Hi everybody, I think I recorded this with the exposure too long, resulting in the blurring between frames. Is there a plugin for Sony Vegas that can fix this?
not? Looks right to me.
30fps (a 30th of a second per frame) so you want your shutter open only half that single frame time which is a 60th sec.
same goes for the other examples.
Age is catching up with me. If I shoot at 30fps and only have 1/60 shutter speed I loose half of the frame hence increase the temporal space, right? That would increase the strobing effect not reduce it because there is less motion blur.
"Age is catching up with me. If I shoot at 30fps and only have 1/60 shutter speed I loose half of the frame hence increase the temporal space, right?"
When you say loose half the frame, you mean loose half the exposed frame time?, thats correct. Not the time between frames. Thats always a 30th sec no matter what we do with the shutter speed. The two are not to be mixed up.
So, we click to frame (1)
open the shutter for a 60th,
close a 60th,
click to next frame (2),
open a 60th ...
close a 60th
etc...
repeat for all 30 frames, this takes 1 second.
so each frame is exposed (shutter open) for a 60th sec.
So what happens to the other half the frame is not exposed? The movement in front of the camera hasn't stopped and hence you lose the motion blur. In other words, the frame is there for 1/30 a second but we only have utilized it half because the other half of the time the shutter is closed and we don't capture the movement in from of the camera hence there is less motion blur. Am I still wrong?
You do loose motion during the close half, correct. You're always going to loose some motion in any film system or video camera. Because of the shutter closed time. No matter what frame rate or camera you use.
But thats why we use the blur from the open half to try and 'connect' the two images together. in other words - smooth motion. And that is the point, to try and join them up without visible gaps. However, go too far and too much blur (open shutter) and you run the risk of problems too. Small movements look soft and blurred when they don't need to be. So the trade off is 50%. Thats the standard.
The correct shutter speed for both 60i and 30p is definitely 1/60 of a second for smooth motion blur. Having said that, the Internet is full of DSLR video shot with a faster shutter that doesn't look too bad. I'm not nearly as afraid of it as I once was. I will shoot a faster shutter if I expect to have to stabilize it with Mercelli. I'll keyframe in linear blur on fast tripod pans. I'vo gone as slow as 1/30 in really low light scenery shots and been happy with the results. I've also adjusted the shutter rate to get rid of strobing from certain lights or video TVs or monitors. I am not above using shutter priority mode to get the motion blur right if I am shooting something where I don't care about shallow depth of field.
"You do loose motion during the close half, correct."
That is my point. So how does shooting 30fps @ 1/60 shutter improve motion blur...meaning more blur? In my opinion it doesn't it actually makes it worse.
I shoot mainly sport events and no matter what I do, I can't shoot at 30fps no matter what the shutter speed is. I can however shoot at 60fps (progressive) and at most at 1/90 sec shutter but even 1/60 looks ok. I tried 1/120 but that looks as good/bad as 30fps shot at 1/30. If want more motion blur with 30fps I would have to us a shutter that is longer then 1/30, maybe 1/24 as that would expose the next frame with parts of the previous frame hence blur the image more.
If you shoot with a video camera at 1:1, 60fps @1/60 then here is actually no shutter close time. I can imagine film to be different because you need time to transport the film to the next frame.
Yes Laurence, with experience you do get a feel for shutter speed and what can and cannot be done. Rules are meant to be broken as they say, but only if you know what you're doing :) But from a standards point of view, 50% is the rule and should be stuck to. Youtube is full of examples of how 'not' to shoot with fast and slow shutters. Yep.
Of course, in the right hands, strobing can actually enhance a scene. For example a hand to hand combat scene with lots of action, strobing works great and can give it more energy. Slow shutters, maybe a slow romantic scene...
And yes, high shutter speeds are great for post stabilisation. true.
Ah, i think i get your point now. (hopefully!)
We are talking two different things. I am referring to strobing as in the effect you get from a short shutter speed at any frame rate. ie. the ratio of the shutter open to shutter closed. This gives the effect of strobing when you move the camera to fast or something moves by quickly. (OP's post title)
I think you are referring to frame speed? ie faster frames give less strobing.
These are two different effects.
Your sports will indeed look stuttered if you try and shoot at 24-30fps prog. No matter what shutter speed you set. Thats true. But thats because the action is moving so fast. Much faster than say two people talking or a slow camera pan. So yes, you need to shoot interlaced 30fps or 60 prog.
But we are talking shutter speeds not frame rates here. Its just ratios of open closed, not frame speed.
I guess we are half way there. To me, even someone waving his hands in front of the camera or shouting a tree in the wind is a no go with 30fps@ 1/30 and 30fps@1/60 makes it worse. Maybe I haven't come across a situation where I would use 30fps@1/60 but I might go for 60fps@1/30 if the lighting condition requires it.
" ..is a no go with 30fps@ 1/30 and 30fps@1/60 makes it worse"
1/60th has less motion blur than 1/30th. So yes, its true, it has more strobing on movement.
But then too much blur can mess with the image also. Keeping image sharpness on moderately slow movement (not too much blur) while joining frames with some blur to help smooth faster movement. So we choose 50% for best overall results.
And yes, 24p 25p and 30p, if you start waving your arms around you will get strobing, but thats due to low frame rates not shutter speed and its perfectly normal and expected. Which brings us right back to the OPs post and his shutter speed problem. Well yes, he is shooting 25p and that means a 50th sec shutter, but as pointed out, its not the biggest problem. That being camera pan speed. Like your sports shots, if you want to pan fast, he'd need a faster frame rate or interlaced footage also. In the OPs case, its simply a case of panning slower. With the addition of the correct shutter speed.
I can understand why people with no experience of film cannot understand the logic of a 50% rule. Cine cameras have a disk shutter with a 180 degree open segment, and since this shutter completes one revolution per frame then the exposure time is one half the frame rate (25fps, 1/50 second, and so on). Many cameras are able to reduce the shutter opening (such as for preventing flicker from AC lighting). Since we're all accustomed to watching films shot at 24fps we are also accustomed to motion shot with 1/48 second shutter speed -- it looks right because that's what we've always seen. Although not, if you're just used to TV.
Video gives you the option to shoot 360 degree open shutter, which certainly gives greater motion blur but most people don't like it; doesn't have the right cadence.
There are many technical rules which have developed by experience, and these can be found in The American Cinematographers Manual. The one for panning at 24fps is that an object must not take less than 7 seconds to cross the frame. You will find tables for focal length and frame rate versus panning rate in degrees per second, but the 7 second rule is good rule-of-thumb.
I don't know. I am not the youngest and I have been countless times to the cinema but I so much more prefer movies shot at higher frame rates. 25p shot @ 1/50 is as good as shooting 50p @ 1/50 and throwing away ever second frame. I also would rather say that video gives you the option NOT to shoot at 360deg as 360deg is the standard. I just can't see why anyone would prefer "stutter" over smooth and if it would be possible I would shoot even higher frame rates, 120fps or more although 60p is already so much better then 30p.
I am raised and born in the PAL land but for the past 3 years I am now in NTSC territory and really enjoy the slightly higher frame rate. In the DV days PAL was a bit superior due to the higher horizontal resolution, 576 vs 480 but that has changed in the HD world with the higher frame rate of NTSC.
I agree with a previous post that we've been conditioned to accept 24fps film shot with a 180 degree shutter, because that's the way film evolved a hundred years ago. But even if starting from scratch I would still prefer the motion blur that such a process produces. I can barely watch video shot with a high-speed shutter (some sports action on TV), though such video has a purpose--one can examine frame-to-frame actions in great detail. I love watching the stitching on a baseball to see how the ball will break, and I marvel that a human can impart such a spin while still throwing with precision. But seeing an aircraft propeller strobing, first turning one way, then the other, is not pleasant for me.
Then top that off with rolling shutter effects. Wait, what's happening to that propeller blade? It's disappeared, then a scimitar magically appears out in open space, only to disappear again. Yuck. Oh, and make sure to throw in the jello effect. Glad I still have a CCD camera.
What will probably happen is that high-speed image processing will evolve to the point that stills from the imager will be massaged either on the chip or in the camera such that a gorgeous progression of, say, 240Hz stills will flow out. Intel did some work on this years ago: feed in video shot at a low frame rate and the processing circuitry will deliver interpolated frames that flow and look beautiful.
180 was chosen not just for historical reasons, but for technical reasons too, as i have explained earlier. The amount of blur produced is there for a reason. Its not just for 24fps, it applies to all frame rates.
Maybe I should have said the "default" and that applies to cameras that shoot at 50p/50i or 60p/60i. The moment you switch on a consumer camera it will be at 1/60 for NTSC and 1/50 for PAL. 30p @1/30 does look unacceptable and I admit that 30p @ 1/60 does look better. 24p at 1/24 is sure worse, my camera doesn't even have that setting, and it starts even on my camera at 1/48. My personal favorite is still 60p @1/60 but I can accept 60p @1/100, 1/120 also not available on my camera. It seems that with higher frame rates higher shutter speeds are more forgiving and if 120fps or 240fps comes around one can only imagine how smooth it will be.
Here are just a few samples of 24p, 30p and 60p with different shutter speeds, I am sure everyone has its own favorite. (please forgive I a have not taken care of focus or exposure, these are purely shutter speed samples).
Good to see some real world examples posted. I almost did the same!
Its not that clear to see in some of these tests due to the difference in speed of movement, but good enough i think to see the point.
I guess it depends on what you really 'like'. Shooting sports is completely different to shooting a movie film or docu. You're going to need a totally different frame speed and shutter to shoot high speed movement, and i think thats why you favor high speed frames like 60p. However, if you shoot a movie or documentary in 60p, its going to look like a 'video' rather than an immerse film experience. Such was the fate of 'The Hobbit', shot in both 24fps and 48. A bold experiment and credit for trying, but the general response was the 24fps version told the story better, at least in 2D it did. By that i mean the perception of 24 was more accepted as authentic and engaging. But that didn't apply to everyone though, some did say they preferred 48. So lets just say its subjective.
Thats frame speed though, not shutter speed.
I think your 60p sample shows the shutter speed effect best. I think the 60p @ 30th looks awful. Meaning, not defined, not sharp and too much smudging around the edges on the slightest breeze. The 2000th has way too much strobing so thats bad too and that illustrates exactly the problem with too high a shutter speed. In the middle is your 100th and this to my eyes looks best for the 60p test although the as you say, 120th would have been ideal.
I think your test shows clearly the 180 rule working on the 60p clip and on the other clips too. The effect is less clear on the 24 clip although it is visible there too if you look hard enough.
That would be awesome. I tried sending you a private message but you don't have that set up in your profile. I don't want to edit. Just come up with a recipe to bring out the best in your footage. If you post a link publicly, you might be surprised at what some of us can do.
Here are two clips, recorded at 25p with a shutter speed of 60 per second. They are of my time in Uganda, Africa at an orphanage. Please note the lack of smoothness between frames!
Please help if you can, then reveal the process used! I can't pay, but anyone that helps will be in the credits!