Motion Cadencemo

[Oliver Daniel]

Is it a bad or cheap thing if you see details in motion or panning without stuttering or blurring. It was impossible with 24P film but now with 60P and powerful cameras it is possible. I think that 24P film look is now just one art style of film making like pointillism or impressionism in painting world. Why so many are afraid of added realism in moving pictures? Is the 24P fairy tale look all there is in film world?

​

You only have to look at The Hobbit in 48fps to answer this question. The added realism introduced by a higher frame rate really didn't work. At all. The suspension of disbelief was destroyed... the magic of 24p makes it more fantastical to the point you are immersed and believe it. With faster motion, you are looking at the actors thinking they all look ridiculous talking nonsense about powerful rings in someone's posh back garden. 

This is also the issue with the modern TVs, they make the motion look faster. I'm watching the Walking dead and the "added realism" of the faster motion just gives me the impression that someone is messing around with a home movie camera and dressing up like zombies just for a laugh. Switch this back to normal motion, and you are immersed within seconds. 

[Andrew Reid]

I also have found that movement looks a little off sometimes in my footage from the gh4. It almost looks like they are moving too fast even at 180 degree shutter. I dont use any modern lenses though and it doesn't always look as obvious as other times. maybe shooting at a little bit slower of a shutter speed could falsely correct this? maybe blurring the motion a small enough amount to make it seem like its smoother. Idk

​Could it be that your display ruins the motion candace of the camera rather than it being a GH4 issue?

Clearly CCD and global shutter help.

But the display has a lot to do with it.

For example if you leave your Mac or PC to scale the 4K to fit a QHD or 1080p monitor, that's going to introduce detail fatigue for your eyes and chance motion cadence.

[Oliver Daniel]

I asked someone to fetch me the FS7 for tomorrows music video shoot, and they came back with the F55 (no FS7s available, but got it same price!).

Global shutter then. Will be interesting to compare the "motion cadence" to the FS7 footage I have. 

[Liam]

@cantsin - exactly. Though, don't the canon cinema line not have "true 24p"? Since it's a 60fps sensor and just sort of skips frames and holds others to look basically right? Like if you tried to export something shot in 30p to a 24p file, that's what I'm thinking most are saying this magic is, but yeah most cameras should handle that fine. If people are saying the c300 has good motion candence, then i don't understand this topic. Of course rolling shutter and shutter speed are going to affect the motion. And of course your tv trying to smooth everything out is gonna blow chunks

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I don't like the magic/voodoo approach to images. Let's break it down to technicalities. 

What is it that affects motion in a motion picture capturing system? 

-The number of frames takes every second (frame rate)

-How long each frame is exposed (shutter angle) 

-Shutter design (rolling/global)

-Motion-based compression codecs. 

-The TV/viewing settings 

That's it. 

Since all cameras share the ability to match shutter speed, frame rate, then these two are eliminated as the cause. 

However these are not shared among cameras: 

1-Shutter design: so rolling shutter is a huge factor here, and remember it'a not just the presence/lackofit but the amount of rolling shutter skeweing. 

another point, film actually had a rolling shutter artefacts, something most people who haven't shot film seem to forget, it was not a global shutter where all the film is exposed at the same exact point, it had a rolling shutter equivalent to somewhere aroung 5-6ms. The Alexa has a rolling shutter amount close to that, and the C300ii as specs say, and strangely, the Samsung nx1 in 1080p mode. These cameras should resemble film rolling shutter effect as much as possible, but of course most cameras with rolling shutter have significantly worse than 5ms, so a global shutter is closer to film than most rolling shutter cameras. 

2-Motion-based codecs

This might be a very important factor here, most AVCHD and H.264 codecs actually compress frames by guessing many frames from one, which on many (most) cameras introduces motion artefacts, these artefacts appear as blurring and pixelation of moving pixels in the frame-to-frame basis, and it only appears when you analyze frames carefully and is invisible at normal viewing speed, I think this is the most important element in cameras having bad motion cadence people see. Closest to film should be RAW, where there is no compression at all. But  codecs that don't compress based on motion (only compress colour, so a different subject and doesn't affect motion) like All-I codecs that compress each frame individually should emulate film too, especially ones with high bit rates like ProRes HQ and DNxHD. 

