BM's recommendation ISO 400 216 Shutter...

for indoor filming.

I asked Black Magic why am I getting a wavvy/rainbow-ish type affect on walls when i film indoors and upload to you tube. It doesn't happen when I film outside, only indoors and it doesn't do it in Resolve, only when I upload to you tube no matter what resolution or file format I render in.

BM recommended trying ISO 400 With a 216 Degree Shutter and low F stop.

Has anyone tried this combination for indoor filming?

What are your thoughts concerning this combination (iso 400, 216 shutter) vs a 1600 ISO ?

NOTE:
I am using the original BMPCC with a Sigma Art 18-35 Lens with Viltrox EFM2II

That recommendation basically means you’ll provide the sensor with about 5x more light. What change of f/stop are you considering?

That recommendation basically means you’ll provide the sensor with about 5x more light. What change of f/stop are you considering?

What do you recommend?

was also wondering about the ISO 1600 letting in more light, but also more noise?

When I said 5x more light, that’s true if you expose for the ISO selected. You can change ISO but leave the exposure the same and then you would only get 20% more light from the change in shutter angle from 180 degrees to 216 degrees.

If you used ISO 1600 and exposed for that and then changed to ISO 400 and exposed for that, that is a two stop change to the aperture. Say from T8 to T4. That’s 4x as much light and if you left the intensity of the Lowell light the same then you are likely exposing to the right looking at the histogram.

So if you can, without causing clipping, that’s what I’d do.

I avoid shooting at ISO 1600 on my URSA Mini 4.6K preferring to shoot at ISO 800 and boosting exposure one stop if needed in post. My goal is reducing the chance of fixed pattern noise. That’s not your issue though perhaps but it still may be helpful when YouTube converts your video. Worth a try.

I asked Black Magic why am I getting a wavvy/rainbow-ish type affect on walls when i film indoors and upload to you tube. It doesn't happen when I film outside, only indoors and it doesn't do it in Resolve, only when I upload to you tube no matter what resolution or file format I use.

Unless you’re just making an exposure error, you’d think that other people would be reporting the same thing. Are they?

Have you tried uploading to other web platforms, such as Vimeo, Instagram, Facebook, and to a private web site? Same thing or not?

I might note that John Brawley has told me in response to a question that he generally tries to shoot at ISO 400, which typically involves adding artificial light indoors. But I hasten to add that his comment was about the Pocket 4K, was very brief and was not part of detailed advice on exposure.

A recommendation for a shutter angle of 216 degrees would be appropriate if you're shooting at 24 fps in a building with certain types of lighting powered by 60 Hz. Lighting such as fluorescent lighting with magnetic ballasts.

Michael, do you think that might explain why the lines are curved? Due to the shape of the light coming from fluorescent bulbs oscillating at a low frequency? An interference pattern we don’t see but the YouTube conversion emphasized the brighter and darker waves?

The only times I’ve noticed wavy lines on the wall is during some conference stuff where I’ve been using the natural incandescent light. And honestly it’s only when I speed through the footage after. It’s more or less the natural flicker of those lights. The end and flow of the electrical current. And again I’ve only noticed it when speeding through all the footage real fast.

For the most part if you’re using good lighting gear you shouldn’t experience this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To me the word "wavy" doesn't necessarily mean curved. Perhaps it means that its position changes cyclicly, which it could if the flicker is of short duration and we have the aliasing of the sample rate. Also there could be some movement due to miss-synchronization if the frame rate was actually 23.976 instead of 24.

You'll have to wait for the OP to explain it clearly, he hasn't even stated what his frame rate setting was.

The thing that I find odd is that Austin only sees this phenomenon, whatever it is, after the file is uploaded to YouTube. In his place, I would want to know whether this phenomenon appears on the upload-ready/compressed file prior to upload, and if not whether it appears on upload to other platforms.

As others have suggested, this could be a basic exposure or lighting problem, hard to know, but knowing what the upload-ready compressed file shows might help narrow what’s going on.

The thing that I find odd is that Austin only sees this phenomenon, whatever it is, after the file is uploaded to YouTube. In his place, I would want to know whether this phenomenon appears on the upload-ready/compressed file prior to upload, and if not whether it appears on upload to other platforms.

As others have suggested, this could be a basic exposure or lighting problem, hard to know, but knowing what the upload-ready compressed file shows might help narrow what’s going on.

From my experience is not the first time that I ear about defect that appari after shooting and working, check the square grid problem of ursa, but check also rain effects from Lumix gh2, fpn of some red models, and more...

May be that certain shooting condition produce a specific pattern that recompressed from some encoder give you this kind of strange pattern.
Please upload a small sequence, original final only, no exported no extracted no uploaded on Vimeo/YouTube etc a simple right click compress like zip/rar and upload on ftp/google drive/mega/service to upload original file like you shoot.

This is the only way to answer to you.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

for indoor filming.

I asked Black Magic why am I getting a wavvy/rainbow-ish type affect on walls when i film indoors and upload to you tube. It doesn't happen when I film outside, only indoors and it doesn't do it in Resolve, only when I upload to you tube no matter what resolution or file format I render in.

BM recommended trying ISO 400 With a 216 Degree Shutter and low F stop.

Has anyone tried this combination for indoor filming?

What are your thoughts concerning this combination (iso 400, 216 shutter) vs a 1600 ISO ?

NOTE:
I am using the original BMPCC with a Sigma Art 18-35 Lens with Viltrox EFM2II

I use the 216 degree shutter when I'm shooting at 60 fps while in a country with 50hz frequency. I'm currently in UAE. That actually gets rid of the rolling effect you may be seeing. What country are you in? US?

I use the 216 degree shutter when I'm shooting at 60 fps while in a country with 50hz frequency. I'm currently in UAE. That actually gets rid of the rolling effect you may be seeing. What country are you in? US?

Flickering appari when frequency of your light is not the same of your shutter.
At today in Europe often you can found led lamp that work with 50hz freq but internally had driver that drive led at 60hz, and the opposite. You must try different shutter speed to match correct light value. Is not simple or constant. Every time you use artificial light you must check and try different setup.
For this reasons newer cameras like pocket and ursa had frequency variable to match different or defective lamp. You can tip on number, keep pressed and appari the ability to put custom number.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Flickering appari when frequency of your light is not the same of your shutter.
At today in Europe often you can found led lamp that work with 50hz freq but internally had driver that drive led at 60hz, and the opposite. You must try different shutter speed to match correct light value. Is not simple or constant. Every time you use artificial light you must check and try different setup.
For this reasons newer cameras like pocket and ursa had frequency variable to match different or defective lamp. You can tip on number, keep pressed and appari the ability to put custom number.

That's a great point! Luckily, I've been able to see the effect directly on the screen, so I can adjust the shutter angle to one that resolves the issue.

When you're going to be shooting at a new location lit by artificial lighting, here's a method to use your camera to survey the site to see if any of that artificial lighting could induce flicker. We'll be adjusting the settings to unusual values temporarily, but after the survey we'll be putting them to normal values with better information to adjust the shutter angle.

1. Set in a shutter angle of less than 30 degrees.
2. Set a frame rate of 25 fps.
3. Adjust iris and or ISO/gain to get a visible exposure. If a white surface is illuminated by the light, point the camera in that direction.
4. Note whether flicker or wavy lines appear in the display. When I tried this with some LED shop lights, I got wavy lines.
5. Set a frame rate of 30 fps, make sure your shutter angle is still less than 30 degrees.
6. Repeat steps 2 through 4.
7. Set your frame rate back to your project frame rate.
8. If you did not see any flicker or wavy lines, you can set a shutter angle of 180 degrees. But if you did see any flicker, you'll have to choose a different shutter angle.
9. Be sure to readjust your iris and ISO/gain settings.

This YouTube video discusses the issue, and he states that you can get away with 1/3 to 1/2 stop deviation from 180 degrees before the change in motion blur becomes apparent.

1/3 of a stop in exposure translates to a shutter angle change of about 47 degrees. A 216 degree shutter angle is a change of 36 degrees which is well below the 1/3 of a stop threshold.

Here is what Im referring to in this video...
I see it more on the walls behind the handyman and also to the right of the handyman, there was a soft box light thats making wall brighter but you still see that wavvy rainbow-ish affect. Its also doing it on wall behind homeowner but doesnt look as "wavvy", it looks more "blocky". It doesn't do this on outside walls and doesnt show up in Davinci, only after i upload to you tube and also does it on vimeo no matter what file format I render in.

That doesn't look like wavy flickering. That looks more like compression artifacts.

If you're shooting at 24 fps in 60Hz lighting of unknown quality, then a shutter angle of 216 degrees would be appropriate, but that doesn't seem to be your problem. If you used the word "wavy" when talking to BMD support, I'm not surprised that they made a recommendation for at 216 degree shutter angle.

That doesn't look like wavy flickering. That looks more like compression artifacts.

If you're shooting at 24 fps in 60Hz lighting of unknown quality, then a shutter angle would be appropriate, but that doesn't seem to be your problem. If you used the word "wavy" when talking to BMD support, I'm not surprised that they made a recommendation for at 216 degree shutter angle.

I sent them a clip, the rep said he thinks he knows what I am talking about.
I didnt know what else to call it. sometimes it looks like wavvy lines with curves across the walls

I guess it looks like a water ripple affect of light going down the wall.

for indoor filming.

I asked Black Magic why am I getting a wavvy/rainbow-ish type affect on walls when i film indoors and upload to you tube. It doesn't happen when I film outside, only indoors and it doesn't do it in Resolve, only when I upload to you tube no matter what resolution or file format I render in.

BM recommended trying ISO 400 With a 216 Degree Shutter and low F stop.

Has anyone tried this combination for indoor filming?

What are your thoughts concerning this combination (iso 400, 216 shutter) vs a 1600 ISO ?

NOTE:
I am using the original BMPCC with a Sigma Art 18-35 Lens with Viltrox EFM2II

Your shutter angle should have zero impact on the "wavvy/rainbow-ish" artifacts in indoors unless you have a weird lighting situation - since the camera does not have a spinning blade shutter, the shutter angle matters even less. If you're using BMPCC 2.5k I'd suggest checking your optics and going for the higher iso and keeping it at 180 deg at 24 fps, unless you film at different frame rates. It would help if you posted a still of the thing you're seeing. But the shocker for you will be that most "affordable" sensors only work well in daylight and not artificial lighting of any kind.

With my BMPCC 4K, I am able to induce the "wavy" effect, more or less depending on the frame rate, shutter angle, and type of light. So according to what you're saying, I must have a rotating shutter. I rather disagree, in any case it's not visible through the lens mount .

The wavy effect may be less apparent at a shutter angle of 180 degrees, but it will there to some extent and could be worse if under fluorescent lighting and you've chosen a shutter angle of 23.98 (23.976). In a previous comment, I made a case for motion blur at 216 degrees being just as good as 180 degrees. If you think the shutter angle has to be exactly precisely 180 degrees and should never, ever be any different, explain why.

If shooting at 23.98 or 24 fps in artificial lighting powered by 60 Hz, a shutter angle of 216 degrees is recommended.

The whole thing looks muddy and underexposed to me, and underexposed footage is going to show off all kinds of defects, artifacts etc. Light the whole scene "up" more, get more light on the sensor, and crank it down in post if you want a dark or moody image. It's not a popular answer, but even the best of sensors need more light than most people think. The secret to almost all good "cinematic" images is good lighting.

Lots of recommendations to shoot 216 degree shutter angle. I know 270 degrees can be a noticeable difference in motion. I think my next shoot with LEDs I’m going with 240 degrees and picking up a third of a stop of light or maybe I’ll do 270 degrees after all for half a stop of light.

The reason for a 216 degree shutter angle recommendation is that it is exactly 3 half-cycles of 60 Hz light. To get 4 half-cycles would require a shutter angle of 288 degrees, which may cause a noticeable difference in motion blur.

If you're going to choose a different shutter angle, first survey the lighting at your shooting location by the method I described in a comment a couple of days ago. If you don't observe any flicker in that test, then you should be free to choose a different shutter angle than those recommended.

Here is what Im referring to in this video...
I see it more on the walls behind the handyman and also to the right of the handyman, there was a soft box light thats making wall brighter but you still see that wavvy rainbow-ish affect. Its also doing it on wall behind homeowner but doesnt look as "wavvy", it looks more "blocky". It doesn't do this on outside walls and doesnt show up in Davinci, only after i upload to you tube and also does it on vimeo no matter what file format I render in.

Those are H264 codec compression artifacts. It has nothing to do with the source camera.

What is your post process for uploading to YouTube/Vimeo?
If you're exporting from Resolve to H264 or mp4 and then uploading that file to YouTube, the file is getting compressed twice as YouTube and Vimeo always recompress the source file again. For better results, export ProRes and upload that. There will still be some compression artifacts, but should be less than when the file is compressed to H264 twice.

The reason for a 216 degree shutter angle recommendation is that it is exactly 3 half-cycles of 60 Hz light. To get 4 half-cycles would require a shutter angle of 288 degrees, which may cause a noticeable difference in motion blur...

Thanks again, Michael.

The reason for a 216 degree shutter angle recommendation is that it is exactly 3 half-cycles of 60 Hz light. To get 4 half-cycles would require a shutter angle of 288 degrees, which may cause a noticeable difference in motion blur...

Thanks again, Michael.

That is all based on the assumption that you run your camera from mains power. Tungsten does not strobe, as the filament has no time to cool down and heat up again at 60 times per second. Any other sources like LED practicals have completely unpredictable strobe curves, including capacitors, ballasts etc.. in "bulbs" and other things, unless specifically designed for cine use. They never behave as predicted, esp. if bough from cheap vendors. And the CRI is so bad with those at most times that it's easier to get rid of things like this if you can then work around them in camera settings.

I thought the OP mentioned the Lowel Pro being used. That’s supposed to be flicker free.
http://www.m.lowel.com/pro-power-led/

Maybe he was referring to this halogen Lowel Pro Light:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284755-REG

its like a water ripple affect down the wall but without the water.

Im using daylight soft box lights, , maybe i should try regular soft light lightbulbs, brighten room up with 100 watt bulbs and film in 400 ISO at 216 shutter angle?

The whole thing looks muddy and underexposed to me, and underexposed footage is going to show off all kinds of defects, artifacts etc. Light the whole scene "up" more, get more light on the sensor, and crank it down in post if you want a dark or moody image. It's not a popular answer, but even the best of sensors need more light than most people think. The secret to almost all good "cinematic" images is good lighting.

but on the right side, there was a soft box light pretty well lit and it still causes that light ripple affect.

Ive tried 3 soft box lights and it still gives that ripple affect, just looks like brighter ripples.

Here is what Im referring to in this video...
I see it more on the walls behind the handyman and also to the right of the handyman, there was a soft box light thats making wall brighter but you still see that wavvy rainbow-ish affect. Its also doing it on wall behind homeowner but doesnt look as "wavvy", it looks more "blocky". It doesn't do this on outside walls and doesnt show up in Davinci, only after i upload to you tube and also does it on vimeo no matter what file format I render in.

Those are H264 codec compression artifacts. It has nothing to do with the source camera.

What is your post process for uploading to YouTube/Vimeo?
If you're exporting from Resolve to H264 or mp4 and then uploading that file to YouTube, the file is getting compressed twice as YouTube and Vimeo always recompress the source file again. For better results, export ProRes and upload that. There will still be some compression artifacts, but should be less than when the file is compressed to H264 twice.

h.264 and 265 both do it bad. Uploading under custom with mxf 3840x2160 ultra hd looks much better than h.264 and h.265, but is still noticable.

Since it doesnt do it outside, it has to be the indoor lights.

I need bulbs equivelant to sunlight, if there is such a thing.

Look for lights that will work for high speed then, but they won't be cheap.

Or go old fashioned Tungsten.

Look for lights that will work for high speed then, but they won't be cheap.

Or go old fashioned Tungsten.

any recommendations on the high speed lights?

Hey folks, I was thinking this thread was about the same issue as Brian had in the thread below where he mentioned Lowel Pro lights and problems with his background:

Unpleasant lines on wall - Light waves?
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic? ... source=app

That is all based on the assumption that you run your camera from mains power.

The power source for your camera has nothing to do with it. It's the frequency of the power to your lighting that might be significant.

Tungsten does not strobe, as the filament has no time to cool down and heat up again at 60 times per second.

Tungsten does strobe, but not enough to matter. Also, the filament heat and cools at 120 Hz, not 60Hz. There are two half-cycles in every cycle of the power, and the heating and cooling is by half-cycles.

Any other sources like LED practicals have completely unpredictable strobe curves, including capacitors, ballasts etc.. in "bulbs" and other things, unless specifically designed for cine use.

For a light that does not rectify the mains power and then regenerate the power to the light, the strobing characteristics will be repeatable except for maybe the first few cycles after power is applied, which is really irrelevant to this discussion.

They never behave as predicted, esp. if bough from cheap vendors. And the CRI is so bad with those at most times that it's easier to get rid of things like this if you can then work around them in camera settings.

I have no predictions on how a light will behave, unless I know how it's designed or unless I measure it. The CRI is not relevant to this discussion.

Hey folks, I was thinking this thread was about the same issue as Brian had in the thread below where he mentioned Lowel Pro lights and problems with his background:

Unpleasant lines on wall - Light waves?
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic? ... source=app

Without additional information, it's hard to tell. But from what I see it looks more like compression artifacts and/or banding, just like this thread.

Hey folks, I was thinking this thread was about the same issue as Brian had in the thread below where he mentioned Lowel Pro lights and problems with his background:

Unpleasant lines on wall - Light waves?
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic? ... source=app

same thing, 'light waves' rippling affect on wall from light source, but interesting it doesn't do it across the person, only walls or maybe objects

At the 10 sec mark, I used 800 ISO, dropped it down to 200 in post, i dont see any artifacts/light waves.

At 27 second mark, on left wall, with only natural light, I see artifacts/light waves.

at 1:48, its looking the best, Truck is perfectly clear, (Id like to get all footage this clear)

The thing that I find odd is that Austin only sees this phenomenon, whatever it is, after the file is uploaded to YouTube. In his place, I would want to know whether this phenomenon appears on the upload-ready/compressed file prior to upload, and if not whether it appears on upload to other platforms.

As others have suggested, this could be a basic exposure or lighting problem, hard to know, but knowing what the upload-ready compressed file shows might help narrow what’s going on.

From my experience is not the first time that I ear about defect that appari after shooting and working, check the square grid problem of ursa, but check also rain effects from Lumix gh2, fpn of some red models, and more...

May be that certain shooting condition produce a specific pattern that recompressed from some encoder give you this kind of strange pattern.
Please upload a small sequence, original final only, no exported no extracted no uploaded on Vimeo/YouTube etc a simple right click compress like zip/rar and upload on ftp/google drive/mega/service to upload original file like you shoot.

This is the only way to answer to you.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Looks great in resolve and looks great after i send file to my hard drive BUT when i send it to you tube...its a different story. these "light waves ripple" affect is indoors, showing up on walls coming from light source. But doesnt do it across a person, walls only.

If it was only from you tube after upload, my guess would be it should also appear across people.

Your video does not play, a playback error is reported. Have you actually published that video?

Your video does not play, a playback error is reported. Have you actually published that video?

yeah, dont know why, i tried it twice but no luck

Just tested iso 400 216 shutter pro res HQ rendered in mxf and still the same artifacts on walls.
I had 2 soft box lights up with daylight bulbs...
It does it more when I move back and fourth but doesnt do it across me, only walls.

note: blurred face because I look horrible without color correction, lol

i added a vfx lut and increased sharpening at 44 from 50, but it still did the same on the walls

I’m beginning to have a panic attack over this? Are you sure you’re not picking up an alien invasion? At this point I’d donate the haunted Lowel Pro light to someone I secretly hated and move on to a new light.

Definitely compression artifacts. Subtle changes in tone over large areas are breeding grounds for banding and artifacts. Youtube sucks, get over it.

Definitely compression artifacts. Subtle changes in tone over large areas are breeding grounds for banding and artifacts. Youtube sucks, get over it.

Have you tried to upload to Vimeo? Would be worth a try and hopefully the ‘water’ will be as smooth as glass.

I’m beginning to have a panic attack over this? Are you sure you’re not picking up an alien invasion? At this point I’d donate the haunted Lowel Pro light to someone I secretly hated and move on to a new light.

hmm... wonder what else the camera sees and we cannot

Definitely compression artifacts. Subtle changes in tone over large areas are breeding grounds for banding and artifacts. Youtube sucks, get over it.

Im having trouble getting over it because I browse other you tube videos with the bmpcc and I don't see it.

Definitely compression artifacts. Subtle changes in tone over large areas are breeding grounds for banding and artifacts. Youtube sucks, get over it.

Have you tried to upload to Vimeo? Would be worth a try and hopefully the ‘water’ will be as smooth as glass.

tried it, still the same. Im frustrated because i watch other bmpcc videos and I dont see it.

I thought it was the lighting at first but i looked back at a few clips i filmed, where the natural sun light is coming in the room, and it did the same thing on the wall. I even thought it was the matte finish reflecting light back in camera, so i painted a wall with traditional Ultra flat, and it still showed those waterless light ripples going down the wall. This is an outrage.

Here is clips from a short film I am trying to create, filmed with only sunlight coming in room bouncing off wall and look between 26-29 second mark (left side) and you see similar artifcats except there is no curves like indoors.

since its sunlight, wouldnt that exclude it being the lights??