Digital camera with large sensor or camcorder with small sensor?

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jezebel Masterson Forum Member • Posts: 71
Re: Techno Mumbo

Francis Carver wrote:

24 fps is neither "superior" nor "inferior," but the fact is that it is a FRAME RATE. And one that has been used globally for about 90 years, so chances are it is not going to go away at any time soon.

It really depends on what "look" you want, but many are starting to prefer to see a movie the way it looks to our eyes, which may even be faster than 60fps. I personally would like to test my own vision and see what fps I max out at, if there is such a test. If it was 120fps, I would like my videos to be shot at 120fps.

For instance, all digital cinema presentations so far in the world's movie theaters have been shown at 24 fps. Certain copies of "The Hobbit" on certain types of screens have been shown at 48 fps, but that is about it. So, I guess if someone is shooting "The Hobbit II," these discourses about the pros and cons of frame rates may make more sense than for the rest of us, who have no such lofty aims.

The official story, as I understand it, is that the industry once shot movies at 16fps, back when they had no sound. This was fast enough to convey motion, yet slow enough to be economical. When sound was introduced, higher frequencies did not translate well at 16fps, they eventually settled on 24fps to solve this. 24 was the slowest viable solution that would still fix sound issues. FPS has always been about cost. Less was always cheaper, it was never about "advantages" with 24fps. The reason it hasn't changed is because of standards, it can be expensive to buck the trend. I think as our technology has now advanced so far, it is not such a risk financially, and we will see more and more of it.

The fact is that on consumer equipment 108060p provides the best quality video. And it can be easily converted to 108030p for web use with little degradation.

Not getting you -- why would 1080p60 be any better quality or even "best quality" than 1080p30? Solely because the higher frame rate, or why else?

The answer to which frame is "superior" from a technical point of view, is easily answered if you look at the extremes. Play a movie at 5fps, and play one at 120fps. Tell me which one is more enjoyable. 24 vs 60 is a lesser version of this comparison. Smooth vs choppy. There is an asthetic aspect to this, which is why I refuse to claim one "looks" better, I know that some people actually like the choppyness of 24p. I simply insist that higher fps means closer to reality, which is what I prefer.

Some of the new D-film cameras can shoot also at 1080p120, so according to your argument wouldn't a 1080p120 video be "best quality" over a mere 1080p60 video?

In line with my preference, it all depends on what our eyes are capable of. I have heard we max out between 60-120fps, but not every person is identical. Technology increases exponentially, and our vision's limits are not the only reason to advance the tech. Slow motion will also benefit from increased FPS, one of the reasons I like my 60fps. I can play anything at 2/5 speed and still match the 24p cinema standard.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow