Thread: Motion Cadence

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,550
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JCummings View Post
    Or is the discussion rather like audiophiles debating the different sound characteristics of speaker wire...
    Haha, we’re starting to get there.

    The motion cadence is a thing. Just like a flourescent bulb can be annoying. 24fps is not that fast. Fast enough to create the illusion of motion, but it does fall apart when pushed.

    How different is the flicker on your tv with the flicker of a cheap LED bulb? Idk, but it is annoying.

    Even film projection in movie theaters project at flicker rates of 48 or even 72 strobes per second.

    If you capture 24p digitally and play back digitally at 24hz, why are we surprised it looks odd?

    Try setting your screen to 48hz, or 72. Or any exact multiple of 24. (Make sure motion smoothing is off) If that doesn’t improve it, then try frame double, not interpolated frames, but exact duplicates of each frame, and export a 48fps video. and then set the screen to 48hz, and see if that improves anything.

    But an issue could be that 23.98fps doesn’t play well with the round numbers of 24hz, 60hz, 120hz, and 240hz that tv’s commonly scan? Idk.

    The other aspect is does the video look “video-y”. If it does, that may influence our ideas of trhe motion cadence.

    People have been complaining about digitally sourced 24p since the Varicam at least.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,550
    Default
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flic...sion_threshold

    Rolling shutter and capture blur characteristcs can can also cause issues, but FFT is not to be overlooked.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,550
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by LennyLevy View Post
    I don't think that's what I saw.
    There is the slight possibilty you were watching 24p on a screen that refreshed at 30hz or 60hz.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    473
    Default
    You question reminds me of this thread.

    Here's one plausible answer from that thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kholi View Post
    YES.

    You are not crazy, it is not your computer screen, you're just sensitive to it. I am as well, and so are some of my friends. High End digital cinema cameras are tuned to make sure cadence is similar to film. DSLRs are mishaps.

    I've posted this since I started using Canon DSLRs, but only a few people actually go out and try it:

    USE 1/45(CANON) or 1/40(GH2)

    As much as I want 1/48 settings, I actually don't care anymore. 1/40 on GH2 looks right. 1/45 on Canon looks great.


    http://vimeo.com/38260236

    (Video's from DVXuser: LIN3ARX, someone else who tried 1/40 after the suggestion and is sticking to it now)


    http://vimeo.com/33016592

    Ignore my shakey hands... coming off of shooting 30lb MX setups and Epic GH2 is way too light to try and hold. xD


    http://vimeo.com/12284829

    7D @ 1/45


    http://vimeo.com/37406049


    5D @ 1/45


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,550
    Default
    That was a good read!

    This was another good semi technical post:

    Quote Originally Posted by j1clark@ucsd.edu View Post
    If I understand the 'argument'... there is a very slight blurring effect due to the shadow of the shutter on a Real(tm) Film camera. In the case of the 'digital' camera, that shadow is 'lost', and the 'edge' is much
    sharper... so, by going to 1/40 rather than 1/50 (I think those are the only options for the GH-1. Other cameras may have other intervals...), one gets a slight bit more blur, which for some people apparently is a significant effect.

    As I've said elsewhere, if one looks this close to 'film film' movies, one will find out all manner of manipulations of shutter speed, framerate, and eventual screen presentations... not to mention loose sprockets and worn sprocket holes on the film, as well as dust and scratches, in the 'traditional film film' projection theater... and that's assuming the projectionist has focused the projector correctly... got the right lens on... and any number of 'problems' I've seen setting in theaters...

    I would also hazard that any slight effect like the motion of the shutter, relative to bluring a moving object, exists only in certain situations, and at specific distances and angles of travel relative to the camera, and perhaps even angles of travel of apparent motion across the film plane relative to the shutter motion...

    This sort of effect has been well known. Old 4x5 view cameras that used a rolling slit shutter across the film plane, would result in distorted images of things that move across the film plane as the slit rolled up or down. The result was seen mostly in race car wheels and would make them look somewhat oval.

    This 'effect' actually became a indication of speed where a person drawing a 'racing car' would distort the wheels in the same way...

    As I recall most people didn't notice at all, or emit cries of 'it's not real', when a leaf shutter between the lenses became more popular and did not have this sort of effect... And while 35mm Real(tm) film SLR cameras also had a slit shutter, the effect was minimized by just being able to move the shutter elements faster... but it was still detectable... in some situations.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    364
    Default
    Well this thread quickly went over my head but I will say I once owned an Panasonic SDX900 (a very early 24p standard-def camera) that used some sort of pulldown scheme (24pA?) that resulted in a very pleasing motion look. Or maybe it was the 3 CCD's?
    Anyway, I can honestly say I've haven't owned a camera since then that produced 24p motion as nicely. But looking at some of the latest footage from the newer Ursa Mini G2 camera, I was reminded of that SDX camera I had.
    Sorry I didn't see that earlier thread. I know it may all be in my head, or I maybe I'm sensitive to it. Mojo indeed.
    ___________________________________________

    J.Cummings-Lighting Cameraman
    http://www.ohfilmworks.com
    IMDb


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,550
    Default
    I still have an SDX900, i’ll do some tests.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,442
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post
    Haha, we’re starting to get there.

    The motion cadence is a thing. Just like a flourescent bulb can be annoying. 24fps is not that fast. Fast enough to create the illusion of motion, but it does fall apart when pushed.

    How different is the flicker on your tv with the flicker of a cheap LED bulb? Idk, but it is annoying.

    Even film projection in movie theaters project at flicker rates of 48 or even 72 strobes per second.

    If you capture 24p digitally and play back digitally at 24hz, why are we surprised it looks odd?

    Try setting your screen to 48hz, or 72. Or any exact multiple of 24. (Make sure motion smoothing is off) If that doesn’t improve it, then try frame double, not interpolated frames, but exact duplicates of each frame, and export a 48fps video. and then set the screen to 48hz, and see if that improves anything.

    But an issue could be that 23.98fps doesn’t play well with the round numbers of 24hz, 60hz, 120hz, and 240hz that tv’s commonly scan? Idk.

    The other aspect is does the video look “video-y”. If it does, that may influence our ideas of trhe motion cadence.

    People have been complaining about digitally sourced 24p since the Varicam at least.
    Which brings up something I’ve been wondering for a while... Why haven’t we gotten rid of the “non-whole number” frame rates, yet? I understood the reason for them ‘back in the day’, but now, it should be an historical oddity. Obviuously it couldn’t just be done away with, equipment, software, etc. would have to be able to handle existing footage, but moving forward, it should all be whole frame rates(24.00, 60.00, etc.), just like all 4K/UHD is progressive scan, no more interlace.


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

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    NJ / NYC
    Posts
    328
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Run&Gun View Post
    Which brings up something I’ve been wondering for a while... Why haven’t we gotten rid of the “non-whole number” frame rates, yet? I understood the reason for them ‘back in the day’, but now, it should be an historical oddity. Obviuously it couldn’t just be done away with, equipment, software, etc. would have to be able to handle existing footage, but moving forward, it should all be whole frame rates(24.00, 60.00, etc.), just like all 4K/UHD is progressive scan, no more interlace.
    Tell the networks that broadcast 1080i -- not to mention the rest of them that choose to stay at 720p.
    Though perhaps the manufacturers would like the idea of selling all that new gear!
    But realistically, how much are you actually gaining by switching from 23.976 to 24, or 59.94 to 60 ? Is it worth scrapping your old cameras that don't shoot at 'even numbers?'


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,442
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by OnSet View Post
    Tell the networks that broadcast 1080i -- not to mention the rest of them that choose to stay at 720p.
    Though perhaps the manufacturers would like the idea of selling all that new gear!
    But realistically, how much are you actually gaining by switching from 23.976 to 24, or 59.94 to 60 ? Is it worth scrapping your old cameras that don't shoot at 'even numbers?'
    Did you read my post?


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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