Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Personally, I'm looking forward to the future when high quality 1000+ fps becomes easily available to those not wanting to spend $100k for a Phantom Flex.
C500: 4K 120p
- Thread starter Tim Nitsch
- Start date
Personally, I'm looking forward to the future when high quality 1000+ fps becomes easily available to those not wanting to spend $100k for a Phantom Flex.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I randomly had the behind-the-scenes of that scene recommended to me on YouTube a few weeks ago.
One of the first movies I saw in a theater and it was pretty much life changing (as it was for many people back then with films)...so ahead of its time.
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
The original Matrix was a good example of pretty motivated, cool slow motion that totally fit the alternate reality world it built.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah but bullet time is made (as the video shows) not with a single camera but an array of stills cameras in an arc timed by a computer to rapid fire in sequence. I'm not sure what the effective frame rate is or how fast you'd have to move a single camera to duplicate the effect. Genius idea.
cpreston
Veteran
The problem with shooting 30p for 24p vs a 60p for 24p is that you can't use the 30p at normal speed on a 24p timeline. You can use a 60p at normal speed with an automatic pull down to 24p without the viewer noticing any stutter. When 60p isn't available due to limitations of the camera, I will shoot a 30p and I really prefer the look, but it can be really hard to get away with play back at normal speed if I want to use the natural background sound or people speaking. If the shot is very stationary, the 30p to 24p pulldown might not show that much stutter. Otherwise, I've never found a good motion blending or optical flow software for mixing 30p and 24p footage.
I agree that shooting 60 is better, although it can mean a quality or storage "hit". I've found FCPX's optical flow conform works pretty well in many situations when going from 30 to 24. (this was shot 30 with the intention of conforming to 24, but here it is with a pulldown instead). There are little things like a bug becoming 2 bugs...but it's handling moderate angular movement just fine).
digitalinnovations
Well-known member
So when weighing out the differences between recording slow motion using the “S&F” button versus just shooting at 60fps - are there any differences in the quality of the recording? I think with S&F you will get slow motion playback with no audio and with 60fps you will get audio recording but you can’t preview/review the slow motion... I can’t remember for sure but I think you also may lose DPAF when recording with S&F but not positive?
Are these the only differences? Is there is a higher compression or loss of quality when recording via S&F?
Are these the only differences? Is there is a higher compression or loss of quality when recording via S&F?
NorBro
Major Contributor
That is an excellent question I have wondered about for at least the last 6 years but never bothered to ask as I visually wasn't able to tell the difference with the cameras I used that had both options (mostly Blackmagic).
(In many cameras, the bit rate isn't an apples-to-apples comparison with the 24p bit rate, so you would lose some when going up.)
(In many cameras, the bit rate isn't an apples-to-apples comparison with the 24p bit rate, so you would lose some when going up.)
slomo review
Sound
DPAF
Ability to pick 'in between' frame rates
This last one is the only reason I'd use S&F, other than 120p. Years ago we had a music video that required the artist to "walk" for an extended sequence, to the beat of the song...which unfortunately it was too slow to get a natural gait, so we calculated that 36FPS would let him walk normally, and give us a natural look. Used S&F on the original c300 to get it.
The last minute of the video is a long sax solo, with no vocals, so we had nothing for the artist to do. We hit the road, headed to DTLA with a demo Ronin that I borrowed from Samy's ( they hadn't shipped yet) and had the artist channel Richard Roundtree walking around the theatre district.
digitalinnovations
Well-known member
Now those two are probably the most bizarre...at least to me.
So except for the specific reasons like Barry mentioned, I don’t see a benefit the majority of the time to use S&F. I mean, it kinda sucks to not be able to playback the slo-mo but for checking focus on takes and whatnot the straight-up 60fps will do the job just fine I think. I’ve already assigned the “SHUTTER” button to FPS because I typically live on 180°.
Thank you everyone!
cpreston
Veteran
I've gotten lazy with my camera work. I shoot almost all of my b-roll in 4k 60p with a 360 shutter angle. I had a client start asking for that for everything we shoot and now I'm doing it for my own work. Most of the shots just play back in real time in the final video, but I really don't notice much of an effect on the motion cadence. dI would prefer a 48p mode with synced sound, but that still hasn't caught on with camera manufacturers.
digitalinnovations
Well-known member
I have pretty much just left all of my cameras on 180° so I’ll have to try out the 360° shutter on 60fps.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I 2nd the motion. 48p would be great because you're shooting 24p 180 shutter if you toss out alternating frames.
I don't consider it laziness. Some things happen too quickly or you get to them too late to make a full shot. Change it to 40% speed and presto it can make the cut
chris f
Veteran
Interesting, I've never thought to do this. In the final cut is there a noticeable difference or does it blend pretty seamlessly with the rest of the footage at 180 shutter angle? I guess if you're going from interviews to B-ROLL and all of the B-ROLL was shot this way it might be harder to tell than if it was mixed with B-ROLL that was say 23.98p at 180 shutter. Will have to try this out.
One more thing popped up on FB yesterday, apparently the monitor preview for anamorphic is radically squeezed in S&F. Sounds like a bug, or a “don’t use S&F with anamorphic” feature.
Grug
Veteran
It's not that the desqueeze is wrong, it's that it doesn't crop and reframe the desqueezed image in S&F mode as it usually would - so you end up with this tiny image for framing with:
And it's the same on both the monitor and in the EVF.
It's not that the desqueeze is wrong, it's that it doesn't crop and reframe the desqueezed image in S&F mode as it usually would - so you end up with this tiny image for framing with:
And it's the same on both the monitor and in the EVF.
ahhhh. that's clearer...what happens when you hit magnify?
cpreston
Veteran
I can't notice the change in the motion cadence of the 60 fps pull down or of the 1/60 vs 1/48 shutter speed difference. Other people with better eyes than mine probably can. I do notice that the footage that is playing in slow motion has excessive blur, but HFR is meant to look somewhat unnatural so it isn't that distracting.
Grug
Veteran
It just zooms in deep for focus assist. There's actually a formal setting for it in the menus, where the camera says it will only desqueeze (not crop) for S&F modes.
For me, it's enough of an issue that I probably wouldn't buy Canon's EVF (if I were to get the C500ii). I'd just stick with a Gratical (or similar) that has it's own desqueeze built in.
For client monitors it's not the end of the world, because they all have desqueeze options these days - but it does mean you'd have to abandon the camera's monitoring functions almost entirely, and just send a clean feed out to everything (onboard monitor + EVF, and client monitors).