In my opinion there is something just not right about the HD100 1/60th shutter and 100th and all upwards for that matter... Agree? Disagree? Other cameras handle high shutter speeds without somehow sacrificing the frame rate. The HD100 looks absurdly stuttery/juddery at a higher shutter speed than 1/48th. The motion smoothing option is a silly joke that adds trails and makes the video look even more amateurish. Why is that? I remember complaining about the 24p motion of this camera some months ago and some individual questioned if I was shooting with 1/60th? 1/48th is too blurry for my taste and 1/24 is just ridiculous. What's inherently wrong about 1/60th, why does it looks so messy(juddery/stuttery) Other cameras don't have this no? Certainly not the FX1, you could shoot very high shutter speeds without losing the look and feel of the framerate.

In my opinion there is something just not right about the HD100 1/60th shutter and 100th and all upwards for that matter... Agree? Disagree?
Disagree. THe HD100 perfectly emulates the popular shutter speeds of film cameras. 1/48th = 180degrees, 1/60th = 144 degrees, 1/100=approx 90 degrees. If you shoot film with those shutter angles you will get the exact same results.
Other cameras handle high shutter speeds without somehow sacrificing the frame rate. The HD100 looks absurdly stuttery/juddery at a higher shutter speed than 1/48th.
Maybe you are talking about interlaced cameras. The HD100 is a progressive capture camera just like a film camera. It performs as it should.
The motion smoothing option is a silly joke that adds trails and makes the video look even more amateurish. Why is that? I remember complaining about the 24p motion of this camera some months ago and some individual questioned if I was shooting with 1/60th? 1/48th is too blurry for my taste and 1/24 is just ridiculous. What's inherently wrong about 1/60th, why does it looks so messy(juddery/stuttery)
1/48th will give you the typical dramatic film look. It shouldn't look too blurry.
You're right about Motion smoothing. It is a joke. I think they just added it because they were scanning the chip at double the frame rate anyway, so it became a 'feature.' I have only ever turned it on once - to test how it worked.

Other cameras don't have this no? Certainly not the FX1, you could shoot very high shutter speeds without losing the look and feel of the framerate.
The FX1 doesn't give you the feel of any framerate. It is interlaced - it looks like typical video (when in 60i mode). It's apples and oranges, you can't really compare interlaced and progressive capture this way. They are just too different.

Hi Bruce,

Seems like you are used to shooting with an interlaced camera where you can whip the camera any direction and not have to learn the proper panning speeds for the HD-100. There are panning speeds that you must learn. If you do learn the technique then it will pay great dividends. You will plan your shots better and it will show in your end results compared to shooting interlace.

I offer this PDF to you (Click Here) (http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/getResource2/c1_judder_and_smear.pdf?id=6118). On the bottom of the PDF there is a link to the panning speed relationships. Click on it and study it and then practice. You'll be rewarded and it will bring you joy.

good luck...

What's inherently wrong about 1/60th, why does it looks so messy(juddery/stuttery)

The motion smoothing option is a silly joke that adds trails and makes the video look even more amateurish. Why is that?

1/48th is too blurry for my taste.

If you are coming from 1/60th on an interlace camera, you will SEE 1/48th as "too blurry" but if you are coming from film shooting it will look the same as you are used too.

So you have to ask yourself, for what did you buy the HD100?

If for shooting as though you were shooting film, then you'll have to -- as suggested -- learn how to use the HD100. And, get used to the "motion blur" of 1/48th.

If you want the video look of an interlaced FX1 you can't have it!

You have a progressive camcorder. At 720p30 you can only choose between Smooth Motion Filter ON or OFF. If it's OFF you are shooting pure 30p -- which will strobe on motion as it must.

I completely disagree with Tim about the Smooth Motion Filter. I've shot tons of NY and LV busy streets to capture motion coming and going in different directions and with different rates. It's a torture test for motion. Turning on Motion Smoothing works as advertised. It takes away the strobing of 30p. Of course, objects will have "motion blur" but that IS the point of the filter. I'm convinced that overtime you'll find using the filter will provide the best approximation of 60i video shooting.

Haven't we gone through this before?

Haven't we gone through this before?
I thought I was having a case of déjà vu!

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=62586

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=55097

Well, this topic seems to be endless - but the progressive mode of the HD100 doesn't seem to make me happy any time soon, either.

In our studio we've got three feature-lenght documentaries in production now - one is being shot in S16, and for the other two we chose the JVC camcorder. I am looking at footage from both sources almost every day, and the sad thing is that the JVC footage is WAY more jittery than the telecined S16 footage.

The parameters are more or less so:

- S16: shot at 25 fps (no pulldown hassle for PAL, and the blowups play just fine in theatres), telecined on a Spirit Datacine to Beta SP for offline and HD for online;

- JVC: set at 25 fps, shutter speed 50. Motion smooth setting on or off doesn't seem to make much difference.

Both are viewed on a CRT PAL monitor (still waiting for the HD editing/monitoring gear to come), and almost every movement in the JVC footage is incomparably worse than what we get from the film. I've been shooting film for 15 years, and never had an issue with the panning speed - but with the JVC anything but the slowest movement sends the object jumping around the frame.

Am I doing something wrong with the HD100 settings? Any idea of hidden setup menus, or of a way to deal with the jitter in post?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions,

Greets:

Boris

Thank you Boris, Finally someone understands. This camera seems to be a fat goose egg, no work of any note has seemingly been produced with it in nearly nine months anywhere on the planet earth. The 24p option is really the only reason one should be even remotely interested in this camera but even that doesen't compare with the motion of say a SONY FX1 when deinterlaced and converted to 23.98 via cinema tools. It's a pity you can't shoot 24p with an FX1. Now this is all my opinion but I've been shooting sony cams since early childhood and noticed a stark difference in the feel and motion of the footage on the JVC. I always knew something wasn't quite right about it and it becomes very clear when one compares slowed down deinterlaced 30fps original material shot with say a sony VX2000 or FX1 converted to 23.98. The sony footage is just much more cinematic looking. I don't know what it is about JVC but I think we've been kidding ourselves Pardon my frankness, but I think all the owners (myself included) are in denial over this 5000 dollar purchase. It just isn't good if you're planning to make a serious short film or music video, it's amateur hour land... I'm probably going to anger a number of inviduals, but it needs to be said. I hope NAB 2006 will provide better options for all us aspirings.

Both are viewed on a CRT PAL monitor (still waiting for the HD editing/monitoring gear to come), and almost every movement in the JVC footage is incomparably worse than what we get from the film. I've been shooting film for 15 years, and never had an issue with the panning speed - but with the JVC anything but the slowest movement sends the object jumping around the frame.
Boris
Hi Boris,

How does it look on flat panel and also how are you monitoring? Are you monitoring off the timeline or are you producing DVD's for viewing? Make sure you are using progressive from birth to death in the process. If you are sending out to interlaced anywhere in the process you'll get jitter because you didn't source at 50fps (60fps NTSC). Double check your process. I fell into the same trap last year and couldn't figure out why jitter was so obvious and it turned out that I had some parameters set to interlace in my process. Once the process was purely progressive, I started achieving predictable results that are more in line with what I'm used to.

Hope the best for you amigo...

Bruce,

1-Out of the production world as a whole, very little people come to DVInfo. Even fewer feel the need to share their work on a message board, and THEN, even fewer working professionals. Why? A working DP has no right to do so. When I posted the work I did for WBR, I did it at a little bit of professional risk.

Here in L.A., amongst HD100 users, it's known MTV in Santa Monica bought a bunch of HD100s to replace some of their fleet of DVX100s. ABC took a large order too. There's a ton of both high-end and low-end rental houses doing brisk business renting HD100s.

In my experience, the best people in the field tend not to go on about their work on the internet.

2-The HD100 captures motion like a film camera, for all intents and purposes. Same frame rate, same shutter speed. There's no magical unknown variables in there to argue about.

If you're seeing something else, then either you're looking to hard with your nose against the monitor and psyching yourself out, or something is wrong with your monitoring setup (which I'm finding is more and more common as I do consulting work and see other people's setups migrating to HDV).

As a post user of the Sony interlaced cams, I also used to de-interlace and convert to a 24P cadence.

It looks the same to me. In fact, it actully looks worse. Not due to the 24P conversion, but the composition itself.

A lot of my shots were not composed well enough to minimize 24 frame motion.
Please, I'm not pointing out that this is what you are seeing.
I'm only mentioning my experience.

Thank you Boris, Finally someone understands...I'm probably going to anger a number of inviduals, but it needs to be said. I hope NAB 2006 will provide better options for all us aspirings.


No offense Bruce but all you did was finally find another person that's having a problem like you. We don't "understand" because we're not having your issues. You're certainly not going to anger all the other people who are very pleased with the camera.

This camera seems to be a fat goose egg, no work of any note has seemingly been produced with it in nearly nine months anywhere on the planet earth. The 24p option is really the only reason one should be even remotely interested in this camera but even that doesen't compare with the motion of say a SONY FX1 when deinterlaced and converted to 23.98 via cinema tools. It's a pity you can't shoot 24p with an FX1. Now this is all my opinion but I've been shooting sony cams since early childhood and noticed a stark difference in the feel and motion of the footage on the JVC. ....It just isn't good if you're planning to make a serious short film or music video, it's amateur hour land... I'm probably going to anger a number of inviduals, but it needs to be said. I hope NAB 2006 will provide better options for all us aspirings.

Surely you jest!

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in a long time on this forum.
If I'm following you correctly you have said: (paraphrasing your statements)

The HD100 is a big fat "goose egg" because no work of note has been produced. I can assure you that work of "note" is being produced on this camera, it just hasn't been released yet. I'm shooting something now that everyone will know about in the fall. I can't talk about it yet, but I'll let you know when it is in a theatre near you.
The 24P motion of the HD100 is no where near as good as FX1 interlaced footage de-interlaced and slowed down to 24P. Huh? De-interlacing reduces resolution and using cinema tools to conform 50i footage to 24P slows it down by 4% and also pitches down the audio. This is surely not a "better" way to achieve 24P.
The JVC HD100 is an amateurish camera and not suitable for shooting a short film or music video. Now I know you're off your rocker! Remember, because the HD100 captures images progressively exactly like many other 'P' digital cameras used to produce films, your statement also extends to the Panasonic Varicam, Sony F900/950, XL2, DVX100, SDX900, & F330/350 XDCAM HD. 'Nuff said.


Sorry for the harsh words Bruce, but I think your problem is that you are not watching your HD100 footage properly. Maybe you are using your computer monitor to view it, or possibly relying on the analog downconverter to watch the footage on a PAL or NTSC monitor. Have you downconverted 720P24 to NTSC and burned a DVD? Compare this to a commercial DVD and you'll see that when the 2:3 pulldown is added the motion looks EXACTLY the same.

I think I can safely say (as I have before) that the progressive capture of the HD100 perfectly matches the temporal motion of film capture.
Just so we can stop this "in my opinion" bickering, I have prepared a clip (http://www.timdashwood.com/.Public/Motion-comparison-film-vs-24P.mp4) comparing 720P24 capture to that of 35mm film.

Have a look, step through frame by frame, and carefully compare the motion blur on the clapper sticks. Let's hope this ends this crazy discussion once and for all.

Download the MP4 clip here. (http://www.timdashwood.com/.Public/Motion-comparison-film-vs-24P.mp4)

This camera seems to be a fat goose egg, no work of any note has seemingly been produced with it in nearly nine months anywhere on the planet earth.This is complete nonsense, of course. You're suffering from a case of unrealistic expectations, as I described eariler today when you posted the exact same thing about the XL H1 in your "Where's The Work?" thread located here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=64263

There's plenty of professional work being done with *all* of these cameras, but you cannot realistically expect to simply find such material available for downloading from the internet. Same repeat questions, same repeat answers.

Tim, thanks for the post and the clip.
Looks right to me.

dude, are you trolling?

if not, at least consider that one thing everyone seems to agree on is that the HD100 has the most extensive and comprehensive set of controls. that being the case, perhaps you should consider adjusting your settings? you may not have the camera optimized.

I totally agree with Tim, Nate, Steve, and others... the motion of the 24p footage is exactly how it should be, in fact i was going to prepare a clip something like what was just posted, to show that the "judder" is spot on. Its all in math... there isn’t any lies in the math, the 24 frames with 48 shutter is what makes the "film look" what it is. Its having the shutter 2 times the frame mode which creates this. For someone who is maybe used to watching films on a screen that is not truly progressive, and using gear that is always interlaced and then has frames removed by what ever means, its then going to look judder filled once you go to a true progressive footage.

but heres a test to do that will even show up on a non progressive dvd player and tv setup... watch the sequence with the opening credits in the film "Sahara" its one continued shot moving through many objects in a room with photos and such on a wall... the camera operator was doing these moves as slow and smooth as he could without making it to slow, but for obvious reasons needed to keep the speed up a bit to get through the whole room at a reasonable time... there is VERY noticeable judder in some of the movements... some in fact that are actually quite harsh to the eye. this was shot using a Panaflex film camera just like every other huge film. with the same settings. you will notice right away that when you go outside of the lines of pan speeds at such and such distances.. it will judder like crazy, no matter what. Its all in training your eye, and learning how not to get these moments happening to the point of extreme judder creation. You just have to get used to it, its something that will take time...

