In this video, the original footage was 24fps, and when converted to 30fps, it looks smoother for a split second, drops a frame, smooth, drops a frame, and overall looks choppier.
What you are trying to show doesnt work because both are 35 fps according to my fraps, and thats what you tube is no matter what , its upscaled from the 24 fps or downscaled from the 60. Thats why even in HD it looks pretty crappy here and hence your negative feedback, sadly you can have a great video input but youtube doesnt support that
24 fps has problems for movie audio pitch. YOu will notice on old bluray hd movies like an american werewolf in london that 24fps movies have audio playback at a slower pitch. either way you look at that you are listening to the movie audio with a slower pitch.
@210482fmj the blu-ray has the correct pitch, since all movies are recorded at 24fps. The DVDs are the ones that have been playing at the wrong pitch since forever.
And @salam14111 you're wrong they are recorded at 24fps
@BenChaffer YOu might be wrong. Watch american were wolf in london and the blue moon audio sounds like it is a rcord player playing on slow. COmpare it to the original blue moon audio on cd soundtrack. It dosn't sound correct. ALso the voices sound slow. SOmethign is not right
I was in a TV store and they were playing Tron and I immediately noticed that it looked extremely different. I have some knowledge about frame rates and I figured out it must be at least 30/48/60FPS. It looked so weird, like I was actually watching real life! Unfortunately nobody on the internet has posted about this so do you know how many FPS Tron was shot in?
@purplemonkeyelephant It's the TV. The movie in the theatre is shown at 24fps but many new HDTV has this smoothing feature and show movies in 60fps like. Actions are smoother but somehow they look like they are being fast forwarded a little bit.
@killazx9@nexus1g It was definately not interpolation, I know enough about film to know that. It was so smooth there was zero motion blur. Even my girlfriend noticed without me saying anything. It was like looking through a window - interpolation could not do that.
@purplemonkeyelephant All movies are shot in and shown at 24 FPS. Some T.V.'s will interpolate additional frames between the real frames effectively doubling the FPS and making it seem smoother than what it is.
So, 2 frames of film are usually just original film frame -> original film frame. But with the interpolation, it's original film frame -> interpolated frame added by T.V. -> original film frame. Both of these happen in the same period of time, so it results in a smoother animation.
@salam14111 You'll have to provide evidence for your claim. Because recording in 24 FPS (something many nicer home camcorders even do) is pretty standard afaik.
@nexus1g yes its nice . but trained eye can see it . its diffrent record in 24 fps
and its difrent record in 60 fps and after it convert to 23 fps . If they realy record everything in 24 fps , slowmotions scenes would be like 12 fps or less very chopy .
@nexus1g if this is true . for me its big suprising , and they must add some stuff like motion blur or i dont know ,. cause when i shot some movie from my camera at 23 fps it looks chopy , 30 fps looks better lot.
@salam14111 You keep putting 23 FPS instead of 24. Is that just a typo or a PAL thing? But yeah, 24 FPS means that the shutter is open (and closed) longer and so you do get a lot of motion blur. What kind of camera do you have? It may be taking 24 FPS but with a quick exposure time so you get choppier video with less motion blur.
@salam14111 So !) you can record slow-motion in 24p(?) and two, the scenes would look choppier in 24p vs normal? So I guess they used different fps in different scenes?
@nexus1g true but the whole percistance of vission thing is used a lot , film projectors project double frame rate (flash the same frame twice) i.e. 18fps video projects 36 flashes/s , we only went from 18fps to 24fps motion picture to support sound ;-).
As you say the choppyness people get with lower frame rates is due to the shutter speeds mostly. (or they are panning too fast)
@stu0things0and0stuff I didn't know about the change from 18 FPS to 24 FPS. That explains the "feel" of silent movies like the Thief of Bagdad or Chaplin classics. I knew about the projectors actually projecting the same frame twice because of the recent talk of upping the standard to 48 FPS. All-in-all good info. Thanks!
@nexus1g havn't been keeping up with the times , didn't know they are trying to put it up to 48fps , although I dobut they will now theirs a load of 4k(ish) displays on the way they probably need the bandwhidth for the extra picture data(probably still a year or 3 before their common).
Interestingly the chaplin films that we see looking rough are normaly the result of a bad 16mm print(copy) as he was obsesed with lovely looking 35mm although I think his silent movies are 18fps
@nexus1g is the 48 fps thing so they can do stereoscopic on the cheep with one projector I wonder ? (have a poloriser on the projector and change it each frame)
@stu0things0and0stuff The goal of 48 FPS (as is my understanding) is to make fast-paced action more "visible" (e.g. less blurry). They're doing the Hobbit and a couple of other films this year at 48 FPS. Peter Jackson stated that 3-D at 48 FPS reduces eye strain significantly. But I have to figure that increasing to 48 FPS greatly increases post-production time/cost too.
@nexus1g ahh , humm , I kind of like motion to blur, like when you look out a train window and its all a blur :-)
Post costs could go up double data and all that. Lucky their not intending to do that with actual film (or are they?) as I know that (afaik) 70mm film dosn't use cogs to move the film it actualy blows compressed air onto the sprocket holes to move it as the teath on the cogs tended to just rip it appart at that speed (70mm frame v.big lots of strain starting and stopping)
@stu0things0and0stuff We'll see how it looks with the Hobbit in December. I don't remember the other films off hand that are doing 48 FPS. I honestly didn't know they still used celluloid at all to worry about it. I want to visit something you said earlier that I meant to address but didn't: They're coming out with 4k+ vertical resolution? Or did you mean something different?
@nexus1g Some colegues have just been at one of the big media shows at RIA amsterdam and yeah apparently the manufacturers of flat screen are big on the idea of 4k(ish) screens so HD is now old hat and we must prepair for more resolution.
The 4k spec seems a bit flexible I think most manufacturers were talking about 3800x(somthing that makes 16:9)will ask if they remember better
I did see a 12megapixal screen from hitachi or panasonic(iirc) at IBC about 3 years ago that was awsome.
In this video, the original footage was 24fps, and when converted to 30fps, it looks smoother for a split second, drops a frame, smooth, drops a frame, and overall looks choppier.
qpstrafe 4 weeks ago
TV manufacturers have you fooled that "smoother is better." This is wrong.
qpstrafe 4 weeks ago
What you are trying to show doesnt work because both are 35 fps according to my fraps, and thats what you tube is no matter what , its upscaled from the 24 fps or downscaled from the 60. Thats why even in HD it looks pretty crappy here and hence your negative feedback, sadly you can have a great video input but youtube doesnt support that
homebrewman23 2 months ago
24 fps has problems for movie audio pitch. YOu will notice on old bluray hd movies like an american werewolf in london that 24fps movies have audio playback at a slower pitch. either way you look at that you are listening to the movie audio with a slower pitch.
210482fmj 3 months ago
@210482fmj the blu-ray has the correct pitch, since all movies are recorded at 24fps. The DVDs are the ones that have been playing at the wrong pitch since forever.
And @salam14111 you're wrong they are recorded at 24fps
BenChaffer 2 months ago
@BenChaffer YOu might be wrong. Watch american were wolf in london and the blue moon audio sounds like it is a rcord player playing on slow. COmpare it to the original blue moon audio on cd soundtrack. It dosn't sound correct. ALso the voices sound slow. SOmethign is not right
210482fmj 2 months ago
I was in a TV store and they were playing Tron and I immediately noticed that it looked extremely different. I have some knowledge about frame rates and I figured out it must be at least 30/48/60FPS. It looked so weird, like I was actually watching real life! Unfortunately nobody on the internet has posted about this so do you know how many FPS Tron was shot in?
purplemonkeyelephant 4 months ago
@purplemonkeyelephant It's the TV. The movie in the theatre is shown at 24fps but many new HDTV has this smoothing feature and show movies in 60fps like. Actions are smoother but somehow they look like they are being fast forwarded a little bit.
killazx9 3 months ago
@killazx9 @nexus1g It was definately not interpolation, I know enough about film to know that. It was so smooth there was zero motion blur. Even my girlfriend noticed without me saying anything. It was like looking through a window - interpolation could not do that.
purplemonkeyelephant 3 months ago
@purplemonkeyelephant That's exactly what interpolation does. It's what many refer to as the "soap opera effect."
nexus1g 3 months ago
@purplemonkeyelephant All movies are shot in and shown at 24 FPS. Some T.V.'s will interpolate additional frames between the real frames effectively doubling the FPS and making it seem smoother than what it is.
So, 2 frames of film are usually just original film frame -> original film frame. But with the interpolation, it's original film frame -> interpolated frame added by T.V. -> original film frame. Both of these happen in the same period of time, so it results in a smoother animation.
nexus1g 3 months ago
@nexus1g they are not . they are shot in 60 fps and more . and converted to 24fps .
if you record something in 23 fps its very unsmooth .
salam14111 3 months ago
@salam14111 You'll have to provide evidence for your claim. Because recording in 24 FPS (something many nicer home camcorders even do) is pretty standard afaik.
nexus1g 1 month ago
@nexus1g yes its nice . but trained eye can see it . its diffrent record in 24 fps
and its difrent record in 60 fps and after it convert to 23 fps . If they realy record everything in 24 fps , slowmotions scenes would be like 12 fps or less very chopy .
salam14111 1 month ago
@salam14111 Yes, overcranking. But that's only for slow motion scenes. Classically, entire films are not converted from 60 FPS to 24 FPS.
nexus1g 1 month ago
@nexus1g if this is true . for me its big suprising , and they must add some stuff like motion blur or i dont know ,. cause when i shot some movie from my camera at 23 fps it looks chopy , 30 fps looks better lot.
salam14111 1 month ago
@salam14111 You keep putting 23 FPS instead of 24. Is that just a typo or a PAL thing? But yeah, 24 FPS means that the shutter is open (and closed) longer and so you do get a lot of motion blur. What kind of camera do you have? It may be taking 24 FPS but with a quick exposure time so you get choppier video with less motion blur.
nexus1g 1 month ago
@salam14111 You need some ND filters so you don't have to crank your shutter speed. Thats why it looks choppy to you. Always shoot at 24.
