why do some people say that using 24 fps is better?

This forum is for video and audio help and discussion.

why do some people say that using 24 fps is better?

Postby wwf_htm » Fri Jan 31, 2003 12:14 am

i've noticed that some people saying that making amvs 24 frames per second (or 23.XX (whatever that ratio is)) is better? anyone know if this is true? if so, why?

thanks

htm
wwf_htm
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2002

Postby Dannywilson » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:23 am

Because it is the true speed of film, rather than 30 fps, which splits certain frames from original to make the video look normal on a TV.
"in the morning when i have wood..i like to walk around my house and bump random shit with it.... " -Random comment on grouphug.us
User avatar
Dannywilson
 
Joined: 31 Jul 2002
Location: In love with Dr. Girlfriend

Postby Ashyukun » Fri Jan 31, 2003 8:51 am

There's something of an irony in this, and that is that in a decent number of cases, when the videos are presented to others they will be played back on a TV or other NTSC-format system which uses at 30fps timebase (well, probably 29.97, but). However, unless you're using a hardware card that is designed to edit Interlaced footage, you're probalby much better off with ivtc'd footage at 24fps- you'll usually have less problems with interlacing artifacts and such. Plus, when you have to do things frame-by-frame, you've got 20% less work to do... :wink:
Bob 'Ash' Babcock
Electric Leech Productions
User avatar
Ashyukun
Medicinal Leech
 
Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Location: KY

Postby RadicalEd0 » Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:14 pm

There are 2 advantages to a good IVTC, smoothness of motion and resolution. When frames are telecined, their motion becomes somewhat corrupt due to the duplication of frames throughout. Furthermore, their resolution is maintained only though analog interlacing. The simple solution on a digital progressive device is to deinterlace, which will not only lose the resolution but maintain the corrupted motion of the duplicate frames. Inverse telecine, on the other hand, restores the frames to their original position and deletes duplicates, thus fixing the motion, as well as reconstructing full resolution progressive frames.
So you've much to gain in the digital domain by IVTC. Eventually you'd have to put a pulldown flag or re-telecine yourself to go back to the analog domain, but its much better to have a cross platform compatible master than one that only performs best in analog.
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby Bushido Philosopher » Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:08 am

so are they really saying 23.976 or is it really 24?
"Many people want to change the world, but very few even consider changing themselves."
<<A>My Member Profile</a>> <<A>Read my Xanga</a>>
User avatar
Bushido Philosopher
 
Joined: 25 Jun 2001
Location: California

Postby RadicalEd0 » Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:53 pm

Both are essentially the same thing, just as 29.97 is generally speaking the same as 30 fps. However if you want to be standards compliant 23.976 is the framerate that has support as far as most analog NTSC devices go. 24fps you'll only see supported in digital devices.
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby madmallard » Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:21 pm

or big things with lenses and reels.
User avatar
madmallard
 
Joined: 04 Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Cracked up quacker, quacked up cracker

Postby klinky » Sat Feb 01, 2003 9:53 pm

Well the way it works, and this is what confused me and alot of people is that of course you can't have fractional frames so how can you have fractional frame rates.

It's better to think of it in terms of 'display a frame every x".

If you think about it in nanoseconds(1 billionth of a second).

23.976 = 1 frame about every 41708ns
24 = 1 frame about every 41666ns
29.97 = 1 frame about every 33366ns
30 = 1 frame about every 33333ns

So 24fps & 30fps display frames slightly faster then their NTSC counterparts. Also you may record a few extra frames if you're recording using 24fps or 30fps :|

So technically even a old reel based machine could acheieve 23.976 or 29.97 if it was adjusted properly.


~klinky
User avatar
klinky
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2001
Location: Cookie College...

Postby Nightowl » Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:31 am

sixstop wrote:or big things with lenses and reels.


Now that was funny!

-N
User avatar
Nightowl
 
Joined: 29 May 2001


Return to Video & Audio Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests