The movement is wrong

roxics · Mar 19, 2012

I've been watching a lot of DSLR footage from various cameras lately and something is still wrong with them. It's the movement. When compared to Alexa or Red footage these DSLR's still move like video, even at 24p. I can't figure out what is missing or different.

Has anyone else noticed this? What is it?

richg101 · Mar 19, 2012

roxics said:
I've been watching a lot of DSLR footage from various cameras lately and something is still wrong with them. It's the movement. When compared to Alexa or Red footage these DSLR's still move like video, even at 24p. I can't figure out what is missing or different.

Has anyone else noticed this? What is it?

lack of weight? weight and bulk of a camera dictates how fluid and obvious a pan or tilt might be. remember, someone with budget for alexa, or epic also have budget for true stedicam. what you are seeing is the fine line between true pro, and almost pro

roxics · Mar 19, 2012

No it's the movement within the image I'm talking about. The camera could be on a tripod and the movement of the people in the frame is just too smooth or sharp or something. How video tends to look at a faster frame rate. But I notice this even at 24p.

Teddy Danh · Mar 20, 2012

I don't know... I shot this yesterday on my 7D and doesn't look that video-y to me. I think it just depends on your lenses and how you shoot. I think a sharper lens tends to give that video feel. I prefer having my images be softer to give it more of a "film look".

https://vimeo.com/38824517

j1clark@ucsd.edu · Mar 20, 2012

roxics said:
No it's the movement within the image I'm talking about. The camera could be on a tripod and the movement of the people in the frame is just too smooth or sharp or something. How video tends to look at a faster frame rate. But I notice this even at 24p.

If you could give some samples...

One drum I've been beating of late is how most people who pick up a DSLR (or even a prosumer video camera), don't know about the 'rules' of motion on screen. The old 'film' rule was an object should take 5 seconds to cross the screen. Any faster and 'strobing' will occur, even with Sacred Film.

The DSLR shooter points, whips, points at stuff moving real fast, etc. then wonders why there's this 'difference'.

I recall reading that when one is in a moving vehicle, that one should keep the 'actual speed' down to about half the 'desired apparent' speed, and that will give a 'desired apparent speed' effect on screen. Otherwise the stuff outside the car is moving too fast, and will cause distracting artifacts.

I've not had time or the opportunity to do any 'in car' shots, but I'd probably test based on these sorts of ideas, if I do need to do such shots.

There's also the 'rolling shutter' effect that is often not taken into account by the DSLR shooter. Again, in Sacred Film, there are rules, and shutter related effects, such as wheels giving an 'apparent' backwards rolling if the forward motion is at certain speeds. The 180 deg shutter blur only goes so far...

I've also seen 'strobing' effects with Sacred Film in other situations, such as 'sword fights', where the blades have a definite stroboscopic look... so... what does this mean... learn the limitations of the device, and work with in those parameters...

And sure, Phantom captures high speed motion far better than a $2K DSLR... or an Arri Alexa... or a Red for standard shooting speeds... to me that's sort of a 'duh'...

Reflex Films · Mar 21, 2012

a lot of crew are just winding up the shutter speed to control light

and many have yet to get the NDs that were traditionally built in to our much loved HVX 200s

you must have nDs/ vari NDS on there to keep correct shutter speed /motion blur frame to frame

TheDingo · Mar 21, 2012

I hope that you are NOT evaluating your footage on a computer monitor, as there are all kinds of imaging issues with video playback when viewed with a computer monitor.

If you haven't already done this, try evaluating your footage when viewed from a good quality HD TV.

gonzo_entertainment · Mar 21, 2012

The old 'film' rule was an object should take 5 seconds to cross the screen.

We still abide by this in most situations.

Altering the shutter speed for exposure is pretty much the worst idea ever.

sonofaresiii · Mar 21, 2012

TheDingo said:
I hope that you are NOT evaluating your footage on a computer monitor, as there are all kinds of imaging issues with video playback when viewed with a computer monitor.

If you haven't already done this, try evaluating your footage when viewed from a good quality HD TV.

I hear this a lot, and understand it, but would it still hold true if your intended distribution platform IS a computer monitor, say a web series?

TheDingo · Mar 21, 2012

sonofaresiii said:
I hear this a lot, and understand it, but would it still hold true if your intended distribution platform IS a computer monitor, say a web series?

...For 10 years I programmed interactive training programs for pharmaceutical companies, and often these were very lengthy projects that would take many months to build. When taking on one of these projects the first thing we would ask from our clients was a "target" computer that we could test on as we built the program, because we knew that there are tens of thousands of variables when it comes to Windows computers, and we could easily end up building a program that ran perfectly on our production computers, but ran like sh*t on the client's computers.

Our guarantee was that the program would run flawlessly ONLY on the client's target computers, which might mean that it crashed and burned on some other Windows PCs, but we didn't care about these because they were not part of our target platform.

