Shutter Speed
 

The fastest shutter speed on the DVX100 is 1/2000 (1/1000 is 24P and 30P modes), as compared to 1/15000 on the XL1S. What difference does it make? Do you really need a shutter speed that fast?

Also does anyone have any thoughts comparing the specs of the lens on the DVX100 to the standard (16X IS II) len on the XL1S?

Thanks.

I never have used a shutter speed that high. Seems might only be for certain types of shots (sports, Saving Private Ryan). Plus, at 1/15000, you would need a lot of light for the shot anyway.

The zoom is longer on the 16X lens XL1s, but the DVX100 is wider.

I was wondering why no manual slow shutter speed settings myself.

I have the camera in front of me.

Slow shutter speeds are 1/60th in 60i, 1/30th in 30p and 1/24th in 24P modes.

Oh, it does have one setting below 1/60th. Thanks.

Uh, that's two settings (1/30th and 1/24th)...

Yeah, 2 settings but only one low setting for each mode.

Frank:

Why would you want slower shutter speeds? Seems of very limited use. What speeds do you think are missing?

Other than extremely low light photography, I'm not sure why they would be needed.

The GL2 gives you 1/8th and 1/15th in frame mode. Maybe until you've used these speeds you don't know what you're missing. I pretty much hate using the GL1 now that I have a GL2. The GL1 only goes down to 1/60th, so you miss a whole range of really interesting video looks, let alone the extra stops of light. It's a big benefit. Spend some time with the GL2 and you'll see. : ) More exposure options is better.

Blake

Do you have clips or frames you can post? What specifically do you like?

Frames alone won't do it: they're only 1/3 the story. It's such a wide range of possible creative in-camera motion fx and lighting possibilities with these slower speeds. Right now I'm overloaded with video editing/shooting projects and don't have the time or server space to put together and upload clips, but if I can remember I'll do it during a slow period. (though I hate to give away some of my "film look" secrets!) ; )

One thing I've learned is that using the max possible neutral density filtration, no matter how dark the environment, will get you closer and closer to an amazing cinematic look which fits very well into my own personal/professional vid needs. For that (max ND filtering), one needs as much exposure as one can get... nuff said for now!

Can't wait to see some nighttime, artificial light (like at a concert) 1/24th 24p stuff! Yow!

There must be something about true progressive that prevents less-than-film rate shutter speeds? I don't understand any of that stuff on vid or cine cams.

Thanks,

b

Stephen,

Lower shutter speeds mean better low light shooting, and give you another option for creativity. Try it. You'll be surprised!

I use a lot of slow shutter coupled with zooming and panning for dance scenes---usually in low but changing lighting.

Frank:

I can understand 1/30th or 1/24th, but at 1/15th or 1/8th, excessive motion blur would create some interesting effects.

So far, I can shoot the Panasonic at 1/24th in 24P mode in pretty dim lighting, so I'm not too worried about low light.

I have a revision FX motion blur plugin as well as Shine that I use in AE for some really etheral motion blur effects.

I shoot to not edit or to edit as little as possible. I guess I'm going against the grain.

Editing is all the fun, though :)

I don't find editing fun at all. I think I'd find it more fun if I hadn't been the shooter. I guess I'm impatient.

To me, editing is the real art of moviemaking. It is the only part unique to motion picture arts. The rest comes from writing, photography, painting, architecture, theater, music.

But cutting together moving images to create impact, even if you are in camera editing or juxtoposing images (e.g. "Timecode") or even a single take (pointing the camera one direction, framing, then moving to another frame (e.g. "Rope") is also editing.

Editing is the essence of filmmaking and the real joy, if you ask me.

The real art is to shoot well, while using your heart and "inner eye," and doing it with care. Shooting is the art. You can always fix things up later, if it's required. But the more you shoot right, the less you will have to fix things up later. NLE has it's place, though, and I think it depends on the intent of the final output. Oh, and NLE is an art too (and so is LE).

I don't know any photographers who shoot with the intent to repair later---perhaps to add effect or something---but then I'm comparing apples with oranges, and every project is different, requiring different methods. Cost is also a factor.

<<Editing is the essence of filmmaking and the real joy, if you ask me.>>

Yes, well no doubt, but can you replace the word "Editing" in the above with "Rendering" and still feel as joyful about it?

Imagine a still camera that only goes down to 1/60... and imagine the joyful time in the darkroom trying to fix your shots. Now replace that cam with the same thing, but it goes down to 1/4 or 1/8.

Which brings more joy? There's no question.

: )

b

Blake:

If 1/4th shutter speed is the be all and end all to a camera purchase, the DVX100 is probably not the camera for you. It's not an important feature to me.

That's why different cameras exist. People have different priorites.

Frank:

Editing has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with "shooting well". Editing is the art of arranging moving images in a timeline, regardless of if they are well shot.

Everytime you stop and start the camera, even change tapes, you are editing. So, it's a fact and the essential core of motion pictures.

Editing is the same, in-camera, flatbed, moviola, splicing block or linear tape.

Stephen,

1/4 is definitely not the be- and end-all. I don't even have it!

The be-all-and-end-all are rich warm beautiful lifelike colors, and frame- or progressive mode!

Everything else is a bonus, especially slower shutter speeds and wider f-stops.... resolution, wide gray scale, all that's nice too. Warm colors is the numero uno. Frame/Progressive numero dos. Everything else is somewhere below diez.

I don't know if it's the camera or not for me until I've determined one way or another that this thing can do PD150-quality warm colors, even in 60i. I believe it can't until I see one single unretouched frame grab that proves otherwise.

Thanks,


b

Blake:

I don't have screen grabs yet, but the camera has color temp, gamma, matrix, and chroma level & phase controls.

I ran it through the gamut of very desaturated to not warm, but way too hot.

It will do beyond PD150 and XL1 warm.

<<It will do beyond PD150 and XL1 warm.>>

Thanks, Stephen. I'd love to see it. The PD150 is like looking at the sun when you record yellows with it. 100% of the frame grabs from the Pana on the net so far are washed out and dull in the warm end (and frankly throughout) of the spectrum. Strange.

Looking forward to your grabs of yellow curtains, yellow flowers, suntanned people on the beach, fields of sunflowers...!

Best,

Blake

Blake:

That's because they are posted use CineGamma, Cine Matrix, reduced Chroma (24p presets).

<<That's because they are posted use CineGamma, Cine Matrix, reduced Chroma (24p presets).>>

No doubt true, though I've seen plenty of washed-out 60i grabs.

Some day someone will turn off the CG, the CM and boost the Chroma, and then we'll find out. I hope!

Movies are very colorful. The idea that washing out all the colors to expand the detail at the ends and reduce contrast for film transfer is probably all very valid. But movies are loaded with color, ultimately... if we have to put it all in in post, that's a lot of rendering! : )

Best,

b

Hmm. I like the philosophical debate here over what the essence is of movies.

I think that, like all arguments about essences, this one can only go around and around and depart in myriad directions only to finally undo itself in the process (e.g. the "film look" argument)--which is not to say it is an uninteresting question.

To me there is obviously an art to editing and something very particular about it's role in making movies. But it is not that thing which distinguishes movies from all other art forms--editing in writing, after all, is just as much about sequence and arrangement. There is certainly also an art to the photography of making movies, as well as to script writing, story boarding, directing, sound, acting, interviewing, special effects and all the more and less dominant elements of making movies.

One of the things that interests and stimulates me especially about movies is what a montage of techniques they employ. None of them are essential (I think the movement of the camera and actors in a single take is closer to choreography than to editing). Yet all the techniques can be used brilliantly.

I also think the often highly collaborative nature of making movies (who really is the author of a movie in which hundreds of people have participated?) is one of the notable (though not essential) elements of making movies.

I have to agree with Steve on the editing process. Thats where the actual film gets made. Through the editing process you usually end up with a completely different film than you first intended. Thats true for just about every film made. The way you cut can completely change the atmosphere and purpose of a scene.

Case in point...
I recently read a book that discussed how the film
'All the presidents men' was made. Originally it was supposed to
be a detective style thriller about Watergate. Thats why they brough in Hoffman and Redford, to give a boring detective story some star power. By the time they finished editing the movie, they dicovered they'd made a movie about why people talk to the press. without passing judgement or even attempting to answer the question. Better movie for it.

So Steve is right, the editing process is what is unique and vital to film making.

I agree that editing is a vital part of film making (in just about every film). I just don't agree that it is the "essence" of film. It is possible to make films without editing (even if it is rarely done these days).

To clarify, I take "essence" here to mean: The one thing without which film would absolutely no longer be film. The idea of editing as the "essence" of film making suggests that all the other elements could not be there, except the act of editing, and it would still be a film. Editing purely on its own would make for an interesting John Cage like peformance--someone sitting there without any actual film stock or video tapes or digitized files literally editing nothing, just going through the motions--but I wonder if we would really want to call that a movie?

I also don't agree that editing is "unique" to film making. Again (to repeat the example I used above) with writing, editing is all about sequence and arrangement. Any serious piece of writing is radically rearranged from first drafts to last. The considerations that go into the process of editing and reworking a piece of writing are in some respects very similar to editing a film. Indeed, there is a long history of innovation in writing (flashbacks, establishing the scene, etc.) that influence the way films are edited and vice versa. So I don't think the category of those things in which editing is a vital part of their creation narrows down to just film.

