Best video settings
- Thread starter Brian Mackey
- Start date
I think the higher the Frames Per Second the higher the "resolution" (probably not the right word). I'm thinking they use the higher speeds (up to 120FPS ) for slow motion. It makes sense to me, If i shot a man running at 10 FPS I would have 10 pics where as if I was shooting at 120 FPS I would have 120 images of the man in the same second
Im trying to get sharp video with the action cam and 30 fps seems things go by blurry but 60 fps things seem to hold sharpness and focus but Its hard to tell -- Im looking for the standard I guess for video work
I thought the industry standard for film was 29 FPS, then 30 now I understand 48
You might learn something here http://gizmodo.com/why-frame-rate-matters-1675153198
You might learn something here http://gizmodo.com/why-frame-rate-matters-1675153198
Interesting. LONG but unbiased, gives all sides of various frame rates.
Here's what really makes that giz thing worthwhile: go down, down to the comments and there's some funny stuff.
for 60 FPS resolution drops to 1080p, which is cropped (zoom in) from the original 4k size.
you can get sharper images because each picture has a faster exposure, so less motion blur.
maybe you can try adjusting the camera to be darker than normal, so the shutter can be faster.
for editing the 60fps footage you can drop every 2nd frame to convert to 30, and give the footage a more flickered look which helps sharpness too
you can get sharper images because each picture has a faster exposure, so less motion blur.
maybe you can try adjusting the camera to be darker than normal, so the shutter can be faster.
for editing the 60fps footage you can drop every 2nd frame to convert to 30, and give the footage a more flickered look which helps sharpness too
30 fps is what most aerial photographers recommend, helps eliminate the chances of "jello effects"
I was going to say that, DC. What crumbs are left for me? Oh, try to keep shutter speed under 100 and ISO as low as possible. Unless DC disagrees, lol.
60 is good for shots you want to slow down in post.
On cameras that don't have exposure time settings you can use it to darken as well.
However for playing back at normal time smooth pans may seem a bit choppy or un natural,... not very smooth.
So for slow smooth pans, tilts follows,... 24 or 30fps. For fast moving shots (fast drone or fast vehicle or something) 60 FPS. or if you want to slow it down in post....
Several tips listed here
Just my $0.02 I'm sure some others may have different thoughts or views on this
On cameras that don't have exposure time settings you can use it to darken as well.
However for playing back at normal time smooth pans may seem a bit choppy or un natural,... not very smooth.
So for slow smooth pans, tilts follows,... 24 or 30fps. For fast moving shots (fast drone or fast vehicle or something) 60 FPS. or if you want to slow it down in post....
Several tips listed here
Just my $0.02 I'm sure some others may have different thoughts or views on this
I am shooting indoor videos with the action cam -- I am looking for the best settings for that I have to walk from room to room and the video at 30 fps seems to blur the objects 60 fps seems to hold on to them. but Im shooting ai 192ox1080x60 so maybe I should shoot a 4k 60 and down size?
I have to walk from room to room and the video at 30 fps seems to blur the objects 60 fps seems to hold on to them. but Im shooting ai 192ox1080x60 so maybe I should shoot a 4k 60 and down size?
For me it's always a trial but most of the time I get the best results shooting 4K at 24fps and then render at 1080 24fps with a shutter speed around 1/60. You have to be really smooth with the cam to avoid getting a blur.I am shooting indoor videos with the action cam -- I am looking for the best settings for that
I presume a more experienced photog will have some insight for this post.
the higher the shutter speed, the less blurry the image
How to avoid common mistakes at every shutter speed
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2016
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 63
- Age
- 48
PAL is generally 25FPS, NTSC is generally 30FPS and movies are generally 24FPS. One of the Hobbit movies was shot in twice the FPS so 48FPS and some people didn't like it as we're used to that movie experience of 24FPS and it seems more natural to us. Motion blur is often a good thing.
I only generally shoot 50 or 60FPS for slow mo, and back a few days ago before gimbals were as good as they're now shooting 60FPS then slowing it down helped make the footage smoother. But lets face it no matter how much you try to smooth out gimbals made with servo motors it's not going to help that much ;-)
I would google frame rate vs shutter speed as you will find lots of advice.
I only generally shoot 50 or 60FPS for slow mo, and back a few days ago before gimbals were as good as they're now shooting 60FPS then slowing it down helped make the footage smoother. But lets face it no matter how much you try to smooth out gimbals made with servo motors it's not going to help that much ;-)
I would google frame rate vs shutter speed as you will find lots of advice.
It seems to be a very subjective thing 
This is 60fps: - and unless your network connection is bad, plays back silky smooth. There's a gimbal pan at 1:48 and it seems pretty good to me. If there is motion in the shot (you're flying around or panning) higher frame rates will counter the natural blurring that comes with longer shutter and (in come cases) video codecs. For landscape type filming, I personally find the sharpness more pleasing to the eye.
