Hi Abe,

Thanks for the article. It explained things much better than I could.

What it clearly shows is that more frames is more quality for the viewer in the roaring Twenties, and the 21st century will get more quality in digital cinema, too.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
"In the days of silent movies, the camera fps is often different from the projector fps. So although many silents were supposedly shot at 16 fps, they were actually projected closer to 24 fps."

@Abe - I have never, ever read that in that context. Increasing 18fps-shot material to frame rates to herky jerky motion makes the dramatic comic, and the comic facial.

Kevin Brownlow, the British filmmaker and historian wrote extensively about this phenomenon. Mr. Brownlow received an honorary Academy Award for his work in documenting film and cinema history.

According to Mr. Brownlow, while Hollywood cameramen insisted that the standard speed for silent films was 16 fps, by the 1920s few films were actually shot at that speed. By 1925, the "de facto" standard for silent movie projectors was already 24 fps, two years before the first feature "talkie" (The Jazz Singer, 1927) and well before sound-on-film technology became commonly used.

More details from an archive of one of Mr. Brownlow's articles at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110708155615/http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm

Included in the article's appendix is a table of major silent films (including Robin Hood, Scaramouche and Ben-Hur) along with their camera fps and projection fps. As the table indicates, virtually all of them were projected at 24 fps. Obviously audio quality had nothing to do with this speed.

I made a good contact and friend of King Vidor in his late life. He was resplendent of stories of the transition from talkies to sound,and is from where most of my information comes, but there is a wealth of information this everywhere.

King Vidor's silent movie The Crowd (1928) was shot at 20 fps and projected at 24 fps (see table in article referenced above).

I think it's pretty clear from the evidence that the 24 fps cinema frame rate was already industry standard prior to the introduction of optical soundtracks.

Clive said:
I don't know much at all about video other than having shot a few on my D7000. These discussions about 24 vs 30 fps....I wonder if mains frequency has something to do with it. The TV set and lighting we watch the movies by are either 50Hz or 60Hz. Watching 30fps in a 50Hz environment or 24fps with 60Hz may not be so pleasant as an fps that's a close multiple to the mains frequency.

Hi Clive,

Of course you're right, I had my USA (60Hz) cap on and tunnel vision in my thoughts and words. :-|

PAL folks would be better off to use the PAL setting of 25p or 50p.

My best,

Mike

I don't know much at all about video other than having shot a few on my D7000. These discussions about 24 vs 30 fps....I wonder if mains frequency has something to do with it. The TV set and lighting we watch the movies by are either 50Hz or 60Hz. Watching 30fps in a 50Hz environment or 24fps with 60Hz may not be so pleasant as an fps that's a close multiple to the mains frequency.

Hi Bowen,

If you are shooting a show for a station or a network, ask. They will be glad to tell you.

If your footage is going to be use for a popular release movie, "Movies" are generally still shot in 24p since we're still in celluloid world, so 1080p at 'highest' quality would be the setting.

For YouTube, I'd recommend 720P30 at high quality. You'd get smoother playback of your motion and more frames per second for your playback.

For your DVD project, that'a a rub...

I going to recommend 720p30 (assuming that you are using a Nikon capable camera throughout the project), and that the project is edited using a CODEC that can edit the H264 CODEC. Something like Adobe Premiere Elements or Sony Vegas Platinum should do fine. Export the High Definition timeline (720x1280) to a 720x480 (there is a slight aspect ratio change, too - those pixels are rectangular) DVD CODED and burn the DVD with the Adobe or Sony software.

To be clear... You could, use 24p for the Internet without any consequence (I'm just not advising anyway - assuming the bandwidth is available, why wouldn't you want more information to tell your story?), but the DVD and it's target audience would prefer 30fps. That's an established standard I wouldn't advise departing from.

