than frame rate? A lot of YouTubers leave their exposure on auto or will set it to aperture priority (blurry backgrounds!) because it's easier and they're more concerned with bokeh than motion cadence. There are other reasons too why their footage might look jittery, like filming at 23.97 but editing or exporting at 24 fps (though I think most software these days is smart enough to "fix" this?)

Usually though I don't notice 24 fps issues with a lot of the people that I watch that film in it. It is kinda silly though when you think about grown men in their guest bedrooms talking to a camera being worried about whether their videos look "cinematic." I don't think anyone really notices or cares, except maybe other grown adults that do the same thing!

3a8082e126