would 60 fps at 720p really look >that bad if upresed to 1080p?

if you use a really good scaling filter it shouldn't even be noticable with a little sharpening

>>3103636

Well I don't know why you would want to shoot those instances in 60fps. They'll look cheaper than at 24fps like a shitty soap on tv. You'll get better low light performance at 24fps too because of the slower shutter.

If your footage is going on youtube you should always try and upscale the footage to a higher resolution to take advantage of the higher bitrates available. 720x1280 always looks like ass on youtube because it gets compressed to hell and back. You should even try it out at 1440x2560 since it will scale very well since it is exactly 4x the resolution and should preserve the bitrate of the origional footage.

>>3103832
>>3103643

I should have specified that I would slow it down to 24 fps.

I'm trying to get my freelance work off the ground, but the only time I have access to equipment is while in school, so I have too much downtime 4 months out of the year.

>>3103636
>>3103643
>>3103832
>>3104143
Itt: people who have never shot weddings in their life