HDRx motion interpolation

[Ruairi Robinson]

www.oakley.com/store/prescription

Jim

Hmm. I happen to wear Oakley ValveTM polished black #51 prescription lenses, and my incredibly scientific arm waving lab tests appear to support mr. Greenwalt's findings. Although perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

R.

 

[Shane Betts]

My eyes don't work that way unless my eyes track the arm. My eyes seem to work exactly like a normal shutter.

But if I follow the arm it's motion blur free and the BG is motion blurred. If I follow a filmed arm on a screen, it's obviously still motion blurred. So in *that* respect I suppose they are similar. But I don't just normally see in magic motion.

Ah ... Flouro's?

 

[Stephen Matthews]

honestly if I don't follow (I'm waving in front of my face so not quite what we were told to do) my hand it is out of focus and hard to describe the blur or clarity, though if I follow it I see blur and clear outlines as Jim says (I think?... it's hard for me to describe).

I think giving the audience the ability to track an object as they may in real life and discern more detail, rather than blurring it as if it's out of focus might in fact change our viewing experiences for the better.(don't know what I'm talking about this could be utter nonsense)

though I have not seen this in action on the large screen or with many different variations of shots so I have no frame of reference. Plus I have limited knowledge concerning these matters so I could be entirely incorrect. though I also think this really depends on the person, as we all interpret things differently.

I figure we just wait and see for ourselves, if we like it great, if not no problem(?).

 

[Nick Ambrose]

Your theory being that the two exposures are happening simultaneously? As in: within the same read/reset cycle? The X track committing to the media at the beginning of this cycle and the A track following milliseconds later? Explain, please.

EDIT: Removed

 

[Adam C Lubkin]

My eyes don't work that way unless my eyes track the arm. My eyes seem to work exactly like a normal shutter.

But if I follow the arm it's motion blur free and the BG is motion blurred. If I follow a filmed arm on a screen, it's obviously still motion blurred. So in *that* respect I suppose they are similar. But I don't just normally see in magic motion.

I don't think we normally see in either of the ways you describe. If someone is waving their arm, we don't tend to fixate on the arm and try to track the movement back and forth. It's likely moving to rapidly to get a consistent bead on anyway. But we don't fix our gaze on a single point and let the arm completely blur either. (Even if we did, or if we track an object and let background blur, the blur is of a different quality to what a camera sees - it's richer, more detailed, and more variable. Only in extreme situations does our vision blur detail to the extent that a camera does normally at 180 degree shutter, and then it's more psychological than physical - because we're hyper-focused on something or someone, or stirred up emotionally in some way.)

If someone is waving their arm, our eyes tend to dart about, picking up enough detail of the arm to satisfy us but keeping a sense of our surroundings and probably paying more attention to the facial expression of the person waving. The eye and the brain assemble the scene based on our interests and priorities in a highly dynamic and selective fashion. Anything we do with the camera is just an approximation. Magic motion, by giving a little more sharpness or detail to the arm waving, is an approximation that's potentially a little more suggestive of how we see.

 

[Nick Ambrose]

Good analogy, assuming it is accurate. Generally, that's the way I interpreted it as well. :iagree:

Well, Jim's comments seem to indicate it's not this way, which is definitely intriguing

 

[tj williams]

why WHY why WHY NOT hOW?

why WHY why WHY NOT hOW?

How to Use This Feature:

1. So perhaps it is a good idea to raise the shutter rate when using HDRx to better match motion look of the rest of the show?

2. So perhaps it is a good idea to shoot the whole show in HDRx when adequate median and transfer are available to better have themotion. look of the show match.

Do you guys see any other shooting recommendations on this thread?

It seems funny to me worrying so much about this feature causing motion artifacts. I have clients asking me to shoot for a 29.97 release in 24 so they can have "film" artifacts. We often run our digital footage through a popular software that ads "film grain" artifact to the show.. I wonder how long it will be before I have a client require that I shoot the show in HDRx so they can have that new beautiful artifact in the show too.

also seems like Jim has once again given additional new groundbreaking features on cameras that are essentially already sold. Having stolen a march on the likes of Arri and Panavision, I'm sure he's not too anxious to tell them how he did it......What is important to us as users is that he did.

 

[Jannard]

I think the way to think of this (and I am not an expert by any means)
is:

Imagine a bunch of buckets slowly filling up with water (this is the light hitting the "pixels")

at 1/24th of a second from the "start" the A-track is recorded (noting the level of water in each bucket)

the X-frame is simply formed by reading the level in the same bucket (but not emptying it out) BUT reading that at 1/48th or 1/96th of a second etc.

so yes they happen "at the same time" with the provision that the A-frame being longer, parts of it cannot physically happen "at the same time" as the A-frame hence the difference in look of the motion.

Not accurate. The problem is when you make a statement like this as fact, others will believe it to be true or that I said it somewhere.

Jim

 

[Nick Ambrose]

Not accurate. The problem is when you make a statement like this as fact, others will believe it to be true or that I said it somewhere.

Jim

I stand corrected, and I did use the words "I think" which is not a statement of fact.

However, you are correct, it is easy for something to go from an "I think" to an assumed fact.

 

[Jannard]

I stand corrected, and I did use the words "I think" which is not a statement of fact.

However, you are correct, it is easy for something to go from an "I think" to an assumed fact.

No worries...

Jim

 

[chrislancaster]

I strongly disagree. Having at least some understanding of how the tool works means I better understand the potential uses and limitations. As such, I appreciate the more detailed explanation Jim just posted.

true some understanding is essential to knowing how to use a tool best but it seems people are picking this apart for what reasons i dont know