The Sony XDCAM look vs. Panasonic Look vs. Canon Look ( or Frame Judder in 24p )

[Simon Wyndham]

Its worth noting that James Cameron wants to make at least 48p the norm in cinemas.

It would be a good thing. Camerawork such as that used in Bourne Supremacy, and the over reliance on clseups these days, with all the inherant movement of actors in such a framing, means that 24fps is a nightmare to watch if you end up in the front half of a cinema.

[Jack Zhang]

Handheld action shots would definitely equal a headache on a giant 24p film screen. 60i-24p removes some of that and that's why all the handheld documentaries use that method.

[Kevin Shaw]

So can anyone comment on how well the EX1 handles motion at low frame rates, based on actual testing experience? Given what we know about the technology it uses, what will likely be the best settings on this camera for a 'film-like' look?

Personally I find motion judder distracting, but we've been around about this before and it seems to mostly be a matter of personal taste. For an interesting discussion of how the human eye perceives things, see this link: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

[Ron Evans]

I think these comments are interesting. I have no problem with well shot film, content is what really matters. My problem is people using video, shot at 24p with little regard for the limitations, shooting 24p as if it was 60i. Doesn't work, is very bad to watch and thus detracts from the content not enhance it. The comments about paintings etc are very valid. For artistic work do what gets the effect desired. But for me a documentary for example or a training video should be shot to show all the detail and fidelity one can get. For me that also applies to an event. I want it to be as if I was there warts and all, just looking through a window. To me there is nothing fluid about film as it is on the edge of capturing motion. Poor camera work and it falls apart.
Ron Evans

[Paul Izbicki]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

I think these comments are interesting. I have no problem with well shot film, content is what really matters. My problem is people using video, shot at 24p with little regard for the limitations, shooting 24p as if it was 60i. Doesn't work, is very bad to watch and thus detracts from the content not enhance it. The comments about paintings etc are very valid. For artistic work do what gets the effect desired. But for me a documentary for example or a training video should be shot to show all the detail and fidelity one can get. For me that also applies to an event. I want it to be as if I was there warts and all, just looking through a window. To me there is nothing fluid about film as it is on the edge of capturing motion. Poor camera work and it falls apart.
Ron Evans

True that, but 24Progressive is handsome, saves hugely on Solid State Memory resources, and compresses beautifully. It's great for post prod. workflow. If you are going SxS or P2, it's got to be on the table. Learning how often and how fast to move the camera is the price we have to pay-not too exorbitant.

[Peter Jefferson]

But Paul, the issue here is that people are set in their ways. They're used to shooting something in a certain manner because it has become a habit.

I recall these type of discussions when the DVX was first released and these issues discussed now are no different.

[Alexander Browne]

We'll retain the "good" part of film and dump the bad motion and "noise" which people love to call "grain."

This is partly because grain is grain, and not noise. Noise is effectively the absence of information, or the presence of wrong information. In film, grain is the information. Secondly "Bad Motion" is a massive oversimplification - Many people (myself included) find a great deal of natural "charm" in low frame rates. The further an experience is removed from reality in this sense, the more dream-like it can become. 2046 and other Wong Kar Wai films are a good example. He makes heavy use of 12 and 8 fps and the experience is hypnotic. If 48fps becomes the new standard, I'll happily comply - I'll only need half as much storage as everyone else though!

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Alexander Browne

This is partly because grain is grain, and not noise.

That's just semantics to describe something which wasn't present in the original scene but is visible on film, hence it's noise. Some people like the film grain look because it's nostalgic, but if you started seeing real life like that you'd go see a doctor.

"Bad Motion" is a massive oversimplification - Many people (myself included) find a great deal of natural "charm" in low frame rates.

Again, semantics and nostalgia. When I saw the latest Bond film in a movie theater the motion stutter was clearly visible, and detracted from the experience for me. I can't say whether I would have liked it more at 30+ frames per second, but I would like to see smooth motion.

We all agree that content is ultimately more important than technical considerations, so if we only had digital cameras which ran at 1000 fps we'd still be making and watching the same movies with whatever look was necessary to tell the story. You can add noise and jerky motion to a flawless image but you can't get a flawless image from a noisy, jerky source.

[Richard Alvarez]

Well, everything one records on a given medium is 'noise' by Kevins definition, since your eyes see vastly more ranges of colors and deeper lattitude than either film or any electronic media. Neither film nor tape nor any known sensor will 'record what your eyes/brain' sees. ALL it can possibly record is "NOISE" in Kevin's estimation. Preferring one look over another is simply a matter of semantics.

Of course, that assumes that one sees 'perfectly' in the first place. ;)

[Vince Gaffney]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Again, semantics and nostalgia. When I saw the latest Bond film in a movie theater the motion stutter was clearly visible, and detracted from the experience for me. I can't say whether I would have liked it more at 30+ frames per second, but I would like to see smooth motion.

Great article in ASC magazine with Philip Méheux. May help you better understand the look of the film - and how it's not achievable in a believable way with video.

As far as smooth motion, I'll take the film look any day.

I don't care what frame rate you shoot at if your work is filled with bumpy pans, jerky zooms and dollies, hesitant cranes and drifting lock-offs. I see stuff on videographers reels that confounds me as a director. They can tell you tech nonsense until you turn green but don't bother to level the head. A little discipline behind the camera goes a long way.

vince

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

Well, everything one records on a given medium is 'noise' by Kevins definition, since your eyes see vastly more ranges of colors and deeper lattitude than either film or any electronic media. Neither film nor tape nor any known sensor will 'record what your eyes/brain' sees.

True enough, but the closer we can get to what our brain perceives the better as far as I'm concerned. Film has dwindling advantages over digital in terms of resolution and latitude with disadvantages in terms of noise (grain) and motion rendition. If you like the look of film it's probably more because of the latitude than anything else, but grain is an inherent flaw - as are the pixel limitations of digital recording. Calling a flaw a benefit is a matter of preference rather than reason, so I'll agree with that.

[Alexander Browne]

Its worth noting that film cameras are more than capable of the same fps of all but the most specialist of video cameras.. so this isn't really a (tired) film vs video debate, rather one of style.
Do you want to achieve something that is as close to human vision as possible? Some may, I don't. The grain and stuttery motion of film are nothing like human vision. Neither is inches-deep dof, or the colours that cinematographers and colourists painstakingly commit to final prints. Thats why I like it.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Vince Gaffney

I don't care what frame rate you shoot at if your work is filled with bumpy pans, jerky zooms and dollies, hesitant cranes and drifting lock-offs. I see stuff on videographers reels that confounds me as a director.

Fair enough, and I see visible problems in major motion pictures which I find distracting as a viewer. I understand that people like the 'film look' for all the reasons stated here, but I also see talk of trying to avoid issues of shooting on film through careful camera work. In any medium you have to deal with the limitations of it to the best of your ability, and there isn't one inherently better than another - except as a matter of preference.

But the original topic here was the motion look produced by different video cameras, so let's get back to that. Do we know yet whether the EX1 uses a rolling shutter? If so I gather that will likely yield a different look than the HVX200, which is in turn different from the Canon HDV cameras. I'm guessing people who like the Panasonic will still like it after the EX1 ships, while comparisons to the Canons may be a little tougher. I'm looking forward to seeing what the EX1 can do.

[Richard Alvarez]

The whole 'dogma' movement was based (erroneously) around capturing only what is 'naturally' present in a scene. (yes, yes,... but essentially that's the point.)

Trying to capture only 'what the eye see's naturally' is ONE philosphy of filmmaking. It is not necessarily the 'right' or 'better' philosophy. Introducing filters in front of the lens (noise/Flaws) adding/subtracting color in post (more 'noise'/flaws) indeed... the whole world of graphic FX... all revolve around the suposition that the creator's 'vision' of a story is larger than what one 'sees' with the eyes.

I have yet to see a video image that looks more 'natural' ... to ME... than film. It always has an intrinsic 'flatness', a kind of harshness that does not emmulate the organic nature of vision, that film does. Semantics, sure. Nostalgia, maybe. But no less so than people who love the 'look' of film. One can have nostalgia for the 'video look'... if that is what one prefers.

There is no arguing 'taste'.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

That's just semantics to describe something which wasn't present in the original scene but is visible on film, hence it's noise. Some people like the film grain look because it's nostalgic, but if you started seeing real life like that you'd go see a doctor.

And if you started seeing everything in black and white you'd go to a doctor as well - but that has nothing to do with whether B&W is a viable choice for making a film, or whether it's 'nostalgic' - it's simply an aesthetic choice. Ultimately that's why I think high frame rates won't become the norm, at least for narrative filmmaking - it has nothing to do with duplicating what you see in real life.

You cite the latest Bond film, and it's a perfect example - what elements of the film would you consider 'close to real life'? The story? The stunts? The lighting, locations, or sound? Even the actors have altered their bodies through training, surgery and makeup to become something that doesn't represent reality. Nothing about a Bond film has anything to do with what we see in real life - so what is to be gained by trying to more closely approximate the way the eye sees reality?

I can see the argument for documentary/reality programming where you are trying to create the illusion that what you are presenting is a completely accurate representation of what is happening - but that's a very different goal than in narrative filmmaking.