Frame Sampling vs Optical Flow

[DMKAlex]

On one of my previous post, "My recent big trip", some of you commented that some of my video was jittery.

I started to pay more attention to that aspect. I came back from a trip to Las Vegas and compiled a video for the Strip and I noticed the jettery was quite obvious. I examine the clips in the timeline and found that most of the time interpolation was done with Frame Sampling. I extracted a section as shown here in the first video.

Then I went back and re-edited that section and change the time interpolation to Optical Flow and exported it, as shown here in the 2nd video.

I can see the Optical Flow version is a lot more smooth.

But there is no option to change the interpolation method to default to Optical Flow. Can someone shed some light here?

My work around is to use the Z keyboard shortcut at the final step to select all the video clips in the timeline and apply Optical Flow to all of them. My question is, is there any reason I shouldn't do that?

The first video with jettery (Frame Sampling):



The 2nd video with much less jettery (Optical Flow):

 

[bing041]

When I learned video back almost 10 years ago, I picked up that the most popular playback was 24 fps and it was the standard. When I started shooting 60 fps, I always dropped the clips into a 24 fps timeline. When I needed slowing down (I do that frequently in my videos), I came up with a maximum slowness of 40% (60x40%=24) which would yield no repeated frame in the timeline. I failed to look at the issue of uneven cadence.

That stuck into my head and, given my old age, I was stubborn to listen to you guy's advice.

I owe all of you an apology.

You owe nobody an apology, 24fps is still the standard and the most popular for real/professional filmmakers who want the most cinematic look.

.. just not popular for a small handful of vocal folks on this site who disregard what the professional say and apparently leave motion smoothing/true motion settings on their TV's ON If they had their say, everything would be shot and played back at 60fps (for the sports/soap opera look)

Just go to youtube and find your favorite filmmaker and right-click on the "stats for nerds" and you can see the frame rate they like to work in. if 24fps is good enough for folks like Casey Neistat, Peter McKinnon, Brandon Lee and their millions of subscribers,..there's nothing at all wrong with it.
But if you like the look of 30fps that is less cinematic, it's ok to do that as well if you'd like.

Thanks Gary. I've always wondered what that "cinematic" look was about that the worlds greatest shooters talk about - turns out it hinges on a stuttery look with with panning or subjects in motion, right? Just like the earliest days of filming - and not much else. No thanks!

Pete

Guess you can't handle going to movie theaters,.. or movies that win the Oscar for best cinematography, etc. - all 24fps. (or all the Emmy winning TV drama's)... but like I said, you folks probably leave motion smoothing on your TV's.

Can't handle subjects in motion eh,. .. I'll take Tom Cruise's and his directors advice over some online forum ammeter any day.

https://www.cnet.com/videos/tom-cruise-warns-about-the-soap-opera-effect/

I am sorry about your evident confusion. I hope it is a temporary condition.

Converting 24 fps films to 60 fps to watch on TV's ("motion smoothing" in post) is not what anyone is arguing for. In fact, the opposite - advocating not shooting in 60 fps and then converting to 24 fps. And then, not always shooting in 24 fps either no matter the subject or intent. Capturing a ballerina or a flying eagle shooting at 60 fps is not a soap opera effect. I hope you now actually understand what people are saying, including Tom Cruise.

What is at issue is the best way to capture motion and choosing shooting and rendering frame rates to suit the subject. Not choosing frame rates based on advice from internet clowns or based on Hollywood icons or based on forum posters who evidently do not understand the issues and have no work themselves to show.

And, btw, Cameron, Lee, and Jackson - advocates (and shooters) of higher *shooting* frame rates - all won Oscars.

 

[Gary3000]

You owe nobody an apology, 24fps is still the standard and the most popular for real/professional filmmakers who want the most cinematic look.

.. just not popular for a small handful of vocal folks on this site who disregard what the professional say and apparently leave motion smoothing/true motion settings on their TV's ON If they had their say, everything would be shot and played back at 60fps (for the sports/soap opera look)

Just go to youtube and find your favorite filmmaker and right-click on the "stats for nerds" and you can see the frame rate they like to work in. if 24fps is good enough for folks like Casey Neistat, Peter McKinnon, Brandon Lee and their millions of subscribers,..there's nothing at all wrong with it.
But if you like the look of 30fps that is less cinematic, it's ok to do that as well if you'd like.

What arrogant pretentious claptrap. Those people you name are hangers on in the industry; they are not "real" film-makers. They are entertainers, clowns (who I enjoy, sometimes)

Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron are three examples of real, gifted filmmakers who do prefer higher frame rates (Philip Bloom shoots at 25 fps for Non-US TV - I guess he is not professional). And the aim of video-making is not only to ape movies or to be "cinematic." It's fine to employ a cinematic style, or not - like for documentaries, including National Geographic videos. Do we want to capture a gazelle leaping or an Eagle soaring at 24 fps? Sports, ballet? Family picnics and trips to the beach with swimming - in 24 fps? Why?

Content, artistic aims dictate frame rates, not low-level YouTube influencers or sneering posters, especially those who do not show their work, if they have any.

and both Ang Lee's and Peter Jackson's last attempts (from 6+ years ago) using HFR were met with significant negative feedback. Want to wager if either of them will choose to do so with their next films (the former is using cinematographer Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki on his next film, who sure as hell won't be wanting to do so). Jackson and Cameron only went with it because it reduced strobing while being viewed in 3D. Cameron's Avatar is almost all CG as well.

I'll go with Oscar winners Christopher Nolan, P.T. Anderson, .. and literally every other card winning filmmaker who know how to make cinematic masterpieces... all shot in 24fps.
I work full time at NBC Broadcast Network, where millions see stuff I work at. which btw, has switched to showing most of their promo's at .. 24fps.
You folks who have the time geeking out shooting stuff that looks like home video can stick with your 60fps.

 

[bing041]

You owe nobody an apology, 24fps is still the standard and the most popular for real/professional filmmakers who want the most cinematic look.

.. just not popular for a small handful of vocal folks on this site who disregard what the professional say and apparently leave motion smoothing/true motion settings on their TV's ON If they had their say, everything would be shot and played back at 60fps (for the sports/soap opera look)

Just go to youtube and find your favorite filmmaker and right-click on the "stats for nerds" and you can see the frame rate they like to work in. if 24fps is good enough for folks like Casey Neistat, Peter McKinnon, Brandon Lee and their millions of subscribers,..there's nothing at all wrong with it.
But if you like the look of 30fps that is less cinematic, it's ok to do that as well if you'd like.

What arrogant pretentious claptrap. Those people you name are hangers on in the industry; they are not "real" film-makers. They are entertainers, clowns (who I enjoy, sometimes)

Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron are three examples of real, gifted filmmakers who do prefer higher frame rates (Philip Bloom shoots at 25 fps for Non-US TV - I guess he is not professional). And the aim of video-making is not only to ape movies or to be "cinematic." It's fine to employ a cinematic style, or not - like for documentaries, including National Geographic videos. Do we want to capture a gazelle leaping or an Eagle soaring at 24 fps? Sports, ballet? Family picnics and trips to the beach with swimming - in 24 fps? Why?

Content, artistic aims dictate frame rates, not low-level YouTube influencers or sneering posters, especially those who do not show their work, if they have any.

and both Ang Lee's and Peter Jackson's last attempts (from 6+ years ago) using HFR were met with significant negative feedback. Want to wager if either of them will choose to do so with their next films (the former is using cinematographer Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki on his next film, who sure as hell won't be wanting to do so). Jackson and Cameron only went with it because it reduced strobing while being viewed in 3D. Cameron's Avatar is almost all CG as well.

I'll go with Oscar winners Christopher Nolan, P.T. Anderson, .. and literally every other card winning filmmaker who know how to make cinematic masterpieces... all shot in 24fps.
I work full time at NBC Broadcast Network, where millions see stuff I work at. which btw, has switched to showing most of their promo's at .. 24fps.

You folks who have the time geeking out shooting stuff that looks like home video can stick with your 60fps.

So you are a technician who does not film anything but who worships actual creators and is surrounded by actual professional creators. Does sound like a good job, though NBC broadcasts at multiples of 30 Hz (1080 I, right?). At ABC they broadcast at 60 fps, right?

Anyway, all fine for answering technical questions that you learned (you actually gave me some useful technical advice earlier on in another forum that I thanked you for, so do not go away).

But what is not fine is your insulting the posters here multiple times given you are either afraid to post any videos you make (perhaps for good reason) or you don't shoot video at all and have zero experience creating anything with a camera. You just evidently collect low-level camera equipment (listed on the bottom of your posts) and love movies (so do I).

Given your propensity to believe that those with credentials or are popular (actors!) should be authorities on creativity and blindly mimicked, it follows that absolutely no one should heed any advice you provide on how to create videos, given you have zero relevant credentials for talking about how to shoot video or films. Armchair critic.

Show us what you create shooting video; 24 fps will be fine.

I bet you never will. Which says a lot.

 

[Pete Berry]

When I learned video back almost 10 years ago, I picked up that the most popular playback was 24 fps and it was the standard. When I started shooting 60 fps, I always dropped the clips into a 24 fps timeline. When I needed slowing down (I do that frequently in my videos), I came up with a maximum slowness of 40% (60x40%=24) which would yield no repeated frame in the timeline. I failed to look at the issue of uneven cadence.

That stuck into my head and, given my old age, I was stubborn to listen to you guy's advice.

I owe all of you an apology.

You owe nobody an apology, 24fps is still the standard and the most popular for real/professional filmmakers who want the most cinematic look.

.. just not popular for a small handful of vocal folks on this site who disregard what the professional say and apparently leave motion smoothing/true motion settings on their TV's ON If they had their say, everything would be shot and played back at 60fps (for the sports/soap opera look)

Just go to youtube and find your favorite filmmaker and right-click on the "stats for nerds" and you can see the frame rate they like to work in. if 24fps is good enough for folks like Casey Neistat, Peter McKinnon, Brandon Lee and their millions of subscribers,..there's nothing at all wrong with it.
But if you like the look of 30fps that is less cinematic, it's ok to do that as well if you'd like.

Thanks Gary. I've always wondered what that "cinematic" look was about that the worlds greatest shooters talk about - turns out it hinges on a stuttery look with with panning or subjects in motion, right? Just like the earliest days of filming - and not much else. No thanks!

Pete

Guess you can't handle going to movie theaters,.. or movies that win the Oscar for best cinematography, etc. - all 24fps. (or all the Emmy winning TV drama's)... but like I said, you folks probably leave motion smoothing on your TV's.

Can't handle subjects in motion eh,. .. I'll take Tom Cruise's and his directors advice over some online forum ammeter any day.

https://www.cnet.com/videos/tom-cruise-warns-about-the-soap-opera-effect/

I imagine that if I sat close enough to the Big Screen with the same angle of view I have 2' from my 27" computer monitor, I'd be outta there before I puked...

 

[Gary3000]

You owe nobody an apology, 24fps is still the standard and the most popular for real/professional filmmakers who want the most cinematic look.

.. just not popular for a small handful of vocal folks on this site who disregard what the professional say and apparently leave motion smoothing/true motion settings on their TV's ON If they had their say, everything would be shot and played back at 60fps (for the sports/soap opera look)

Just go to youtube and find your favorite filmmaker and right-click on the "stats for nerds" and you can see the frame rate they like to work in. if 24fps is good enough for folks like Casey Neistat, Peter McKinnon, Brandon Lee and their millions of subscribers,..there's nothing at all wrong with it.
But if you like the look of 30fps that is less cinematic, it's ok to do that as well if you'd like.

What arrogant pretentious claptrap. Those people you name are hangers on in the industry; they are not "real" film-makers. They are entertainers, clowns (who I enjoy, sometimes)

Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron are three examples of real, gifted filmmakers who do prefer higher frame rates (Philip Bloom shoots at 25 fps for Non-US TV - I guess he is not professional). And the aim of video-making is not only to ape movies or to be "cinematic." It's fine to employ a cinematic style, or not - like for documentaries, including National Geographic videos. Do we want to capture a gazelle leaping or an Eagle soaring at 24 fps? Sports, ballet? Family picnics and trips to the beach with swimming - in 24 fps? Why?

Content, artistic aims dictate frame rates, not low-level YouTube influencers or sneering posters, especially those who do not show their work, if they have any.

and both Ang Lee's and Peter Jackson's last attempts (from 6+ years ago) using HFR were met with significant negative feedback. Want to wager if either of them will choose to do so with their next films (the former is using cinematographer Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki on his next film, who sure as hell won't be wanting to do so). Jackson and Cameron only went with it because it reduced strobing while being viewed in 3D. Cameron's Avatar is almost all CG as well.

I'll go with Oscar winners Christopher Nolan, P.T. Anderson, .. and literally every other card winning filmmaker who know how to make cinematic masterpieces... all shot in 24fps.
I work full time at NBC Broadcast Network, where millions see stuff I work at. which btw, has switched to showing most of their promo's at .. 24fps.

You folks who have the time geeking out shooting stuff that looks like home video can stick with your 60fps.

So you are a technician who does not film anything but who worships actual creators and is surrounded by actual professional creators. Does sound like a good job, though NBC broadcasts at multiples of 30 Hz (1080 I, right?). At ABC they broadcast at 60 fps, right?

Anyway, all fine for answering technical questions that you learned (you actually gave me some useful technical advice earlier on in another forum that I thanked you for, so do not go away).

But what is not fine is your insulting the posters here multiple times given you are either afraid to post any videos you make (perhaps for good reason) or you don't shoot video at all and have zero experience creating anything with a camera. You just evidently collect low-level camera equipment (listed on the bottom of your posts) and love movies (so do I).

Given your propensity to believe that those with credentials or are popular (actors!) should be authorities on creativity and blindly mimicked, it follows that absolutely no one should heed any advice you provide on how to create videos, given you have zero relevant credentials for talking about how to shoot video or films. Armchair critic.

Show us what you create shooting video; 24 fps will be fine.

I bet you never will. Which says a lot.

I'm a 30 year veteran of doing motion graphics and visual effects for NBC on-Air-promo, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel Live. Living and breathing working with video 40+hrs a week. Go ahead, turn on your TV on NBC and if you see a commercial for The Voice and other shows, that's my work. I've worked with all flavors of video. I've shot plenty of video with all my cameras, including my GoPro's and Insta360 cameras.
- including shooting with NBC and Tonight Show gear.
So far back that I recall the time in our industry when shooters were desperate to pay big bucks to shoot video that was 24 and 30p, to avoid the soap opera look.

Yes I'll take the credentials of an actor, as well as the credentials of the director of Mission Impossible he stands aside, both telling viewers how to view their movie that was shot and edited at 24fps, over some hobbiest on a forum.

The industry shoots 24fps, and if they want slow motion, like the OP likes to do, they shoot faster and then play back that faster footage at 24fps, That's how the industry does it and they know how to do it without any issue. If you disagree with the standard, by all means keep toying away with your hobby.

 

[DMKAlex]

I shoot with 60 fps and 30 fps timeline seems to help a lot. I don't know where to look for the degradation if the 30 fps is less cinematic. Like Sean, I believe my videos will never be seen on a silver screen.

Any suggestion?

I really believe it's worth your while to try shooting at 60fps and using a 60fps timeline. At the same time try doing that and slow down one the clips in your timeline using optical flow, since that seems to be one of your techniques and you want to know if it works to your satisfaction. You may not like it, and that's fine. But you'll never know until you try it.

I just re-edited a video (which I shot in 60 fps) in 60 fps sequence. The result, comparing to the 30 fps is very similar, without any noticeable difference.

The 60 fps sequence would require me to change the time interpolation to Optical Flow if I slow it down just bit (like 70%), it took longer to analyze the warp stabilize effect (more frames to stabilize) and it took a little bit longer to export. While the 30 fps sequence is more forgiving up to 50% slow down (I rarely slowed down below 50%). The export is faster.

So I think I am going to do the 30 fps for all my future video.

This has been a good learning thread for me.

Thank you.

 

[Pete Berry]

Thanks for sharing your new journey, Alex! Looking fwd to more videos...

Pete

 

[DMKAlex]

Thanks for sharing your new journey, Alex! Looking fwd to more videos...

Pete

Thank you for the education and your patience.

 

[bing041]

You owe nobody an apology, 24fps is still the standard and the most popular for real/professional filmmakers who want the most cinematic look.

.. just not popular for a small handful of vocal folks on this site who disregard what the professional say and apparently leave motion smoothing/true motion settings on their TV's ON If they had their say, everything would be shot and played back at 60fps (for the sports/soap opera look)

Just go to youtube and find your favorite filmmaker and right-click on the "stats for nerds" and you can see the frame rate they like to work in. if 24fps is good enough for folks like Casey Neistat, Peter McKinnon, Brandon Lee and their millions of subscribers,..there's nothing at all wrong with it.
But if you like the look of 30fps that is less cinematic, it's ok to do that as well if you'd like.

What arrogant pretentious claptrap. Those people you name are hangers on in the industry; they are not "real" film-makers. They are entertainers, clowns (who I enjoy, sometimes)

Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron are three examples of real, gifted filmmakers who do prefer higher frame rates (Philip Bloom shoots at 25 fps for Non-US TV - I guess he is not professional). And the aim of video-making is not only to ape movies or to be "cinematic." It's fine to employ a cinematic style, or not - like for documentaries, including National Geographic videos. Do we want to capture a gazelle leaping or an Eagle soaring at 24 fps? Sports, ballet? Family picnics and trips to the beach with swimming - in 24 fps? Why?

Content, artistic aims dictate frame rates, not low-level YouTube influencers or sneering posters, especially those who do not show their work, if they have any.

and both Ang Lee's and Peter Jackson's last attempts (from 6+ years ago) using HFR were met with significant negative feedback. Want to wager if either of them will choose to do so with their next films (the former is using cinematographer Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki on his next film, who sure as hell won't be wanting to do so). Jackson and Cameron only went with it because it reduced strobing while being viewed in 3D. Cameron's Avatar is almost all CG as well.

I'll go with Oscar winners Christopher Nolan, P.T. Anderson, .. and literally every other card winning filmmaker who know how to make cinematic masterpieces... all shot in 24fps.
I work full time at NBC Broadcast Network, where millions see stuff I work at. which btw, has switched to showing most of their promo's at .. 24fps.

You folks who have the time geeking out shooting stuff that looks like home video can stick with your 60fps.

So you are a technician who does not film anything but who worships actual creators and is surrounded by actual professional creators. Does sound like a good job, though NBC broadcasts at multiples of 30 Hz (1080 I, right?). At ABC they broadcast at 60 fps, right?

Anyway, all fine for answering technical questions that you learned (you actually gave me some useful technical advice earlier on in another forum that I thanked you for, so do not go away).

But what is not fine is your insulting the posters here multiple times given you are either afraid to post any videos you make (perhaps for good reason) or you don't shoot video at all and have zero experience creating anything with a camera. You just evidently collect low-level camera equipment (listed on the bottom of your posts) and love movies (so do I).

Given your propensity to believe that those with credentials or are popular (actors!) should be authorities on creativity and blindly mimicked, it follows that absolutely no one should heed any advice you provide on how to create videos, given you have zero relevant credentials for talking about how to shoot video or films. Armchair critic.

Show us what you create shooting video; 24 fps will be fine.

I bet you never will. Which says a lot.

I'm a 30 year veteran of doing motion graphics and visual effects for NBC on-Air-promo, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel Live. Living and breathing working with video 40+hrs a week. Go ahead, turn on your TV on NBC and if you see a commercial for The Voice and other shows, that's my work. I've worked with all flavors of video. I've shot plenty of video with all my cameras, including my GoPro's and Insta360 cameras.
- including shooting with NBC and Tonight Show gear.
So far back that I recall the time in our industry when shooters were desperate to pay big bucks to shoot video that was 24 and 30p, to avoid the soap opera look.

Yes I'll take the credentials of an actor, as well as the credentials of the director of Mission Impossible he stands aside, both telling viewers how to view their movie that was shot and edited at 24fps, over some hobbiest on a forum.

The industry shoots 24fps, and if they want slow motion, like the OP likes to do, they shoot faster and then play back that faster footage at 24fps, That's how the industry does it and they know how to do it without any issue. If you disagree with the standard, by all means keep toying away with your hobby.

Visual effects, adding graphics is certainly creative and requires as well high-level technical competence. But, it is not the same competence relevant to shooting a film or video, which is the expertise that matters for making statements about how to shoot video.

You claim you shoot video but you are still not showing your competence in what counts - shooting a video. Why can't you show your video shooting work you claim you have? I would like to see your video shot with action cams at 24 fps!

Finally, the TV shows you work on are broadcast at 1080 60i. They play on TV screens that refresh at multiples of 30 Hz. You are not doing anything in your expert work that makes 24 fps ideal.

Nothing you have said would make me hesitant about shooting gazelles in West Africa or jazz dancers in China, or piano players in NYC at 60 fps. Most of which will be viewed on screens that refresh at multiples of 60 Hz, just like the screens that we are using to view these posts.

 

[Gary3000]

You owe nobody an apology, 24fps is still the standard and the most popular for real/professional filmmakers who want the most cinematic look.

.. just not popular for a small handful of vocal folks on this site who disregard what the professional say and apparently leave motion smoothing/true motion settings on their TV's ON If they had their say, everything would be shot and played back at 60fps (for the sports/soap opera look)

Just go to youtube and find your favorite filmmaker and right-click on the "stats for nerds" and you can see the frame rate they like to work in. if 24fps is good enough for folks like Casey Neistat, Peter McKinnon, Brandon Lee and their millions of subscribers,..there's nothing at all wrong with it.
But if you like the look of 30fps that is less cinematic, it's ok to do that as well if you'd like.

