why do some people say that using 24 fps is better?
-
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 9:34 am
why do some people say that using 24 fps is better?
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
thanks
htm
- Dannywilson
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 5:36 am
- Location: In love with Dr. Girlfriend
- Ashyukun
- Medicinal Leech
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: KY
- Contact:
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... 

Bob 'Ash' Babcock
Electric Leech Productions
Electric Leech Productions
- RadicalEd0
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 2:58 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.
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.
- Bushido Philosopher
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 7:19 pm
- Location: California
- RadicalEd0
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 2:58 pm
- madmallard
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2001 6:07 pm
- Status: Cracked up quacker, quacked up cracker
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Contact:
- klinky
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 12:23 am
- Location: Cookie College...
- Contact:
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
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