4 ms·

The overwhelming majority of live streams today is content created on a PC by gamers/entertainers, for gamers/patrons watching it on a PC, and in this context y

The overwhelming majority of live streams today is content created on a PC by gamers/entertainers, for gamers/patrons watching it on a PC, and in this context you can safely stop worrying over the two most pressing issues - 29.97 vs 30 fps and partial vs full range. Just go with 30 or 60 fps and full color range, and everything will be optimal for both you and your viewers.

sneak 5y ago
Or just go with 24fps, which plays fine on 30fps displays, uses less bandwidth (or the same bandwidth and has higher picture quality), and looks "better" due to 24fps being the frame rate of movies (and 30fps being the frame rate of straight-to-video daytime tv). 30 or 60 makes sense for fast motion, but most things people are shooting are talking heads and stuff like that, which don't really benefit from higher frame rates. 24 is good.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  24 is not a multiple of 30. >and looks "better" due to 24fps being the frame rate of movies I think this is just Stockholm syndrome from people used to bad frame rates. If the content was originally in 60fps don't butcher it by converting it to 24fps.
  - sneak 5y ago
    No, the fact that higher frame rates are not automatically better because "bigger number, more data" is not equivalent to Stockholm syndrome. What's better, a gallery exhibition of 20 photographs or 2000? It doesn't work that way. 24fps is not a bad framerate.
    - daneel_w 5y ago
      It's not a bad framerate in itself, but it's an unwelcome one when it has to be shoehorned into a 50 or 60 hz display. It just doesn't update evenly.
    - bruce343434 5y ago
      highly anecdotal, but 24fps tends to give me a headache. It's just ever so slightly too slow, bordering on "slide show".
    - inexcf 5y ago
      Sorry but thats the worst reasoning i've ever heard when it comes to this FPS debate. 24fps is a bad framerate. Even for movies with the "prerendered motion blur", which helps to smooth the video a bit, its a stuttering mess. Comparing it to watching static photographs makes no sense, an inherent quality of video is it not being static. Don't forget that 46 fps was determined by Edison to be the minimum viable framerate to not cause eye fatigue but then it was decided to go down to 24 to lower the cost of movie productions. 24fps is literally just the low budget option. The higher the fps the smoother the video the better the video. I'd pick 720p60fps over 1080p30fps any day if im somehow limited by bitrate restrictions.
      - scottious 5y ago
        24fps is definitely not just a low-budget option. People with very expensive cameras capable of shooting 60fps without any issues at all are still CHOOSING 24fps. The debate about 24fps vs higher frame rates is nuanced. It's about trade-offs and style choices. Here's an example of a videos discussing 24fps vs higher frame rates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIo7jwsYbxc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIo7jwsYbxc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6HZPmSlS5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6HZPmSlS5c
    - jstimpfle 5y ago
      24 Hz is not necessarily a bad frame rate (depends for what, really), but even disregarding that most display technology is for 30/60 Hz, I don't think there is any argument that 24Hz is not worse than any higher framerate in terms of visuals. Just like 60 Hz is worse than 144 Hz or even higher rates. The difference is very noticeable. What's worse, how do you intend to display 24 Hz content on a 60 Hz monitor for example? Display one content frame on every 2nd or 3rd monitor frame? That will lead to speedup / slowdown. Maybe display one content frame every 3rd monitor frame, but drop every 6th content frame? That will display the content at proper speed but the result will be a jerky watching experience. Maybe think about interpolating the content by computing in-between frames dynamically? I'm not sure to what extent this is done in existing devices, but I'm positive the watching experience won't be optimal. If it was somehow proven that the human perception system "samples" individual frames at a fixed framerate of 24 Hz, then you could make a case that 24 Hz is preferable to 30 Hz, but I'm pretty sure that is not the case. I remember playing Halo on the original Xbox. I was distracted for weeks because it was an unpleasant jerky experience. About once per second there was an annoying jerk when just walking in a straight line. At some point I noticed that on a friend's Xbox Halo ran very smooth - at least during scenes that hadn't a lot of action going on. I was already considering that his Xbox was a newer, stronger model, but then I noticed my friend had his Xbox set to NTSC mode. I'm from Germany, where as most of Europe the usual video system was PAL (slightly higher resolution and running at 60 Hz instead of NTSC which runs at 50 Hz). I set my console to NTSC for Halo and it fixed my issue. The whole thing might be an issue in Halo's engine, maybe they weren't able to fix this in time before the release. Or I don't know, fixing it might have caused huge headaches with multiplayer. In any case this situation might illustrate why you don't want to put 24 Hz video on a 60 Hz screen if you can have 30 Hz video.
      - j0yb0y 5y ago
        NTSC is 29.97 fps and PAL is 25 fps - PAL was higher resolution because it sacrificed frame rate. (Doesn’t change your point of course) (Back in the cathode days seeing a TV set in Europe was like going to a strobe show.) As TFA says (well maybe it was in the comments) there are standard ways of conversion and you pretty much hit them but newer equipment will be able to playback 24fps natively to give the “cinema experience”.
    - ezconnect 5y ago
      Probably during the CRT days but 24fps on an LCD will give the user headache and eye strain.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      > What's better, a gallery exhibition of 20 photographs or 2000? It doesn't work that way. Yes, it doesn't work that way, the number of frames you have and the number of pictures you select for a gallery exhibition are two totally different things, the only thing that they have in common is that both are a number of pictures. Unless you consume video content by pausing and watching it frame by frame, which I doubt you do. And even in that case, a lower framerate doesn't equal more "work" being put into each frames, which would be the case for the gallery exhibition, but isn't the case for "livestreaming", since you don't have the time to do that when doing something live.

