No disrespect to the filmmakers here, but this looks disturbingly ‘Video’ and far worse than any Sony look I’ve seen. Disappointing as I really like Panasonic colours: http://www.televisual.com/blog-detail/Televisual-Creative-film-EVA_bid-1020.html
Disturbingly ‘Video like’ EVA ProRes Raw footage
- Thread starter Barry1908
- Start date
Sure I guess it’s a backhanded compliment to Sony, no offence intended, but this looked to me to have a very tape like motion cadence.
hscully
Veteran
I thought it looked pretty good. In the daylight exteriors, stopped down, on a wide lens, it looks “videoish” but so would any camera. In the more lit scenes, I thought it did a great job. In some of the night time shots it looks a little desaturated, probably to match the story, and that strategy has been a haven of sorts for digital cinema. Is that factoring into your opinion? Sharpening?
Which setups in particular, did you find had a disturbingly “video” quality?
Which setups in particular, did you find had a disturbingly “video” quality?
Yes the sharpness is probably the main factor, in terms of which setups, it all looks pretty much the same to me in terms of look. I’ve seen some pretty filmic shots from the Eva which is why I found this rather unsettling.
soarprod
Veteran
1. Get access to the camera. 2. Shoot with the camera. 3. Fall in love with the image and flexibility of the EVA.
I am really happy with the prores raw I am getting out of it. You just need to shoot it yourself.
I am really happy with the prores raw I am getting out of it. You just need to shoot it yourself.
Retrospective
Well-known member
Yeah I've seen that, I think it's the colour grading. I've seen super sharp Alexa footage yet it doesn't look video.
filmguy123
Veteran
Something does look odd with the motion. I wonder if their shutter speed is higher. At first I thought it was shot and exported at a 30p timebase.
All I can say is the motion here doesn’t look like plenty of other EVA footage.
I think if you’re concerned or on the fence you should do some more digging. Vimeo, search EVA1, sort by recent uploads and start watching.
Every camera has its own way of rendering. So do lenses, and the combo can matter a lot.
All I can say is the motion here doesn’t look like plenty of other EVA footage.
I think if you’re concerned or on the fence you should do some more digging. Vimeo, search EVA1, sort by recent uploads and start watching.
Every camera has its own way of rendering. So do lenses, and the combo can matter a lot.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Might not matter much, but for starters, they say the video was shot in 24p and the Vimeo version is playing back at 25p:
"The film was shot at 24p, 4K DCI (4096x2160) for a later UHD delivery retaining the same aspect ratio for an indie film feel."
If the above isn't a typo there is already user error somewhere in post.
(The BTS is 24p.)
"The film was shot at 24p, 4K DCI (4096x2160) for a later UHD delivery retaining the same aspect ratio for an indie film feel."
If the above isn't a typo there is already user error somewhere in post.
(The BTS is 24p.)
Run&Gun
Veteran
When you say "tape like motion cadence", are you trying to mean like old Betacam "video" cadence(59.94i)? Because we've had 24 frame capture to tape going back over 20 years, now. The motion rendering and cadence of "24 frame" material from the F900 and original VariCam, both tape cameras, was just fine.
To quote from EOShd forum:
""Motion cadence" is a term that only exists in camera forum discussion threads - it's neither a technical, nor a scientific term."
(LOL, you can read more from that thread here, it's actually quite amusing: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/25932-what-affects-a-cameras-motion-cadence/)
That said, there could be a number of things that could be causing this effect (to the extent that it exists at all):
- Shutter speed (maybe not enough motion blur for you on each frame?)
- Rolling shutter (maybe very slight, not quite jello, but enough from the hand-held shots and then magnified by the Vimeo render?)
- The clean, sharp imagery maybe looks "too digital" because it is too precise? Maybe a nice cinema lens with "character" is what you're hoping for? Need some film grain, texture, or other imperfections to help make it feel more "organic?"
...and by the way, why is it assumed that "filmic" or "cinematic" pieces shot with digital cinema cams NEED to look exactly like film? (psst... they're NOT film cameras!)
As someone else mentioned, the "motion cadence" effect as you see it, might have been a creative choice, and indeed it may simply come down to a matter of taste. A horror film shot with high shutter speed... I'll buy that as a likely conscious decision.
""Motion cadence" is a term that only exists in camera forum discussion threads - it's neither a technical, nor a scientific term."
(LOL, you can read more from that thread here, it's actually quite amusing: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/25932-what-affects-a-cameras-motion-cadence/)
That said, there could be a number of things that could be causing this effect (to the extent that it exists at all):
- Shutter speed (maybe not enough motion blur for you on each frame?)
- Rolling shutter (maybe very slight, not quite jello, but enough from the hand-held shots and then magnified by the Vimeo render?)
- The clean, sharp imagery maybe looks "too digital" because it is too precise? Maybe a nice cinema lens with "character" is what you're hoping for? Need some film grain, texture, or other imperfections to help make it feel more "organic?"
...and by the way, why is it assumed that "filmic" or "cinematic" pieces shot with digital cinema cams NEED to look exactly like film? (psst... they're NOT film cameras!)
As someone else mentioned, the "motion cadence" effect as you see it, might have been a creative choice, and indeed it may simply come down to a matter of taste. A horror film shot with high shutter speed... I'll buy that as a likely conscious decision.
Last edited:
filmguy123
Veteran
^^ All of the above. It does strike me as potentially a creative choice with the horror vibe to feel stuttery and off. Also looks like they may have shot some stuff in slow motion and sped it up, so some frame drops/high shutter speed effect.
That paired with a lot of choices that lend to video add to the effect. Not criticizing because they may be intentional, but as Seanik said. It's very sharp and crisp (Sigma glass + EVA1 will do that at max resolution). Lighting has that overly clean and obviously lit vibe that can look more like video (and this is huge towards a "film look" - the video definitely LOOKS LIKE it was lit with artificial light. Those working in high end productions are talented at lighting things in a way that don't look lit to the untrained eye, and this often doesn't look very natural.).
Not terribly shallow DOF. Etc. Not that super shallow is more filmic, but deeper DOF shots can look more video-ish depending on the shot and everything else.
Then you've got grading. Nice poppy standard look with colors and contrast. No film grain or imperfections.
Throw a promist 1/8 or 1/4 on there, or shoot with vintage glass, or just grade the thing different and add some grain. Change the curve. Light different. Make sure your shutter and fps options are all correct both in camera, sequence, and output.
The EVA1 looks I have seen have been all over the board, really. It can look dramatically different.
Ok that said, I am a happy EVA1 owner, but overall the way it renders the image edges closer to the traditional video side of the spectrum IMO, without doing some extra processing work or taking special care. I'm not saying it looks video-ish per se, I am just saying that the C200 and BMD cameras do render the image in a more filmic way to my eye. I think it comes down to the edges, and the amount of detail the EVA1 renders (which is also a strength of it - it's just every action gets a reaction, so to speak). But I still chose the EVA1 for other reasons, and when handled correctly, the footage certainly can look a lot different.
As always, it's the full package (camera, lens, settings, framing, lighting, post processing, export settings, etc.) and while the camera may play a certain role here, from a quick look, it seems the majority of the impact on your complaint is actually coming from different line items there, so to speak.
That paired with a lot of choices that lend to video add to the effect. Not criticizing because they may be intentional, but as Seanik said. It's very sharp and crisp (Sigma glass + EVA1 will do that at max resolution). Lighting has that overly clean and obviously lit vibe that can look more like video (and this is huge towards a "film look" - the video definitely LOOKS LIKE it was lit with artificial light. Those working in high end productions are talented at lighting things in a way that don't look lit to the untrained eye, and this often doesn't look very natural.).
Not terribly shallow DOF. Etc. Not that super shallow is more filmic, but deeper DOF shots can look more video-ish depending on the shot and everything else.
Then you've got grading. Nice poppy standard look with colors and contrast. No film grain or imperfections.
Throw a promist 1/8 or 1/4 on there, or shoot with vintage glass, or just grade the thing different and add some grain. Change the curve. Light different. Make sure your shutter and fps options are all correct both in camera, sequence, and output.
The EVA1 looks I have seen have been all over the board, really. It can look dramatically different.
Ok that said, I am a happy EVA1 owner, but overall the way it renders the image edges closer to the traditional video side of the spectrum IMO, without doing some extra processing work or taking special care. I'm not saying it looks video-ish per se, I am just saying that the C200 and BMD cameras do render the image in a more filmic way to my eye. I think it comes down to the edges, and the amount of detail the EVA1 renders (which is also a strength of it - it's just every action gets a reaction, so to speak). But I still chose the EVA1 for other reasons, and when handled correctly, the footage certainly can look a lot different.
As always, it's the full package (camera, lens, settings, framing, lighting, post processing, export settings, etc.) and while the camera may play a certain role here, from a quick look, it seems the majority of the impact on your complaint is actually coming from different line items there, so to speak.
Motion cadence is a thing and Eoshd is what you might call an unreliable narrator in film script speak.
Comparing cameras on different productions is bound to bring up glaring differences, but is that not what we do on dvxuser? https://youtu.be/Cm-K8uQchMQ Example of the C200 looking very filmic, albeit with anamorphic glass, a big advantage.
Of all those links from filmguyhttps://vimeo.com/265300448 passes the test for me. And no shallow DOF !
Of all those links from filmguyhttps://vimeo.com/265300448 passes the test for me. And no shallow DOF !
Last edited:
You're probably right on both counts (and I have read some criticism about FS7 footage and motion cadence somewhere... a promo for some Disney b-movie, I think). But, the EOShd forum thread i thought may be predictive of how this thread might play out, lol... which I find kind of hilarious.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I've seen this brought up before, but the whole reason 24 frame "digital capture" was invented was to mimic film.
We may be getting into semantics here, but I thought that 24 frame digital capture was developed by Sony at the request of George Lucas - who didn't like having to go through the film digitization process to get the photographed image ready for the digital postproduction effects process. He reportedly used a few such shots in Star Wars 1, and then moved to digital acquisition for Star Wars 2. Of course his idea was to replace film, but was able to mimic it closely enough that his use of the digital shots in Star Wars 1 worked seamlessly. (and remember that those cameras were 1440x1080!)
But switching to a different 'video look' question -- I watched the new HBO show "Sharp Objects" last Sunday and felt that it had an very annoyingly 'video look/feel' to it, particularly the first 15-20 minutes of so. Or maybe I simply got used to it... Just wondering whether anyone else felt the same way?
filmguy123
Veteran
That's because it's shot on vintage glass - Canon FD lens