My best,

Mike

I think what would be helpful for anyone starting in video is a quick reasoning on which to standard to pick. I have done little to no video work outside of uploading to Youtube, but from what I gather, the reasoning would be like this: Where is the video going to be shown? If it's going broadcast - what station is it going on, what framerate do they broadcast? If it's going on Youtube, what is the best option to pick on your camera? etc.

I would certainly appreciate, nay, I would be quite indebted to someone for spelling out the difference and rational for each project for me.

I have a Youtube project coming up, and I also have a DVD project too. Which would be the best settings to shoot with my camera for each and why?

Both projects may have some footage from other sources mixed in. I would also love to consider showing portions of them in lectures via a Keynote presentation. Again, what raw camera settings should I start with so I can end up with quality in each project at the end?

I'm a love of still photography, however, I'm also using the video capabilities of my cameras too, just nowhere near as familiar with them.

jonnyapple said:
You always get me thinking, Mike. Nice comments—my NEX-5n shoots 1080p60, and it really is gorgeous, but I haven't shot very much except the 1080p24 (which I also love). Maybe now I won't be as shy to push the limits sometimes for fun.

Hi JohnnyA!,

Push on.

The 5A is a good choice. You should be able to do a lot of fun stuff. We finished shooting some interviews for PBS this week and sending them off to the editors. So now we're cleaning equipment and preparing for the next job.

My best,

Mike

Hi all,

"In the days of silent movies, the camera fps is often different from the projector fps. So although many silents were supposedly shot at 16 fps, they were actually projected closer to 24 fps. Part of the reason was economic (theaters wanted shorter run times) but also aesthetic (less flicker and crisper motion)."

@Abe - I have never, ever read that in that context. Increasing 18fps-shot material to frame rates to herky jerky motion makes the dramatic comic, and the comic facial. This would account for studios sharing propitiatory rates with other studios' projectionist and a wave of new critics apologists.

I'm reasonable sure could have I misstated something, or oversimplified something else, but on key points, that 24fps became a standard for reason due to issues of quality of audio, I'll stand on. Prior to sound, the standard for silents was around 18fps to save some money on film stock, and there wasn't a clear distinction for standards for fps acquisition to distribution (for silents - initially, there was a speeding up in the hot projector in the early days, but I recall that being a fire issue from highly flammable even explosive celluloid being a causal agent to hurry the projection of the very early movies).

I made a good contact and friend of King Vidor in his late life. He was resplendent of stories of the transition from talkies to sound,and is from where most of my information comes, but there is a wealth of information this everywhere.

I'm pretty sure that Baggins will kill 24p, too. RIP 24p, you had a good run.

My best,

Mike

I'm going to be shooting a film (documentary) and putting it together over the next couple of years, and i plan to use primarily 24 fps. There will be certain bits i use 30fps.

I plan to use primarily a professional grade video caemera, but i also do plan to get a d800 for some other stuff. The 24 fps has to do with acceptable playback, in the film era. Film was quite expensive. And it was basically determined by the industry that 24 was the most acceptable playback speed.

Silents were shot at 16.

But one suggestion for people considering video, beyond something really basic if it needs to be considered 'pro', make sure you can do an external mic. No matter how good the video, if the sound isnt also good, the video will never seem as good. I've heard so many people say things like 'i like this, but i dont like this as much, and i dont know why', and so much of the time its about sound. sound is key, even if people dont realize it.

But getting back on topic. Its very important to know what you are shooting for if doing anything serious. You need to be able to shoot at the same speed of the playback. there really is no answer to the "best" framerate. It really depends on your goals and your project. If you look at high end pro video cameras there is a reason most of them do multiple.

I dont normally shoot video

but a client has asked me to shoot some "library" video on a future stills shoot

I will using a D800 if I shoot 1080 30 will that be suitable for most uses

Mike Gunter said:
The original reason for 24p had nothing to do with cinematic effect, art, or any other visual artistic tidbit anyone can come up with. It was an agreed rate for timing for the audio track - nothing more. Audio was the deciding factor; the optical track in the reel sounded better at 24fps.

Silents were at various frame rates - from 12-26fps or so, kind of ending at 16fps to time with the sheet music that went out with the reels (yes, the silents did have sound tracks of a sort) talkies, also were all over the place too, but then those talkies were distributed to corporately own theaters. In order to make more money, the studios need to come up with a standard to share their movies. It wasn't because they 'looked' better, but because they 'sounded' better.

Hi Mike, I don't believe that's quite right.

In the days of silent movies, the camera fps is often different from the projector fps. So although many silents were supposedly shot at 16 fps, they were actually projected closer to 24 fps. Part of the reason was economic (theaters wanted shorter run times) but also aesthetic (less flicker and crisper motion).

E.g., the 1924 silent movie Monsieur Beaucaire was shot at about 18 fps but projected at 24 fps. There was no audio reason for this frame rate (being a silent movie obviously.)

By the time talkies became popular, projection speeds of around 24 fps were already in such common use, 24 fps was simply adopted as standard for use with Vitaphones and the like.

Again these pre-date optical sountracks so I don't believe audio quality was the major factor in the adoption of 24 fps.

You always get me thinking, Mike. Nice comments—my NEX-5n shoots 1080p60, and it really is gorgeous, but I haven't shot very much except the 1080p24 (which I also love). Maybe now I won't be as shy to push the limits sometimes for fun.

Ade Barkah said:
Interesting IGN article today about The Hobbit's "distracting" 48 fps aesthetic:

Hi,

We'll certainly see out it plays out, but it will certainly end at a higher frame rate for action sequences as soon as we are watching movies in digital cinemas (and in due course, cinemas will all be digital, unless we have throw back celluloid art houses, and of course, we will, ;-0 ).

The original reason for 24p had nothing to do with cinematic effect, art, or any other visual artistic tidbit anyone can come up with. It was an agreed rate for timing for the audio track - nothing more. Audio was the deciding factor; the optical track in the reel sounded better at 24fps.

Silents were at various frame rates - from 12-26fps or so, kind of ending at 16fps to time with the sheet music that went out with the reels (yes, the silents did have sound tracks of a sort) talkies, also were all over the place too, but then those talkies were distributed to corporately own theaters. In order to make more money, the studios need to come up with a standard to share their movies. It wasn't because they 'looked' better, but because they 'sounded' better.

There are a lot of films that use shutter speed - _Saving Private Ryan_ is a terrific example - to freeze movement in each frame for effect, rather than use shutter angle to control exposure, or even go to extremes as Stanley Kubrick in _Barry Lyndon_ by using super fast Zeiss optics (borrowed from NASA) and actually lit with candles to mimic eighteenth century portraiture. Those are achievements I can get behind and root for; they make meaningful contributions to the art.

Twenty-four progressive frames per second is good for video not looking like video. And that is about that; and that _is cinematic_ in as far as it goes to 'video', but we really have come much further than that.

There's a lot of good in the cameras we are using, and the current software that keep the ugly off video.

With the D7000, as an example, you can make your project look like it was taken with a high-end production camera, and you really don't need 24p. Variable rates would be much more productive, and a 1080p30 or 1080p60 would be terrific.

I guess I'm saying that 24p has been pushed to audiences so much that they have acquired the taste - apparently the critic Abe cited, and perhaps some of you reading this - think 24p is the rate you must use to be 'filmic', and even the companies making cameras are certainly feeding us cameras with the 24p as an option; and I think it's time to change the paradigm.

Digital cinema will allow a slew of rates. Why not use them when the subject matter merits it?

My best,

Mike

Interesting IGN article today about The Hobbit's "distracting" 48 fps aesthetic:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

It remains to be seen whether audiences will quickly "adapt" to higher frame rates, or if 24 fps will be preferred for cinema for some time to come.

Hi all,

@Ade You absolutely right, I believe they are 18 standards allowed by the ATSC based on resolution, frame rate, progressive/interlaced, and audio handling; I hinted at in in my comments but should have been much clearer.