3-Vieweing settings 

You might export your final video in a codec that does bad motion compression, or render at a different frame rate introducing ghosting or unwanted artefacts, in fact also the Website you upload to might compress your video in a motion-based codec that introduces artefacts. The viewer might view the footage at a different frame rate, at a different speed all together, might have ''image enhancing'' features turned on, he might have sharpness turned up beyond normal limits, etc. So this is a VERY important factor, buy sadly is beyond our capability to correct as filmmakers, so let's just focus on getting our end correct (frame rate, shutter speed, shutter design, and codec)

So they are 5 factors thats I can think of. Anyone have more?

[Ed_David]

yes how light is captured - with film - and mechanical shutters vs a computer algorithm that comes from digital - also how film is transferred to digital in a telecine

also how film grain affects sharpness and motion. naturally or added in post

speaking of magic - can you tell in the still world what photographs are shot on film and what are shot digitally now?  

Geoff Boyle from CML has a new article about sharpness control that also affects motion.  

very well worth a read - http://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/texture-of-the-digital-image.html

[AaronChicago]

 

2-Motion-based codecs

This might be a very important factor here, most AVCHD and H.264 codecs actually compress frames by guessing many frames from one, which on many (most) cameras introduces motion artefacts, these artefacts appear as blurring and pixelation of moving pixels in the frame-to-frame basis, and it only appears when you analyze frames carefully and is invisible at normal viewing speed, I think this is the most important element in cameras having bad motion cadence people see. Closest to film should be RAW, where there is no compression at all. But  codecs that don't compress based on motion (only compress colour, so a different subject and doesn't affect motion) like All-I codecs that compress each frame individually should emulate film too, especially ones with high bit rates like ProRes HQ and DNxHD. 

​I suspect this is the main culprit.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

​I suspect this is the main culprit.

​me too! Codecs and bad viewing settings.

[Mattias Burling]

If it was the codec, compression and display the motion from a global shutter shouldn't look better than a rolling on youtube. Which it imo absolutely does.

Same with CCD vs CMOS. 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Yes of course the shutter design (Global vs rolling) is a factor of the five mentioned above, 

[AaronChicago]

If it was the codec, compression and display the motion from a global shutter shouldn't look better than a rolling on youtube. Which it imo absolutely does.

Same with CCD vs CMOS. 

​It's possible that a few of us are talking about different things. CCD vs CMOS is pretty easy to identify in my opinion, with jello, slanting, etc. When I think of motion cadence it is more of how each frame is connected.

[Mattias Burling]

CCD vs CMOS and jello isn't really connected. 

A CCD can have a Rolling Shutter with jello and a CMOS can have a Global Shutter without it.

[j.f.r.]

Use very old soft lens and 1/25 shutter speed and avoid any fast subject or camera movement. Then you get pleasing motion. If you see any disturbing detail you can blur in post more.

​

 

DB16 has a global shutter that obviously looks amazing, problem is that camera can't even shoot past iso 800........

Now regarding the Sony A7s There is simply no camera in the world (that I know of) that can outperform it in low light, not even close..... Also if you want more blur I agree to lower your shutter to 25-30 range as shown in this video which looks simply amazing. 

 

 

 

[Mattias Burling]

Me personally, I rather have all the perks of the bmpc/D16 and light than all the imo downsides of the A7s with good lowlight. 

[Vesku]

Also if you want more blur I agree to lower your shutter to 25-30 range as shown in this video which looks simply amazing. 

 

 

 

​

Looks like old mans dream with darkened and bad eyes and obviously he has forgot his glasses somewhere. 

I was joking when I suggested 1/25s SS and more blur. 

In fact I want sharp motion and clear videos so that I can have the same illusion like watching with my own eyes. Pans and camera movement should be sharp and clear and fluid. I want "being there" effect more than "dreaming of being there". I think that dreamy and blurred motion can be done with 60P too but without 24P stuttering.

Now when all cinema theaters has video projectors and people watch their digital devices it is time to go towards more natural moving images. 24P look should be one of the special effects like black and white or slow motion in the future. It could be like a style of "flashbacks" or memories from the previous decade or when telling a story of someone seeing a dream. Some fight scenes can have extra danger feel with stuttering look.

[hmcindie]

CCD vs CMOS and jello isn't really connected. 

A CCD can have a Rolling Shutter with jello and a CMOS can have a Global Shutter without it.

99% of CMOS based cameras are rolling shutter variants.

And 99% of CCD cameras are global. So yeah, there's pretty much a connection there. It costs more to make CMOS sensors with Global Shutter. That number may start to change as there are now two mass market cameras with electronic global shutter CMOS sensors (blackmagic production cam / sony f55)

[Mattias Burling]

99% of CMOS based cameras are rolling shutter variants.

And 99% of CCD cameras are global. So yeah, there's pretty much a connection there. It costs more to make CMOS sensors with Global Shutter. That number may start to change as there are now two mass market cameras with electronic global shutter CMOS sensors (blackmagic production cam / sony f55)

Saying that a camera has jello because it has a CMOS sensor is simply false. It's not true. 

 

[AaronChicago]

CCD vs CMOS and jello isn't really connected. 

A CCD can have a Rolling Shutter with jello and a CMOS can have a Global Shutter without it.

​My point was that rolling shutter and global are a different kind of motion that is easier to spot, in my opinion. I think anyone would prefer the look of global over rolling, in the context of motion.

[j.f.r.]

​

Looks like old mans dream with darkened and bad eyes and obviously he has forgot his glasses somewhere. 

I was joking when I suggested 1/25s SS and more blur. 

In fact I want sharp motion and clear videos so that I can have the same illusion like watching with my own eyes. Pans and camera movement should be sharp and clear and fluid. I want "being there" effect more than "dreaming of being there". I think that dreamy and blurred motion can be done with 60P too but without 24P stuttering.

Now when all cinema theaters has video projectors and people watch their digital devices it is time to go towards more natural moving images. 24P look should be one of the special effects like black and white or slow motion in the future. It could be like a style of "flashbacks" or memories from the previous decade or when telling a story of someone seeing a dream. Some fight scenes can have extra danger feel with stuttering look.

​Simple, you want a GH4....... or any "video camera" myself personally I prefer a much more "artistic" view. Also that video I posted was shot at night and no other camera in the world could have done that, as has been noted by several users around the world. 60p will never be the normal for movies as 24fps has been established and too many agree on the look.

 

60p or any other fumarate really above 24 gives it that "live" look that people will never associate with film. Sure for broadcast tv it works perfect, but film is best in 24p. That "Dream" look is what interests us so much.......

[Vesku]

Lets see how many shoot 24P after 5 years.

There is no such thing as film today. Why try to imitate old look with new tools? Okay 60P ecosystem is just coming in fullhd and not reality in 4k but 30P is still available everywhere.

Is there anyone who shoots nature movies or documentaries or sports films? Are you all shooting fiction movies with dreamy look and shallow DOF? How about recording memories or everyday life? Does perfect, sharp and fluid motion has actually the best cadence?

What is the difference of broadcast TV and film today. People watch everything with everything. We watch TV programs with computers and smartphones and movies with TV. Why a look which blurs the movie and adds stuttering artefacts or faults to moving parts of video is more "cool" than clear and sharp video. Even as a child I always wondered why the movie looks bad every time the camera pans or someone moves. I never learned to love those faults. Is there any value when all the landscape detail disappear when turning camera? Why not add some scratches and jittering film projector vibration and film noise too (in fact some are doing that).