60 FPS: YouTubers will LOVE it (WAY better than 30 FPS for video)

60 Frames per Second (60P) gives better quality and WAY more editing options than 30 FPS (30P) or 24 FPS (24P) for vloggers and filmmakers. Video is both sharper and smoother when you publish in 60p. Even if you publish in 30p, you can stretch footage 2X to create a dramatic effect or to get more coverage on your B-roll.

Our 4k/60p cameras:

OR, search for "Tony Northrup" in your Kindle, iBooks, Google Play, or Nook stores. All versions include 10+ hours of video, free lifetime updates, and free support.

Questions? Add a comment and I'll reply.

Our camera recommendations:

STARTER CAMERAS:

LANDSCAPE CAMERAS:

PORTRAIT CAMERAS:

WILDLIFE CAMERAS:

VIDEO CAMERAS:

DRONES:

[FunWithTheBugs]

It's like watching your TV with the smooth motion effect on which LED TVs use to make motion more smooth and less blurry. Also known as the Soap Opera Effect. Now people are actually recording and going for that look naturally. There really is nothing pleasing about it, especially if you are watching a movie.

It works well for sports and live action stuff.

[BurakBagdatli]

I think it's mainly the shutter speed that freaks people out. Do a 30fps with 90 deg shutter and people also get that "what is this, it looks weird" feeling.

BTW, Tony, while I agree with you on most things, motion blur isn't necessarily a bad thing. Imagine shooting a car or a person moving fast on a street. Keeping the shutter speed low helps with communicating the speed of the subject. As you track it, it remains sharp while everything else melts into a motion blur. It helps the audience to keep focus. But this is a very specific example and is not a general rule.

I think 60FPS actually is better on slow panning shots like showing an environment (like a landscape photo but a video). As soon as there's action, my eyes actually prefer the motion blur.

[IFrancyISantosI]

playing chess in slowmotion with this fake smile is probably one of the scariest things i have seen

[ChrisProuse]

Nice! Well said. I think one of the other great (and often overlooked) benefits of filming in 60p is the cleaner tracking information between individual frames of video, which you get to take advantage of when applying stabilization in post, like in warp stabilizer for example. More frames per second, less space between objects in motion, and sharper frames from the increased shutter angle all result in a smoother track with less noticeable jello afterwards, and I've worked on projects in 60p precisely for that reason. Keep up the great work! :)

[zeemon]

When I got my first and, to date, only camera, I made sure that it can record at 60fps. 4k is out of the question for budget reasons, but I'm glad that 60fps becomes more of a standard feature these days.

[TheGroovyGuitarDude]

I just switched over to 60 fps man and I am loving it so far! I have gone back and forth but I think what you said about us just being conditioned to 24 and 30 fps is true. I think overall, I am happier with my 60 fps videos than I am with my 30 fps as far as image quality goes. Also, I like the way it grades!

[DougPVlogs]

I have switched over to vlogging at 4k 60fps since I got my Hero 10 and love how clear and detailed my videos look now.

[AutoAddictionMedia]

Been using 50/60p since 2015 on youtube (when youtube started supporting more than 30p), first a lot of people hated it, but eventually they adapted to it and now most people find our footage to be one of the nicest

[itsjustjonnoh]

Thanks for this explanation, very clear and concise. I film motovlogs and occasional films. I never knew that 60fps meant "more detail" video. This is exactly the information I've been searching for to up my quality on my channel. Take care my friend.

[blaspayri]

It would be very interesting to have your updated opinion about 60fps vs 30 fps (or 25 or 24 fps) 3 years later.

[maskedmillionaire]

loved how the woman and her dog appear behind the tree at 4:10 ... was that a mask? my daughter thought that was hysterical

[stilldasayme]

Satie in the background. Good choice !

[SHHSoojaL]

Man your videos quality is more detailed than real life!

[AlanRuic]

There is one problem which I just noticed that results in 60p being lower quality. Since the bitrate is higher people who happen to be in a place with slow internet in that moment will see the resolution drop. Other than that I think it's more a question of taste as to what looks nicer. As this is definitely something that changes the feel of the video more than resolution ever could.

[guillaumeerard]

So does that equate giving up on a great deal of that "cinematic look" that made DSLRs popular with video makers in the first place?

[DynamixWarePro]

I like to shoot in 25fps. Mainly because I have a GH5 and shoot in V-Log L where its best to shoot in 10-bit to prevent banding issues when you push the footage. If I were recording onto an external recorder, then I might consider 50fps. I find that 50/60fps can look good, but because of the smoother motion, I find there are times when you have to learn how to use it as doing things like panning wide shots if you pan a bit fast or shooting video out of a moving vehicle, can make the footage look a little too smooth with a bit less motion blur than we would see with out eye in those situations.

[techguyMD]

You can also archive the projects in Premiere and save a ton of space by "Consolidating" the project and picking HEVC (h.265) re-encoding... That will make the files MUCH smaller and will look nearly identical to the originals if not identical.
File\Project Manager\ pick the sequences you want to keep... Under "resulting project" choose "Consolidate and transcode" (you'll need to create a preset in Adobe Media encoder and then click "import Preset" in project manager once you've saved the 4K UHD preset from AME and exported it to somewhere you can remember) then pick the preset you created in AME.... You can also get rid of files you didn't use this way to make the project smaller for archiving.

[MrBilliam]

For my own preference, it's the combination of frame rate and camera profile (color palette). Videos like this one are 60 fps used in combination with a natural human vision-like profile. I like it. It gives me the impression of “it’s what my eyes would see.” Put a film/cinema color palette on the same footage and it would seem ‘off’ or ‘wrong’ to me due to the historic conditioning that Tony mentioned.

[NickGranville]

While I agree for b roll it makes sense, one thing you didn't mention is that people's eyes see things with a slight amount of blur. We don't see fast moving object sharp like that hence why it looks weird to us. You are absolutely right it's conditioning also. These two factors combined were why the hobbit looked weird to me in the higher frame rate and many I spoke to - including some of those who filmed it. They also released that film in 24p, hence why 48p was a useful starting place.

[geoffreybassett]

Another huge problem with the hobbit films that no one mentions is that they didn't use proper shutter angle for 48 fps. Instead of using 1/96 they used 1/75 for the majority of the film. It made the film look worse. The best shot in the film is a slowmo shot in the first film where Thorin is in the middle of a flashback back battle sequence, that scene was shot with the proper shutter, and looks better than everything else in HFR. To make matters even worse, they didn't render the effects at 48 fps either! They rendered at 24 and interpolated the frames, making the visual effects stand out worse during the film compared to the real life footage.

If Jackson had committed to the format, he would have won people over (Like James Cameron and the way he framed AVATAR), instead he turned everyone off the format.