I think stuttering video is from lack of blurring.

I don't understand what the controversy is. The blur in all of these DSLRs are fine especially when shooting 180 degree shutter ( *around*1/50 when in 24p). Most of the videos folks make with these consumer cams have shutter speeds all over the place....so they are bad examples IMO. But if the motion is not as blurry as you'd like it then use 1/40 instead of 1/50 (where 1/48 would be ideal).

I believe (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that Hollywood uses different framerates depending on the scene. So..if they use a frame rate slower than 24p....then they will more than likely use a 180 degree shutter....but the final film is conformed to 24p. So...maybe.....just maybe some of those darker scenes like in that Will Smith example was shot at a lower framerate...along with a 180 degree shutter to ....um....get more light (which could explain why it looks a little blurrier than normal). I'm just guessing here.
 
Ian, thanks for explaining. this subject is bugging me cause i need to shoot a big project so i examine a lot of
HD "real" movies on my crappy monitor and they're all smoother than all my 1/50 footage.
i didn't really try to test 1/40 yet cause i didn't hear of people shooting 1/40 to get less stutter.
it's not a common speed and no one advises it as a best "film like" shutter speed.
oh well... maybe it's a dslr compromise (lack of 1/48 or whatever)
 
YellowGT0 said:
The GH shots were done at 1/50 and still have far less blur then the movie clip.
Click to expand...
yes but a guy moving very fast at 1/50 is going to blur more than a guy walking slowly or just turning his head shot at the same 1/50. will smiths example seems to be jumping out the car fast while the guy from DSLR footage is damn near standing still
 
I'm no expert at this stuff, but I will defer to someone who IS: Adam Wilt. Read this article for his discussion of video vs. film motion blur and why it's not just a question of 180 degree shutter and 1/48 shutter speed that gives film that smoother, more blurry look, as well as what's being done in high end video cine cameras to close the gap: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/red_visit_21_september_hdrx/

The answer appears to be "penumbral sweep", perhaps a term that Adam created, but that explains what is going on mechanically/optically in a real film camera that had not yet been reproduced in video cameras until now(?). In other words, another trick that real film (or film cameras) still holds up its sleeve.
 
Shenan said:
I'm no expert at this stuff, but I will defer to someone who IS: Adam Wilt. Read this article for his discussion of video vs. film motion blur and why it's not just a question of 180 degree shutter and 1/48 shutter speed that gives film that smoother, more blurry look, as well as what's being done in high end video cine cameras to close the gap: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/red_visit_21_september_hdrx/

The answer appears to be "penumbral sweep", perhaps a term that Adam created, but that explains what is going on mechanically/optically in a real film camera that had not yet been reproduced in video cameras until now(?). In other words, another trick that real film (or film cameras) still holds up its sleeve.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
That may be so, but how would you explain Red or Alexa footage?
smooth as film.
 
Shenan this is what he said:

I had the impression (also subject to further experimentation) that the image looked slightly more natural than run-of-the-mill 24p digital camera panning, more like a film camera’s image would. The blur of a moving image, captured on film, has a smooth “fade-in, fade-out” quality due to the penumbral sweep of the rotating shutter; the ends of motion trails in digital capture have harder edges from the “instant-on, instant-off” integration period of an electronic shutter, which give 180-degree electronic shutters a harsher, more staccato motion rendering.

This is exactly what we observe. The harshness of digital vs analog film IMO. This to me explains the tearing I see when watching panning videos online as oppsed to watching something that originated on film. I think Arri and Red etc. are different in how they process their image than the typical prosumer digital camera. I could be wrong though.

Maybe using a slightly slower shutter on digital cameras is the answer. The fact that we have 1/40 on these cams could do the trick.
 
Maybe it's just the shooting style that's different. With films they put a lot of effort in to planing the shot, and limiting the speed at which the subject moves across the screen (ie panning with them), and pans are controlled and slow. I'm sure that if you whipped a film camera about like what people usually do with small hand held camcorders, the result would probably look just as stroby. Try shooting with a tripod and panning slowly, looks awesome.
 
Roei...Yeah give it a try. I'm only assuming it could work because film cameras can't go that low. But digital cameras can. We are all so dead set on 1/48 because for "film" cameras THAT is a 180 degree shutter. But...obviously the results at that speed seems different on a digital cam vs fim. So...we shoud take advantage of this and try to get the best looking image that mimicks film.

Matthew ...you're right...but from what I've seen...even the quick pans of film look different than the same type of pans shot digitally. I always see tearing on the screen. Not so for films.
 
I've shot alot at 1/30th because of it being the workaround for the band issue, and have found that their is a nice motion blur effect to it, without it coming off as blurry. You should give that a try.
 
I have shot tons of stuff at 1/30 with a dvx100, and hmc 150 and its fine particularily for low light. I've even gone down to 1/24.
 
I shot some 1/30 the other night at a dark birthday party. I really don't see the difference between 1/30 and 1/50 that I thought I would see. This was GH1 though.
 
tried 1/50 and 1/40 comparison... absolutely the same, strobe-wise.
while i'll never use other mode than 24p, i start to hate this extra strobe effect.
i keep on hoping my monitor exaggerates it and the final output, screened properly, will look better.
now it just doesn't look like proper 24p- period. there will never be any kind of motion blur on those cameras.
i've done some extensive reading these last days and read that dslrs are bound to have this strobe (and also the AF100 :evil:). it's just a different shutter system from all the high and digital cinema cams.
 
I see motion blur all the time on my 7D, and I've never had a problem with the quality of it. In fact, there are times when I wish I would have shot a higher shutter because I was doing VFX work and motion blur can be painful on those types of shots.

I don't get where it's a different system on something like a Red, it's a rolling shutter just like a DSLR. The difference is in the resolution. Maybe a good test is to take a photo while moving the camera, and what you might find is that the higher resolution is really the culprit, as it hides some of that harsh digital edge. But on my AF100, I think the motion blur looks great.

I agree with Art, although I'd call it something different. It's the same issue as flash photography on a rolling shutter. With a film camera, as the blade of the shutter comes down, there will be a diffraction effect on the light passing over the edge of the shutter. This will soften that edge just as it softens the edge of a flash happening as well. Though, Red cameras suffer the same problem with flashes.

Didn't Barry do a test showing that the motion blur is the same using a 16mm film camera and a video camera? I thought I read that somewhere.
 
this is definitely monitor issue :)
somehow, native mts files tend to strobe on my monitor.
i think my case is more complicated as i'm in PAL land, shooting 23.976
just viewed them through my projector+popcorn streamer. entirely different world.
at least now i am sure they will look good in the end. i forgot it looked so nice on a big projection screen :)
the 24p is showing exactly as it should. delicate nice flowing movements of any object or pan.
so i guess now i'm left annoyed with how to enjoy the editing workflow, seeing the footage as it should be seen (and lets not forget the hysterical judder while shooting).
is there anyone in PAL, advise me of a way to solve this? (i do need a new monitor, and YellowGTO told me a simple good Samsung screen would help, but i'm not sure..)
 
Is there a way to add post motion blur? See if that cleans up the video.

Or maybe someone can take a 720p video moving and then the same video in 1080 and we can see if 720 adds more motion blur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top