Noise

[Terry VerHaar]

Guys - I too am not trying to be argumentative but I am having a bit of a hard time making sense of your contention. Motion blur occurs during recording - not playback. And 1/100th of a second is always 1/100th of a second, regardless of your time base. So, the amount of movement during that period is fixed. If you shoot 23.98 fps and use 1/100th of a second, you will still get the same motion blur except you will also get a strobing sense because there will be a quite a bit of motion between exposure. If you are shooting 100fps at 100th, your movement will perhaps seem oddly more fluid but motion blur will not be your issue.

I never said 360 degrees was a good idea - but, in this case of over cranking, it is a way to double your exposure.

EDIT: Try it. I don't have and Epic so I shot 60 fps at 1/60th. Looks acceptable to me.

And, went down to 1K and did 99.9 fps at 1/100th. Try it - really. :smiley:

 

[Nick Gardner]

I have shot high speed for many years. Back when it was really expensive on film. Terry is completely correct. 100th is a hundredth. It's just a different way of saying 360 degrees, but really, that tech is long gone, so it's just a hundredth of a second. I shoot at 100fps with 100th shutter speed fairly often, and it looks completely fine.

Nick

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I've tried it in the past for an action scene -- 60 fps with no shutter (1/60th) for slow-motion... I wasn't too happy with the results. It works OK but it definitely feels more video-ish since a film camera running at 60 fps can't create that look.

Now in terms of using shutter speeds longer than 180 degrees allows, like 240 or 270 degrees, for non-action scenes, it all depends on the amount of movement in the frame in terms of how much you can get away with it. For some scene of a person sitting and talking in a candlelit restaurant, I don't think anyone is going to notice if the shutter is set to 240 degrees... and if it makes the shot look better in terms of having enough exposure to shoot under candlelight while keeping the noise down, then it's not a bad compromise. It's a tough call sometimes, whether a half-stop of extra shutter time is better than a half-stop of extra gain, depends on whether noise or blur is a bigger issue.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Terry and Damian,
Shutter speed should generally be 180 degrees or FASTER (90 degrees) but not slower (270 degrees). Meaning, you can shoot:
- 24 FPS at 1/48 shutter (180 degrees)
- 48 FPS at 1/96 shutter (180 degrees)
- 100 FPS at 1/200 shutter (180 degrees) OR
- 100 FPS at 1/300 shutter (120 degrees)

Faster makes the frame sharper and sharper.
But you really DO NOT want to slower as motion blur starts making the image look very funky.

100FPS at 1/100 is mathematically a non-closed frame, so motion looks strange and blurry.
100 FPS at 1/100 shutter = 360 degrees

Check out Red's little tutorial here:
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/shutter-angle-tutorial

360 shutter in very fast slomo (like 96fps) can often look fine. There is no "normal" for slo-mo. Even Michael Bay has shot 360 in certain slomo shots. For 24fps I agree with you.

I also agree with David (so far I have never disagreed with anything he has said, and I think I would be a fool to ever do so - if I don;t agree it probably means I have yet to learn something)- when the slomo is lower, like 60fps, 48fps etc. - and like he says it all depends on how much is moving and how important it is that it look sharp. Sometimes a slurpy motion blur adds to the slow-mo weirdness in a way that is pleasing for the intended effect.

 

[Jeremy Hildebrant]

I have no problem shooting 240 or 270 degree if there isn't much much movement and if it helps with the exposure. I feel you can get away with it even with a subject walking as long as it is not a lateral movement. A 360 degree angle at 48fps can also offer some flexibility to ramp it back up in post to real time so you are right back to your 1/48th with a 24 base,... or run it as is at half speed (as long as it is only moderate movement)

 

[Mark Toia]

Out of interest Mark, what f1.2 lenses do you use most often?

MKIII super speeds. T1.3 (f1.2)

And only because they are small, lightweight and Bright... They are no way as sharp a like Master primes or Leica's or RED primes.
Mind you in saying that, i don't like to sharp a shot at the best of times. I like creamy, like what film use to be like.. So they work well for me in that area as they take that super pin sharp Digital feel away.
in the same breath from F2 to F11, they perform the same as Ultra primes. But give me 1.2 when I need it

For the life of me, i don't know why they don't make copies of them, but with more modern glass within them.

 

[Mike P.]

MKIII super speeds. T1.3 (f1.2)

For the life of me, i don't know why they don't make copies of them, but with more modern glass within them.

Seriously. I mean everything is already done... Although, I guess you could say that's exactly what Master Primes are, right? Or are you saying non-Zeiss "super speed" knock-offs? In either case, I wish someone would. Affordable set of t1.3s (down to 18mm too) would be stupidly attractive.