Hi, I’m wondering how ONLY the frame rate affects the look of a video. I mean, you can really tell the difference in the motion blur of a (24 fps) 1/48 footage and, lets say, 1/500; so it makes sense that a 24 fps video has more motion blur than a 30 fps one, because of the 180º rule and so the increase of the shutter speed. But if you isolate the shutter speed thing and just take the frame rate variable, how is that affecting the “motion look” of your footage? I run some tests shooting 24 fps 1/60 and 60 fps 1/60, and I couldn’t see anything different (should I?..). So: why 24 fps, that we all got used with Hollywood films, looks more “filmic” than 30 fps? Is only the shutter angle or the actual frame rate too?
The answer to this is 100% subconscious. 24 fps, 2.39:1 is what movies have been at, so anything at 24 fps, 2.39:1 looks “cinematic”. If films had historically been at 30 fps, then that would be the frame rate everyone would want to shoot at.
And your intuition about shutter speed affecting the look of the footage is correct, but in order to see the difference you would need to have footage with lots of motion. Higher shutter speeds give a more “strobe”-y feel (the D-Day scene in Saving Private Ryan is famous for this) while lower shutter speeds are smoother.
Thanks for your reply! The only thing I don’t get it really clear is if you can see any differences when you compare two different frame rates but both shot with the same shutter speed