Now we get down to why I recommended shooting at 30fps earlier… if you are working with untrained actors who are a little too twitchy for the “cinematic look”, you can slow them down to 80% in post-production and still have perfectly fluid movement. The camera isn’t doing the magic, the humans are. Actors are trained to have slower, highly controlled movements for the specific purpose of looking more dramatic. (Caveat: If you are targeting a digital cinema package, then yeah, you’re stuck at 24fps and ignore everything I just said.)Īctors: So, if 24fps isn’t the key to dramatic looking movement, what is? The actors are. Using 30fps gives you more latitude than 24fps when it comes to fast or unstabilized movement. Maintaining 1/48s (or 1/50s if you use a DSLR) is what’s important to preserve the length of motion blur streaks that the eye is used to seeing. The most comfortable blur amount is at 1/48s, which just happened to be twice the common 24fps frame rate back in the day, so everybody got fixated on shutter angle as an important thing to do. What matters is whether a video’s motion blur matches what the human eye is used to seeing. Shutter angle as a math theory means nothing to the human visual system. Lots of people talk about 180-degree shutter angle, but that’s an old and restrictive idea. If you’re using consumer gear and uncontrolled open-air locations, you will be much better served shooting at 30fps (if you are in an NTSC country) but keeping your shutter speed at 1/50th instead of 1/60. It’s a lot of work to make 24fps look clean. The background is also blurred to make it extra difficult to notice the strobe-like effect of objects jumping so far between frames. Lots of hackery is done to get around the limitations of 24fps, like filling half the frame with the subject so nobody notices the moving background going by faster than 24fps can keep up. A DoP gets paid major dollars to understand just how fast a camera can be moved before the background starts shearing and tearing because 24fps is right on the edge of making terrible-looking judder in high-action sequences. In fact, if you are not trained as a director of photography or cameraman and if you don’t have access to insanely stabilized equipment, you are very unlikely to make 24fps look good. 24fps has been around for decades (long before the “cinematic look” was a thing) and its popularity has much more to do with technical issues than artistic preference. Lots of people think video needs to be shot at 24 frames per second to look cinematic, but this is not true. Here are some examples (color tools are at the end of the list):įrame rate / shutter angle: Let’s get the biggest misconception out of the way first. There are many factors that make a cinema-produced movie look better than home video, and all of these factors are specifically chosen to support the storyline above all else. Some movies are dark and gritty while others are bright and airy. I see what you’re wanting to do, but the issue is that there’s no such thing as the “cinematic effect”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |