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.

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.

Quote from: Shooterguy on April 19, 2016, 08:57

@Peter, I think it's amusing that all of these people are telling you that this was a drone shot. And none of them were there but you, and you can probably PROVE that it's a legit shot from an aircraft...and yet they still say "no way." That takes balls!

Good grief.

See post #6. He says it isn't his shot. But he says it is legit. Maybe he is getting his info from metadata, or knows who did shoot it? He doesn't say how he knows, so it is all speculation, on everyone's part. And my posts are only addressing the fact that it was shot, not how it was shot. All I am concerned about is safety for everyone in the airspace.

PS. I don't have balls. 

The assertion that the shot in question must have been taken illegally, or at a minimum in a dangerous manner, is quite bothersome to me. Yeh it's fun to discuss it from an academic perspective, but the fact is, those making those assertions don't have the facts, and even when presented with details, seem to be incapable of accepting them.

Peter

Quote from: skyfish on April 10, 2016, 08:48

For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.

 I would decline any photographer who included something like this.  I am hiring them.  I am not there to be their next promotional model.

I wouldn't use the material for stock sales unless I worked out an agreement with the couple before hand even if the contract allowed for it. But as for promo work, it's near impossible to get a future gig as a wedding photographer without showing near past work of the exact same type. People spending actual money want to see what style they are buying and showing promo work is the only way to achieve this.

Quote from: Holmes on April 04, 2016, 20:03

Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

Long lens or not, flying a drone anywhere near an airplane or anywhere near the controlled airspace, especially an airplane that looks like it is landing, is just wrong and is endangering the lives of others. For what...to get a cool shot and make a few $$? Seriously? The shot is taken straight down, so a camera would have had to have been mounted on the bottom of the aircraft taking the shot. Possibly.

Hopefully the image is just a good photoshop job.

@jonbull and @cathyslife, I can only reiterate at this point. It was taken from a plane, a piloted aircraft, under the control of an ATC. Not a drone. I'm a pilot myself with a commercial license. Assuming I get the appropriate clearance, today, in about 3 hours I will fly over YVR and all its landing jets. Depending on the active runway this will place me in a couple of different spots but in all cases I will at right angles to the active runways and will be listening very carefully to what ATC tells me to do. Separations are well thought out, really well, and everyone does their part to make sure they are adhered to. It really is okay for that plane to be there. I wish I could take you both for a ride today. You'd have a very nice time, take some great pictures, and see how Air Traffic Control handles their work in congested flight areas. Not just from the back seat. I'll even let you fly if you want, just not over YVR.

PS. The EXIF data on that shot would indicate the need for a HUGE drone to carry that camera lens combo. I mean huge.

Quote from: Holmes on April 04, 2016, 20:03

Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

That is actually disconcerting

Long lenses do cool things.

I started selling 4k drone footage few months ago, so I would like to know too. So far it looks like the good footage agencies work just as well for aerials... P5, SS, VB

Please have a look at my site. It's an upstart and growing. Ask questions here or contact me directly. Thanks,

Peter

http://www.overflightstock.com/contributors

I think RM license date tracking is difficult. In many cases it can be confusing. Does a publisher have the right to print 50,000 books or does the license expire in 2 years? For a lot of usages it's much easier to simply apply a "by the project" pricing. Worldwide versus regional also just confuses pricing.

What about footage, would you take non exclusive footage if it is also on SS?

There aren�t that many places to send video too and even for those that have files on getty with high list prices, the non exclusive artists gets 6 dollars or less.

I thought about this a lot and fully understand the problem. Yes to footage that is sold also on SS. At $79/$199 for footage, there is still an opportunity. Fingers crossed it doesn't creep too far downwards If someone said to me, "look, I have these great aerials and I sell them only on my site and P5 for $199/$299" or higher, then that's what I would list them at as well. There is a market for those too, assuming they are good, salable clips.

Hi Pete,

thanks for the quick response.
I'll keep your website in mind for future images then.

Good luck,

Dirk

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I'm going to bump this one more time just to say that non exclusive content is now accepted.  http://www.overflightstock.com/contributors
Thanks
Peter

Younali,

I sent you a PM.

Quote from: Zeus on February 01, 2016, 21:47

It may have nothing to do with the time conversion.

Zeus, thanks for the reply. Could you please tell me whether or not it is a good idea to shoot night clip at 15p and then convert to higher frame rate? I was just experimenting but the results have confused me.

I don't think night footage has much to do with it. I'm wondering which of these you did, if you interpreted the 15 fps to 24 fps so that the final clip was sped up? Or you did some frame adding/blending to get a higher frame rate at a real time speed?