I’ve gone on record saying that in most cases, shooting 24 fps video material is not appropriate for most situations. I’ve read that the only reason shooting film at 24 fps was selected by film producers in the 1920’s was that it was the slowest frame rate (i.e. spend less on film stock) that gave the illusion of animation while still guaranteeing the sound track would not wobble (which happened when you hand-cranked a camera).
Especially for effects or green-screen work, shooting video at 24 fps causes far more problems than it solves. In short, unless you are planning to output your work to film, shooting 24 fps is not a good idea.
However, it will probably not surprise you that others disagree. And, recently, I came across a blog from Stu Maschwitz that was just lyrical. And, while I disagree with some of his comments, he still says many interesting things that I wanted to share with you.
You can read his posting here: http://prolost.blogspot.com/2009/02/slumdog-millionaire.html
The world is changing. Old rules no longer apply. Never assume that simply because something “has always been done this way” that it needs to continue being done that way. And, above all else, test your ideas before committing your budget.
One Response to More on the Debate of Shooting 24 fps
I think the link has changed…