Probably seems like a simple question but...
YouTube recommends (amongst others) 60 fps upload
I am shooting sports videos in 59.94 fps. Should I upload them in 59.94 fps to YouTube or use PR to change to 60 fps before upload?
Which would have the higher quality video?
I've had a fairly knowledgeable colorist tell me that "60fps" is like unto the "30fps" in some cameras ... it's actually 29.976, but the "shorthand" is 30. And that he hadn't seen any footage that was actually, precisely, 60fps.
So I'm wondering is he correct? Is '60fps' just a shorter way of saying "59.94fps"?
If you were delivering what's called "frames as fields" for broadcast, it would matter which frame rate you use between 59.94 and 60; however, for YouTube it doesn't matter.
Bottom line, "amongst others" includes their statement that the original framerate is best. I assume your 59.94 is progressive; is it?
But, similar to Neil, I think they are ignoring the 30 vs 29.97 vs 59.94 vs 60 etc.
What they say is:
"Content should be encoded and uploaded in the same frame rate it was recorded.
Common frame rates include: 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60 frames per second (other frame rates are also acceptable).
Interlaced content should be deinterlaced before uploading. For example, 1080i60 content should be deinterlaced to 1080p30. 60 interlaced fields per second should be deinterlaced to 30 progressive frames per second."
The "common frame rates" are 29.97, 59.94, and 23.976. So I don't think they are stating a preference for 60 over 59.94, unless that is what you shot.
Yes I am filming in 59.94p before editing with PR.
Specfically I am considering purchasing the Sony fx3 to film my YouTube videos and recording using the following settings, advice welcome:
H.264, XAVC S 4K 59.94p/50p 150Mbps 4:2:0 8bit MPEG-4 AVC
What ever camera you are using/will choose, YT will re-encode.
I would not waist good money just for Youtube.
I'd opt for a camera that can record ProRes.
Shoot ProRes. Edit ProRes. Upload ProRes.
As far as frame rates go, it's common for professional videographers to shoot 23.976 or 29.97 for sync sound (like interviews) and 48 or 60 for non-sync sound (usulaly b-roll). They'll also take the time to record a few minutes of ambient sound at each location. With the range of source, the editor is empowered to focus on telling the story.
The issue I have is I need to send the video to someone who edits it, so the file size is an issue so always trying to be efficient with both file size and editing time
Warren said it did not matter in the case of a YouTube upload. I would compare file sizes with sample files using the two frame rates in a test and see if there is much difference. That should help guide your workflow decision. I hope that helps.