We are used to a certain amount of motion blur in the footage we see though. It seems a lot of the criticism of the Hobbit (shot at double normal frame rate) was that the CGI effects looked too 'precise' and artificial - in fact a lot of CGI uses a heavy amount of motion blur to fool us into thinking it's natural and when that goes away, effects laden films do look odd.
I really don't see the value in shooting 4K and then downsizing. Theoretically you could gain a little bit of extra information, but that depends on a very smart resampling algorithm which most video editing software doesn't have. On the whole it just means you get massively larger files and have to spend hours reprocessing them. Resizing does have the side effect of setting the image sharpness, so that may give the impression of 'better quality', You can get the same result by filming in 1080 raw and then running a sharpening filter over it.
If you're shooting indoors, your main enemy is light - or the lack of it. The camera will naturally want to keep the shutter open longer to get better images, which makes things blurry. Turning the film to 60fps will force it to use a faster shutter rate, but you may find image quality drops off (cameras typically compensate by bumping up the ISO). Human eyes are very much better at compensating for dark scenes, so we often don't realise how little light there is indoors. Open every curtain, put on every light (even in daytime) and use video lights to compensate - a hand held video light can work very well.
120fps is only really useful for slo-mo effects - fun to play with and useful for specific shots, but otherwise not useful for day to day filming.
If your absolute need is quality, then always film in raw. It produces 'flatter' and slightly less sharp footage out of the camera, but that's perfect for post-processing. You must then bump up the contrast, saturation etc. in your editing software and add a sharpening filter. Tuning those well will produce a bright, punchy and crystal clear video that the in-camera modes just cannot match.
This is 60fps: - and unless your network connection is bad, plays back silky smooth. There's a gimbal pan at 1:48 and it seems pretty good to me. If there is motion in the shot (you're flying around or panning) higher frame rates will counter the natural blurring that comes with longer shutter and (in come cases) video codecs. For landscape type filming, I personally find the sharpness more pleasing to the eye.
We are used to a certain amount of motion blur in the footage we see though. It seems a lot of the criticism of the Hobbit (shot at double normal frame rate) was that the CGI effects looked too 'precise' and artificial - in fact a lot of CGI uses a heavy amount of motion blur to fool us into thinking it's natural and when that goes away, effects laden films do look odd.
I really don't see the value in shooting 4K and then downsizing. Theoretically you could gain a little bit of extra information, but that depends on a very smart resampling algorithm which most video editing software doesn't have. On the whole it just means you get massively larger files and have to spend hours reprocessing them. Resizing does have the side effect of setting the image sharpness, so that may give the impression of 'better quality', You can get the same result by filming in 1080 raw and then running a sharpening filter over it.
If you're shooting indoors, your main enemy is light - or the lack of it. The camera will naturally want to keep the shutter open longer to get better images, which makes things blurry. Turning the film to 60fps will force it to use a faster shutter rate, but you may find image quality drops off (cameras typically compensate by bumping up the ISO). Human eyes are very much better at compensating for dark scenes, so we often don't realise how little light there is indoors. Open every curtain, put on every light (even in daytime) and use video lights to compensate - a hand held video light can work very well.
120fps is only really useful for slo-mo effects - fun to play with and useful for specific shots, but otherwise not useful for day to day filming.
If your absolute need is quality, then always film in raw. It produces 'flatter' and slightly less sharp footage out of the camera, but that's perfect for post-processing. You must then bump up the contrast, saturation etc. in your editing software and add a sharpening filter. Tuning those well will produce a bright, punchy and crystal clear video that the in-camera modes just cannot match.
I want to get as close to the indooor imagery on this vid as possible. now I already know this a priority setup, sith steady cam, custom gimbal and all that, I will be using the action cam - I tried it round this house , but thats the question , it seems its better at 60fps, but thats the raw video when it converts the software wants to make it 29 fps I can force it to match the input.. but the bottom line is i need to be able to pan around without all of blur
Looks like a really sunny day with all the lights on, that helps.
For frame rates, if you're mixing video, you must make sure everything matches or is an exact multiple. So 30 and 60fps is fine (the editor will usually convert the 60fps to 30), but 29 and 30 or 29 and 60 will usually cause headaches. At best the video will appear jerky for some segments, at worst the editor won't let you combine them.
For frame rates, if you're mixing video, you must make sure everything matches or is an exact multiple. So 30 and 60fps is fine (the editor will usually convert the 60fps to 30), but 29 and 30 or 29 and 60 will usually cause headaches. At best the video will appear jerky for some segments, at worst the editor won't let you combine them.
Similar threads