Another thing to do is go to a movie in a theater, perhaps one you have already seen... and just watch for the judder, take your eyes off the action in the center and look around the frame when pans are happening, you will notice the judder right away, specially in non action films i think, when they are paying less attention to the judder problems caused by fast moving action sequences. I warn you, for someone who hasn’t really looked for the judder, once you see it, you will always notice it unless you are caught up in the story. its always there, in Hollywood its just shot so well, you never notice it.


(I think that’s the most I’ve ever use the word “judder” before haha)

P.S. I too am currently working on a feature film that will be shooting with the JVC and this is being shot with a budget over $50,000 now... So if we are trusting that amount of money towards this camera, I think that can at least say something about the trust in this cameras ability to create a realistic film looking footage. And remember, just because you haven’t seen anything from this camera feature wise... its because features take a long time to make! I’m going to be in pre-production for the next 6-7 months before we start shooting... and then there’s editing, overdubs, scoring... we wont be done until around march 2007. It takes time, but they will be out there...

I'll takes Giuseppe's input just a bit further.

Take a look at TV. If you watch the Andy Griffith Show you'll see judder all over the place, particularly in Andy's house where there is almost always alot of camera motion across the rooms. You never notice it because the camera follows the actions of Andy, Barny, Aunt Bea and Opie. Take a look when you get a minute. Andy is probably playing right now (11 times per day in Chicago).

The HD-100 MUST be treated like a film camera (not a video camera).

All the best guys and Keep shooting!

Guys - some great examples.

You know, I never really got freaked out over the 'JVC judder' thing - but maybe that's 'cause I was taught film making on film, not video.

For the younger generation that's learned film making on 'pure' video cameras (ie - 60 fps interlaced) either at home or at school, I can totally see that when they're seeing their own images up close and personal (ie - hundreds of times as they edit, add titles/sfx, etc.) it would be pretty disconcerting to see what 24 fps really looks like.

I just wonder how/what the average joe watching at home or in the theatre percieves the judder effect - if at all. Perhaps it actually seems more film-like to a casual viewer....

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

this dude said he compared film to the JVC right?

Well perhaps the film may have looked slightly better because of the depth of field with film. If the background is out of focus due to depth of field then it will not strobe as much.

Perhaps he likes the 60i converted to 24p because the process softens the image and adds some level of motion blur.

Anyways one of my favorite shots from a big budget movie to point out to people that 24p film does the same thing is the shot in Fellowship of the Ring when the camera pans over the giant statues on the river. This shot strobes a lot.

this dude said he compared film to the JVC right?

Well perhaps the film may have looked slightly better because of the depth of field with film. If the background is out of focus due to depth of field then it will not strobe as much.

Perhaps he likes the 60i converted to 24p because the process softens the image and adds some level of motion blur.

Anyways one of my favorite shots from a big budget movie to point out to people that 24p film does the same thing is the shot in Fellowship of the Ring when the camera pans over the giant statues on the river. This shot strobes a lot.


Viewers who watch creative content don't see or care squat about this stuff.
Only slightly obsesessed film making geeks do <g>.

Viewers who watch creative content don't see or care squat about this stuff.
Only slightly obsesessed film making geeks do <g>.


Maybe they could care less how it's done, but most can tell it has a "creative" look to it. Sure, they may not understand the diffence between 60i and 24P, but they can see there's a difference.

Maybe they could care less how it's done, but most can tell it has a "creative" look to it. Sure, they may not understand the diffence between 60i and 24P, but they can see there's a difference.


No, no Steven, I'm not talking about the obvious distinction between "video' motion and film motion, I'm talking about the undue concern over panning and judder issues.
I was picking up on the LOTR point and suggesting that viewers were awed by the scene and it's place in the story and didn't care squat about strobing that might be apparent to a film maker.

My bad Jim...

I personally think it all comes down to this... The average audience watching a movie CAN tell the difference between something that’s in 24p properly and something that isn’t. The problem is, they don’t know what they are seeing different, or why its happening, they can just tell. The stutter look has been embedded in the way we see films from the time we see our first film when you were say 4-5 years old. When the stutter is not happening the right way, little bells and whistles go off saying, HEY this looks different from the countless other films I’ve seen in my life.

