Thinking of switching to 30 fps, any cons to this?

Really like the reduction of judder and don’t perceive a reduction in cinema. Don’t have the overall experience to fully evaluate this decision. Am looking for possible problems.

you are free to do whatever looks best to you.
Though, there is a reason 24fps is a standard in cinema. Motion cadence can be altered by shutter angle to fit more your style.
I know when I first started out I was shooting 30fps on a Canon 5D Mkiii, as I was mostly doing interviews that would show up on big screens that were throttled at 30fps. It just made sense to me.
But now that I'm living in 23.976 for the majority of my career, it simply looks the best to my eyes.

Though, there is a reason 24fps is a standard in cinema.

Synchronized optical sound tracks.

Well, that was the main reason 100 years ago, but it's not the reason today, when any frame rate is possible with digital projection. The non-realistic motion rendering of 24/23.976 has had enduring appeal. More temporal data has not proven to be "better" for dramatic material. And not for lack of trying.

My event recordings are not destined for the theatre, so I always shoot 30 fps. But for theatrical release 24/25 fps depending upon your region.

Am looking for possible problems.

• You'll be generating about 25% more data per second, so just make sure you account for that when you buy storage.
• If you want to shoot slow-motion, you'll need to overcrank to higher FPSes to get the same effect. For example: If you want something to move at half speed when your project base is 24FPS, then you'd overcrank to 48FPS; if your project's base is 30FPS, then you'd have to overcrank to 60FPS; etc.
• Cinema has been shot at 24 or 25FPS with a 180˚ shutter for well over a century at this point, so audiences are locked in to a particular rendition of motion. Even if folks won't be able to put their finger on it, it will look different.

And that's about it, honestly. If you're confident that you'll never have to worry about theatrical distribution, there aren't a ton of drawbacks in the digital age. Go nuts.

u/eric1240 wrote:

[For movies and TV shows 24 frames per second or 30fps is common. Some TV’s can create fake frames for smoother motion, but it’s not always well implemented, and there can be artifacts. People don’t always like it. When I watch YouTube videos I use an application called SmoothVideo Project to render new frames.

…computer monitors and phones typically refresh at 60hz regardless of country. One reason why people might film YouTube videos at 24fps is to match the frame rate movies are recorded and displayed in theaters. However, our phones and monitors don’t work like movie projectors. If your monitor refreshes at 60hz then 24fps mismatches the frame rate. If the frame rate isn’t a divisible number like 30fps or 120fps where frames are either duplicated or dropped then the frame cadence will be off and you will experience judder. Rtings.com has an article about judder. Their article lists TV’s that might be able to compensate for judder depending on the video source. 24fps is evenly divisible with refresh rates like 120hz and 240hz. For 120hz 24fps a single frame would be displayed for 5 refreshes.

…People’s phones, monitors, and TVs are often 60hz or 120hz. Many people stream movies on their computers web browsers which wouldn’t compensate for judder. If people end up watching movies at home more then it’s possible it could make sense to film at least at 30fps so there is no judder.

John also says 24fps might give a less realistic appearance and creates a feeling of fantasy. It’s possible some detachment would be good for things like action films. I wonder if people could get genuine trauma if action scenes are too real.]

r/videography 7/16/22 u/eric1240
My Opinion on Frame Rate, Shutter Speed, Refresh Rate, and LED Flicker

https://www.reddit.com/r/videography/co ... d_refresh/

What's the purpose of 24fps instead of 30fps?
Here is an article that should help explain this.

"...most displays have refresh rates of 60Hz

...You are probably watching it on a display with 60Hz refresh. Notice that the motion isn’t smooth. It’s jerky. That’s because to get 24fps to display properly on a 60Hz display, you have to vary the speed. If you do the math, you can figure out that you need to show one frame twice and the next frame three times to get the 24 frames into a 60Hz refresh. This is called 3:2 pulldown. The irregular motion pattern it produces is called judder.

...This problem is all because 60 is not an even multiple of 24. A display with 120Hz refresh can correctly display 24fps footage by showing each frame five times. (120/24=5). That’s the lowest standard refresh rate that works.

Judder gets even worse when you try to integrate 24fps footage into a 30fps production."

http://digifonics.com/24-fps.html

r/cinematography Purpose of 30fps instead of 24fps?

https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography ... _of_24fps/

jojpol OP wrote:

[What if my display is 240Hz? It is still showing the judder similar to my 60Hz monitor.
I've seen a lot of 24fps videos on YouTube with similar pans, and even though the judder is there, it is a fraction of mine. Are those videographers using different camera settings?

If you shoot at 6K, the rolling shutter readout is not good on the BMPCC 6K. You should use gyro stabilization since it takes the readout speed into account.]

r/blackmagicdesign 12/10/23 u/tu_servilleta
Smooth handheld shots with a BMPCC 6K

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmagicdesi ... _bmpcc_6k/

Thank you all for taking the time to comment. Quite a few things to consider here. Another snag is that 30fps is somewhat non-standard. Not all my cameras will run at 30fps, some are 29.976 and others are 30. I end up with a quite a few files that are drop frame on the timeline. That's not optimal either. All things to think about.

A Brief History of Frame Rates and 30 FPS

During the silent era, filmmakers typically shot at frame rates between 16 and 18 frames per second (FPS). This was largely dictated by perceived motion—what the human eye considered smooth movement—while also keeping film costs down. Since there was no need to sync sound, cinematographers had some flexibility, and projectionists would often adjust playback speeds as needed.

When synchronized sound became standard in the late 1920s, the industry had to settle on a fixed frame rate. The key requirement was finding the minimum viable frame rate that ensured both smooth motion and reliable audio synchronization while minimizing film consumption (since film was expensive and the more frames per second, the more footage was needed per reel). The industry settled on 24 FPS because it was the lowest frame rate that could effectively support sync sound and still look natural.

However, 30 FPS was also considered early on, and it was actually used in some experimental film and early television broadcasts in the U.S. The main reason it didn’t become the standard for cinema was cost—shooting at 30 FPS consumed more film per second, reducing the total runtime per 1,000-foot reel:
• 1,000 feet of 35mm film (4-perf) at 24 FPS = ~11 min 6 sec
• 1,000 feet at 30 FPS = ~8 min 53 sec

This difference mattered significantly in production, where film stock, development, and duplication were major expenses.

Meanwhile, Europe largely adopted 25 FPS, particularly for television, because it synchronized well with the 50Hz electrical grid used in many countries. This provided smoother playback for CRT televisions without flickering issues.

The Shift to Digital and 30 FPS

With the advent of digital cinematography, storage and data rates replaced film stock as the limiting factor. 30 FPS (or even higher) became more viable since digital media isn’t consumed in the same way as physical film. However, legacy standards persist, and 24 FPS remains dominant in cinema because of its established “cinematic look”, which audiences are accustomed to.

30 FPS has historically been more common in television, particularly in the U.S., because it aligns with the 60Hz refresh rate of North American electrical systems. Many video cameras (especially consumer-grade models) default to 30 FPS for this reason.

Ultimately, switching to 30 FPS today depends on the intended look and medium:
• It offers a slightly smoother motion feel than 24 FPS, but it can also make footage look more like television or high-frame-rate video (sometimes called the “soap opera effect”).
• In gaming and sports broadcasting, higher frame rates like 30, 60, or even 120 FPS are often used to enhance motion clarity.
• Some filmmakers are experimenting with 48 FPS or 60 FPS for cinema (e.g., The Hobbit, Gemini Man), though the results have been divisive.

Conclusion

The decision to use 30 FPS depends on historical precedent, artistic intent, and practical considerations. While digital technology removes the film stock limitation that initially made 30 FPS impractical, the ingrained visual language of cinema still favors 24 FPS for most narrative filmmaking.

It's pretty easy to conform all the 29.97 clips to straight 30 in the Clip Attributes.
If you are not aiming at broadcast, who needs that crooked frame rate?

I'll note as someone who was on set of Gemini Man and sat in on the dailies: 120 FPS looked great in several instances. However, it was initially jarring due to how different it was from regular 24 FPS.

120 FPS was chosen for simple divisible to 24 FPS. 360° Shutter Angle was used because it was identical to 60 FPS and 180° Shutter Angle in terms of shutter speed.

Ultimately audiences did not respond well to the 120 FPS versions, nor the 60 FPS versions of the movie. It ended up getting the same criticisms that The Hobbit got for doing 48 FPS.

So, although 30 FPS is acceptable for television as a whole, it doesn't get as much love for cinema. Sadly, at this stage of the game, 24 FPS is too ingrained as the standard for motion picture filmmaking.

If I know the display will handle it, and I want the 24 fps look, I prefer to shoot in 29.97 fps, and then convert it to 24 fps for the final render. The software extracts every 6th frame to do this, and re-times the sequence to eliminate a jump in motion.

What you don't want to do is shoot at 24 fps, and then deliver in 29.97 or 30 fps to deal with the judder. It will look weird, since one frame will be duplicated every second.

John also says 24fps might give a less realistic appearance and creates a feeling of fantasy. It’s possible some detachment would be good for things like action films. I wonder if people could get genuine trauma if action scenes are too real.]

I saw an indie film a while back that was screened at 4K 120fps in black and white. Wasn't action, was dialog heavy drama. Despite the lack of color, it felt intensely personal and intimate.

High frame rate action works just fine, it's easier to track the motion, less blur, etc.. But sitting in on a personal conversation in a restaurant in this black and white film (I can't for the life of me think of the title) was such a revelation.

What I have not seen yet, but would love to, is an uncomfortable comedy, where the humor comes from the anxiety of a social situation. I'd love to know if the high frame rate intensified that feeling even more.

Well, I even went to our nearby state capital to see the "Hobbit" in 48 fps. I was deeply disappointed. While it wasn't the greatest one of the series anyway, I felt like watching a stage through a well-cleaned window, with some actors in funny costumes behind that.

Soon after I watched the James Bond of that year in 24 fps and was enjoying it, even if the stories are usually quite predictable by now.

But going to 30 is a good solution with so many personal screens out there that can't handle 24 properly.

... I'd love to know if the high frame rate intensified that feeling even more.

Would be interesting to see. What is art? My easy answer is that “art has a frame around it” which cinema provides. And borrowed from Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817, art requires a “willing suspension of disbelief.” It’s part of the cinema experience to see film in 24/25 fps. So you might find 120 fps is just too real at a subliminal level to enjoy the art.

I wonder if Steve Yedlin has examined the effects of high frame rate after his other investigative efforts.

Let's not forget Showscan. Thanks to ChatGPT:

Douglas Trumbull’s Showscan was a high-frame-rate (HFR) film system running at 60 FPS on 70mm film, designed to enhance realism by reducing motion blur and strobing. The result was a hyper-realistic, immersive image—what Trumbull called a “window onto reality.”

However, Showscan never gained traction due to high film costs, projection limitations, and audience resistance to its ultra-smooth look. While it failed commercially, it influenced later HFR experiments like The Hobbit (48 FPS), Gemini Man (120 FPS), and Trumbull’s own MAGI system (4K 3D at 120 FPS).

Today, HFR remains divisive—technologically viable but artistically debated.

So there you have it. We continually experiment with higher frame rates. Yet, no one has gained popularity with any of the experimental formats.

Just like 3D in cinema.

Just like 3D in cinema.

Yeah, it comes around every 30-years like Pennywise the Clown.

I still love the 3D format. But I understand audiences fatigue of it. Done well it can really add to the film.

I've partially given up on 3D. But will enjoy the occasional work that intentionally uses it like the Avatar films.

I just don't know if James Cameron will continue with HFR for those. He may as he does want to push it.

... Don’t have the overall experience to fully evaluate this decision. Am looking for possible problems.

Well, there you have it. A seemingly innocent question ends up with a film school lesson. Interesting.

Should I tempt fate and remind everyone that I often shoot theatrical performances with a 360 degree shutter angle. I know it’s mischievous of me, offensive to some, but I like it. Now I’ll scurry back into my editing cave, before another storm hits!

If Michael Mann can do it for “Collateral”, why shouldn’t you too?
He did it for artistic reasons: he wanted to shoot some night exteriors with available light, and the cameras of the time were not up to it.
I’d also support some film schooling in this subforum. After all, I hope we don’t discuss tech for techs sake only.

.... a “willing suspension of disbelief.” ...

Is this not a double negative? and... does it even make sense? How about a willing suspension of belief? which seems to me more in line to what dramatic cinema aims.

In any event I would suggest that anything (including any frame rate) can be used, but as with any other element should be intentionally applied with a purpose. Sometimes those things are successful, sometimes not. The more the purposes of all the elements are consistent with the intent, the more likely that cinematic story will have success.

I live in the realm of documentary/reality, that fuzzy space of looking through a window with a cinematic flair. The issue I am struggling with is rapid panning as exemplified with using a slider or drone. Distant objects display pronounced judder which is distracting. I am going to try something different. I am going to set the camera for 23.9fps at a 200° shutter angle for those type of shots. In my mind those shots may just benefit from something a bit more "dreamy" with less judder. Given most shots today are at or under four seconds it shouldn't impart PTSD on my audience. I am also experimenting with changing the clip playback speed in metadata from 30fps to 29fps. It appears that DR is accepting that change as the "df" is dropped in the metadata. Obviously I'm trying to avoid the drop frame every 41 seconds and accepting any sync issues. To date, these are all "B" roll shots where no audio is used.

Is this not a double negative?

Only if it's in your nature to assume fiction is fact.

Some other tidbits for comparison.

US TV has historically shot 1/60th with a 360 degree shutter which is true of both 1080i and 720/1080p60.

An advantage of 30 is playback consistency. Every TV is going to handle the 24-30 or 24-60 conversion a little differently, some better than others. Most folks have never even seen true 24P on a TV an I'll admit when you do it looks a little broken at first.

30 is the stepchild between film and TV. I think if you want the footage to slant film you shoot 180 shutter, if you want it to skew towards the real shoot 360.

Good Luck

Obviously I'm trying to avoid the drop frame every 41 seconds and accepting any sync issues.

No actual frames are dropped in drop frame, just numbers. 29.97df and 29.97ndf are the same frame rate but drop frame drops a number every 1000 frames. 30 is always non drop.

23.98 and 24.00 should both be ndf, Resolve won't allow the creation of a 23.98df timeline.

Good Luck

.... a “willing suspension of disbelief.” ...

Is this not a double negative? and... does it even make sense? How about a willing suspension of belief? which seems to me more in line to what dramatic cinema aims...

Think about Peter Pan. Think about Alice in Wonderland. Think most about The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe.

These are extreme examples to help clarify how art works. Do we believe a boy who never ages can fly like a bird? Do we believe there’s a world of illogic down a rabbit hole? Do we believe the fate of humanity is fought behind a closet door? No of course not.

That’s our disbelief. But aren’t we thrilled to fly with the boy, aren’t we giddy with the possibilities of following a rabbit, and aren’t we transfixed by the life-defining struggle of good versus evil? Of course we are. That’s the suspension of our disbelief that art requires of us to reach the truth behind the lies, the text between the lines. The art beyond the artifice. Every work of art relies upon that principle. And it’s fragile, easily destroyed, hidden to the sighted but revealed to the blind faith we have as we open the cover of a work of fiction or gaze upon the Mona Lisa.

I have always shot at 60, initially of course 60i and then 60P. I like the smooth motion of the theatre or dance I shoot. It is a record of the event not a film so to me the closer I get to what it was like to watch is the best thing. Also shooting 60 makes it easy to encode to interlace for DVD or Bluray. Since I am also in the dark theatre I often also use 1/60 shutter ( so 360 angle, though normally more like 1/100) so I am getting motion blur of a slower frame rate anyway!! In fact using in a 30P timeline would be just like shooting 30P. Ignoring the extra memory used I think there are lots of advantages in shooting 60P. Personally documentaries should be high frame rate to impart reality. Making a film out of something educationally gives me the impression it is not real. Valid when resource was expensive etc but not now.

Another thing to note about film source for 24fps. Most film projectors have 3blades on the shutter so when one watches 24fps the viewers actually sees 72 images per second. Some projectors have 5 blades so like the 120hz or some TV's. It is this flicker rate that fools us into believing the motion from still images. This in contrast to a TV or computer that has to find a way of squeezing the frames into the refresh rates of the display that inevitably ends up with a cadence that is not 24P!! There is a big difference between seeing a film in the theatre and watching on the TV or computer.

Does anyone know if 30fps on an Ursa Mini Pro G2 is drop frame or non drop frame?

30 fps is non drop frame recording of the timecode. 29.97 fps will use drop frame recording of timecode.

29.97 can be either DF or NDF. For the rest, the usual criticism of HFR is that everything looks too real -- and consequently looks phony, because too much is revealed.

Most people, reading a novel, will visualize some of the content -- and at very, very low resolution. That fact doesn't diminish engagement, any more than you disbelieve your dreams, because they're not 4K. It's actually the opposite. The murkier, the more real and engaging. The "reality-enhancing" technologies -- Cinerama, 3D -- flop. And IMAX is mostly relegated to spectacle and documentaries, not drama. The technology is at odds with the requirements of the medium -- its actual appeal to humans -- as art or entertainment.

29.97 can be either DF or NDF. For the rest, the usual criticism of HFR is that everything looks too real -- and consequently looks phony, because too much is revealed.

Most people, reading a novel, will visualize some of the content -- and at very, very low resolution. That fact doesn't diminish engagement, any more than you disbelieve your dreams, because they're not 4K. It's actually the opposite. The murkier, the more real and engaging. The "reality-enhancing" technologies -- Cinerama, 3D -- flop. And IMAX is mostly relegated to spectacle and documentaries, not drama. The technology is at odds with the requirements of the medium -- its actual appeal to humans -- as art or entertainment.

Tend to agree John. If you want to enhance the fiction in the story you need to make the viewer create in their mind the image so do not include everything . Slow frame rate and no real need for high resolution since the viewer is filling in the detail. However if the intent is to record an event for someone who isn't there the opposite may be required. High resolution and frame rates to make the image as close as possible to what someone there would have seen. That is no shallow depth of field that is used deliberately to create the illusion. In my mind shooting a product description or documentary for viewing on PC at 24P is silly. It needs to be 60P if the intent is viewing for PC, the refresh rate of most PC monitors. To me slow frame rate for this leaves me wondering what is being hidden from me !!

29.97 can be either DF or NDF...

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you set your recording to 30 fps and turn On drop frame, then you’re getting the same result in timecode as setting recording to 29.97 fps. If you record 29.97 fps and set drop frame to No, isn’t that the same result for timecode as 30 fps?

29.97 can be either DF or NDF...

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you set your recording to 30 fps and turn On drop frame, then you’re getting the same result in timecode as setting recording to 29.97 fps. If you record 29.97 fps and set drop frame to No, isn’t that the same result for timecode as 30 fps?

The frame rate is the frame rate regardless of the timecode.

29.97 can be drop or non, 30 is always non drop.

30ndf and 29.97ndf have the same timecode but a different frame rate. 30ndf is time accurate, 29.97 is not.

Good Luck

Thanks, Howard.

Originally for black and white TV there was no DF with frame rate at 30fps. Bearing in mind the temporal motion was really 60fps in fields. Time code incremented every two fields. The frame rate was reduced to 29.97 to include color in the TV signal so making the timecode as it was not agree with realtime on the clock. All done to maintain sync through the system with sound etc. Important to know the length of a program in time that agreed with the clock on the wall !!

The issue I am struggling with is rapid panning as exemplified with using a slider or drone. Distant objects display pronounced judder which is distracting. I am going to try something different. I am going to set the camera for 23.9fps at a 200° shutter angle for those type of shots.

Dunno the patent status, but if you shoot 120 fps + 360 degree, you can blend those frames together to make 24 fps with variable shutter to reduce judder. See https://tessive.com/ for more details.

During pre-production for Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, I built a tech demo for Trumbull of a realtime application of this concept, that could take dual 120 fps streams (for stereoscopic) or a single 240 fps stream and allow you to adjust the blend weights during playback. You could watch dailies and adjust the shutter angle with a slider in the same way you'd adjust exposure.

Most film projectors have 3blades on the shutter so when one watches 24fps the viewers actually sees 72 images per second. Some projectors have 5 blades so like the 120hz or some TV's. It is this flicker rate that fools us into believing the motion from still images. This in contrast to a TV or computer that has to find a way of squeezing the frames into the refresh rates of the display that inevitably ends up with a cadence that is not 24P!! There is a big difference between seeing a film in the theatre and watching on the TV or computer.

CRT television phosphors spent more time off than on.

Most TV and computer monitors have strobing, just like projectors do, at least the contemporary ones. It's trivial for OLED, LED, laser, etc. to strobe, and doing so reduces energy consumption and increases contrast, so there's every reason for them to beyond the desire for better viewing.

Some displays even let you manually tweak the "dark time" just like you can for a digital cinema projector.

The displays may be able to create flicker rate but the sync still has to be there. The conversion has to be an integer to display correctly and that means either a pulldown ( so then no 24P but a cadence of 24P ) or the display refresh rate has to make a multiple like 120hz . Flicker alone will not be sufficient. So yes a lot of gaming monitors and high end TV's will do this. Both my TV's will play 24P correctly. However none of my computer monitors will do that. They are stuck at 60hz.

Most TV and computer monitors have strobing, just like projectors do

The refresh rate of a modern screen is not symmetrical, LCDs themselves don't go "off" between frames. Flicker is a function of inexpensive PWM dimming. None of the 10 screens in our home do this, Apple, LG, Samsung. Modern large venue LED displays use crazy high refreshes ~4000hz to hide the flicker using PWM dimming. Modern DLPs don't flicker either.

Good Luck

Many modern monitors and TV's do have that, it's called black frame insertion. It has to be enabled and is rarely used though.
It will run the display at twice the input hz (if possible) and put in 50% black frames. This helps with ghosting and contrast.

Those LG OLED TV's are really cool btw. They're a steal compared to high-end gaming monitors.

Most TV and computer monitors have strobing, just like projectors do

The refresh rate of a modern screen is not symmetrical, LCDs themselves don't go "off" between frames. Flicker is a function of inexpensive PWM dimming. None of the 10 screens in our home do this, Apple, LG, Samsung. Modern large venue LED displays use crazy high refreshes ~4000hz to hide the flicker using PWM dimming. Modern DLPs don't flicker either.

Good Luck

The LCD's won't turn off, but the backlights will.

DLP projectors have configurable dark time that allows them to trade brightness for smoothness. If they ran without dark time, you'd get horrible judder (and you'd get crosstalk in 3D movies).

OLED and LED backlit LCD's do the same thing for the same reason. But they don't have to sacrifice brightness, because they just overdrive the LED's knowing that the duty cycle is lower.

I‘m a bit confused now. I thought it will be a good idea to use 25fps or even 50fps for the footage in Europe, because of the non flickering of artifical light. But will panning shots look worse on a TV or PC?

Only if that display can’t show 25 or 50 at their original frame rate.

I even went to our nearby state capital to see the "Hobbit" in 48 fps.

It looked like a cheap BBC stage production.

24 FPS RULES!