More RED DRAGON footage - skin tones

RE: Tessive filter as an approximation of what a mechanical shutter does: I have a hard time believing regular people will notice a 0.5ms blur (*) on a motion-blurred shot exposed at 1/48s (21ms).

* Film camera with rolling shutter of 5ms, and where the blade is so blurred in the exposure plane that the blur covers a tenth of the image height.

But you don't have to trust my numbers: in the FAQ above, Tessive themselves say their filter is doing something completely different from what you'd get with a mechanical shutter. "Is the Time Filter the same as a mechanical shutter, like the shutter on a Sony F65 or ARRI ALEXA Studio? No, the Time Filter is doing something very different than a mechanical shutter."
 
Hmm, after reading every page on the Tessive site and watching every video, as I understand it the Tessive filter is doing something that a mechanical shutter does, only more so: "fading" the exposure in and out instead of a hard clip.

My point is I wish all camera makers would make something like the Tessive shutter, something that fades the exposure in and out, rather than a hard stop. That is all.

Shutter-waveforms.png



Whether the Tessive shutter exactly emulates a film shutter is not my point. I saw some people posting that they wish video motion was more "filmic." Since up until very recently there were only two points of reference, video and film, I assumed that they like what the film shutter is doing and may be interested in a shutter that takes the concept further.
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
RE: Tessive filter as an approximation of what a mechanical shutter does: I have a hard time believing regular people will notice a 0.5ms blur (*) on a motion-blurred shot exposed at 1/48s (21ms).

* Film camera with rolling shutter of 5ms, and where the blade is so blurred in the exposure plane that the blur covers a tenth of the image height.
Click to expand...
You can't directly compare a film camera with its rotating shutter, against a rolling shutter. They produce very different results. A rolling shutter, even with a blurred edge, is not going to look like a film camera's exposure, because the film camera is *primarily* a global shutter. The shutter "rolls" open, stays open, and then "rolls closed". So for most of the frame exposure time, it's being exposed globally -- and that's not what a rolling shutter does.
 
combatentropy said:
My point is I wish all camera makers would make something like the Tessive shutter, something that fades the exposure in and out, rather than a hard stop. That is all.
Click to expand...
I wish they would as well. Unfortunately, it'll be several years before we see this type of technology rolled out across different camera manufacturers; that's the nature of the patent system. Camera manufacturers would either have to license the patent from Red (and, that implies Red would be willing to license it) or they have to wait for the patent to expire. Until then, Tessive-style technology will remain an exclusive Red property.

What camera manufacturers CAN do*, though, is install a rotating disc shutter (such as can be bought as an accessory for the F65). That will give you true film-style exposure with no "rolling shutter" artifacts.

*actually I'm assuming they can; I don't know if there's any patent on the rolling shutter in front of a digital cinema camera, or if such an idea even could be patentable since it's so blooming obvious...
 
They could all be brushes. The ideal would be a selectable shutter. That's probably asking a bit much for the foreseeable future, though.
 
^ They're just using a sensor that's designed for global shutter. The sensor maker (cmosis) is the market leader for this kind of thing, it has some great patents on how to read the whole CMOS sensor at a time, instead of row-by-row. The information is read all at the same time, stored in the sensor itself, then sent out to the processor row by row.


Barry_Green said:
You can't directly compare a film camera with its rotating shutter, against a rolling shutter. They produce very different results. A rolling shutter, even with a blurred edge, is not going to look like a film camera's exposure, because the film camera is *primarily* a global shutter. The shutter "rolls" open, stays open, and then "rolls closed". So for most of the frame exposure time, it's being exposed globally -- and that's not what a rolling shutter does.
Click to expand...

Mmmm... I would have said they are the same, but the rolling shutter in a film camera is just faster.

AFAIK, in a digital camera with rolling shutter, if the sensor readout time is X ms, then the top of the image starts to be exposed X ms before the bottom of the image, and stops being exposed X ms before the bottom of the image. Make that X=5ms, and I would think it's basically like a film camera.
 
Samuel H said:
I would have said they are the same, but the rolling shutter in a film camera is just faster.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the Great Camera Shoot-out where they test rolling shutter artifacts? They threw a film camera in there, and it showed no rolling shutter artifacts (the lines are not always perfectly straight in film, but it wobbles both ways, so I'm guessing it's because of imperfect film registration).

I have painstakingly made a collage of screenshots so you don't have to skip around in the video to compare the cameras:

all.gif
 
combatentropy said:
Have you seen the Great Camera Shoot-out where they test rolling shutter artifacts? They threw a film camera in there, and it showed no rolling shutter artifacts (the lines are not always perfectly straight in film, but it wobbles both ways, so I'm guessing it's because of imperfect film registration).

I have painstakingly made a collage of screenshots so you don't have to skip around in the video to compare the cameras:
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for that!

I do remember the test, and the vertical lines danced around too much to be sure of anything. In the radial ones, I see a small difference between film and the global shutter video cameras, but it is very very small indeed. I'd guess that it works as I said, but that the mechanical shutter is faster than the 5ms I had quoted from elsewhere in this forum (maybe 1 or 2 ms), which makes it basically global. I was surprised to see how fast a mechanical global shutter was even with a very small disc when I ran the math.
 
Gillvane said:
It looks nice but after watching this you do start to see the irony of shooting 6k to post a 1080p video on youtube.
Click to expand...

I've been saying that for the past two weeks at least. Well anyway. 2X oversampling is comfy cozy. Coupled with say 10bit color for 4:2:2 color you've got a robust archive capture. So 4K for 1080p is not outrageous. 6K sure.
But over and over the refrain is the same. Are we talking about content of a transient and dubious value or are we talking about documenting the receding polar ice caps ;) For the later and its ilk- I'd go as high a res as possible, even if the final delivery is 1080p on smartphones displaying youtube encoded vids.
Then again, there's that amazing windfall of 4X oversampling - CROPS !
As I've said before- Shoot with one medium wide lens and crop for normal and tele :)
Once you are capturing in 2K your leeway is much reduced.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
I've been saying that for the past two weeks at least. Well anyway. 2X oversampling is comfy cozy. Coupled with say 10bit color for 4:2:2 color you've got a robust archive capture. So 4K for 1080p is not outrageous. 6K sure.
But over and over the refrain is the same. Are we talking about content of a transient and dubious value or are we talking about documenting the receding polar ice caps ;) For the later and its ilk- I'd go as high a res as possible, even if the final delivery is 1080p on smartphones displaying youtube encoded vids.
Then again, there's that amazing windfall of 4X oversampling - CROPS !
As I've said before- Shoot with one medium wide lens and crop for normal and tele :)
Once you are capturing in 2K your leeway is much reduced.
Click to expand...

You say you don;t need it until you do complex post or complex color grading with lost of tracking and secodnaries, then even if you are final delivering on VHS, you are grateful for every pixel that's there.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
As I've said before- Shoot with one medium wide lens and crop for normal and tele :)
Once you are capturing in 2K your leeway is much reduced.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I did some RED shoots where I did that…..but long form docs with hours of interviews were a killer to render.
I was using 2 GH2's - one close and one wide. That was good for most stuff…..
Lately I have been using 2 Black Magic cameras shooting ProRes….
In FCP X - I can drop the film ProRes in and using the Antler plug-in get the same LUT that Resolve is using.
No rendering. All I need to do is tweak the audio and I can output the H.264 file for YouTube or Vimeo
in a fraction of the time with great results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top