1/48 vs. 1/60th Shutter Speed at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > JVC ProHD & MPEG2 Camera Systems > JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems

JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems
GY-HD 100 & 200 series ProHD HDV camcorders & decks.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 1st, 2006, 06:16 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maldives
Posts: 97
1/48 vs. 1/60th Shutter Speed

In my opinion there is something just not right about the HD100 1/60th shutter and 100th and all upwards for that matter... Agree? Disagree? Other cameras handle high shutter speeds without somehow sacrificing the frame rate. The HD100 looks absurdly stuttery/juddery at a higher shutter speed than 1/48th. The motion smoothing option is a silly joke that adds trails and makes the video look even more amateurish. Why is that? I remember complaining about the 24p motion of this camera some months ago and some individual questioned if I was shooting with 1/60th? 1/48th is too blurry for my taste and 1/24 is just ridiculous. What's inherently wrong about 1/60th, why does it looks so messy(juddery/stuttery) Other cameras don't have this no? Certainly not the FX1, you could shoot very high shutter speeds without losing the look and feel of the framerate.
Bruce Meyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2006, 07:05 PM   #2
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Meyers
In my opinion there is something just not right about the HD100 1/60th shutter and 100th and all upwards for that matter... Agree? Disagree?
Disagree. THe HD100 perfectly emulates the popular shutter speeds of film cameras. 1/48th = 180degrees, 1/60th = 144 degrees, 1/100=approx 90 degrees. If you shoot film with those shutter angles you will get the exact same results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Meyers
Other cameras handle high shutter speeds without somehow sacrificing the frame rate. The HD100 looks absurdly stuttery/juddery at a higher shutter speed than 1/48th.
Maybe you are talking about interlaced cameras. The HD100 is a progressive capture camera just like a film camera. It performs as it should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Meyers
The motion smoothing option is a silly joke that adds trails and makes the video look even more amateurish. Why is that? I remember complaining about the 24p motion of this camera some months ago and some individual questioned if I was shooting with 1/60th? 1/48th is too blurry for my taste and 1/24 is just ridiculous. What's inherently wrong about 1/60th, why does it looks so messy(juddery/stuttery)
1/48th will give you the typical dramatic film look. It shouldn't look too blurry.
You're right about Motion smoothing. It is a joke. I think they just added it because they were scanning the chip at double the frame rate anyway, so it became a 'feature.' I have only ever turned it on once - to test how it worked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Meyers
Other cameras don't have this no? Certainly not the FX1, you could shoot very high shutter speeds without losing the look and feel of the framerate.
The FX1 doesn't give you the feel of any framerate. It is interlaced - it looks like typical video (when in 60i mode). It's apples and oranges, you can't really compare interlaced and progressive capture this way. They are just too different.
__________________
Tim Dashwood
Tim Dashwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2006, 08:06 PM   #3
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,214
Hi Bruce,

Seems like you are used to shooting with an interlaced camera where you can whip the camera any direction and not have to learn the proper panning speeds for the HD-100. There are panning speeds that you must learn. If you do learn the technique then it will pay great dividends. You will plan your shots better and it will show in your end results compared to shooting interlace.

I offer this PDF to you (Click Here). On the bottom of the PDF there is a link to the panning speed relationships. Click on it and study it and then practice. You'll be rewarded and it will bring you joy.

good luck...
Stephen L. Noe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2006, 10:12 PM   #4
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Meyers
What's inherently wrong about 1/60th, why does it looks so messy(juddery/stuttery)

The motion smoothing option is a silly joke that adds trails and makes the video look even more amateurish. Why is that?

1/48th is too blurry for my taste.
If you are coming from 1/60th on an interlace camera, you will SEE 1/48th as "too blurry" but if you are coming from film shooting it will look the same as you are used too.

So you have to ask yourself, for what did you buy the HD100?

If for shooting as though you were shooting film, then you'll have to -- as suggested -- learn how to use the HD100. And, get used to the "motion blur" of 1/48th.

If you want the video look of an interlaced FX1 you can't have it!

You have a progressive camcorder. At 720p30 you can only choose between Smooth Motion Filter ON or OFF. If it's OFF you are shooting pure 30p -- which will strobe on motion as it must.

I completely disagree with Tim about the Smooth Motion Filter. I've shot tons of NY and LV busy streets to capture motion coming and going in different directions and with different rates. It's a torture test for motion. Turning on Motion Smoothing works as advertised. It takes away the strobing of 30p. Of course, objects will have "motion blur" but that IS the point of the filter. I'm convinced that overtime you'll find using the filter will provide the best approximation of 60i video shooting.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2006, 11:01 PM   #5
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,100
Haven't we gone through this before?
__________________
My Work: nateweaver.net
Nate Weaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2006, 12:52 AM   #6
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Weaver
Haven't we gone through this before?
I thought I was having a case of déjà vu!

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=62586

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=55097
__________________
Tim Dashwood
Tim Dashwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 10:56 AM   #7
New Boot
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16
Something still wrong with the jitter...

Well, this topic seems to be endless - but the progressive mode of the HD100 doesn't seem to make me happy any time soon, either.

In our studio we've got three feature-lenght documentaries in production now - one is being shot in S16, and for the other two we chose the JVC camcorder. I am looking at footage from both sources almost every day, and the sad thing is that the JVC footage is WAY more jittery than the telecined S16 footage.

The parameters are more or less so:

- S16: shot at 25 fps (no pulldown hassle for PAL, and the blowups play just fine in theatres), telecined on a Spirit Datacine to Beta SP for offline and HD for online;

- JVC: set at 25 fps, shutter speed 50. Motion smooth setting on or off doesn't seem to make much difference.

Both are viewed on a CRT PAL monitor (still waiting for the HD editing/monitoring gear to come), and almost every movement in the JVC footage is incomparably worse than what we get from the film. I've been shooting film for 15 years, and never had an issue with the panning speed - but with the JVC anything but the slowest movement sends the object jumping around the frame.

Am I doing something wrong with the HD100 settings? Any idea of hidden setup menus, or of a way to deal with the jitter in post?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions,

Greets:

Boris
Boris Missirkov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 01:57 PM   #8
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maldives
Posts: 97
Thank you Boris, Finally someone understands. This camera seems to be a fat goose egg, no work of any note has seemingly been produced with it in nearly nine months anywhere on the planet earth. The 24p option is really the only reason one should be even remotely interested in this camera but even that doesen't compare with the motion of say a SONY FX1 when deinterlaced and converted to 23.98 via cinema tools. It's a pity you can't shoot 24p with an FX1. Now this is all my opinion but I've been shooting sony cams since early childhood and noticed a stark difference in the feel and motion of the footage on the JVC. I always knew something wasn't quite right about it and it becomes very clear when one compares slowed down deinterlaced 30fps original material shot with say a sony VX2000 or FX1 converted to 23.98. The sony footage is just much more cinematic looking. I don't know what it is about JVC but I think we've been kidding ourselves Pardon my frankness, but I think all the owners (myself included) are in denial over this 5000 dollar purchase. It just isn't good if you're planning to make a serious short film or music video, it's amateur hour land... I'm probably going to anger a number of inviduals, but it needs to be said. I hope NAB 2006 will provide better options for all us aspirings.
Bruce Meyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 02:16 PM   #9
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Missirkov
Both are viewed on a CRT PAL monitor (still waiting for the HD editing/monitoring gear to come), and almost every movement in the JVC footage is incomparably worse than what we get from the film. I've been shooting film for 15 years, and never had an issue with the panning speed - but with the JVC anything but the slowest movement sends the object jumping around the frame.
Boris
Hi Boris,

How does it look on flat panel and also how are you monitoring? Are you monitoring off the timeline or are you producing DVD's for viewing? Make sure you are using progressive from birth to death in the process. If you are sending out to interlaced anywhere in the process you'll get jitter because you didn't source at 50fps (60fps NTSC). Double check your process. I fell into the same trap last year and couldn't figure out why jitter was so obvious and it turned out that I had some parameters set to interlace in my process. Once the process was purely progressive, I started achieving predictable results that are more in line with what I'm used to.

Hope the best for you amigo...
Stephen L. Noe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 03:01 PM   #10
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,100
Bruce,

1-Out of the production world as a whole, very little people come to DVInfo. Even fewer feel the need to share their work on a message board, and THEN, even fewer working professionals. Why? A working DP has no right to do so. When I posted the work I did for WBR, I did it at a little bit of professional risk.

Here in L.A., amongst HD100 users, it's known MTV in Santa Monica bought a bunch of HD100s to replace some of their fleet of DVX100s. ABC took a large order too. There's a ton of both high-end and low-end rental houses doing brisk business renting HD100s.

In my experience, the best people in the field tend not to go on about their work on the internet.

2-The HD100 captures motion like a film camera, for all intents and purposes. Same frame rate, same shutter speed. There's no magical unknown variables in there to argue about.

If you're seeing something else, then either you're looking to hard with your nose against the monitor and psyching yourself out, or something is wrong with your monitoring setup (which I'm finding is more and more common as I do consulting work and see other people's setups migrating to HDV).
__________________
My Work: nateweaver.net
Nate Weaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 04:16 PM   #11
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,896
As a post user of the Sony interlaced cams, I also used to de-interlace and convert to a 24P cadence.

It looks the same to me. In fact, it actully looks worse. Not due to the 24P conversion, but the composition itself.

A lot of my shots were not composed well enough to minimize 24 frame motion.
Please, I'm not pointing out that this is what you are seeing.
I'm only mentioning my experience.
Steven Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 06:59 PM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bethel, VT
Posts: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Meyers
Thank you Boris, Finally someone understands...I'm probably going to anger a number of inviduals, but it needs to be said. I hope NAB 2006 will provide better options for all us aspirings.

No offense Bruce but all you did was finally find another person that's having a problem like you. We don't "understand" because we're not having your issues. You're certainly not going to anger all the other people who are very pleased with the camera.
Jim Giberti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 09:51 PM   #13
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Meyers
This camera seems to be a fat goose egg, no work of any note has seemingly been produced with it in nearly nine months anywhere on the planet earth. The 24p option is really the only reason one should be even remotely interested in this camera but even that doesen't compare with the motion of say a SONY FX1 when deinterlaced and converted to 23.98 via cinema tools. It's a pity you can't shoot 24p with an FX1. Now this is all my opinion but I've been shooting sony cams since early childhood and noticed a stark difference in the feel and motion of the footage on the JVC. ....It just isn't good if you're planning to make a serious short film or music video, it's amateur hour land... I'm probably going to anger a number of inviduals, but it needs to be said. I hope NAB 2006 will provide better options for all us aspirings.
Surely you jest!

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in a long time on this forum.
If I'm following you correctly you have said: (paraphrasing your statements)
  • The HD100 is a big fat "goose egg" because no work of note has been produced. I can assure you that work of "note" is being produced on this camera, it just hasn't been released yet. I'm shooting something now that everyone will know about in the fall. I can't talk about it yet, but I'll let you know when it is in a theatre near you.
  • The 24P motion of the HD100 is no where near as good as FX1 interlaced footage de-interlaced and slowed down to 24P. Huh? De-interlacing reduces resolution and using cinema tools to conform 50i footage to 24P slows it down by 4% and also pitches down the audio. This is surely not a "better" way to achieve 24P.
  • The JVC HD100 is an amateurish camera and not suitable for shooting a short film or music video. Now I know you're off your rocker! Remember, because the HD100 captures images progressively exactly like many other 'P' digital cameras used to produce films, your statement also extends to the Panasonic Varicam, Sony F900/950, XL2, DVX100, SDX900, & F330/350 XDCAM HD. 'Nuff said.

Sorry for the harsh words Bruce, but I think your problem is that you are not watching your HD100 footage properly. Maybe you are using your computer monitor to view it, or possibly relying on the analog downconverter to watch the footage on a PAL or NTSC monitor. Have you downconverted 720P24 to NTSC and burned a DVD? Compare this to a commercial DVD and you'll see that when the 2:3 pulldown is added the motion looks EXACTLY the same.

I think I can safely say (as I have before) that the progressive capture of the HD100 perfectly matches the temporal motion of film capture.
Just so we can stop this "in my opinion" bickering, I have prepared a clip comparing 720P24 capture to that of 35mm film.

Have a look, step through frame by frame, and carefully compare the motion blur on the clapper sticks. Let's hope this ends this crazy discussion once and for all.

Download the MP4 clip here.
__________________
Tim Dashwood
Tim Dashwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 10:32 PM   #14
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Meyers
This camera seems to be a fat goose egg, no work of any note has seemingly been produced with it in nearly nine months anywhere on the planet earth.
This is complete nonsense, of course. You're suffering from a case of unrealistic expectations, as I described eariler today when you posted the exact same thing about the XL H1 in your "Where's The Work?" thread located here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=64263

There's plenty of professional work being done with *all* of these cameras, but you cannot realistically expect to simply find such material available for downloading from the internet. Same repeat questions, same repeat answers.
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2006, 10:41 PM   #15
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,896
Tim, thanks for the post and the clip.
Looks right to me.
Steven Thomas is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > JVC ProHD & MPEG2 Camera Systems > JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:27 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network