Does "filmic" = film ?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Thuyen Nguyen

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:35 am

Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 1:08 pm

I recently signed up and been reading the forums, and I get the impression that film is considered the pinnacle of image quality by many. Clips are complimented by describing them as filmic. By saying "filmic" are people comaparing them to actual film stock or does it mean that it doesn't look like "video" (as in video from the old camcorders)

So in terms of image quality, how many people still think film is better than digital? or does filmic refer to something else?
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 2:18 pm

Hi Thuyen, I'm just an interested amateur, and I've seen the discussions you speak of. As far as I can tell the "film look" is a set of image imperfections, tonal ranges and motion artifacts that are prevalent in film cinematography. A digital camera that is said to have a "film look" would be able to reproduce these more or less. Since for the most part, all movie theaters in the world are either digital or soon to be digital, the "film look" is mostly a "look" from a technology from a moment in time. I've stated in this forum, that the artistic choice to create output that mimics the "film look" is the equivalent of "steam punking" the image. I've seen no discussion here that would make me change my mind about that.
Offline

Thuyen Nguyen

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:35 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 2:39 pm

Hi Gene, I think I agree with you. When I think of film look I think of some of the older movies I've seen. It doesn't seem that special to me but it looks like a lot of people like it. Maybe there is some other aspect we are missing.
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 3:00 pm

Thuyen, the "film look" preference appears to me to be born from familiarity and nostalgia. No different in my mind to the preference in vinyl by some people. I suspect it will go the way of vinyl as time goes by. Perhaps to be revived by hipsters. What made the films of yesterday great was not the "film look", but the basic cinematography and story telling. Nothing that is peculiar to film.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 12957
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 4:16 pm

Guys, filmic is not duplicating the artifacts of film, but rather the motion cadence and using color in a "cinematic" way, and having a "wide" latitude in exposure to keep highlights and shadows details, to create the warm or cold look a production done in film has/had. Using film stock LUTs gives the basic color scale, but the individual choices with, but the camera's color science and using the correct shutter settings for what yiu are shooting. While Filmic is somewhat camera dependent, it shares the requirements for the cinematic look, which also involves the camera operator's technique in shooting the scene, the lighting of the scene, and the editor/colorist abilities in post.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

Josh Flori

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:55 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 4:39 pm

Denny, what do you mean motion cadence? The only thing a camera captures in terms of motion is shutter speed/angle, fps, rolling/global shutter in which case we have cameras now that can capture those things.... (am I forgetting something?) Are these what you are referring to or are you referring to something else?
Offline
User avatar

timbutt2

  • Posts: 1784
  • Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 5:20 pm

For me "filmic" has to do with putting the digital camera being described next to 35mm film and when shooting the same subject matter with the same lenses, both images are the same. However, they won't be because digital is digital, and film is film. So it's a matter of getting as close as possible. This means latitude of light captured and the color, along with the field of view and depth of field.

That said, I'm all for digital because it can get rid of the imperfections of film. A lot of those imperfections are distracting to me. It's sad, but too often I can spot those things and I consider them mistakes. Even if they're intended, they can be a mistake.

However the mistakes of film can be a stylistic choice. This happens often when someone wants to convey old used film. I forget the movie, but to get a newsreel look they dragged the film on the floor a few times to give it that worn look with a lot of scratches. That was a stylistic choice. We do the same with digital when we add film grain and try to give it the imperfections of film. Sometimes trying to replicate the look of 1970's film.

So, the key above all else is looking at the dynamic range, the color science, the field of view, and depth of field of the digital camera. When it comes close to matching film then we consider it "filmic" in its characteristics.
"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Cameras: URSA Mini Pro G2, Pocket 6K, & Cinema Camera 2.5K EF
Computers: iMac 5K (Mid 2020) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 5:44 pm

I do think there is a difference between a cinematic look and a film look. I would say the cinematic look is about what's in the frame, how it's lit, blocked and graded. Things that you can do with both digital and film. Then there are things about shooting with film that are peculiar to film, like film grain, how film represents shade and color, how it responds to light, and how it ages and degrades.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 12957
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 5:51 pm

Josh Flori wrote:Denny, what do you mean motion cadence? The only thing a camera captures in terms of motion is shutter speed/angle, fps, rolling/global shutter in which case we have cameras now that can capture those things.... (am I forgetting something?) Are these what you are referring to or are you referring to something else?


Yes, thanks.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

Jason R. Johnston

  • Posts: 1615
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:05 am
  • Location: Harlingen, TX

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 6:18 pm

Traditionally, motion pictures shot on 35mm film have a certain "look." Ostensibly, this "look" is achieved with digital cameras by shooting at 24 frames per second, with no more, or less, than two shutter exposures per frame, a shallow depth of field, with a field of view and dynamic range relatively similar to that of human vision. So, we can say 24 fps, 1/48 or 180º shutter, an exposure in the Super 35 or Academy 35 standards no more narrow than T5.6, and a lens length somewhere around 28mm in the previously mentioned standards.

Anyone can do this.

The thing you see mentioned less is lighting for drama, interesting composition, motivated blocking, when to be subtle, when not to be subtle, etc.; all measured appropriately in the service of advancing the story. Production design, costume design, and other departments all align as part of a film's visual language to advance the emotion of the story.

When done well, all are seamless and never thought of; never does a good movie scream out "look at me!" in terms of how well someone did their job with the design or build or performance. The audience is looking and committed to living briefly in the world projected before their eyes by commenting on how well they were transported there. Only afterward and on subsequent viewings should an audience be allowed to think, "gosh, those buildings are well designed." Or, "I wonder how they got those cars to fly." The suspension of disbelief is only as good as the subtlety of the work of the motion picture crew. Later, you can exclaim, "the person who designed those costumes should get an award." The audience should not be imagining what lens was used, where the matte painting ends or what other movie they saw that actor in.

So, I propose that suspension of disbelief created by a well-executed plan involving craftsmanship, artistry and storytelling, is as important to achieving "the film look" as any of the technical aspects. Remember, our role as filmmaker, particularly as a cinematographer, is a heady combination of science and art. Those are our tools more than any frame per second.
Jason R. Johnston
Cinematographer • Director • Editor • Thread Killer • Based in Texas
Fifty Oars Motion Pictures
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 1300
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostThu Mar 24, 2016 6:49 pm

Jason R. Johnston wrote:So, I propose that suspension of disbelief created by a well-executed plan involving craftsmanship, artistry and storytelling, is as important to achieving "the film look" as any of the technical aspects. Remember, our role as filmmaker, particularly as a cinematographer, is a heady combination of science and art. Those are our tools more than any frame per second.


I agree, yet I would argue that 24fps is a very important part of suspension of disbelief.

Considering that we now live in a world where most scripted narratives are produced and distributed through an entirely digital pipeline, why are virtually all of them still captured and screened at 24fps? There is no technical reason for it, but there are supremely important aesthetic reasons. Netflix, for example, could easily produce and distribute its scripted content in higher frame rates. In fact, 30fps or 60fps would be better suited technically to the computer/mobile screens that most of their audience views Netflix content on. If the market of viewers out there had any desire to see their fictional content at higher frame rates, then Netflix would be pumping it out. Yet, Netflix hasn't budged from 24fps for its scripted dramas. Think about that.

While no one beyond a few fetishists wants to see gate weave and scratches, the market still prefers its dramatic narratives at 24 frames per second even in a completely digital environment.
Last edited by Jamie LeJeune on Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Thuyen Nguyen

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:35 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostFri Mar 25, 2016 2:52 am

I think I understand now. Film refers to, or is a synonym, of movie; and filmic is a synonym for cineamatic. My preference would be for the word cinematic.
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostFri Mar 25, 2016 3:12 am

Thuyen, there is still some controversy about the use of film and "real" cinema. For example Tarantino and others.
Offline

Anatoly Mashanov

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:36 am
  • Location: Russia

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostFri Mar 25, 2016 3:44 am

Jason R. Johnston wrote:achieved with digital cameras by shooting at 24 frames per second, with no more, or less, than two shutter exposures per frame,


For the sake of stupid exactness: There is exactly one exposure per frame. The 2 (or 3 for 16mm) exposures relate to the projection only. It puts additional stress to the projector mechanics since it must move the film during 1/4 or even 1/6 frame time. So even the projector film drive (maltese cross transmission) is different from the camera's.
Offline

Lee Gauthier

  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 9:08 am

Anatoly Mashanov wrote:For the sake of stupid exactness: There is exactly one exposure per frame. The 2 (or 3 for 16mm) exposures relate to the projection only. It puts additional stress to the projector mechanics since it must move the film during 1/4 or even 1/6 frame time. So even the projector film drive (maltese cross transmission) is different from the camera's.


Anatoly is right.
Offline

Lee Gauthier

  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 9:52 am

Thuyen Nguyen wrote:I think I understand now. Film refers to, or is a synonym, of movie; and filmic is a synonym for cineamatic. My preference would be for the word cinematic.


There's really no official vocabulary for this. People use the words interchangeably.

Re film-like quality/film look/filmic/cinematic:

In a previous career, I worked on the technical end of digital film emulation. Making digital video look like film primarily for digital exhibition. Some of the things I learned:

Abolute essentials:

24p
35mm Academy sensor size for appropriate depth of field (hint: 5D/FF/VistaVision is too big.)
Spinning mirror/global shutter
Wide dynamic range
Emulation of dye-based imaging

Desireable extras:

film-like grain
no edge enhancement
variable register blurring

Some notes:

Spinning mirror/global shutter: to avoid the electronic "jello-cam" of digital video, either an electronic global shutter or a mechanical spinning mirror shutter is needed. The Arri Alexa Studio Camera has a mechanical spinning mirror shutter, and produces outstanding digital imagery.

I wish BMD would provide a spinning-mirror solution for the Cinema Cameras as well as the Ursas. The jello-cam is one of the few drawbacks to those excellent cameras.

Emulation of dye-based imaging: As Art Adams wrote about online, the color science of film is very different from video. Film is actually a transparent substrate for carrying dyes that light is projected through. Dyes are by their nature subtractive colors; that is, the more dye you add, the darker the image gets. Digital video is made from tiny dots of colored light (pixels) that are additive by nature. The more color you add, the brighter the image gets.

