MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does the choice of frame rate impact sales?  (Read 4387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 03, 2016, 11:22 »
0
I was curious if anyone had seen any variations or evidence to suggest certain frame rates achieve better sales than others?


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2016, 20:01 »
0
Not seen any specific data, but the way I see it....

A) It's easier to remove frames than add them I'm

B) Over half of my sales come from the US and they use 30fps, so it makes sense for me to go with that.

I could be wrong, maybe people are crying out for 24fps. Obviously if the majority of your buyers are from the UK then it would make sense to go for 25fps... but I still think it's better to have more frames to be on the safe side.... I mean, the UK buyers might be creating content for US clients!

Not to.mention that the Internet (where I'm guessing most of my content is used) is pretty much 'non-framerate-specific', so I don't think you should worry about it too much.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2016, 20:03 by SpaceStockFootage »

« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2016, 20:08 »
+1
I shoot 30p because it is better to go from 30p to 24p then the other way around! I have had people argue that with me but after much research on the subject I can state that is correct!

stockVid

« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2016, 20:42 »
0
4K 60p is best :)

« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2016, 02:49 »
0
I shoot only at 24fps and sell clips everywhere around the world constantly. I really don't think it matters. If the buyer needs your footage they will just buy it. They probably won't even check fps.
With software now converting to different fps is flawless and a touch of a button. Only a few years back I had to convert the files into an image sequence to then render them again to my desired frame rates. This was the only way to get rid of the timing glitch. I havent had to do this for ages now as software caters for all this.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2016, 05:11 »
+2
I'm no expert in the software you speak, of but if you need six extra frames then they've got to come from somewhere... so you're either going to have duplicate frames, or interpolated frames... which will probably do the job but can be noticeable. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure how it could be done flawlessly.

« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2016, 06:15 »
0
There have been several threads about this in the past.  I could draw no conclusion from any of them.  I mostly use 25p, as I live in Europe.

« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2016, 07:16 »
+1
I'm no expert in the software you speak, of but if you need six extra frames then they've got to come from somewhere... so you're either going to have duplicate frames, or interpolated frames...

Why? I would expect that the conversion process just changes the duration of each frame, for example from 1/30 s to 1/24 s, or vice versa. But I am not sure, I have never done it.

As long as the agencies accept all common frame rates or don't have a preference, I don't really care much.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2016, 09:20 »
+2
Well you can convert to 24 from 30 by dropping the occasional frame here and there. But to go from 24 to 30 you need to find six extra frames from somewhere. You could alter the duration of each frame to fit, but then it's still only 24 frames as there's only 24 individual still images to make up that second. I can't think of any physical way that you can increase the frame count without using duplicated frames or some kind of frame blending/interpolation.

« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2016, 14:48 »
0
Well you can convert to 24 from 30 by dropping the occasional frame here and there. But to go from 24 to 30 you need to find six extra frames from somewhere. You could alter the duration of each frame to fit, but then it's still only 24 frames as there's only 24 individual still images to make up that second. I can't think of any physical way that you can increase the frame count without using duplicated frames or some kind of frame blending/interpolation.
Fortunately most of our work has no audio associated with it so rather than add or subtract frames it often makes more sense to retime the clip. I think PP calls it conform footage and FCPX is Automatic Speed. 24fps to 30 looks a little faster while 30 to 24 is slightly slomo. I personally find slomo more pleasing. It may not work with all footage but for a lot of it you simply don't notice any difference. 24p has more jutter and is widely accepted but it also has more rolling shutter and jello issues depending on camera, not so good.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2016, 00:11 »
0
Well you can convert to 24 from 30 by dropping the occasional frame here and there. But to go from 24 to 30 you need to find six extra frames from somewhere. You could alter the duration of each frame to fit, but then it's still only 24 frames as there's only 24 individual still images to make up that second. I can't think of any physical way that you can increase the frame count without using duplicated frames or some kind of frame blending/interpolation.
Fortunately most of our work has no audio associated with it so rather than add or subtract frames it often makes more sense to retime the clip. I think PP calls it conform footage and FCPX is Automatic Speed. 24fps to 30 looks a little faster while 30 to 24 is slightly slomo. I personally find slomo more pleasing. It may not work with all footage but for a lot of it you simply don't notice any difference. 24p has more jutter and is widely accepted but it also has more rolling shutter and jello issues depending on camera, not so good.

I might be getting this slightly wrong as I've never thought about it too much... but I'm pretty sure that what you're describing wouldn't be converting the frame rate of the existing footage. Yes, you would be making the whole video 30fps rather than 24fps... but your first second would be made up of 24 frames from the original first second of the footage, and then six seconds of the next second of the original frame. So you're just converting the clip to a different framerate rather than the actual footage.

As you say, that's going to cause a problem with audio and although you would have one unique image per frame, you're just speeding it up to compensate. It wouldn't be a proper conversion from 24 to 30. But you're right, most stock doesn't contain audio, so it probably wouldn't be that much of an issue.

« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2016, 16:02 »
+2
I can't think of any physical way that you can increase the frame count without using duplicated frames or some kind of frame blending/interpolation.

Yes, this is what's called a 3:2 pulldown and it's used for every film you see on TV in the US. They are all filmed at 24 frames per second but when viewed on television they blend in 6 extra frames to make it 29.97. Most high-end commercials are also filmed at 24 frames per second (or 23.976) but displayed as 29.97 when showed on TV.

The same films when shown on a PAL (25) system will usually be sped up 4% along with the audio (the audio will retain its original pitch however).

If you convert 29.97 to 23.98 or 25 by just removing frames you will get a stutter effect which may or may not look too pleasing. We are, however, very used to seeing 24 frames pulled down to 29.97 because it's how films have been displayed for so long.

Anyway, I have yet to decipher what sells the most as all frame rates seem to do well. Of course, there are more 29.97 clips out there because of all the American producers with NTSC cameras so in total, 29.97 has more sales. But perhaps not per clip.

I have read countless forums on this very topic, and I still haven't found a clear answer to what sells best in the stock footage world. Some of the world's top producers use 23.976, some use 25, and others use 29.97. Just check the P5 bestsellers. VIAFilms and AILA are mostly 23.976.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2016, 16:06 by increasingdifficulty »

stockVid

« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2016, 16:49 »
0
I'm unsure which frame rate sells the best.

Getty prefers 24fps as it is the most practical rate to convert.

« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2016, 17:14 »
0
Yes, in the submission guidelines they say that any progressive frame rate will be converted to 23.98p.

I often film in 29.97p with a 1/50th shutter and then slow it down to 80% and deliver 23.976p. It's a decent way to get dreamy looking 4k footage with a camera that can't shoot 4k60p.

« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2016, 03:21 »
0
I'm not sure what sells best, but I do 30fps to avoid the headaches caused by thinking about this. I'm from a 25fps country myself. I also think it's better to go from 30 to 25 or 24 than the other way around (using Twixtor or similar techniques). You can also slow down the clip (interpret footage), which works fine in many cases.

« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2016, 09:04 »
0
I think it really only matters with footage of people that's supposed to be in real time. That's when we would notice that something might be off if the speed changes.

Any timelapse or slow motion footage could easily be slowed down or sped up to fit another frame rate without looking or feeling strange at all since it's not real time anyway.

« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2016, 09:16 »
+1
Shoot 24 / 23.976.

If someone wants 24, you have it covered.  If someone wants 30, dropping a 24 fps clip in a 30 fps timeline is easy-peasy these days. In Premiere, for example, putting a 24 clip in a 30 timeline will cause every 4th frame to repeat to pad the video out to 30.  Hardly noticeable, and some would argue it gives your 30 fps projects more of a "film look" since the motion is mimicking film's frame rate.

Plus, by shooing 6 fewer frames per second gives each frame about 20% more bandwidth (when shooting at a constant bit rate).

Now, if someone wants 25, that's their problem.  You can't please everyone.

And, whatever you do, don't "convert" your footage.  Just upload the frame rate that was shot.



« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 09:19 by odesigns »


« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2016, 09:23 »
+1
Shoot 24 / 23.976.

Plus, by shooing 6 fewer frames per second gives each frame about 20% more bandwidth (when shooting at a constant bit rate).

I agree with you, and I do 90% 23.976, but this statement doesn't automatically mean better quality. Only if you're using intra-frame codecs (like ProRes). If you're shooting in the more common h264 (inter-frame codec) there will be more movement between each frame in 24p, and since inter-frame codecs compare frames that 20% extra bitrate could just about make up for the increased change from the previous frame. Or in the case of very fast movements, decrease the quality.

For aerials, for example, it can make sense to film in 29.97p since everything in the frame is moving constantly.

Nitpicking here, but just to be clear.  ;D
« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 09:27 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2016, 10:56 »
0
Shoot 24 / 23.976.

Plus, by shooing 6 fewer frames per second gives each frame about 20% more bandwidth (when shooting at a constant bit rate).

I agree with you, and I do 90% 23.976, but this statement doesn't automatically mean better quality.

Understood, but notice I said "more bandwidth," and not "better quality." I realize that more bandwidth doesn't always equate to better quality.

But it's nice to have...

:)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4395 Views
Last post February 24, 2014, 12:11
by jamesdeanny
15 Replies
17475 Views
Last post March 02, 2016, 06:32
by increasingdifficulty
2 Replies
1736 Views
Last post September 21, 2018, 09:57
by wds
2 Replies
1644 Views
Last post September 21, 2018, 10:51
by wds
13 Replies
2338 Views
Last post May 07, 2019, 14:55
by Dennis Radeke

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results