Panning 'mud', reasons why and firmware update

Thing about jello is that if it is becoming a problem there is something wrong in your shot already! Unless you are simulating an earthquake, or a camera operator falling down a flight of stairs, stabilize your shot!

Trouble with "mud" is that it does not really mater if your shot is steady or not.....
 
Hopefully it ain't a big problem in the end. HDV cameras mud as well on rapid motion and generally I keep my shots static and really don't like the handheld pan/ zoom ENG shooting.

Though hopefully it doesn't deteriorate the footage on a steadicam.
 
The problem is tha "jello" appears everywhere unanounced, especially of course handheld. "Mud" is appearing so far in pans and some tilts. I believe settings are not properly set to handle this pans properly. It is very frustrating not having my own cam to start testing. But, nothing happens before its time. I personally feel that "jello" appearing in the middle of a scene is horrible, no matter how acceptable it has become.
 
Alos there seems to be a "NO MUD" shooting mode on this camera.

Which while it's unfortunate that that mode is not 1080 24p - means there's a built in work around right in the camera.
 
John Caballero said:
The problem is tha "jello" appears everywhere, especially of course handheld. ...
Click to expand...

That's because the shot is already unstable and distracting. Getting rid of jello won't help, it's ruined to begin with! If you don't shake the camera or swing it around like a baseball bat jello is gone. You are left with rapid pans, and it's not as distracting since there is no wobble. Get the camera out of your hands if you can't hold still.

But I agree, jello really drives me nuts.. Can be very distracting. When I saw Peter Jackson's Crossing the Line, the only thing I could focus on was things waving around...
 
Alos there seems to be a "NO MUD" shooting mode on this camera.

Which while it's unfortunate that that mode is not 1080 24p - means there's a built in work around right in the camera.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of pretty looking footage will come out of this camera. If only I could get my hands on one already. Frustrating but what can you do but wait in line.
 
The jello hasn't been much of a problem for me. I have been able to get rid of jello by outfitting a simple shoulder stabilizer. My setup is almost like using an old ENG camera off of the shoulder which I really prefer. The only time jello is of consequence is with anything 100 mm or longer, or sometimes in moving macro shots when I cannot use a tripod, otherwise it's gone.
 
Boz said:
Actually I wanted to expanded on this thought more. By workaround you mean 30/60P mode. Which of course means retiming. Which means computer processing. It also means the computer may not get it right (especially with action) and even if it does it could still look weird. See what Stu Maschwitz has to say about it:

http://rebelsguide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26384#26384
Click to expand...
I'm wondering if the comparative lack of jello with teh MII vs GH1 might help in the post process. I can see jello confusing optical flow post retiming processes.

I mean it goes against what those conversion systems are looking for, continuity in movement of lines and shapes - then suddenly the lines and shapes go wonky.
 
As long as you don't mishandle the camera the rolling shutter is fine. Especially if you follow the ASC guidelines!

Here is a short with lots of fighting and action sequences: http://www.vimeo.com/4209574

Personally, I did not notice any rolling shutter distortion in that. I'm sure it's in there someplace to some extent.. Maybe if I looked really close, and got a yardstick to take some measurements..
 
Last edited:
Daniel L. said:
Here is a short with lots of fighting and action sequences: http://www.vimeo.com/4209574

Personally, I did not notice any rolling shutter distortion in that.
Click to expand...

First of all this is off topic, but anyway, this video is full of jello.
I don't even know where to start. The train in the beginning, top left, is bent, as well as the brown door on 0.34, the walls on 0.47, 0.51, the pipes on 1.14, and 1.22... anyways, no need to tire you but the mud would be equally or more unnoticed if what you focus on is the fighting
These are faults that you have to look for in most of the cases. People paying attention to the plot rather than the technicalities will not notice...
 
Last edited:
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
I'm wondering if the comparative lack of jello with teh MII vs GH1 might help in the post process. I can see jello confusing optical flow post retiming processes.

I mean it goes against what those conversion systems are looking for, continuity of movement of lines and shapes - then suddenly the lines and shapes go wonky.
Click to expand...


Well the Jello doesn't seem to be stopping Cinematographer Rodney Charters ASC, using six 5D's on a CBS action series production.


Take a look here in this Video news clip that talks about RED footage vs 5DMII demonstration on 20ft screens at NAB by Cinematographer Rodney Charters ; It's worth the watch.

LINK:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=173892





.
 
lol I watched it twice and didn't see any jello that bothered me.

I'm off to the local camera shop now to order a MKII....nuff said
 
Daniel L. said:
Please correct me if I am mistaking, but based on how the sampling works the only time 4:2:2 would give you an advantage is on an interlaced camera.

Most cameras today are progressive, hence 4:2:0...
Click to expand...
4:2:2 is *always* better than 4:2:0. There is not an imaginable circumstance where 4:2:2 wouldn't be better than 4:2:0.

Now, it's true that 4:2:0 in interlaced mode is hideously awful, so much so that 4:1:1 is preferred because it retains chroma every line, even if that chroma is spread across 4 pixels. 4:2:0 in progressive is much superior to 4:2:0 in interlaced, and basically a wash as compared to 4:1:1.

But 4:2:0 doesn't hold a candle to 4:2:2 in any circumstance. In interlaced, 4:2:2 is approximately six hundred gazillion times better than 4:2:0 in interlaced. In progressive, it's exactly twice as good, twice as high resolution.
 
squig said:
lol I watched it twice and didn't see any jello that bothered me.

I'm off to the local camera shop now to order a MKII....nuff said
Click to expand...


Agreed, that "mojo" that the Canon gives that short out ways any ridiculous micro measurebating will point out.

I would rather eat a bowl full of jello, then a bowl full of mud...


1. One way to prevent mud: Minimize quick movements, and fast pans.

2. One way to minimize jello: Minimize quick movements, and fast pans.


Hmmm; same difference.

I say pick the one with the best and largest image.....


.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top