weird motion blur?

Hey there I am noticing a weird motion blur or something when I watch some of my videos. I am not sure if it is because I am shooting in 24 FPS, or something else I am doing wrong. Could someone please take a look at this clip and let me know if they see it as well?

I am also noticing that I get a GREAT image after I do noise reduction, but I pretty much need it on all my clips. Is that regular? Do you think this video to be a bit soft because of the noise reduction? I was shooting wide open at T2.2 400 ISO

YouTube link doesn't work. No video to view.

Spatial noise reduction can certainly lead to smeary looking results.

fixed it!

Does 23.98 fps make a difference? I'm not a fan of the 30fps look

Yeah I hear you. Most people's monitors and 60hz though Im guessing, along with cell phones?
What shutter angle would you use with 30 FPS to get the same motion blur? 30 FPS is more for the digital age now adays and 24 FPS would be used in more of a theatre setting maybe?

Yeah I hear you. Most people's monitors and 60hz though Im guessing, along with cell phones?
What shutter angle would you use with 30 FPS to get the same motion blur? 30 FPS is more for the digital age now adays and 24 FPS would be used in more of a theatre setting maybe?

Yes, yes it is. In US 1080p29.97fps (which is 1080i59.94) is a broadcast standard for 60hz TVs.
I would try a 216-degree shutter (1/50th shutter speed) would be close to the same natural motion blur of 180adgree (1/48th) at 24 fps. Do a test, and see how it looks. Too much motion blur, go back to 180-degree. Not enough, one up some more. But, the slower your shutter speeds are, the more smoother you pans and camera movement have to be.
Cheers

I'd try 216 degrees as Denny mentioned to match the blur of 24 fps if you feel you need more blur. Could experiment with 60 fps and 360 degree shutter angle when the subject suits it. For following significant action, I'm going the other direction with 150 degree shutter angle at 60 fps.

Temporal noise reduction is designed for motion pictures. Spatial NR can be used for some purposes but generally avoid it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I feel I have seen something similar here:

Zemestoono bahaaro taabestoono paayiz toraa mikhaam ke baasham az eshghe to labriz

Something like horizontal stripes seen during motion and ONLY at full screen resolution. I believe it's due to different frame rate between clip and monitor.

That's great info thanks everyone. Before reading this, I tried filming at 29.97 fps and something about that look really bothers me. I really enjoy the 24 fps look. I will experiment with a longer shutter speed though on 29.97 fps.

If I were to film something that I wanted aired on TV, would they expect 29.97 fps? Or could it be filmed in 24 fps?

Thanks Rick I will try to stay away from spatial NR as much as possible. I think that caused some of the "headache' visuals in that clip I posted. I'm sure you noticed haha.

*edit* Is 23.98 fps more friendly to internet uploads compared to 24 fps?

For broadcast TV, I would go with 1080p29.97, which can be easily converted to the broadcast standard being used (1080i50.94 or 720p59.94).
Cheers

James, if you're uploading to the internet, I currently would use 30/60 fps or typically 29.97 fps if it's going to be played back on a TV. This assumes host computers are going to be in 60Hz regions. Otherwise 25 fps. But it seems 24/23.976 can still be used. Follow what the client wants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When would you guys ever choose to use 24/23.98 fps? It is my favorite look personally. It seems no one uses it? I'm not sure why but I feel I can see a big difference when shooting 30 fps. I would assume most people aren't using 24 fps by what you guys are saying.

For Theatre release, or a similar similar projection presentation, when a Cinematic look is wanted.
It also can be converted for broadcast use, too.
Cheers

When would you guys ever choose to use 24/23.98 fps? It is my favorite look personally. It seems no one uses it? I'm not sure why but I feel I can see a big difference when shooting 30 fps. I would assume most people aren't using 24 fps by what you guys are saying.

You can use 24.00 or 23.98 for anything you wish. Don't forget that every single hollywood feature you've ever watched on television or on the internet was shot at 24.00 and they all look just fine. There are standard conversions to take 24 or 23.98 to broadcast in North America using a standard telecine pulldown to convert to 29.97i (which Premiere Pro, Resolve, or FCPX add automatically without issue) or for European 25i by speeding it up by 4% and pitch shifting the audio slightly to match (which can be accomplished by a combo of most any NLE and the free audio app Reaper).

Point is, if you like the look of the motion cadence in 24 (or 23.98) then shoot that. If you prefer 30 (or 29.97), shoot that. In my opinion, it's silly to go catering to the release format. Shoot the cadence your art calls for and then do whatever you can to preserve that cadence in the release as Hollywood has always done.

Well put Jamie!
Cheers

Awesome really appreciate everyones input. Thank you so much!

