FRAME JUDDER in 24p. I hate it.
On the Canon XL2 its really awful during pan shots. It's obvious noticeable judder. However on the DVX100 I find it pleasing. Motion is much cleaner durning pans. It might have SOME frame judder but its not NOTICEABLE frame judder. I like the panasonic look. IN my experience with the DVX and XL2 (i own both) the DVX is much better for pans. The XL2 better Still shots.

Thus, I wonder how Sony XDCAM handles frame judder. I see judder in feature films and it really bothers me so I guess this is a personal taste issue mostly. -But I want to be able to see clearly during a pan. Not stop start stop start. I know, shoot 30p during a pan right>? But why should i when the DVX renders motion perfectly the way i like it. So this is my top concern. Frame judder. I want a camera that can handle moving shots well and still have true 1920x1080 resolution.

Perhaps some owners of other XDCAMs can tell me how frame judder looks on Sony XDCAMs. (Asumeing the EX will be similar).



* Note: I was going to get the Sony V1U when it came out but heard that frame judder is noticeable. Frame Judder on the HVX is probably like the DVX - but If the HVX had the true 1080p resolution of the EX then i would get it hands down. As we know its really only a 720p cam at best. (with all the upresssing and all)

Are you referring to strobing? I'm not familiar with judder. Perhaps a description would help me.

vince

I can't think of what would cause "frame judder" in one camera over another, if frame rate, lens, shutter angle, pan speed and subject were the same (I am sure that rolling vs. non-rolling shutter is also a big factor, and of course interlaced vs. progressive).

What phenomenon causes the appearance of judder, other than the above? I have noticed the phenomenon myself but have never attributed to a particular camera - just the other factors. I have certainly seen it in 35mm film as well. I would be curious to know if there is something I haven't considered.

There have been long standing guidelines about pan speeds in cinematographer manuals to prevent strobing. One basic rule is to watch out for narrow, contrasty verticals in your subject (or horzontals if you are tilting). Large gaps in position frame-to-frame will cause the background to appear flickery.

One of the nice things about progressive video over film is the "360° shutter" which is achieved by turning the shutter off. I hope it becomes the norm to shoot progressive video this way as it makes all motion much smoother and in my opinion more natural (although to most of our film trained eyes it appears too motion blurry). This would be the first thing I would do to reduce judder.

The 180° shutter (1/48 sec at 24fps) that we normally use is based on a "film look" standard and is not necessary anymore, except for its particular aesthetic, now that we don't need that dark interval to drag film through a gate.

now that we don't need that dark interval to drag film through a gate.

So much for the mystique of film...

Judder is what happens when one tries to emulate the technology of the last century instead of using the full capabilities of todays technologies. The judder is caused by insufficient frames of information for the speed of camera movement. 24 fps was a technological and economic compromise for film( not complete, but the slowest it could be for audio frequency response and film stock use). It isn't necessary today. Using the camera composition, movement and lighting for dramatic effect has nothing to do with frame rate( unless you like your image juddering all over the screen) These effects were used to mask the inadequacy of the frame rate of film. Mostly fixed shots, limited pan, almost no zoom, shallow depth of field to make the juddering motion in the background disappear etc.. There was a reason when transferring to film for distribution but I am not sure how much longer this will last. I disliked the image my film cameras in the early 60's produced( 8mm, Super8 and 16mm)
I am dismayed about the trendy attitude to 24p that prevails on TV to the point that I don't watch much anymore. The combination of 24p and poor MPEG encoding for distribution on cable produces a really poor picture. As I have said before its a bit like buying an expensive modern car and having it modified to ride like a Model T Ford !!!!
Modern technology can remove judder using higher progressive frames rates, 720P60 for example and hopefully 1080P60 too
Ron Evans

As I understand it, the "judder" is just a result of panning quicker than 24fps can handle smoothly. Shooting with a higher frame rate is the simplest solution.

I personally prefer the more organic "feel" of the Panasonic's 24p (HVX, Varicam) image over the more technically precise "look" of the Sony's 60i (V1u, F900). Although the Panasonics are "resolution challenged" when compared to the Sonys, there's just something about the way they capture motion and color that's pleasing to my eye.

Not trying to start a measurbating war here. Just giving one man's opinion of the cameras that he's used and stating that I prefer the 24p look in most everything but news.

sharpness and edge detail play a lot into this.

