James Cruickshank is doing it right. Everyone should copy whatever he's doing
I couldn't disagree more. I think anyone who plays back footage at 60 frames per second is doing it catastrophically wrong. That goes for a few videos in the thread. It looks terrible. The human eye naturally has motion blur, so should footage. Straying from 30 frames (eg. which is the frame rate of all vx footage) or 24 is just plain stupid. A lot of filmers film in 60fps for the option of smooth slow mo, but the final edit is usually outputed at 30fps.
To me it's like watching a movie on a TV with a high refresh rate, where it just makes up new frames to make the motion look smoother. It's the worst. I don't know why, but people always seem to forget the importance of frame rate. Keep in mind that if you have fully flared on DVD, you are watching a video that is entirely standard def. They filmed the b-roll with an HD camera but the final output was SD. The reason why the "HD" footage looked so different, wasn't the resolution, it was primarily the frame rate. I'd even go further and say I dislike when cinematic B-roll is outputed in 30fps (eg. Propeller).