Is this a good way to fix this rolling shutter issue?

[Ryan Elder]

My camera has rolling shutter issues when I want to do a shot that involves camera movement. One person told me to a way to fix this is by shooting in 60 fps at 1/120, and then converting that to 24 fps afterwards. But if I do that, the shutter speed will still be high and I will have a Saving Private Ryan type of shutter speed look for future projects.

I never liked the look at all personally, but does it still look more appealing than rolling shutter in the footage?

[Brian Drysdale]

Each camera model will have different levels of the rolling shutter artifact. Since I assume you're using the older, ow budget DSLR, that has been mentioned before, the best solution would probably be to buy a new camera that has less of this artifact.

[Paul R Johnson]

I've never quite got the rolling shutter thing. Clearly, the helicopter or propeller blade thing is an obvious one, but camera movement in itself is pretty trouble free isn't it? It's only fast moving things during the sensor sweep. Have you got examples of shots where it's objectionable? In what I do, I've not noticed it really as something to avoid. What I have noticed is the quality drop when converting frame rates that require extra or cut frames. Unless you have lots of rotating, or passing large areas, is it really a problem? Have you tried shooting everyday stuff at 1/120 at 60fps? Will it cause you grief with light? Does the 'look' suit the content. I can't see me having that as a go to default setup. For me, 24 is a rarity.

[Brian Drysdale]

As Paul says, I wouldn't worry about rolling shutter, unless your camera moves, content or action causes objectionable levels. If you're shooting material that triggers the artifact in your camera, I would consider replacing it with a more suitable camera.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Global Shutter. Komodo RED. Maxed out credit card. Do it!

[Steve Game]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

I've never quite got the rolling shutter thing. Clearly, the helicopter or propeller blade thing is an obvious one, but camera movement in itself is pretty trouble free isn't it? It's only fast moving things during the sensor sweep. Have you got examples of shots where it's objectionable? In what I do, I've not noticed it really as something to avoid. What I have noticed is the quality drop when converting frame rates that require extra or cut frames. Unless you have lots of rotating, or passing large areas, is it really a problem? Have you tried shooting everyday stuff at 1/120 at 60fps? Will it cause you grief with light? Does the 'look' suit the content. I can't see me having that as a go to default setup. For me, 24 is a rarity.

In my experience, if there is any likelihood of rolling shutter artifacts, I shoot at the fastest shutter speed possible (or smallest shutter angle if your camera has that as a setting), - comensurate with the available light of course. That way, any difference in the position of moving objects during the sensor exposure/scanning time is minimised.
In post, to prevent a gritty "Saving Private Ryan" effect, apply a degree of your editor's 'motion blur' effect which will partly merge sequential pairs of frames and effectively simulate more conventional shutter speed.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. I was told I have a rolling shutter effect in a couple of projects I posted here before, which were shot with the Sony A7s II, as far as cameras go.

But if I shoot at a high shutter speed, and have the Saving Private Ryan type of look, and then add motion blur in post, the post motion blur does not look as natural in my opinion. Plus I would be running an entire movie through after effects, and applying to every frame then. Is it worth giving an entire movie unnatural looking post motion blur, just to avoid a Saving Private Ryan look?

It just seems like a lot of extra work, but is there no other way to minimize rolling shutter than shooting at a high shutter speed, and then runing the entire finished product through after effects motion blur?

[Paul R Johnson]

Perhaps you'd better show us the problem Ryan - me, a few frames of rolling shutter artefacts in a full length movie wouldn't (for me_ be enough to spoil the look of the whole thing Why not fir the future, notice the rolling shutter when shooting problem scenes, and then fix it then, just for that scene/shot?

[Brian Drysdale]

"Saving Private Ryan" used a 45 degree shutter, which is 1/192 of a second at 24 fps. Usually, you can get away with 1/100, without it being that noticeable (i.e you have to be looking for it) on most action.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Perhaps you'd better show us the problem Ryan - me, a few frames of rolling shutter artefacts in a full length movie wouldn't (for me_ be enough to spoil the look of the whole thing Why not fir the future, notice the rolling shutter when shooting problem scenes, and then fix it then, just for that scene/shot?

Oh okay, It's this short I posted before. I showed it to someone else and he said that there are rolling shutter problems in the shots where the camera moves, which start at 4:55 into the clip and end at 5:28 mostly.

Battle Damaged Souls - YouTube

As for fixing the rolling shutter, when it happens instead, how would I do that though?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

1. I'm assuming you didn't use a variable nd filter, but instead cranked up the shutter speed to get the exposure.

2. The scene is a bit unique because you have all the grave stones with vertical lines that is making it more noticeable.

3. Just shooting it differently would have been the best solution. A fixed wider shot of him walking, slowmo at 60fps tracking shot, and staying away from fast pans. The shot choice and execution doesn't fit the mood. Something contemplative should slow and smooth not uneven and jittery.

Overall the problem is due to your choices and lack of experience working with that camera.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, but we did use ND filters though. It was a cloudy day so the sky was white but we did use the filters. Some of the shots, we had to take the filters off though, because it was too dark in the trees for them. Even though the sky is white, the faces are correctly exposed. So if we left the filters on, then the faces would be underexposed. But are underexposed faces better than a white sky? The shuttter speed was at 1/50th so didn't crank at it up at all, accept for some of the slow motion shots, where it was cranked up to 1/60th.

Also, what if I want to do camera movement though, such as a pan or a shot that is not fixed? How do I do that but avoid rolling shutter?

When you say vertical lines, what is the problem with the vertical lines exactly? There are other movies with vertical lines in the object when the camera moves though. So what are those movies doing differently?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I don't know what you did, but the frame rate shutter angle is off not by a little but a lot. Eyes don't lie. Slow and smooth was the key here, sounds like you still don't get it. This is about pacing and mood, and then filming it in way that achieve it.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I see. Well as far as the shuttle angle goes, it is possible that the DP/gimbal operator could have turned it up, while I was working with the subject, and maybe I didn't see it.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I could also have been knackered in editing. At what frame rate you film and how you edit it are equally important and inter related.

Shutter Speed for Video EXPLAINED: How Frame Rates & Shutter Speed Work Together - YouTube

Frame Rates EXPLAINED: How To Film & Edit Mixed Frame Rate Video In Premiere Pro - YouTube