The crisper an edge is in motion the more it will strobe. That is because the sharp edge shows up more and as it moves it changes position very quickly. A smoother edge with more of a gradation into the background will not strobe as much and will look more natural.

The amount of electronic sharpness will hurt this. An electronic sharpened edge is very sharp and high contrast. In nature and in film edges are not like this so it tends to look a little bit more fake when moving at 24p.

On the EX1 I think if we turn off or at least set very low the sharpness this should help. I know it kind of kills the point of having so much detail but that is the tradeoff. Do you want crisp stroby 24p or smooth natural 24p.

Ron,

I completely agree.

We strive for a film look not because it is intrinsically better, but because its flaws are familiar, and are associated in an almost Pavlovian way with the high quality productions we see on television.

99% of the commercials I work on are shot on film at 24fps and 3-2 pulldown added in telecine. This horrible workaround known as 3-2 pulldown is now considered a shortcut to a cinematic look, because when we see big Hollywood movies extruded through our tiny televisions, that's what we see.

We could capture 2.5 times more information, shooting film at 60fps and transferring each frame to a field of video, or a progressive frame, but this is frowned on because it "looks like video" and hence is perceived as lower quality, even though it is obviously much higher fidelity.

Strange but true.

This will all change over time IMHO. There will be more younger people used to working in video and it's advantages over film.

There's will be a time when we shoot at 60p 4K with chips that will equal or exceed the shallow DOF of film (as needed).

Red is a good indication of that.

Even the EX1 is nearly 2K and can shoot 1080p30 with "cine gamma" controls.

We'll retain the "good" part of film and dump the bad motion and "noise" which people love to call "grain."

Ron,

I completely agree.

We strive for a film look not because it is intrinsically better, but because its flaws are familiar, and are associated in an almost Pavlovian way with the high quality productions we see on television.

99% of the commercials I work on are shot on film at 24fps and 3-2 pulldown added in telecine. This horrible workaround known as 3-2 pulldown is now considered a shortcut to a cinematic look, because when we see big Hollywood movies extruded through our tiny televisions, that's what we see.

We could capture 2.5 times more information, shooting film at 60fps and transferring each frame to a field of video, or a progressive frame, but this is frowned on because it "looks like video" and hence is perceived as lower quality, even though it is obviously much higher fidelity.

Strange but true.

24p is just enough images to make fluid motion, somewhat different to how we perceive images, in the 50 to 60 fps range. The lowered frame rate of 24p creates a more dream like or fantasy environment, part which films often are, fantasy and escapism. Indeed, the future may just move towards hyper real as the standard and desired for all media. I like 24p/25p images for movie content.

Great answers. To add to the discussion...

Technically this isn't "judder" (at least as far as I have heard the term used). It's just the poor motion portrayal of 24P (strobing). Motion judder is a change in the apparent velocity of objects in motion caused by 3:2 pulldown in the telecine process (going from 24P to 60i), or by any change of frame rates from one speed to another where one speed is not a multiple of the second speed.

About the only thing you can do to minimize the poor motion portrayal of 24P video is to decrease the shutter speed as much as possible... (1/60, 1/48), increasing blurring of objects in motion. Fast shutter speeds freeze fast motion, making sharp edges. Objects in motion will stutter instead of smoothly blurring as they move.

Of course, you should minimize panning, tilting or zooming to minimize the effect.

Tom

Where visual effects is concerned 60p will never become the norm. Nobody wants to rotoscope or render all those extra frames when they are not needed. Time is money in Hollywood and it is a waste of time and money to process 2.5 the amount of frames just to make it easier for people to shoot. Shooting at 24p takes great skill and was never designed for any person to just grab a camera and go to town. Shooting 24p is an art and is like painting with a brush. You want natural movements not the clumsy jerky style of shooting people are used to with video cameras. Just because you can get away with it with a video camera doesn't mean it is good shooting.

The funny thing about the comment about the younger people moving away from 24p is that every film student I know wants 24p.

The framerate doesn't matter for the story. If your story is good and you know how to shoot then 24p is more then enough. It always has been and it always will be. Sure you could shoot a movie at 60p but other then making the motion extra smooth it isn't going to help the movie become a better movie. In fact in some ways it could make it worse. 24p can mask a lot of bad acting because stupid mistkes may not show up as much. With 60p you will notice every little hickup or camera flub which may distract from the story. you also run the risk of things starting to look too robotic like in 3D animation. Be carefull of trying to make things look too perfect. Perfect can sometimes be a curse and sometimes the organic approach is the best way to please the viewer.

We could capture 2.5 times more information, shooting film at 60fps and transferring each frame to a field of video, or a progressive frame, but this is frowned on because it "looks like video" and hence is perceived as lower quality, even though it is obviously much higher fidelity.

Well, a photograph is obviously much higher fidelity than a painting - and yet people keep painting, and buying paintings, because sometimes it's not about how accurately you can duplicate reality. There's a time for 60fps and a time for 24, and the art is knowing when to use which.

24p isn't a Magic Bullet.

To shoot good 24/25p one must shoot with the mentality of slow frame with equalised shutter speeds to provide a motion blur cadence which emulates the "look" properly. Each camera has its merits and considering they're each using pretty much the same pulldown service, they SHOULD be identical in all ways (motion wise) if set up correctly.

"FRAME JUDDER in 24p. I hate it. " -- If frame judder is an issue, you either haven't set up your camera correctly, or you're not shooting correctly.

"On the Canon XL2 it's really awful during pan shots. " -- This is probably because your panning too fast, or your shutter speed is too fast for the frame rate. With Canons and the lack of near instant iris and harder ND control, the shutter is the next option available to you, bar the -3 gain setting... it's easy to get stuck in this situation.

"It's obvious noticeable judder. However on the DVX100 I find it pleasing." -- They should look no different. The DVX sets itself to the appropriate shutter however, whereas the A1 does not. Again it's easy to get stuck in this situation.

"Thus, I wonder how Sony XDCAM handles frame judder." -- They're all using the same Pulldown transport service save for the HVX 24pN.

There should be no noticeable difference. If anything, consider the information which the codec is processing, and Long GOP structure of the file itself. These all play a part in how the image is perceived and updated. The HVX and DVX are using full frame compression algorithms, HDV and XDCam use LongGOP. More than likely if you are seeing an issue, it would stem from the fact that every half second cycle is being updated which is where you're seeing this judder.

Like I said though, this can be alleviated when filmed properly. As for the EX, as it's a variable bitrate, the issue shouldn't be as pronounced as it would be in HDV because as soon as the image begins moving, the higher bitrates of the codec will kick in. DV and DVCPro should be even smoother still as they don't have GOP issues to manage.

Its worth noting that James Cameron wants to make at least 48p the norm in cinemas.

It would be a good thing. Camerawork such as that used in Bourne Supremacy, and the over reliance on clseups these days, with all the inherant movement of actors in such a framing, means that 24fps is a nightmare to watch if you end up in the front half of a cinema.

Handheld action shots would definitely equal a headache on a giant 24p film screen. 60i-24p removes some of that and that's why all the handheld documentaries use that method.

So can anyone comment on how well the EX1 handles motion at low frame rates, based on actual testing experience? Given what we know about the technology it uses, what will likely be the best settings on this camera for a 'film-like' look?

Personally I find motion judder distracting, but we've been around about this before and it seems to mostly be a matter of personal taste. For an interesting discussion of how the human eye perceives things, see this link: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

I think these comments are interesting. I have no problem with well shot film, content is what really matters. My problem is people using video, shot at 24p with little regard for the limitations, shooting 24p as if it was 60i. Doesn't work, is very bad to watch and thus detracts from the content not enhance it. The comments about paintings etc are very valid. For artistic work do what gets the effect desired. But for me a documentary for example or a training video should be shot to show all the detail and fidelity one can get. For me that also applies to an event. I want it to be as if I was there warts and all, just looking through a window. To me there is nothing fluid about film as it is on the edge of capturing motion. Poor camera work and it falls apart.
Ron Evans

I think these comments are interesting. I have no problem with well shot film, content is what really matters. My problem is people using video, shot at 24p with little regard for the limitations, shooting 24p as if it was 60i. Doesn't work, is very bad to watch and thus detracts from the content not enhance it. The comments about paintings etc are very valid. For artistic work do what gets the effect desired. But for me a documentary for example or a training video should be shot to show all the detail and fidelity one can get. For me that also applies to an event. I want it to be as if I was there warts and all, just looking through a window. To me there is nothing fluid about film as it is on the edge of capturing motion. Poor camera work and it falls apart.
Ron Evans

True that, but 24Progressive is handsome, saves hugely on Solid State Memory resources, and compresses beautifully. It's great for post prod. workflow. If you are going SxS or P2, it's got to be on the table. Learning how often and how fast to move the camera is the price we have to pay-not too exorbitant.

But Paul, the issue here is that people are set in their ways. They're used to shooting something in a certain manner because it has become a habit.

I recall these type of discussions when the DVX was first released and these issues discussed now are no different.

We'll retain the "good" part of film and dump the bad motion and "noise" which people love to call "grain."

This is partly because grain is grain, and not noise. Noise is effectively the absence of information, or the presence of wrong information. In film, grain is the information. Secondly "Bad Motion" is a massive oversimplification - Many people (myself included) find a great deal of natural "charm" in low frame rates. The further an experience is removed from reality in this sense, the more dream-like it can become. 2046 and other Wong Kar Wai films are a good example. He makes heavy use of 12 and 8 fps and the experience is hypnotic. If 48fps becomes the new standard, I'll happily comply - I'll only need half as much storage as everyone else though!

This is partly because grain is grain, and not noise.

That's just semantics to describe something which wasn't present in the original scene but is visible on film, hence it's noise. Some people like the film grain look because it's nostalgic, but if you started seeing real life like that you'd go see a doctor.

"Bad Motion" is a massive oversimplification - Many people (myself included) find a great deal of natural "charm" in low frame rates.

Again, semantics and nostalgia. When I saw the latest Bond film in a movie theater the motion stutter was clearly visible, and detracted from the experience for me. I can't say whether I would have liked it more at 30+ frames per second, but I would like to see smooth motion.

We all agree that content is ultimately more important than technical considerations, so if we only had digital cameras which ran at 1000 fps we'd still be making and watching the same movies with whatever look was necessary to tell the story. You can add noise and jerky motion to a flawless image but you can't get a flawless image from a noisy, jerky source.

Well, everything one records on a given medium is 'noise' by Kevins definition, since your eyes see vastly more ranges of colors and deeper lattitude than either film or any electronic media. Neither film nor tape nor any known sensor will 'record what your eyes/brain' sees. ALL it can possibly record is "NOISE" in Kevin's estimation. Preferring one look over another is simply a matter of semantics.

Of course, that assumes that one sees 'perfectly' in the first place. ;)

Again, semantics and nostalgia. When I saw the latest Bond film in a movie theater the motion stutter was clearly visible, and detracted from the experience for me. I can't say whether I would have liked it more at 30+ frames per second, but I would like to see smooth motion.

Great article in ASC magazine with Philip Méheux. May help you better understand the look of the film - and how it's not achievable in a believable way with video.

As far as smooth motion, I'll take the film look any day.

I don't care what frame rate you shoot at if your work is filled with bumpy pans, jerky zooms and dollies, hesitant cranes and drifting lock-offs. I see stuff on videographers reels that confounds me as a director. They can tell you tech nonsense until you turn green but don't bother to level the head. A little discipline behind the camera goes a long way.

vince

Well, everything one records on a given medium is 'noise' by Kevins definition, since your eyes see vastly more ranges of colors and deeper lattitude than either film or any electronic media. Neither film nor tape nor any known sensor will 'record what your eyes/brain' sees.

True enough, but the closer we can get to what our brain perceives the better as far as I'm concerned. Film has dwindling advantages over digital in terms of resolution and latitude with disadvantages in terms of noise (grain) and motion rendition. If you like the look of film it's probably more because of the latitude than anything else, but grain is an inherent flaw - as are the pixel limitations of digital recording. Calling a flaw a benefit is a matter of preference rather than reason, so I'll agree with that.

Its worth noting that film cameras are more than capable of the same fps of all but the most specialist of video cameras.. so this isn't really a (tired) film vs video debate, rather one of style.
Do you want to achieve something that is as close to human vision as possible? Some may, I don't. The grain and stuttery motion of film are nothing like human vision. Neither is inches-deep dof, or the colours that cinematographers and colourists painstakingly commit to final prints. Thats why I like it.

I don't care what frame rate you shoot at if your work is filled with bumpy pans, jerky zooms and dollies, hesitant cranes and drifting lock-offs. I see stuff on videographers reels that confounds me as a director.

Fair enough, and I see visible problems in major motion pictures which I find distracting as a viewer. I understand that people like the 'film look' for all the reasons stated here, but I also see talk of trying to avoid issues of shooting on film through careful camera work. In any medium you have to deal with the limitations of it to the best of your ability, and there isn't one inherently better than another - except as a matter of preference.

But the original topic here was the motion look produced by different video cameras, so let's get back to that. Do we know yet whether the EX1 uses a rolling shutter? If so I gather that will likely yield a different look than the HVX200, which is in turn different from the Canon HDV cameras. I'm guessing people who like the Panasonic will still like it after the EX1 ships, while comparisons to the Canons may be a little tougher. I'm looking forward to seeing what the EX1 can do.

The whole 'dogma' movement was based (erroneously) around capturing only what is 'naturally' present in a scene. (yes, yes,... but essentially that's the point.)

Trying to capture only 'what the eye see's naturally' is ONE philosphy of filmmaking. It is not necessarily the 'right' or 'better' philosophy. Introducing filters in front of the lens (noise/Flaws) adding/subtracting color in post (more 'noise'/flaws) indeed... the whole world of graphic FX... all revolve around the suposition that the creator's 'vision' of a story is larger than what one 'sees' with the eyes.

I have yet to see a video image that looks more 'natural' ... to ME... than film. It always has an intrinsic 'flatness', a kind of harshness that does not emmulate the organic nature of vision, that film does. Semantics, sure. Nostalgia, maybe. But no less so than people who love the 'look' of film. One can have nostalgia for the 'video look'... if that is what one prefers.

There is no arguing 'taste'.

That's just semantics to describe something which wasn't present in the original scene but is visible on film, hence it's noise. Some people like the film grain look because it's nostalgic, but if you started seeing real life like that you'd go see a doctor.

And if you started seeing everything in black and white you'd go to a doctor as well - but that has nothing to do with whether B&W is a viable choice for making a film, or whether it's 'nostalgic' - it's simply an aesthetic choice. Ultimately that's why I think high frame rates won't become the norm, at least for narrative filmmaking - it has nothing to do with duplicating what you see in real life.

You cite the latest Bond film, and it's a perfect example - what elements of the film would you consider 'close to real life'? The story? The stunts? The lighting, locations, or sound? Even the actors have altered their bodies through training, surgery and makeup to become something that doesn't represent reality. Nothing about a Bond film has anything to do with what we see in real life - so what is to be gained by trying to more closely approximate the way the eye sees reality?

I can see the argument for documentary/reality programming where you are trying to create the illusion that what you are presenting is a completely accurate representation of what is happening - but that's a very different goal than in narrative filmmaking.

Nothing about a Bond film has anything to do with what we see in real life - so what is to be gained by trying to more closely approximate the way the eye sees reality?

I just want the motion to look realistic so the artifacts of low frame rates don't detract from watching the movie. But we've covered all that already, so let's talk about the cameras...do you think the EX1 will produce a pleasing result at 24 fps recording?

I just want the motion to look realistic so the artifacts of low frame rates don't detract from watching the movie. But we've covered all that already, so let's talk about the cameras...do you think the EX1 will produce a pleasing result at 24 fps recording?

Yes!

Although, as others have mentioned here, I don't think the EX1 will produce any different result in 24fps than any other 24p capable camera - given the same scene, camera motion and shutter speed I would expect little difference in motion rendering between different cameras, and I've never noticed the differences the original poster mentioned. I'm assuming that the differences he saw had something to do with differences in the pulldown each camera uses for display in a 60i stream - and I'm also assuming that won't be an issue with the EX1 as I don't expect I'd ever use anything other than the native progressive modes from acquisition through post and delivery.

I love how people that have never worked in the film industry seem to know everything that is wrong with it. Since when has everybody become the experts?

I'm sorry but seeing as film and 24p is the highest production standard in the world and a lot of much more talented artists then many of us work with everyday and earn a lot more money then most of us I am putting my faith there.

Some people say the framerate doesn't matter but then they knock 24p. If it doesn't matter then why can't some of you except the fact that 24p works very well if it is used correctly?

Clearly if you hate 24p that much you will never be working in the film industry. Sure you can be a rebel if you want but it is hard enough to break into the biz without going against the grain.

The fact is a lot of talented people love 24p and work with it every day so please do not knock it. If it doesn't work for you don't use it. It is as simple as that. Just don't knock other people who do love to use it.

Clearly if you hate 24p that much you will never be working in the film industry.

Tell that to a certain Jim Cameron :-)

That's just semantics to describe something which wasn't present in the original scene but is visible on film, hence it's noise. Some people like the film grain look because it's nostalgic, but if you started seeing real life like that you'd go see a doctor.


Yeah and I wouldn't go see a doctor if I started to see pixels, or smear or macroblocks either I guess.

Film or video is not perfect. They both use a fake way of creating a way to show how people see the world. It doesn't matter if it is film, analog or digital it is all fake.

This topic is starting to get out of hand. It is once agin turning into a "what the heck would you like that for?" sort of a thread.

The fact is film like video is a tried and true medium that works very well. I'm sorry Kevin but I am going to have to choose the view of people like Steven Spielberg over yours anyday because I just feel he has a lot more knowledge on the subject because he has actually worked with the material. I have worked with film for compositing and it has it's pros and cons but it is in no way an inferior medium. Try telling that to the extreme highend production industry that uses film everyday.

Both formats are great and have their uses which is why you will never see me knocking a certain format. I like 24p and 60p equally and use them based on the subject. I tend to prefer 24p a little bit more because to me it sends the same exact message but with less frames which means less cost and less rendering time. If somebody wants 60i or 60p I am more then happy to give them that.

Tell that to a certain Jim Cameron :-)

Well he isn't trying to break into the biz either is he? He is a well known director who can stir the pot a little bit every now and then. He has earned the right to experiment a little bit and have people follow him. That isn't to say it would work for him though. There have been other well known people in history that tried to change things that never really worked out. Just because one director in hundreds wants to play around with changing things up doesn't mean it is going to happen. I can name you dozens of people who do not want to move to 48p and think it is a waste of money.

Besides we already have 50p which is pretty much the same thing. We have had 50p for a very long time now and I don't see people rushing out to shoot their movies as 50p. If 48p or 50p became the standard then how would PAL HD be any different then movies? What point would there be to go out to a movie anymore?

50p is not around in 1080 form yet. And distribution is not at a point for HD whereby it is the standard.

Rest assured that as HD reaches saturation, and I have to say that 1080p at 50/60fps is where things are going, 24p will look decidedly hideous by comparison.

I don't like interlaced footage in SD. But I actually think it is okay in HD. 1080p at high framerates will be even better.

I'm for 36p as a standard. Just enough frame rate to not strobe so much, but not quite enough to look like reality.

Less filling yet tastes great. ;-)

50p is not around in 1080 form yet. And distribution is not at a point for HD whereby it is the standard.

Rest assured that as HD reaches saturation, and I have to say that 1080p at 50/60fps is where things are going, 24p will look decidedly hideous by comparison.

I don't like interlaced footage in SD. But I actually think it is okay in HD. 1080p at high framerates will be even better.

But what is so wrong with 720p 50p? A lot of people shoot 720p 24p with JVC or Panasonic cameras that transfer to film or digital cinema projection and they love it. For those people very few are actually shooting 50p unless they want slow motion. For the current 720p shooters they already have the option of shooting a higher framerate but most film people do not. Most people are used to watching 60i/50i or 60p/50p broadcast TV but yet they do not think 24p movies are hideous like you said. Moving to 1080p doesn't change that either. It terms of framerate everything is still the same as it is from 480p or 720p except there is now more resolution. How is 1080p 50p any different then 720p 50p? Most people watch 720p channels with some shows made from a 60p source such as sports and then some commercials or TV dramas made from a 24p or 30p source and it isn't really a problem at all. So I don't agree with your argument that 1080p 50p/60p will make 24p look hideous because it isn't any different then how people are used to seeing the different formats now.


And what about slow motion? If everything moves to 50p then we will need cameras that can shoot 100p or higher for slow motion. Even if we do manage to push out 1080p 50p through a large enough pipe how long do you think it will take before we can get a 1080p camera that can shoot 100p or 120p?