john101477
Photographer in the Wild
I shoot Nikon but Nikon is still lagging a little in the video dept. Even with the new D7000 while it shoots 1080, only shoots @ 24fps which is a little low for any type of pro work.
DSLR and HDV: What is your kit?
- Thread starter Scott Brady
- Start date
Michael Slade
Untitled
I have been shooting video with my Nikon D7000 since September. I am coming from shooting NO video previously, but during that interim I have shot with the 5D2 quite a bit as well. So far so good, and I like the camera quite a bit. I am using a Sennheiser external mic and a Zoom for ambient sound.
I have a channel on Vimeo that you can see a bunch of my recent work with. It's all tagged so if you do a search you'll find it pretty easily.
I have a channel on Vimeo that you can see a bunch of my recent work with. It's all tagged so if you do a search you'll find it pretty easily.
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
John, it's my understanding that 24p is actually the industry standard for cinema and is the preferred frame rate.
Michael Slade
Untitled
I think that John might be thinking about 30fps or 60fps, which would give you the ability to 'overcrank' and shoot some slo-mo.
There is actually a petition to ask Nikon for a firmware update to allow the camera to do this.
There is actually a petition to ask Nikon for a firmware update to allow the camera to do this.
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
60p would be sweet for slow motion. Is 30p of much value?
Michael Slade
Untitled
29fps is European/PAL standard.
Scott Brady
Founder
Wow, Prescott Valley. Thanks for the tip!
cwsqbm
Explorer
Actually, PAL is ~25 fps (24.975 fps), and NTSC is ~30 fps (29.97 fps). Its because of 50hz (25x2) vs 60hz (30x2) for the electrical power.
Michael Slade
Untitled
That's what it is. I knew there was a slight but important difference. Thanks for setting me straight. We talked about the differences in my video production class last semester, but we didn't learn that it was because of the power voltage. Very interesting.
30p is the standard for displaying on a 1080p television set, no?
I'm dealing with 60i from my video camera right now, looks great on my 1080i TV, but not on my computer. I have to deinterlace the videos first, which comes with a whole bunch of other issues. (combing, jaggies, etc.)
60p is good not just for slow motion, but even at full speed, action shots look much better. But, I don't think you can upload 60p to Vimeo or Youtube in any case.
Basically, IMO, if you're shooting for internet/computer, shoot in 30p. Broadcast/TV, 60i.
john101477
Photographer in the Wild
Sorry I missed out on this but here is my understanding of FPS 24 vs 30 and while 24 may be considered the standard but standard in this case meaning minimum for usable motion picture. The Flicker Fusion point is roughly at 30fps and is the least amount of fps that video becomes almost seamless. At 24fps you loose the seamless video that is needed to catch extreme detail but adds a certain motion Blur. the detail is usually not quite as big a problem in smaller TV's but with Larger TVs it becomes very apparent. Also to my understanding, to get real slow motion capabilities, you have to get to the 120fps for anything faster than a person jogging. Most video you see on tv is captured with a 120fps camera (industry standard) and then processed down to a minimum of 24fps.
Thats my understanding of it but I am not a videographer neither
Thats my understanding of it but I am not a videographer neither
There are literally papers out there on the topic of fps as related to cinema... It is a larger topic than just the technical significances of different fps.
fps outside of technical discussion is more related to visceral feelings of the audience. 24fps was born out of a technical deficiency of early motion film. The cadence (quality of motion/temporal resolution) of 24fps, as recorded by the camera became ingrained into our brains as what cinema "should" look like.
24fps today is the fps of choice for most cinematic work. However this trend could change in the future given the advent of digital cinema camera capable of shooting at various frame rates, and digital projectors that can display them in a multitude of formats. Technically speaking the only difference between 24p and 30p is 6 extra frames per second, pretty minute. However to our brains, the difference between the looks of 24p and 30p is significant. One looks like movie, the other looks like the evening news or home video.
Some will argue that the strobbiness of 24fps video inherently plays into how our brain process such images. The fact that it is not fully real-life in its motion rendering allows us to accept the image more as a story, than say video from a security cam.. I some how doubt this.. If the earliest movie camera was built to shoot 30fps, then today we'd be living in a world deems 30fps as the frame rate of choice for cinema work.
fps outside of technical discussion is more related to visceral feelings of the audience. 24fps was born out of a technical deficiency of early motion film. The cadence (quality of motion/temporal resolution) of 24fps, as recorded by the camera became ingrained into our brains as what cinema "should" look like.
24fps today is the fps of choice for most cinematic work. However this trend could change in the future given the advent of digital cinema camera capable of shooting at various frame rates, and digital projectors that can display them in a multitude of formats. Technically speaking the only difference between 24p and 30p is 6 extra frames per second, pretty minute. However to our brains, the difference between the looks of 24p and 30p is significant. One looks like movie, the other looks like the evening news or home video.
Some will argue that the strobbiness of 24fps video inherently plays into how our brain process such images. The fact that it is not fully real-life in its motion rendering allows us to accept the image more as a story, than say video from a security cam.. I some how doubt this.. If the earliest movie camera was built to shoot 30fps, then today we'd be living in a world deems 30fps as the frame rate of choice for cinema work.
Last edited:
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
This stuff gets really heavy. So...given the option, what are the general rules of thumb so to speak? I've been reading conflicting reports. ywen, you had also mentioned shutter speed in another thread, how does that work into the fps discussion.