I further don't agree that editing is "where the actual film gets made." Editing (again with most but not all movies these days) is a very signifcant moment in the process of creating the final movie (as significant as any other--and certainly all too often not given its due). But shooting the film and the acting and the script and directing are at least as much part of where the "actual" film gets made. There would be no "actual" movie, if film hadn't been shot, actors hadn't been put in front of cameras, words hadn't been written for the actors to say, and directions hadn't been given to the actors, camera people, etc. Without these things, the editor would be sitting in a dark room, with nothing--as in my imagined John Cage-like editing performance piece.

In the end, again, I think that trying to name the one "unique" thing or "essence" of an art form is an hapless enterprise. It's like when people debate what art "is." Questions like that can't be answered. Interesting things about an art form or art itself are illuminated in the process of the debate. But as soon as you make a claim about what art "is" or what the "essence" of film is, someone comes along and proves you wrong (not by clever argument, but by doing exactly what you said couldn't be done or doing without exactly what you said is essential). What makes film, film, or what makes art, art, are a whole host of elements, none of which are essential, yet enough of which eventually add up to a film or art.

<<<-- Originally posted by donking! : I agree that editing is a vital part of film making (in just about every film). I just don't agree that it is the "essence" of film. It is possible to make films without editing (even if it is rarely done these days).
-->>>

In fact, it is impossible to make a film without editing. When you start the camera, that is your first cut. When you stop it or run out of film, that is cut # 2.

Every film must have at least two edits.

donking, I have to respectfully disagree with the analogy to writing. Rarely does the editing process in writing make radical changes to the story itself. Mostly spelling and grammer correction. The writer may want to re-write the story or change the ending, but that is more like reshooting scenes than editing.

This is not the case for video/film. Instead of getting into a long debate I would like to recommend a great book for beginners and those interested in the effect of the editing process from a scholarly and high level point of view.

Making Movies Work by Jon Boorstin.
The book covers the different viewing experiences the audience goes through and how to achieve them (as well as mistakes to avoid). I beleive it's available at amazon. I got it at Barnes and Noble.


He is definitely a hollywood insider, with out being a cheerleader.
He goes into great detail about how certain editing techniques affect a film. More than most of us realize.

btw, this is the book I was referring to in a previous post about editng. Boorstin was personally involved in 'All the Presidents Men'.

He is a bit tedious in his writing style and tends to rely too much on Hitchcock for examples, but for anyone wanting to get a better understanding of the importance of the editing process this is a very good book. The issues covered are equally valid for film or video.

Toward the end of the book, he talks frankly about how timid and scared hollywood is and why the only real change comes from the independent/avant garde film community.

good reading everyone.

Jojo,

I never said that editing does not have a profound impact on how (almost all) films are made. I appreciate very well the many subtleties and complex effects that editing brings to film. I just don't think it has the absolute without-which-there-is-no-film status that "essential" implies (not my word by the way).

As far as writing is concerned, I totally disagree and I don't think anyone who's written a book, magazine artilce, or worked in publishing would take your position. Spelling and grammar correction is usually done by copy editors, as one of the last steps before actually printing something. The primary editors are involved in the writing process from the beginning. They discuss ideas and works with authors, read drafts, make suggestions about what to leave in and take out, how to rearrange things (sound familiar?), and so on. It's not exactly the same as film editing, but it shares many of the basic elements of the process.

Stephen,

I think your argument that every film has at least two cuts is interesting. If one buys your argument, though, one thing it points to is that editing/cutting is not essential to film making. It is necessary, it has to be there in some way, but it's not the one and only thing that makes the single take a film: there also has to be footage between the cuts.

One could imagine a Borgesian single take film extending from the beginning of time into eternity, to at least hypothetically contradict your argument and suggest an example of a film with no editing/cutting.

I think that example is a little silly and unnecessary. To me it seems that no one would have ever called the beginning and ending of a single take, which all first films were, "cuts," until after editing had become such a big part of film making. In retrospect, in a world where we can't imagine film without editing, it makes sense to anachronistically use the term to describe the beginning and ending of single takes. But the use of "cut" in this context seems a little out of place.

I think what we conventionally call editing, is the process of having lots of footage, sitting down and picking a choosing what is going to go into the final film, and deciding in what order to arrange the clips. None of that is done with a single take film. With a single take film I think people are putting their energies a lot more into what's actually going to be on the film. And to the extent that they think about the effect of the beginning and the end of the single take, I think those moments are being considered as a beginning and an ending, or an opening and a closing. It doesn't make sense to me to call them "cuts" or "edits" when nothing (literally) has been cut. At that point, I think the argument about editing being "essential" to film making has been pushed to a kind of absurd point.

