I usually shoot one frame every minute or so, depending on the complexity of the shot, and the number of characters. The only guy I've heard of that animates at 24 fps is Ray Harryhausen, cause only he is that fast.
So I guess the poll is timing animation, and playback rates.
In the silent era, films were projected at roughly 16 fps, so that how they timed their animation. Sound films are played back at 24 fps, for the sound quality, so that was their frame rate, I am talking film here.  Super 8 could playback at 18 fps, and 24 fps, both with sound. These were the fps rates all over the world.
Video plays back at roughly 30 fps, and Pal plays back at 25 fps, which by the way, does not make it look more like film.
So one's medium will dictate playback frame rates.
Also. shooting on two's does NOT change the playback rate from 30 to 15 fps.
I state all this, so that we can all speak the same animation language.
24-30 fps, shot on ones will tend to look smoother.
Even if one could play back at 1000 fps, no one could make small enough moves to animate at that playback rate.

Marc_H wrote:

tim smyth wrote:

I usually shoot one frame every minute or so, depending on the complexity of the shot, and the number of characters. The only guy I've heard of that animates at 24 fps is Ray Harryhausen, cause only he is that fast.

one frame a minute is pretty good going, I only really get a frame every 3 to 7 minutes.
So you haven't heard of Anthony Scott, Phil Tippett, Suzie Templeton or members on the stop-mo sites like Ron Cole, Nick Hilligoss, and Barry Purves?


My point is this is a new board, and we should all speak the same language, now, and not go on for years of confusing posts. Live action theatrical movies are shot at 24 fps, and played back at 24 fps, animation is shot one frame at a time, not at any frame rate. We only time it out depending on the play back rate.  No I have never heard of those people, but they still don't shoot stop motion at 24 fps, just one at a time like the rest of us.

Also. shooting on two's does NOT change the playback rate from 30 to 15 fps.
I state all this, so that we can all speak the same animation language.

errr... it kind of does  but in a way it doesn't if you're talking about the film, file or video itself or the actual amount of frames we're seeing.

That is correct, if I shoot on ones or fifteens, if the playback rate is 30 fps, it remains 30 fps, even if there are two images per second.  Shooting on twos may affect the look of the animation, but not the frame rate.

Even if one could play back at 1000 fps, no one could make small enough moves to animate at that playback rate.

It doesn't matter anyway, because the human brain doesn't read that fast anyway, there's a point around 30 that everything looks smooth, and everything above that would just look the same as 30 (it varies from person to person)

If you increase the frame rate you do increase the level of detail in the frame, although we now have hi def so it does not matter anymore. But there were a few film processes where they shoot at a much higher rate, and the films actually look much clearer. One was on 35mm and I think they shot at 48 fps, but to make movies that way, you would need new projectors in the theaters, so it wasn't worth going forward with it. Also in the eighties there was a process called I think, Showscan, which was 65mm film, shot and projected at 60 fps. It was made for these pizza parlor theaters, but again never caught on. Both of those processes increased the amount of film needed to make and show a movie considerably. So shooting at a higher frame rate can increase quality, but we could never animate on ones to those play back frame rates. If we shot at 1000 fps, which is not my idea, but actually part of the poll question, we wouldn't finish one second of of a shot a day.
I am fine with 24-30 fps, it has worked all of these years, and hopefully will continue to do so.

mongothemonkfish wrote:

a clap of lightning takes 1/100ths of a second and I can see that so our eyes must be able to see at more than 1/100 frames per second if that makes sence?

You can see lightning through persistence of vision, but no one could animate to that sort of timing. I think it would be hard to go more than 30 moves equaling one second. The moves would just be too small to achieve. Plus, at this stage no animation program plays that fast. If all movies and other formats switched to 100 fps, then stop motion on ones would be dead, and everyone would have to animate on 3's , so what would be the point. Whether the animation would look as good as 30 fps on twos, we will never know.
I shoot what ever the job requires, but ones played back at 24 fps would probably be my favorite.

oh well that turned out great and just look at the first page of this some one animates at 160 fps

24, 25 or 29.97 (fps for Apple HD codec)