More RED DRAGON footage - skin tones
- Thread starter Derek Chingwell
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
You should include roxic's name in the quote. What his/her real name?
tmnt
King of Australia
I think you may need a different sample group.
There are times when I'd like to get into someone else's head and see exactly what they mean by "filmic," to say that this camera or that camera is or isn't, especially in threads like this where the term is being applied to "motion."
Which isn't to say I'll agree or disagree, I'd just like to know fully what it means when it's said.
Which isn't to say I'll agree or disagree, I'd just like to know fully what it means when it's said.
tmnt
King of Australia
Watch a soap opera then watch almost almost any recent big budget movie (film or digitally shot) or any movie ever shot on film and that's the difference in motion.
i just can't fathom how people can't see it but like someone else mentioned its a two way street. To me it's only slightly less apparent than the difference between b+w and colour.
-- And apologies for helping to derail this thread
i just can't fathom how people can't see it but like someone else mentioned its a two way street. To me it's only slightly less apparent than the difference between b+w and colour.
-- And apologies for helping to derail this thread
I'm well aware of that difference (made a tutorial showing it and explaining why it exists); you see it between anything that shoots at 60 hz vs. 24 hz or 30 hz. But I see people saying that "only this" camera or "that" camera gives a "filmic" motion, and I wonder what exactly that means.
It always will if it's shot at a high frame rate. But I don't think I've seen any 24p footage rendering motion anything like a soap opera. A slow shutter will make it less staccato, but 24 movements is 24 movements, not 60, no matter what it's shot on.
This is why I say I want to see from the inside what people mean when they say "filmic."
G
Guest
Guest
People have been noticing the difference between digital 24p and film 24p for a while. I cannot put a finger on it. But it has never bothered me. And i like 60p in addition to 24p. Horses for courses.
That's why I'd like to be able to get inside someone else's head, so that I can see what they're seeing, especially if they're saying that one (digital) camera's 24p motion is more "filmic" than another camera's (digital) 24p motion. For that, I'd like to know what the "filmic" image is that's referred to.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
If you do that test with 24p vs 60i, the difference is going to be obvious. If you do it with film vs digital-with-mechanical-shutter vs digital-with-global-shutter vs digital-with-fast-rolling-shutter vs DSLR, in a scene that is not challenging in terms of DR, and with all images graded to have the same color... then yes, I also want to know if there's a difference to be noticed!
I would pay to take that test. xD Just to find out if I'm crazy or not.
Feels like I can spot it a mile away.
I don't know that in such a test you could filter out all the other giveaways and just make it a test for motion.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Why not? I bet I could do it rather easily. Control the scene to have absolutely limited dynamic range, and edit it in post to match the grain level between shots... shoot something that's mechanically reproducible so you don't have people acting differently one time to another... I would think it'd be pretty easy to come up with a scenario that would be able to isolate motion as the only real variable.
Barry_Green
Moderator
EDIT: I'm talking about making the scene not look like a typical Hollywood scene; I'm talking about isolating out the variables so nobody can pick up on other clues. We wouldn't be precisely matching the color, we'd shoot in black and white to avoid color. We wouldn't be precisely matching the grain, we'd add a buttload of grain to mask any underlying fine difference. The grade would be conducted to make them match dynamic range ideally, and the dynamic range would be precisely controlled with lighting to limit it to only something that can easily be resolved by all candidates...
I will watch and not participate. I suspect the comments section will be catastrophic, though, because many flags will be thrown on the film footage for not being actually filmic, after all that stuff is done to it.
Or maybe not. Shouldn't matter if the only question is motion.
Or maybe not. Shouldn't matter if the only question is motion.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I can think of a particular thing from music that equates with what some people may see in digital motion vs film motion (or very good digital systems). Take a very high quality drum machine with excellent sample sounds, have it play 120 beats per minute. Then have a professional drummer play the same exact beat at 120 beats per minute to a click track (same number of kick, snare, and high hat strikes)
They would both clock in at the same 120 beats per minute and be called "perfect" time, but the human drummer will "render" the same time keeping in a different way, even if it is very very slight....it can be heard by many people (even taking the sonic qualities out of the equation) Others won't have a clue and would only know if you told them.
It is usually more of a feel thing, like watching a movie and something hits you in a way it looks...
Years ago when Collateral came out, I watched it, never thought one single time about the picture. 3 days ago I watched it and just thought to myself, "This looks like video, am I crazy" Googled it...and it turns out I wasn't crazy. I know that's not as subtle as motion, but it's the same idea when a thing hits you that you can't put a finger on.
(I should add I am not someone who can see the motion thing, unless it's obvious or pointed out...but it makes sense to me that different systems would handle motion differently.)
They would both clock in at the same 120 beats per minute and be called "perfect" time, but the human drummer will "render" the same time keeping in a different way, even if it is very very slight....it can be heard by many people (even taking the sonic qualities out of the equation) Others won't have a clue and would only know if you told them.
It is usually more of a feel thing, like watching a movie and something hits you in a way it looks...
Years ago when Collateral came out, I watched it, never thought one single time about the picture. 3 days ago I watched it and just thought to myself, "This looks like video, am I crazy" Googled it...and it turns out I wasn't crazy. I know that's not as subtle as motion, but it's the same idea when a thing hits you that you can't put a finger on.
(I should add I am not someone who can see the motion thing, unless it's obvious or pointed out...but it makes sense to me that different systems would handle motion differently.)
Last edited: