Other: Motion Cadence

I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, or not(I've brought this up before)... But I think lighting(the type of/tech) can effect motion cadence, as well. On one of the shows I used to shoot for, had a segment that I shot 99% of the time. I shot it on my VariCam at 24P(23.98). A year or two into it, I bought a set of Kino Diva's to use when we would shoot indoors(well before LED's were as viable as they are today). I had been shooting largely tungsten and gelling them to match the ambient. Immediately after switching to the Diva's, I noticed that the motion appeared to change. Even though I was still shooting with the exact same camera, exact same lens, exact same look(scene file) and frame rate/shutter(23.98/180 degree), the motion cadence had changed, at least to my eye. It appeared much smoother and more video like(60P)(obviously I mean not in a good way).

Did they really effect the motion? Do others see it, too? Is it a super-subtle interaction that no one/hardly anyone can see and I'm just hyper-sensitive to it? Was/is it just psychological?
 
Clearly how the imager captures and also the source, if flickering, is going to make the individual 'stills' from each camera and each light source different.

Is the difference perceptible, important.. well that is kind of an open question. Clearly we are all sensitive to FPS and rolling shutter but more nuanced differences maybe more personal.

Of course the viewing medium is important too. Ive always thought that CRT 'died' slower creating a smoother feel (in a good way) than LED. Also film projection has a time of dark as the film is advanced in the projector does it not?

Ive wondered what a 240hz monitor would look like for with each 24p frame shown 8x with next a couple of black frames.
 
But I doubt there is one single film projector in any "non art house" cinema in the UK now.. must all be Digital I would think ..
 
Run&Gun said:
Immediately after switching to the Diva's, I noticed that the motion appeared to change.
Click to expand...

Interesting in that the tungstens work at 60hz (here in the states) and the divas 40Khz. LEDs freqs are all over the map. I'm sure there's a weird convergence where a 60hz light refresh collides with a 24p frame rate and a 180 degree shutter. Never thought much about that but I could see how the divas might smooth out the judder a bit. But all that doesn't account for a different look with natural light.
 
Last edited:
JCummings said:
Interesting in that the tungstens work at 60hz (here in the states) and the divas 40Khz. LEDs freqs are all over the map. I'm sure there's a weird convergence where a 60hz light refresh collides with a 24p frame rate and a 180 degree shutter. Never thought much about that but I could see how the divas might smooth out the judder a bit. But all that doesn't account for a different look with natural light.
Click to expand...

That's something that had crossed my mind, too. I could see it in low motion things like sit-down interviews, too, and not just show 'n tell type shoots with someone moving around all over the place.

Completely under natural light(sun), everything still looked fine. It was just under the Diva's that things seemed a little too smooth.
 
JCummings said:
Interesting in that the tungstens work at 60hz
Click to expand...

Tungsten bulbs do not flicker 60 times a second, do they? Alternating current reverses direction 60 times a second, but that does not affect the intensity of light. Even if power halted 60 times a second (which it doesn't) a tungsten bulb would not flicker, because I imagine it takes longer to cool.
 
combatentropy said:
Tungsten bulbs do not flicker 60 times a second, do they? Alternating current reverses direction 60 times a second, but that does not affect the intensity of light. Even if power halted 60 times a second (which it doesn't) a tungsten bulb would not flicker, because I imagine it takes longer to cool.
Click to expand...

It's the fact that the tungsten filament stays hot that keeps us from noticing the flicker. I've heard reports that when shooting at extremely high frame rates, you may experience flicker from smaller tungsten sources (you're well into Phantom territory here) whereas the bigger tungsten units -- 5k and up -- will maintain the bulb heat better and not produce any flicker. I've never experienced this personally -- and never had problems with Arri 300's when shooting at 240fps. But then I don't typically shoot at much higher frame rates than that.
 
combatentropy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally. Also, after i found out the tessive gave a hit to the dynamic range, i just forgot about it.

Part of why i think film captures motion blur differently is the way that it reacts to light vs how a sensor does.

combatentropy said:
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).
Click to expand...
I can’t tell if this is a joke or just just non technical description. But i’ll take some goo if it doesn’t change the dunamic range.
 
For a broad enough definition of "goo," it's the truth. Technically it's a suspension of lead-sulfide nanocrystals in a polymer matrix. But they still describe it as "painting" a film on top of an otherwise conventional CMOS chip. So I say, goo.

You should know that it changes the dynamic range --- by increasing it four-fold.

And it has global shutter.

However, it has been promised for almost a decade, and last I heard it disappeared under the shadow of a very large Apple.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?225559-Quantum-film-start-up-promises-global-shutter
 
combatentropy said:
Tungsten bulbs do not flicker 60 times a second, do they? Alternating current reverses direction 60 times a second, but that does not affect the intensity of light. Even if power halted 60 times a second (which it doesn't) a tungsten bulb would not flicker, because I imagine it takes longer to cool.
Click to expand...

Shoot with lower wattage tungsten lamps at a high frame rate(say 120 or higher) and you can see the light "flicker" as the filament cools during the cycle.

When I first got my F55, I played with the high frame rates/slow-mo in the house and I could see my household tungsten lights flicker, noticeably. But the flo's in the kitchen were solid.
 
I was very concerned when I read on some board that Sony Cameras had a weird cadence to motion. I really don't see it, and know that Sony has been making video / electronic cameras longer than anybody. If it was a problem they've had plenty of time to figure it out, right? I think there is far too much pixel peeping and gear lust for more expensive cameras when side by side tests show that they really aren't all that different from one another after all.

So remember this... You can shoot a movie upside-down through a fishtank in super-8, and develop it in chicken soup, and people will watch it (out of focus)
if the sound is good and the audience actually ~ cares ~ about the characters and their trajectory through the story.
 
Cynthia Webster said:
So remember this... You can shoot a movie upside-down through a fishtank in super-8, and develop it in chicken soup, and people will watch it (out of focus)
if the sound is good and the audience actually ~ cares ~ about the characters and their trajectory through the story.
Click to expand...

That's what we all used to say...but I'm not sure anyone can prove that anymore.
 
Cynthia Webster said:
I was very concerned when I read on some board that Sony Cameras had a weird cadence to motion. I really don't see it, and know that Sony has been making video / electronic cameras longer than anybody. If it was a problem they've had plenty of time to figure it out, right? I think there is far too much pixel peeping and gear lust for more expensive cameras when side by side tests show that they really aren't all that different from one another after all.

So remember this... You can shoot a movie upside-down through a fishtank in super-8, and develop it in chicken soup, and people will watch it (out of focus)
if the sound is good and the audience actually ~ cares ~ about the characters and their trajectory through the story.
Click to expand...
+1

We're all trying to figure out why we hate our work. It must be in the pixels. I'll try the soup thing.
 
combatentropy said:
For a broad enough definition of "goo," it's the truth. Technically it's a suspension of lead-sulfide nanocrystals in a polymer matrix. But they still describe it as "painting" a film on top of an otherwise conventional CMOS chip. So I say, goo.

You should know that it changes the dynamic range --- by increasing it four-fold.

And it has global shutter.

However, it has been promised for almost a decade, and last I heard it disappeared under the shadow of a very large Apple.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?225559-Quantum-film-start-up-promises-global-shutter
Click to expand...

Oh right, I heard it mentioned recently. wasn't aware it was the same thing. Well, more consumer **** leading the way. onward!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top