sneak 5y ago

Or just go with 24fps, which plays fine on 30fps displays, uses less bandwidth (or the same bandwidth and has higher picture quality), and looks "better" due to 24fps being the frame rate of movies (and 30fps being the frame rate of straight-to-video daytime tv). 30 or 60 makes sense for fast motion, but most things people are shooting are talking heads and stuff like that, which don't really benefit from higher frame rates. 24 is good.

charcircuit 5y ago
24 is not a multiple of 30. >and looks "better" due to 24fps being the frame rate of movies I think this is just Stockholm syndrome from people used to bad frame rates. If the content was originally in 60fps don't butcher it by converting it to 24fps.
- sneak 5y ago
  No, the fact that higher frame rates are not automatically better because "bigger number, more data" is not equivalent to Stockholm syndrome. What's better, a gallery exhibition of 20 photographs or 2000? It doesn't work that way. 24fps is not a bad framerate.
  - daneel_w 5y ago
    It's not a bad framerate in itself, but it's an unwelcome one when it has to be shoehorned into a 50 or 60 hz display. It just doesn't update evenly.
  - bruce343434 5y ago
    highly anecdotal, but 24fps tends to give me a headache. It's just ever so slightly too slow, bordering on "slide show".
  - inexcf 5y ago
    Sorry but thats the worst reasoning i've ever heard when it comes to this FPS debate. 24fps is a bad framerate. Even for movies with the "prerendered motion blur", which helps to smooth the video a bit, its a stuttering mess. Comparing it to watching static photographs makes no sense, an inherent quality of video is it not being static. Don't forget that 46 fps was determined by Edison to be the minimum viable framerate to not cause eye fatigue but then it was decided to go down to 24 to lower the cost of movie productions. 24fps is literally just the low budget option. The higher the fps the smoother the video the better the video. I'd pick 720p60fps over 1080p30fps any day if im somehow limited by bitrate restrictions.
    - scottious 5y ago
      24fps is definitely not just a low-budget option. People with very expensive cameras capable of shooting 60fps without any issues at all are still CHOOSING 24fps. The debate about 24fps vs higher frame rates is nuanced. It's about trade-offs and style choices. Here's an example of a videos discussing 24fps vs higher frame rates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIo7jwsYbxc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIo7jwsYbxc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6HZPmSlS5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6HZPmSlS5c
  - jstimpfle 5y ago
    24 Hz is not necessarily a bad frame rate (depends for what, really), but even disregarding that most display technology is for 30/60 Hz, I don't think there is any argument that 24Hz is not worse than any higher framerate in terms of visuals. Just like 60 Hz is worse than 144 Hz or even higher rates. The difference is very noticeable. What's worse, how do you intend to display 24 Hz content on a 60 Hz monitor for example? Display one content frame on every 2nd or 3rd monitor frame? That will lead to speedup / slowdown. Maybe display one content frame every 3rd monitor frame, but drop every 6th content frame? That will display the content at proper speed but the result will be a jerky watching experience. Maybe think about interpolating the content by computing in-between frames dynamically? I'm not sure to what extent this is done in existing devices, but I'm positive the watching experience won't be optimal. If it was somehow proven that the human perception system "samples" individual frames at a fixed framerate of 24 Hz, then you could make a case that 24 Hz is preferable to 30 Hz, but I'm pretty sure that is not the case. I remember playing Halo on the original Xbox. I was distracted for weeks because it was an unpleasant jerky experience. About once per second there was an annoying jerk when just walking in a straight line. At some point I noticed that on a friend's Xbox Halo ran very smooth - at least during scenes that hadn't a lot of action going on. I was already considering that his Xbox was a newer, stronger model, but then I noticed my friend had his Xbox set to NTSC mode. I'm from Germany, where as most of Europe the usual video system was PAL (slightly higher resolution and running at 60 Hz instead of NTSC which runs at 50 Hz). I set my console to NTSC for Halo and it fixed my issue. The whole thing might be an issue in Halo's engine, maybe they weren't able to fix this in time before the release. Or I don't know, fixing it might have caused huge headaches with multiplayer. In any case this situation might illustrate why you don't want to put 24 Hz video on a 60 Hz screen if you can have 30 Hz video.
    - j0yb0y 5y ago
      NTSC is 29.97 fps and PAL is 25 fps - PAL was higher resolution because it sacrificed frame rate. (Doesn’t change your point of course) (Back in the cathode days seeing a TV set in Europe was like going to a strobe show.) As TFA says (well maybe it was in the comments) there are standard ways of conversion and you pretty much hit them but newer equipment will be able to playback 24fps natively to give the “cinema experience”.
  - ezconnect 5y ago
    Probably during the CRT days but 24fps on an LCD will give the user headache and eye strain.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > What's better, a gallery exhibition of 20 photographs or 2000? It doesn't work that way. Yes, it doesn't work that way, the number of frames you have and the number of pictures you select for a gallery exhibition are two totally different things, the only thing that they have in common is that both are a number of pictures. Unless you consume video content by pausing and watching it frame by frame, which I doubt you do. And even in that case, a lower framerate doesn't equal more "work" being put into each frames, which would be the case for the gallery exhibition, but isn't the case for "livestreaming", since you don't have the time to do that when doing something live.