Sony cameras and the "video look".

Kholi said:
CPC... now that Gary mentions it, let me ask y'something.

The GH2 hack effort has a few different kinds of patches, some are GOP1, some are GOP3. The reason being is that the forum was split on which one looked better for motion, and most (I think) gravitated toward GOP1 patches. So, obviously, this has been a huge discussion there.

My question is this: would Shutter Angle/Speed exhibit a different look depending on GOP settings?
Click to expand...

I am not really familiar with the GH2 so I can't comment what exactly these settings do.
But different GOP handling can influence frame-to-frame motion, including blur rendering. Low bitrartes may force subsequent frames to use more info from reference/key frames and can this way impose a certain feel of crispness (as pixel blocks don't change much between frames and, consequently, forms keep their shape). And less key frames (longer GOPs) mean more frames need to reuse other frame data.
Still, we are talking minute differences here, if at all noticeable.

edit:
Also, lower shutter speeds, by creating more blur, introduce more differences (deltas) between frames and can force the codec to treat blocks as new info, instead of simply move the same blocks around between frames.
 
Last edited:
Weelll, perhaps we're getting somewhere.

Yes, film makes things look better, less crisp, as noted many times the same lighting setup on film is very forgiving compared to the harsh reality of digital.

I really feel the difference could be in the contrast and detail of the motion blur.

Compression would make quite a difference here come to think of it. Most intraframe codecs will block up under fast motion, including the FS100. Compression is all about squeezing and averaging/throwing away/reconstructing detail. The old AVC used to look awful under motion and AVCHD isn't that much better. Perhaps we're picking up on the codecs mangling the data when they're under pressure. Perhaps in the event of data not being recorded the reconstruction of the frames are undergoing harsh digital guesswork.

The BMCC is nearly uncompressed, and certainly not intraframe.

Perhaps we are judging subtletly in codecs after all. The list of cameras and the ones you like seem to have better compression in general.

In which case i wonder if the uncompressed output of the FS compared to the AVCHD would make the difference needed. There's a thread around here that i started i think showing the differences in a still between the two. Perhaps my weekend task should be to compare uncompressed and compressed acquisition.

Kholi, back to the beginning and the motion not being to your liking - were you using uncompressed output, i kinda thought you were so perhaps this is a non starter.

[Edit : i also have to apologise to Kholi, as i've been spelling it with 2 Ls the whole time, i thought it was some dust on the laptop screen obscuring an L!]

cheers
paul
 
paulcurtis said:
Perhaps we are judging subtletly in codecs after all.

cheers
paul
Click to expand...

I don't think so - recording simultaneously to AVCHD (internally in my FS100) and to XDCAM HD422 I-frame only (nanoFlash), I can't see a slightest difference motion-wise.

I'll stick to my opinion expressed earlier in this thread: it's mainly the much softer, less punchy look of film that - at the same, 24 fps cadence - makes the difference...
 
I suspect the FS100 employs a LOT of signal conditioning to remove a LOT of high frequency detail that the eye really doesn't see before the video is compressed to AVCHD or out to HDMI.

The "unseen" high frequency detail would overwhelm the AVCHD encoder and compression would suffer as a result. I guess Sony made the decision based on anticipated use and decided video and broadcast would be best served with less judder and get the best results from their 24 bits.

The cadence appears in footage other times it doesn't from cameras that are supposed to exhibit the effect. The Avengers clips are more video-y than the Skyfall trailer yet both shot on Alexa.
 
moldcad said:
I don't think so - recording simultaneously to AVCHD (internally in my FS100) and to XDCAM HD422 I-frame only (nanoFlash), I can't see a slightest difference motion-wise.

I'll stick to my opinion expressed earlier in this thread: it's mainly the much softer, less punchy look of film that - at the same, 24 fps cadence - makes the difference...
Click to expand...

I completely forgot that the nanoflash xdcam also has an I-frame only option. Well, we can then leave the codec out.
But if it is a matter of non-motion related characteristics: softness, contrast, grain texture, etc, then it should be possible to simulate in post. Record in a fairly flat gamma for low contrast, apply a softening filter, apply grain. Then check how the motion feels. I guess people have already tried that, no?
 
I've found the motion in AVCHD to block up quite easily in high detail places, this macro-blocking could perhaps manifest as harder edges within blurred scenes. For those sensitive to motion perhaps it's subconsciously looking 'wrong'. I wouldn't dismiss the codec, because i don't know whether people that are seeing this are testing uncompressed.

I remember the initial AVC version and every time the camera panned there would be this sudden high frequency frame wide change as the codec fell apart. That was very obvious and disconcerting. It could still be going on at a more subtle level.


The Avengers perhaps was running slightly faster shutter speeds, due to the level of action movement. It was a 2d -> 3d process wasn't it? Perhaps that also figured into their choice of shooting criteria.

cpc said:
I guess people have already tried that, no?
Click to expand...

Probably not in controlled circumstances. If i can ever find a gap i'd love to do some tests...

cheers
paul
 
Every body is focusing on the very real differences in codec microblocking, but I still feel that what we have here is a motion issue. Consider this - compression codecs make guesses about motion, and encode based on those sections that will change. This will alter our perception of motion since not all motion is encoded, only the most important or predictable. Eventually the scene will change as the subject moves, but it may not all be encoded immediately as it is in RAW.
 
I went down to the water at lunch and quickly hacked this https://vimeo.com/42838793 together. I was testing profile setting at midday on white shiny boats but I also tried to get the "cadence."

All hand-held and all exposure right on the limit cuz that's what I was testing. The conversion had rogered the highlights and they look more blown than they actually are.

**I exported straight from FCPX to Vimeo which was the wrong thing to do, very average image quality. The cadence appears intact.
 
Nirv said:
I went down to the water at lunch and quickly hacked this https://vimeo.com/42838793 together. I was testing profile setting at midday on white shiny boats but I also tried to get the "cadence."

All hand-held and all exposure right on the limit cuz that's what I was testing. The conversion had rogered the highlights and they look more blown than they actually are.

**I exported straight from FCPX to Vimeo which was the wrong thing to do, very average image quality. The cadence appears intact.
Click to expand...

I'm curious if you used the kit lens and whether or not you had the image stabilization on.

I've been lurking on this thread, because I do love to try to get the film look when using a video camera. It seems to work sometimes, but usually not. The lens is a factor, I find. There are a couple shots in my "Early Spring" video (shot on FS100) that I find filmy, the ones with the kids playing hopscotch. http://icitte.tv/chaines/montreal

I find the same issue in photography, though to a lesser extent. At Christmas I took out my bottom of the line 35mm Nikon film camera for the first time in 4 years and bought some film from the pharmacy. Used my 50mm Zeiss to shoot about 40 photos (taking care over each one instead of shooting away madly) and I love them. Straight from the pharmacy fotomat they have the look that I spend hours trying to get with my 7D.

Cheers,
Tom
 
Swink said:
...The lens is a factor...
Click to expand...

I agree, though, of course, the lens doesn't affect the motion cadence. Working at the lower end, cost wise, I went with a series of vintage manual Nikon primes lenses and I really like the way they look on the FS100. I also have a Vivitar Series 1 28 -105mm F2.8 - 3.5 zoom, in F-mount. If any of the lenses I have, I would say that this one really has a look that I would describe as "Cinematic". It is great lens and can be purchased relatively inexpensively. It is not parfocal and is not a constant aperture but I like it. It is built like a tank.

I have also been very impressed with the look I am seeing other folks get with vintage Canon FD lenses on the FS100. I am not into buying more lenses right now, but if I was I would try to get some FD lenses and try them out.
 
David G. Smith said:
I agree, though, of course, the lens doesn't affect the motion cadence. Working at the lower end, cost wise, I went with a series of vintage manual Nikon primes lenses and I really like the way they look on the FS100. I also have a Vivitar Series 1 28 -105mm F2.8 - 3.5 zoom, in F-mount. If any of the lenses I have, I would say that this one really has a look that I would describe as "Cinematic". It is great lens and can be purchased relatively inexpensively. It is not parfocal and is not a constant aperture but I like it. It is built like a tank.

I have also been very impressed with the look I am seeing other folks get with vintage Canon FD lenses on the FS100. I am not into buying more lenses right now, but if I was I would try to get some FD lenses and try them out.
Click to expand...


I have three FD lenses. After shooting a project using only FD lenses, I've had several people ask me what I shot on as they thought it had a very 'filmic' look to it. So I think you may have something there......
 
alaskacameradude said:
I have three FD lenses. After shooting a project using only FD lenses, I've had several people ask me what I shot on as they thought it had a very 'filmic' look to it. So I think you may have something there......
Click to expand...

Oh yeah the FD lenses were serious business when they were made that is for sure. From the stuff I have seen posted they seem to me to have a look that I can best describe as "Sharp and Creamy". They also seem to have great color. Compared to the Nikons that I have, which tend to desaturate colors a tad, the FD footage I have seen has much punchier color. Hmmm, I may have move back to picking up some more lenses soon!
 
Nirv said:
Alexa RAW vs ProRes http://vimeo.com/34398567

This answers it for me.
Click to expand...

I guess you are not seeing a difference - I cant.

But the guy has no undersatnding of what a RAW file brings

Now in the barn - how much could the raw file have lightened the intererior without falling apart.. and still holding the window in a secondary

How many different tonal looks could have be created with the raw - at what point would the prores have fallen apart

I cant answer these questions - but the video in no way answers them either?

Raw is for grading and grading is IMO mainly to reduce the lighting budget!

S
 
Here's a great example of the FS100 producing something a bit more cinematic than what we're used to seeing...


The motion rendering definitely looked improved over most of the FS100 footage out there.
 
nice they defiantly have the shutter speed cranked up but nice color
L1N3ARX said:
Here's a great example of the FS100 producing something a bit more cinematic than what we're used to seeing...


The motion rendering definitely looked improved over most of the FS100 footage out there.
Click to expand...
 
L1N3ARX said:
Here's a great example of the FS100 producing something a bit more cinematic than what we're used to seeing...
Click to expand...

I'd have to say it's more than a bit. Most clips I have seen either lack dynamic range (particularly in highlight rendition which film does well), have awful color (blown reds=yellow peaking, or absent or noisy blues) or both.

This footage displays neither. You could intercut it with well shot film and no one would be the wiser.

I've been looking a long time for footage which could make a camera decision easy. This is it. Thanks.

Cheers.
 
Underexposed to avoid the ugly FS100 highlights, which I hate and which seems to be the biggest thing that gives FS100 footage a "video look." How film like does this look to people?

 
nkistler said:
Underexposed to avoid the ugly FS100 highlights, which I hate and which seems to be the biggest thing that gives FS100 footage a "video look." How film like does this look to people?

Click to expand...
I don't really care about the "video look" argument so I have no comment in that regard. I like what you've done though. Great stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top