Sony cameras and the "video look".

I think the Sony's do seem to create a very slight, but faster image. I don't know what it is exactly, but it seems inherent in all their cameras. It's extremely minute, but it does exist, and it is rather annoying to the trained-eye. To summarise though, what could this be coming down to? The Sony cameras are using the same shutter-speed (e.g. 1/48, 1/50) after all...could it be the way Sony processes their images from their sensors? Something must be causing it...but without the consultation of a Sony engineer, I guess we'll never know...
 
Simon Shasha said:
I think the Sony's do seem to create a very slight, but faster image. I don't know what it is exactly, but it seems inherent in all their cameras. It's extremely minute, but it does exist, and it is rather annoying to the trained-eye. To summarise though, what could this be coming down to? The Sony cameras are using the same shutter-speed (e.g. 1/48, 1/50) after all...could it be the way Sony processes their images from their sensors? Something must be causing it...but without the consultation of a Sony engineer, I guess we'll never know...
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the thread. Technically i'm aware of very little that can be done with electronic sensors in terms of affecting the motion cadence with post processing. They all pretty much work the same way. This is why i'm so perplexed with a lot of the comments i'm reading.

Are the shutter speeds on the cameras all different relative to each other? perhaps. But setting a different speed would even that out.

There was a link a while back to a video shot in Ghent cited as a pro FS user but that video looked to have quite a high shutter speed throughout. Not a traditional 'cinematic' one.

I wonder if Aaton and Arri users moaned about differences in their spinning shutters when they first arrived :)

cheers
paul
 
paulcurtis said:
I wonder if Aaton and Arri users moaned about differences in their spinning shutters when they first arrived :)
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that because I went to the Arri forum and found a thread asking about the difference between mechanical and electronic shutter. The consensus was there wasn't a jot of difference to the look.

The BMCC "look" is not common in fact I don't ever recall "seeing" that in a cinema. I'm convinced it's down to shutter speed and/or the way a particular sensor renders its motion blur.

This thread has been interesting because it has shown how different people's perception of what is a filmic image, there is a broad spectrum of preferences of a filmic image.

Beyond the motion of the BMCC there is also the "grade" all those clips were much less contrasty than one would setup an 8 bit recording camera. If you shoot with a flat look or flatten the image out in post you get a similar feel but there's still a big difference between a 10 bit capture at 422 or even RAW and a native 8 bit capture which, I'm sure, adds much of the video look.

The FS100 vs AF100 video is interesting because the DP chose to keep the highlight of the girls nose in the second video and there's nothing more "video" than a blown highlight. We're also told the AF100 footage received a grade. There are some many subtle but important differences to those video that could easily account for a more filmic feel from one or the other. The FS100 has a much bigger sensor so could've shot at a narrower DOF than the AF100, would people see that as more filmic? Probably. Both cameras are great just pick your poison.

cheers
 
What we need is a similar blind test to the FS100 vs AF100 where the cameras are not revealed. Shoot as similarly as possible and turn the footage into black and white to further simplify the test and help hide the identity of the cams. It would be interesting to see who could see a difference in motion and who couldn't.
 
Nirv said:
The BMCC "look" is not common in fact I don't ever recall "seeing" that in a cinema. I'm convinced it's down to shutter speed and/or the way a particular sensor renders its motion blur.
Click to expand...

How does a sensor "render" motion blur?
 
paulcurtis said:
You originally posted because you saw an issue with the motion cadence that affected your decision to use the camera. Some others have chimed in agreeing. A very valid opinion and post.
Click to expand...

Right, in another thread I did.

I simply want to know what you're seeing and whether it is a purely subjective issue on your part or whether it is something tangible. It's been very difficult to get a sense beyond you just saying it doesn't seem right to you. If if there is something that can be quantified then why, and what (if anything) can be done about it.
Click to expand...

It isn't subjective whether it's there or not, and it isn't really quantifiable. It's subjective if it bothers someone or not (if they can see it), but it's there. As for it being quantifiable take... for instance, Kyle just posted a pretty close example but, as I already said pages back and more than once, people will start calling out the minute differences in the image to explain away why they look different.

Unless you're shooting motion control, you will never get the shots to be exactly the same. And that will always be something someone feels made a difference.


If it's something that only a few people see then what's the problem, are you shooting for your own personal use or for an audience? If most people can't see it then where's the issue
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good question. But, I answered it in my first post within this thread: I don't care what an audience sees. I don't choose a tool for the audience, I choose a tool that I am confident in, that produces an image that I like. If we didn't care about what the audience thought (repeating myself) we'd all still be shooting on lesser formats.

