sample: unreasonably shakey footage with rolling shutter distortion

Ali Husain · December 6th, 2007, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Curtis

Ali, that's great of you, thanks

Won't be mounting it on a helicopter any time soon :)

Have you tried just normal shaky handholding, something more useful, running with the camera, documentary style?

I think the camera is fantastic in general, but i like to know when it won't work first...

paul

i put up some footage like that and documented it here:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=109613

it's probably a bit more shakey than someone would normally shoot though (and the shutter speed is higher).

Ali Husain · December 6th, 2007, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Leith

Wow, Ali... I think you need to cut back on the caffeine! Your hands are shaking! ;-D

Serious question, though... If you use a slower shutter speed (or shutter off) does it mask these distortions by motion blurring them away?

yes, the slower shutter speed helps a bit.

Paul Curtis · December 6th, 2007, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ali Husain

i put up some footage like that and documented it here:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=109613

it's probably a bit more shakey than someone would normally shoot though (and the shutter speed is higher).

Ali, that's so kind of you, a real help

It's pretty good, i can still see the effect but it's acceptable which is all i needed to know. I see this artifact as being one of the major differences between this and the other XDCAMs (which i believe are all CCD based)

I know i've been going on about the shutter but it's only because i know i'll have some very specific requirements next year (which i don't think it will cope with) but on the other hand what you get for the cost will deal with 95% of what i need.

thanks again
paul

Michael Bender · December 8th, 2007, 08:43 PM

This is a very interesting thread in terms of seeing just how well the camera can deal with extreme movement, however unless you were going for that kind of look explicitly (and perhaps the "nervous hands" look might be better done in post anyway ;-) I would think that you'd have the camera on something like a SteadiCam (Jr.) or one of those backpack-with-hanging-bungee-cord type rigs (I forget the name of the one I've got) to try to dampen the shakes due to running or not enough coffee/drugs in the morning.

Sure, if you screw the camera to the side of a helicopter rotor blade and then notice that the footage isn't pristine, that's not really the fault of the camera, you've just exceeded it's operational envelope just a tad ;-)

Thanks for all the clips though, it is good to understand the limits of the camera (and any gear that you may be using).

mike

Michael H. Stevens · January 27th, 2008, 06:38 PM

Pretty good for shaking, but the back of the goat is blown out.

Dean Sensui · June 17th, 2008, 12:34 AM

Knowing the limits of CMOS chips, and knowing that the shaking is intentional, a production team would think the process through and consider doing the shaking in post.

Two advantages: avoid the rolling shutter artifacts. And make the shaking controllable. You can adjust the shaking in post to get the desired effect. But if you do the shaking in-camera, even with a CCD camera, you're stuck with it.

December 8th, 2007, 08:43 PM	#19
Michael Bender Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Novato, CA, USA Posts: 46	Shake your booty, but dampen it Please! This is a very interesting thread in terms of seeing just how well the camera can deal with extreme movement, however unless you were going for that kind of look explicitly (and perhaps the "nervous hands" look might be better done in post anyway ;-) I would think that you'd have the camera on something like a SteadiCam (Jr.) or one of those backpack-with-hanging-bungee-cord type rigs (I forget the name of the one I've got) to try to dampen the shakes due to running or not enough coffee/drugs in the morning. Sure, if you screw the camera to the side of a helicopter rotor blade and then notice that the footage isn't pristine, that's not really the fault of the camera, you've just exceeded it's operational envelope just a tad ;-) Thanks for all the clips though, it is good to understand the limits of the camera (and any gear that you may be using). mike __________________ Never give up! Never surrender!

June 17th, 2008, 12:34 AM	#21
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	Knowing the limits of CMOS chips, and knowing that the shaking is intentional, a production team would think the process through and consider doing the shaking in post. Two advantages: avoid the rolling shutter artifacts. And make the shaking controllable. You can adjust the shaking in post to get the desired effect. But if you do the shaking in-camera, even with a CCD camera, you're stuck with it. __________________ Dean Sensui Exec Producer, Hawaii Goes Fishing

January 27th, 2008, 06:38 PM	#20
Michael H. Stevens Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Palm Desert, California Posts: 311	Pretty good for shaking, but the back of the goat is blown out.