As Jamie said, I see difference between 24 and 30. In the beggining I didnt as my eyes were not trained. A guy from a big company once said to me he mostly shoot at 29,97 because most of his work is TV Commercials and recomended me to shoot the same but even when you convert originally 24p shot material to 30p or 29.97 I can see the difference between an originally shot 30p material. And I prefer 24p so still today I keep shooting 24p unless something specifically needs me to shoot 30p, which still has to happen. Even pure animations many times I create at 24p and just convert it to 29.97 in the final XDCam render to send for broadcast.

Maybe its my ignorance on the subject, but I dont see any problems with the motion blur from the OPs example. Have I missed something? Somebody care to point it out?

Cheers

Kim, not sure why you say 24 fps is the Magic number for YouTube when in a 60 Hz world. It's only the magic number if your monitor is running 120 Hz. To me if the material is destined for YouTube, as most of my work is, 30 fps and 60 fps (for action) are the magic numbers. Converting 24 to 30 fps will give you worse motion as some frames are repeated. I know it doesn't seem to matter in terms of things playing from 24 fps, but if the issue is getting motion right, on YouTube, I use 30/60 fps. If you want more re blur, use a 216 degree shutter angle. Most narrative work I agree is going to look better at 24 fps where motion is minimal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Kim, I see what you meant now, thanks. 24/25 fps is what we've seen all our lives at the Cinema. I think our brains are wired to expect it now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Kim, I think what you're seeing is the effect of the 24p itself (with digital sensor. Film has a slightly difference in the motion that I only started to notice recently). Maybe you personally preffer the smoothness of something like 30p or even 60p. Me, personally, I like the effect 24p gives. 23p doesnt give the same and it starts to be distractive. Above 24 it starts to be smoother, more real life or as some like to say, video like and not cinema like. Some time ago I heard a hollywood guy in a interview saying 30p is like what you see with your eyes. 24p is like what you see in your dreams. And to me 24 really gives that impression of something different, magical yet familiar.

I dont know if you are familiar with the history of 24p. Long time ago it had to do with audio sync and the optimal setting to save film $. Today thats not the case anymore but I think it is an artistic choice. Its the cinema standard still today for a reason.

You may want to try and rise the shutter angle to give more motion blur and see if that satisfies you. I did something like that in the past and didnt like it very much. At least to me, the standard of 24p and 180° is the most pleasing to watch.

Kim, I see what you meant now, thanks. 24/25 fps is what we've seen all our lives at the Cinema. I think our brains are wired to expect it now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Every now and then I get myself thinking about it. Its the case we got used to it therefore expect it or does it have something to do with the human perception/brain just like music does?

Ulysses the weird motion blur I was referring to was mainly on his head I found. I have shot everything in 23.98 fps and always loved how it looked on youtube or whatever else I play it on, I just found this clip I shot was almost "choppy" is how I might describe it. Maybe it was missing a bit MORE motion blur than I'm used to, not sure.

I really like the description you mentioned about, "30 fps is what we see in real life, 24 fps is what we see in our dreams." Awesome. 30fps is TOO smooth for me, its like watching a soap opera or something.

James, not disagreeing with your conclusion, but I think fps is one more tool in your bag of tricks so you can select the right tool for the job. Typically for narrative work that tool will be 24/25 fps, but there are other times when 60 fps in my eyes is fine as it does give a very real feel to the viewer of being right there in the action.

Perhaps a matter of taste, but I'm liking 60 fps for event work destined for web and HDTV, not cinema. I've been shooting at 150 degree shutter angles too and finding I can really capture expression more clearly. It's not a dream, but there are many times when we don't want to be in a dream, we want to be in the front row behind the glass and catch all the joy and agony when the Stanley Cup winning goal is scored!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

haha I hear you Rick! Something about the 24 fps is magical to me though I guess it is all preference, or could have to do with shooting with it so much that other fps just looks funny to me. I have been playing around with shutter speed as well and actually filmed something in super low light with 360 degree shutter angle and am quite happy with how it looks! The motion blur doesn't bother me one bit actually, and the noise levels are extremely low, no FPN either. I might try out some 30 fps and a longer shutter speed see what happens!

If you want cinematic motion, go for 360 degrees and 50/60 fps rather than 24/25 fps 180 degrees. If you want dreamy, try 360 degrees with 24/25/30 fps. I enjoy trying out everything.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I will have to do some testing! Thanks Rick for your valuable input.

We also need to take into consideration that digital blurs differently from a film camera, even if fps and exposure time are identical. There is a company called "Tessive" ( http://tessive.com ) which made a solution, but Red was clever enough to buy exclusive rights to their hardware solution (Tessive is still offering software).

Red is using it in their "Motion Mount" now, which will give you very filmic motion blur, but at the price of some light loss, since it's based on a kind of dynamic shutter. It has other side effects too, but you can get really nice motion blur with it under most situations with enough light. We like it a lot!

There is further explanation here: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/cinema ... l-aliasing

Until somebody else develops another solution, all manufacturers apart from Red have to live with the harsher motion blur or use a mechanical shutter like some Arri models.