Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Shutter smear...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jenga said:
ChristopherKenworthy- Agreed! I'm not talking about unmotivated panning, I'm not really talking about panning at all. I'm talking about motion blur of the subjects themselves and any slight camera moves that might accompany the actor as they move around a bit. This is why the milk girls clip scene was a perfect example of this, there was very little camera movement as it was all minor action and yet there was that stuttering shutter none-the-less. Let me reiterate, I love the red camera and I'll take it either way, just looking for clarification from the people in the know if there was an effort to provide the option of a popular 35mm film camera-esque motion blur (as that would be my own personal preference).
Click to expand...

This is a very valid point that needs addressing and the only way is to show more footage.
 
It's not about shaky footage, as that is an operator's business, but strobing footage when subjects are moving.
 
dalen7 said:
why more suited? Canon has it...it was used in production shots as well as our high end panasonic and sonys?

Im not convinced that professionals dont need IS.
As mentioned, I looked through the lens, quite suprised that it had a steady vibration...on a tripod.

And with the shake here, may not be related, I truly am curious.
But now that you say it doesnt happen, I have 2 further questions...

- will there be some IS in the future? (in body/lens)
again, I dont see this as consumer only...if it works and benefits, why not incorporate?
- Until that time (which may not be from the sound of the reply) what do you do to reduce shake.

Yes most film is always on a tripod, or whatever...you never see the dude handholding the camera, nor can you with the size of those really. So, in some sense, 'professionals' dont need it.

But red is to a whole new market now - anyway, thanks for the responce.

Peace

Dalen
Click to expand...

Shoot 4K and when cropping to 2K, have some sort of digital image stabalization. Isn't the sensor 4900x2540? If Digital image stabalization were integrated here, it'd help a lot. Since it's really a rather small vibration.

ChristopherKenworthy said:
I love all the camera-speak, I really do, but from a director's point of view I'd say the best way to eliminate stutter is to follow a subject rather than pan through space. You can shoot Arri 35mm, and if you pan too fast through nothing, you can't help but see stutter. So, follow something other than space. Spielberg, as I'm sure everybody knows, always hands off motion like this, to guide the camera, rather than having it hose through space with the entire image stuttering. Did anybody see Heaven a few years ago? There were lots of long, fast pans and moves through empty space, and the audience was drawn right out of the movie, because you couldn't see anything other than stutter. As Jim said in another thread, there are lots of ways to shoot bad Red footage, and for me, that includes set-ups that encourage stutter.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure as long as there's 24fps, there'll be stutter. The best you can do is the distract people from it. Don't misunderstand me, I love 24fps, but stuttering is a problem with most newcomers to 24fps. Even 60fps has some stuttering.
 
Boris and Natasha work very differently to Frankie. I didn't notice any stutter on the "normal" shots, only the aerial work and I've been starting at this footage quite a bit.... The rest all looked nice and smooth.

Graeme
 
garageman said:
It's not about shaky footage, as that is an operator's business, but strobing footage when subjects are moving.
Click to expand...

garageman... your doing a good job of pissing me off.

The arial stuff we had some things working against us... the mount was not a gyro mount, a very long optimo zoom was used, and there was alot of rotor slop.
 
I didn't see any strobe on movement Jarred. Did you?

Graeme
 
no i didn't... and i never heard a single person out of the thousands that watched the footage mention it.
 
Jarred Land said:
garageman... your doing a good job of pissing me off.

The arial stuff we had some things working against us... the mount was not a gyro mount, a very long optimo zoom was used, and there was alot of rotor slop.
Click to expand...

Some of us haven't seen the Jackson film and the comments made on strobing refer to the milk girls footage. I only want to know if this strobing is evident in later footage shot with the later prototypes. I wasn't refering or criticizing shake in the camera work that is supposed to be evident in the Jackson film, why should that bother anyone?
 
because your talking out of your ass...

quite alot of your last posts have been implicating negative visual attributes the film in an attempt to stongarm us into posting the film online.. and thats not cool.
 
Jarred Land said:
because your talking out of your ass...

quite alot of your last posts have been implicating negative visual attributes the film in an attempt to stongarm us into posting the film online.. and thats not cool.
Click to expand...

Fair enough in that case I apologise if that's the impression I gave but I didn't even consider I'd have the power to strongarm anyone into doing anything. I wasn't being negative about the look of the film as I actually like it's look from the stills, comparing it to "film" doesn't even come into it for me, only the way it acquires shots. I do have a genuine concern about strobing which is evident in earlier footage.
 
no worries man... just make sure your criticism has the right motivation and everything will be good.
 
Jarred Land said:
no worries man... just make sure your criticism has the right motivation and everything will be good.
Click to expand...


My motivation is in no way critical of RED or those involved in it's making, it's just sometimes I find that some considerations slip under the radar among the heaps of praise, which you have worked hard for no doubt.
 
RED 664 there should be plenty of clips out with REDs 1-400 for you to decide if it fits your "likes" before your camera ships ...

IMO Milk Girls is old ( older prototype etc ) ... perhaps the PJ short will be released with a feature or it will play in festivals...
 
Just a thought. Is there an intelligent post sharpening app out there using some kind of motion detection to ease off sharpening in areas of motion. I presume that would reduce some of the exageration of sharpening artifacts in motion images.

M
 
Graeme Nattress said:
I didn't see any strobe on movement Jarred. Did you?

Graeme
Click to expand...

I'm not Jarred, but I play one on TV.

I didn't see any strobing that was obvious and i watch the the move
about 20 times all the way through (and bit of it a whole lot more).

Any time you have less than a 360deg shutter you risk strobing.
It's a fact of life and is effectively managed by limiting the speed on your
moves and shutter angle (though much less often that way).

It's a trade off... you can't try to achieve the same look of
film without accepting it's constraints at the time. A 1/48 sec or
180deg shutter gives you a certain cadence and motion blur
that is just one of the things that's part of the film look.

That's not to say you can't use a 360deg shutter when you need to... :)

Deanan
 
The strobing really is a result of the fact that 24 fps is barely fast enough to hide that you are capturing motion as a bunch of still frames, so we need a certain amount of per-frame blur to create the illusion that the motion carries over into the next frame. Too little blur and the motion looks pixellated; too much blur and it looks smeary.

If the shooting/sampling/projection rate were high enough, then strobing wouldn't be a problem and we could get away with less blur per frame. But then you get into that problem that high sampling rates make digital photography look like classic 60i interlaced-scan video photography, which does look smoother than 24 fps film or 24P video. So to some extent, the strobiness of 24 fps is just something we've become conditioned to.
 
I remarked the shutter, talked about it with Brook. He told me, that it could be also a problem from the projector. He explained it by the different heat of the projector. In the morning (thats true) there was more shutter than in the afternoon. Hmmm, don't know if that explains the things, Mullen is right, 180 shutter means 1/48 speed in a still camera, if you open the shutter, the exposure time will be lower, the exposure time calculates like this: Exposure=Frames*360/shutter angle
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #39
I don't remember saying that... though I did comment on the lack of complete calibration.

There wasn't a shutter problem with the camera or the projector and I didn't notice strobing. Let the record show that. :laugh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top