The same thing applies to todays web delivery. You have to identify the target platforms that you support and produce video that runs perfectly on them.

This will likely dictate platform specifics like :

- Display sizes ( i.e. SD, 720p, 1080p, etc... )
- Frame rates ( i.e. 30p, 60i, but NOT 24p, etc... )
- Data-rates ( i.e. 5 Mbps minimum, etc... )
- CPU / GPU speeds ( i.e. 2 Ghz minimum, etc... )
- Delivery CODECs ( i.e. Mpeg-2, Mpeg-4, etc... )

So you have to pick your platforms and build for them, and be prepared to throw out any format that does not work on your platform spec.

j1clark@ucsd.edu · Mar 21, 2012

sonofaresiii said:
I hear this a lot, and understand it, but would it still hold true if your intended distribution platform IS a computer monitor, say a web series?

My boss continually hits the 'full frame' button on Youtube... and often the video looks like crap... so, yeah... true for 'computer monitor' display...

I personally think that the same quality as DVD, that is Mpeg-2, should be the current minimum. Even if one is going for 'mobile devices', these days, the iPad-3 just out, can display 2K resolution images... (whether it can decode and play a 2K moving pictures stream at 24 fps... is a different story...).

sonofaresiii · Mar 22, 2012

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
My boss continually hits the 'full frame' button on Youtube... and often the video looks like crap... so, yeah... true for 'computer monitor' display...

I personally think that the same quality as DVD, that is Mpeg-2, should be the current minimum. Even if one is going for 'mobile devices', these days, the iPad-3 just out, can display 2K resolution images... (whether it can decode and play a 2K moving pictures stream at 24 fps... is a different story...).

I'm just trying to learn more here, but if we're talking about evaluating raw footage from a camera, aren't talking viewing differences such as refresh rates and color calibration, rather than codecs and formats, which would come later?

And on that note, how would major studios deal with this kind of thing, in terms of releasing say a DVD... they can't control what it's viewed on, but to me it doesn't seem to make a difference whether I watch the dvd on my computer or my tv... it looks great either way. Is this just a case of adjusting/mentally compensating for the flaws in my computer monitor?

Zephyrnoid · Mar 22, 2012

This is how the delivery specification design process begins when it's being built professionally. Kudos!
Truth is. There is no such thing as "author once deliver anywhere" as that can mean too many variables. The trouble is that many participants in these forums are indies primarily working on self projects without a specific target platform or screen in mind.
To complicate the story, we'll undoubtedly replace film in theater for 4K+ projection in those theaters some day and that's IF Movie theaters even exists 10 years from now.
I'm banking on most of the delivery shifting to tablets, point of sale HD and home theater HD. I forsee desktop computers being dead for playback and with any luck, MS & Apple will merge so we can ditch Windows (ouch! did i really say that?)

TheDingo said:
...For 10 years I programmed interactive training programs for pharmaceutical companies, and often these were very lengthy projects that would take many months to build. When taking on one of these projects the first thing we would ask from our clients was a "target" computer that we could test on as we built the program, because we knew that there are tens of thousands of variables when it comes to Windows computers, and we could easily end up building a program that ran perfectly on our production computers, but ran like sh*t on the client's computers.

Our guarantee was that the program would run flawlessly ONLY on the client's target computers, which might mean that it crashed and burned on some other Windows PCs, but we didn't care about these because they were not part of our target platform.

The same thing applies to todays web delivery. You have to identify the target platforms that you support and produce video that runs perfectly on them.

This will likely dictate platform specifics like :

- Display sizes ( i.e. SD, 720p, 1080p, etc... )
- Frame rates ( i.e. 30p, 60i, but NOT 24p, etc... )
- Data-rates ( i.e. 5 Mbps minimum, etc... )
- CPU / GPU speeds ( i.e. 2 Ghz minimum, etc... )
- Delivery CODECs ( i.e. Mpeg-2, Mpeg-4, etc... )

So you have to pick your platforms and build for them, and be prepared to throw out any format that does not work on your platform spec.

TheDingo · Mar 22, 2012

Zephyrnoid said:
Truth is. There is no such thing as "author once deliver anywhere" as that can mean too many variables.

...But you still have to decide what deliver platforms you are going to support. You can't support everything, it's just not possible unless you have money and time to burn.

If it was me and I was building for web delivery, then I would probably start with iPhones and iPads, as these are popular platforms and I don't think they are going away any time soon. Next I would add the most popular Android phones ( I don't know how broad this would be ), and whatever are the most typical Windows 7 configurations right now. It would be nice if all of these platforms could be handled by one CODEC ( maybe Mpeg-4 ? ), and then you just scale the display size and bit-rates to match these platforms.

