Sound-Curious
New member
Hi folks -- I'm shooting a project this summer with a high-end film camera, sync sound. We're going to telecine the film and edit on a computer and finish on hi-def. A common setup (well, maybe except for the "film" part)
I thought it might be interesting, to save money and to get an extra stop of light, to shoot at 18 fps, then simply slow down the footage in post by 1/4.
The camera can't sync at any speeds other than 24fps, but it'd be pretty close, and it seems to me that in the age of digital audio and picture edit, it'd be pretty easy to snip/add a virtual frame here and there if it seems to be drifting out of sync.
With a reasonably steady camera, there is no discernible difference between an 18fps (played at 18 fps) and 24 fps( played at 24fps) image.
From what I can tell no one has tried this, probably for the same reason I'm writing here -- sheer terror, and also hoping that someone has tested this thoroughly and they don't have to spend the money to learn the hard way themselves.
So -- I ask you -- are there any problems with this idea IN THEORY?
thanks
SC
I thought it might be interesting, to save money and to get an extra stop of light, to shoot at 18 fps, then simply slow down the footage in post by 1/4.
The camera can't sync at any speeds other than 24fps, but it'd be pretty close, and it seems to me that in the age of digital audio and picture edit, it'd be pretty easy to snip/add a virtual frame here and there if it seems to be drifting out of sync.
With a reasonably steady camera, there is no discernible difference between an 18fps (played at 18 fps) and 24 fps( played at 24fps) image.
From what I can tell no one has tried this, probably for the same reason I'm writing here -- sheer terror, and also hoping that someone has tested this thoroughly and they don't have to spend the money to learn the hard way themselves.
So -- I ask you -- are there any problems with this idea IN THEORY?
thanks
SC
