Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 390653" data-attributes="member: 12496">Camcorders (say the $300 class) are going to be pretty much fully automatic, regardless.&nbsp; They don't even show what ISO or shutter speed or aperture they are using, much less let us set it.I would disagree with 24 fps.&nbsp; Hollywood (film) uses 24, and is sometimes characterized by jerky motion.&nbsp; It can appear worse in bright light when an even faster shutter is used, but still shown at 24 fps.&nbsp; The advantage of 24 is that it is the minimum acceptable to nearly appear continuous motion, which reduces film footage bought and used.Television and digital has standardized on 30 fps, better, even at the hardship of requiring complex conversion of old film movies to show.Our cameras provide either, in case we want the old movie look.&nbsp; If you do, go for it.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 390653, member: 12496"] Camcorders (say the $300 class) are going to be pretty much fully automatic, regardless. They don't even show what ISO or shutter speed or aperture they are using, much less let us set it. I would disagree with 24 fps. Hollywood (film) uses 24, and is sometimes characterized by jerky motion. It can appear worse in bright light when an even faster shutter is used, but still shown at 24 fps. The advantage of 24 is that it is the minimum acceptable to nearly appear continuous motion, which reduces film footage bought and used. Television and digital has standardized on 30 fps, better, even at the hardship of requiring complex conversion of old film movies to show. Our cameras provide either, in case we want the old movie look. If you do, go for it. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification