30fps vs. 60fps HELP ME UNDERSTAND PLEASE

[Mac-key]

Hello all,

For quite some time I've been shooting 30fps on my Canon Rebel t2i (550D). It's worked fine, I love the quality of this camera, BUT I'm just trying to educate myself further in this regard.

I get that 24fps gives you more of a "film" like look, although I must say, I've tried it and didn't really notice a difference.

My question is 60fps? I get that it's good for shooting things in slo-mo. BUT is there any other reason to shoot in 60fps over 30fps? I'm assuming 60fps creates much larger file sizes?

Just looking for thoughts and opinions from people more knowledgeable than myself.

Thanks

 

[LethalWolfe]

Of the standard frame rates 60p combines the smoothest motion with the highest image quality (all other things being equal, of course). 60p has the same smooth motion as 30i (both record information 60 times a second) but 60p doesn't suffer from the interlacing problems 30i has. 30p, to me, looks distractingly choppy.


Lethal

 

[gameface]

Mac-key, lethal pretty much covered it. But be wary that you want to keep your shutter speed twice as fast as your fps, so if you shoot 60p over 30 you will have to have your shutter set to 120 (or whatever is close on your camera) compared to 60 for 30. Which means you let in a half the light for the same aperture aperture. Which means, you will need to increase your ISO or increase your aperture (may require a faster lens) for the same output you currently shoot. Just something to think about.

 

[bigbossbmb]

I agree with Lethal... I would only shoot 24 or 60, never 30p.

 

[Mac-key]

thanks for the fast response guys!

i come from a television news background, so the cameras we shot on were much different than the t2i i use now. some of the basic principles apply, but clearly some things are very different.

see normally i shoot with my aperture wide open and the ISO as low as possible. I actually adjust the amount of light that comes in with the shutter speed. So from the above posts I'm seeing that's NOT what I should do.

If I shoot 60fps, set my shutter at 1/120 and then use my aperture to adjust the amount of light that comes in. Because I will always want my ISO to be as low as possible so to keep my noise level down, correct?

thanks again for the info!

 

[stir fry a lot]

If shoot in bright environments you will want to consider a quality neutral density filter. With shutter speeds between 50-120 it is impossible to shoot with open apertures during the daytime. Cheap ND filters create color correction issues that are very hard to fix in post. On your t2i I would avoid going above 800iso although you can take it much higher if you have noise editing software.

 

[Small White Car]

The other advantage 60p has is that it converts back into either 30 fps or 24 fps pretty nicely.

If you shoot 30 you can't turn it into 24 fps and have it look quite right. 60 will fit into a 24p timeline much nicer.

So it bascially lets you decide which frame-rate to use after you shoot, which is nice.

(Of course, many cameras right now only shoot 60 fps at 720p instead of 1080p like they'll do for the other frame-rates, but that's a whole other issue. Nothing's ever easy.)

 

[martinX]

Mac-key, lethal pretty much covered it. But be wary that you want to keep your shutter speed twice as fast as your fps, so if you shoot 60p over 30 you will have to have your shutter set to 120 (or whatever is close on your camera) compared to 60 for 30.

If you shoot at 60i (a standard sort of framerate, as in "1920 x 1080 60i") you have a shutter speed of 1/60 (or faster if you so desire/are able to). The shutter speed of 60p is exactly the same.

For some of my jobs (operating theatres), I'd love to be shooting 60p because it gives a hyper-real look - very fluid. Unfortunately, my camera can't do it

 

[Mac-key]

If shoot in bright environments you will want to consider a quality neutral density filter. With shutter speeds between 50-120 it is impossible to shoot with open apertures during the daytime. Cheap ND filters create color correction issues that are very hard to fix in post. On your t2i I would avoid going above 800iso although you can take it much higher if you have noise editing software.

what I end up doing when shooting in bright environments is jacking up the speed of my shutter to like, 1/1500. Back in the day when I was using a $30,000 television camera this worked like a charm and actually made the video look great.

Two questions - 1) why is sticking to lower shutter speeds better? 60fps = 1/120.

2) do you have any suggestions when it comes to ND filters? I've never used one on my t2i, BUT I realize I have a lot to learn when it comes to shooting with my rig. I want to pick up a ND filter asap.

Here's a look at what I've been shooting - all shot in 30fps

http://vimeo.com/23464436

I've been happy with most of the quality. However, I keep seeing people all over vimeo who shoot with a t2i and their footage looks AMAZING!. I get that there are a lot of factors that go into that, but still - some of it looks so much better than mine.

 

[MacFan782040]

How do you like shooting on an SLR compared to a regular HD camera?

The depth of field is amazing, but how does it compare when doing audio/lighting/handling of the camera/editing etc.

Your video quality looks stunning, just curious how you compare the two, as you say you come from a TV background.

 

[Mac-key]

How do you like shooting on an SLR compared to a regular HD camera?

The depth of field is amazing, but how does it compare when doing audio/lighting/handling of the camera/editing etc.

Your video quality looks stunning, just curious how you compare the two, as you say you come from a TV background.

well i definitely love my $30,000 TV camera much better BUT for the money, my t2i shoots AMAZING quality video.

The downfall is the audio capturing abilities. It's just not naturally rigged to house an external wireless mic. Which makes getting good sound during interviews very difficult. (There are workarounds though) Plus, shooting handheld with the t2i is not something I like to do. I have a tri-pod and use it as much as possible. My next purchase will be some sort of rig or shoulder mount or slide. Just waiting to get the $ in our media budget. So yes, it has a lot of limitations. BUT if you have a general understanding of how to shoot video, then you just can't beat the quality images this camera gives you for the price. PLUS, it shoots much better in low light, and if you have the money you can invest in some nice glass and change the whole feel of your work.

It does add another step in the editing process, as I have to transcode all my RAW files before bringing them into final cut.

 

[Small White Car]

what I end up doing when shooting in bright environments is jacking up the speed of my shutter to like, 1/1500. Back in the day when I was using a $30,000 television camera this worked like a charm and actually made the video look great.

I think most people would say that looks very harsh, strobing, and sterile.

I mean, I'm not saying not to use it. If you like it, you like it. But that's why most other people aren't going to do that with their shutter. It doesn't feel quite right to most viewers.

It looks very clinical to me. It's like how 24 fps feels a little more comfortable than 30 fps to many people. You've got the exact opposite thing going on here.

Too low a shutter and your video is mush. Too high and it turns to plastic-wrap. Finding the middle ground is a matter of opinion, but in MY opinion I'd call that sample "too high."

 

[Mac-key]

I think most people would say that looks very harsh, strobing, and sterile.

I mean, I'm not saying not to use it. If you like it, you like it. But that's why most other people aren't going to do that with their shutter. It doesn't feel quite right to most viewers.

It looks very clinical to me. It's like how 24 fps feels a little more comfortable than 30 fps to many people. You've got the exact opposite thing going on here.

Too low a shutter and your video is mush. Too high and it turns to plastic-wrap. Finding the middle ground is a matter of opinion, but in MY opinion I'd call that sample "too high."

yep, I agree - it definitely does not look as good using higher shutter speeds on a DSLR as opposed to a "real" television camera. I might add to that I used to shoot only sports. So the high shutter speed really made things POP, and look much more crisp.

With my DSLR it doesn't seem to equate the same. PLUS, I'm no longer shooting sports. So I'm very open to learning how to properly use it.