Djouppi10 1 month ago
@salam14111 So !) you can record slow-motion in 24p(?) and two, the scenes would look choppier in 24p vs normal? So I guess they used different fps in different scenes?
theedman2222 1 month ago
@salam14111 They only ever record higher than 24p in cinema if they know that for a specific scene they will be doing time re-mapping.
CinemaEnthusiast93 2 weeks ago
@salam14111 The exception to what I said is some new movies coming out now. But you sound like you're saying this is currently an industry standard.
nexus1g 1 month ago
@nexus1g Untrue. We are starting to see the emergence of higher FPS. Hobbit is one example and there are many HD DVD's now recorded at 60fps.
feathers632 1 month ago
@nexus1g true but the whole percistance of vission thing is used a lot , film projectors project double frame rate (flash the same frame twice) i.e. 18fps video projects 36 flashes/s , we only went from 18fps to 24fps motion picture to support sound ;-).
As you say the choppyness people get with lower frame rates is due to the shutter speeds mostly. (or they are panning too fast)
stu0things0and0stuff 4 weeks ago
@stu0things0and0stuff I didn't know about the change from 18 FPS to 24 FPS. That explains the "feel" of silent movies like the Thief of Bagdad or Chaplin classics. I knew about the projectors actually projecting the same frame twice because of the recent talk of upping the standard to 48 FPS. All-in-all good info. Thanks!
nexus1g 3 weeks ago
@nexus1g havn't been keeping up with the times , didn't know they are trying to put it up to 48fps , although I dobut they will now theirs a load of 4k(ish) displays on the way they probably need the bandwhidth for the extra picture data(probably still a year or 3 before their common).
Interestingly the chaplin films that we see looking rough are normaly the result of a bad 16mm print(copy) as he was obsesed with lovely looking 35mm although I think his silent movies are 18fps
stu0things0and0stuff 3 weeks ago
@nexus1g is the 48 fps thing so they can do stereoscopic on the cheep with one projector I wonder ? (have a poloriser on the projector and change it each frame)
stu0things0and0stuff 3 weeks ago
@stu0things0and0stuff The goal of 48 FPS (as is my understanding) is to make fast-paced action more "visible" (e.g. less blurry). They're doing the Hobbit and a couple of other films this year at 48 FPS. Peter Jackson stated that 3-D at 48 FPS reduces eye strain significantly. But I have to figure that increasing to 48 FPS greatly increases post-production time/cost too.
nexus1g 3 weeks ago
@nexus1g ahh , humm , I kind of like motion to blur, like when you look out a train window and its all a blur :-)
Post costs could go up double data and all that. Lucky their not intending to do that with actual film (or are they?) as I know that (afaik) 70mm film dosn't use cogs to move the film it actualy blows compressed air onto the sprocket holes to move it as the teath on the cogs tended to just rip it appart at that speed (70mm frame v.big lots of strain starting and stopping)
stu0things0and0stuff 3 weeks ago
@stu0things0and0stuff We'll see how it looks with the Hobbit in December. I don't remember the other films off hand that are doing 48 FPS. I honestly didn't know they still used celluloid at all to worry about it. I want to visit something you said earlier that I meant to address but didn't: They're coming out with 4k+ vertical resolution? Or did you mean something different?
nexus1g 3 weeks ago
@nexus1g Some colegues have just been at one of the big media shows at RIA amsterdam and yeah apparently the manufacturers of flat screen are big on the idea of 4k(ish) screens so HD is now old hat and we must prepair for more resolution.
The 4k spec seems a bit flexible I think most manufacturers were talking about 3800x(somthing that makes 16:9)will ask if they remember better
I did see a 12megapixal screen from hitachi or panasonic(iirc) at IBC about 3 years ago that was awsome.
stu0things0and0stuff 3 weeks ago
@nexus1g also I would just like to second your use of more correct terminology ;-)
the following terms, speed (recording and showing fps match)
over kranked (slow mo) shooting fps exceeds playback fps
under kranked (fast motion / timelapse) shooting fps is less than playback fps
stu0things0and0stuff 4 weeks ago