It doesn't matter to me what they can see or what they cannot, and maybe they CAN see it and just have no idea what they're seeing. Maybe they can't tell the difference between 24P and 30P. I'm sure there are a NUMBER of things inherent to digital images that bother people but the audience wouldn't notice at all, that wouldn't take away from the subject matter.

Doesn't matter what they can't see. Not to me, anyway.

If it's obvious enough to take away from the subject matter then it is a huge issue. Perhaps you're using the camera in a situation i'm not and then this issue creeps up. I couldn't care less about cameras really, i'm in a period of doing 'due-dilligance' on this one for use on a fairly sizeable project, hence the nitpicking. I don't want to be in a situation i haven't anticipated.
Click to expand...

It won't take away from the subject matter, and there isn't a situation that you can get in where it won't happen. It's just there, and like Simon says (no pun intended) the trained eye can spot it. If others can't then it sincerely doesn't matter.

I'm not even trying to be combative, or argumentative or anything like that. So I hope it's not coming off that way. But I am inclined to believe that if someone can't see it already they are likely never to see it, so it doesn't really make a difference.

Simon Shasha said:
I think the Sony's do seem to create a very slight, but faster image. I don't know what it is exactly, but it seems inherent in all their cameras. It's extremely minute, but it does exist, and it is rather annoying to the trained-eye. To summarise though, what could this be coming down to? The Sony cameras are using the same shutter-speed (e.g. 1/48, 1/50) after all...could it be the way Sony processes their images from their sensors? Something must be causing it...but without the consultation of a Sony engineer, I guess we'll never know...
Click to expand...

I think if there were someone from any camera manufacturer involved (especially ARRI or RED) then we could get an answer. Actually, I'd be willing to be if someone posed the question on REDUSER one of the engineer mods over there may be able to answer it.
 
Last edited:
Paul, I don't know if this will help anything but take a look at this trailer:

http://vimeo.com/39606555


Then compare it to whatever you see fit as far as motion goes. I know that it's kind of strange to do that without having the exact same shots (Down to the tiniest detail), and it kinda doesn't make sense, but maybe something will click? I don't know. But maybe!

(Also if you're interested in the feature itself you can check the details here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...uper-16mm)-Marvin-Seth-amp-Stanley&highlight=)
 
Back to the original question ....... I agree the sony ( at least the fs100 ) does have a 'video look' out of the box but its easily changed if you like a grainy / film like look. Obviously you can apply textures or filters in post or you can try to add 'non-videoing looks' while shooting. This guy shot thru a screen door with the canon 5dmk3 and it looks pretty good ( sorry I couldnt find an example like this shot with the sony ):

http://tinyurl.com/cqg5kdq

If you prefer super clean and sharp footage ( like in a beauty or skin ad ) then INMHO it is tougher to remove the video look in post. You cant 'fake it' by adding textures etc.
 
Just returned from the gear expo in Wiesbaden where I had a rendezvous with the F65 (mechanical shutter version).
Dang! Perfect motion, exactly what Kholi and I´m missing on the 100/700.


Frank
 
I shot this when I first got my FS100. I was still playing around with picture profiles, I think this was one of Frank's G-LOGS. But I feel that the first few shots are pretty non-video. There are def some video looking shots, but thats because I got lazy with camera composition and movement. https://vimeo.com/38672386
 
Postmaster said:
Just returned from the gear expo in Wiesbaden where I had a rendezvous with the F65 (mechanical shutter version).
Dang! Perfect motion, exactly what Kholi and I´m missing on the 100/700.


Frank
Click to expand...

You know? I think it's high time I go and grab the F65 to shoot something with it. It's been hanging around for a while now, but the size and workflow scared me. That thing on your shoulder feels like you're hoisting a mini fridge. xDDD
 
Kholi said:
I'm not even trying to be combative, or argumentative or anything like that. So I hope it's not coming off that way. But I am inclined to believe that if someone can't see it already they are likely never to see it, so it doesn't really make a difference.
Click to expand...

No you're not and this is in no way personal at all. You've made some very good points both in this thread and others.

I pride myself on generally having quite a sensitive eye for things, obviously not all things it seems. I think with my inner geek i'm struggling to understand from a physical and technical point how there could be cadence differences between different digital cameras when they all operate in pretty much the same way. Perhaps there is a piece of the cake i'm missing and i'd like, for my own benefit, to find it. It's become a bit of a curiosity to be honest now.

The video you linked too was from film and i don't think anyone is denying a physical difference between the way that film and the sensor could capture motion. Although i do find the shaky cam a bit annoying *all* the time but that is subjective! In fact i found that it made it look a little video-y. Yes, overall the motion was great and the range typically film like. I love film, i have cans of it everywhere, although a local college here which moved to F3s attempted to break out their 16mm and they were saying how shocked they were how badly they compared, the memory of film didn't live up to the reality for them. I found that quite amusing.

Personally, in lieu of anything else, at the moment i feel that motion differences are more likely to be too much contrast in the motion blur and the shutter speed used. That detail enhancement and colour work *can* vary from camera to camera.

The F65 mechanical shutter - that's interesting though. Is it as simple as that then? I could understand how that would change things. However, and again i ask one thing - you suggest that there are digital cameras that you like the motion from - can you elaborate on what they are. The BMCC was one that was cited, although tough to do a side by side with that right now! How about an Epic, what's the motion like on that as in the future i may be able to test one.

I know we've all got real work to do, but as i mentioned above this has become an interesting curiosity for me that may at some point in the future come and bite me.

cheers
paul
 
Postmaster said:
Just returned from the gear expo in Wiesbaden where I had a rendezvous with the F65 (mechanical shutter version).
Dang! Perfect motion, exactly what Kholi and I´m missing on the 100/700.


Frank
Click to expand...

That's interesting because the mechanical shutter is used to overcome the rolling shutter and the BMCC is a straight rolling shutter. The feel can't be down to the type of shutter.

Perhaps someone here knows if all digital cameras produce the same amount of motion blur for the same shutter speed? I suspect not and has something to do with the performance of the sensor in some way and/or the way the shutter is actuated. This is what I meant when I said rendering of the motion blur.

The Alexa, C300, FS100 and AF100 look the same with the more fluid motion that some here describe as video-y. The Alexa seems to be leading the way in high-end Hollywood films so people are going to have to get used to it. I don't ever recall doing anything different when compositing with different cameras as long as I matched the lens sharpness, motion blur, grain/noise, gamma and colour the CGI would sit in the frame seamlessly.

The only person who has a GH2 which he said exhibits the same motion as the BMCC and a FS100 has refused to shoot test footage.

The problem is we human look at things in the time domain where much of the interesting information lies in the frequency domain. I suspect the answer is in that domain somewhere.
 
Nirv said:
That's interesting because the mechanical shutter is used to overcome the rolling shutter and the BMCC is a straight rolling shutter. The feel can't be down to the type of shutter.
Click to expand...

Yes it can. People don't realise it because everyone is using CMOS cams nowadays but handheld footage with a CMOS rolling shutter looks quite strange when you come from CCD cams. My first HDV cam was a shocker as I realised that there was something wrong with motion but couldn't really tell what it was. This was the Sony HC1 and not many realised at first that it had a rolling shutter. When it became clear I was kinda shocked. The motion was considerably worse than a CCD cam, especially going handheld as the image wobbled ever so slightly. Now everyones kinda gotten used to it. But global shutter is the way to go.

This still has nothing to do with the quite vague assertions of "motion cadence is wrong!"- messages here. The F65 with motion will be exactly like CCD cams.
 
Nirv said:
I don't ever recall doing anything different when compositing with different cameras as long as I matched the lens sharpness, motion blur, grain/noise, gamma and colour the CGI would sit in the frame seamlessly.
Click to expand...

Me neither. There has been no need to do anything different in compositing, no matter what it was shot on motion wise. 35mm film, red epic, alexa and the fs100 all match about the same. The only real difference is the rolling shutter that has to be accounted for when doing motion tracking. If you speak with 3d-guys or visit 3d-forums, not one of them has claimed these differences.

There is no magical "motion cadence difference" when all the settings are matched.
 
Last edited:
maarek said:
Yes it can. People don't realise it because everyone is using CMOS cams nowadays but handheld footage with a CMOS rolling shutter looks quite strange when you come from CCD cams. My first HDV cam was a shocker as I realised that there was something wrong with motion but couldn't really tell what it was. This was the Sony HC1 and not many realised at first that it had a rolling shutter. When it became clear I was kinda shocked. The motion was considerably worse than a CCD cam, especially going handheld as the image wobbled ever so slightly. Now everyones kinda gotten used to it. But global shutter is the way to go.

This still has nothing to do with the quite vague assertions of "motion cadence is wrong!"- messages here. The F65 with motion will be exactly like CCD cams.
Click to expand...

I agree with you regarding CMOS looking different to CCD etc but my point was the the BMCC also has this "motion cadence" that Frank and Kholi like yet it is a rolling shutter CMOS camera and its rolling shutter is quite pronounced too.

Why has the BMCC got the "cadence"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top