Sage
Well-known member
Ah ok, likewise. The GH2 1/40 on the 5 definitely didn't do it for me (slow shutter smear)
GH5 How GH5’s motion cadence compares to others in its price range?
- Thread starter gumonstro
- Start date
Ah ok, likewise. The GH2 1/40 on the 5 definitely didn't do it for me (slow shutter smear)
Whenever this kind of discussion comes up I like to post a link to this article to add an additional concept, "penumbral sweep", that seems to affect motion cadence rendering, as per Adam Wilt: https://www.provideocoalition.com/red_visit_21_september_hdrx/
He also elaborates a little on "penumbral sweep" here: https://cml.news/g/cml-raw-log-hdr/...,0,0::recentpostdate/sticky,,,20,2,0,16427778
The supposed "magic motion" tech from RED may be what the OP experienced with the Scarlet, and it just demonstrates that motion cadence can be improved electronically (as opposed to true penumbral sweep from a mechanical rotating shutter from a film motion picture camera), and that not all digital cameras are the same in this regard.
He also elaborates a little on "penumbral sweep" here: https://cml.news/g/cml-raw-log-hdr/...,0,0::recentpostdate/sticky,,,20,2,0,16427778
The supposed "magic motion" tech from RED may be what the OP experienced with the Scarlet, and it just demonstrates that motion cadence can be improved electronically (as opposed to true penumbral sweep from a mechanical rotating shutter from a film motion picture camera), and that not all digital cameras are the same in this regard.
Last edited:
Cary Knoop
Veteran
Cinematic 24p motion cadence versus video-like 24p motion cadence?
Am I really the only person on this whole forum who calls these kind of things out as sheer nonsense?
I wanted to but it didn't seem worth it. Agree, nonsense. Also Joe12south did call B.S.
Last edited:
Agree 100%. ^^^
People are describing real phenomenon like panning, RS and particular processing effects but cadence is just a timing thing, period and duty cycle.
Arash Ayrom
Cataclysmo
You guys have it all wrong. It’s not “magic,” because that’s just silly.
The scientific term is “mojo” and apparently from a handful of imprecise, compressed, subjective tests, the new ironically-named Blackmagic Pocket 4K doesn’t have it when compared to its predecessors.
The scientific term is “mojo” and apparently from a handful of imprecise, compressed, subjective tests, the new ironically-named Blackmagic Pocket 4K doesn’t have it when compared to its predecessors.
gumonstro
Well-known member
agreed. and if it's lacking mojo, I'll stick with solid hardware, excellent low light and good internal codec: GH5s.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I also think a lot of this has to do with those behind the camera. DSLRs tend to be used by those that do not have a rich history of shooting 24p. It takes years to master how to do it well. Those using RED and Arri tend to have a film making background and perhaps shot on film before or had some level of formal or professional training.
24p is not something that is perfected over night and it takes a very different mindset to live, breath, eat, sleep and $%^& 24p.
The other thing I will throw in is edge enhancement. 24p depends on motion and it uses motion blur for that motion. The higher one cranks up sharpness the more judder one can see because subtle movements wipe away the motion blur or make it more harsh. Noise reduction really is the bane of all things video and while providing less noise it can wreck all sorts of havoc on the organic and motion rendering characteristics of video. I think this is why raw cameras can tend to have the illusion of better 24p motion. There is no noise reduction in camera and therefore the motion blur has not been farted around with the crude processing power cameras provide.
My golden rule for video is turn off the sharpness as much as possible on any camera. If it looks soft thats unfortunately what the sensor is capable of. Remember no camera adds a blur filter to video. That softer look is actually what the sensor sees and attempting to "fix" that is going to have undesirable consequences somewhere in the video. My other rule is if a camera doesn't have enough detail then you get a new camera. For example moving from a 2k camera to a 4k camera.
24p is not something that is perfected over night and it takes a very different mindset to live, breath, eat, sleep and $%^& 24p.
The other thing I will throw in is edge enhancement. 24p depends on motion and it uses motion blur for that motion. The higher one cranks up sharpness the more judder one can see because subtle movements wipe away the motion blur or make it more harsh. Noise reduction really is the bane of all things video and while providing less noise it can wreck all sorts of havoc on the organic and motion rendering characteristics of video. I think this is why raw cameras can tend to have the illusion of better 24p motion. There is no noise reduction in camera and therefore the motion blur has not been farted around with the crude processing power cameras provide.
My golden rule for video is turn off the sharpness as much as possible on any camera. If it looks soft thats unfortunately what the sensor is capable of. Remember no camera adds a blur filter to video. That softer look is actually what the sensor sees and attempting to "fix" that is going to have undesirable consequences somewhere in the video. My other rule is if a camera doesn't have enough detail then you get a new camera. For example moving from a 2k camera to a 4k camera.
Good points! Most cameras these days have built in noise reduction and sharpening even at the lowest settings.
Panasonic is notorious for sharpening even at -5. Same with noise reduction though its lower in Vlog.
Sony has the same noise reduction problem unless shooting with Slog. Though Sony doesn't have the sharpening problem. So technically the motion cadence should be pretty good. Rolling shutter might contribute as its quite high on DSLR's compared to Arri or RED. Black Magic cameras have quite a bit of rolling shutter though, not sure what people think of their motion cadence.
I've heard people say Fuji cameras have good motion cadence. I don't have an eye for it though so I can't really tell on mine.
Panasonic is notorious for sharpening even at -5. Same with noise reduction though its lower in Vlog.
Sony has the same noise reduction problem unless shooting with Slog. Though Sony doesn't have the sharpening problem. So technically the motion cadence should be pretty good. Rolling shutter might contribute as its quite high on DSLR's compared to Arri or RED. Black Magic cameras have quite a bit of rolling shutter though, not sure what people think of their motion cadence.
I've heard people say Fuji cameras have good motion cadence. I don't have an eye for it though so I can't really tell on mine.
Batutta
Major Contributor
The GH4 has no visible sharpening at -5. The GH5 downsamples from the full sensor though so it processes the footage differently. I'm kind of with Cary on all this. Shooting my own feature, there are shots I hated in isolation when just looking at the raw footage. I nitpicked flaws and obsessed over how I could have done it better. But when I started cutting it together, none of those flaws really mattered much. An uninspired shot became a better one due to the shots surrounding it. The whole became better then the sum of its parts. Obviously there is a point where things like motion cadence are so bad they become distracting but I think most pro and prosumer cameras out there right now are within tolerable limits.
gumonstro
Well-known member
I'm about to cut my 1st feature shot on GH5s and this comment was very helpful. Soderbergh is doing films using iphones. In fact, I did like the iphone one (unsane) BECAUSE it was shot with an Iphone. Looks strange and different from all thrillers we are used do watch nowadays.
So the downsampling is causing the artifacts that look like sharpening?
Like many in such forums, you're assuming that all projects have control over those aspects.
They don't.
I want my wedding films to be just as good looking as a Hollywood movie, but I often have maybe two seconds to frame the shot, focus the shot, expose the shot, and begin the recording or I lose that shot forever. That kind of shooting places certain demands on the camera, if a decent image is part of the goal.
Cary Knoop
Veteran
Then you can't have it!
The camera only records what is there, it can't make it into some Hollywood movie.
And tinkering with camera settings or applying some "magic" LUT is not going to replace things like good lighting, exposure, make up, good color choices etc.
It is a logical error to assume the camera is the most important factor, it would be like thinking that a music band that plays badly in a bad acoustic room will sound great if only you have the right audio recorder and iZotope plugins.
Last edited:
joe12south
Veteran
The GH-line heavily processes the image off the sensor before recording. Sharpening, noise reduction, compression. One may or may not like the effects, but even at the lowest settings, the results are absolutely visible.
Compared to all other aspects of a good production, you are correct, this difference is minor. It is of course true that a good camera can't fix an uninspired shot. BUT...that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to consider the merits of one camera vs another. All things being equal, why would you not choose the best tool you can afford? You can only do that if you are knowledgable.