The movement is wrong

Yes I see it to on my 7d and the first 5d film ....reverie

7d @1/45th dont you mean 1/40th ?
 
Last edited:
tmnt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think Red and Alexa do a very good job at looking like a movie its different from that what is shot on film but I like it.
They can look very video ish in motion to....In the Anomyouse which to me is one of the best looking films out there shot on digital cinema cameras and even just better looking then film cameras has a steadicam shot that was very fluid .It looked beyond video like those 120hz plasma screens ..took me right out the movie .
But the two old ladies sitting two rows above me barely noticed.

I like the digital cinema cameras Red /Alexa dont really care about the film stuff although Salmon fishing in the Yemen looked really great or was it Emily Blunts Big eyes ?:)
 
The OP is seeing what many have seem over the years, and thus part of Driftwoods drive towards reliable, and now insanely good looking GOP1 on the GH2.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
The OP is seeing what many have seem over the years, and thus part of Driftwoods drive towards reliable, and now insanely good looking GOP1 on the GH2.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing on 5D, and every other DSLR, same thing with HVX and every other video camera. If you shoot 1/50th shutter it looks weird.

Shoot 1/48 on an HVX and it still kinda looks weird, but much better. People can say that "you can't tell a difference" all they want, obviously people are seeing it.

jambredz said:
wow..live and learn. I didnt know i could get 1/45 on my 7d. I'll try it out tomorrow.
Click to expand...

One of the first things I did when I first got a 5D was switch to 1/45. Geoff.R was sort of my voice of reassurance, because he couldn't stand the cadence of Canon footage until he saw my footage. Outright asked me "What did you do to the motion to get it to look right?"
 
jno 'major motion picture' comes to the screen without an army's worth of post-processing to make all shots 'match' in many ways said:
I want those words carved in stone as they deserve to be. Several neophytes to movie making are doing nothing but spending their trust funds on toys, expensive toys , pixel peeping and sneering at every little shortcoming of what amount to beta products anyway. I say send these kids to film school with a super8mm in hand and force to slave at splicing clips together as I did when i was about 12.
Click to expand...
 
TheDingo said:
...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 )
Click to expand...

I'll modify what I said a bit. IF your production is really well funded then you should author for the Archives, always assuming that the mainstream will be viewing your 4K footage projected... about 5 years from now. So even 4K footage that has to be down-sampled for the ubiquitous delivery modes will still be at 4K 'in the can'. That's the principle behind mastering. For everyone else, use your head, put your money and time to good use and author for the ubiquitous delivery platform, format and screen size. This is the same philosophy that we've used in authoring for Multimedia past 1990. I can still go back and reformat my Director files with asset links to higher res versions of my movies than in 1995. Not everyone is equally lucky but we should all focus on production value then apply funds we can to 'canning' the highest res masters that we can. You watch, the 4K boys will be sneering at 1080p in 5 years and they'll have some content to pay rent with too.
Case in point. Now that Apple has upped the ante on the tablet rez of a 10" screen, the content producers will have to follow in lockstep. 720p will be the 480 of yesteryear when 1080p becomes the norm...etc...
 
Motion is, what makes at least 50% of the film look.
I found out many years ago, when I had the first VHS recorder that had seamless fast forward.
Take any feature film (shot on film) and speed it up just a tad - instantly looks like a soap opera.
Similar effect like todays 120HZ TVs. Same light, camera, production design, DOF andwhatnot people say that makes a film look.
Speed it up (or HZ it up) and it´s all gone.

Motion rendering is crucial. One reason the HVX looked so much better than similar cameras back then, was the ability to shoot in 48 shutter IMHO

Now can somebody please hack the FS100 into finer shutter steps?

Frank
 
Why would 1/40 look better than 1/50 on a GH2? 1/50 is closer to 180 degrees, so wouldn't that look more correct?

And why would the Genesis and Viper look better than Red/Alexa? What is the technical reason?
 
Yeah but 1/50 'shutter' 25fps is the same as 1/48 shooting 24fps, no?

So what happens when you shoot on say a RED, HVX at 24fps then slow down by 1 or so fps? Is the motion any more filmic? EDIT: Prob a silly question. I mean films shot on film transferred from 24fps to Pal land still look like real film.

Oh and the technical difference between the Viper/Genesis and the RED/Alexa, prob millions in R&D.
 
Last edited:
StMad said:
Why would 1/40 look better than 1/50 on a GH2? 1/50 is closer to 180 degrees, so wouldn't that look more correct?

And why would the Genesis and Viper look better than Red/Alexa? What is the technical reason?
Click to expand...

If I understand the 'argument'... there is a very slight blurring effect due to the shadow of the shutter on a Real(tm) Film camera. In the case of the 'digital' camera, that shadow is 'lost', and the 'edge' is much
sharper... so, by going to 1/40 rather than 1/50 (I think those are the only options for the GH-1. Other cameras may have other intervals...), one gets a slight bit more blur, which for some people apparently is a significant effect.

As I've said elsewhere, if one looks this close to 'film film' movies, one will find out all manner of manipulations of shutter speed, framerate, and eventual screen presentations... not to mention loose sprockets and worn sprocket holes on the film, as well as dust and scratches, in the 'traditional film film' projection theater... and that's assuming the projectionist has focused the projector correctly... got the right lens on... and any number of 'problems' I've seen setting in theaters...

I would also hazard that any slight effect like the motion of the shutter, relative to bluring a moving object, exists only in certain situations, and at specific distances and angles of travel relative to the camera, and perhaps even angles of travel of apparent motion across the film plane relative to the shutter motion...

This sort of effect has been well known. Old 4x5 view cameras that used a rolling slit shutter across the film plane, would result in distorted images of things that move across the film plane as the slit rolled up or down. The result was seen mostly in race car wheels and would make them look somewhat oval.

This 'effect' actually became a indication of speed where a person drawing a 'racing car' would distort the wheels in the same way...

As I recall most people didn't notice at all, or emit cries of 'it's not real', when a leaf shutter between the lenses became more popular and did not have this sort of effect... And while 35mm Real(tm) film SLR cameras also had a slit shutter, the effect was minimized by just being able to move the shutter elements faster... but it was still detectable... in some situations.
 
Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks Kholi! I will give that a try. :)
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Old 4x5 view cameras that used a rolling slit shutter across the film plane, would result in distorted images of things that move across the film plane as the slit rolled up or down. The result was seen mostly in race car wheels and would make them look somewhat oval.
Click to expand...

Do you mean this picture? http://www.cracow-life.com/poland/jacques-henri-lartigue

It was made by Jaques Henri Lartique. I don't think he ever worked in 4x5.

Some "press" cameras (like Speed Graphic & Crown Graphic) had focal plane slit shutters. View cameras typically use lenses with leaf shutters built in.
 
arniepix said:
Do you mean this picture? http://www.cracow-life.com/poland/jacques-henri-lartigue

It was made by Jaques Henri Lartique. I don't think he ever worked in 4x5.

Some "press" cameras (like Speed Graphic & Crown Graphic) had focal plane slit shutters. View cameras typically use lenses with leaf shutters built in.
Click to expand...

Well, technically, the lens elements and the shutter on standard 4x5/8x10 where separate completely. Unscrew front and back lens elements, and put a different lens on the shutter...

I only briefly had a Speed Graphic and quickly moved on to a standard 4x5. But the things I did keep from the Speed Graphic were the roll film backs, and usually shot a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, aka, 6x9 (rather than 6x6, or 6x7...) format.

As for the Lartigue shot... boy distorion all around... wheels whacked, and people looking like they are emulating the Leaning Tower of Pisa...

People have to buy Lens Babies and expensive shift-tilt lenses to get those sorts of effects... or post processing with After Effects... (There were some dark room manipulations that could be done as well...).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top