PBS is one network that uses all of the standards. A prime time documentary might be 1080p 30, where as during the day the local station _might_ broadcast 5 education programs to the schools it serves for classroom use in lower definition. Presumably the _raison d'être_ for the multiple lower resolution for flavors.

Higher resolution has proved to be a favorite for sports channels. All of them want something specific, however, for their broadcasting channel - a single standard, if you will. Typically, they can interpret footage, but no one really wakes up in the morning wanting to fix footage.

Additionally, somewhere, some how, _full high definition_ has come to mean in 1080p 30, but I don't think the Oxford Dictionary folks or even a smoke filled backroom, or even some people with pencils and paper check off any blocks to make that happen. So _full high definition_ is really anything one wants it to be. I think it should be 1080p 60. It should be along shortly. I put in a request somewhere...

@in4fun - Thanks for the short! It was nice.

I wouldn't get too enamored with 24p. Cameras sold in the EU already had 25p which is better anyway. Most of the entertainment industry is shooting at faster rates now, if they are using digital format, and releasing a slower viewing print for non-digital theaters. You'll see 30 and higher as standards as soon as digital projection is standard, and that is happening now. It is an anti-piracy thing. It will happen; it will happen soon.

@SkinBrit - I keep forgetting faster than I learn. I'm not even sure what the topic was...

My best,

Mike

From a consumer viewpoint, at least here in the EU, 24 fps is highlighted as a feature to achieve that cinematic effect.
So 30 fps is the regular frame rate for family stuff, vacations etc. All the movements appear as they are in real life.
If you want to direct your own little movie or anything artsy you need 24 fps.
As an example compare someone walking down the street while lighting a cigarette in 30 fps and 24 fps. 24 fps just makes it look much cooler.
So for me personally 24 fps is much more important than 30 fps, since I can do 30 fps with any cheap consumer cam.

If you want a real life example check out this video made by 3 german students for a Nikon project with a D7000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytwd8O4IxPo&context=C47f031bADvjVQa1PpcFO_rXAeWPCjOjRAtUs4Y-UuKko2lbkLtvc=
It's only 3 minutes but really worth it.

If you're interested in how they did it (making of) check out this link
http://www.brilliant-life.de/making-of.html
scroll down and you can see how they achieved each scene in this short movie

Thanks for sharing that guys, but boy do you make me feel dumb! :-)

Technically, with the transition to digital TV (ATSC), 29.97 is no longer the US "standard" broadcast rate. For 1080p, frame rates of 23.976, 24, 29.97, and 30 fps are all acceptable, though 29.97 is still the "convention" for non-sports content as Mike mentioned.

One reason to shoot at 30 fps is when the footage will be mixed/edited with other 30 fps content (perhaps from broadcast video cameras). Otherwise, the 24 fps content would have to be converted to 30 fps using a process called "3:2 pulldown" which might introduce visible artifacts, audio sync issues, etc.

Hi,

Broadcast rates in the US are 30fps (really 29.97) if progressive, at 60 fields. When shooting at 1080p for some customers for broadcast (PBS is one), you will have to interpret footage to create those extra frames. Creating something from nothing isn't great. Others have higher rates for sports, but smaller resolution, Fox sports is 720p 60fps. So you'll need to understand requirements for the channel before you shoot.

The higher frame rate will make more smoother action, too.

The notion goes that 24P is more 'filmic' comes from the idea that film is projected at 24p and thus we are accustomed to seeing that cadence, and video hasn't _traditionally_ been at that cadence, so now that we _can_ do 24p, we have to do because we can.

Poppycock.

Somethings should be done in 60p or whatever. Digital projection will, very soon, allow the DP to assign frame rate to taste, and project whatever he wants. That's what's really better and much cooler.

My best,

Mike

Why do people really want 1080p 30 fps instead of 24p. Isn't 24p a better frame rate?