I am very curious to find out how many people bother to watch the 720p or 1080p versions of YouTube HD videos, when the default player starts off at 360p ? ( I suspect that more than 90 percent are happy watching the 360p version )

TheDingo · Mar 22, 2012

sonofaresiii said:
how would major studios deal with this kind of thing, in terms of releasing say a DVD... they can't control what it's viewed on, but to me it doesn't seem to make a difference whether I watch the dvd on my computer or my tv... it looks great either way.

Commercial DVDs are authored for the specifications of the DVD platform ( which is pretty low end compared to todays HD platforms ), and the DVD playback software on your computer has had more than a decade to mature, which is why it looks great on your computer today. This was NOT the case when software DVD players first started showing up in the late 1990's. The company I used to program for encoded all our video to the Mpeg-1 spec for the longest time, because of all the disasters that were happening with many of the early DVD software players. I didn't switch to Mpeg-2 encoding until the mid 2000's, as it was just to risky when running on the average company laptop, and we had to be 100 percent sure our videos would play.

tmnt · Mar 22, 2012

Film motion costs a lot to try and emulate. It wasn't that long ago that we only had the Thompson Viper, Genesis etc which I still think emulate film motion light years ahead of Red/alexa.

jambredz · Mar 22, 2012

someone mentioned this already...but alot of it has to do with shutter speed. lots of these people just ramp up the shutter to control the light and also do not have proper stabilization. ND's and a tripod / counter balanced shouldermount go a long way. You can bet the people using the RED's and Alexa's footage you've seen use both.

j1clark@ucsd.edu · Mar 22, 2012

sonofaresiii said:
I'm just trying to learn more here, but if we're talking about evaluating raw footage from a camera, aren't talking viewing differences such as refresh rates and color calibration, rather than codecs and formats, which would come later?

And on that note, how would major studios deal with this kind of thing, in terms of releasing say a DVD... they can't control what it's viewed on, but to me it doesn't seem to make a difference whether I watch the dvd on my computer or my tv... it looks great either way. Is this just a case of adjusting/mentally compensating for the flaws in my computer monitor?

When someone like the OP makes a statement about 'DSLR motion'... I really have no idea what they are in fact talking about... DSLR footage is being incorporated into mainstream, Hollywood productions, and I don't hear the critics or even the viewers running out of the theaters complaining about the 'uncreaminess' of the motion... in fact I'd be astonished if any but a handful of viewers even bother.

As I've posted before, on close watching of 'film film' movies, one can see many artifacts, such as strobing, slowed or sped up film rates, etc. use to 'make the movie'...

But I think one does have to have one's 'final product' in mind, that will determine what one can tolerate, or one is required to do, to get that resulting product as 'good as possible'...

So, if wyrd visual artifacts cause the ordinary viewer to exit the theater, click to another program, go search "Ancient Mesopotamian Fertility Goddesses", rather than watch your movie, that is the consideration to be worried about... and I don't think majorly minor issues like 'shutter effects' of the DSLR vs. Film Film cameras, is one of those reasons for most people to shut the movie off...

There are also some post-processing procedures that can cover some set of things. "Rolling Shutter" probably needs to be dealt with 'in camera', but for example, still photo flashes... well sure, the shutter of the DSLR captures a 'portion', and looks blocky... but with a couple of frames of 'white'... perhaps that can be 'covered' effectively...

The point being here, is that no 'major motion picture' comes to the screen without an army's worth of post-processing to make all shots 'match' in many ways, color, lighting, etc. nor does 'sound' come from the set, other than dialog, and that is heavily processed to eliminate any 'defect'...

So, why should someone think that with a DSLR, 'no work is required' going from Camera to Screen... whether that be the Big Screen, the little screen, or the micro-screen...

roxics · Mar 22, 2012

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The point being here, is that no 'major motion picture' comes to the screen without an army's worth of post-processing to make all shots 'match' in many ways, color, lighting, etc. nor does 'sound' come from the set, other than dialog, and that is heavily processed to eliminate any 'defect'...

So, why should someone think that with a DSLR, 'no work is required' going from Camera to Screen... whether that be the Big Screen, the little screen, or the micro-screen...

I think you've made a compelling argument both with this post and your last post on this thread. Attention to detail is probably what is missing from these lower-end DSLR-shot indie films I've watched that appear to have this video-like motion.

Kholi · Mar 22, 2012

roxics said:
I've been watching a lot of DSLR footage from various cameras lately and something is still wrong with them. It's the movement. When compared to Alexa or Red footage these DSLR's still move like video, even at 24p. I can't figure out what is missing or different.

Has anyone else noticed this? What is it?

YES.

You are not crazy, it is not your computer screen, you're just sensitive to it. I am as well, and so are some of my friends. High End digital cinema cameras are tuned to make sure cadence is similar to film. DSLRs are mishaps.

I've posted this since I started using Canon DSLRs, but only a few people actually go out and try it:

USE 1/45(CANON) or 1/40(GH2)

As much as I want 1/48 settings, I actually don't care anymore. 1/40 on GH2 looks right. 1/45 on Canon looks great.