[Updated] Video Round Up: Highlights, POVs & More from the Les Gets DH World Champs 2022

 Just my 2 cents. I tend to record in 25fps as you get a bit more motion blur on the edges which can help with the sensation of speed, especially in trees.

The 4k stuff is all valid but filming in 4k fills SD cards and kills batteries so much quicker and personally my computer can really struggle with 4k footage

 It’s about getting the proper motion blur, which considered to be more cinematic. 24fps is essentially the closest equivalent to what our eyes naturally see so looking at footage that is shot at 24fps appears more natural/normal to most viewers. You could get “sharper” 24fps by increasing the shutter angle or shutter speed. 60fps shouldn’t be published at 60fps, the whole point of shooting a higher framerate is to create slowmo footage in post

 30 or 25fps (depending on where you live NTSC vs. PAL) is the standard and is not considered to be a “low” framerate. 24fps is what we use in cinema if you want something to appear in real-time upon playback. 60fps is never shot for broadcast TV and would only be used for slowmo in cinema. Additionally, knowing the relationship between framerate and shutter angle/speed is critical to understanding why these videos look a certain way.

You are totally entitled to your opinion that you prefer one over the other (and I’m not trying to argue with you on that), rather just trying to explain why things are the way they are

 @pierceklinke Broadcast standards have not been relevant in video production, other than specifically for broadcast (which these are not), for a long time. NTSC vs PAL is completely irrelevant in discussions about online media, as they are analogue standards and refer to transmission rates over analogue hardware.

Humans also do not see close to 24fps, what we see is not directly measured in fps but it's roughly between 30 and 60 (which is why any framerate higher than 60 just looks the same as 60 to us).

The reason for the trash quality of some of the vids above is youtube's compression on certain filetypes. Higher fps is nice in action cam footage, but the big issue with for example, PB's video, is the compression.

 @redrook: Agree with what you've said, and yes NTSC vs PAL is meaningless when you're watching something online or streamed. I'd also agree with OP that there's a noticeable improvement with higher res footage on youtube - which seems to destroy anything 1080p or less with it's horrible compression. Higher fps is unnecessary though (but as you say, can look good with some gopro footage).

 Higher fps looks much better for gopro pov shots. As OP says, the bitrate youtube gives at 1080p for gopro footage is just atrocious.

 Aggree. I had a medium sized YouTube channel as well and I even upscaled 1080p footage to 1440p if I needed older footage. The bitrate YouTube uses for 1080p is good for vlogging or relatively stable camera positions. But not for fast moving POV videos like with mountain biking. Even if the original 1080p videos is quite good it won't look good on YouTube on a bigger screen. With 1440p YouTube uses a bitrate which is so much more suitable for mountain biking POV videos.

 When you're in the media tent after a full day getting dust in your eyes and the internet upload speeds are garbage, 1080p at 25fps is way faster to upload than 4K/60fps. Or, you've blown through all your data on your international plan and the Air'BnB your team booked doesn't have the unlimited WIFI they promised.

 @fektor-b: Yup, both true, but neither changes the fact that what you'll end up with is crap quality on youtube.

 @redrook: Jesus the mob mentality is strong out here. I literally work as a professional filmmaker/photographer and certainly not in the broadcast side of things. I would never film something at 60fps if it was meant to be played back in real time nor would any of my peers.

Also y’all completely glossed over the framerate versus shutter angle/speed point. The gopro by default will shoot a higher shutter speed when the framerate is bumped and this is likely why most people consider the footage to be “smoother”

 @pierceklinke: why is framerate such a big deal for gaming if 24 fps is "essentially the closest equivalent to what our eyes naturally see"? I can definitely tell the difference between 30 60 120 and maybe 140-150 fps, at least at games

 @pablo-b: gaming and photography/filmmaker are entirely different beasts when it comes to framerates. My limited understanding of gaming is that running a game at a higher framerate allows the player smaller latency when interacting with the world of the game whether that is other players or environmental factors.

With regards to human vision, yes you can discern differences in higher framerates but that is due to the accompanying higher shutter speed that comes with those framerates. What your eye is detecting is the perceived decrease in motion blur not the actual difference in framerate.

Wave your hand in front of your face. Even at a relatively slow oscillation, your hand will be blurry in your vision because our eyes’ effective framerate and equivalent shutter speed isn’t actually that fast. It is really hard to discern what the actual “framerate” is of our eyes because biologically our eyes don’t work like cameras or screens do, we see continuously. Any article you may find online that says otherwise is purely conjecture. 24fps is the default for real time footage because it most mimics how our eyes see thus the footage appears the most natural to us and that is the result of the combination of framerate and shutter speed.

These videos likely look “shitty” because of the video compression from upload to YouTube, etc. and the export bitrate of the footage.

 @pierceklinke: Humans don't see at 24 fps. Thats a dumb old myth. Our eyes don't see "frames per second" at all. You can easily see the difference between 144 and 240 fps...

 @pierceklinke: If you literally work as a professional filmmaker/photographer then you should know what is relevant to this discussion. People pointing this out to you is not "mob mentality". I also work as a videographer/photographer, as do many people on this site, and if you stray from the point (or facts - e.g. nonsense about what humans see) it will be pointed out.

The entire point is why some of the above youtube videos look bad, which is entirely down to compression.

 60fps videos hammer your internet connection, both for uploading and viewing.

 @somebody-else: You must have a dogshit connection

 @somebody-else: lmao your infrastructure sucks.

 @Nuss-95: they’ve been installing fiber in town but I’m on the outskirts so who knows if or when we could get it. I’ve got great riding within 15 minutes in every direction though. Doesn’t matter if you’re into xc, freeride, gravel, road or whatever. It’s here.

 @somebody-else: But these Throughput Nerds won't let you live.....smdh

 @somebody-else: I'm not sure about that. Basically it's always the bitrate. On YouTube the bitrate is much higher for higher resolutions. From what I know higher framerates have not such a significant impact than a higher resolution. Usually in video compression a lot of frames are just interpolated from previous and upcoming frames. And only the changes are stored. With 60fps you have less changes from frame to frame.
Just looked it up: YouTube uses a 50% higher bitrate for 60fps over 30pfs. But about double the bitrate from 1080p to 1440p and again to 4K. support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en#zippy=%2Cp-fps%2Cp%2Ck-p-fps

 @noox: You are correct, the framerate is irrelevant, it's the bitrate which will influence data speeds. But tbh, if you're having trouble streaming 1440p youtube videos your connection is garbage and you have terrible infrastructure. With fttp I'm currently getting around 570mbps. The idea of buffering is funny to me.