Motion Cadencemo

[Ed_David]

​OK guys, could someone explain to me why you're all loving this? I'm NOT trying to be snarky or contrarian...I really want to understand so I can improve my own work. I found Ed's video fuzzy and grainy (clearly done on purpose) and cut rapidly with no clear purpose that I could discern. Since it appealed to you guys, clearly I'm not getting it, so would appreciate if you could explain. From a fluidity of motion perspective (the focus of this thread), I can see it's pleasing. But I don't get the other basic stuff. E.g., are we still expected to add lots of grain and try to mimic film? I thought that was passe. Again, I'm really trying to get this.

​I agree completely with you .  I thought it looked terribly soft and just fuzzy and dumb and the editing was really short and weird - I couldn't figure out anything that was going on with it!  People have all lost their minds!

[Sekhar]

​I agree completely with you .  I thought it looked terribly soft and just fuzzy and dumb and the editing was really short and weird - I couldn't figure out anything that was going on with it!  People have all lost their minds!

​All right, now you're being snarky. But you didn't answer my question (I didn't expect you to though, I was addressing the folks who liked the piece).

[Oliver Daniel]

Not that I want to turn this topic into a linkdump version of 'look what my camera can do', but I feel like there is one camera that is very underestimated which is the Panasonic GH3.

The GH3 (and GH4) are great camera's in my opinion, but they have one major major flaw. When you use native M4/3 lenses you end up with an harsh, digital 'video like' image. Oversharpened, strange colors, 2,3x crop etc. All the character is taken out of the camera's 'soul' (sensor). My colleague shoots with a GH4 with the Lumix 12-35 f2.8 and I don't like the image out of that camera at all. However, the image out of my GH3 with adapted (Speed Boosted) lenses keeps impressing me, still after every shoot. I have no intention of upgrading to another camera just yet. Together with the amazing battery life (I use 2 batteries on a whole wedding day), small ready to edit files and 1080p 60fps I have not much to ask for besides a higher dynamic range.

Then, the topic is 'motion cadence'. And that's why I want to post a (real) short film that I shot with the GH3 a while ago. Don't get me wrong, a Black Magic global shutter looks better, but is this worse in your eyes than Canon or Nikon DSLR's? I don't see it.

 

​

Many lovely shots in this. 

I think exactly the same as you about Panasonic lenses. When considering the subject matter of this thread, they are bloody awful. Extremely clinical, soulless and way too sharp. Very electronic looking. 

I was shooting on the F55 again today. Global shutter. Never used a global shutter before. Saw the difference on some vehicle shots, the motion was looking nice and smooth. What differences does everybody think a global shutter gives to motion, besides no jello/smooth pans etc? 

[Ed_David]

​All right, now you're being snarky. But you didn't answer my question (I didn't expect you to though, I was addressing the folks who liked the piece).

You got me!

Adding film grain is to add texture and movement to the sequence of images in a frame.

what's ironic is that most film stocks have gotten cleaner - there is kodak 50D which is grainless pretty much - so film is moving away from grain, digital is moving towards grain.

not to mention all the diffusion and filters and specialty lenses to put on sharp sensors to soften them - to make faces look better.

I am glad you don't enjoy the look of the film - we all have our opinions and they are all important. my editing of the short fashion film is very quick and kinetic and not for everyone! 

[Sekhar]

You got me!

Adding film grain is to add texture and movement to the sequence of images in a frame.

what's ironic is that most film stocks have gotten cleaner - there is kodak 50D which is grainless pretty much - so film is moving away from grain, digital is moving towards grain.

not to mention all the diffusion and filters and specialty lenses to put on sharp sensors to soften them - to make faces look better.

I am glad you don't enjoy the look of the film - we all have our opinions and they are all important.

​Thanks. I just got NX1 and happened to immediately cover the MDA Muscle walk here in Los Angeles. I need to finish it this weekend and am looking at the post options. The footage (3840) is gorgeous and technically has very few flaws, and I cannot get myself to soften it or add grain to such clean images, but I will experiment. So far I was only considering grading options. Since it's doc work, I presume different choices apply anyway from narrative stuff? What would you recommend for doc finishing?

[Ed_David]

​Thanks. I just got NX1 and happened to immediately cover the MDA Muscle walk here in Los Angeles. I need to finish it this weekend and am looking at the post options. The footage (3840) is gorgeous and technically has very few flaws, and I cannot get myself to soften it or add grain to such clean images, but I will experiment. So far I was only considering grading options. Since it's doc work, I presume different choices apply anyway from narrative stuff? What would you recommend for doc finishing?

​I think what is important to be open to everything - and sometimes too sharp is not good either, nor is too soft - it really depends on the mood you are trying to set.

For doc, watch a bunch of docs and find ones that you respond to and move based on that.

My whole life I react the most to the look of film - the DP Lance Accord is one of my heroes - how he intellectualizes scenes and how he works with lighting and movement and his use of lenses and certain film stocks really inspired me.

And I just personally love the aethetic of film - I love grain and texture and all the color information of it all - but really it's up to you - there are no right answers. Trust your own instincts.

[fuzzynormal]

​OK guys, could someone explain to me why you're all loving this? I'm NOT trying to be snarky or contrarian...I really want to understand so I can improve my own work. I found Ed's video fuzzy and grainy (clearly done on purpose) and cut rapidly with no clear purpose that I could discern. Since it appealed to you guys, clearly I'm not getting it, so would appreciate if you could explain. From a fluidity of motion perspective (the focus of this thread), I can see it's pleasing. But I don't get the other basic stuff. E.g., are we still expected to add lots of grain and try to mimic film? I thought that was passe. Again, I'm really trying to get this.

Visual aesthetic.  Fashion.

That should be enough for explanation, right?

[Cinegain]

​OK guys, could someone explain to me why you're all loving this? I'm NOT trying to be snarky or contrarian...I really want to understand so I can improve my own work. I found Ed's video fuzzy and grainy (clearly done on purpose) and cut rapidly with no clear purpose that I could discern. Since it appealed to you guys, clearly I'm not getting it, so would appreciate if you could explain. From a fluidity of motion perspective (the focus of this thread), I can see it's pleasing. But I don't get the other basic stuff. E.g., are we still expected to add lots of grain and try to mimic film? I thought that was passe. Again, I'm really trying to get this.

​I love me some up-tempo pacing (I have the attention span of a 6-year-old), so I didn't mind it, really. Also, a lot of these cuts seemed motivated by the music. Now at first I was like: oh no, this is one of these pretentious hipster vids with random all-over-the-place stuff just for the sake of it. But then after a few seconds the track picked up. The fragment visuals led up to the establishing shot of the street. Then showing the girls having fun on their night out in the city, playing pool, singing, dancing, chatting, laughing. Just a good time.

Visually I just found it to have very pleasing colors and light. Very nice depth of field and softness, together with the motion and grain it felt very filmlike and organic. I absolutely adored the look in the screencap below. Very dreamy, nice silky milky blacks. Nice bokeh going on. If you don't get that. Well, I guess everyone's got different taste. Would be boring if we'd all be the same!

About the fuzz and cuts with no clear purpose... you could also interpret it as 'the next day's memory of last night'. When you were out the night before, the next day you probably remember bits and pieces, but not everything is quite as clear. So in a way, you could interpret the way the footage is being presented to us as not an in-the-moment documentation, but more of a dreamy memory flashing by before the viewer's eyes.

It was a fashion piece. I assume the bags were the actual main characters in this and incorporated in such way. Together with the bracelets they really stood out with their vibrant colors.

So, I think this approach has paid off quite nicely. It works for me atleast. It shows the power of the tools used and Ed's creative and artistic side to set a certain mood. Now, you might not want (and you shouldn't want) to go with this look for everything you shoot. But just as a camera is a tool, so are different grades, cuts and grains...

[Sekhar]

Wow, thanks Cinegain for that reasoned response. Much appreciated. I guess in the end this is art, and appeal will be subjective.

[Oliver Daniel]

Wow, thanks Cinegain for that reasoned response. Much appreciated. I guess in the end this is art, and appeal will be subjective.

​At university I did a filmmaking course. It was a crap course, but full of nice people.  On one particular piece we had to base a film on one of our favourite poems. We had a disabled student on our course - he was wheelchair bound and couldn't say a single sentence that made any remote sense, but he submitted a film and everyone watched. 

His film was handycam footage of some of the female students in his halls of residence drinking in the kitchen and chatting before a night on the town. Over the top of the footage he recorded a voiceover with his care worker, who was reading one of Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes (Hood and the Wolf). And that was it. 

The combination was completely random and didn't match at all. The filming quality was technically awful. The sound was too loud and distorted. Regardless, I thought it was brilliant. The beauty I saw in his film was that he actually made one. He got out any old camera, put it together and showed it to everyone on a big screen. Maybe it didn't make sense to us - but it may of made sense to him. Everyone was talking about it. Such the beauty of subjectiveness.

This film didn't have pleasing motion cadence. But it definitely pleased my heart. He succeeded. 

[Sekhar]

​At university I did a filmmaking course. It was a crap course, but full of nice people.  On one particular piece we had to base a film on one of our favourite poems. We had a disabled student on our course - he was wheelchair bound and couldn't say a single sentence that made any remote sense, but he submitted a film and everyone watched. 

His film was handycam footage of some of the female students in his halls of residence drinking in the kitchen and chatting before a night on the town. Over the top of the footage he recorded a voiceover with his care worker, who was reading one of Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes (Hood and the Wolf). And that was it. 

The combination was completely random and didn't match at all. The filming quality was technically awful. The sound was too loud and distorted. Regardless, I thought it was brilliant. The beauty I saw in his film was that he actually made one. He got out any old camera, put it together and showed it to everyone on a big screen. Maybe it didn't make sense to us - but it may of made sense to him. Everyone was talking about it. Such the beauty of subjectiveness.

This film didn't have pleasing motion cadence. But it definitely pleased my heart. He succeeded. 

​I see what you mean. But the problem is we tend to evaluate based not the merit of the film but on other confounding factors like biases, preferences, and expectations. In this case, seems like you would've liked pretty much anything he'd have produced, more because you sympathized with him and had very low expectations of him. Ask yourself: if you didn't know who made it and had to hire the person as the DP for your next big feature, would you have picked him? I'm guessing not.

Likewise with Ed's video IMO. I'm simplifying here, but Ed says he likes the film look, all its flaws included; so he's going to prefer anything that looks like film over anything that doesn't, ceteris paribus. And I presume he'd forgive/overlook other flaws if a piece looks all the filmic qualities, I'd think. Probably Cinegain also likes the film look and he was willing to take the effort to find a pattern and meaning in the rapid cutting. Nothing wrong, but my point is the whole thing is subjective.

I think at least some of the positive responses here of Ed's video are colored by their knowledge and respect of Ed for his skills. Like very few will admit they hated 2001: A Space Odyssey, even if they did. Say you found Ed's video at random without knowing who shot it and there were NO GORGEOUS MODELS in it, but just some average looking guys. Would you have had the same positive feelings about it? If yes, your reaction is a genuine appreciation of the core skills; if not, you're letting your biases take over.

[Ed_David]

​I see what you mean. But the problem is we tend to evaluate based not the merit of the film but on other confounding factors like biases, preferences, and expectations. In this case, seems like you would've liked pretty much anything he'd have produced, more because you sympathized with him and had very low expectations of him. Ask yourself: if you didn't know who made it and had to hire the person as the DP for your next big feature, would you have picked him? I'm guessing not.

Likewise with Ed's video IMO. I'm simplifying here, but Ed says he likes the film look, all its flaws included; so he's going to prefer anything that looks like film over anything that doesn't, ceteris paribus. And I presume he'd forgive/overlook other flaws if a piece looks all the filmic qualities, I'd think. Probably Cinegain also likes the film look and he was willing to take the effort to find a pattern and meaning in the rapid cutting. Nothing wrong, but my point is the whole thing is subjective.

I think at least some of the positive responses here of Ed's video are colored by their knowledge and respect of Ed for his skills. Like very few will admit they hated 2001: A Space Odyssey, even if they did. Say you found Ed's video at random without knowing who shot it and there were NO GORGEOUS MODELS in it, but just some average looking guys. Would you have had the same positive feelings about it? If yes, your reaction is a genuine appreciation of the core skills; if not, you're letting your biases take over.

​Honestly Sekhar, I'm happy you don't like the look of the film - don't be worried or feel left out - it's okay - man - it actually is good for me to then have to figure out if I do like it myself and why.  It's called constructive criticism and yes I was defensive and still is (I'm a super emotional artist like most of you on this board) but it's useful for this to have as a spring board and discussion for anyone's work.

Once one just surronds oneself with yesmen and yeswomen, one can't really move forward as much - one's ego takes over.

Hence, Martin Scorses or George Lucas - their best work was early in their career when they had to prove who they were.

[Cinegain]

​I see what you mean. But the problem is we tend to evaluate based not the merit of the film but on other confounding factors like biases, preferences, and expectations. In this case, seems like you would've liked pretty much anything he'd have produced, more because you sympathized with him and had very low expectations of him. Ask yourself: if you didn't know who made it and had to hire the person as the DP for your next big feature, would you have picked him? I'm guessing not.

Likewise with Ed's video IMO. I'm simplifying here, but Ed says he likes the film look, all its flaws included; so he's going to prefer anything that looks like film over anything that doesn't, ceteris paribus. And I presume he'd forgive/overlook other flaws if a piece looks all the filmic qualities, I'd think. Probably Cinegain also likes the film look and he was willing to take the effort to find a pattern and meaning in the rapid cutting. Nothing wrong, but my point is the whole thing is subjective.

I think at least some of the positive responses here of Ed's video are colored by their knowledge and respect of Ed for his skills. Like very few will admit they hated 2001: A Space Odyssey, even if they did. Say you found Ed's video at random without knowing who shot it and there were NO GORGEOUS MODELS in it, but just some average looking guys. Would you have had the same positive feelings about it? If yes, your reaction is a genuine appreciation of the core skills; if not, you're letting your biases take over.

​I agree with your first paragraph. Once a while my tv happens to end up with a talent show on there... and you hear the saddest sob stories. They don't have any outstanding talents. But hey, you're supposed to feel for them, so go on and like it anyways. And tons of people fall for it. They eat it like pancakes with strawberry and whipped cream. I can't stand that sorta thing. I mean, I'm sorry for so and so, but come on, you've got a mediocre amount of talent, if any, and I'm afraid a sad backstory isn't going to push that to the next level.

I do have to say, on the other hand. Something can be completely random and technically imperfect as can be, and still work. It's just a matter of random puzzle pieces from different puzzles just so happen to come together and create an new image that actually kinda makes sense and/or is beautiful. But you're right, then it has to be work on it's own. It doesn't matter who puts the pieces together. If they don't manage to create something stunning, it's game over for me, no matter who you are.

The same way I wouldn't just like Ed's stuff, for the sake of him being a fellow forum member and a pretty well established cinematographer. I'm not on the same page as Ed on a lot of things he says or does, but that's okay, we're all different. I wouldn't just go and roast someone's work if they didn't ask for an honest opinion, but if they are asking, I will tell them in all honestly that it just doesn't work for me, explain them why and what could've been done to make me feel otherwise about it. If I do like what you did, I will applaud you for it! So if it's about 'say you found Ed's video at random without knowing who shot it', well... I would still have liked it as much as I did. I'm not sure how it would've worked with 'average looking guys', because it would require a completely different video altogether. You can't just change an element, a piece of the puzzle, and claim it's the same as before, therefor works as it did before.

Btw, it's not only about forgiving/overlooking flaws that's inherent to the old days of film, it's actually embracing it or even going further and looking for it specifically! That is why I like vintage lenses so much. If you want the most clinical clean image, that's fine, but that might not work for all your projects since 'politically correct lenses' kind of lack a bit of 'soul'. Old lenses are often lacking multi coatings and hence flare quite a bit. Some really are able to render a background out of focus in a trully elegant way, as if it were painted. Contrast and sharpness are something else. So much character... so much 'soul'. Now, you might think: 'ah, you're going for vintage glass because it's cheap and just accept to live with the flaws'. Au contraire! People actually pay top dollah to get glass with these 'flaws'! It's a matter of stylic choice. The final work is a certain vision (which you might not get, but it nontheless is someone's!). Someone's vision might require vintage glass. Maybe someone else's vision (or your own vision on another project) requires a modern lens. Take the tools you have availlable to you and put it together as to make it work for your project. Put the right pieces of the puzzle together. Sometimes that includes not shooting stuff locked down on a tripod, but going handheld. That might include a certain audio track you envisioned for the piece; that might included adding grain, visual effects and jumpy cuts to your project. The one project is not the next. Sure you can have a certain recognizeable signature style throughout your work. But you will evolve, try different things and change things up... because everyday is a new one and every projects include other people and other situations. Go on the streets and shoot something today. Now go on the street next month and shoot the same thing. It will not be identical (two moments are never identical to begin with, so one piece is even timing if a thing works or not).

And in the end, even if the puzzle pieces do make something great. Not everyone will see it. I guess it's kinda like the next video:

You might see trash. I see art that I quite like. I don't know the guy who made that. I wouldn't have come up with that or done it myself. But I like what he did there. It works on it's own without knowing who made it and a lot of people agree. That doesn't mean that you have to agree though. There's no right or wrong when doing something creative/subjective. Although in some cases, some things are more wrong than right (but then the room probably isn't really devided on that and all draw that same conclusion).

[Oliver Daniel]

​I see what you mean. But the problem is we tend to evaluate based not the merit of the film but on other confounding factors like biases, preferences, and expectations. In this case, seems like you would've liked pretty much anything he'd have produced, more because you sympathized with him and had very low expectations of him. Ask yourself: if you didn't know who made it and had to hire the person as the DP for your next big feature, would you have picked him? I'm guessing not.

 

​Absolutely. But in the conditions this was a student screening, and expectations are not on a professional level at all. It wasn't a sob story - this guy who can barely do or say anything at all made a film. I loved how random it was. Although it was terrible - I enjoyed it. 

Anyway, this topic is going off on a weird tangent... I have no idea how to get it back on topic. I think I'm all motion cadenced out!

 

[Ed_David]

Tangents are always more interesting sometimes than where it begins. Thats why i love essays that go somewhere different by the end.

[mercer]

I thought Ed's video looked great. I wasn't fond of the music choice, with the imagery, but that style is very en vogue right now so I get it. However, I do wonder how this video would play with different music. I would love to see if laying Carmina Burana or some strange Omen choral music over top of the track would give a more debauchery feel to the "fun" images. 

[Oliver Daniel]

Tangents are always more interesting sometimes than where it begins. Thats why i love essays that go somewhere different by the end.

​

I agree. It's a bit like getting lost on Wikipedia - one minute your searching for chromatic aberration and somehow you end up on the history of demonology. 

 

[Jonesy Jones]

Got a question for Oliver, or anyone I guess, about the look and feel of the motion on the new URSA footage on Blackmagic's website (I'm referring to the video released at NAB this year). How do you guys feel about that motion? Much of that video was shot at higher frame rates, so I assume without global shutter. That may not matter but it might be relevant. 

[Neumann Films]

I agree on the GH4, it's one of the first things I noticed with that camera and it was a pretty big turn off.

RED is middle of the road.  It's better than a lot of cameras but it still looks...not 100% right.  

In my personal experience the Alexa has the best.  I haven't used a Bolex so I can't say for sure.  

From this site I liked the footage from the Kine 6K camera as well.

[Ed_David]

Here's something I shot on the red one mx - it seems to have a better motion feel to it than the dragon or red epic - I don't know why and I can't verify this - but something about it feels better.  Still it feels really nice - the red one mx.

I'm testing Red One MX vs F35 vs Digital Bolex on Thursday.  testing motion, grading, skin tones, etc etc.