Convert 60fps to 24fps?

MagicMusic's picture
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/01/2013 - 12:39am

Well I'm shooting a dance video, and I want it to seem very cinematic. I want it in 24fps. During the dance I want to slow-motion during some moves. Should I record the whole video in 60fps, and if possible convert the whole video to 24fps (cinematic feel), and conform the slomotion parts? 

 

Is it possible to convert a video recorded in 60fps to 24fps to get the cinematic feel?

 

I have Adobe After Effects, and Sony Vegas. 


rs170a's picture
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 03/07/2011 - 2:12pm

In my opinion, you'd be much better off shooting only the segments you want to slo-mo in 60 and all the rest in 24 to keep the cinematic feel. You can do the 60-24 in AE or in Vegas.

 

Mike


Rick Crampton's picture
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
Joined: 08/20/2009 - 1:08pm

" Well I'm shooting a dance video, and I want it to seem very cinematic. I want it in 24fps. "   Yup, strobing and/or blurring should do the trick . . . .


Joseph Dellwo's picture
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/20/2011 - 6:35pm

Part of the 'cinematic feel' is the motion blur you get from 24p with a 180 degree shutter angle (twice as fast as your frame rate - in this care shoot 24p with as close to 1/48 shutter speed as possible. On my camera that's a 1/50.)

 

Be careful with camera movement or you'll add what is in my opinion an excessive amount of jutter with these settings. This is just one of the reasons you seldom see fast pans in movies.

 

The following is the way I understand the process - I have yet to experiment with this myself, so if I'm wrong, someone please tell me. :-)

 

As for the 60p to to 24p conversion, that's a bit of a misnomer for what you're trying to do. A conversion should give you the same video, only now wrapped inside a 24p frame rate. What you want to do is simply slow down your video until it matches a 24p frame rate thereby giving you the slow motion with your footage shot at 60p (and a 1/120 shutter speed - I would round up, not down, for best image quality) in a 24p project. If my math is correct, you should set your speed to 40% in your NLE for those clips to get them knocked down the 24p, although they should still look pretty good even slower.

 

As for shooting the rest in 60p - I know the motion blur CAN be done in After Effects, but why punish yourself? Just shoot it 24p in camera like Mike said.

 

My best advice would be to experiment well before the big day and see what you like best and how the process works within your particular NLE.


Daniel Bruns's picture
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 12/15/2009 - 7:46pm
Plus Member

Hi MagicMusic,

 

I totally agree with Dellwovideo, with one exception (and I say this with a lot of respect for his answer). I would be careful in slowing down the 60p video in a 24p timeline. Depending on the way your editing system interprets the native playback framerate of your 60p video file, it could automatically treat or convert your video as 24p when you play it back in a 24p timeline. This will result in a video that plays back at normal speed when you place it in your timeline and most importantly, strobey video when you slow down your 60p footage. Instead, I would make sure that your editing software is interpreting the playback framerate of your 60p video as 24 fps. This way, when you drop your video into your timeline or sequence, it will already be slowed down by 1.5x.

 

In order to get it to play at normal speed, you'll have to increase the speed to 250% (someone correct me if I'm wrong here, my math isn't always accurate). In order to get the video to play in slow motion, you can simply decrease the speed of the video and it should play back with a full frame for every frame per second in your video making it look great while getting rid of the strobey look.

 

If you're editing in After Effects, you can make sure that your 60p footage is interpreted for playback at 24 fps by right-clicking the video file in your Project window and choosing Interpret Footage and Main from the drop-down menu. Then under the Frame Rate heading, Choose the radio button that says "Conform to frame rate:" and type in 23.976 into the blank field next to it. Hit OK and you're good to go!

 

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to do the same thing in Sony Vegas. Maybe someone else can chime in to help!

 

Dan


gat3keeper's picture
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/29/2016 - 12:57pm

For travel / tourism videos shoot in Action cameras. Should I go for 60 FPS or 24 FPS if I want to achieved cinematic look ?


Rick Crampton's picture
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
Joined: 08/20/2009 - 1:08pm

WHY, a ' cinematic look ' ? If you're going to re-recreate Gone With The Wind, or you're going to make film copies of your video, shoot in 24P. That would be the only reason I could think one would shoot in 24P. And then again, WHY 60 FPS. Do you think that because 60 is greater than 24 or 30 that it is better?


gat3keeper's picture
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/29/2016 - 12:57pm

I'm very newbie to videography so I don't have any idea. :)

So far, they say that if you want cinematic , shoot 24 fps. For Slow mo, shoot 60 fps.


paulears's picture
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 11/05/2006 - 8:36am

I think you have some of the theory and practice a bit mixed up.

Dance (something I'm involved in) is fluid, beautiful if done well and above all, graceful. It can also be rather fast. Cinematic really worries me, because nobody ever defines it properly. Gone with the Wind, The Big Country, and perhaps 2001 a space Odyssey could be described as Cinematic, at least in my definition book. However, the term, has been hijacked and distorted to become something more 'arty'. Very often by blurring the background, reducing depth of field, and introducing blur. All things that work against dance, unless for effect.

This daft notion that Cinematic =24fps is lunacy. It depends on what the subject material is. I view TV as TV, and huge screens with huge amounts of content as Cinema.

Now the dance specific problems.

Software can now convert almost anything to anything. If you shoot dance in 60fps, and can replay that in a 60fps capable chain to the end display, that's brilliant in definition terms. Arms legs, people - they will all be moving in dance. Arms in particular, and feet in ballet, can move damn fast. Lets say a movement is quick, and lasts 4 frames in 60fps. The software has to try to make that fit a 24fps timeline? So that's less than 2 frames of the 4 shot. In most cases, it will be 1 frame, with a few duplicated every now and then to make the 24. So that wonderful graceful arc, is now a sequence of jerks, with an added stutter every few frames to make the maths work. 60 down to 30, or 50 down to 25 is less obvious, because the stutter is missing, and the jerkiness consistent. so is 60 frames, all slightly different better than 30 frames, all more different? I think 60 wins every time. The result with film was a softening of the images because of the shutter exposure time. So called 'cinematic' settings fail on sports and fast moving art subjects - they destroy the fluidity. Add any conversion to frame rates not mathematically linked and it's even worse. Low frame rates can work with some styles of dance - but the usual result is a lack of sharpness. Success with dance is more to do with smoothness - you will improve the result far more with an upgraded pan/tilt head than with fiddling with shutter speeds. Following dance is very similar to shooting showjumping OBs with broadcast cameras. You don't shoot centre frame as a constant. You have to take into account what dancers call 'travel'. This means panning forward, allowing the viewer to see the space they are going to move into, then as the action is about to reverse, you need to predict it, so on the turn you have looking room. This looks so much better. If you are shooting on stage, with theatrical lighting and staging, then slightly wider angles, full depth of field, and ultra smooth camerawork will look far more 'Cinematic' that any silly frame rate conversions - which always are downwards moves in quality. I see little point capturing image data, then throwing 60% of it away.


Rick Crampton's picture
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
Joined: 08/20/2009 - 1:08pm

In the days before TV productions were shot and edited in a video format, they were shot on film ( 24 fps, progressive ) and the footage was digitized to 30 fps, interlaced for editing and post production. The conversion required finding a way to make 24 frames of film fit into 30 video frames. Obviously, some of the 24 frames had to be repeated. This made for picture ' stutter ', not a smooth flow! This is the root problem of making video conversions when the frame rates between the two aren't an even number.

Paulears is correct that many newbys, in their insecurity, think that buying Ultra hi-def cameras and shooting in exotic frame rates, and especially in seeking a ' film ' look ( whatever that really means ) will overshadow their lack of skill and experience. Practical limitations enter the equation . . . such as storage media and editing horsepower . . . and CERTAINLY how you propose to ' distribute ' your masterpiece whether YouTube, et al, or friends and family, or social media.

You have to GROW into video production if you ever hope to produce something which will captivate and entertain your Audience. Try out your ideas and see if they actually work.


gat3keeper's picture
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/29/2016 - 12:57pm

Been hearing different opinion from different guys.

They say that shooting at 60 fps and convert it to 24 fps will give you choppy clips. Some says its ok.

I don't know anymore... hehe.

I


paulears's picture
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 11/05/2006 - 8:36am

If you have 60 frames, and you throw 36 away, then smooth movement can't work - throwing 30 away gives at least the same gap between each one.