18fps vs. 24fps for project
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:39 pm
- Contact:
18fps vs. 24fps for project
I'm making my final film for school this semester, and am shooting on K40, but I have never shot a sound film with S8. What is everyone's thoughts on 18 fps versus 24 fps, as far as what it looks like and how well sound sync's up to 18 versus 24, when both are converted into 30fps for computer editing?
I want to shoot in 18 fps, because of film economy, as well as the fact that the "look" of old Super 18 was because it was filmed at 18fps. My concern, though, is when it is stretched to thirty frames, I'll have a lot of sound synch problems.
I want to shoot in 18 fps, because of film economy, as well as the fact that the "look" of old Super 18 was because it was filmed at 18fps. My concern, though, is when it is stretched to thirty frames, I'll have a lot of sound synch problems.
Yes, If you maintain frame discretion then it will look choppy. But if the stretched frames share video fields from two different film frames then the action will be smoothed out but you will loose sharpness in those frames.sunrise wrote:Only problem is movement, but with modern computer technology stretching can be quite good.
michael
- steve hyde
- Senior member
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:57 am
- Real name: Steve Hyde
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
another thought regarding 18 vs. 24 fps is the out put medium. If you plan to go all analog that is one thing. If you plan to have it professionally transferred to digital you might find 18fps is not an economical advantage since transfer time is by usually charged by the hour... 24fps gives a richer look.
- Uppsala BildTeknik
- Senior member
- Posts: 2261
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:20 am
- Location: Sweden, Alunda
- Contact:
Isn´t it supposed to look a little bit choppy?Yes, If you maintain frame discretion then it will look choppy.
Old films shot with 18 or 16 fps are not so smooth, if you want the "smoothnes" of old films choppy might be better than smooth.
Kent Kumpula - Uppsala Bildteknik AB
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/
- Rick Palidwor
- Senior member
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:02 am
- Real name: Rick Palidwor
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
If you are shooting sound to sync later shoot 24. 18fps telecine results in a flicker so what most places call "18fps transfer" is in fact 20fps, so sound is out of sync immediately. 24 fps footage can be transferred at 24 so you don't have this problem. Of course, the cameras can still drift around a little, so sync may not be perfect, but with 18 you are guaranteed to have problems over and above everything else. Also definitely slate the shots at top AND bottom.
Rick
Rick
If that is the look that you are going for then, yes, it is supposed to look choppy. But if you are trying to get the best of both worlds: ecomony at 18 fps and not wanting it to look like it was shot at 18 fps you cannot have frame discretion. Otherwise you will have something like 3 frames + 2 duplicate frames or whatever formula is incorporated in the stretch.Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:Isn´t it supposed to look a little bit choppy?Yes, If you maintain frame discretion then it will look choppy.
Old films shot with 18 or 16 fps are not so smooth, if you want the "smoothnes" of old films choppy might be better than smooth.
- Rick Palidwor
- Senior member
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:02 am
- Real name: Rick Palidwor
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
It was shot at 18 fps but economy was not the main reason. We do our own telecine and we did not have the 5-bladed shutter required to transfer at 24 and they are not easy to find (or are they??). We were impatient to get started so we went ahead at 18 and dealt with all the consequences (actually our sound team dealt with the consequences and they are probably still cursing us). On the picture side 24 would be better as well. Someone did a test for us, putting a minute of dv footage to 35mm. There were a lot of motion artifacts. If a 35 release ever became an option (not likely now) we would have been screwed.Actor wrote:Wasn't Sleep Always shot at 18fps, and for the same reason, economy?
Of course we enjoyed the economy of 18, and the extra light, but for a big project like that I would do it 24 fps next time.
Rick
- Justin Lovell
- Senior member
- Posts: 1319
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:52 pm
- Real name: justin lovell
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
- Rick Palidwor
- Senior member
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:02 am
- Real name: Rick Palidwor
- Location: Toronto
- Contact: