using ND filters vs setting "odd" shutter speeds

D

dylansmith

Well-known member
Hi guys,

I understand that to create filmic looking 24p footage, we should always stick to 1/50s (6D/a7s user here). Having been to a couple of weddings, I noticed that the videographers didn't seem to stick to that rule. For instance, they get away with 1/320s outdoors, and I don't seem to see much of a difference in the final video (vis-à-vis using 1/50s throughout).

do you guys have the same thinking, or is it a must to use ND filters and stick to 1/50s instead?

thanks!
 
There is a huge difference.

One isn't really wrong, but you should be able to tell and make a decision for what's best. It can sometimes be hard to see the difference but the difference between 1/50 and 1/320 is pretty severe.

I don't shoot weddings but I use ND's to get to my desired exposure after I set my ISO, Shutter and F-stop.
 
It would take you 10 minutes to shoot your own test footage and decide for yourself. To my eyes, higher shutter speeds look very unnatural, but they may bother you less. Be sure to have some motion happening in the shot ...
 
I would say there's less of a difference at a wedding than at a football game.

Also Hollywood sometimes uses high shutter speeds. See Gladiator or the end of Good Morning, Vietnam.
 
GrahamH said:
It would take you 10 minutes to shoot your own test footage and decide for yourself. To my eyes, higher shutter speeds look very unnatural, but they may bother you less. Be sure to have some motion happening in the shot ...
Click to expand...

is it correct to say that for scenes with little motion, it is okay to flout the rule (be it having a 1/20s or 1/320s shutter speed)? i have seen quite a few videos which flout the rule, but can't really detect the difference (probably unless the 2 videos are put side by side in comparison).
 
dylansmith said:
is it correct to say that for scenes with little motion, it is okay to flout the rule (be it having a 1/20s or 1/320s shutter speed)? i have seen quite a few videos which flout the rule, but can't really detect the difference (probably unless the 2 videos are put side by side in comparison).
Click to expand...

Sure. If there were no motion at all, you would see no difference at all. People standing talking ... the difference will be small. Whereas dancing filmed with a fast shutter will produce what I've heard termed the "Saving Private Ryan" effect - google that for some examples on Youtube and Vimeo.
 
Scenes without lots of motion = no difference to viewers, scenes with a lot of motion = most viewers will notice subconsciencly there's something too ''real''.

Test test test. If you like the high shutter look, who's to say you're wrong. This is art.
 
I also think they are completely different, and hate the high shutter speed on things like wedding videos and such. Once I was pointed to one of those in youtube, by someone who said it looked just as good, and it just didn't work for me: it was disturbing, it made me nervous, I was expecting someone to jump out from behind a bush and start killing people; not the kind of mood you want people to be in when they watch a wedding video.

Now, a more interesting question: how about shooting with a high shutter speed and adding motion blur in post? AE does that now, and it's not perfect but it kind of works. I tested exactly this at a friend's wedding last year, see the results here.
 
That's very interesting Samuel. Theoritically this could work as a future ND substitute with the advantage of fine tuning the amount of motion blur.
 
Samuel H said:
I also think they are completely different, and hate the high shutter speed on things like wedding videos and such. Once I was pointed to one of those in youtube, by someone who said it looked just as good, and it just didn't work for me: it was disturbing, it made me nervous, I was expecting someone to jump out from behind a bush and start killing people; not the kind of mood you want people to be in when they watch a wedding video.

Now, a more interesting question: how about shooting with a high shutter speed and adding motion blur in post? AE does that now, and it's not perfect but it kind of works. I tested exactly this at a friend's wedding last year, see the results here.
Click to expand...

Ebrahim Saadawi said:
That's very interesting Samuel. Theoritically this could work as a future ND substitute with the advantage of fine tuning the amount of motion blur.
Click to expand...

The future? 120 fps is the perfect number:
 
dylansmith said:
Hi guys,

I understand that to create filmic looking 24p footage, we should always stick to 1/50s (6D/a7s user here). Having been to a couple of weddings, I noticed that the videographers didn't seem to stick to that rule. For instance, they get away with 1/320s outdoors, and I don't seem to see much of a difference in the final video (vis-à-vis using 1/50s throughout).

do you guys have the same thinking, or is it a must to use ND filters and stick to 1/50s instead?

thanks!
Click to expand...

The goals of event coverage are such that certain 'rules' that may apply to narrative film making just are too rigid and arbitrary. The goal of the event coverage is to capture as much of the event as possible, and accept that there are changing conditions, and adjust accordingly.

Most people would not 'hand hold' for stills with a shutter speed of 1/8 second... but I would if something happened that required it, and I wasn't able to setup a tripod or even a monopod...

The thing there is shoot 3 in a row... it may not make for a major enlargement to 16x20 or whatever, but it will be a moment that is captured, despite not being 'perfectly' setup.

For narrative film making I'd probably not shoot anything other than 24 fps (or 23.97 to match my GH-1...), just as I'd get my tripod for a 1/8 second exposure for a still photo.
 
My general philosophy with regards to shooting motion is that shutter speed should not be used for exposure control.
 
Run&Gun said:
My general philosophy with regards to shooting motion is that shutter speed should not be used for exposure control.
Click to expand...

That's a good philosophy. The same could be said about aperture; using aperture for exposure control means surrendering control of depth of field, which is a great tool for manipulating the viewers' attention.
 
Tamerlin said:
That's a good philosophy. The same could be said about aperture; using aperture for exposure control means surrendering control of depth of field, which is a great tool for manipulating the viewers' attention.
Click to expand...

Yep. We have lots of tools at our disposal and with them we can "dial in" the look we want. And with the right camera with the right built-in tools you can quickly adjust even in ENG/event situations and achieve your look.

Aperture, shutter, ISO, ND… All are important, all are connected and all are tools in our tool box to help us make images. Learn and understand what each does and how it effects the image(and how adjusting one effects the other) and how you can use it to help create the image you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top