The Great Framerate Debate

[Snapai]

If this is even a debate, really. :)

I received a comment on one of my pieces on another gallery, that wondered if it wouldn't look better on twos at 24fps instead of how it is now: on "twos" at 30fps (really on ones at 15, but whatever).

The justification that this was how it was always done, because this was how Pixar and Disney do it, because:

They had found back in the olden days ( 1930's) that audiences received better to 24 frames per second because there was more of an emphasis on the extremes that the characters had reached

and with the concern: I think this particular piece as well would benefit. If you finish it out on 30 frames per second, it may come out looking like Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" and have a very crummy surreal look. And I wanna see you bring out all you can out of this,

So I wanted to know everyone's opinion on frame-rates for animation in general - especially those among you that have professional work in your past. Is this a studio bias? Really and truly a better balance of individual frames vs the frame-to-frame animation? Something else...? Because I honestly don't have enough experience to know for sure. :S

[skellener]

Is there really a debate? Film runs at 24fps. That is what you should animate to.

Things like video games or Flash for the net may demand different frame rates, but traditionally you animate at 24fps for features and television. Any conversion to 30fps (29.97) will be done later in post. That way you won't have to draw any extra frames!

[Snapai]

Well, see, that's what I was trying to figure out.
Film runs at 24 FPS (12 for twos).
But I've started most of my small projects working for video which runs at 30FPS (15 for twos). Though it's also internet distribution which runs at whatever-you-want FPS - I figured the 3:2 pulldown would make it look bad.

One of my more successful pieces runs at 10 FPS, and drops even lower at a few points. I'm just trying to figure out the justification here. If it's simply "what works best for the medium it's being displayed on" then there's no problem. But apparently it's a rule of thumb for other reasons too....? Or not?

[skellener]

If you are doing Flash for the net and ONLY the net, then go for what looks and plays best.

Anything else, stick with 24fps. You can always convert it to something else later, but you'll at least be correct for film or TV.

[Snapai]

TV is 30 FPS. 24 is converted to 30 by making two out of every five frames a mix of consecutive frames from the 24. It goes 1, 2, 2/3 3/4 5, I believe. It's called a pulldown. They do it to convert any sort of film work to video. (DVD players do it internally during playback) :P

[skellener]

Yes you are correct. But for 2D at least, it is still animated at 24. Conversions are done after the fact - for PAL they'll go to 25pfs. That's why I say, just work at 24fps and you won't have to worry. There are plenty of techniques for converting from it to other formats.

[JayTea]

skellener,
Do you happen to know if digital cinema (ie: video projection at the movie theaters) is, or is going to be, pretty flexible with regard to frame rate? Seems I heard they have doubled it ( 24fps to 48fps? ) for the stereo 3D presentations. From looking at your IMDB listing, I'd say you are the most knowledgeable person we can hope to have on the topic :)

[skellener]

I'm not 100% sure what the future of digital projection will be. I would think the systems could deliver various frame rates. To my knowledge everything is still based on 24fps. There are still plenty of productions using film. Still much more than digital. Film is still a 24fps medium.

As for animated and 3D projects, there's more control since they are digital from the get go. I'll ask my buddy at DW if they have any plans to change frame rates. My guess is it will all stay at 24fps. Why? Cost. They are already rendering the images out 3 times (yes three - left eye, right eye and center for regular screenings). So they already tripled their render load going to 3D. Do you really think they want to start rendering out even more images at say 60fps? Do you know how much more time, disk space and money that will cost? Then they would need to do a conversion for home viewing anyway. It would be a waste.

Believe me, there are plenty of more knowledgeable people about this stuff than me.

[WillW]

I was told that I should actually animate at 25 fps, not 24 in uni. then again another one of my tutors thought that you should only animate with ones and didnt undertand why I used 2s.

[Snapai]

I was told that I should actually animate at 25 fps, not 24 in uni. then again another one of my tutors thought that you should only animate with ones and didnt undertand why I used 2s.

Well, at 25 fps you can broadcast natively in PAL (Europe et al), but...there's almost no distortion moving between film and PAL anyways (one frame a second), so that shouldn't matter.

I don't know. I just was surprised at such a vehement anti-30-fps (15/twos) bias from someone who I regarded as much closer to pro than I. Particularly since, as far as I understand, frame rate just doesn't make much of a difference, provided it's fast enough to sustain the illusion of motion - which is why you drop to ones for fast motion or to match camera pans anyways!

[Snapai]

Er, from the person I quoted in the original post, I'm not surprised at anyone here's reactions! XD

[CanAur]

very interesting.
I want to make animations on ones at 30fps someday.

Didital stereo 3D is 96fps now

[Snapai]

I am wondering now if it's possibly because a lot of animation (walks and runs) are done based on two specific walking speeds - one step per second, and one step per foot (8 frames of standard movie film is a foot long, so 'footage' is in beats of 2/3rds second).

Walks are done at those speeds, runs are done at multiples of those speeds.

And, with those speeds, 24 fps suddenly becomes VERY natural to animate on. Why? Because they break down very easily.
Twelve frames, plus the first frame of the cycle again at the end can be broken like this:
|·+·|·+·|·+·| by dividing it in thirds then doing exact-half breakdowns and inbetweens until all the drawings are done, or like this:
|··+··|··+··| by dividing it in half, half again, and then doing the final filled-in frames as thirds.

Or, as apparently is more common, simply go on a beat-per-foot basis, which gives you in 8 frames:
|·+·|·+·|
Here, no thirds are necessary whatsoever.

In comparison, 30fps becomes a nightmare to breakdown, because with the 15 frames plus the loop frame, you wind up with a power of two. There are no easy ways to break that down, since you need a "frame in the middle" to split it. Working on my project, I keep running into this pattern of extremes/breakdowns and inbetweening: |····+····+····|
This is odd, because I'm animating to music, and it shouldn't be an exact multiple of a second, but it's turning out that way much of the time.

Hope that's useful to someone? :)

[skellener]

Besides, you just have to do less drawings all together at 24fps. Why create work for yourself?

Are you sure that 96fps isn't more of a refresh rate CanAur?

[Snapai]

Why create work for yourself?

Because I'm animating. ;)

Oh I dunno, I just figured originally that matching the frame rate to my destination format was part of 'getting it right' but apparently it's not. D:

[lavallelee]

when i first started making animations i started at 12fps, which was flash's default

then i switched to 24fps and never have been happier

[JayTea]

(Digital) stereo 3D is 96fps now
Are you sure that 96fps isn't more of a refresh rate CanAur?

Ok, now I think I know where I got that notion from.
A film projector changes frames 24 times a second but the shutter opens and closes three or four times faster. I think the faster frame rate mentioned with regard to 3D was a matter of emulating this. The color/detail central part of the eye is not as fast as the edges so the content you are focusing on can change relatively slowly (~8-12fps) but 24 fps is still a rather annoying strobing affect on the rest of the eye.

[skellener]

You guys are making this way harder than it needs to be. Stick with 24fps. You'll be fine.

[Don Bluth]

You guys are making this way harder than it needs to be. Stick with 24fps. You'll be fine.

Wow! When did technology get so complicated? All the 35mm movie projectors in the theaters run at 24 FPS. There are a few show case theaters that do their own thing. That's it. 24FPS is the general standard for movies. If you shoot and edit a movie in video, (30FPS) it will still have to be converted to 24FPS to accommodate the theaters' 35 mm projectors.

Sometime ago one fellow decided to shoot his movie at 96 FPS to increase image clarity and get rid of motion blur. It worked alright, but he still had to skip-print the footage to get it down to 24FPS.

When we animated "Anastasia." we worked in Pal 25FPS. In the conversion process, I understand that they simply threw one frame away. All the animators worked to the standard 24FPS but their dialogue and music tracks had been sped up by one frame. In the film version of Anastasia, it is slightly faster by 1 FPS. Good discussion guys. Think 24 FPS.

[lavallelee]

When we animated "Anastasia." we worked in Pal 25FPS. In the conversion process, I understand that they simply threw one frame away.

im trying to do the math let me know if i get it right

94 min was the length of the movie

60 seconds a minute, 1 missing every second

60 missing frames x 94 min = 5640 frames

so your telling me, that 5640 beautiful drawings were thrown away! and we didn't get to see them!! thats alot of hard work down the drain.. :(

[skellener]

Think 24 FPS.Listen to Don!

[Regan]

How much animation is done on singles? It's usually only for fast action and camera moves right?

[DNethery]

You guys are making this way harder than it needs to be. Stick with 24fps. You'll be fine.


I totally agree with what Skellener has been saying since the beginning of this thread and Don Bluth's post a few posts up from this one. This really isn't a "debate" . FACT: The industry standard is 24fps . All the classic films you'll study and the books that you will study (Illusion of Life, Preston Blair, Don Bluth, Eric Goldberg, Richard Williams, etc.) assume timing based on 24fps.

What's the problem ?

[lavallelee]

Don also talks about animating at 24fps on his "Nuts and Bolts" dvd

explains everything in great detail

[skellener]

How much animation is done on singles? It's usually only for fast action and camera moves right?Effects (water, smoke, pixie dust, etc.) are also on ones usually.

[GdeSouza]

Yes, no debate.
As well 24 fps being more than well for our retention of vision, the beat in a second can be divided into halves, thirds, quarters, sixes, eighths and twelves. It's great for learning timing in one's head too if you have a metronome. Every 12 frames? 120 beats per minute. Every 8? 180 bpm, etc...

I've worked with goofy framerates like 10fps but that was Flash for the web a few years back ordered under the impression it saves on file size making it quicker to play back on the web.

As for the when for ones and when for twos question. Generally I was taught ones for fast detailed movement and twos are fine for moderate movement
.......3s for Japanese animation ;)

[GullyStomper]

Effects (water, smoke, pixie dust, etc.) are also on ones usually.

I noticed that too. If you look at the opening scene of Disney's Tarzan when Tarzan's parents leap into the ocean, the water is on 1's and the characters are animated on 2's. I love that contrast. It worked really well, I think.

Unless you work in Flash, I've always heard most professional animators say 24fps is the best option. Mostly because it's easier to break down. The frame rates for Flash are all over the place, but I think a lot of the best Flash animation is either animated at 12 or 24fps, frame by frame. I'm still just learning, but I like to animate at 24fps, and depending on what I'm trying to achieve, flip back and forth between 1's and 2's. I really enjoy playing with the timing and spacing of an animation.

j.

[GdeSouza]

.............

Unless you work in Flash, I've always heard most professional animators say 24fps is the best option. Mostly because it's easier to break down. The frame rates for Flash are all over the place, but I think a lot of the best Flash animation is either animated at 12 or 24fps, frame by frame. I'm still just learning, but I like to animate at 24fps, and depending on what I'm trying to achieve, flip back and forth between 1's and 2's. I really enjoy playing with the timing and spacing of an animation.

j.

Yes, it's basically the same in Flash. For slower finer even moderate movements in symbol animated flash, studios have been known define keyframes on twos; those computer interpolated inbetweens are really pronounced on ones for those "digital cut-outs"; too perfect so they put them on twos. Directors have been known to say that it looks to "flashy" whne the tweens are mechanically perfect.

[GullyStomper]

Yes, it's basically the same in Flash. For slower finer even moderate movements in symbol animated flash, studios have been known define keyframes on twos; those computer interpolated inbetweens are really pronounced on ones for those "digital cut-outs"; too perfect so they put them on twos. Directors have been known to say that it looks to "flashy" whne the tweens are mechanically perfect.

Not only that, but Tweens really cheapen the animation. It's probably the most abused feature on Flash. I think it's the main reason Flash animation has such a poor reputation. Tweening is best used for subtle movements applied to frame by frame animation, backgrounds and for camera movements. (Actually, I think a lot of the camera movements are handled in After Effects now, along with compositing.)

As for Flash cut-out animation, it's the exception. Most tweens work fine because of the mechanical nature of the puppets, but I can see animators placing them on 2s. Where Flash cut-out animation goes wrong is when they try to fake traditional hand drawn animation. It's impossible. Cut-out animation a flawed medium. That's it's charm. Why not flaunt it?

j.

[jeremyhopkins]

As for Flash cut-out animation, it's the exception. Most tweens work fine because of the mechanical nature of the puppets, but I can see animators placing them on 2s. Where Flash cut-out animation goes wrong is when they try to fake traditional hand drawn animation. It's impossible. Cut-out animation a flawed medium. That's it's charm. Why not flaunt it?


I think it's two things, efficiency and taste. Even after several flash and harmony shows my eye still doesn't do well with symbol based animation. I still feel like it looks bad regardless of it being on 1's or 2's. The exception being Doodlez:
Zw7GVcyLtvA
where the animated parts weren't so bad and the roughs were especially nice.
Though I didn't get a chance to work on the show, only on tests with some of the Doodlez team. Every other place seems to use 2's on television shows. It's more efficient and some people prefer it to the flash morphing look. In reality, it's just easier to transition between poses and cheat stuff. Doing head and body turns especially during walks is always a pain in flash on 1's. Most people don't care to put in the extra effort especially if they're being paid per frame. They just want to get their scenes done and get paid. It's not my way of approaching animation so that's why I left tv animation but my guess is that's your main reason for seeing less tween animation and more 2's.

* Just wanted to add, umm.. why are people still changing the frame rate for their tests? Doesn't this mess with your eye? Once it's set at 24 frames for me, it doesn't change. The only reason I could see for lowering it to 12 frames is using a slow computer or some similar technical issue.