The best way I can say that the stutter helps is this: In the real world nothing stutters, we see everything kind of like 60i. When we go to a movie, its a whole different world, its a world created by writers, directors, camera men and so on. The look takes you into the mind set of "ok my mind is in movie mode, this story is going to take off now". So I know that was a bit off topic, but back to the point of the people not liking the full stutter... I think that the people who think there is too much stutter/judder/whatever you want to call it, is from the people who are so used to seeing things in the interlaced way, or maybe something that is shot on film, but not really being played back in a full progressive manner. It would throw you off giving that feeling of "hey something’s different here, I don’t know what, but it doesn’t look like what I’ve been looking at for a long time."

I think now in the age where little attention is paid to keeping the look of a film like it was originally shot (like people cropping wide screen to be 4:3, or footage not being truly progressive... and so on...) has taken its toll on peoples out look on what is the right amount of (fill in the blank). I think it all comes down to this... if you don’t like the look of it for your own personal taste, then don’t use it, but if you take the advice of people who wouldn’t lie about these things (this site is here to inform and help people with the knowledge of others) then you will be put on the right track advice wise.


"seeing is believing in the film world"

I would add that watching something with the film look creates nostalgic feelings to viewers and producers know that. The "Nostalgic look".
The young generation doesn't suffer from nostalgia, and they see that as a deffect. In Nature, you can see fast motion and slow motion, but you never see stutter. The film look is not natural.
But i'm a nostalgic guy..

I personally think it all comes down to this... The average audience watching a movie CAN tell the difference between something that’s in 24p properly and something that isn’t.

The best way I can say that the stutter helps is this: In the real world nothing stutters, we see everything kind of like 60i. When we go to a movie, its a whole different world, its a world created by writers, directors, camera men and so on. The look takes you into the mind set of "ok my mind is in movie mode, this story is going to take off now".

Two different points here.

Many people can see "strobing" (an eye tracking artifact) in a movie and they accept it as part of the movie, until as you say, it "looks wrong" because it hasn't been shot right. Which is why the advice to learn HOW to shoot 24p. Many others probably never see it no matter what.

IMHO it is not the "strobing" that makes the movie look, since unless there is excessive motion there is no strobing!

(I reserve the term "judder" for the 3:2 pulldown look of film on TV. That has nothing to with anything -- although it's interesting that most folks don't notice it.)

I would add that watching something with the film look creates nostalgic feelings to viewers and producers know that. The "Nostalgic look".
The young generation doesn't suffer from nostalgia, and they see that as a deffect. In Nature, you can see fast motion and slow motion, but you never see stutter. The film look is not natural.
But i'm a nostalgic guy..

It's not a generation thing, a lot of young film makers want to shoot progressive. The big selling point on the DVX 100 is the progressive feature.

A lot depends on what programmes you want to shoot: sport, soaps and news tend to be areas that are always shot interlace. Other types of programmes tend to have the option and these are the ones that de-interlacing have become popular in recent years, hence the demand for progressive cameras (or switchable between interlace and progressive).

Transmission will be another factor - is it being transmitted progressive or interlace.

Guys - some great examples.

You know, I never really got freaked out over the 'JVC judder' thing - but maybe that's 'cause I was taught film making on film, not video.

For the younger generation that's learned film making on 'pure' video cameras (ie - 60 fps interlaced) either at home or at school, I can totally see that when they're seeing their own images up close and personal (ie - hundreds of times as they edit, add titles/sfx, etc.) it would be pretty disconcerting to see what 24 fps really looks like.

Well, I don't know which generation I belong to, I just happened to learn film by cranking out a few miles of 35 mil per year at the film school. Now the "good old days" are gone, and I shoot 35 only in TV commercials - all the rest is done in S16 or SD video, and now I have to learn all the tricks of HDV.

It's a purely technical thing I can't get: Our entire worklow is based on 25 fps - it's a PAL country here. I've got native 25 fps, progressive footage from both sources, be it film or the HD100.

Theoretically, although the film stock is telecined to interlaced PAL, both fields contain the same information from the same film frame. That should be considered progressive image, shouldn't it?

Theoretically again, the JVC cam should produce the same 25 progressive frames per second, when shooting in 25/50.

Why then, when I play telecined footage from any kind of player on our CRT PAL studio monitor, the movement is fine, and strobing appears only in extremely fast pans - but when I try to play 720p footage from the BR-HD50 deck on the same CRT PAL, strobing looks unbearable?

About a month ago I tried to play some footage via the component outputs of the HD100 on a high-end Sony CRT HD monitor (can't remember the model), and the strobing was there. Perhaps I should go to the same studio again and make sure that the signal sent to the monitor is native 720p, and that the monitor has this as a native setting?

I watched some footage from the XL H1 on a LCD panel in a Canon promo boot recently as well - and the strobing of its "24f" mode was the same, if not stronger. Could this be a general issue of progressive video vs. film transfer, or just a bad choice of monitor/screen?

Any suggestions welcome,

Best to all:

Boris

Boris,

I think it's a perceptual issue. What is perceived as strobing has a lot to do with subject matter and contrast.

For instance, when I see people trying out a new video camera often they'll pick up the camera, hold it up in front of themselves, and then start panning around the room, sometimes with a few trombone zooms thrown in. I even see seasoned pros do this (with the DV-size cams).

The thing is though, that none of these people would actually use the camera in that manner. Most of the time, on a real shoot, the cam is on sticks, and the shot is going to be static or something close to it, and most importantly, you will have a subject the viewer is locked onto.

I think the the problem here is that you're just looking too close. I find that when I start looking into the details of a 24p or 30p moving image I see strobing all over the place...but if I relax and watch the image as a whole (as your audience will be doing), strobing goes away.

The only other things I can think of that might be altering your experience is:

1-Your camera shutter got bumped up to something higher than 1/60th inadvertantly

2-Something about your monitoring setup is not right.

Nate could the depth of field or high detail play a part on how it looks to Boris?

I don't have any 35mm film to check this out on but I recently read an article that talks about how depth of field helps a little bit to smooth the motion.

Could it also be detail? HD coming from video has a lot of sharpness and detail compared to a natural smooth look for film. Could this cause perhaps what Boris is seeing?

We all keep trying to explain to Boris that 24 is a good format but he knows that. He is trying to tell us he shot both 35mm film and 24p HDV and they look different to him.

All I can say is that it would be nice if Boris could post some short samples of the telecined and HDV video to show us what he is seeing.

Nate could the depth of field or high detail play a part on how it looks to Boris?

I don't have any 35mm film to check this out on but I recently read an article that talks about how depth of field helps a little bit to smooth the motion.

Could it also be detail? HD coming from video has a lot of sharpness and detail compared to a natural smooth look for film. Could this cause perhaps what Boris is seeing?

We all keep trying to explain to Boris that 24 is a good format but he knows that. He is trying to tell us he shot both 35mm film and 24p HDV and they look different to him.

All I can say is that it would be nice if Boris could post some short samples of the telecined and HDV video to show us what he is seeing.


I don't think there's any question that the DOF is a major factor.
Anyone who's produced in 35mm and in 16mm knows that the inherent DOF of 16mm (which is essentially the same as 1/3" HD) produces greater judder than 35mm.
The shallow DOF of 35mm creates a blur that essentially isolates the subject from the background judder.
With the background clearly defined and perhaps even more so if detail is high (which in my opinion is still anything beyond minimun to -3) and vertical objects and high contrast, you're simpy going to see judder unless you follow rules of panning for 24p.
And again, perhaps a bit more IMO because of higher detail and deep focus.

I hadn't considered that, but I think you're right, Jim.

I don't think there's any question that the DOF is a major factor.
Anyone who's produced in 35mm and in 16mm knows that the inherent DOF of 16mm (which is essentially the same as 1/3" HD) produces greater judder than 35mm.
The shallow DOF of 35mm creates a blur that essentially isolates the subject from the background judder.
With the background clearly defined and perhaps even more so if detail is high (which in my opinion is still anything beyond minimun to -3) and vertical objects and high contrast, you're simpy going to see judder unless you follow rules of panning for 24p.
And again, perhaps a bit more IMO because of higher detail and deep focus.

Jim, Nate,
I second that
As an example ... fast pans while following a fast moving subject ... are not nearly as Juddery because the panning speed effectively/visually blurrs the background Judder out (and in a sense shallows the depth of focus), while the subject is properly and clearly resolved
I's the medium speed pans that are killer ... same as shooting in 24p film, only apparently more so when shooting in 16mm or HD
sorry if my comments seem redundant ... another example of the need for practice and good shot planning when shooting 24p HD
just my 2cents
cheers