The way movement looks in Film vs Digital

[Thomas Church]

As digital seems to be finally surpassing 35mm film in terms of resolution, DR, etc, there's one last aspect about film that I still "feel" is superior. (by feel I mean it's not a scientific fact, but a matter of taste)

There is something about the "movement" in digital capture that still doesn't please me very much in relation to film. Even in the EPIC footage I've been seeing.

If it's a perfectly still shot with nothing moving, often times I won't be able to tell if it was shot on film or not.

But as soon as a person enters the shot walking, moving their arms, etc, there is something about the way the movement is captured that's different.

It sort of breaks that "dreamy" (for the lack of a better term) look the movement in Film feels. It looks too real, too close too the real world, I guess.

I'm not sure what the explanation for this would be, if you're shoot with the same shutter, etc, as a film camera.

Anyone else feels this?

 

[George Butterfield]

There is something about the "movement" in digital capture that still doesn't please me very much in relation to film. Even in the EPIC footage I've been seeing.

If it's a perfectly still shot with nothing moving, often times I won't be able to tell if it was shot on film or not.

But as soon as a person enters the shot walking, moving their arms, etc, there is something about the way the movement is captured that's different.


I'm not sure what the explanation for this would be,

Anyone else feels this?

Are you saying that if I shot the same scene of people walking, with an Epic and with film, you could tell which was which? Of course you would have a 50/50 chance of being correct so we would have to do the test with, lets's say, ten trials. Could you tell whether an analogue timepiece was filmed by Epic or film. Maybe you don't know yourself, maybe you've never tested your belief. If you can't articulate what the difference is, maybe you don't really perceive a difference. Put it into words. What is the difference?

 

[mike ogden]

Motion blur? I think I know what you mean. I can see the difference every time, but then I've been working in the industry for some 20+ years so I have an advantage. I doubt audiences can, which producers rely on. Or can they?

20,000 words on my desk by this friday.

 

[David Rasberry]

With a mechanical shutter there is a slight refraction of light along the leading edge as it reveals a frame. There is also a slight time smeared response as the film reacts chemically to the light. Neither are directly observable but might contribute to that different sense of motion.

To me digital has its own aesthetic properties. I don't expect it to ever look exactly like film, nor does it need to. Epic is going to allow a range of asethetic expression that film can't easily match.

 

[Stefan Antonescu]

As digital seems to be finally surpassing 35mm film in terms of resolution, DR, etc, there's one last aspect about film that I still "feel" is superior. (by feel I mean it's not a scientific fact, but a matter of taste)

There is something about the "movement" in digital capture that still doesn't please me very much in relation to film. Even in the EPIC footage I've been seeing.

If it's a perfectly still shot with nothing moving, often times I won't be able to tell if it was shot on film or not.

But as soon as a person enters the shot walking, moving their arms, etc, there is something about the way the movement is captured that's different.

It sort of breaks that "dreamy" (for the lack of a better term) look the movement in Film feels. It looks too real, too close too the real world, I guess.

I'm not sure what the explanation for this would be, if you're shoot with the same shutter, etc, as a film camera.

Anyone else feels this?

I think you are referring to grain, strobing and motion blur...

 

[Julio Quintana]

I know what you mean as I have often felt that way with specific shots. I just watched "Tattoo" posted on the recon thread, and although the image quality was fantastic and the lighting was incredible, there's something intangible that makes it different from say, "Memoirs of a Geisha" or "In the Mood for Love".

For me this reinforces what many have been advocating which is the use of softer glass on RED's ultra sharp sensors. There tends to be an overemphasis on sharpness in this forum, but for me a clean image is not ideal for every story. Check out "Saving Private Ryan" on Blu Ray, and it's instantly clear that the image isn't sharp at all, but the stripped, vintage lenses create a texture and feel that is perfect for the story.

 

[Rohan B]

Its all in the mind. Three things define motion, no.1-frame rate,no.2-whether the frames are progressive or interlaced,no.3-shutter angle....
If you are shooting at 23.976 progressive frames per second and at 180 degree shutter angle,you will exactly get the same kind of motion the you see in film,as far as motion is concerned what we may call cinematic motion,of course that is just a part of creating a cinematic look. No offense but i am actually quite good in spotting different motion characteristics and i havent been able to find any difference as far as motion is concerned in red footages from the properly or should i say disciplined way shot movies or traditional ways. I THINK ITS ALL IN THE MIND,as i said...........

 

[Rohan B]

I think its actually the feel that is not completely filmic,but hey,even kodak vision 3 has a different feel from fuji eterna, and i think that digital emulsion can look cinematic and provide rich images in its own way without feeling completely filmic. After all its the cinematic look that we all love,we confuse it with filmic look because so far film was the only format which was able to provide it,now digital emulsion can also provide it,cinematic look is basically the most technically superior look(highest dynamic range,latitude,sensitivity,resolution,color reproduction and color depth etc.),and if a camera has it and is shot at 23.976 progressive frames per second at 180 degree shutter it will have the same characteristics and that cinematic look and motion that we are so used to,but yeah at same time feeling a little different and not completely "filmic" and having its own unique characteristics and look.......

 

[Julio Quintana]

I think its actually the feel that is not completely filmic,but hey,even kodak vision 3 has a different feel from fuji eterna, and i think that digital emulsion can look cinematic and provide rich images in its own way without feeling completely filmic. After all its the cinematic look that we all love,we confuse it with filmic look because so far film was the only format which was able to provide it,now digital emulsion can also provide it,cinematic look is basically the most technically superior look(highest dynamic range,latitude,sensitivity,resolution,color reproduction and color depth etc.),and if a camera has it and is shot at 23.976 progressive frames per second at 180 degree shutter it will have the same characteristics and that cinematic look and motion that we are so used to,but yeah at same time feeling a little different and not completely "filmic" and having its own unique characteristics and look.......

I think you might be right about the motion. Assuming a 180 degree shutter at 24fps, it's probably the same. I think the difference is in the extreme "cleanliness" of the RED-MX image.

 

[Thomas Church]

I agree that the cleanliness of the image takes a part, but the "illusion that it's film" to me is only truly broken when there is any kind of great movement onscreen.

I'm not saying it looks like Michael Mann, but it looks a tiny bit like television, I don't know.

I can certainly understand and I agree that digital doesn't have to look exactly like film, but to me it's nice knowing there is a way to make it so.

In terms of the sharpness, judging from the pictures I've seen, as soon as I get my EPIC-S I'm going to do a lot of tests in post with grain and diffusion. I don't particularly dig the ultra-sharp, ultra-detailed image.

But of course, it's nice knowing all that information is there, should you need it.

 

[Jake Bastian]

It looks too real, too close too the real world, I guess.

I'm not sure what the explanation for this would be, if you're shoot with the same shutter, etc, as a film camera.

Anyone else feels this?

This reminds me of the stories you hear of people watching "The Great Train Robbery" for the first time feeling that the train was going to come through the screen, or that they would actually be shot by the gun fired at camera. I don't see "too real" as being a bad thing.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

there is def a RED look... it can be easy to see if not processed in a way to mute that look

 

[Thomas Church]

Personally this is something I notice in images captured from all digital cameras I've seen, not just RED.

If anything, RED and EPIC are probably the closest to film I've seen, even though there is still something slightly different about the way movement is rendered.

 

[Mark Collins]

I also get what the OP is saying here. I've noticed it to amongst digital sensors. Most notably the DSLR's and the Red. I haven't seen too much Alexa stuff yet so i won't comment on that until the first season of Game of Thrones ends. The F900 and the Genesis look to me the closest to film of any digital camera.

Though, as several people have mentioned, lenses play a massive, massive part in this. My personal preference as a director is to use anamorphic lenses or older lenses that have aberrations and imperfections. I find those little imperfections add a little extra life to the image.

As an electric or as a gaffer, lens choice doesn't matter a whole helluva lot to me, so long as the DP tells me what he wants to set the stop to. (note: by lens choice I mean manufacturer, not focal length)

 

[Julio Quintana]

The F900 and the Genesis look to me the closest to film of any digital camera.

Really? A 2/3" HD camera with like 7 stops of latitude? Is anybody even shooting movies with either of these cameras anymore?

 

[Marc Wielage]

Really? A 2/3" HD camera with like 7 stops of latitude? Is anybody even shooting movies with either of these cameras anymore?

Movies, probably not that many. TV shows... tons.

There is something about the "movement" in digital capture that still doesn't please me very much in relation to film. Even in the EPIC footage I've been seeing.

Rolling shutter artifacts? Those are a characteristic of all CMOS pickups. They can disguise this to some degree with careful choices of shutter angle, but that may be part of what you see. All the Red Epic demo material I've seen up to this point has been pretty stellar.

Mark Schubin of Videography magazine has talked a lot in the last ten years about the differences between film and video, what creates the "film look," along with the pros and cons of each. At least if you start off with a very clean digital capture, you can always add digital diffusion and grain in post. If it starts off grainy, noisy, and soft, it's a lot harder to deal with in terms of cleaning it up.

 

[Stronz Vanderploeg]

Could it be how you're viewing the material? Just to add a different possibility, where and how I watch a film does add a "feel." Vimeo, Netflix, HD TV, a Theater, an iPod, etc all have different "feelings" to them. Now, if I'm watching Raiders for the 30th time on Netflix, it doesn't really taint my judgement. However, with new content and new media it can be much harder to tell, depending on the viewing medium whether that be LCD, Plasma or a Projector.

 

[Thomas Church]

I don't think so.

I watched Antichrist on two different theaters and while I thought it looked great I also noticed this.

 

[M Most]

Personally this is something I notice in images captured from all digital cameras I've seen, not just RED.

If anything, RED and EPIC are probably the closest to film I've seen, even though there is still something slightly different about the way movement is rendered.

Probably the most "filmlike" (in terms of motion) digital camera has been the Arri D21. That camera has a mechanical shutter, which helps to achieve this.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

With all due respect, Thomas, the variables inherent in acquisition - lens choice, movement in the scene, lighting, sensitivity rating, camera movement - followed by post production - processing (for film), ingest, workflow, output - and finally delivery - how you see the footage, film out, digital delivery, etc. - make these kind of judgements pretty dicey without a blind test. The newer low iso film stocks, properly exposed, have grain which is very hard to detect, especially when viewed digitally. Are you comparing the same material shot side by side, with a post workflow that is a close as possible, and presented on the same system? I'm not saying "gut feeling" doesn't count for something, but I think you might be surprised at how much controlling for different variables would skew your impressions. And then one of the biggest problems of all is that you already know what you are looking at.

I'm not saying there aren't differences. They could be substantial, particularly in the area of resolution. I just think it's hard to critically specific without comparing apples to apples.