Answers.Body: <p>Yes, repeating every other frame works the same way at 30fps as it does at 24fps.</p>
  
  <p>Animating on twos is done not because it looks better, but because it means less drawing and you can 'get away' with it. Nothing stops you from drawing every frame if you want the smoothest possible motion, and nothing prevents you from repeating a frame indefinitely when there is no motion.</p>
  
  <p>If you really want to work at 24fps, you could always animate 'as though' you were working at 24fps -- your work will look sped up when viewed at 30fps -- and applying a cine expansion (3:2 pulldown) as a final step.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-30T13:37:02.980Z
Answers.Text: Pretty thorough answer Jim, thanks! I thought about 'getting away' with less frames...24/2 = 12 (the minimum amount of frames needed for the eye to perceive continuous motion) - is that plausible ?
Answers.UserDisplayName: George Profenza
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-31T12:16:31.077Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for the explanations Ken, pretty interesting stuff ! :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: George Profenza
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-30T12:43:01.763Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-01-30T12:43:01.763Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jim Mack
Body: <p>I'm putting together a very basic software to animate a few pixels frame-by-frame. I've skimmed through Richard William's Animator's Survival Kit in the past and noticed most traditional animation uses 24fps and he used to "animate on twos" for most motion and on "ones" for fast motion. </p>
  
  <p>Since my tool will deal with frame by frame animation I'd like to make use of those principles, but I am constraint to 30 fps. Because of this, I'm wondering how would I workout at what frame interval(every frame, every two frames, every three frames, etc.) a 'keyframe'/changed frame should be placed to look good ? Is there a way to work that out arithmetically ? Does it make a bit difference/ is it safe two stick to twos even for 30fps ?</p>
  
Tags: <framerate><animation>
Title: Traditional animation techniques and 30fps software animation?
UserDisplayName: George Profenza
ThreadText: # Traditional animation techniques and 30fps software animation?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-01-30)
  
  I'm putting together a very basic software to animate a few pixels frame-by-frame. I've skimmed through Richard William's Animator's Survival Kit in the past and noticed most traditional animation uses 24fps and he used to "animate on twos" for most motion and on "ones" for fast motion.
  
  Since my tool will deal with frame by frame animation I'd like to make use of those principles, but I am constraint to 30 fps. Because of this, I'm wondering how would I workout at what frame interval(every frame, every two frames, every three frames, etc.) a 'keyframe'/changed frame should be placed to look good ? Is there a way to work that out arithmetically ? Does it make a bit difference/ is it safe two stick to twos even for 30fps ?
  
  **Tags:** framerate, animation
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2013-01-30. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  Yes, repeating every other frame works the same way at 30fps as it does at 24fps.
  
  Animating on twos is done not because it looks better, but because it means less drawing and you can 'get away' with it. Nothing stops you from drawing every frame if you want the smoothest possible motion, and nothing prevents you from repeating a frame indefinitely when there is no motion.
  
  If you really want to work at 24fps, you could always animate 'as though' you were working at 24fps -- your work will look sped up when viewed at 30fps -- and applying a cine expansion (3:2 pulldown) as a final step.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Pretty thorough answer Jim, thanks! I thought about 'getting away' with less frames...24/2 = 12 (the minimum amount of frames needed for the eye to perceive continuous motion) - is that plausible ?  
  > **username_0**: Thanks for the explanations Ken, pretty interesting stuff ! :)  
  
  ---
  
  