Convert 60fps to 24fps?

MagicMusic's picture
Last seen: 3 years 3 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: 10 hours 2 min 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 month 6 days 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: 1 month 2 weeks 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 7 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: 4 months 4 weeks 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 month 6 days 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: 4 months 4 weeks 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: 19 hours 50 min 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 month 6 days 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: 4 months 4 weeks 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: 19 hours 50 min 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.


Blackcinamatography's picture
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/21/2016 - 11:45pm

There are definitely a couple idio... I guess I will call them ignorant people that have posted on this thread. Perhaps they have never heard of the "soap opera effect" and the role of 24fps in the suspension of disbelief which in popular culture was most publicized when the director of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" experimented with a high frame rate. The movie was shown in theaters in both 24fps and the high fr. Many people who saw it in the high fr hated it, but some of those same people (I am one of them, although I saw it in 24 first) liked it a lot when they watched it in 24. Please read up on the "soap opera effect" before trying to say that a faster frame rate is better, because the person who originally posted the question is on the right track when saying he wants to use 24fps for a cinematic effect. In general, fantasy is shot in 24fps, and reality (live tv for example) is shot in 30 or 60. If this is for a movie/fantasy type story, or to fit into a larger fictional work he should stick with 24, especially now that many people's video viewing devices have ways of viewing the content that make it look as if it was shot at a higher fr anyway, and they can choose to view it that way if they want. If it is just the capturing of a performance and is to be viewed for the performance's sake than he should shoot it at 60. It is possible that he doesn't have the option of shooting some aspects in 24, and others in 60 if it is a performance, although this would definitely be the best option. Really what he should do is try and find a camera that will shoot at 48fps and then drop half the frames for all the parts he does not want to be slo-mo. He should also do a bit of experimentation before the shoot with different frame rates. I know this is an old thread, but I just can't stand it when I see such ignorance. Here is a link to a detailed article about frame rates and the soap opera effect: http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect/
and another: http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-4...


roblewis56's picture
Last seen: 1 month 5 days ago
Joined: 06/07/2009 - 11:59pm

why don't more camcorders shoot at a true 60 fps instead of 59.97 since most displays refresh at 60 Hz or multiple thereof? This mismatch just results in added or dropped frames when rendering?

Robert


Jamie's picture
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 06/16/2016 - 9:34pm

This is not the complete answer I know, but it's something to do with US electricity current during the film era to assure the projectors ran at the same speed. Europe has 50hz AC, (PAL50) and North America has 60hz. (NTSC 60) an divisions from this. It was just a simple dividing circuitry used to synch the motor of the projectors.


Rick Crampton's picture
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 08/20/2009 - 1:08pm

Ummm . . .No! AC line frequency had nothing to do with film frames per second. Things got weird when the industry shot on film and posted on video for a few years. That's when line frequency and video sync frequency and film frames per second vs video frames per second got all tangled up. Not too long ago, camcorders that advertised 24P were not pure 24P like film. They shot in 30 fps ( well, actually 29.97 fps ) and then threw away frames to result in 24P . . . although not really 24 fps, just a tad less because video sync is 59.94 cps., not 60Hz. Got it?


Jamie's picture
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 06/16/2016 - 9:34pm

Maybe I missed it, but did anybody mention lighting? 60p requires more than 24p.


roblewis56's picture
Last seen: 1 month 5 days ago
Joined: 06/07/2009 - 11:59pm

Jamie, We are no longer in the film era and I don't think digital projectors use motors except for cooling fans.
Robert