What affects a camera's "motion cadence"?

[Ed_David]

3 hours ago, Laurier said:

My guess it s it have to do with how the electronic curtain sync operate , the rolling shutter and the encoding.

It s a subjective observation but for example the motion blur on blackmagic camera is much more ...somewhat contrasted and apparent, whereas on sony/panasonic mirrrorless it s less visible.In camera noise reduction also remove some of the motion blur smoothness making it more hard and less pleasing.

But the motion perception is affected by your stabilization and your focal as well, I guess hand holding a tele lense on a alexa or a red epic won t look very nice if you compare it to a 35mm on a7r2 on a gimbals.

This sounds like a really good understanding of it.

Yes, in particular the GH5 looks like it definitely adds in-camera noise reduction.  Gives it a plastic-y feeling to the midtones and highlights.  As if using neatvideo on the footage a little too agressively.

Interesting observation about motion blur and Blackmagic.

Also I found shooting 185 degree shutter on the ursa mini 4.6k makes the motion feel more like an alexa.

 

[mercer]

4 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

Also I found shooting 185 degree shutter on the ursa mini 4.6k makes the motion feel more like an alexa.

Interesting... those 5 extra degrees made a difference? Did you test that on the Micro, when you had it, with similar results?

[Ed_David]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Interesting... those 5 extra degrees made a difference? Did you test that on the Micro, when you had it, with similar results?

Micro's motion felt good at 180 shutter.

Yes, on Ursa, I found 190 degree shutter was too blurry, 180 was too choppy and 185 was just right for me.

[tugela]

18 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

 My understanding of what JCS is saying is that all film, even modern, is not as precise as digital. In other words, film is mechanical, not electronic, and therefore there are some extremely subtle variances to the way it records.  These variances could be both temporal and positional. Unlike digital which will be perfect.  I don't think we're talking about massive skipping and stuttering, I think we're talking about nearly imperceptible flaws that make a film feel alive the way digital, video, often does not. 

You mean makes film look not alive, as in unnatural. Alive is how we see the world, and there is no stuttering, micro or otherwise, in real life.

This is the same argument people make about vinyl, where imperfections create a different flawed sound that does not reproduce a real performance. People think it is "better", but really it is just an affection for a past era using the Luddite assumption that things were better in the old days.

5 hours ago, mercer said:

Interesting... those 5 extra degrees made a difference? Did you test that on the Micro, when you had it, with similar results?

I strongly doubt that anyone would be able to tell the difference with such a small change in shutter speed.. 

[Kisaha]

As humans are imperfect beings, total and absolute digital things do not cope well with our limitations.

@tugela vinyl in the perfect situation (very good turntable, amp, speakers, the print of the vinyl itself, etc) is a better reproduction of an analog recording than digital (e.g cd). It is not such a simple matter, and has to do a lot about physics, and CD ain't a great performer, never was, never will be. A high bit rate digital file can be much better, but still that depends on myriads of uncertainties (recording of music, distribution etc)

[kidzrevil]

In my experience the major factor of motion cadence is in camera sharpening. The in camera sharpness algorithim is always looking for high contrast edges to accentuate to increase the perceived resolution. This edge detection and enhancement creates a "flickering" edge effect + judder when things are moving horizontally across the screen. Light grades of diffusion help me get better motion cadence out of my footage because the diffusion softens the transition in high contrast areas thus decreasing the judder effect and improving the motion cadence. I do not believe all i improves motion it just reduces some of the artifacts ipb frame prediction can create

[IronFilm]

On 9/22/2017 at 7:53 AM, cantsin said:

"Motion cadence" is a term that only exists in camera forum discussion threads - it's neither a technical, nor a scientific term.

And only in the smallest of smallest nichey niche camera forum discussion threads. 

On 9/22/2017 at 8:04 AM, jcs said:

It would appear the primary factor in motion cadence would be the clock / sampling interval. If the sampling interval is perfect, e.g. each frame sampled at very close to 1s/23.976, that will have different a perception vs. a system with temporal jitter. It would seem film would have some temporal jitter, vs. a digital system would could be a lot more precise. The question is what 'looks better' and if temporal jitter is helpful, how would a digital camera implement it? (statistical sampling: average interval, variance, magnitude etc.). Likewise, if temporal jitter is pleasing, why aren't there post tools which specifically address this? (I've seen film effects which 'damage' footage, however nothing so far that subtly creates temporal jitter based on specific camera systems in the same way e.g. Film Convert works for color/grain).

With a precise motion pattern, cameras could be measured for temporal jitter / motion cadence (it would appear that cameras with genlocks could be jittered live).

So by this logic, we should only buy cameras which have genlock? 

Edit:  no wait, I read too hasty! You do NOT want cameras with genlock used?? :-/ 

[jcs]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

So by this logic, we should only buy cameras which have genlock? 

Edit:  no wait, I read too hasty! You do NOT want cameras with genlock used?? :-/ 

Yes! Maybe ?