GH2 official discussion thread

AKED said:
Technically you may be right.
I can only judge from my personal feeling.
I NEVER had the feeling, that in the cinema or in movies, that are shown on TV there is judder in the motion.
With every 24p or 25p I see from DSLRs, after 1 second I have the impression: there is judder.
Granted, I see them on the computer screen.
Maybe it would not be the same on the TV.
I just feel much more comfortable with the smooth motion of 720 or 108050i.
And the shallow DoF I can achieve there with the right lens as well.
But, this is just my personal subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

i have the same feeling.
i remember seeing the same judder with all footage ive seen from the panasonic. its not easy to say what it is..its just jerky movment. if i remember correctly mjpeg looks better, so maybe its a codec thing.
 
roei z said:
oh no!!
don't start with the judder..
i already asked everywhere if it's the same as cinema, and everyone reassured me it IS the same,
just depends on how you shoot.. (and on what monitor you watch!! on my projector it's far less juddery than on my pc monitor)
Click to expand...

The reason perhaps the cinema appears to be improved is because:
- The film projector works by flashing the same frame twice (every 48th), to avoid noticeable flicker, which adds to the perception of image refresh
- film creates a different sense of motion blur at 1/48 shutter than video does; it creates an object reference with new layers as they burn through - Red's magic motion is very similar, and is the first time video has something like this (usually on video I always shoot 1/60 or higher to avoid the smear)
-The motion employed in cinema is often complex, dynamic, and smooth, as opposed to linear, like a pan, or shaking, like handheld light camera. (ex. revolving, dolly, heavy cam) - charts have even been used to decide what motion is acceptable
 
Sage said:
The reason perhaps the cinema appears to be improved is because:
- The film projector works by flashing the same frame twice (every 48th), to avoid noticeable flicker, which adds to the perception of image refresh
- film creates a different sense of motion blur at 1/48 shutter than video does; it creates an object reference with new layers as they burn through - Red's magic motion is very similar, and is the first time video has something like this (usually on video I always shoot 1/60 or higher to avoid the smear)
-The motion employed in cinema is often complex, dynamic, and smooth, as opposed to linear, like a pan, or shaking, like handheld light camera. (ex. revolving, dolly, heavy cam) - charts have even been used to decide what motion is acceptable
Click to expand...

all your points seem in the right direction..
so what do you purpose i should do to get as close to film as possible? (apart from how to be careful while shooting and always keep on 1/50?)
 
The way you can address it with a video cam is through the third point, movement.
If you get your film to a film out, it will be even better on a cinema projector. (this addresses the first one)
To address point two, you would need either a new Red or film.
I personally shoot 1/60 and up, because for me, smear is worse than judder. (smear always looks like video, but judder can be seen in such films as 'Saving Private Ryan', as part of the aesthetic) {1/50 or 1/100 may be ideal for you to sync up with the electric grid at night}
If your motion is smooth and buttery, neither rolling shutter nor judder will ever be too much of a problem. Try multi axis varying steadicam motion and dolly.
I have found that the most important tool to hiding this and any other issue is story. If the story is correct, all elements of the image appear to be intentional strengths. Perhaps this is the most important factor in the smoothness of the cinema.
 
Sage said:
The way you can address it with a video cam is through the third point, movement.
If you get your film to a film out, it will be even better on a cinema projector. (this addresses the first one)
To address point two, you would need either a new Red or film.
I personally shoot 1/60 and up, because for me, smear is worse than judder. (smear always looks like video, but judder can be seen in such films as 'Saving Private Ryan', as part of the aesthetic) {1/50 or 1/100 may be ideal for you to sync up with the electric grid at night}
If your motion is smooth and buttery, neither rolling shutter nor judder will ever be too much of a problem. Try multi axis varying steadicam motion and dolly.
I have found that the most important tool to hiding this and any other issue is story. If the story is correct, all elements of the image appear to be intentional strengths. Perhaps this is the most important factor in the smoothness of the cinema.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to smear as motion blur? Cause I see this in film as well since when it is shot at 1/48, the frame is open for the same amount of time as the video sensor. That motion blur is part of the normal look of 24 frames per second typically, unless you are going for the strobby look of saving private ryan and use a higher shutter speed. Most of the time, people just move CMOS sensor cameras too fast so you get more motion blur in a large portion of an image than you would see on film. And yes, you get rolling shutter on film as well, because the shutter moves down as an edge across the film. You just don't get a sharp line difference in things like flashes because the edge of the mechanical edge softens it. Also, since it is SO much faster than CMOS, the affect of it is only seen on EXTREME movements.
 
Motion blur is on film, though I use smear to specifically refer to video's less than pleasant motion blur (at 1/48, not referring to 1/24).
 
Sage said:
Motion blur is on film, though I use smear to specifically refer to video's less than pleasant motion blur (at 1/48, not referring to 1/24).
Click to expand...

Well those shooting on video should shoot as close to 1/48 as possible and everyone I work with does that. It is of course 1/50 on Canon cameras. I've seen motion blur on film and on video and if anything makes a difference, it's the codec. That is where the motion breaks down, not in how much of it there is. Take any still frame from a moving picture and you'll see what I mean. When I've seen motion blur on a still frame where I've used too long a shutter, it always looks smooth and pleasant.

Which of course has nothing to do with judder, which is related to frame rate conversions. Changing your shutter time isn't going to magically make the fast motion any smoother because it's the difference in added frames and what is duplicated that is causing this. The only way to remove the judder is to go to a higher frequency multiple of the two frame rates so you get an even number of represented frames from the original framerate in the final framerate.
 
Sage said:
The way you can address it with a video cam is through the third point, movement.
If you get your film to a film out, it will be even better on a cinema projector. (this addresses the first one)
To address point two, you would need either a new Red or film.
I personally shoot 1/60 and up, because for me, smear is worse than judder. (smear always looks like video, but judder can be seen in such films as 'Saving Private Ryan', as part of the aesthetic) {1/50 or 1/100 may be ideal for you to sync up with the electric grid at night}
If your motion is smooth and buttery, neither rolling shutter nor judder will ever be too much of a problem. Try multi axis varying steadicam motion and dolly.
I have found that the most important tool to hiding this and any other issue is story. If the story is correct, all elements of the image appear to be intentional strengths. Perhaps this is the most important factor in the smoothness of the cinema.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
And film is always about planning very thorougly and carefuly - what you shoot and how you shoot it. The better your screenplay and prep.. the better results you get.
 
Some weeks ago the 14-42 lens was not recommended by some but now people seems to be quite enthusiastic about it. Of course it's not a Zeiss Compact Prime but how does it compare to the 14-140mm that many of us are familiar with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top