1/48 vs. 1/60th Shutter Speed

[Thomas Smet]

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.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

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.

[Nate Weaver]

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

[Peter Dolman]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

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