24 FPS VS 18 FPS

[EyeSpy88]

Hey everyone, new shooter here. I've got a beginner question that I was hoping you folks could help shed some light on. I want to get the best image quality I can out of my Nikon R10 so initially I was thinking about shooting at 24 fps but I've read that 18 fps works just fine. How much of a difference is there between shooting at 18 fps and 24 fps? And in what situation would I be more likely to use these speeds?

Regards
Jeremy

[carllooper]

Traditionally 24 fps was for sound, and 18 fps for silent. The faster rate for sound was to ensure the sound quality was acceptable.

Motion is marginally better at 24 fps. And if transferring to digital, 24 fps tends to be a more compatible frame rate. However a great benefit of 18 fps is that you get about a minute more shooting time per cart. 18 fps also gives you slightly more light with which to expose the film.

Other than those considerations one can flip a coin to decide.

C

[Will2]

The best thing to do would be to shoot a cartridge at 18fps, transfer it with your preferred telecine, then do another cartridge at 24fps and transfer that one. See which one you like.

Usually if you shoot at 18, frames are added in to make it play at the right speed at 24 (or 30) fps. So part of this question is how you telecine the footage. I've always found that shooting at 24fps, scanning & playing back (and editing) at 24fps was the smoothest motion and most natural. But you really need to try it yourself to see what your tastes are.

I used to transfer everything to miniDV so if I shot at 24 it would add frames to make it 29.97 so a similar ghosting motion would happen. Haven't done that for many years so I haven't thought of it. It wasn't really that bad, just something I could notice a little.

[EyeSpy88]

Traditionally 24 fps was for sound, and 18 fps for silent. The faster rate for sound was to ensure the sound quality was acceptable.

Motion is marginally better at 24 fps. And if transferring to digital, 24 fps tends to be a more compatible frame rate. However a great benefit of 18 fps is that you get about a minute more shooting time per cart. 18 fps also gives you slightly more light with which to expose the film.

Other than those considerations one can flip a coin to decide.

C

Very enlightening. Thank you for the words of wisdom. I guess for now I will practice at 18 fps so I can squeeze more footage per roll. But I'll be using 24 fps once I've got the hang of it as I definitely want to get the smoothest motion possible as well as the ability to utilize sound. Thanks.

Regards
Jeremy

[EyeSpy88]

The best thing to do would be to shoot a cartridge at 18fps, transfer it with your preferred telecine, then do another cartridge at 24fps and transfer that one. See which one you like.

Usually if you shoot at 18, frames are added in to make it play at the right speed at 24 (or 30) fps. So part of this question is how you telecine the footage. I've always found that shooting at 24fps, scanning & playing back (and editing) at 24fps was the smoothest motion and most natural. But you really need to try it yourself to see what your tastes are.

I used to transfer everything to miniDV so if I shot at 24 it would add frames to make it 29.97 so a similar ghosting motion would happen. Haven't done that for many years so I haven't thought of it. It wasn't really that bad, just something I could notice a little.

Will2, thank you for the suggestion. I hadn't even considered the effect speed would have on telecine. As a beginner I'm shooting on Tri-X Reversal for immediate projection, to better critique my camerawork. I'll definitely have to keep that in mind when it comes time to telecine. Thanks for the help.

Regards
Jeremy

[BAC]

Shooting at 24fps for sound quality only applies if you are watching the film through a projector. The old super 8 sound film had a magnetic stripe that recorded the sound and played it back on the projector. Super 8 sound film is no-longer available unless you find someone to add a magnetic stripe. If you are digitizing the film and then adding sound it won't make any difference what speed you shoot the film at as far as sound quality goes.

[EyeSpy88]

Shooting at 24fps for sound quality only applies if you are watching the film through a projector. The old super 8 sound film had a magnetic stripe that recorded the sound and played it back on the projector. Super 8 sound film is no-longer available unless you find someone to add a magnetic stripe. If you are digitizing the film and then adding sound it won't make any difference what speed you shoot the film at as far as sound quality goes.

BAC, thanks for the insight. I think I'm starting to get the idea here. It would be cool if I could find someone who does magnetic striping. Does anyone know of a place?

Regards
Jeremy

[nikonr10]

Shooting at 24fps for sound quality only applies if you are watching the film through a projector. The old super 8 sound film had a magnetic stripe that recorded the sound and played it back on the projector. Super 8 sound film is no-longer available unless you find someone to add a magnetic stripe. If you are digitizing the film and then adding sound it won't make any difference what speed you shoot the film at as far as sound quality goes.

BAC, thanks for the insight. I think I'm starting to get the idea here. It would be cool if I could find someone who does magnetic striping. Does anyone know of a place?

Regards
Jeremy

I think you find it go's back to the day's of good old Lenny Lipton and shooting at 24fps for sound As he did write the bible for super 8 film making ,. There was someone in spain that put magnetic stripe on film sometime back ?
Any way good luck with that nice beast of a camera !

[EyeSpy88]

nikonr10, thank you for the words of encouragement. Just checked out Lenny Lipton. Wow, what a prolific career as a filmmaker and writer. Not to mention writing the lyrics to 'Puff the Magic Dragon' at 19. You learn something new everyday!

[Andreas Wideroe]

I shoot all my Super8 either with 24fps or 25fps (which my Nizo Pro supports).

/Andreas

[Nicholas Kovats]

EyeSpy88,

It is not worth your efforts to apply magnetic stripes as the application and precision necessary were best left to manufactures as Kodak and Fuji. The homemade solutions were prone to peeling. Someone may correct me but I believe the DIY processes were toxic.

[MovieStuff]

I think it depends on how you intend to display the footage electronically. If you are in the Americas or Japan, then you would be dealing with a time base of 60 interlaced fields or possibly 24 progressive frames. If you going to telecine to 60 fields, then you would actually be better to shoot at 18fps and have it transferred at 20fps. The 2fps difference in speed is imperceptible to the eye and 20 frames will subdivide against 60 fields perfectly with no judder or staggered motion on pans or action compared to subdividing 24 frames against 60 fields with a 3:2 pulldown. But if you are going to telecine to 24p, then obviously shooting at 24fps will play smoother without any visible interlacing or motion artifacts from duplicated fields. If you are in Europe then you could shoot at 24/25fps and telecine at 25fps and enjoy the same benefit as 24p. Of course, all this presumes you are going to scan your footage and not simply project the original, in which case you might as well shoot at 18fps and enjoy the savings in film cost.

My two cents....

Roger

[sciolist]

EyeSpy88,

It is not worth your efforts to apply magnetic stripes as the application and precision necessary were best left to manufactures as Kodak and Fuji. The homemade solutions were prone to peeling. Someone may correct me but I believe the DIY processes were toxic.

Nicholas,

I'm sure there have been problems of the kind you describe, but magnetic sound stripe I applied to Super 8 films I made forty-five to fifty-five years ago is still in place and still reproduces sound I recorded on it. I used a Weberling striper that wasn't difficult to operate. These stripers turn up occasionally on eBay and, in my view, they're more desirable than other brands. Liquid laminates may have been toxic, but unless a user decided to bathe in or drink the adhesive I'm reasonably sure operation of the Weberling striper was relatively risk-free (I'm still here).

Glenn

[EyeSpy88]

Thanks everyone for your input. From what I've been hearing, 24 fps sounds like the best way to go for two reasons; it provides a slightly smoother motion, and is a more convenient speed to telecine. For now however, I believe 18 fps is perfect for me as a beginner. As carllooper said, the slower speed will give me more light to expose my film with. Also, I was planning to develop my Tri-X B&W Reversal film myself using the Caffenol-C method. This way after the bleach stage, (which I can skip if I want a negative for scanning), I can immediately put the film through a projector and make some critical notes. Of course as I progress I will be looking to use color film at 24 fps and sending my work to a lab for development or telecine. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Caffenol developers? Anyone have any experience with them?

Regards
Jeremy

[Will2]

My two cents....

Roger

Oh, like you know anything about telecine?

Never thought of the 20 fps transfer thing...great idea.