My big dilemma: do I shoot 59.94 or true 60 fps?

I’m new to video production and have purchased some BM gear including a studio camera 4K. BM seems to be one of the few vendors that offers us the choice of 59.94 fps or “true” 60 fps when shooting video. I’ve researched extensively and understand that (1) “60” usually means 59.94; (2) 59.94 is the result of the way NTSC video evolved; and (3) even though we can’t easily see the difference, 59.94 and 60 are different and don’t mix inside a BM switcher which requires all inputs to have the *exact* same resolution and frame rate. BM doesn’t offer any advice on this choice, so, before making a huge decision that is potentially very hard to change and/or deal with later if I’ve made the wrong choice I wanted to ask some experts… which do I choose and why?


Pre-requisites:

I’m shooting video to be live streamed and/or released over the web. People might watch on their phone, tablet, PC, Mac, or TV (via Roku or similar).

I don’t care about NTSC compatibility in the sense that I never expect my video to show up as a “real” TV show delivered over the air or via cable.

I *might* care about NTSC compatibility if it means my life will be easier for some reason.

My long term vision is to add an ATEM 4K switcher. In addition to my cameras I envision connecting sources like the HDMI output of my PC and my Mac, my iPhone and iPad. I may also want to switch to OTHER video, i.e. playing from the “media” stored on the switcher, which will most likely be 29.97 or 59.94.


PROS:

I’m leaning towards true 60p based on these pros:

Leaves the “legacy” of NTSC behind

Seems like a simpler “fresh start” for the modern age

Seems more “global” since 59.94 is an NTSC artifact and NTSC is only in some countries, and doesn’t seem to be required on the web at all (although maybe it is *everywhere* on the web since most cameras seem to be NTSC compatible).

Matches power frequency in the US and typical computer refresh rates which seems like it is maybe a good thing (although I’m not actually sure as my Windows 10 PC was set to 59.94 somehow, maybe since 59.94 is the dominant video format).


CONS:

I’m afraid of these cons:

I can’t easily mix with source footage shot on other cameras that only support 59.94. Few cameras support true 60 fps. I don’t have plans for mixing but who knows. I don’t know what I’d do if I did run into that.

I don’t want to run into an issue mixing frame rates when I get an ATEM 4K switcher someday. I’m not REALLY sure what frame rate is coming out of things like my PC and iOS devices… I’ve heard 59.94 and 60 and don’t know how to measure or confirm. I also don’t know if I can easily convert them to true 60 if they aren’t at true 60 (some future 4K decimator perhaps?).

I assume most people’s TVs refresh at 59.94 since most my prime audience is from NTSC countries (US and Japan) and don’t know if a true 60 fps signal comes through what will happen… does their screen refresh at 60 to match or stay at 59.94 and what happens to reconcile the difference? Does this affect quality or audio sync?

I don’t know if there are any other major vendors that offer the choice between 59.94 and 60 fps in their cameras. I love BM, but am I locking myself in?


Can anyone offer any advice? I’m afraid I’m missing a deal breaker I’ll regret later if I go with true 60 but my OCD self really likes the idea of true 60.

Thanks in advance for any replies!

Why shoot in either? High framerate has a very distinct look that people tend not to like, in my experience.

Why shoot in either? High framerate has a very distinct look that people tend not to like, in my experience.

Thanks for your reply. I require high frame rate for a number of reasons... the two biggest ones being (1) I like to be able to grab stills from the video and have found it easier to do that with higher frame rates, and (2) there may be fast motion stuff that I want to slow down for "instant replay" type scenes. This is not for cinematic films but for instructional videos where slow motion capability is key. I may even deliver in 30p, but 60p gives me the flexibility I want.

In your con list should be the fact that there is a lot of gear out there that shorthands 59.94 into 60 and are not actually 60.

59.94 is THE standard everywhere that it isn't 50. Which is not just the US. And it is actually 29.97 (see below)

I would strongly recommend sticking with 59.94 (29.97).

That said, and since you are new to this, I will point out a significant detail on the format. When we talk about a frame rate, a true Frame is a full raster of video. It includes every line. Interlaced video doesn't do this all at once, but in two Fields. 2 interlaced fields = one frame. In progressive scan, all lines are there on each pass, and so one field = one frame. All of that is fine and dandy, until you realize that some manufacturers don't really adhere to this long standing convention in their specs. Some just go by a field rate and call it a frame rate. Which is wrong, confusing, dishonest, and makes things seem stupid.

The end result of this is that MOST of the time, when a camera or the ATEM says it is 59.94, what they really mean is 59.94 interlaced fields - or 29.97 frames. But then you throw your footage into Adobe Premiere, and you will need to set your sequence settings up to 29.97 for editing, since they use the proper nomenclature. The biggest hassle isn't that some people are using the wrong terminology, it is that you don't always know for certain when they actually mean frames and when they mean fields. Just know that 95% of the time, 59.94i = 29.97i. Stupidity at its finest. Good luck the other 5% of the time.

Jack points out that "High framerate has a very distinct look that people tend not to like". I would speculate that he is talking about 59.94 Progressive scan, which is indeed, a high frame rate that people tend to not like - and mainly would use for video they want to slow down. Or he is properly going by the interlaced 29.97 standard, and not accounting for company's stupidity in calling it 59.94. But I suspect the former.

If you are progressive scan, i would recommend 29.97 frames (and fields).

Thanks Scott! That is a lot of good and helpful info!

there is a lot of gear out there that shorthands 59.94 into 60 and are not actually 60

Indeed... even as a newcomer, I have already seen my share of shorthanding as I've been doing research. It is actually very hard to find anyone talking about 59.94. It seems to be almost universally written as 60 when it is really 59.94.

59.94 is THE standard everywhere that it isn't 50

Yeah, this is what my practical side is telling my OCD side... I think you've just about convinced me 59.94 is the smart choice. But, then, why have true 60 fps at all? If 59.94 is THE standard, why would anyone choose to use true 60p? Is BM catering to some specific niche market by including true 60p?

Jack points out that "High framerate has a very distinct look that people tend not to like". I would speculate that he is talking about 59.94 Progressive scan, which is indeed, a high frame rate that people tend to not like - and mainly would use for video they want to slow down.

Correct, OP mentions "true 60p" which makes me think he is considering 3G-SDI framerates.

I would speculate that he is talking about 59.94 Progressive scan, which is indeed, a high frame rate that people tend to not like

Not sure what he was referring to, but I'm currently shooting 3840x2160 at 59.94 (progressive) for the exact reason you mentioned - to be able to slow it down when/if needed. And I'm shooting at 4K so I can crop out the perfect image I want at 1080p. I'll probably deliver the video in 1080p29.97.

Interesting that people don't like 59.94 progressive... I'd not heard of that before but will give that some consideration.

Correct, OP mentions "true 60p" which makes me think he is considering 3G-SDI framerates.

Sorry, I guess this is me inventing my own terminology. By "true 60p" I meant 60 progressive frames per second as opposed to 59.94 progressive frames per second which to me wasn't "really" 60p since it is slightly slower. As mentioned above, I'm shooting at 2160p59.94 (which I think means 59.94 progressive frames per second at 3840x2160 resolution). Since I'm new I'm trying to get all "12G SDI" stuff when possible.

He never used the p (that I see). He never specified interlaced or progressive.

If he wants to make sure he is doing a good format for long term use, 1080p29.97 is probably good, but isn't always something equipment can even handle, depending on what it is. A lot of stuff must use 1080i or 720p.

So, to be clear, you not only should choose a frame rate, but a resolution and whether it is progressive or interlaced.

Should you choose anything higher than 1080i29.97(59.94fields) or 720p59.94, you will have to double check and make sure that all gear you use is marked as 3G-SDI capable. Standard, older, HD-SDI tops out at 1080i29.97 or 720p59.94.

