Variable Frame Rate?
- Thread starter Kennedy
- Start date
thisiswells
Retired
Hope it has a better intervolometer implementation than VariCam, which is limited to 4Fps safely.
With P2, I see no reason for 1Fps and even slower, actual interval recording. : ) . . . and combined with a slow shutter, you could some incredible images. I can dream, can't I?
brian wells
With P2, I see no reason for 1Fps and even slower, actual interval recording. : ) . . . and combined with a slow shutter, you could some incredible images. I can dream, can't I?
brian wells
Phooey said:
No, the Varicam is capable of tons of things that can't be acheived in post. It offers true variable-speed recording from 4 fps to 60 fps. 60's great, but it's no substitute for 36 or 48 for different degrees of "slowness." Likewise, for "fast-motion," 4, 8, and 12 fps are great speeds. You actually could get true 4, 8, and 12 on the DVX-100A, but it was a pain in post.
Combining Lower framerates with "step printing" can give you some great effects, too.
So yeah, Varicam offers a great many things unavailable just in post. I hope we at least get 4,8,12,24,30,36,48,and 60. That'd satisfy *my* needs.
Will
Phooey
Active member
You could get 36 or 48 in post if you just record 60. Likewise, you could do the same with fast motion if you just record at 30. It just drops frames and really isn't that much of a pain. But after I hit reply I realized that one thing is that it would save a lot of space on a P2 card, and yeah, it's a lot easier to do in cam. And not to mention that you should be able to get longer exposure times with a slower frame rate. Okay, I just hadn't thought about it long enough. But still mostly, it's convenience over necessity.
Phooey said:
You seem to lack an understanding of what happens when a film camera shoots at higher or lower framerates. In no way would shooting 60 and dropping frames acheive the same effect. That the varicam (and, we hope, HVX) does this is truly revolutionary in a video camera. Necessity? Maybe not, in that off-speed footage is never "needed" to tell a story. But it's doing things that couldn't be acheived in post, or even roughly approximated without looking very unsettling. It's the real deal, and it's the best thing about the Varicam, the reason many film people (myself included) work with that camera over the Cinealta whenever we get thrown into an HD gig.
Will
Phooey
Active member
I know exactly what happens when a film camera shoots at higher or lower framrates. Slow mo originated at 30 fps, looks like holy hell. Slow mo orignated 60fps looks A-1. 30 full frames in slow mo. Shooting 60fps is equal to 50% speed. You aren't going to do much better without shooting a higher frame rate, yes? But going 75% from 50% or 100% will give you the same result. I've never been lucky enough to work with the Varicam. Seems like you have. What am I missing?
Slow motion as an effect is useless unless properly modulated. Shooting at 36 fps reduces apparent speed by a third over 24 fps. Shooting at 60 fps reduces apparent speed by 60%. The visual and psychological effects of the two are different. But you knew that, right?Phooey said:
Barry_Green
Moderator
People seem to have a huge misconception on how the VariCam works. They seem to think that it only shoots 60p, and somehow "drops frames" to create the other frame rates. I'm not saying that Phooey is making that mistake, but I've seen that myth propagated across the web, and it's completely false.
The VariCam, and the HVX, actually have a variable-scanning CCD system. They image in precisely the same way as a film camera does -- when shooting 4fps, the camera exposes four times per second. It's not some manufactured-in-post simulation, it's the real deal.
Shooting real 30fps or real 36fps or real 48fps or real 60fps is going to deliver slow motion at various speeds that could never be properly replicated in post.
The VariCam, and the HVX, actually have a variable-scanning CCD system. They image in precisely the same way as a film camera does -- when shooting 4fps, the camera exposes four times per second. It's not some manufactured-in-post simulation, it's the real deal.
Shooting real 30fps or real 36fps or real 48fps or real 60fps is going to deliver slow motion at various speeds that could never be properly replicated in post.
Phooey
Active member
That's what I assumed anyway. I was just saying that 60fps reduced 48 fps in post can't be much different than just shooting 48 fps to begin with. Now going the other way is a totally different story. If you were doing slo-mo at 60fps, I wouldn't think it would drop any frames. But if you play it back it'll be over 2 seconds in a 30fps workspace, no?
Barry_Green
Moderator
I'd disagree and say that 48fps looks a whole lot better than 60fps reduced to 48fps. I don't know whether it'd be night-and-day different, but it's going to be a lot smoother, cleaner, and better. Reducing 60 to 48 is going to mean dropping frames, blending surviving frames together, etc. Shooting 48 in the first place is going to give you frame-accurate, clean, ultimate film-style slow-mo.
Yes, shooting 60fps for slow-mo would mean it would take 2.5 seconds to play back in real-time on a 24fps timeline. If you're working on a 30p timeline, 60fps footage will take exactly two seconds to play back for each second of "real time" that was shot, resulting in 50% playback speed.
Yes, shooting 60fps for slow-mo would mean it would take 2.5 seconds to play back in real-time on a 24fps timeline. If you're working on a 30p timeline, 60fps footage will take exactly two seconds to play back for each second of "real time" that was shot, resulting in 50% playback speed.
mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
As with film, audio is recorded seperatly onto P2 at a locked rate over time.
- Mikko
- Mikko