shooting 9fps

[sinemaslave]

If I wind up shooting 9 fps to maximize on film and project at 9fps would the effect be "normal" speed or would it be choppy.

Does the same concept apply as shooting 18 fps and projecting at 18 fps.?

what about shooting 9fps and projecting 18 fps-smoother?

daniel

[bigmasi]

I'm not sure if I understood the question right, but...

Motion is always normal if you shoot and project with the same speed. Only thing different is that the picture is flickering more. With 18f/s you can't see too much of the flickering but you can see it tough. With 9f/s you can clearly see the pictures changing from one to another. --> the movie is flickering. I think I've heard that human eye can't separate the pictures if they are shown faster than 24. I think that's why 24f/s is the standard in film. I might be wrong...

Basic rule:
If you project faster than you shoot the motion is faster, if you project slower than you shoot the motion is slower.

- Jari -

[BolexPlusx]

I generally agree with Bigmasi on this. The more frames per second, the less motion between frames, the less chance our brains have to figure out that what it's seeing is not a continuous moving image but rather a bunch of stills one after the other.

I've heard that the reason that 24 FPS came into existence has more to do with sound than image. It seems that in order to get adequate high audio frequencies off an optical sound track, they had to make the film move faster. Back in the days of the silents, the standard was 16 FPS. However, once they introduced sound, they had to speed this up.

Let's say this too. The films I shoot are all at 18 FPS, and the sound ones I collect are at 24 FPS. The difference in smoothness of the image between the two speed is noticeable (yet not annoying). I think 9 FPS would actually be hard to watch.

Shooting 9FPS and projecting 18 FPS gives you double speed fast motion, kind of like in the Benny Hill show!

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 15, 2004 03:28 PM: Message edited by: BolexPlusx ]</font>

[rollemfilm]

Ah, the 24 fps myth. 24 fps had already become the standard before sound. But it is true that the optical sound track (and mag) sounds better at higher speeds. That is a no brainer. But the 24 fps became the standard because it was the lowest speed that shows the least flicker. In other words, a higher speed will show less and less flicker but 24 fps is the slowest that flicker is not apparent. Cost is always a factor too. So keeping a slower speed reduces film cost.

When working with NLE systems using a Rank transfer, flicker is not a problem. But adding more doubled frames is.

Many music video producers who shoot on film will shoot 30 fps to get a 1:1 transfer.

And the audio is not a factor because video tape runs at 30 fps. DVD produces CD quality sound.

If you are talking about shooting film for projection, then flicker is still a factor. But 18 fps is better than the older 16 fps.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 15, 2004 08:31 PM: Message edited by: rollemfilm ]</font>

[bigmasi]

--------------------------------------------------
When working with NLE systems using a Rank transfer, flicker is not a problem. But adding more doubled frames is.

Many music video producers who shoot on film will shoot 30 fps to get a 1:1 transfer.
--------------------------------------------------

Actually I have some questions on this subject (more or less)

In Finland, where I live, we use PAL that has 25 frames/second. Does anyone have experience on transferring film that has been filmed in 24f/s to video? Do I have a doubleframe every second or something and will it show clearly? Let's put it this way:

Example 1.
I shoot the film with 24f/s and I transfer it to video using 24f/s in projector. I guess I'll have a doubleframe every second? Will it show to the naked eye?

Example 2.
I shoot the film with 24f/s and I transfer it to video using 25f/s in projector. I guess I'll end up having a tiny "speed up" (Benny Hill) troughout the movie, but no doubleframes? Has anyone tested this?

Example 3.
I shoot the film with 25f/s and project it with the same speed. Is there any problems with this?

Example 4.
I shoot the film with 25f/s and I transfer it to video using 24f/s in projector. I guess I'll end up having a tiny slow-motion troughout the movie (witch actually might be quite nice if I don't need to sync speech) and also doubleframe every second?

Do you have experience on these questions?

[rollemfilm]

bigmasi,

I was speaking of a Rank transfer. There is a pull down in the transfer where frames have to be doubled to stretch 24 fps into 30 fps. This you cannot do with a projector/camera set up.

But since you are using PAL you are only one frame away from 25fps. Since I have never worked with a PAL system, I cannot say for sure but you most likely will have less of a flicker situation. The pull down for film to video would only be 1 fps.

This is why some film cameras shoot at 25fps. Then with a PAL film to video transfer, no pull down is needed.

You then would have a 1:1 transfer. This is great for shooting sync sound because you don't have to slow down the audio like we do here.

[bigmasi]

Rollerfilm... I see now. I tought a little bit further and noticed that ... I was stupid :-) Maybe I was tired or something when I posted...

But anyway, does anyone have experience in transferring (with a projector) 25f/s shoots with 24f/s projecting? I'm interested about the tiny slow motion. Might look good if you don't have to sync sound... actually when I think further I realize that I'm gonna shoot in 25f/s anyway so it doesn't really matter... I can transfer the material two times with different speeds. It's only video so I can transfer thousand times if I like... So I guess I don't need any answer because I don't have any questions anymore...

This must be really stupid reply, but I'm gonna post it anyway. I think I need a beer...

[wahiba]

I have a small digital camera that films at 10 fps. I noticed that the image was not too bad to look at, especially on the computer screen. Consequently I adjusted some of my home transferred 8mm to 10 fps and the result is similar. It is quite watcheable, and reduces the file size considerably. This makes it very useful for placing movies on web pages using eith MS .wmv or Apple .mov formats.

Examples of both are on my web site http://www.siltec.co.uk

[Actor]

Originally posted by rollemfilm:
...24 fps is the slowest that flicker is not apparent.

...If you are talking about shooting film for projection, then flicker is still a factor. But 18 fps is better than the older 16 fps.

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ March 15, 2004 08:31 PM: Message edited by: rollemfilm ]</font></font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've never noticed any flicker at 18 fps.