More RED DRAGON footage - skin tones

David Jimerson said:
. Shouldn't matter if the only question is motion.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't, no... but the question never is about what it's about, is it? It's usually about validating one's preexisting notions...

If I were to do such a test, I'd want to have at least six entries: a conventional DSLR, a conventional CCD camera, a regular Red Epic, a Red Epic with the Motion Mount, and an Alexa.

And I'd probably edit it such that there were six shots on the screen at the same time; would have to construct the shots so that they fit within the frame so that they could all exist on the screen simultaneously...
 
... not gonna do it anyway. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that nobody, anywhere, ever, actually appreciates or wants a comparative camera test!
 
so, let's see what we have:

* build and light a nice set that needs just 4 or 5 stops of DR to look good; set up a motion-controlled jib
* eight cameras to test: BMC, 5D3+RAW, FS700, C300, EPIC, EPIC_activemount, Alexa, film
* all with Zeiss CP.2 glass (in canon and PL mounts) stopped down to f/4 (f/5.6 for full frame, f/2.8 for BMC)
* release blind test with all footage in black and white and with lots of grain; one week later, release blind test in graded color and with only some grain; one week later, say which was which

that's going to be an expensive test, should we ask Zacuto to run it? :)
 
Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Less contrasty looks will give off an appearance of smoother. So the Alexa will look nicely smooth because the image itself is very low contrast. If you take another cam that's way more contrasty, the motion will look harder, eventhough otherwise it would be exactly the same.

There are all kinds off little things that screw with peoples "impressions" of motion. Like this:

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_flashlag1/index.html
 
maarek said:
Less contrasty looks will give off an appearance of smoother. So the Alexa will look nicely smooth because the image itself is very low contrast. If you take another cam that's way more contrasty, the motion will look harder, eventhough otherwise it would be exactly the same.
Click to expand...

To the extent that is true, it's also true of film. "Smoother" does not necessarily equal "filmic."
 
This is just a wild guess so feel free to prove me wrong. I think there is something going on with vertical motion in the film frame. As each frame is exposed there is a very slight shift in the image. One up, one down, one up, etc. So what happens is that you get a very minor vibration or bobbing up and down on a film camera image that you don't get on a video camera. With better film cameras this bobbing is lessened but still exists because it's a mechanical format. You can pause a frame and you won't see it, it looks sharp. Even if you jump frame by frame you won't see it, but you can percieve it in full motion at 24fps.

For example: Watch this video at 1:42 where the 16mm camera is locked down, but you can see a slightly more exagerated vertical motion in the park and the Ferris wheel that follows.

When I put in the blu-ray for Troy the other night I also observed this in the opening title sequence. Obviously the titles were printed to film and then the whole film was scanned to digital.

These are both exagerations. As small as they are, they are easily pointed out and can be distracting. But I think something along the same lines is happening in film in general that is not happening in video.

Just a guess. It could be this as well as other things.
 
When a video sensor starts exposing for the 1/48 sec. (or whatever), it is a hard switch, from off to on, and when it stops, likewise it is a hard stop. So, in the resulting exposure for that frame, all motion blur has a hard edge where it starts and another hard edge where it stops.

Now when a film camera, or even a video camera with a rotating mechanical shutter, starts exposing, the exposure goes from dark to light with a slight fade, and likewise when it goes from light to dark, because the shutter plane itself is blurry to the film plane, because it is completely out of focus.

In 2011, a man named Tony Davis showed a way with an LCD shutter (I think) to likewise make the shutter fade in and fade out (http://tessive.com/the-time-filter/). Last April, he abruptly announced that he would no longer be making it. A week later, at NAB, RED announced their "Motion Mount," which seems to work just like Tony Davis's thingamabop.

"It's so obviously the Right Thing To Do, you'll wonder why you didn't think of it yourself," said Adam Wilt. "One day, all cameras will be shuttered like this." (http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/cine_gear_expo_la_2011/).

Tony Davis's Tessive web site still hosts camera comparisons, what you all are talking about, between normal video shutters and the fade-in-fade-out shutter. (http://tessive.com/gallery/) --- even between a normal shutter, a Tessive shutter, and a mechanical shutter.
 
I would love to see a proper scientific test. I get a bit of a sick pleasure watching the comment storms when these types of things come up.

No doubt there are certain people who can percieve subtleties in the look/motion of footage that others cannot. However, it's also become pretty clear after some of the tests over the years (zacuto, philip bloom's) that there is a fair amount of placebo effect going on, along with exaggerated notions of camera quality differences and I LOVE seeing that kind of thing exposed. Keeps people honest. Though it often makes them mad.
 
Well, that's yet another different way of exposing; a film shutter doesn't have the Tessive exposure curve. The whole of the picture doesn't fade in then out.
 
I would love to be wrong. I would love to find out it's just some combination of lens, color grading and overall picture quality that is creating an effect I preceive as a difference in motion. Then I would like to know how to recreate it if that turns out to be the case.

Ultimately I could care less what it is, to me the important thing is the suspension of disbelief, which is what I attribute to the film-motion.
 
combatentropy said:
I can't believe no one has mentioned Tessive.

For years I pined for global shutter, because I couldn't stand the thought of my video having any skew at all. But after reading Tessive's site and watching their videos, I'm convinced that even global shutter is not enough. I know, I sound picky, but just go there.

Then the ones who claim some cameras do render motion differently can talk more intelligently.

Explanatory video: http://tessive.com/the-time-filter/
Demo test footage: http://tessive.com/gallery/
Click to expand...

Very cool! I want :) Wonder what's going on with it now?
"As of today, we are no longer offering sales of new Time Filter systems. The Time Filter system was always a first step—a practical technology demonstrator that cinematographers could actually use on projects with existing cameras. But it’s time for Tessive to move on from that product. "
 
David Jimerson said:
Well, that's yet another different way of exposing; a film shutter doesn't have the Tessive exposure curve. The whole of the picture doesn't fade in then out.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand what it is being said. A film shutter does really fade in and out, like I said, and like the Tessive site explains. It just fades in and out more quickly than the Tessive shutter. But we're talking about over the course of a single frame. To fade in over the course of several frames, and then fade out over the course of several frames, we all would perceive as "flicker," which is not what we want nor what film shutters, the Tessive shutter, and the Red Motion Mount are doing.

Please actually read the explanation on the Tessive site before commenting.

Here is the FAQ: http://tessive.com/time-control-faq/
Here is a deep technical explanation: http://tessive.com/time-filter-technical-explanation/
Here is a video that makes it all easier to understand: http://tessive.com/the-time-filter/
Here are four different demos, where you can clearly see a difference between standard video shutters and the Tessive: http://tessive.com/gallery/
 
Last edited:
It's a truly mindbending idea that in retrospect is somewhat obvious, a correction to a longstanding oversight.

Back up a bit. When you see moire on a sweater, that is "spatial aliasing." When you see wagon wheels turning backwards, that is a result of "temporal aliasing." The Tessive filter is like an optical low-pass filter, except for time instead of space. (http://tessive.com/time-filter-technical-explanation/)

More often seen than the illusion of wheels turning backwards is the harsh judder some report when video cameras are run at 24p. Some have tried softening by using longer shutter speeds, even up to a 360-degree shutter on their video cameras. The Tessive filter softens judder without actually making the overall motion blurrier. "Strictly speaking, the Time Filter doesn't make smearier imagery. If you check out the frequency response of the fully compensated Time Filter, it is actually sharper than a 180 degree shutter, and much, much sharper than a 360 degree shutter." (http://tessive.com/time-control-faq/)

By the way, it also completely eliminates rolling shutter.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
I'm sorry, but you misunderstand what it is being said.
Click to expand...

No, I really don't.

A film shutter does really fade in and out
Click to expand...

The entire spatial image does not fade in and fade out all at once. Areas of it are fading in and out at different times.


But we're talking about over the course of a single frame.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm fully aware of that.

To fade in over the course of several frames, and then fade out over the course of several frames, we all would perceive as "flicker," which is not what we want nor what film shutters, the Tessive shutter, and the Red Motion Mount are doing.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea how you think I was referring to a "course of several frames."

Please actually read the explanation on the Tessive site before commenting.
Click to expand...

Please do not take a condescending tone, especially when I don't think you read me very well.

Here are four different demos, where you can clearly see a difference between standard video shutters and the Tessive: http://tessive.com/gallery/
Click to expand...

I didn't say there wouldn't be a difference. In fact, I said it was a "different way of exposing." But not only is it different from standard video exposure, it's also different from how a film frame is exposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top