Microstock Footage Forum > General - Stock Video

PAL/NTSC/FPS Which one is the most international?

(1/6) > >>

kates:
Hi all,
I am a newbie as a videographer and about to freak out. My main question is which one is the most international one? ntsc or pal? 24 or 30 fps? In my point of view as a photographer, 30 fps should be the most international, if editor needs 24 fps they might just drop 6 frames, thats all. However after researching for hours I found out thats not that simple. I have sony rx10 mark 2 and canon 5D mark 3. I use sony for video shots. So which one should I chose from camera menu, ntsc or pal? I know I dont have to worry about aspect ratio since both are same in HD world. However I cant decide to fps. My other question is whats the difference between 23.97, 24 and 25 fps? and whats the difference between 29.97 and 30?

Other quesiton is I prefer to shot 100/120 fps in case of I need slow motion. Things are more complicated here. Lets say 24 fps is the most common which is PAL fps. In PAL mode I can shot with 24,50 and 100 fps and in NTSC mode I can shot with 30, 60, 120 fps. So lets say I want to slow it down 3.5x. What I think is I should be able to slow it down 5x and render at 24 fps. Then open a new 24 fps project, import footage and make it faster 2x (or whatever), edit and render at 24 fps and everything should be fine. Am I right? Confusing part is I shoot in PAL but outcome footage becomes NTSC. Doesn't it?

SHORTLY WHICH MODE (PAL OR NTSC) AND WHICH FPS IS THE MOST INTERNATIONAL OR CONVERTABLE ONE?

As additional info I live in Turkey (PAL) but I'm moving to Canada ((NTSC) in September. I found out people usually use same system with their region and dont care much about other things. Actually I'm moving to Canada to start a digital video school and I'm pretty sure about I will find my answers there but I'm just trying to learn basics and create few footages this summer.

sharpshot:
I'm no expert but If you are moving to Canada, sticking with NTSC seems sensible.  30fps must be fairly easily convertible to PAL 25fps or we wouldn't have so much bad US tv in the UK :)
Use higher frame rates if you want slow mo but I think the bitrate is lower, so use 30fps for standard footage.  I use 25fps for anything from the UK but switch to 30fps if it has nothing to do with a PAL region.

24fps give a more cinematic look but maybe not as good for stock?

kates:

--- Quote from: sharpshot on May 03, 2016, 04:24 ---I'm no expert but If you are moving to Canada, sticking with NTSC seems sensible.  30fps must be fairly easily convertible to PAL 25fps or we wouldn't have so much bad US tv in the UK :)
Use higher frame rates if you want slow mo but I think the bitrate is lower, so use 30fps for standard footage.  I use 25fps for anything from the UK but switch to 30fps if it has nothing to do with a PAL region.

24fps give a more cinematic look but maybe not as good for stock?

--- End quote ---

Thank you for your answer. I don't think I will be able to make professional works as a freelancer for a while so my main concern is stock footage. Thanks to sony, it doesnt drop bitrate in higher frame rates. Honestly I was thinking just like you but found out dropping frames makes the footage worse but adding frames is not a big deal since software will add duplicated frames. Most people say that however most of people say same things as you. I also saw 29.97 is very common however 30 fps isn't. I'm still confused about 23.97, 24 and 25 or 29.97 and 30.

PigsInSpace:
It used to be that when someone said 30 frames per second, they meant 29.97. The fractional frame has to do with limitations on bandwidth and the speed of light in analog broadcast television.

PeterChigmaroff:

--- Quote from: PigsInSpace on May 03, 2016, 11:16 ---It used to be that when someone said 30 frames per second, they meant 29.97. The fractional frame has to do with limitations on bandwidth and the speed of light in analog broadcast television.

--- End quote ---

I took this from The Automatic Filmaker as he explains this oddball frame rate very well. It's a phasing issue not speed issue.

"The main thing I would like to point out, which some of the geekier of you might already know, is that 30fps is just an approximation of the actual frame rate of video in the US. The real framerate is 29.97fps. Why this incredibly strange number you say? Well, i’ll tell you.

In order to make video play back at a fixed rate there needs to be some kind of timing circuit. When television was first beginning, there weren’t any of the high tech silcon-based chips that we used for this task today. So the brilliant engineers back then used the oscillation of AC electricty as the basis for their timing circuit. In the US, electricity cycles at 60 times per second (60hz.) So using half of that gives us the frame rate of 30fps. (In Europe, electricity flows at 50hz. 50/2 = 25fps)

So the frame rate of television was actually exactly 30 frames per second at one point in time. However that all changed when color television was introduced. When a signal for color information was added to the television transmission there was a big problem. The color carrier signal was phasing with with the sound carrier signal because they were very close in the spectrum. This made the picture look un-watchable. The quick fix they came up with was to reduce the framerate by .03fps which moved the two signals out of phase.

We have been stuck with this frame rate ever since.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page