30 FPS vs 60 FPS

[Marcus Diaz]

Just curious on what everyone else shoots their videos at? My eyes personally like 60 FPS if the shot is steady. But if the video is shaky then it makes my eyes and head hurt. I just got my 60D finally and it gives me the option of 1080p @ 30FPS or 720p @ 60 FPS.

 

[Jeff Duda]

As a scientist, I'm always interested in what happens on time scales outside of what the human eye and brain can depict. For longer time scales, timelapses are great, but you certainly don't need even 30 FPS. Even 1 FPS can be too fast if you're doing time lapse on a growing storm or something like that. For small stuff like sub-tornado features, the higher the frame rate, the better. 60 FPS is certainly better than 30 FPS, but I would love to see something even faster - not for watching in real time, but to slow it down so I can look frame by frame.

 

[Adam Reagan]

I own a Sony Handycam CX-210. I shoot my video at 1920×1080/60 fps.

Whenever I edit video to upload on YouTube I normally render it at 1080/30 fps.

 

[StephenHenry]

I hate my brain for this, but I really cannot stand watching films interpolated with "smooth motion" or upscaled to 30/60p. I'm constantly reminded of the soundstage fakeness and it takes me completely out of the movie. I don't know what to do - I feel like an old man hanging on to inferior 24p technology while the world leaves me behind.

That said, one area where I've never felt the "soap opera" effect is with storm videos. I've experimented with timelapses at 12p, 24p, 30p, and 60p. To me, the sweet spot of timelapse is at 12-15x real time for storm structure, and while 60p really is smooth as butter, the even 12p doesn't bother me at all. So for all my finickiness with movies, I definitely don't care for storm videos.

 

[Marcus Diaz]

As a scientist, I'm always interested in what happens on time scales outside of what the human eye and brain can depict. For longer time scales, timelapses are great, but you certainly don't need even 30 FPS. Even 1 FPS can be too fast if you're doing time lapse on a growing storm or something like that. For small stuff like sub-tornado features, the higher the frame rate, the better. 60 FPS is certainly better than 30 FPS, but I would love to see something even faster - not for watching in real time, but to slow it down so I can look frame by frame.

Jeff I should've clarified that I was inquiring not about timelapsing, but for general storm footage. You know, a good tripoded shot of a tornado rolling across the horizon. And yes, if you plan on doing timelapse, then you're better off dropping the FPS to single digits or lower.

 

[Skip Talbot]

I think the question of what fps to use revolves around your subject. For most storm shots, there just isn't enough motion to necessitate 60 fps or greater, especially if your shot is tripodded. The advantage to shooting at a lower fps is that your low light performance increases since the shutter is open longer. This is why I try to shoot as low a frame rate as the scene allows.

I'd recommend 24 fps for most normal speed storm chasing and tornado shots. You get a little boost in low light performance over 30 fps, and more than a full stop from 60 fps, and it gives your motion a nice smooth film like look.

If you're shooting structure for time lapse, anywhere between 0.5 and 8 fps depending on how fast the clouds move. If you're using a camcorder that can't go that low on the frame rate, just shoot as low as it can and blend the frame together in post. My camcorder shoots at 60i, but when I blend the frames together at 16x and render out at 24 fps I get a super smooth video with no noise.

For nocturnal lightning you want to go even slower, like 2 frames per minute to 0.5 fps.

The only storm chasing situations I can think of off the top of my head that might require 60 fps are if you're trying to get clear and close shots of debris in the debris cloud, or if you're driving or moving the camera and don't want your foreground blurred for some reason.

The advantages in low light performance of a lower fps vastly outweighs the action shot/motion performance you get from 60 fps in most storm chasing scenes, however.

 

[Adam R Davis]

I experimented with 24p and storms a couple years ago. What I found was it looked best when locked or panning smoothly, otherwise it was visibly choppy (this is something cinematography students learn early on). Working with 60p on other occasions, I found something similar. It looks great when locked or panning smoothly. In shaky, handheld footage, every little bump, sway, and jitter is captured in detail. This tends to result in motion sickness. This led me to settle on 30p, so that handheld and fast action shots lost a lot of the choppiness of 24p, but the lower frame rate smooths out a lot of the jitters and bumps of 60p.

 

[Charles Ryan Mauk]

I shoot at 24. I guess it's all personal preference when it really comes down to it, but I personally feel that the "film look" stands out above the higher frame rates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NealRasmussen]

If you're close, actually, way too close, then 60fps should give better slow motion. If not danger close I don't think it matters, other than you'll fill your SD card up twice as fast. I have an old glass SD tv, and 30FPS is it. When watching youtubes, it seems often that 30fps gets googled to 15fps. Or less.

The only reason for the insane 120+ fps rate is to deliver subliminals better. You might notice the Vote for Arnold flash at 30fps, but not at 60+.

BTW, 24p is total bunk. Look at Storm Chasers series in slow motion. It was shot at 24P. It doesn't give the "movie look" that some claim out of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome, it does save the shooter 1/6th their SD card. Period. When doing Storm Chasers, or many other TV shows, you can see how the 5th frame is repeated as the 6th frame! Which is how you convert from 24fps to 30. Just repeat every 5th frame once. How about 15fps and we just repeat every frame twice? Oh wait. We'll notice that, and they can't get away with it.

I myself can see the wings move on a flying fly. I really need 500fps I think. Cause, I'm exceptional.

 

[Charles Ryan Mauk]

They're just likely not setting the shutter angle correctly. For slow motion, yes higher frame rates are the way to go.

I'm actually I cinematographer first and a chaser second - this is my forte. 30 is good if you want to give it straight to TV stations. For my personal endeavors however, 24 works just fine. I have an itch to take my Red out in the field to grab super slow mo some time, but that's kind of a potentially expensive loss risk :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Charles Ryan Mauk]

Proper shutter angle for 24fps: 180 degrees, I.e. 1/48 or 1/50 if you're running DSLR


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Olivier Staiger]

24 fps

latest example

shot with EOS 600D and 700D ( Rebel T3i and T5i ) both upgraded with MagicLantern ... and also a GoPro Hero4 ( also set at 24 fps ) .

 

[Charles Ryan Mauk]

^ nice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Charles Ryan Mauk]

This is so far my best catch

24fps canon5d Mk II & go pro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk