Which shooting format, 60i or 24p

Editguy43 wrote on 2/23/2013, 11:46 AM
1080/60i or 1080/24p which one is better for everday shootong not for clients but personal stuff mostly, but also for some professional shoots as well.

I have always has my camera set for 1080/60i and it looks good to me. I was watching some youtube stuff on the new nikon 7100 coming out and the buys talking about it say "don't use 60i"

It got me wondering what should I be using?

Paul B


Andy_L wrote on 2/23/2013, 11:56 AM
If you live in Europe or New Mexico, shoot 60i. Otherwise shoot 60p. :)
larry-peter wrote on 2/23/2013, 12:58 PM
AndyL's reply is probably going to prevent the most headaches, but I think there are other things you may want to consider depending on your goals as a videogrpaher. And this is just my personal philosophy...

If the majority of your work now is personal, and could be used in the future as a promotional tool to get work, consider if there is a particular "look" you want to associate with your work. This may dictate a frame rate/format you pick.

Conversely, you may want to position yourself as versatile as possible and include looks that require a combination of of 24p, 30p, 60i, 60p. And there definitely is a different look to all.

For any professional contracted work, you obviously have to consider the delivery format required and the time and budget you have to get there. I shoot 24p as much as possible because I like the look, and the two major broadcast formats I have to deliver in are SD 480/60i and 1080/60i. There are fairly comfortable workflows to get from 24p to both of these. In some cases I will shoot 1080/60i if I'm providing content for a show that has already established this as their look.

The stumbling block in (American) broadcast formats for my preferred workflow is 720/60p. If I need to deliver in this format I will shoot 60p (or in some cases 30p). There is no easy way (that looks good to me) to convert 24p to 30 or 60p. I recently had to convert 1080 24p spots (shot and edited elsewhere) to 720/60p and it took a combination of Twixtor, After Effects Pixel Motion and a lot of single frame editing to get something I was willing to release with my company's name on it.
craftech wrote on 2/23/2013, 1:00 PM
24p Looks great............as long as nobody moves.

larry-peter wrote on 2/23/2013, 1:04 PM
John, that's a valid opinion. I would add that the film industry has produced a beautiful volume of work without the need to sedate on-camera talent. :)
craftech wrote on 2/23/2013, 1:09 PM
Sometimes it's not as noticeable in a large theater especially from far away. Sometimes the judder makes me dizzy especially on a DVD close to the screen.

rmack350 wrote on 2/23/2013, 1:15 PM
... the need to sedate on-camera talent.

I've found they hate being shot with darts.

larry-peter wrote on 2/23/2013, 1:21 PM
I notice it as well, and I realize that my affinity for 24p arises from lifelong familiarity with the look, the fact that I moved from film production to video production over the course of my career, and a good bit of old-school sentimentality as a 50-ish producer.

The industry will probably move to higher frame rates over the next generation, but I have a love for the 24f look and all of its noticeable blemishes. I personally have been appalled at the experiments I've seen with 48 and 60 f projection. Maybe I'm just old. ;-)
larry-peter wrote on 2/23/2013, 1:29 PM
"..they hate being shot with darts."

Rob, I've found the same. Strategically planting Xanax at the craft service table makes it much more difficult for them to trace the source.
Editguy43 wrote on 2/23/2013, 3:18 PM
I have the NX5u and it has 1920x1080/30p or 1280x720/60p but no 60p for the highest res FX 24Mbps settings.

I have never tried any other settings (do not use the camera much) we are just now trying to get into more High end shooting stuff (training videos, interviews, and small commercials for local small business)

I also want to make some independent movie stuff in the future.
So Thank you all for the comments OHH and I will be sure to have some Xanax and even some darts (for more unruly talent) on hand :-)

Paul B
wwjd wrote on 2/23/2013, 6:07 PM
I'm old but always hated 24fps in movies. Seemed so dated and limited. When I got my new camera I was so excited to shoot in 60p!!! Then I found out no one can play that back. So I shot 30 for a while and finally caved and went 24 because it is easier on my edited computer, takes up less space on camera and in files, gets me more light while shooting, and I can control blur and judder as needed. I switch up to 60p when I know I will need to drop into slomo and that works great.
As much as I tried to hate it, 24 works fine to me and even has a few benefits.
That's what I do.... You do what you need to for your stuff.

But I still love the glassy smooth clarity anddetail of 60p!!! Can't wait for the world to catch up. I'd rather shoot everything at 60p
riredale wrote on 2/23/2013, 7:31 PM
I think when viewed objectively, 24fps has a horrible motion artifact, and another one (judder) is added when translating to 60i video. But we've gotten used to the artifacts. It's remarkable to me how the brain compensates--I remember the first time I saw PAL television on a business trip to Europe. The flickering made the picture almost unwatchable to me. After a while, no more flickering.

Wasn't there some demonstration project five or ten years ago from maybe Intel or Microsoft showing how they were able to take 24fps footage and interpolate in-between frames to deliver 48? Some flying over mountain footage or something.
videoITguy wrote on 2/23/2013, 8:06 PM
1080/60i is the only format you need to shoot. Yes, some people want the look of 24p -but usually are just hobby interest in it as playtoy to use...seriously there are the workflow issues and it produces problems..so why mess with what a great process 1080/60i actually is.

Your typical camera is set-up engineering wise to do 1080/60i and the other modes are deriviatives. Does that NOt tell you something.
Former user wrote on 2/23/2013, 8:13 PM
I am with videoITguy on this. Our company makes lots of money taking peoples 24p files and creating 1080 60i files (HDCam or D5) so they can actually be aired on TV. (edit: now that I think about it, everybody should shoot 24p so we can make more money :) ) We do make 720p for FX, but it is still 59.97 framerate. The flicker of 24 fps drives me nuts. The only time I don't notice it is on my computer screen.

