Jump to content


Photo

what fps should i use?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 giap vu

giap vu
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 July 2007 - 01:24 AM

hello all, i'm in need of some advise - i just bought a canon 1014 auto zoom and was wondering what fps i should set the camera at. on the manual it says to set it at 18 fps, but if i intend to telecine, should i set it at 24 fps? Also, what would be the overall difference of image between the two different fps'? I'm also vey new to this, although I am a film student. please help...

Attached Images

  • Photo_1.jpg

  • 0

#2 Raz Birger

Raz Birger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Israel

Posted 18 July 2007 - 03:14 AM

You can film at 18fps, many are shooting at this speed, it really doesn't look bad at all and there is no problem with telecine (you just need to say that you were shooting at this speed).
There are also people that used 9fps and it was just fine.
I'm going to shoot a short with Super 8mm film and I'm going to shoot at 24fps because this is how I want it to be, but if you want to have more time to shoot and it doesn't matter to you that it's 18fps so shoot at this speed.

Best regards,
Raz.
  • 0

#3 Erik Vilhelm

Erik Vilhelm
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sweden

Posted 18 July 2007 - 05:14 AM

At 18 fps, motions might look quite "jerky". And since 24 fps is standard motion picture speed, you should consider using it, unless you really need to save film.
  • 0

#4 Raz Birger

Raz Birger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Israel

Posted 18 July 2007 - 05:41 AM

At 18 fps, motions might look quite "jerky". And since 24 fps is standard motion picture speed, you should consider using it, unless you really need to save film.

Right, unless you want this "jerky" look, and as I said before I even saw 9fps movie, that's even more jerky, but they used it because they wanted to shoot a one shot film and 2:30 minutes at 24fps wasn't enough, so with 9fps they've got 6:40 minutes.
  • 0

#5 Erik Vilhelm

Erik Vilhelm
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sweden

Posted 18 July 2007 - 08:30 AM

Yep, you can find use for speeds below the standard. You just have to be aware of the pros and cons.
Slow speed can be really useful if you film static objects, like a city skyline from a tripod.
  • 0

#6 giap vu

giap vu
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 July 2007 - 02:48 PM

hey guys, thanks for the fast response! i will be shooting with kodak vision 200t of little known local vegas - on ext. shots. should I under expose because of the intensity of the light in the desert, and during night ext. will I be able to film the vegas cityscape - neon lights and all? Or should i just press the trigger see what happens? thanks again!
  • 0

#7 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 18 July 2007 - 06:42 PM

At 18 fps, motions might look quite "jerky". And since 24 fps is standard motion picture speed, you should consider using it, unless you really need to save film.


I disagree. I don't think it looks that jerky unless you use a smaller shutter angle.

18 Frames per second gives you 3 min and 30 seconds max (minus the first few seconds and last few seconds of the cartridge, which might either be scratched, dusty, or not there.)

24 frames per second gives you 2 minutes and 40 seconds and you will need slightly more light to get the same exposure.
What's nice about 18 frames per second is you can switch to 24 frames per second for a nice but minimal slow motion effect.

I mistakenly thought that the 1014 non-XLS did not do 24 frames per second.
  • 0

#8 Erik Vilhelm

Erik Vilhelm
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sweden

Posted 19 July 2007 - 04:00 AM

hey guys, thanks for the fast response! i will be shooting with kodak vision 200t of little known local vegas - on ext. shots. should I under expose because of the intensity of the light in the desert, and during night ext. will I be able to film the vegas cityscape - neon lights and all? Or should i just press the trigger see what happens? thanks again!


It's better to slightly overexpose negative film.
I'm not sure if the sensitivity of the film is enough for filming outdoors at night, search for video clips (youtube?) to see if someone else succeeded with this.
And remember that your camera might deactivate the daylight filter with this cartridge, since it's not correctly notched.

I disagree. I don't think it looks that jerky unless you use a smaller shutter angle.


It will look jerkier (or what the correct word is) than 24 fps at the same shutter angle. ;)
  • 0

#9 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 19 July 2007 - 12:23 PM

Keep in mind that most Super8 is telecined for editing on computer, and most modern telecine machines don't care what speed you shoot at - you can telecine at 24, or 18, or 9, or any other speed and get proper timing.
  • 0


CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

CineTape

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Metropolis Post