24fps, advantages?

[Mr Blackstock]

I have read some talk of greater clarity of the exposed film when shot at 24fps. is this true? i do alot of shooting in low light, of which i have read that 9fps is ideal for, so for 24fps i would need a great deal more light, right?

Then, how would i edit. For example, if i shoot some scenes in 18fps, then 9fps, then 24fps, when coming to edit, how do i put it together without needing a computer to even out the speeds?

Hope this is not a stupid question!?

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

24fps is the standard professional frame rate for film.
Shooting at 18fps is going to mean when you play back your film, it's too fast, or 9fps is going to be even faster.
This is especially true if you're going to transfer to video, which most Super 8 shooters do.
Video is 30fps, period! (OK, PAL is 25fps).There is something called 3:2 pulldown that stretches your 24fps out to 30fps. (I'm not going to go into the technical aspects of that).

So if you shoot at a different speeds than 24fps, it is NOT going to play back at the real speed you shot at.
So you should not be making the choice out of how much light you need (even though it's true that different frame rates do have different lighting requirements), but it should be a creative choice, do you want things sped up or not?

Matt Pacini

------------------

[technicolour]

"24fps is the standard professional frame rate for film.
Shooting at 18fps is going to mean when you play back your film, it's too fast, or 9fps is going to be even faster"

Matt,

If you shoot at 18 fps, cant you just play it back at 18 providing your projector will run at that speed?


------------------
Jim

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by technicolour:

If you shoot at 18 fps, cant you just play it back at 18 providing your projector will run at that speed?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Projecting is no problem.

I believe that Matt is referring to video transfers. 24fps is convenient because it can be transferred to NTSC video by doubling every fourth frame. This doubling isn't really noticable since it happens at a constant rate. 24fps footage can also be transferred to PAL by simply running it at 25fps, which isn't noticable to the eye or ear.

When something is shot at 18fps and transferred to video, to avoid flicker you must either transfer at 20fps (which might be noticable, depending on whether or not your camera actually shot at 18fps or slightly faster) or live with an uneven number of doubled frames, which can cause some serious stobing on the motion.

Therefore shooting at 24fps provides a more convenient standard. But if you are only going to project in the comfort of your own home, shooting at 18fps looks normal. There is no such thing as "more normal", so I would say go for it if projection is all you have planned and always will. But if you plan on transferring to video, then I would shoot at 24fps.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[technicolour]

Roger,

My camera only shoots at 18 fps, if i want it put onto PAL VHS will it appear too fast??



------------------
Jim

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by technicolour:
Roger,
My camera only shoots at 18 fps, if i want it put onto PAL VHS will it appear too fast??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will if it is transferred one to one. However, if you double every third frame, that would allow it to play at around 24fps, which is damned close to 25fps. The difference in speed wouldn't be noticable but at least the frame doubling will be consistant enough to prevent the uneven strobing typical of 18fps to 30fps conversions. Again, the best thing to do is to shoot at 24fps to avoid these kinds of problems, but if you have footage already shot at 18fps, then there are some options available in PAL that aren't found in NTSC.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Nigel]

I always shoot at 24fps. That is because of what matt was talking about--3:2 Pulldown. Plus you get far less motion artifacts. 18fps was intended for the home movie crowd not a film to tape xfer. Good Luck

------------------

[Mr Blackstock]

O.K, I will see if i have this right, shooting at 24fps enables easier film transfer, yet film shot at 18fps can still be transfered at atleast 24fps to video.

While there may be better projection by filming at 24fps, the slightly less ideal of filming at 18fps would surely be a great deal cheaper? I intend to transfer, yet i am stuck with 18fps, even if i could shoot faster, could i afford the film usage?

Is there a real benefit to 24fps, other than ease of transfer. I need something more to justify the film cost. in melbourne, film costs $20, developing $15 (thats for b&w)

Any ideas?

------------------

[technicolour]

As you said I cant see what a HUGE difference the extra 6 frames will make.

If you read the "20fps shoot+Xsfer - A new S8 standard for video?" post left by rodger, him and I were discussing altering a camera to run at 20 fps by ensuring it had a stable and "fresh" power supply so that when you goto transfer it you dont get fickler.

------------------
Jim

[technicolour]

Oh right,

So what about transfering 18 fps footage to PAL?

Will that give the same problems as to NTSC

------------------
Jim