1/48 vs. 1/60th Shutter Speed

[Brian Luce]

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.

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

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...

[Stephen L. Noe]

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!

[John Vincent]

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

[Thomas Smet]

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.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

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>.

[Steven Thomas]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

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.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

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.

[Steven Thomas]

My bad Jim...

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

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"

[Chris Basmas]

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..

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Giuseppe Pugliese

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.)

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Chris Basmas

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.

[Boris Missirkov]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

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

[Nate Weaver]

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.