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

Locked
wwf_htm
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 9:34 am
Org Profile

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

Post by 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

User avatar
Dannywilson
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 5:36 am
Location: In love with Dr. Girlfriend
Org Profile

Post by 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
Ashyukun
Medicinal Leech
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:53 pm
Location: KY
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by 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
RadicalEd0
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 2:58 pm
Org Profile

Post by 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
Bushido Philosopher
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 7:19 pm
Location: California
Org Profile

Post by 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
RadicalEd0
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 2:58 pm
Org Profile

Post by 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
madmallard
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2001 6:07 pm
Status: Cracked up quacker, quacked up cracker
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by madmallard » Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:21 pm

or big things with lenses and reels.

User avatar
klinky
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 12:23 am
Location: Cookie College...
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by 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
Nightowl
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 2:54 pm
Org Profile

Post by Nightowl » Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:31 am

sixstop wrote:or big things with lenses and reels.
Now that was funny!

-N

Locked

Return to “Video & Audio Help”