Mp4 or Mov? 25fps or 50fps??

[ImJim]

As a cinematographer I use 1080p 24 fps in MP4.

 

[ImJim]

Lower fps(25) = brighter picture in Low Light because shutter is open longer takes in more light.
Higher fps(50) = not as good in Low Light because shutter is not open as long but is better for Slow Motion.

Read this in a GoPro3 manual.

That is a really simplistic way of explaining the relationship between electronic shutter speed and frame rate. I didn't say it wasn't correct but I see that GoPro does the best they can to make people "understand" how all that works.

 

[Crylion]

That is a really simplistic way of explaining the relationship between electronic shutter speed and frame rate. I didn't say it wasn't correct but I see that GoPro does the best they can to make people "understand" how all that

That is a really simplistic way of explaining the relationship between electronic shutter speed and frame rate. I didn't say it wasn't correct but I see that GoPro does the best they can to make people "understand" how all that works.

Yeah you're right I'm not sure about the low light part of my post either. The amount of light being let in should only be affected by shutter speed and aperture.

But higher Frame rate should help eliminate motion blur. So if you're moving/flying around you get less blur at say 60fps. If your stationary on tripod 25fps is ideal.

Can you explain why 24 or 25fps is better other than reduced file sizes?

 

[ImJim]

I wouldn't say there's a better option between 24 and 25 FPS, here in USA we should all use 24 fps NTSC, now saying 50 and 60 fps avoids motion blur is not false, but again simplistic and unclear. Actually, the electronic shutter which starts from 1/30 with most cameras (1/25 on the Phantom) goes up to a few 1/thousands (I.e 1/2000, 1/4000..).

The frame rate, while being something totally different from the shutter speed, is linked to it, but I would say "partially". For example, if you choose 60 fps, you won't be able to select less than 1/60, as the "refreshing" rate (to speak simply) has itself a speed of 1/60. You should always use 1/60 if you use 60 fps in order to avoid light flickering. These lights can come from street lamps, and most usual lights, that have a 50 Hz rate. Same thing if you use 24 fps : use 1/24 (rounded to 1/25) or a multiple of it : 1/48 (rounded to 1/50 in most cameras) and 1/100, to match the rate of the light sources.

Well, this was the "linked" part. Now, whatever your fps is, you can still go up to 1/8000. Shutter speed is basically the name of the physical movement of the shutter opening/closing to take a picture. (Pentamirror/prism reflex cameras, it exists since we created the first camera). The faster the speed is, the faster the light will pass through it till it reaches the sensor, as the shutter is a flap that opens then closes fast. Since, we reproduced this action electronically for video. At high settings, the "virtual" shutter "opens" and "closes" so fast that the movement captured between these two actions is "frozen" as the quick shutter (1/4000 or 1/8000) captured it at a 8000th of a second. That's tiny. That's why you often see photos where time looks frozen. Same thing applies to each frame of a video with electronical shutter. And that's why you see no motion blur, as each tiny movement is captured at 1/4000 of a second or more, each 24, 48, 50, 60 frames a second.

So if you don't want motion blur, you don't have to change your frame rate, simply set a higher shutter speed.
Remember that ISO (electronic light sensivity gain by the sensor) is also a major factor of "light amount" (to speak simply again). Aperture, shutter, ISO. These are the only three tings that will affect how a camera sees the world.

Maybe I'm not really clear, I'm currently in the bus with my phone, running out of battey soon!!

 

[Crylion]

I wouldn't say there's a better option between 24 and 25 FPS, here in USA we should all use 24 fps NTSC, now saying 50 and 60 fps avoids motion blur is not false, but again simplistic and unclear. Actually, the electronic shutter which starts from 1/30 with most cameras (1/25 on the Phantom) goes up to a few 1/thousands (I.e 1/2000, 1/4000..).

The frame rate, while being something totally different from the shutter speed, is linked to it, but I would say "partially". For example, if you choose 60 fps, you won't be able to select less than 1/60, as the "refreshing" rate (to speak simply) has itself a speed of 1/60. You should always use 1/60 if you use 60 fps in order to avoid light flickering. These lights can come from street lamps, and most usual lights, that have a 50 Hz rate. Same thing if you use 24 fps : use 1/24 (rounded to 1/25) or a multiple of it : 1/48 (rounded to 1/50 in most cameras) and 1/100, to match the rate of the light sources.

Well, this was the "linked" part. Now, whatever your fps is, you can still go up to 1/8000. Shutter speed is basically the name of the physical movement of the shutter opening/closing to take a picture. (Pentamirror/prism reflex cameras, it exists since we created the first camera). The faster the speed is, the faster the light will pass through it till it reaches the sensor, as the shutter is a flap that opens then closes fast. Since, we reproduced this action electronically for video. At high settings, the "virtual" shutter "opens" and "closes" so fast that the movement captured between these two actions is "frozen" as the quick shutter (1/4000 or 1/8000) captured it at a 8000th of a second. That's tiny. That's why you often see photos where time looks frozen. Same thing applies to each frame of a video with electronical shutter. And that's why you see no motion blur, as each tiny movement is captured at 1/4000 of a second or more, each 24, 48, 50, 60 frames a second.

So if you don't want motion blur, you don't have to change your frame rate, simply set a higher shutter speed.
Remember that ISO (electronic light sensivity gain by the sensor) is also a major factor of "light amount" (to speak simply again). Aperture, shutter, ISO. These are the only three tings that will affect how a camera sees the world.

Maybe I'm not really clear, I'm currently in the bus with my phone, running out of battey soon!!

No you've explained that all really well. I still want to know what advantages 24 fps has over 48 or 50 fps other than file size

 

[ImJim]

No you've explained that all really well. I still want to know what advantages 24 fps has over 48 or 50 fps other than file size

As every aspect in photography/videography, it all depends on what YOU want to do. If you plan to use the P3 to make a movie, then 24 fps is a perfect setting as it is the typical "cinematic" frame rate used in major production companies. Sometimes you can see on the TV some amateur series that look really smooth.. These are cams that run 50 or 60 fps, and that IS NOT what we call a professional look. So use 24 fps for a movie.

Higher frame rates can be used for slow-motion, it can look cool especially if you film skiers, surfers, or anything like that to make these nice smooth slow-mos. Other than that, I don't see why you should always use such high frame rates. I personally use 24 fps all the time, definetely my favorite frame rate.

 

[Crylion]

As every aspect in photography/videography, it all depends on what YOU want to do. If you plan to use the P3 to make a movie, then 24 fps is a perfect setting as it is the typical "cinematic" frame rate used in major production companies. Sometimes you can see on the TV some amateur series that look really smooth.. These are cams that run 50 or 60 fps, and that IS NOT what we call a professional look. So use 24 fps for a movie.

Higher frame rates can be used for slow-motion, it can look cool especially if you film skiers, surfers, or anything like that to make these nice smooth slow-mos. Other than that, I don't see why you should always use such high frame rates. I personally use 24 fps all the time, definetely my favorite frame rate.

That's cool man I get it. To many frames it looks abnormal with little motion blur and ability for great slow motion. However 24 is a standard for cinema and movies with less file size and adjustments to shutter speed can mitigate blur etc.

"When you see a video shot at 24 fps / 30 fps there are holes to fill and your brain automatically does this by literally creating stuff out of your imagination : also known as movie magic. The More frames you increase, the less you brain fills in, the less the “magic”.
So, Notice how the 48FPS video looks, Sped Up, Weird and almost too Real (in a Bad Way) ? That is called the Soap Opera Effect."
from:
http://wccftech.com/30fps-vs-60fps-30fps-better-story-telling-games/

 

[apsphoto]

Ok if 24fps is the norm, why to they state to use an shutter that is twice the frame rate. so for 24fps you would use close to 1/48 correct?

Alan

 

[ImJim]

"When you see a video shot at 24 fps / 30 fps there are holes to fill and your brain automatically does this by literally creating stuff out of your imagination : also known as movie magic. The More frames you increase, the less you brain fills in, the less the “magic”.
So, Notice how the 48FPS video looks, Sped Up, Weird and almost too Real (in a Bad Way) ? That is called the Soap Opera Effect."
from:
http://wccftech.com/30fps-vs-60fps-30fps-better-story-telling-games/

The human brain can only perceive 24 different frames a second, that's why you have the impression of a "surreal" video at 30 or more. Your brain can't differentiate each frame and sees it as a continuous flow of information that actually runs faster than it. This can be really pleasant for some people, they get a feeling of smoothness they find more relaxing to the eye - others (like me) find this pretty annoying and unprofessional especially from a filmmaker (I call that the director's eye / like when you have a good ear for music, you perceive good and bad things in a video automatically and instantly).

 

[ImJim]

Ok if 24fps is the norm, why to they state to use an shutter that is twice the frame rate. so for 24fps you would use close to 1/48 correct?

Alan

You're not supposed to do that. You can do what you want. I've seen something recurrent for the past years : people read advices, either from websites, people or brands themselves, and without searching more on the subject, memorize them and apply them as real "rules".

Doubling the shutter speed is simply a rule you can apply in order to avoid light flickering. For example, you're taking a video at night, in the middle of dozens of streetlamps. These lights - and most bulbs - have a rate of 50 Hz / 60 Hz in other countries. In order to "sync" the shutter speed with the speed of the bulbs, you need to have the same "refreshing" rate.

24, 25 fps = 1/25, 1/30, 1/50, 1/100

50 fps = 1/50, 1/100

100 fps = 1/100

Note that values above are rounded automatically by the camera.


Higher than 1/100, you get over the lightbulb's rate, and get more and more flickering when setting even higher values. In broad daylight, this rule isn't supposed to be applied as natural sunlight isn't from a lightbulb

Though, remember that for a cinematic effect, never go higher than 1/100 even in broad daylight, or the absence of motion blur will look unnatural and not movie-like. If the video is overexposed, buy a ND filter

 

[Kepana]

I am an amateur photographer. ImJim you have a great way of explaining thing so they make sense and don't talk down to folks about this stuff. A good friend of mine who is a photographer and pilot has tried to tell me the same things you stated above however, I just had a hard time wrapping my head around it. Now after reading this thread it makes clearer sense. Thanks for that.
So now I have a question for you, Sorry if I'm derailing the subject or hijacking the post. I just don't see a huge difference in 4K vs 1080p. All my TV's are 1080. My monitors will obviously do much higher resolution but for Youtube and the like 1080 seems more then adequate to me anyway. What are your thoughts on 4K vs 1080? I mostly do landscape photography and aerial stuff. But will be heading to the coast to film/photograph surfers.

 

[ImJim]

I am an amateur photographer. ImJim you have a great way of explaining thing so they make sense and don't talk down to folks about this stuff. A good friend of mine who is a photographer and pilot has tried to tell me the same things you stated above however, I just had a hard time wrapping my head around it. Now after reading this thread it makes clearer sense. Thanks for that.
So now I have a question for you, Sorry if I'm derailing the subject or hijacking the post. I just don't see a huge difference in 4K vs 1080p. All my TV's are 1080. My monitors will obviously do much higher resolution but for Youtube and the like 1080 seems more then adequate to me anyway. What are your thoughts on 4K vs 1080? I mostly do landscape photography and aerial stuff. But will be heading to the coast to film/photograph surfers.

Thanks bud, glad to know you understanded my (lame) explanations

Honestly I don't see why anyone should spend a few hundred dollars more to have 4K. Seriously, it will for sure make purists happy, but still, it is not a significant jump in video quality, especially for landscape shots. If you don't plan to do 2 or 3x digital crops on your videos, 4K is useless to me.

1) We don't all use 4k screens, you're a great example of that
2) We don't all have ultra-powerful computers that can handle directly 50-70,000 kbp/s raw videos without post-editing - compression
3) For personal/professional use, there's no point to use 4k as almost nobody will have a decent enough network to stream 4k via YouTube for example.

1080p is already outstandingly sharp, the lens itself is amazing, there's no any chromatic aberration, low distortion and great contrast. DJI didn't make any shortcut regarding SnD. Wow.

 

[sergekouper]

Thanks bud, glad to know you understanded my (lame) explanations

Honestly I don't see why anyone should spend a few hundred dollars more to have 4K. Seriously, it will for sure make purists happy, but still, it is not a significant jump in video quality, especially for landscape shots. If you don't plan to do 2 or 3x digital crops on your videos, 4K is useless to me.

1) We don't all use 4k screens, you're a great example of that
2) We don't all have ultra-powerful computers that can handle directly 50-70,000 kbp/s raw videos without post-editing - compression
3) For personal/professional use, there's no point to use 4k as almost nobody will have a decent enough network to stream 4k via YouTube for example.

1080p is already outstandingly sharp, the lens itself is amazing, there's no any chromatic aberration, low distortion and great contrast. DJI didn't make any shortcut regarding SnD. Wow.

Yep, but it's coming fast!
Just one thing about the soap opera thing, these programs are shot with proper TV Cameras, at 50i,(60i) which gives this liquid effect. Probably an old habit, but for a long time, production material for TV had to be shot this way. 50i (60i) is still "the" broadcast standard for TV, so it is not a "non professional " thing as you call it, simply a different way. 24P is for cine only, even if it's processed later to go on air.

 

[ImJim]

Yep, but it's coming fast!
Just one thing about the soap opera thing, these programs are shot with proper TV Cameras, at 50i,(60i) which gives this liquid effect. Probably an old habit to shoot this way, but for a long time, production material had to be shot this way. 50i (60i) is still "the" broadcast standard for TV, so it is not a "non professional " thing as you call it, simply a different way. 24P is for cine only, even if it's processed later to go on air.

You're absolutely right
I was just saying that such a high frame rate used for cine would be really annoying and unprofessional.

 

[Panther6834]

Lower fps(25) = brighter picture in Low Light because shutter is open longer takes in more light.
Higher fps(50) = not as good in Low Light because shutter is not open as long but is better for Slow Motion.

Except for one problem in this "analysis"...not only can you manually select the fps setting, but you can also manually set the shutter speed, as well as the (equivalent) ISO speed. On top of that, you can replace the stock UV filter with an ND and/or polarizing filter. There are times when you want a faster shutter speed, such as when doing photography...but, when shooting video, you actually want a slightly longer shutter speed. A good "rule of thumb" when shooting video is to set the shutter speed figure to twice that of the fps setting. If, for example, you're shooting at 30fps, a 1/60 shutter speed would be close to optimal, while a 1/100-1/120 shutter speed would be better when shooting at 60fps. Until I had to leave college (in my final year, no less), due to sever financial problems, I was a photography major, and during my time in school, I also took a film class (taught bu August Coppola, no less, who was head of SFSU's film department at the time).

 

[Wibble]

Well speaking personally I HATE 24fps they use in the cinema. Fast action scenes just become a blur like a character running in a cartoon.
I disagree that the human brain can't see the difference over 24fps. Mine certainly can and I think I am human just about.
One thing I have noticed. I get better quality using mov than I do with mp4. I have noticed bad moiré patterns in mp4 that aren't there with mov. This is when viewed on a variety of windows based PCs.

 

[Meta4]

One thing I have noticed. I get better quality using mov than I do with mp4. I have noticed bad moiré patterns in mp4 that aren't there with mov. This is when viewed on a variety of windows based PCs.

Are you viewing these on the same software?

 

[midiman]

Rule of thumb/guidline for filming is that the shutter speed should be twice the frame rate, if that helps. I find it tough to keep a slow enough shutter at lower fps, and have read a lot about the "stuttering" effect at low fps. I'm using an ND 8 filter and will prob get a 16 in order to experiment more with both. So far the 4K at the higher frame rate has produced stunning video, so any change to me will be in order to experiment and learn. H.264 mp4 seems to be the overwhelming favorite on forums and Youtube tutorials that I have seen.

 

[Wibble]

Are you viewing these on the same software?

This is when played back with media player classic or vlc on various PCs. I have a natural aversion to anything apple related but my early experience does show mov to have a lot less moiré.

 

[Meta4]

This is when played back with media player classic or vlc on various PCs. I have a natural aversion to anything apple related but my early experience does show mov to have a lot less moiré.

I haven't seen your samples, so can't be sure, but this sounds unlikely.
The file storage in .mov and .mp4 is identical. The files are just in a different container.
Could what you observe be due to individual issues with different files rather than the file format?
To check positively you would need to compare identical videos shot in both formats.