RAW frame rates..

[Zakaree Sandberg]

would be sweet if every time you shot.. you could instantly pull out high frame rates.. even though you never intended too..

in other words.. the camera is always recording the max amount of frame rates
or maybe you have a few options.. set it at 24 48 120 so on..and you get each of those clips to use if you want them..

would this work?

it would eat space.. but sometimes you might go into a shot not knowing if the editor will want it slower or not.. this way there is an option that is a little more legit than slowing 24fps down in post.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

would be sweet if every time you shot.. you could instantly pull out high frame rates.. even though you never intended too..

in other words.. the camera is always recording the max amount of frame rates
or maybe you have a few options.. set it at 24 48 120 so on..and you get each of those clips to use if you want them..

would this work?

it would eat space.. but sometimes you might go into a shot not knowing if the editor will want it slower or not.. this way there is an option that is a little more legit than slowing 24fps down in post.

You'd create some remarcable shutter/exposure issues (untill we have a 24+ stop cam, as to exposure) if you would like to pull out say 30/60/120 at the same time, if you're not prepared to shoot @ 1/240th all the time (which obviously would give you other issues...)

 

[Martin Weiss]

Would only work with a 360 degree shutter, otherwise you would get a very "creative" motion blur.
And who wants a 360 degree shutter?

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

raw shutter... its not a mechanical shutter anyways..

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

Would only work with a 360 degree shutter, otherwise you would get a very "creative" motion blur. And who wants a 360 degree shutter?

As a wildlife shooter, due to lack of light sometimes forced to do so

Zakaree, if I remember well just recently you suggested also a raw focus. I think you are tyring to squeeze bit too much out of the raw approach.

When it comes to exposure the raw approach relies on the linearity of the sensor which means the output of the sensor is directly proportional to the amount of input light. This (linearity) in turns means it does not make any difference whethe one adds and scales either on the input or output side. In tangible words, this is to say, lightwise it's all the same whether you set the exposure in Redcine-X/PPro or you adjust the iris of the lens while shooting.

This is an advantage as the eye is nonlinear and also very adaptive. So, instead of adjusting the image to match with the eye during shooting, the adjustment is postponed into post where one has a better chance to control the details and fine adjustments. Second, as the output of the sensor is digitized into binary numbers, linearity enables one to exposure-to-the-right to maximize the amount of output data. This is to say, one as if over-exposures as one knows everything is recoverable in post as long as the highlights are not clipped.

Still, saying this does not mean I didn't see creative thinking behind your ideas. In fact, I guess the Adobe 19d lens (there are couple threads about that) is what you are after with your raw focus idea. And the very fact that a 180 degree shutter leaves half of the time unxploited does indeed leave space for creative ideas. Guess, or, perhaps, the new HDR mode of Epic will rely on this. (In fact, we will know this once it's availble. If the HDR mode works also with a 360 shutter and the exposure times correspond with the ordinary mode, then the HDR mode is based on something else. But if it works only say up to a 180 degree shutter, then there are grounds to believe it's relying on the half of "unemployed time" space.)

In the same spirit, in bright conditions I could see that shooting say 500-1000 fps with 360 degree shutter made it possible to combine such frames in post to come up with "ordinary" 24, 25,30,50,60,100,120 fps footages. That would be something like what you seem to hint with your idea of a "raw shutter".

 

[Felix K.]

That would mean you'd have to add artificial motion blur onto the lower framerates. Does anybody have experience how much that would differ from real motion blur in these framerates?

And you'd always have to shoot with a lot of light for the higher framerates... You can't beat the physics. If the sensor can only use 1/200th of a second to collect light, it better be a lot of light...


P.S.: I also like the style of filmmaking where you think in advance what you need and want and then try to get it...

 

[Erich Ocean]

And who wants a 360 degree shutter?

I do (sort of). I'm planning on always shooting 24fps/180deg as 48fps/360deg for anything going through the VFX pipeline. It looks identical to 24/180 when you skip every other frame and play back at 24fps, but it gives all of your post tools (motion tracking, syntheyes, etc.) much more data to work with, thus: higher quality results.

 

[Stuart English]

Degrees ?

Degrees ?

Would only work with a 360 degree shutter, otherwise you would get a very "creative" motion blur.
And who wants a 360 degree shutter?

We should try to forget about degrees, that has always been a proxy for exposure time.

24 fps @ 180 degrees = 1/48 th sec

48 fps @ 360 degrees = 1/48 th sec


But it's clear that if you shot everything at 96 fps the max exposure would be 1/96 th sec.

 

[David Rasberry]

... lightwise it's all the same whether you set the exposure in Redcine-X/PPro or you adjust the iris of the lens while shooting.

.

It does matter how much light the sensor receives for exposure. So iris and shutter speed settings are not the same as changing ISO or exposure settings in post.
As you mentioned later in your post, saturating the sensor with as much light as possible without clipping is the best approach to have the data necessary to work with in post.
Only iris, frame rate and shutter speed affect actual raw data acquisition at the time of exposure, as with any photographic medium.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

As a wildlife shooter, due to lack of light sometimes forced to do so

Zakaree, if I remember well just recently you suggested also a raw focus. I think you are tyring to squeeze bit too much out of the raw approach.
.

raw everything

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

It does matter how much light the sensor receives for exposure. So iris and shutter speed settings are not the same as changing ISO or exposure settings in post.

David, obviously, I agree, iris and shutter speed settings are not the same as changing ISO, for the very reason that the iris affects the depth of field and shutter speed affects motion and so on. But, lightwise the iris and exposure setting in post affect in one and the same way. That's the very principle of linearity.

In tangible words, say your camera is perpendicular to a highly qualified photo paper with some text and the lens is focused on the text. So in this case the iris and shutter speed have a negligible if any effect. And now, if the sensor output were represented by real numbers (so the binary representation had neither any effect) the iris setting and exposure setting were the same as long as one is within complete black and clipping. Since the output of the sensor is digitized, scaling downwards works fine whereas scaling upwards not that well. Thus, the practice of shoot-to-the-right whereas lifting darks works out only to a certain level.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Raw or not... you can't get around the fact that frame rate determines the max exposure time per frame, which in turn affects motion blur.

 

[Felix K.]

David, couldn't the motion blur recalculated later by analyzing how much has changed from frame to frame? AE can do that, no?

P.S.: I am so jealous. You are shooting with Robert Duvall; I just watched "The Godfather" two days ago for the first time. Loved it. Loved Robert Duvall. So jealous!!

 

[CJ Roy]

David, couldn't the motion blur recalculated later by analyzing how much has changed from frame to frame? AE can do that, no?

Frame interpolation is a heavy render when used with speed ramps. Doing this for raw footage seems like a complete waste of time and resources.