Is shooting at 1/30 shutter, a good idea?

I

ironpony

Carbonite Member
My new DP says that if we go over 400 ISO in my new project that that will produce too much noise, since DSLRs tend to have a lot more, as oppose to, the RED for example. He says we should keep it at 400 instead of going to 800, and that we should boost to 1/30 to compensate, but will 1/30 create too much motion blur? If it creates more motion blur, perhaps this will work to my advantage. If I want to take frames out of action scenes, to speed them a little for suspense, then more motion blur is there. Which might look more natural, rather than adding as much post blur with After Effects. But will 1/30 be too much?
 
Last edited:
That's one of these things you need to do a test and see for yourself.
Many people find the look overly blurry. Some high profile movies shot digital have used slow shutter speeds though (check Public Enemies, for example).
 
Terrible idea
Unless You want "cheapo camcorder holiday vacation" or "behind the scenes" look.
 
Manipulating your shutter speed as a means of compensating for exposure is just about the last thing you should do. The shutter speed affects the image far too much.
 
Funny thing is the light you gain going from 1/48 to 1/30 is not even significant at all enough to do it in the first place.

Just shoot at the higher ISO for the scenes that need it and use denoiser later as a suggestion...
 
starcentral said:
Get a new DP, hire one with lights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to follow that sentiment also.

"...we should keep it at 400 instead of going to 800, and that we should boost to 1/30 to compensate..." is not answer that I would be comfortable with. "...We add light to compensate..." is what the answer should be.

1/30th of a second shutter speed is not a radically slow shutter speed, but it will noticeably affect motion when used to shoot video. Now it is not in and of its self bad and can be used for effect*, but it won't look "Natural", IMO. CPC has the right idea. Test it out for yourself and see what you think.



* I have used slower shutter speeds from time to time, but usually reserve them for special shoots or scenes. I have used shutter speeds at 1/30th of a second, or slower, to shoot available light shots without motion (Especially for building exterior establishing shoots at night), "Hippy-Dippy Trippy" scenes where the POV is through an alter state of consciousness (Drunk or on drugs), and in music videos to give a different kind of blurry look.
 
Is this DSLR that you're talking about a GH2?

If it is, I would shoot 1/40, which will have very little sensitivity loss compared to 1/30. There's a number of people on here that can echo 1/50 on the GH2 being a bit too juddery compared to other camera's standard 1/50 and 1/48 speeds. It's a subtle thing, but IMO, it's there.

As usual, do your own tests and come to your own conclusions.
 
ironpony said:
My new DP says that if we go over 400 ISO in my new project that that will produce too much noise, since DSLRs tend to have a lot more, as oppose to, the RED for example. He says we should keep it at 400 instead of going to 800, and that we should boost to 1/30 to compensate, but will 1/30 create too much motion blur?
Click to expand...

Let me go into some detail as to what I would say based on this scenario. First, I shoot at 1/40 on the GH2 and 1/60 on the DSLRS (and 180 degrees when the functionality is available). I never change the shutter speed after that unless I am doing an effect or shooting at a different frame rate (i.e. 1/120 when shooting 60p for slo-mo). Native ISO is always ideal, and I tend to shoot at either 320 or 400. If basic exposure becomes and issue, your two options are a) more lighting and b) increase the ISO (assuming the lens is fully opened or a specific DOF is required). I push for the first option, but in case it's not available or allowed, I have no qualms going to 800ISO. I'm not comfortable going to 1600, but with the strong warning that you're going to want to run the footage through a good denoiser, which increases post time (I would never recommend going over 1600 on any camera with a native ISO of 400 or under).

Under NO circumstances do I ever suggest dropping the shutter speed down these days, but I have in the past for a shoot on a HPX/HVX series of cameras where no extra light was allowed, and I was already running at 6dB (12dB on those cameras is too much noise) and it was towards a locked down stage.
 
You shouldn't worry too much about going as high as ISO 1250, as long as everything is properly exposed. You can get away with 2500 if you have no alternatives and don't mind doing a noise reduction pass in post. Again, once you turn the ISO up you need to make absolutely sure that you have good exposure, as underexposing at high ISOs will give you lots of really terrible looking noise.

It sounds to me like your DP hasn't actually shot on DSLRs, or maybe only has experience with something like the GH1. The fact that he recommended shooting at 1/30 makes me very suspect. I don't know him or the situation well enough to judge, but my initial reaction is that you should find a new DP.

That being said, I (and many others) find 1/40 to be the sweet spot on the GH2. I still shoot the Canons at 1/50, but 1/40 on the GH2 is where it's at.
 
Last edited:
You are right about 1250 being okay, but I prefer a cleaner look generally, and 800 is about tops for me. Obviously, if you're shooting on the 5D Mark III or the F3 or C300 or some camera with a higher native ISO, you can push that higher.

On the GH2, there's no point in shooting over 1600 as it's just processing higher gain and not really making the sensor more light sensitive. You can go higher on the Canons, but not much more.
 
And what camera can't go to 800 without noise issues? I don't think twice about going to 1250 on the 5D2 and I've shot some 3200 (in a bar with no additional lights possible). Now generally I try to stay 800 and below, but you do what you have to do.
 
Yeah my DP has never shot on DSLR before. But I don't think I should have to find a new one. He is the best I have scene with lighting a scene, and I will show him the Public Enemies effect. Hopefully he will see it cause I am often told I notice little things way too much in movies and look too hard. I kind of like the Public Enemies effect, but don't know if I want to use it for every shot, that takes place at night, where I need an exposure boost. I thought Public Enemies got that look from being shot at 30 fps, or was it still? As far as being able to get away with going to 2500, I heard of this, but my DSLR only goes to 1600, and 3200, nothing in between. I have been able to make 3200 look good once, but still noise in far away objects in the background.

In the all the tests we have done though, we didn't notice any difference between 1/30 and 1/50. In Public Enemies I noticed, but not in our own stuff. Checked again to compare and still can't see it.
 
Last edited:
Why do people assume that shooting is ever going to produce good quality images just because you have a recording device that is capable of it? We have shooting conditions that are simply not bright enough, and we're suggesting fixes before we even shoot. De-noise in post, lower shutter speeds - all possible, but surely if the location/set is too dim, the obvious quality solution is to make it brighter? Working with lenses wide open, with higher ISOs or shutters that are open more than closed (almost) all introduce negatives and must be last ditch solutions.

Remember the 6 P's?
Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance!

Get the light levels up, regain control of the camera and have all your options back!
 
ironpony said:
In the all the tests we have done though, we didn't notice any difference between 1/30 and 1/50. In Public Enemies I noticed, but not in our own stuff. Checked again to compare and still can't see it.
Click to expand...

As I said, this is one of these things you need to test yourself.
I think you have your answer now.

You didn't say what you are shooting on though. On a crop Canon with some dark bits in the scene I only rarely go above ISO 320. Add a stop for full frame (for mk2; maybe another for mk3). Anything underexposed will get noisy and then smeared by the codec. ISO 800 looks like crap in a contrasty scene. A dark scene you can overexpose to bring it up on the curve (less noise) and then pull down in post. But no point in lighting everything up to get rid of the noise if you need the contrast.
 
paulears said:
Why do people assume that shooting is ever going to produce good quality images just because you have a recording device that is capable of it? We have shooting conditions that are simply not bright enough, and we're suggesting fixes before we even shoot. De-noise in post, lower shutter speeds - all possible, but surely if the location/set is too dim, the obvious quality solution is to make it brighter? Working with lenses wide open, with higher ISOs or shutters that are open more than closed (almost) all introduce negatives and must be last ditch solutions.

Remember the 6 P's?
Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance!

Get the light levels up, regain control of the camera and have all your options back!
Click to expand...

Because sometimes, even in narrative, but especially in event shooting, sometimes lighting is what it is. In my case it was a crowded dance club scene. I don't have the budget to rent a club and fill it with extras. so I had to shoot the footage in an active night club. Perfect situation, not by a long shot, but I got usable footage (that was much needed for the project).

Now I'm with you, when you can light (which is 98% of the time) you should, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
 
Out of curiosity, what's the average range of shutter speeds most people use?

Like, obviously people don't shoot with 1/4000, that would be impossible to get properly exposed and it'd just be way too choppy even if you did expose it properly, right?

Would I be right in assuming (ignoring those super special cases where it's for a really extreme look) that most people shoot between 1/63 to about 1/400? Or is that even too high?

1/63 looks more natural but obviously has more blur, which is fine if you aren't doing any motion tracking for vfx.
1/200+ looks too choppy for my taste, but is necessary to get a good track.

So I'm just curious what most people film at for shutter speeds.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top