Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flowing sense of motion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Flowing sense of motion

    Originally posted by Kholi
    It's either way, for me. Doesn't matter if it's locked off, doesn't matter if it's panning, doesn't matter if it's handheld.

    Not trying to turn this into a thread about different cameras, but if you check the Magic Cam footage from John Brawley (http://vimeopro.com/johnbrawleytests...-cinema-camera) particularly the one of the two guys testing the C300 near the sea, watch the shots where the guys are moving or even sitting still.

    To me, the motion is perfect (if perfect describes what I've grown up seeing most of my life in film aesthetic). And, sometimes, the micro jitters from it being handheld crop up but never interfere with the motion at all.
    At DVXuser there has been a very detailed discussion of what makes motion special in film as opposed to video (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...ok-quot/page12). Kohli moved the conversation to the BMCC with the above quote.

    My response was:


    Originally posted by philiplipetz
    The motion is nearly the ONLY reason we have ordered two of the cameras, and a FS for low light, for our next project. It looks creamy smooth even on a good showroom monitor. Been driving me crazy because there are so many vital pieces left out of this camera, some that can be replaced by kit and some that will be forever missing. Yet, The footage creates a flow that will make it so much easier to immerse the audience in the projected reality rather than having them watch it from a distance. There is a sense of history, instead of the video now there is past, present and future. We are shooting a mystical piece and this flow is exactly what we need.

    Ran tests with C300 and it is not there so look forward to any test Nirv or anyone less can do to recreate the same flow.
    Kohli also commented on that fact that some people see it and others do not:

    Originally posted by Kholi
    Yeah, I dunno what to tell ya. I think it's just some people can see it and some people cannot, but I'm willing to take a look at what you're referring to. Upload it if you can, then.

    There isn't an example on the internet to my knowledge that's even close from the FS100 and honestly, any Sony camera. I couldn't get it there no matter what shutter, what lens, etc. Not from the internal compression, not from the NanoFlash. There could be a combination. Maybe I just haven't seen it, though.

  • #2
    Honestly, this has been something I've debated since the late DVX100 days, and it never fails that I'm either dubbed crazy, seeing things, or something else close to being out of my mind. However, it's refreshing to see that a lot of other people can spot it outside of my immediate group of friends.

    It's a very good topic to discuss, and I would love to know what the heck is going on, how and why it changes between manufacturers.

    SKYPE (best way to talk to me): Camera_Kholi | twitter
    Avery and Pete: Superseeds Feature Film Trailer

    Comment


    • #3
      Are you saying that each camera possesses a unique motion aesthetic?

      Mind blown again.

      You guys keep doing that to me.
      http://lightpix.tumblr.com

      Comment


      • #4
        For the most part, the motion people are used to in films is 180 degree motion (half the motion of the frame rate). Hell, you can grab a DSLR, throw it in 24p at 1/50th (close enough), zoom in a bit and wallah! Instant cinematic...ness. Crop it to 2.35:1 and your video looks even more cinematic.

        I make it sound like a gimmick, but it works, even when you're pointing it at nothing in particular. Of course the idea is not to make films that have nothing in particular on screen :P

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't know if its the same but but some videos have a cinematic look but still video "feel"

          and when you watch a film it's different in nature
          www.lightformfilm.com
          https://vimeo.com/suwanchote

          follow me on instagram @lightformfilm

          Comment


          • #6
            Personally, I'm not talking cinematic, I'm talking a very specific cadence to rendered frames that sometimes is SO subtle it's undetectable, unless you're hyper sensitive to it.

            Just zooming in a bit and 1/50th shutter, definitely doesn't help anything as far as motion goes. Sure, switching a CAnon over to 1/45 makes it tolerable, GH2 use 1/40th, but none of it looks like John Brawley's Magic Cam samples, none of it looks like Alexa, and I am sure none of it will look like the F65's footage due to the shutter mechanism.

            And all of those just barely scratch real film.

            Originally posted by Note Suwanchote View Post
            I don't know if its the same but but some videos have a cinematic look but still video "feel"

            and when you watch a film it's different in nature

            This is exactly what we're talking about. Cinematic and Video-like are two different things. You can make any camera look cinematic, but you cannot erase the subtleties in cadence, etc.

            SKYPE (best way to talk to me): Camera_Kholi | twitter
            Avery and Pete: Superseeds Feature Film Trailer

            Comment


            • #7
              It is a gimmick, and a good one. It's something I always kind of knew, but hadn't heard anyone articulate it. There's a few threads about anamorphic shooting... what's your take on that? Better to shoot it that way or crop it in post?
              http://lightpix.tumblr.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Note Suwanchote View Post
                I don't know if its the same but but some videos have a cinematic look but still video "feel"

                and when you watch a film it's different in nature
                Could I hazard a guess that it is the dynamic range and potential for crushed blacks and whites that often makes video feel less cinematic? Film productions have typically had access to wide, smooth dynamic range in their cameras (whether its film or high end digital cinema camera sensors). The image contains more detail at a lower, more real level of contrast. Your eyes don't see the dynamic range in the world as super saturated, high contrast. We see logarithmically, which is flatter and greyer. Films are usually somewhere in between.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Haha.

                  Let me clear the air:

                  Cinematic = great lighting, composition, acting, movement, around 24 frames a second etc. Point any camera at something that's well lit so on and so forth, it will look cinematic regardless of frame rate.

                  Video Feel/Look = a very subtle perhaps undetectable but present feeling that is completely inherent to capturing frames with a video camera.

                  Because this veers that way always, I want to stop that here: this is not about cinematic looks. This is strictly about the presence of a video-like cadence.

                  Cropping an image to 2.35:1 will provide a crutch to someone's footage, absolutely. It's been a crutch for a long time, and we could definitely discuss that (I think 2.35:1 is cheap and you can tell when someone doesn't know how to shoot it out, it's VERY obvious.).

                  But when it comes to the actual motion, you can see the difference between each of the manufacturers' cameras out.

                  SKYPE (best way to talk to me): Camera_Kholi | twitter
                  Avery and Pete: Superseeds Feature Film Trailer

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kholi View Post
                    Personally, I'm not talking cinematic, I'm talking a very specific cadence to rendered frames that sometimes is SO subtle it's undetectable, unless you're hyper sensitive to it.
                    Ahh, I get what you mean. Besides, they're fundamentally different mechanisms for exposing the medium to light.

                    You can get close by adhering to those things mentioned, shutter speed, frame rate and your image quality, but its still different.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Let me clear up that I'm grossly ignoring the fact that cinematic also involves the set in front of the camera

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by nickjbedford View Post
                        Could I hazard a guess that it is the dynamic range and potential for crushed blacks and whites that often makes video feel less cinematic? Film productions have typically had access to wide, smooth dynamic range in their cameras (whether its film or high end digital cinema camera sensors). The image contains more detail at a lower, more real level of contrast. Your eyes don't see the dynamic range in the world as super saturated, high contrast. We see logarithmically, which is flatter and greyer. Films are usually somewhere in between.
                        I could relate a huge majority to that but it seems that there is a part missing still. What is the DR of film btw?
                        www.lightformfilm.com
                        https://vimeo.com/suwanchote

                        follow me on instagram @lightformfilm

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It is not DR or lighting, but the way motion feels. What is the subtle feeling of flow between frames? All cameras will show the same overall movement but some cameras somehow seem more lifelike, even though both have exactly the same start and ending movements.

                          I many ways this relates to another debate at DVXuser, about Peter Jackson's use of 48p in The Hobbitt film. OS,e are saying that it destroys the sense of normal flow even though clearly we are receiving more information becuase the frame rate was doubled. So, the real question is if extra information overloads our senses and takes us away from our ordinary sense of reality that is blurred with background activity barely seen.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Dunno... Part of me thinks that we're just conditioned to think/feel the way we do because of all the exposure we've had to 24p entertainment. Will there be a new "normal flow"?
                            http://lightpix.tumblr.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paul Stephen Edwards View Post
                              Dunno... Part of me thinks that we're just conditioned to think/feel the way we do because of all the exposure we've had to 24p entertainment. Will there be a new "normal flow"?
                              There will be, it's destined to change unless the nostalgia pushes digital imagery toward the old. Which, it already has. If Arri is the gold standard (and it is) then we have a base that's very close/similar to film which all manufacturers should strive to emulate/match.

                              Even still, that's a change, because it's not EXACTLY like Film.

                              I also wonder if the limitations that brought twenty-four frames to be the standard ended up creating the perfect combination, anyway. Like, if 30 frames was the standard, then some filmmaker said "forget this Im doing 24", and suddenly people fell in love with that look, from then on everything was 24.

                              Not sure if that makes sense, but yeah, maybe someone'll get me.

                              SKYPE (best way to talk to me): Camera_Kholi | twitter
                              Avery and Pete: Superseeds Feature Film Trailer

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X