shutter speed

[Amos Kim]

Hey guys, what should the shutter speed be set at when shooting for the 24p film look? In the may 2006 DV magazine, adam wilt states that it should be set at 1/24 if you want to "see what you get". He mentions that another option is through motion smooting. What are your preferences and is it same with DV and HDV modes?

thanks

[Stephan Ahonen]

1/48 to simulate a 180 degree shutter.

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

You should use 24p 1/48th shutter speed...

1/24th will give you a very odd but usable look for effects, you cant actually have that in the real world of film, only in the digital world, but its cool.

if you are doing something like trying to capture something moving fast or something with detail like dust and dirt flying in the air, use a 1/100th shutter speed to capture the crispness. but you should use 1/48th for most everyday shooting.

[Keith Ward]

And most folks who've used it caution strongly against using motion smoothing. I haven't tried it, however, so I can't vouch for the advice; but definitely try it out before you use it.

[Amos Kim]

giuseppe, how would you describe 1/24 speed effect?

[Earl Thurston]

Another reason for using 1/24 is in low light situations with little movement. It will give you a full stop of extra exposure.

[Amos Kim]

Anybody have experience with motion smoothing?

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Amos Kim

giuseppe, how would you describe 1/24 speed effect?

1/24th shutter looks "streaky" like the digital taxi scenes in "Collateral" or every night scene in the new "Miami Vice." I guess Michael Mann just likes the video streak look? It also looks like they had the gain turned up for every digital scene in both films.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

1/24th shutter looks "streaky" like the digital taxi scenes in "Collateral" or every night scene in the new "Miami Vice." I guess Michael Mann just likes the video streak look? It also looks like they had the gain turned up for every digital scene in both films.

Tim, this is a great example of turning something that people would consider normally something to avoid into a new tool. I love this stuff :)

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Amos Kim

Anybody have experience with motion smoothing?

Yes -- it should be used when shooting scenes with lots of motion where one would like to be shooting 60p or 60i. It adds extra motion blur to help cover the strobbing that comes from the low temporal rate.

Do not use it in any other situations because the extra blur is not needed.

To some (Tim) the motion blur looks like streaking which he calls a negative. This is a subjective judgement, and I'd advise trying it out.

In fact, now that I think of it -- why does this question keep coming up?

Go to a busy intersection with cars speeding through and others slowing and turning. Shoot both modes and see for yourself.

[Tim Dashwood]

Steve,

Amos asked in his original question what shutter speed to use to achieve "24P film look." Those of us with a film background are simply answering the question, and the typical answer is 1/48th, or higher if you want less motion blur.

Aesthetically, any filmmaker (Michael Mann for example) can use any shutter speed they want to achieve the look they are going for. It won't be the traditional "film look" if you shoot at 1/24th or lower, but that is up to them.

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Yes -- it should be used when shooting scenes with lots of motion where one would like to be shooting 60p or 60i. It adds extra motion blur to help cover the strobbing that comes from the low temporal rate.

I don't want to rant, but since when has 24fps been considered a "low" temporal frame rate? Sure it is lower than 60fps, but it has been the industry standard since the late 1920's and I don't think any filmmaker has complained that the motion blur wasn't strong enough. Isn't the whole point of cameras like the DVX/HVX/XL2/HD100 to put 24fps tools in the hands of those who otherwise couldn't afford to shoot on film?

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

I don't want to rant, but since when has 24fps been considered a "low" temporal frame rate?

Since film is 24fps and video is 60i -- and now 60p -- it certainly seems reasonable to classify them as Low and High.

Moreover, there are serious limitations to 24fps which are not present at 60i or 60p. These limitations are why filmmakers have experimented with "higher" framerates.

Problems: The inherent motion blur from a handheld camera working at 24fps, causes a fine detail pixel to be spread amoungst several which means your new HD camera just became an SD camera. Motion is also far more realistic at 60i and 60p.

So yes -- 24fps is a "low" temporal frame rate. The fact that many like this look -- doesn't make it not "low."

And, by the way, as soon as the new JVC's arrive many of us will be shooting 60p. In fact, given the number of 50i/60i video shooters in the world, safe to say numerically more will be shooting 60p than 24p.

Perhaps, 24fps will go the way of 18fps once folks see HD at 60p. :)

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Motion is also far more realistic at 60i and 60p.

Perhaps, 24fps will go the way of 18fps once folks see HD at 60p. :)

Maybe, but 24P with its 'less real' motion is what movie goers have wanted for all these years over 60i tv which gives motion a more realistic look.

24P started as a tradeoff between acceptable illusion of motion and the cost of how many frames of film you wanted to pay for each second (They could always overcrank back then). It has become an 'aesthetic look' with its motion cadence that audiences like because they go to movies to escape reality for a couple hours.

But since my new camera can crank out 1080 60P (at lower resolution), I will have to watch some of it to see if I like it or just want to use it as most do, for smooth slo-mo effects.

Personally, I don't like shallow DOF. It is not 'realistic' either. Your eyes don't have natural shallow DOF because they instantly refocus to whatever you look at so you perceive deep DOF in real life. But filmmakers and still photographers all use it as an artistic tool.

In this day and age, 24P is just part of an artist's palette as is shallow DOF.

But hey, maybe a new generation will slowly embrace the realistic look of 60P and higher. Just need to wait for a few baby-boomers to keel over first cause they like their 24P.

-gb-

[Richard Hunter]

Hi Greg. I would agree with this one:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

In this day and age, 24P is just part of an artist's palette as is shallow DOF.

but not this one:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

Maybe, but 24P with its 'less real' motion is what movie goers have wanted for all these years over 60i tv which gives motion a more realistic look.

I don't think movie goers are the ones demanding 24p (or shallow depth of field), it is just what the people in the industry want to provide. Things will eventually change as technology moves on, tools are replaced, and, as you say, new generations embrace newer formats.

Richard

[Jonathan Nelson]

Originally Posted by Richard Hunter

Hi Greg. I would agree with this one:



but not this one:



I don't think movie goers are the ones demanding 24p (or shallow depth of field), it is just what the people in the industry want to provide. Things will eventually change as technology moves on, tools are replaced, and, as you say, new generations embrace newer formats.

Richard

So, movie goers don't really care about the timeless effect of 24p?

I am sure people will adjust to new formats but I just find it hard to believe that people are willing to drop 24p to some cheesy reality look.

Maybe I am just too old to accept this new generation stuff.