Just saw your response. Yeah, you will probably need more than 3G-SDI stuff for that high res stuff. Amazing how much stuff you can write, and miss significant details, isn’t it?

I am not the person to ask about specific stuff related to live switched productions of 4K video. I know some stuff about what I would need to get there, but I can’t do it. My infrastructure can’t handle it. 12G-SDI is a helluva signal. I love 4K for offline produced stuff. But live 4K requires significant infrastructure changes for anyone who already has a large working studio. I’d probably have to even replace all my coax. It would be a 100% rebuild, and I’m not even sure I could find an adequate router anywhere (and certainly not an affordable one) to match my needs.

But generally, I stick with my asssertion that 59.94 is preferable to 60, simply because of standards compatibility.

(Oh, and I was thinking about the “high frame rate” comments, and realized that I actually do like 720p59.94, which is truly 59.94 frames per second. Heck, I like it a lot better than 1080i29.97. So I retract my earlier comment on that. What I do personally hate with a passion is 24p video.)

Not sure what he was referring to, but I'm currently shooting 3840x2160 at 59.94 (progressive) for the exact reason you mentioned - to be able to slow it down when/if needed. And I'm shooting at 4K so I can crop out the perfect image I want at 1080p. I'll probably deliver the video in 1080p29.97.

If you need 12G-SDI, you're mostly limited to BMD gear anyway. If you're delivering 29.97, just shoot 59.94.

He never used the p (that I see). He never specified interlaced or progressive.

I think I had the "p" once but certainly not consistently, sorry about that. I thought interlaced was sort of a thing of the past but I guess it isn't... I'll try to be more specific in the future.

...for long term use, 1080p29.97 is probably good, but isn't always something equipment can even handle...

Since I'm new, I'm buying all "current" technology which as far as I've seen seems to always support progressive... I think I'll be ok here since I'm sort of a one-man show going from shooting to delivery with new equipment.

Just saw your response ... Amazing how much stuff you can write, and miss significant details, isn’t it?

Several of my earlier replies dropped in above after you'd already replied. Since I'm new, even though I'm replying immediately, my posts have to be approved so they are coming in batches but getting put above in the order I actually posted them. So, you didn't miss it, it wasn't there at the time!

Thanks again for all the great info!

If you're delivering 29.97, just shoot 59.94

Again, I think I was a little sloppy. I said I'd probably deliver 1080p29.97 only because my test shoot was 2160p59.94. I don't have a requirements to deliver in 1080p.29.97 and could just as easily deliver 1080p30 if I shoot my original footage in 2160p60... I just meant my final delivery would be at 1080p.

So, this has been very enlightening and I think really there is only one major open question in my mind. I mentioned above but it might have been missed due to my comments being delayed by approvals:

If 59.94 (p or i) are the most common standards, that is a clear reason to use it. But then why would anyone choose to use true 60p? Is BM catering to some specific niche market by including true 60p? They must have a reason and there must be people using it... the only explanation I've found is that it is easier to convert from 60p to 24p (not 28.98) for a "film look." Who are these people using 60p and why is it the right choice for them?

If 59.94 (p or i) are the most common standards, that is a clear reason to use it. But then why would anyone choose to use true 60p? Is BM catering to some specific niche market by including true 60p? They must have a reason and there must be people using it... the only explanation I've found is that it is easier to convert from 60p to 24p (not 28.98) for a "film look." Who are these people using 60p and why is it the right choice for them?

I don't know. I suspect it is for computer only stuff or weird applications that might prefer it, like sports venue big screens or maybe video game applications. It isn't really a broadcast standard.

It isn't really a broadcast standard.

...and I think that is the real answer. I just checked out the ATEM 4 M/E Broadcast Studio 4K switcher manual and it appears THERE IS NO 60p OPTION... so I've sent an email to BM to confirm but if that is in fact the case, then that's my answer. I hope to get one of those switchers one day and if their newest, top of the line switcher doesn't even include 60p, then it really isn't meant for live production.

As an aside, quite interestingly, I found a way to see what my potential future switcher sources are putting out. I did this by plugging them into my Web Presenter's HDMI input and looking at the screen on the front. By default, my iPhone and iPad both output 1080p59.94. In theory that is easily converted to 2160p59.94, although the only way I've seen so far is the pretty expensive Teranex AV... if anyone knows a better way I'm all ears. I've heard Decimator boxes are great but they don't seem to do 4K resolutions.

By default, even my Windows 10 PC came in as 1080i59.94 (yes that is i not p). Really weird since that PC is usual connected to a UHD monitor, running at 2160p30 (as reported by the TV notification when I plug the cable in). Maybe some HDMI handshake happened and the Web Presenter said it prefers 1080i59.94? Anyway, even though that default was weird, I was able to change the settings to output 2160p... at 29.97 or 30 fps but I assume with a better video card I could get 2160p59.94.

So, this is all supporting the (I guess now obvious) decision to go with 2160p59.94 since I think all my expected future equipment has the best chance of working together at that rate, it does seem to be THE standard, and the fear of attempting 60p and regretting it has only grown as a result of this discussion.

Thanks again to all!

The TV is converting the 1080i59.94 to 1080p29.97 and calling it 1080p30 (same issue as some manufacturers calling 1080p59.94, 1080p60). Everyone is correct, 1080i59.94 and 720p59.94 are the current HD Broadcast standards currently used by the major networks on NTSC (vs PAL which is an analog standard, not digital, and is used to describe regions in 50Hz power source using 50fps vs 60Hz).

As for true 1080p60 or 2160p60, is is an overcrank Speed used mainly for Cine 24fps delivery, to create slow mention, in addition to 120fps and now 240fps. 1080p50.94 is an alternative Broadcast standard, and is also used for slowmo for web or DVD delivery at a 29.94 frame rate.

BM supports true 60 and 120 frame rates for cine slow motion shooting, while the prosummer Video Camera market is more at broadcast standards 1080p50/59.94.

So pick the frame rate based on how yiur program is going g to be viewed or distributed. For web, 29.94 or 59.94 is best.
Cheers

Thanks Denny for confirmation on both the reason for 59.94 being my best bet and why others rightfully choose true 60p. Makes sense. I'd actually saw that "overcranking" term and didn't know what it was so this is great info.

Btw, for anyone reading this later, I mentioned above wanting to upconvert 1080p59.94 to 2160p59.94 so I could connect devices like my iPhone and iPad to a BM switcher (which require all inputs to be the same frame rate and resolution). I mentioned the pretty expensive BM Teranex AV but apparently BM's Teranex Mini HDMI to SDI 12G also does upconverting. So, it looks like 1080p59.94 to 2160p59.94 can be had for a very reasonable price.

...and I think that is the real answer. I just checked out the ATEM 4 M/E Broadcast Studio 4K switcher manual and it appears THERE IS NO 60p OPTION... so I've sent an email to BM to confirm but if that is in fact the case, then that's my answer. I hope to get one of those switchers one day and if their newest, top of the line switcher doesn't even include 60p, then it really isn't meant for live production.

I have one and can tell you there's no 60p option. As far as that being a problem, it's not.

As far as that being a problem, it's not.

Indeed. When I say "it really isn't meant for live production" I mean "2160p60 isn't meant for live production" not the ATEM switcher... so definitely not a problem. Thanks for confirming 2160p60 does in fact not exist. Problem solved!

And to add even more confirmation, here is what I heard back from BM support just now:

Our ATEM switchers only support broadcast standard deliverable signals and is the reason 59.94 is supported. The Blackmagic Studio 4K camera supports both 59.94 and 60, however 59.94 is a broadcast signal. The camera was given the option of 60, in case the user wishes to use a 3rd party switcher or a different device that doesn't support 59.94. It was added to provide the customer with more options.

Interlace 29.97 has exactly the same temporal motion as 59.94progressive. The only difference is that interlace only records or transmits a field not a full frame so is half the vertical resolution. The time code for interlace is 29.97 which coincides with the sync pulse for the interlace sequence to tell downstream equipment ( including CRT TV ) which field type it is getting, odd then even. The thing to remember though is that although this is called 29.97 fps the camera is actually exposing 59.94 exposures a sec exactly the same as 59.94P . Hence the fact that the temporal motion is the same. So shooting 59.94P gives the TV look that everyone is used to and makes it really easy to get an interlaced output for DVD or Bluray.

I for one like this real look and shoot all my video at 59.94 and do not like the juddering background etc of slow frame rates. Another benefit of shooting 59.94 is if you really want the slow frame rate look it is easy to move to 29.97P with no issues just put in a 30P timeline on most NLE's and the NLE will drop every other frame. You also have the option of 2:1 slowmotion.

Not necessarily. It depends upon whether the sensor is progressive or interlaced. 59.94i from a 29.97p sensor will look more like 29.97p even at 59.94i. No progressive sensor is ever going to look like true interlaced regardless of the TX or recording standard.

In your con list should be the fact that there is a lot of gear out there that shorthands 59.94 into 60 and are not actually 60.

59.94 is THE standard everywhere that it isn't 50. Which is not just the US. And it is actually 29.97 (see below)

I would strongly recommend sticking with 59.94 (29.97).

That said, and since you are new to this, I will point out a significant detail on the format. When we talk about a frame rate, a true Frame is a full raster of video. It includes every line. Interlaced video doesn't do this all at once, but in two Fields. 2 interlaced fields = one frame. In progressive scan, all lines are there on each pass, and so one field = one frame. All of that is fine and dandy, until you realize that some manufacturers don't really adhere to this long standing convention in their specs. Some just go by a field rate and call it a frame rate. Which is wrong, confusing, dishonest, and makes things seem stupid.

The end result of this is that MOST of the time, when a camera or the ATEM says it is 59.94, what they really mean is 59.94 interlaced fields - or 29.97 frames. But then you throw your footage into Adobe Premiere, and you will need to set your sequence settings up to 29.97 for editing, since they use the proper nomenclature. The biggest hassle isn't that some people are using the wrong terminology, it is that you don't always know for certain when they actually mean frames and when they mean fields. Just know that 95% of the time, 59.94i = 29.97i. Stupidity at its finest. Good luck the other 5% of the time.

Jack points out that "High framerate has a very distinct look that people tend not to like". I would speculate that he is talking about 59.94 Progressive scan, which is indeed, a high frame rate that people tend to not like - and mainly would use for video they want to slow down. Or he is properly going by the interlaced 29.97 standard, and not accounting for company's stupidity in calling it 59.94. But I suspect the former.

If you are progressive scan, i would recommend 29.97 frames (and fields).

The absolute vast majority of manufacturers, and pretty much everyone in the industry will incorrectly list the field rate instead of the frame rate. When you see the shorthand 1080i@59.94, it should actually be written as 1080i@29.97, however the latter is more confusing to most because 99%+ manufacturers use the incorrect way.

Not necessarily. It depends upon whether the sensor is progressive or interlaced. 59.94i from a 29.97p sensor will look more like 29.97p even at 59.94i. No progressive sensor is ever going to look like true interlaced regardless of the TX or recording standard.

On the GH5 you can choose the sensor output to be 29.94 progressive or 59.97 when shooting AVCHD interlace to either get the standard interlace look of TV ( the 59.97 ) or the progressive 29.97 look encapsulated in the interlace stream. In post it is always possible to get interlace 59.97 interlace from a 59.97P source. I do that all the time, the NLE just takes a field from the frame.

GH5 information on its recording modes

at about 1 min into the video