Perhaps we should just start a new thread on tips/advice for shooting video so not to clutter this one up any more.
Perhaps we should just start a new thread on tips/advice for shooting video so not to clutter this one up any more.
I think, ignoring any artistic discussion, 30p is what you need for internet hosting, what the majority of us are interested in. I'm not sure if Vimeo/Youtube will even take 24p, but I know for sure it doesn't take 60p. You can upload a 60i video, but it looks horrible with lots of heavy combing.
It seems to me, that most digital still cameras that take video (P&S or DSLR) tend to shoot 30p, maybe with the option of 24p. Camcorders, tend to shoot 60i, though the option for 24/30p is becoming more prevalent. But you have to pay attention because some advertise that it is capable of all the formats, but they sensor is not really capable of it, and the camera does some internal interpolation to go between I and P. (apparently the Canon camcorders do this).
I can say that the 60i video out of my Sony camcorders looks gorgeous displayed through my PS3 to a 1080-60i TV. Better than any HD satellite channel. The image is very life-like, like you're really there. Great for home movies. I've read that anything intended for broadcast should be shot in 60i, but I'm not expert. I guess 120p would be the ultimate obviously.
But the interlaced videos are practically unwatchable on my computer. It's a few years old, AMD Athlon 64 x2 5000+ with an ATI Radeon 1600 PCI-E video card. The machine just chokes on it, it's juddery and full of combing.
Here's some testing I was doing on the weekend with deinterlacing. I was going to open another topic but, here you go.
http://www.vimeo.com/19897064
The left and center image are simply using the deinterlace techniques within Sony Vegas 10 Platinum. The one labeled "blur", I think adds the upper and lower frame of the interlaced video, and then adds a little blur to try and smooth it out. The one labelled interpolate, I think it throws out half the interlaced frames, and then interpolates the missing lines. The "blur" looks obviously blurry. The "interpolate has lots of jaggies. Look at the shut line of the hood on the Jeep. Overall however, the interpolate video is much clearer as you can see in the grass and leaves.
The "Yadif" on the right is a Yadif deinterlace technique. I used a freeware program called Handbrake to do it. Yadif uses and edge-directed interpolation algorithm to avoid jaggies. It's much clearer, everywhere, not just on the lines.
The video lost some quality, and picked up some judder when it went up on Vimeo. In fact, the discussion almost seems pointless after watching it on Vimeo as so much quality was lost anyway. The video runs smoothly on my computer, and the quality difference between the samples is even bigger. It's a hassle to run every video through Handbrake before cutting it up in Vegas.
So that's my rule of thumb. Internet vids should be 30p. Broadcast 60i. 24p if you are attempting cinema. Obviously if you could shoot 60p or even better, 120p, you'd have the most flexibility to downsample to whatever you want. Of course, shooting 1080 at 120p would take a staggering amount of memory.
It seems to me, that most digital still cameras that take video (P&S or DSLR) tend to shoot 30p, maybe with the option of 24p. Camcorders, tend to shoot 60i, though the option for 24/30p is becoming more prevalent. But you have to pay attention because some advertise that it is capable of all the formats, but they sensor is not really capable of it, and the camera does some internal interpolation to go between I and P. (apparently the Canon camcorders do this).
I can say that the 60i video out of my Sony camcorders looks gorgeous displayed through my PS3 to a 1080-60i TV. Better than any HD satellite channel. The image is very life-like, like you're really there. Great for home movies. I've read that anything intended for broadcast should be shot in 60i, but I'm not expert. I guess 120p would be the ultimate obviously.
But the interlaced videos are practically unwatchable on my computer. It's a few years old, AMD Athlon 64 x2 5000+ with an ATI Radeon 1600 PCI-E video card. The machine just chokes on it, it's juddery and full of combing.
Here's some testing I was doing on the weekend with deinterlacing. I was going to open another topic but, here you go.
http://www.vimeo.com/19897064
The left and center image are simply using the deinterlace techniques within Sony Vegas 10 Platinum. The one labeled "blur", I think adds the upper and lower frame of the interlaced video, and then adds a little blur to try and smooth it out. The one labelled interpolate, I think it throws out half the interlaced frames, and then interpolates the missing lines. The "blur" looks obviously blurry. The "interpolate has lots of jaggies. Look at the shut line of the hood on the Jeep. Overall however, the interpolate video is much clearer as you can see in the grass and leaves.
The "Yadif" on the right is a Yadif deinterlace technique. I used a freeware program called Handbrake to do it. Yadif uses and edge-directed interpolation algorithm to avoid jaggies. It's much clearer, everywhere, not just on the lines.
The video lost some quality, and picked up some judder when it went up on Vimeo. In fact, the discussion almost seems pointless after watching it on Vimeo as so much quality was lost anyway. The video runs smoothly on my computer, and the quality difference between the samples is even bigger. It's a hassle to run every video through Handbrake before cutting it up in Vegas.
So that's my rule of thumb. Internet vids should be 30p. Broadcast 60i. 24p if you are attempting cinema. Obviously if you could shoot 60p or even better, 120p, you'd have the most flexibility to downsample to whatever you want. Of course, shooting 1080 at 120p would take a staggering amount of memory.
Last edited: