Yes, but I'm still not sure what we'd be gaining...? And whether it's worth the pain of upgrading/re-tooling. I still have some clients who specify that they require 1080i, not to mention that most of my cameras do not shoot at the 'full integer' frame rates -- except in VFR modes with no audio -- and even then I'm not sure if these frame rates are based on 30.00 or on 29.97 as their reference?
Other: Motion Cadence
- Thread starter JCummings
- Start date
Yes, but I'm still not sure what we'd be gaining...? And whether it's worth the pain of upgrading/re-tooling. I still have some clients who specify that they require 1080i, not to mention that most of my cameras do not shoot at the 'full integer' frame rates -- except in VFR modes with no audio -- and even then I'm not sure if these frame rates are based on 30.00 or on 29.97 as their reference?
Wow impressive! And you have a playback deck as well? Or FW out of the camera...
G
Guest
Guest
We have everything to gain.
G
Guest
Guest
I record straight to CF card now. Into an AJA ki pro mini
Run&Gun
Veteran
The non-whole frame rates used with NTSC(NTSC also technically doesn't exist anymore) is because of the way they implemented color broadcasting/recording to keep it backwards compatible with the B&W system that was in-place at the time and is also the reason we have Drop-Frame and Non-Drop-Frame timecode. This "trick" is no longer needed. And as a bonus, we'd no longer need to worry about DF or NDF timecode when shooting 29.97 or 59.94, because we'd shoot straight 30 or 60.(although the vast, vast majority of people shoot DF, but this was a worry and cause of many problems back in the day).
Moving forward, as in a future standard. If we never changed anything because of "current standards", we wouldn't be shooting HD, now. Just because some still want/require interlaced didn't stop the standards for UHD/4K/8K being made progressive scan only. See where I'm going with this?
G
Guest
Guest
I’ve also held the belief that film has smoother motion blur than digital. Digital motion blur seems more like an echo or a ghosting, while film feels more smeared or airy. Ghost like, rather than a ghosted image. The blur feels like a part of the subject in film. On digital it feels like an artifact. But that is not scientific, since i don’t shoot on film, i’ve never thought to test or compare.
I do see, though I think I may just have to agree to disagree... From my perspective the move from SD to HD was well worth the effort/expense in terms of image and quality. From an origination standpoint I also think that UHD/4k and above have been worth the cost, particularly for green screen work and the clients who want to crop in post. But of the four cameras I own that will originate UHD or higher, only one of them will allow a system frequency of 24.00 -- and none of them have the option of a system frequency of 30.00 -- and I'm not seeing a quality/look improvement in moving from 23.976 and 24.00 -- just the problem of having 75% of my UHD cameras unable to film at that frame rate... If going forward there were an easy transition, great, but for now I'm happy sticking with what seems to be a workable standard.
Run&Gun
Veteran
That's kind of where I was originally going with it, more-so than actually expecting them to do it. I was kind of just throwing it out there. Why didn't they do away with the "fractured frame rates" with the last set of "new standards" for UHD/4K and up, since they finally did away with interlace, it's all digital and the technical tricks are no longer needed. It was the perfect opportunity.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is "film weave".. film is actually moving around a tiny bit in the gate ..which video of course doesnt have .. although there are plugins to recreate it I believe ..
Run & Gun.. in the old days I was always told to shoot DF. 29.97p/60i . but for many years now editors tell me its best to shoot NDF.. I haven't shoot anything DF for ages .. and for me anyway 23.98p has largely taken over from 29.97p.. which to me looks better and the cards last longer !
Run & Gun.. in the old days I was always told to shoot DF. 29.97p/60i . but for many years now editors tell me its best to shoot NDF.. I haven't shoot anything DF for ages .. and for me anyway 23.98p has largely taken over from 29.97p.. which to me looks better and the cards last longer !