What arrogant pretentious claptrap. Those people you name are hangers on in the industry; they are not "real" film-makers. They are entertainers, clowns (who I enjoy, sometimes)

Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron are three examples of real, gifted filmmakers who do prefer higher frame rates (Philip Bloom shoots at 25 fps for Non-US TV - I guess he is not professional). And the aim of video-making is not only to ape movies or to be "cinematic." It's fine to employ a cinematic style, or not - like for documentaries, including National Geographic videos. Do we want to capture a gazelle leaping or an Eagle soaring at 24 fps? Sports, ballet? Family picnics and trips to the beach with swimming - in 24 fps? Why?

Content, artistic aims dictate frame rates, not low-level YouTube influencers or sneering posters, especially those who do not show their work, if they have any.

and both Ang Lee's and Peter Jackson's last attempts (from 6+ years ago) using HFR were met with significant negative feedback. Want to wager if either of them will choose to do so with their next films (the former is using cinematographer Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki on his next film, who sure as hell won't be wanting to do so). Jackson and Cameron only went with it because it reduced strobing while being viewed in 3D. Cameron's Avatar is almost all CG as well.

I'll go with Oscar winners Christopher Nolan, P.T. Anderson, .. and literally every other card winning filmmaker who know how to make cinematic masterpieces... all shot in 24fps.
I work full time at NBC Broadcast Network, where millions see stuff I work at. which btw, has switched to showing most of their promo's at .. 24fps.

You folks who have the time geeking out shooting stuff that looks like home video can stick with your 60fps.

So you are a technician who does not film anything but who worships actual creators and is surrounded by actual professional creators. Does sound like a good job, though NBC broadcasts at multiples of 30 Hz (1080 I, right?). At ABC they broadcast at 60 fps, right?

Anyway, all fine for answering technical questions that you learned (you actually gave me some useful technical advice earlier on in another forum that I thanked you for, so do not go away).

But what is not fine is your insulting the posters here multiple times given you are either afraid to post any videos you make (perhaps for good reason) or you don't shoot video at all and have zero experience creating anything with a camera. You just evidently collect low-level camera equipment (listed on the bottom of your posts) and love movies (so do I).

Given your propensity to believe that those with credentials or are popular (actors!) should be authorities on creativity and blindly mimicked, it follows that absolutely no one should heed any advice you provide on how to create videos, given you have zero relevant credentials for talking about how to shoot video or films. Armchair critic.

Show us what you create shooting video; 24 fps will be fine.

I bet you never will. Which says a lot.

I'm a 30 year veteran of doing motion graphics and visual effects for NBC on-Air-promo, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel Live. Living and breathing working with video 40+hrs a week. Go ahead, turn on your TV on NBC and if you see a commercial for The Voice and other shows, that's my work. I've worked with all flavors of video. I've shot plenty of video with all my cameras, including my GoPro's and Insta360 cameras.
- including shooting with NBC and Tonight Show gear.
So far back that I recall the time in our industry when shooters were desperate to pay big bucks to shoot video that was 24 and 30p, to avoid the soap opera look.

Yes I'll take the credentials of an actor, as well as the credentials of the director of Mission Impossible he stands aside, both telling viewers how to view their movie that was shot and edited at 24fps, over some hobbiest on a forum.

The industry shoots 24fps, and if they want slow motion, like the OP likes to do, they shoot faster and then play back that faster footage at 24fps, That's how the industry does it and they know how to do it without any issue. If you disagree with the standard, by all means keep toying away with your hobby.

Visual effects, adding graphics is certainly creative and requires as well high-level technical competence. But, it is not the same competence relevant to shooting a film or video, which is the expertise that matters for making statements about how to shoot video.

You claim you shoot video but you are still not showing your competence in what counts - shooting a video. Why can't you show your video shooting work you claim you have? I would like to see your video shot with action cams at 24 fps!

Finally, the TV shows you work on are broadcast at 1080 60i. They play on TV screens that refresh at multiples of 30 Hz. You are not doing anything in your expert work that makes 24 fps ideal.

Nothing you have said would make me hesitant about shooting gazelles in West Africa or jazz dancers in China, or piano players in NYC at 60 fps. Most of which will be viewed on screens that refresh at multiples of 60 Hz, just like the screens that we are using to view these posts.

so all the shows and films that are produced (literally 100% of them) at 24fps aren't ideal because they're brodcast over 60hz ? LOL, maybe you know something more than all the professions who make their living doing so, because you're a forum hobbiest?

oh look, Gazelles in 24fps

..chinese dancers at 24fps

and some guy playing Paino in NYC at 24fps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpkAxNeCM4U&list=RDDpkAxNeCM4U&start_radio=1

millions of view. great looking videos.
real professionals only shoot 60fps if they intend for slow motion.. or want the video look. period.

 

[DMKAlex]

Back 10 years ago when I started with video, I was overwhelmed by all the variations and terminology. I just picked something popular and stuck with it and moved forwards. Yes, 24 fps playback was most popularly talked about as the standard. And every camera and editor had that format readily available.

Looking back, my choice of 24 fps timeline, other than it was widely talked about as the standard, was because I shot 1080 at 24 fps as well. That made the 24 fps as default.

Later as I advanced in videography and my equipment, I started shooting 4k and quickly adapted 60 fps in my capturing. But I got stuck in the 24 fps timeline.

An oversight and a big mistake!

 

[Gary3000]

Back 10 years ago when I started with video, I was overwhelmed by all the variations and terminology. I just picked something popular and stuck with it and moved forwards. Yes, 24 fps playback was most popularly talked about as the standard. And every camera and editor had that format readily available.

Looking back, my choice of 24 fps timeline, other than it was widely talked about as the standard, was because I shot 1080 at 24 fps as well. That made the 24 fps as default.

Later as I advanced in videography and my equipment, I started shooting 4k and quickly adapted 60 fps in my capturing. But I got stuck in the 24 fps timeline.

An oversight and a big mistake!

again,.. no oversight, nor a "big mistake"

You just need to watch and learn how the vast majority of professional filmmakers and videographers manage to pull off producing 24fps films and content.

 

[Sean Nelson]

Looking back, my choice of 24 fps timeline, other than it was widely talked about as the standard, was because I shot 1080 at 24 fps as well. That made the 24 fps as default.

Later as I advanced in videography and my equipment, I started shooting 4k and quickly adapted 60 fps in my capturing. But I got stuck in the 24 fps timeline.

An oversight and a big mistake!

again,.. no oversight, nor a "big mistake"
You just need to watch and learn how the vast majority of professional filmmakers and videographers manage to pull off producing 24fps films and content.

Those of us who shoot videos for ourselves have no such "need". There is nothing magic about 24fps that makes it mandatory for us and our use cases. We can decide to shoot at 24fps or at any other frame rate we like.

 

[bing041]

You owe nobody an apology, 24fps is still the standard and the most popular for real/professional filmmakers who want the most cinematic look.

.. just not popular for a small handful of vocal folks on this site who disregard what the professional say and apparently leave motion smoothing/true motion settings on their TV's ON If they had their say, everything would be shot and played back at 60fps (for the sports/soap opera look)

Just go to youtube and find your favorite filmmaker and right-click on the "stats for nerds" and you can see the frame rate they like to work in. if 24fps is good enough for folks like Casey Neistat, Peter McKinnon, Brandon Lee and their millions of subscribers,..there's nothing at all wrong with it.
But if you like the look of 30fps that is less cinematic, it's ok to do that as well if you'd like.

What arrogant pretentious claptrap. Those people you name are hangers on in the industry; they are not "real" film-makers. They are entertainers, clowns (who I enjoy, sometimes)

Ang Lee, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron are three examples of real, gifted filmmakers who do prefer higher frame rates (Philip Bloom shoots at 25 fps for Non-US TV - I guess he is not professional). And the aim of video-making is not only to ape movies or to be "cinematic." It's fine to employ a cinematic style, or not - like for documentaries, including National Geographic videos. Do we want to capture a gazelle leaping or an Eagle soaring at 24 fps? Sports, ballet? Family picnics and trips to the beach with swimming - in 24 fps? Why?

Content, artistic aims dictate frame rates, not low-level YouTube influencers or sneering posters, especially those who do not show their work, if they have any.

and both Ang Lee's and Peter Jackson's last attempts (from 6+ years ago) using HFR were met with significant negative feedback. Want to wager if either of them will choose to do so with their next films (the former is using cinematographer Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki on his next film, who sure as hell won't be wanting to do so). Jackson and Cameron only went with it because it reduced strobing while being viewed in 3D. Cameron's Avatar is almost all CG as well.

I'll go with Oscar winners Christopher Nolan, P.T. Anderson, .. and literally every other card winning filmmaker who know how to make cinematic masterpieces... all shot in 24fps.
I work full time at NBC Broadcast Network, where millions see stuff I work at. which btw, has switched to showing most of their promo's at .. 24fps.

You folks who have the time geeking out shooting stuff that looks like home video can stick with your 60fps.

So you are a technician who does not film anything but who worships actual creators and is surrounded by actual professional creators. Does sound like a good job, though NBC broadcasts at multiples of 30 Hz (1080 I, right?). At ABC they broadcast at 60 fps, right?

Anyway, all fine for answering technical questions that you learned (you actually gave me some useful technical advice earlier on in another forum that I thanked you for, so do not go away).

But what is not fine is your insulting the posters here multiple times given you are either afraid to post any videos you make (perhaps for good reason) or you don't shoot video at all and have zero experience creating anything with a camera. You just evidently collect low-level camera equipment (listed on the bottom of your posts) and love movies (so do I).

Given your propensity to believe that those with credentials or are popular (actors!) should be authorities on creativity and blindly mimicked, it follows that absolutely no one should heed any advice you provide on how to create videos, given you have zero relevant credentials for talking about how to shoot video or films. Armchair critic.

Show us what you create shooting video; 24 fps will be fine.

I bet you never will. Which says a lot.

I'm a 30 year veteran of doing motion graphics and visual effects for NBC on-Air-promo, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel Live. Living and breathing working with video 40+hrs a week. Go ahead, turn on your TV on NBC and if you see a commercial for The Voice and other shows, that's my work. I've worked with all flavors of video. I've shot plenty of video with all my cameras, including my GoPro's and Insta360 cameras.
- including shooting with NBC and Tonight Show gear.
So far back that I recall the time in our industry when shooters were desperate to pay big bucks to shoot video that was 24 and 30p, to avoid the soap opera look.

Yes I'll take the credentials of an actor, as well as the credentials of the director of Mission Impossible he stands aside, both telling viewers how to view their movie that was shot and edited at 24fps, over some hobbiest on a forum.

The industry shoots 24fps, and if they want slow motion, like the OP likes to do, they shoot faster and then play back that faster footage at 24fps, That's how the industry does it and they know how to do it without any issue. If you disagree with the standard, by all means keep toying away with your hobby.

Visual effects, adding graphics is certainly creative and requires as well high-level technical competence. But, it is not the same competence relevant to shooting a film or video, which is the expertise that matters for making statements about how to shoot video.

You claim you shoot video but you are still not showing your competence in what counts - shooting a video. Why can't you show your video shooting work you claim you have? I would like to see your video shot with action cams at 24 fps!

Finally, the TV shows you work on are broadcast at 1080 60i. They play on TV screens that refresh at multiples of 30 Hz. You are not doing anything in your expert work that makes 24 fps ideal.

Nothing you have said would make me hesitant about shooting gazelles in West Africa or jazz dancers in China, or piano players in NYC at 60 fps. Most of which will be viewed on screens that refresh at multiples of 60 Hz, just like the screens that we are using to view these posts.

so all the shows and films that are produced (literally 100% of them) at 24fps aren't ideal because they're brodcast over 60hz ? LOL, maybe you know something more than all the professions who make their living doing so, because you're a forum hobbiest?
oh look, Gazelles in 24fps

..chinese dancers at 24fps

and some guy playing Paino in NYC at 24fps

millions of view. great looking videos.
real professionals only shoot 60fps if they intend for slow motion.. or want the video look. period.

"Real" professionals. LOL.

But now we get to the crux - "the video look."

Yes, you finally get it - we are not emulating film. We are shooting - guess what? - VIDEO. Capturing motion realistically in real life. We are not creating fiction or fantasy, but reproducing in the highest fidelity possible - in sound, in image quality, and in motion - what we see to share it with others. using frame rates compatible with what people view videos on - TV's, cell phones, computer monitors that refresh at 60Hz.

8K 60P 12bit RAW with 32bit binaural audio. - the latest (and affordable) technology to best capture the world out there. No distorting cinema lenses with "character", no color grades that bleach out color, or favor certain colors that are complementary, (hello teal and orange), no distracting horizontal flares (hello anamorphic lenses), no jerky cadence 24 fps motion.

Those mediocre videos you just posted demonstrate how clueless you are about video - the animal one is awful; the piano one is well shot but I do not see how 24 fps makes it good; fast finger motion that is jerky is what I see - that is exactly the fast action that I choose 60 fps to capture.

And these example videos also prove you have no videos of your own. You are neither a filmmaker nor a videographer, just an old technician who worships films, believes that everyone should ape that style of - video - and insults those who do not agree with him. Amateurs! Unreal professionals!

 

[Gary3000]

Looking back, my choice of 24 fps timeline, other than it was widely talked about as the standard, was because I shot 1080 at 24 fps as well. That made the 24 fps as default.

Later as I advanced in videography and my equipment, I started shooting 4k and quickly adapted 60 fps in my capturing. But I got stuck in the 24 fps timeline.

An oversight and a big mistake!

again,.. no oversight, nor a "big mistake"
You just need to watch and learn how the vast majority of professional filmmakers and videographers manage to pull off producing 24fps films and content.

Those of us who shoot videos for ourselves have no such "need". There is nothing magic about 24fps that makes it mandatory for us and our use cases. We can decide to shoot at 24fps or at any other frame rate we like.

Then by all means, do so, especially if you want your home videos to look like.. home video,. 60fps is a critical must!

But for "you guys" to convince someone that shooting 24fps is a mistake or oversite,.even for "yourselves" is utterly absurd.
Especially when everything you see at the Theaters, TV and even much youtube (the quality content) is shot at 24fps.



But hey. if you want your work to look more amateurish than cinematic , by all means do so.

 

[bing041]

Looking back, my choice of 24 fps timeline, other than it was widely talked about as the standard, was because I shot 1080 at 24 fps as well. That made the 24 fps as default.

Later as I advanced in videography and my equipment, I started shooting 4k and quickly adapted 60 fps in my capturing. But I got stuck in the 24 fps timeline.

An oversight and a big mistake!

again,.. no oversight, nor a "big mistake"
You just need to watch and learn how the vast majority of professional filmmakers and videographers manage to pull off producing 24fps films and content.

Those of us who shoot videos for ourselves have no such "need". There is nothing magic about 24fps that makes it mandatory for us and our use cases. We can decide to shoot at 24fps or at any other frame rate we like.

Then by all means, do so, especially if you want your home videos to look like.. home video,. 60fps is a critical must!

But for "you guys" to convince someone that shooting 24fps is a mistake or oversite,.even for "yourselves" is utterly absurd.
Especially when everything you see at the Theaters, TV and even much youtube (the quality content) is shot at 24fps.

But hey. if you want your work to look more amateurish than cinematic , by all means do so.

The opposite of cinematic is not amateurish. That is your mistake. Cinematic is a particular style. There is nothing cinematic about the two-camera sitcoms that dominate TV, whatever the frame rates they were shot at. It is stupid and ignorant to equate frame rates with cinematic.

Maybe in your retirement enroll in film school and learn something, while you are still able. Even better, actually shoot video.

Talk about amateur- you have zero experience shooting video. Show us your videos to prove me wrong.

 

[Gary3000]

Looking back, my choice of 24 fps timeline, other than it was widely talked about as the standard, was because I shot 1080 at 24 fps as well. That made the 24 fps as default.

Later as I advanced in videography and my equipment, I started shooting 4k and quickly adapted 60 fps in my capturing. But I got stuck in the 24 fps timeline.

An oversight and a big mistake!

again,.. no oversight, nor a "big mistake"
You just need to watch and learn how the vast majority of professional filmmakers and videographers manage to pull off producing 24fps films and content.

Those of us who shoot videos for ourselves have no such "need". There is nothing magic about 24fps that makes it mandatory for us and our use cases. We can decide to shoot at 24fps or at any other frame rate we like.

Then by all means, do so, especially if you want your home videos to look like.. home video,. 60fps is a critical must!

But for "you guys" to convince someone that shooting 24fps is a mistake or oversite,.even for "yourselves" is utterly absurd.
Especially when everything you see at the Theaters, TV and even much youtube (the quality content) is shot at 24fps.

But hey. if you want your work to look more amateurish than cinematic , by all means do so.

The opposite of cinematic is not amateurish. That is your mistake. Cinematic is a particular style. There is nothing cinematic about the two-camera sitcoms that dominate TV, whatever the frame rates they were shot at. It is stupid and ignorant to equate frame rates with cinematic.

Maybe in your retirement enroll in film school and learn something, while you are still able. Even better, actually shoot video.

Talk about amateur- you have zero experience shooting video. Show us your videos to prove me wrong.

funny, I work with footage from 2 (and 3 camera) sitcoms. - all shot at 24fps as well.
only soap opera's continue to shoot in interlaced video.

I went to FILM school, where we at at 24fps, and I've worked on actual films (also 24fps), and have numerous credits on IMDB. what about you? Have you ever had something of yours displayed on the big screen? on national TV?

High Frame rates is not cinematic,. just ask AI.. or any professional. which you clearly are not.

 

[Sean Nelson]

But hey. if you want your work to look more amateurish than cinematic , by all means do so.

I find this statement to be very judgemental and offensive.

 

[bing041]

Looking back, my choice of 24 fps timeline, other than it was widely talked about as the standard, was because I shot 1080 at 24 fps as well. That made the 24 fps as default.

Later as I advanced in videography and my equipment, I started shooting 4k and quickly adapted 60 fps in my capturing. But I got stuck in the 24 fps timeline.

An oversight and a big mistake!

again,.. no oversight, nor a "big mistake"
You just need to watch and learn how the vast majority of professional filmmakers and videographers manage to pull off producing 24fps films and content.

Those of us who shoot videos for ourselves have no such "need". There is nothing magic about 24fps that makes it mandatory for us and our use cases. We can decide to shoot at 24fps or at any other frame rate we like.

Then by all means, do so, especially if you want your home videos to look like.. home video,. 60fps is a critical must!

But for "you guys" to convince someone that shooting 24fps is a mistake or oversite,.even for "yourselves" is utterly absurd.
Especially when everything you see at the Theaters, TV and even much youtube (the quality content) is shot at 24fps.

But hey. if you want your work to look more amateurish than cinematic , by all means do so.

The opposite of cinematic is not amateurish. That is your mistake. Cinematic is a particular style. There is nothing cinematic about the two-camera sitcoms that dominate TV, whatever the frame rates they were shot at. It is stupid and ignorant to equate frame rates with cinematic.

Maybe in your retirement enroll in film school and learn something, while you are still able. Even better, actually shoot video.

Talk about amateur- you have zero experience shooting video. Show us your videos to prove me wrong.

funny, I work with footage from 2 (and 3 camera) sitcoms. - all shot at 24fps as well.
only soap opera's continue to shoot in interlaced video.

I went to FILM school, where we at at 24fps, and I've worked on actual films (also 24fps), and have numerous credits on IMDB. what about you? Have you ever had something of yours displayed on the big screen? on national TV?
High Frame rates is not cinematic,. just ask AI.. or any professional. which you clearly are not.

You missed my point, not surprisingly. Sitcoms are indeed shot at 24 fps, and nobody would say they look cinematic - really, "DMV" is cinematic?. "The Office" with its crash zooms, is cinematic? "SNL" cinematic? Get it - frame rates are not necessary, and in these examples, clearly not sufficient, to make a video or film "cinematic." Motion cadence is not what defines cinematic, or whether one is actually producing a product that people like, which is what counts.

All of your professional work is broadcast and viewed in interlaced 60i. You are thus NOT doing anything cinematic by your definition either. Must be frustrating.

And again, being cinematic is not an artistic criterion. The videos of the Berlin Philharmonic are not cinematic; the interviews on 60 Minutes are not cinematic. The videos of sports are not cinematic. Whatever frame rates they were shot at. These examples are broadcasting reality; whatever frame rates were used. And in my opinion, based on thinking (not Scorcese worship) and from experience actually shooting and editing video, it would make no sense to shoot these at 24 fps.

I thought you indeed had gone to film school, what, 30 years ago? I am surprised you are not ranting against using digital recording - need to shoot on film! Film is superior! I guess because you do digital stuff, and that would demean yourself if you touted that film was necessary for being cinematic.

You are not only not producing anything cinematic in your work, you do not even shoot video or film. So you are not just an amateur shooter, you are non-shooter. That does not take away from what you do do professionally, which is creative. It just does not qualify you to judge or comment on shooting choices.

Film school, yes; charm school; no.

 

[Gary3000]

But hey. if you want your work to look more amateurish than cinematic , by all means do so.

I find this statement to be very judgemental and offensive.

It's just facts.
but don't take my own word for it,
try asking AI:

No, 60fps is generally not considered cinematic; it produces a sharper, more realistic look, while 24fps is the standard for a classic cinematic feel due to its motion blur. While 60fps is excellent for slow-motion or fast-action content, a full video at 60fps is often described as having a "video" or "soap opera" look rather than a traditional cinematic one.
24fps for cinematic look

• Why it works: 24fps is the standard frame rate for most feature films and provides a specific, artistic motion blur that viewers have become accustomed to.
• What to use it for: It's the best choice for achieving a classic, film-like appearance, especially for narrative storytelling.