When we visited Ireland in the late 80's, I never got used to the flicker.

Dave T
musicvid10 wrote on 2/23/2013, 8:26 PM
48p, 60p, 72p, even 96p down the road is where it's headed.
The two most successful producers in the world can't be wrong.
Former user wrote on 2/23/2013, 8:28 PM

Definitely that is where it is headed. Can't wait to get the higher framerates, but right now we are still a 29.97 TV world in the US.

Dave T2
musicvid10 wrote on 2/23/2013, 8:58 PM
I've said this before, but the public's attachment (preoccupation?) with 24 fps is the equivalent of those who prefer the "warmth" of their old audio cassettes.
Former user wrote on 2/23/2013, 9:12 PM
Hey, I like the muffled sounds of my cassettes. :)

Dave T2
musicvid10 wrote on 2/23/2013, 11:03 PM
Yes, me too, but only in the driver's seat of my '93 Blazer.
wwjd wrote on 2/23/2013, 11:35 PM
I feel the 24p attachment is the whole movie industry - minus actual smart people like Cameron, Jackson, and Trumbull. Never the less, even Blurays are mostly 24p.
But, yes, PLEASE bring on the faster framerates, faster drives, faster internet so we can get all the detail missed by the 100 year old movie pardigm.
BTW I have no issues burning 24fps BluRays, DVDs and files that look fine (not juddery blurry) for TV, youtube, vimeo... or maybe I am just used to it now?

And why Sony Vegas defaults RENDERING to smeary, blurr-o-vision is beyond st00pid to me. I've had to shut that "Feature" off on EVERYTHING I've rendered so far
John_Cline wrote on 2/23/2013, 11:58 PM
Personally, my sweet spot is going to be 120 fps progressive, from that you can derive 60p, 30p and 24p by simply dividing the frame rate by an integer. You can also derive 60i with relatively simple processing.

Early silent films had a frame rate from 14 to 24 FPS which was enough for the sense of motion, but it was perceived as jerky motion at best. In the mid-to-late 1920s, the frame rate for silent films increased to between 20 and 26 FPS. When sound film was introduced in 1926, variations in film speed were no longer tolerated as the human ear is more sensitive to changes in audio frequency. From 1927 to 1930, the rate of 24 FPS became standard for 35 mm sound film. Regardless, film isn't cheap and 24p was the slowest frame rate that still maintains a minimum acceptable semblance of motion.
Andy_L wrote on 2/24/2013, 10:42 AM
My thoughts on 24p changed dramatically after seeing the hobbit in HFR--I hated it. Thought it looked utterly, distractingly phony. All at once, my goal of always chasing the highest possible image resolution/quality evaporated, because I realized it didn't matter. Something else really important was going on.

I read an article suggesting our brains can perceive the 24p cadence, so that we "know" it's not real, and that we therefore accept fantasy films like the hobbit in 24p because we subconsciously realize we're not actually viewing real life.

But the same article suggested that at the 48p frame rate, our brains are no longer quick enough to realize we're seeing an illusion. So we enter uncanny valley territory, where we start judging everything as if it were real, which of course it isn't. Hence the great phony smell.

That hypothesis strikes me as either a brilliant insight or complete nonsense. Time will tell. But I do know I'm hoping feature films stay at 24p or 30p -- not 48p or higher.
wwjd wrote on 2/24/2013, 11:27 AM
and on the other side, I thought the Hobbit was the best looking movie I have ever seen at this point. Didn't care for the plot, but everything looked spectacular and so real, is was way more immersive than anything I have seen - except those motion rides in Vegas which made me stand up and shout out loud, "What is this voodoo magic and why isn't EVERYTHING filmed like this if it is possible???"

Eventually, everyone will be used to it, accept it, and 24 will look like those old 16fps black and white silent pics: dated and silly.
larry-peter wrote on 2/24/2013, 12:01 PM
AndyL, I'm with you - and a comment that those who feel this way are comparable to cassette enthusiasts is a bit ridiculous, although I understand everyone's need to be right in their subjective opinions.

I would expect those who are professionals in the video industry, as those on the forum are, to be the ones most sensitive to the technical aspects of what we do - frame rate, judder, compression artifacts, etc. That's what we train our eyes for. The reality is that the end viewer wants to be affected at an emotional level - just as the case is with music. I think we as video producers will continue on a similar path as audio producers who continuously seek higher sampling rates and bit depth, only to see end users thrilled with low-bit mp3s heard over earbuds. We'll be dealing with Netflix streamed to a 4" smartphone screen.

For a time I held the belief that end-users were simply too ignorant to see the quality difference. I finally got that they are looking for a totally different experience than those on the production side are - just like I was before I got into the business. I try to take the viewer's viewpoint as often as possible now during production because I believe that's what will keep me in business doing what i love.
Rainer wrote on 2/24/2013, 3:26 PM
24p is for film transfer. Film is projected at (2X24)fps. Video can't be displayed at this rate on an ordinary computer or TV. People who display video at 24fps to get a standard film look are deluding themselves. Closest most of us can capture video to get a film look on video without special frame rates or being in a cinema (which is where most film look comes from anyway) is PAL 50fps, which can't ordinarily be displayed either. So it turns out the closest most of us can get to the cadence of film turns out to be (what's currently called) 50i. If you haven't got PAL, 60i is closest, where it gets subjective is if you think 30P looks more appealing.