Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. Collapse Details
    ‘Christopher Nolan and Paul Thomas Anderson declare war on Motion Smoothing’
    #1
    Senior Member Bern Caughey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,009


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member Cary Knoop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Newark CA, USA
    Posts
    1,188
    Default
    It would be better the other way around, what if the public declares war on motion blurred 'mythical' 24p.
    120p, now that looks good and sharp! True Cinematic! Gamers have long ago already discovered that!

    What's the point in having 4K and beyond if practically everything is blurred due to the 1/50 second shutter speed?


    0 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Default
    Frankly I wish everything was shot at 24 fps, with film look, including news and sports. NFL Films' 16mm coverage of football is the only kind I like.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member Cary Knoop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Newark CA, USA
    Posts
    1,188
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    Frankly I wish everything was shot at 24 fps, with film look, including news and sports. NFL Films' 16mm coverage of football is the only kind I like.
    We all have our opinions!


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    8,421
    Default
    I wish everything was shot on hand cranked cameras ranging from 15 to 18 fps. Of course, we have the technology, a metronome on set to keep the crank rate consistent. The new Jennifer Garner Peppermint was shot with an occasional hand cranked camera, it looks pretty cool actually although the director used it as an in-camera varispeed effect and just a few scenes were shot that way.
    Last edited by puredrifting; 09-16-2018 at 08:45 PM.
    Gear matters. But just a little. Story is everything.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    369
    Default
    I've shot some hand cranked film before, mostly in a 1908 Pathe Feres.
    http://collection.sciencemuseum.org....ra-cine-camera

    They were designed so that each crank or revolution exposed 8 frames.

    So 2 revolutions or cranks per second was a good number to aim for. 2 cranks x 8 frames equals 16 fps. Apparently the camera operators used to sing little ditty's to themselves to keep in time.

    Hand cranked footage doesn't turn out the way you think it does. Using modern stocks and processing you can BARELY TELL it's hand cranked. We had more success in making something look more hand cranked by loading the film backwards and shooting through the base. This recreated the splotchy uneven processing that was prevalent at the time.

    You can't really tell that footage is hand cranked unless you go out of your way to make it uneven. It doesn't flicker in the cliched way we think it does.

    Here's a post about the passing of my mentor. I'm in the photo in the back but I did a lot of testing with this camera leading up to this shoot.
    https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/20...n-bowring-acs/

    jb
    Cinematographer
    Sydney Australia
    www.johnbrawley.com
    I also have a blog


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    8,421
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    I've shot some hand cranked film before, mostly in a 1908 Pathe Feres.
    http://collection.sciencemuseum.org....ra-cine-camera

    They were designed so that each crank or revolution exposed 8 frames.

    So 2 revolutions or cranks per second was a good number to aim for. 2 cranks x 8 frames equals 16 fps. Apparently the camera operators used to sing little ditty's to themselves to keep in time.

    Hand cranked footage doesn't turn out the way you think it does. Using modern stocks and processing you can BARELY TELL it's hand cranked. We had more success in making something look more hand cranked by loading the film backwards and shooting through the base. This recreated the splotchy uneven processing that was prevalent at the time.

    You can't really tell that footage is hand cranked unless you go out of your way to make it uneven. It doesn't flicker in the cliched way we think it does.

    Here's a post about the passing of my mentor. I'm in the photo in the back but I did a lot of testing with this camera leading up to this shoot.
    https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/20...n-bowring-acs/

    jb
    Interesting stuff John. I've shot with Kodak Box cameras, Eyemos, Scoopics, Arris, Aatons but never handcranked unless winding the mechanism on a Bolex counts. I love the scene in "Hugo" where Scorsese was obsessive to detail enough to show the hand cranked cameramen using metronomes to keep their cranking rate constant.
    Gear matters. But just a little. Story is everything.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member KurtF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    179
    Default
    I was in some big box store, forget which one. "Gone With the Wind" was playing on the televisions being displayed there. With the motion sharpening turned up, as they were, it looked like a video originated soap opera. Somehow, they managed to turn a technicolor marvel into something trivial and video like. So yes, I too am against the motion smoothing and edge sharpening algorithms.
    Buy a Tripod, Use the Tripod.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    7,704
    Default
    ^ THIS

    I turn motion smoothing off whenever I visit any friends. I used to ask but now I just go for it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Mod v2.0 Noel Evans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    10,857
    Default
    You can't remove it altogether. When I watch sport I want it as sharp and crisp and real as possible. When I watch movies, different altogether. They should make it simpler and more understandable on the remote. I have a friend who is watching everything with it on and everything looks like a weird soap opera. This one has been discussed many times.
    w: Noel Evans TV

    e: noel@noelevans.tv
    p: +61 (0) 408 455 374


    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •