My camera has rolling shutter issues when I want to do a shot that involves camera movement. One person told me to a way to fix this is by shooting in 60 fps at 1/120, and then converting that to 24 fps afterwards. But if I do that, the shutter speed will still be high and I will have a Saving Private Ryan type of shutter speed look for future projects.

I never liked the look at all personally, but does it still look more appealing than rolling shutter in the footage?

Each camera model will have different levels of the rolling shutter artifact. Since I assume you're using the older, ow budget DSLR, that has been mentioned before, the best solution would probably be to buy a new camera that has less of this artifact.

I've never quite got the rolling shutter thing. Clearly, the helicopter or propeller blade thing is an obvious one, but camera movement in itself is pretty trouble free isn't it? It's only fast moving things during the sensor sweep. Have you got examples of shots where it's objectionable? In what I do, I've not noticed it really as something to avoid. What I have noticed is the quality drop when converting frame rates that require extra or cut frames. Unless you have lots of rotating, or passing large areas, is it really a problem? Have you tried shooting everyday stuff at 1/120 at 60fps? Will it cause you grief with light? Does the 'look' suit the content. I can't see me having that as a go to default setup. For me, 24 is a rarity.

As Paul says, I wouldn't worry about rolling shutter, unless your camera moves, content or action causes objectionable levels. If you're shooting material that triggers the artifact in your camera, I would consider replacing it with a more suitable camera.

Global Shutter. Komodo RED. Maxed out credit card. Do it!

I've never quite got the rolling shutter thing. Clearly, the helicopter or propeller blade thing is an obvious one, but camera movement in itself is pretty trouble free isn't it? It's only fast moving things during the sensor sweep. Have you got examples of shots where it's objectionable? In what I do, I've not noticed it really as something to avoid. What I have noticed is the quality drop when converting frame rates that require extra or cut frames. Unless you have lots of rotating, or passing large areas, is it really a problem? Have you tried shooting everyday stuff at 1/120 at 60fps? Will it cause you grief with light? Does the 'look' suit the content. I can't see me having that as a go to default setup. For me, 24 is a rarity.

In my experience, if there is any likelihood of rolling shutter artifacts, I shoot at the fastest shutter speed possible (or smallest shutter angle if your camera has that as a setting), - comensurate with the available light of course. That way, any difference in the position of moving objects during the sensor exposure/scanning time is minimised.
In post, to prevent a gritty "Saving Private Ryan" effect, apply a degree of your editor's 'motion blur' effect which will partly merge sequential pairs of frames and effectively simulate more conventional shutter speed.

Oh okay thanks. I was told I have a rolling shutter effect in a couple of projects I posted here before, which were shot with the Sony A7s II, as far as cameras go.

But if I shoot at a high shutter speed, and have the Saving Private Ryan type of look, and then add motion blur in post, the post motion blur does not look as natural in my opinion. Plus I would be running an entire movie through after effects, and applying to every frame then. Is it worth giving an entire movie unnatural looking post motion blur, just to avoid a Saving Private Ryan look?

It just seems like a lot of extra work, but is there no other way to minimize rolling shutter than shooting at a high shutter speed, and then runing the entire finished product through after effects motion blur?

Perhaps you'd better show us the problem Ryan - me, a few frames of rolling shutter artefacts in a full length movie wouldn't (for me_ be enough to spoil the look of the whole thing Why not fir the future, notice the rolling shutter when shooting problem scenes, and then fix it then, just for that scene/shot?

"Saving Private Ryan" used a 45 degree shutter, which is 1/192 of a second at 24 fps. Usually, you can get away with 1/100, without it being that noticeable (i.e you have to be looking for it) on most action.

Perhaps you'd better show us the problem Ryan - me, a few frames of rolling shutter artefacts in a full length movie wouldn't (for me_ be enough to spoil the look of the whole thing Why not fir the future, notice the rolling shutter when shooting problem scenes, and then fix it then, just for that scene/shot?

Oh okay, It's this short I posted before. I showed it to someone else and he said that there are rolling shutter problems in the shots where the camera moves, which start at 4:55 into the clip and end at 5:28 mostly.

Battle Damaged Souls - YouTube

As for fixing the rolling shutter, when it happens instead, how would I do that though?

1. I'm assuming you didn't use a variable nd filter, but instead cranked up the shutter speed to get the exposure.

2. The scene is a bit unique because you have all the grave stones with vertical lines that is making it more noticeable.

3. Just shooting it differently would have been the best solution. A fixed wider shot of him walking, slowmo at 60fps tracking shot, and staying away from fast pans. The shot choice and execution doesn't fit the mood. Something contemplative should slow and smooth not uneven and jittery.

Overall the problem is due to your choices and lack of experience working with that camera.

Oh okay, but we did use ND filters though. It was a cloudy day so the sky was white but we did use the filters. Some of the shots, we had to take the filters off though, because it was too dark in the trees for them. Even though the sky is white, the faces are correctly exposed. So if we left the filters on, then the faces would be underexposed. But are underexposed faces better than a white sky? The shuttter speed was at 1/50th so didn't crank at it up at all, accept for some of the slow motion shots, where it was cranked up to 1/60th.

Also, what if I want to do camera movement though, such as a pan or a shot that is not fixed? How do I do that but avoid rolling shutter?

When you say vertical lines, what is the problem with the vertical lines exactly? There are other movies with vertical lines in the object when the camera moves though. So what are those movies doing differently?

I don't know what you did, but the frame rate shutter angle is off not by a little but a lot. Eyes don't lie. Slow and smooth was the key here, sounds like you still don't get it. This is about pacing and mood, and then filming it in way that achieve it.

Oh okay, I see. Well as far as the shuttle angle goes, it is possible that the DP/gimbal operator could have turned it up, while I was working with the subject, and maybe I didn't see it.

I could also have been knackered in editing. At what frame rate you film and how you edit it are equally important and inter related.
Shutter Speed for Video EXPLAINED: How Frame Rates & Shutter Speed Work Together - YouTube

Frame Rates EXPLAINED: How To Film & Edit Mixed Frame Rate Video In Premiere Pro - YouTube

Oh okay, well how could it have been knackered in the editing? I watched the video but not sure how that applies to mine, or how I edited mine.

Another thing is, let's say the DP turned up the shutter speed. It was said before in a previous post that a high shutter speed is good because then you avoid rolling shutter. But is that true, or is a high shutter speed bad? I've never liked the high ones, myself, out of personal taste. If the video was at a higher shutter speed, then I suppose it got turned up without my knowledge, since I said to the DP that I wanted a 1/50 shutter speed while shooting at 23.976 fps, and say that it was 1/50 when he first selected it. Perhaps it got turned up later somehow, when he was operating the camera. At one point, he said the sun got too bright, even with the ND filters on, and so he said he was closing the aperture more. Perhaps he was actually increasing the shutter speed instead...

It seems to me that you plan things but never ever try to get really comfy with your equipment. Almost like you plan and plan but the shoot is the very first time you try things? The verticals should have been in your head and stability would have been my first thought, camera artefacts second. I would have tried that shot out weeks before to test that sideways track to see how smooth it was, and how I could make it better. Shots with obvious horizon, horizontal and vertical elements need special care, because camera movements, even tiny ones, are so obvious. Then you could try the adjustments to minimise the shuddering.

I have a hand held stabiliser. Never used it. If I get some spare time, I'll try some sideways shots with it and see how dreadfully it works with no skill level at all..

You won't notice any difference between 1/50 and 1/60, you need a bigger difference in shutter speed before it becomes noticeable.

I wouldn't get excited about the example you've given, if the audience notices anything you've got bigger problems than any rolling shutter or shutter speed artifacts.

You have to use your own eyes and make a judgment call on if an artifact is acceptable or not. On some occasions you may even want to use an artifact for dramatic effect.

With rolling shutting you need to take it on a shot by shot basis. The effect can be seen by panning your camera at ever increasing speeds in a location with verticals.

Oh okay. Well as far as getting comfortable with the equipment, it was the DP's camera and his gimbal, so for next time, should I arrange for more practice dates beforehand, perhaps with a DP?

Also, there are lots of movies that use verticals when panning or tracking with the camera though. Why are verticals bad now, since other movies in the past have used them, or what are they doing differently?

Skewed verticals are an artifact created by rolling shutters in digital cameras using CMOS sensors. Cinema cameras like the Arri Alexa and the RED have much lower levels, as do higher end video cameras, These cameras will have processing tricks in the camera to ameliorate the effect.

DSLR cameras tend not to do well in tests for this artifact, because it would add to costs in a price sensitive market For a camera in its class, the Panasonic GH5s does pretty well in this test, however, it's more a video camera than a stills camera.

Movies use either the very high digital cameras, which have a lot more processing power than your cameras or they shoot on film. A test for the Alexa's rolling shutter reports: "This level of distortion is not noticeable in practice; the design of the scanning process has largely eliminated the effect in this camera"

It seems to me that you plan things but never ever try to get really comfy with your equipment. Almost like you plan and plan but the shoot is the very first time you try things? The verticals should have been in your head and stability would have been my first thought, camera artefacts second. I would have tried that shot out weeks before to test that sideways track to see how smooth it was, and how I could make it better. Shots with obvious horizon, horizontal and vertical elements need special care, because camera movements, even tiny ones, are so obvious. Then you could try the adjustments to minimise the shuddering.
This.

The biggest learning lesson you should take away from this is when you lack experience with the equipment, filming technique, or location, you should do a dry run a week before. Obviously you don't always have the time, but you have expect that your chances of getting unpolished results and unanticipated issues increases.

Oh okay sure. I guess I just thought well if the DP/gimbal operator and actor are already available for that day, maybe we should just shoot it. But would a DP/gmbal operator find it insulting if you ask them to go out to a location and test out the shots, without the actors? Or is it perfectly normal to ask this of a DP/gimbal operator?

As for verticals being skewed, I always thought verticals were a good thing, such as in this video, where they talk about how verticals help polish a shot. He talkes about it at 1:15:

Perfect your Film with Cinematic Motion - YouTube

So he talks about how vertical objects during camera movement is a good thing, and I've always thought they helped look good during horizontal movement. But on a camera with rolling shutter, does that not apply? What if you pan the camera in a shot, and you can't help if there are vertical objects in the shot, what then?

Don't confuse the aesthetic of using verticals in a shot with an artifact created by the camera, they are different.

You can test the camera without going to a particular location, so you will know how prone the camera is to rolling shutter. in advance of the shoot.

By testing you'll know the limitations on how fast you can pan or move across verticals with a particular camera. If the skewing in the verticals are unacceptable at the speeds you want to use, you'll have to find a camera model that suffers less from rolling shutter. Although, if using a 1/100 or 1/120 shutter speed reduces it to an acceptable level, you may have to live with that on some shots. You have to be pragmatic at times, especially if you've got no or a very low budget.

Finding out on the day of the shoot isn't good planning, especially since you now know that rolling shutter exists.

I wouldn't worry about the example in your short, it's pretty acceptable.

What I find simply amazing here is that you use the term DP/Gimbal op when that does indicate to me a person that understands the equipment, the implications for movement, the technical reasons problems appear and the ability to spot problems and errors when shooting, and solve them. You would NEVER insult a professional and competent operator by questioning their ability like this. What you would do is tell them the shot, and ask if the equipment can do it OK? If they say yes, it will. If they say yes and clearly the equipment is unable to do it, then they're rubbish, and deserve the title trainee camera op, not your one!

When I engage somebody to light, their track record tells me I leave them alone and they'll do what I want. Same with sound. Your team sound like very unusual professionals, and your role as Director or Producer, or whatever you style yourself this week to be does not include being a camera supervisor. We've told you all this many time before. I suspect that you will insult them, but frankly, if they need to test and practice a simple blend of shot style and camera type, something is not quite right. Proper DP people will say "I can't do that withe the rubbish camera you are forcing me to use - we need an XXX if you must have that shot"

Brian pointed out the different context in that clip - how did you misunderstand it?

Oh okay thanks. I didn't misunderstand the context I don't think, I just meant to ask, if vertical is good, like some pointed out, how do you make it work on a camera without a global shutter? However, I read that the Sony A7s II is sensitive for rolling shutter, so perhaps I should use a different camera next time then, or have a DP use a different one.

You have to know the limitations of each camera model and avoid situations that will cause issues. You can check these through testing, if a camera is sensitive to rolling shutter you should either find another camera or change your shots.

Most tools have difficulty with certain processes - this is exactly why professionals need to be able to analyse and produce conclusions followed by proper plans. In the forces they refer to it as the five P's.
Proper Planning prevents piss poor performance and this has always held so true for me. The better the plans, the better the end result!

gimbal op for his movies is a friend who owns a cheap gimbal that they can throw someone's camera on that they've borrowed for the day. I laugh that you wouldn't know that dslr/mirrorless cameras might have problems with rolling shutter and verticals.

Which verticals Pete? Vertical verticals or vertical Verticals? I suspect Ryans using the wrong ones and getting 90/270 issues on his horizontals.

Oh by verticals I meant objects that are sticking vertically out of the ground. But if mirrorless cameras have problems with rolling shutter, perhaps my next camera investment should be a mirror camera therefore maybe, if it helps avoid it?

For sure the mirror is the heart of the problem. Wait a second the A7S doesn't have mirror. maybe its too vertical

gimbal op for his movies is a friend who owns a cheap gimbal that they can throw someone's camera on that they've borrowed for the day. I laugh that you wouldn't know that dslr/mirrorless cameras might have problems with rolling shutter and verticals.

Oh but you said, that mirrorless cameras have problem with rolling shutter.

Oh but you said, that mirrorless cameras have problem with rolling shutter.
I'll let you in on a secret the mirror has nothing to do with rolling shutter.

Oh okay, I thought that the rolling shutter jello effect, was caused by the fact that it wasn't a global shutter, unless there is more to it?

Ryan, we gave you a little test to see if you understand what you are talking about. You failed I'm afraid. You need to do some serious study on the causes of the reasons objects look different shapes to reality when shot by cameras that use alternative capture techniques. You need to go back first to optics development in film based camera to understand the concept of mechanical shutter angles before you start looking at electronic versions. Your current problem needs breaking down properly into cause and effect, before you have any hope of being able to accurately predict the behaviour of products as yet only seen on a computer screen. Serious hard work research, study and learning. You know the words, but are using them poorly because all our comment based on you having understanding you actually don't have.
Sorry, but until you understand the physics going on here you are stuck.

Oh okay, I thought that the rolling shutter jello effect, was caused by the fact that it wasn't a global shutter, unless there is more to it?

CMOS sensors will have a rolling shutter effect, regardless of if they have a mirror or no mirror. Professional cameras designed purely for video or cinema production tend to have less of this artifact than stills cameras used for shooting video. However, how much will vary from one camera model to another, so you need to test the camera before shooting with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter

Interestingly, I could get a rolling shutter effect in the CRT viewfinder of a CCD camera when in progressive frame mode because of the scanning in the viewfinder. It happened when you whipped panned.

You can also have the effect on some stills camera shutters. It was quite effective in giving the impression of speed in some early racing car photographs because of the skewed verticals.
http://www.artnet.com/artists/jacques-henri-lartigue/grand-prix-of-the-automobile-club-of-france-a-4vSUH9G02YzDwkoUZvXPhQ2

You just made me think Brian. I did a series of promo work for a parachuting company last year and used a B4 lens on my JVC 750 to get the extra reach to fill the frame with the aircraft at dropping altitude. The first weekend revealed lots of physical issues - mainly my inability to do a 360 around the tripod legs with my eye to the viewfinder, because in bright sunlight the flip out viewfinder was wiped out. I bought an ultra bright external viewfinder with SDI in and side mounted this so I could pan and tilt standing back, and it was brilliant. However you just hit on the reason for the strange treatment of the trees when they got close to the ground and the trees and horizon objects started to appear in the viewfinder framing.In the video files it's perfectly fine, but in the new monitor, very strange artefacts. It didn't matter at the time because the footage was fine, but I bet this is related to your discovery. Sort of a scan of a scan of the frame.

CMOS sensors will have a rolling shutter effect, regardless of if they have a mirror or no mirror. Professional cameras designed purely for video or cinema production tend to have less of this artifact than stills cameras used for shooting video. However, how much will vary from one camera model to another, so you need to test the camera before shooting with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter

Interestingly, I could get a rolling shutter effect in the CRT viewfinder of a CCD camera when in progressive frame mode because of the scanning in the viewfinder. It happened when you whipped panned.

You can also have the effect on some stills camera shutters. It was quite effective in giving the impression of speed in some early racing car photographs because of the skewed verticals.
Grand Prix of the Automobile Club of France, Course at Dieppe by Jacques Henri Lartigue on artnet (http://www.artnet.com/artists/jacques-henri-lartigue/grand-prix-of-the-automobile-club-of-france-a-4vSUH9G02YzDwkoUZvXPhQ2)

Oh okay. Well the next camera I was thinking of investing in was the BMPCC, and since that was meant for shooting video, would it have less of a rolling shutter effect therefore?

https://www.cined.com/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-6k-lab-test-dynamic-range-latitude-rolling-shutter-more/

There's lots of forum chat about it.