quote:

---

Originally posted by NArkshaRK

Would 24 hours of time lapse video (1 frame recorded every minute), with a playback time of 24 minutes, be:

"24 hours of footage, with a 24 minute runtime"

OR

"24 minutes of footage" ?

---

Neither, assuming I've done my math correctly. 🙂

At the standard NTSC video frame rate of 29.97 (which I'll round to 30fps to simplify things a bit), when shooting one frame per minute, that means you'll get one second of video every thirty minutes. That means two seconds of video for every hour of shooting.

So if you're rolling for 24 hours, that's 24hrs x 2 seconds per hour = 48 seconds of video for that one day of shooting. (That's approximate because I didn't use the exact frame rate of 29.97fps.)

If you're shooting HD at 23.98fps (which I'll round up to 24fps for simplicity), you'll get one second of video for every 24 minutes of roll time. That's two seconds of video every 48 minutes of roll time. So you'd get 60 seconds of video for every 24 hours of shooting at 23.98fps (approximately).

Please someone check my math, but I believe I got it right. 🙂 Thanks!

But to answer your terminology question, it would NOT be 24 hours of footage. It doesn't matter how long it takes you to acquire footage, all that counts is how much you have when you're finished. A project that starts rolling film at 7am and wraps at 11pm doesn't have "16 hours of footage with an X runtime (however much film they actually shot that day)."

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I checked your math and it's correct (assuming rounded numbers of 24 and 30 instead of 23.975 and 29.97).

NArkshaRK, could you put your question into context?
What purpose do you need this terminology?

And the math is correct. One frame shot every minute
for 24 hours would give you 1440 frames - 60 seconds
at 24fps.

Hi, thanks for the responses. Appreciate it.

I ask this question because a friend and I disputed the correct usage of the word "footage" in modern language.

The math actually I didn't even think about, I just made up numbers in order for the question to make more sense.

I made a post about this question on a computer forum and they had similar responses, but bringing this to a "media" forum would add more reliability to the answer.

My circumstance on the other forum I posted in was this:

Say my PC's webcam makes a time lapsed video over a period of 24 hours, with one still frame recorded every second, and no other data kept.

Let's say my computer auto-generates a video at 24fps that takes you 1 hour to watch, as one second of daytime became one frame in the video. I think I have one hour of footage..

The guy with which I have a dispute would say I have 24 hours of footage and a one hour runtime.

Based on what you've stated, I think I'm right here.

I would say you have one hour of footage covering 24 hours.

If you use "footage" in it's original meaning (the number of feet of film exposed)
you have exposed on hour of footage (5,400ft/35mm- 2,160ft/16mm) not 24
hours of footage (129,600ft/35mm - 51,840ft/16mm)

You do not have 129,600 feet of film exposed, you have 5,400 feet of film exposed.
And that is one hour of footage.

I'm fairly certain the term "footage" is still used even with digital video. Isn't it basically interchangeable with terms like "video" and "tape?" I personally use the terms interchangeably, but someone more experienced would be able to provide a more practical opinion.

You are correct, Corax.