But it is an interesting idea. I can even imagine suggesting that every choice about what goes on camera, where actors marks are, what words they say and when, how the lighting is done, I can imagine calling all of that editing. Each choice inserts something into the footage in a punctual manner, not unlike editing.

Donking:

I would argue that maybe you have not thought through the essence of what makes a film a film as opposed to a photograph or play.

I would suggest the best books I have read on the subject:

In the Blink of Eye (Walter Murch)
Sculpting in Time (Andrei Tarkovsky)

Editing, even my two take example, is the essense of film, because you pick the moments in time that are recorded. It's not those sets, actors, lighting, frames as there were before or after, it is as they are at this moment. That is the primary choice you make as a filmmaker - which take is the truth you seek.

All the other stuff in the frame is not in fact the central issue. The "when" ie. temporal choice or choice in time, is what makes it a "film".

Tarkovsky explains it better than I am.

"All the other stuff in the frame is not in fact the central issue."

If this is true, then why don't why just have all black (or white, or any color of your choice) frames? You can't even have a cut unless there is some content in the image. I just don't understand the need to say one thing is more important in film in an absolute way than another. There are a lot of things that going into making films.

As far as Tarkovsky is concerned, he has one theory of film. Murch has quite a different one (at least different from how you present Tarkovsky--who you present, I would note, as saying the "take" and not the "cut" is the essence of the film). Murch argues that the "blink" is like a primoridal cut that is at the basis of how thought articulates itself and how we visually relate to the waking world. So in fact, for Murch the "cut" exists before film (in the form of the blink) and is closer to being one of the necessary components of thought and everyday visual experience, than to being the essence of film. Film just steals the blink from our everyday mental experience and calls it the cut. Indeed, if you followed Murch's ideas to their logical conclusion, I think you would have to say that film is just a representation of thought and thought (neither editing nor the cut) is the essence of film.

But those are just two theories (though certainly interesting ones). A theory is always just that. A useful way to talk about something, but it should not be confused with "reality." The very significant late twentieth century French philosopher, Gilles Deleuze, offers yet another very elaborate and well considered theory of film (in his books, Cinema 1 and Cinema 2). There he argues that there are two different types of film: one based on a linear and progressive form of time representated by actions, the other based on a wholly irregular and disjunctive form of time more akin to thought (somewhat like Murch's theory). But again, that's just another (albeit very sophisticated and useful) theory.

Frankly, Stephen, I would argue that maybe you and JoJo have not considered very much what I wrote. You just keep repeating and asserting, "the essence of film is editing." Then you recommmend books to me. Perhaps that's not meant to be condescending, but it sure comes across that way: Oh poor confused soul, you should go read this book.

I could suggest a litany of significant major philosophers who write about what an "essence" is and more importantly what it is not (Hegel, Nietzsche, Richard Rorty), but it wouldn't contribute much to the discussion here. I think I've respectfully taken your ideas seriously, responded to them very thoughtfully, found them valuable in honing my own thought on the subject, and hoped that this might lead to more interesting discussion. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I expect you to consider and respond to what I have said, or just bow gracefully out of the conversation. And indeed it appears you and JoJo feel you've said what you have to say, so we probably should just let it stand at that, for others to read and comment on if it interests them.

Donking:

Your post comes across as angry - I hope you don't feel offended, this is just friendly debate.

Tarkovsky and Murch are/were both much more accomplished filmmakers than any of us. They both take very different perspectives (that's why I mentioned both books). However, I find they agree on the temporal aspects of film as central to the essence of film. The titles of both books makes this idea clear.

Obviously acting, story, composition, sound, music and many other factors are huge.

But acting, story, composition, sound, music are other artforms themselves and found in other art forms.

Editing (not literary editing - that is something very different) is unique to film. That is my argument. I certainly have understood yours, but I respectfully have a different view.

I cited Murch and Tarkovsky to support my argument, not to insult you. I apologize if it came off that way.

Thanks Stephen.

Unsurpisingly, and no doubt obviously at this point, I don't think that film editing is fundamentally different from literary editing, or blinking for that matter. And I think it is ultimately valuable and important to consider both how various art forms and practices differ from and ressemble each other. I don't think there are any ultimate absolute differences (or essences).

I would also probably throw out that I see no reason to assume that film editing has always been the same thing over the course of its history; and therefore to assume that we can just refer to "editing" as one monolithic and in some basic manner always self-same pratice. It is the various interferences and ways that art forms inform each other, change and suddenly become something wholly different than what we expected that I find to be the most fruitful ground.

Thanks for the ideas and input.

No one's angry. I enjoy your argument.

Nope, not angry or condesending. At least I'm not.