Film weave was something that could be pretty bad with the Arri IIc (or IIb). But many of the later cameras really kept it under control . I remember shooting double exposure tests using slightly offset grids with my old (non-pin-registered) 16mm Aaton and the grids would show no movement at all between them! Where the weave would get introduced was during the film-to-tape transfer. But then they came up with Electronic Pin Registration for the transfer machines - and if the production would pony up for the extra cost the footage would be rock solid and ready for FX work.
G
Guest
Guest
As much as that is true, i think that has little to do with what we are talking about. Weave is definitely one of the charms of film, but not as important a factor in motion cadence.
You must have had a better Aaton than me.. .. to have no movement at all
.. yeah its a small thing but inherently it does make some difference I think.. even with register pin gates.. there is some small movement .. compared to a digital camera ..which of course has absolutely zero.. personally I hate the look of 50/60p.. even 30p.. I want the motion blur..Yes maybe ,, but motion cadence itself is an un scientific term also.. and sort of in the eye of the beholder ..
G
Guest
Guest
Ha, you are right. I wish one of those IBS cameras would have a “weave” mode. That’d be interesting!
G
Guest
Guest
*ibis
gumonstro
Well-known member
you open a clip from a sony camera. you edit, color grade it, you're happy with the final look, then everything is fine.
when you watch footage shot on red, right after watching your sony material, you'd maybe get that terrible sudden camera depression: "oh, god, why? i want the money for a red, i want this motion cadence". if you're experienced and getting old, you begin to consider what you'd have to sacrifice for MOTION CADENCE. a trip with your family? months of health insurance? you meditate and force yourself to stop thinking about it. you did like that final look, everything was fine. why the hell this motion cadence thing is now hijacking your soul?
motion cadence, IMO, is visible. but be careful, it's insidious. it drains your brain and makes you think that it is much more important than it really is.
my tip is: stay away from side by side comparisons. after some time eyes tend to accept the motion cadence differences. just don't look at different motion cadences one right after the other or differences will be pronounced.
when you watch footage shot on red, right after watching your sony material, you'd maybe get that terrible sudden camera depression: "oh, god, why? i want the money for a red, i want this motion cadence". if you're experienced and getting old, you begin to consider what you'd have to sacrifice for MOTION CADENCE. a trip with your family? months of health insurance? you meditate and force yourself to stop thinking about it. you did like that final look, everything was fine. why the hell this motion cadence thing is now hijacking your soul?
motion cadence, IMO, is visible. but be careful, it's insidious. it drains your brain and makes you think that it is much more important than it really is.
my tip is: stay away from side by side comparisons. after some time eyes tend to accept the motion cadence differences. just don't look at different motion cadences one right after the other or differences will be pronounced.
I think its what your viewing it on that makes the most difference .. its not a scientific term that can be tested AFAIK.. ?
combatentropy
Veteran
This is what you should do.
Eradicate all variables except camera model. Duct tape the two cameras together, and shoot the same subject, angle, and movement, at the same time, with the same f-stop, ISO, frame rate, shutter speed. Watch on the same monitor. See if the difference persists.
Lots of intriguing theories, and I side with LennyLevy and others that say it might be oversharpening. I've also read that deep focus exacerbates judder, that shallow focus lessens it.
combatentropy
Veteran
Back in 2011, a company named Tessive came out with a special LCD shutter that smoothed out motion. In 2013 RED bought them out and put their tech in its Motion Mount.
At first I thought it was the future, but after watching Tessive's demos over and over, I decided I didn't like it, it was too mushy. Actually I liked those first demos, it was another video of martial arts where I actually preferred conventional shutter to Tessive's.
Anyway, not only do they compare their shutter with electronic shutters but also with film's mechanical shutter, and it turns out there is something to what you say, but I am not sure how big a deal it is, http://tessive.com/mechanical-shutter-comparison/. There's a much bigger difference between Tessive and electronic shutter than between film and electronic shutter.
I have read that Quantum Film, a layer of goo over a traditional CMOS sensor, not only would bring global shutter but also a faint fade-in-fade-out, like film had (of the shutter, not of the exposure. I'm talking not about flicker but about a feathering of the edges of movement).
Last edited: