I heard alot of people are anxiously waiting for canon to release a firmware update for the 5d mkII that will enable the camera to shoot video at 24 fps, can someone tell me what is so special about 24 fps?
The Image wrote:
I heard alot of people are anxiously waiting for canon to release a firmware update for the 5d mkII that will enable the camera to shoot video at 24 fps, can someone tell me what is so special about 24 fps?
24 fps is the industry standard for shooting advertisements, television shows, and movies.
Because if you are shooting with a 5D2 at 24 fps, it will make it look more like the big film cameras and less like a $200 digital video cam from Costco.
RobertLynn wrote:
Isn't it like the refresh rate or the something rate, that it divides into 24 fps better?
Well, 24 fps does not divide into 60 Hz (US) or 50 Hz (many other places) very well. However, there are existing ways to account for this because it has been done for many many years.
60 fps would work great in the US, but not easily translated for the rest of the world.
Gives it more of a movie "look." I really could have cared less if they released firmware for 24p when I had my 5D2. I was very happy with the 30p movies I was getting from it.
If you have a big screen lcd or plasma and a decent blue ray player you'll notice they support a cinema mode that allows the movie or source to be played at 1080p/24fps to reproduce the cinematic experience. One thing though about the cinema though, the screen is refreshed all at once, not progressively (line-by-line) like a TV or computer screen which apparently means we don't see an afterimage. 24fps will give a greater sense of motion blur, and is why 24fps works so well, you don't notice the picture being jerky despite the relatively low frame rate. Apparently motion blur gives the impression of more intervening frames between the two actual frames. If you were to stop a movie during an action scene with lots of movement, the scene you see will have a lot of blur, and things will be almost unrecognisable with highly blurry detail. When it is played at full 24 fps, things look sharp and normal again; the human eye is used to motion blur.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If you have a big screen lcd or plasma and a decent blue ray player you'll notice they support a cinema mode that allows the movie or source to be played at 1080p/24fps to reproduce the cinematic experience. One thing though about the cinema though, the screen is refreshed all at once, not progressively (line-by-line) like a TV or computer screen which apparently means we don't see an afterimage. 24fps will give a greater sense of motion blur, and is why 24fps works so well, you don't notice the picture being jerky despite the relatively low frame rate. Apparently motion blur gives the impression of more intervening frames between the two actual frames. If you were to stop a movie during an action scene with lots of movement, the scene you see will have a lot of blur, and things will be almost unrecognisable with highly blurry detail. When it is played at full 24 fps, things look sharp and normal again; the human eye is used to motion blur....Show more →
This is incorrect. What you're probably trying to describe is "judder" as an artifact of the inverse telecine process. Telecine is a method of interlacing a 24fps progressive frame source material into a 30fps interlaced signal. Progressive screens (LCD, computer CRT, etc) will deinterlace the signal, but still have to display the frames at 60hz. So, some frames linger slightly longer than other frames. This effect will make a slow pan seem like it jumps slightly. It's not particularly noticeable unless you look for it.
That being said, most movies and TV shows have a fair amount of motion blur in them. Unlike still photography, motion blur is desirable in movies. Motion blur gives visual clues of movement and is used to help maintain fluidity of motion with a slower frame rate so that moving objects don't appear to stutter. When you have a really fast shutter speed during action scenes, you get weird effects like in the D-Day sequence of Saving Private Ryan.
Let this be a lesson to all you would-be 5DII movie makers: motion blur is not a bad thing in movies!
24p is a slightly slower fps, resulting in a smoother video image (close to film-like quality). 30p, is much like the video broadcast days of 30fps (29.97). The increase in frames gives the image more of a "video look" rather than a "film look." For instance, 60p or 60 frames per second (59.99 to be more precise) will deliver 2x the frames. This can result in very detailed scenes that can be slowed down with great clarity but can also be very jarring when it comes to a lot of movement within the scene or if a camera move is introduced.
jfulton wrote:
24p is a slightly slower fps, resulting in a smoother video image (close to film-like quality). 30p, is much like the video broadcast days of 30fps (29.97). The increase in frames gives the image more of a "video look" rather than a "film look." For instance, 60p or 60 frames per second (59.99 to be more precise) will deliver 2x the frames. This can result in very detailed scenes that can be slowed down with great clarity but can also be very jarring when it comes to a lot of movement within the scene or if a camera move is introduced....Show more →
You have it backward. 24fps is less smooth than 30fps. This applies to faster frame rates too. 60fps (you incorrectly state 59.99 for NTSC, it's actually 59.94, which is 29.97 * 2 or, more appropriately, 60000/1001) gives you an even smoother looking video. An increase in temporal resolution (i.e., greater frames rate or more frames per second) increases the smoothness of playback.
The smoothness you see at 24fps is actually an illusion based on slower shutter speeds and the aforementioned motion blur. The motion blur gives the eyes visual cues about motion. If there was a lot of motion in a scene, but no motion blur, the resultant scene would appear to stutter.
Moreover, the frame rate is only one factor in the "film look". The biggest factors that contribute to the "film look" are lighting and shallow depth of field. When something has an obvious "video look", it's mostly due to poor lighting and a very wide depth of field (due to a small sensor). If you shot something on film with horrible light and a very large depth of field, it would also have a "video look". If you shot something with a video camera with good, even lighting and a shallower depth of field (if you can get it), you might be able to achieve a "film look".
Moreover, the frame rate has NOTHING to do with detail of the scene. Image detail and temporal detail are two separate concepts.
I thought I also read somewhere that most higher quality external audio recording devices are designed to work with 24fps movies, so syncing off-camera audio with a 24fps video is easier.
dwweiche wrote:
I thought I also read somewhere that most higher quality external audio recording devices are designed to work with 24fps movies, so syncing off-camera audio with a 24fps video is easier.
Did I just write something partially intelligent?
The clapboard is typically what is used to sync audio with video when they're recorded separately. I'm not sure what audio equipment is actually used, so I don't know whether there's some benefit to syncing with 24fps video. However, considering the audio and video streams are typically separate, apart and have their own nuances and meanings, I doubt either plays any role with each other.
25P is also required for PAL countries (Europe, Australia etc.) because converting from 30 to 25 for standard definition output is extremely difficult.
Also you often have problems with lights flickering if you shoot at 30 fps with 50 Hz power.
Although at least with the firmware update, you can set the shutter speed on the 5D MK II.
Mike V wrote:
25P is also required for PAL countries (Europe, Australia etc.) because converting from 30 to 25 for standard definition output is extremely difficult.
Also you often have problems with lights flickering if you shoot at 30 fps with 50 Hz power.
Although at least with the firmware update, you can set the shutter speed on the 5D MK II.
Flickering will be more noticeable with higher shutter speed. This is, of course, independent of frame rate (though, frame rate denotes minimum shutter speed.).
kakomu wrote:
The smoothness you see at 24fps is actually an illusion based on slower shutter speeds and the aforementioned motion blur. The motion blur gives the eyes visual cues about motion. If there was a lot of motion in a scene, but no motion blur, the resultant scene would appear to stutter.
Moreover, the frame rate is only one factor in the "film look". The biggest factors that contribute to the "film look" are lighting and shallow depth of field. When something has an obvious "video look", it's mostly due to poor lighting and a very wide depth of field (due to a small sensor). If you shot something on film with horrible light and a very large depth of field, it would also have a "video look". If you shot something with a video camera with good, even lighting and a shallower depth of field (if you can get it), you might be able to achieve a "film look".
....Show more →
Thanks for that cogent comparison - the number 24 is mainly desired because it is a longstanding standard used in film and all the associated operations of editing etc. many of which are done digitally. So making the, e.g., 5D2, video in 24p really simplifies its integration into production facilities.
With suitable shutterspeed (and its attendant blur) and lighting and DoF etc, a 30 fps system would look a lot like film. It might even be hard to tell a 30fps film from a 24fps film - i.e., the fact that video uses the number 30 fps is not the prime reason it looks like "video".
jfulton wrote:
24p is a slightly slower fps, resulting in a smoother video image (close to film-like quality). 30p, is much like the video broadcast days of 30fps (29.97). The increase in frames gives the image more of a "video look" rather than a "film look." For instance, 60p or 60 frames per second (59.99 to be more precise) will deliver 2x the frames. This can result in very detailed scenes that can be slowed down with great clarity but can also be very jarring when it comes to a lot of movement within the scene or if a camera move is introduced....Show more →
you are mixing up fps and shutter speed
you get the staccato effect when the shutter speed starts becoming much greater than 2x the frame rate
if you shoot 1/250th and 30fps say
24fps gets more jumpy studder on pans than 30fps and especially 60fps (regardless of shutter speed)
if you shot 60fps and 1/60th is would look really smooth (but freeze frames would show lots of motion blur)
AJSJones wrote:
With suitable shutterspeed (and its attendant blur) and lighting and DoF etc, a 30 fps system would look a lot like film. It might even be hard to tell a 30fps film from a 24fps film - i.e., the fact that video uses the number 30 fps is not the prime reason it looks like "video".
i think that is taking it a little too far, certainly cheap video often has a different picture style shall we say than film with different contrast/tonal range and digital noise etc etc do make it look different even if at 24fps but even if you used a super high end digital movie camera for both 24fps and 30fps shooting with everything the same aside from teh 24 vs 30 you can definitely tell them apart whenever there is motion or panning