Because of this, dye-based film images have a particular color characteristic. They are incapable of reproducing highly luminant, highly saturated colors. It works like this: to get maximum saturation, you need maximum dye density on the substrate. However, this blocks a lot of light, so you end up with a saturated image that is not brightly illuminated. To make the image more luminant, there must be less dye so the light will pass through. Which results in a highly luminant image with lowered saturation.

This, by the way, is the reason that old-school DPs meter their blue screens to 18% grey. That's the sweet spot for many film stocks to have maximum blue density. Any brighter, and the screen would show less blue on film.

Digital video, on the other hand, can make a highly luminant, highly saturated image easily. The result is often called "harsh" or "digital looking."

To create a film-like look, it's necessary to emulate the dye-based imaging process by reducing saturation in the highlights. The Alexa does that as part of its color science. It's not an accident that one of the designers of the Alexa used to work in color science for Kodak Film.

Film-Like Grain: One of the hugh differences between film and video is that film is grain. Film is an inherently analog technology, which builds each image from a cloud of crystals. Each frame has a completely different and unique pattern of crystals. At 24 fps, our brains reduce these unique mosaics into a continuous moving picture, with some flickering grain mixed in. Digital video, on the other hand, records every image in a rigid, perfect, unmoving grid. It's the difference between a violin and a digital synthesizer.

Fortunately, our eyes can be fooled by superimposing a grain pattern over digital footage with a transfer mode. The grain softens the appearance of the grid, and gives an illusion of an analog appearance.

No Edge Enhancement: Digital Video cameras have built-in "sharpening" or "edge enhancement." These amount to built in "unsharp mask" functions, which find contrasting colors and trace over them with with either a bright or dark line to give the illusion of being sharper. Turn that crap off if you want to look more filmic. You can always sharpen it by hand in Resolve.

Variable Register Blurring: Another difference between film and video is the focal plane. Digial sensors have a single plane, and modern lenses can focus on it with pin-sharpness. Color film has three negative layers, one for each color. By definition, a lens can't focus perfectly on all three at the same time. It's also impossible to focus with enough precision to favor one layer over the other. So every shot has slightly different focal bias, and you get slightly different blurring on each register.

This is not a dramatic effect, but you can feel the difference in the cinema. This speaks to the "harshness" and "overly sharp" criticisms of digital video. Look at a freeze frame of THE GODFATHER or THE DARK KNIGHT on BluRay -- film is not that sharp, and there's some color haloing. You can add these in post to your digital productions, and it makes it more like film.

This is also one of the reasons I think cheaper glass is fine for digital video. It softens up the image without a lot of post processing.

To sum up, emulating film look is like getting your brand new guitar and digital amp to sound like a vintage Les Paul overdriving a Mesa Boogie amp -- it's an artistic choice. It's also a choice that many in the audience love. In the same way, it will never be identical to the original, but with some work, it can be close enough to produce the good feelings.
Offline

Bobby Lupo

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:33 pm

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 11:33 am

Lee Gauthier wrote:

Variable Register Blurring: Another difference between film and video is the focal plane. Digial sensors have a single plane, and modern lenses can focus on it with pin-sharpness. Color film has three negative layers, one for each color. By definition, a lens can't focus perfectly on all three at the same time. It's also impossible to focus with enough precision to favor one layer over the other. So every shot has slightly different focal bias, and you get slightly different blurring on each register.

This is not a dramatic effect, but you can feel the difference in the cinema. This speaks to the "harshness" and "overly sharp" criticisms of digital video. Look at a freeze frame of THE GODFATHER or THE DARK KNIGHT on BluRay -- film is not that sharp, and there's some color haloing. You can add these in post to your digital productions, and it makes it more like film.



Thanks for the great info Lee, I had not heard of the focal plane difference yet.
Do you have an opinion on any of the popular film color plugins/luts like Filmcomvert or VisionColor?
Offline

Anders Holck

  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:17 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 12:56 pm

Global shutter would not look like film. More like tv.

For me the acquisition is good with any high-end digital camera as f35/65, Alexa etc but the true filmic experience comes with projecting from film. The nice subtle flicker, vibration of picture etc..

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
==============

BlackMagic URSA mini 4.6K EF & BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera
Sony FDR-AX100 & Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Still and video
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 14320
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 5:11 pm

@Lee
I guess the Sigma Foveon sensor comes closest to emulating film given its colour register layers. But that's never migrated to a cinema camera.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 14320
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 5:16 pm

Anders Holck wrote:Global shutter would not look like film. More like tv...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


Anders, can you explain why?

I understand how the rotating mirror in the ARRI Alexa Studio camera would help emulate film but compared to a rolling shutter sensor, I've always thought the global shutter would be highly desirable not just to keep telephone poles vertical and wheels round but also to emulate film's look by capturing a moment in time.
Rick Lang
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 5:21 pm

rick.lang wrote:...I've always thought the global shutter would be highly desirable not just to keep telephone poles vertical and wheels round but also to emulate film's look by capturing a moment in time.


Film was shot with a rotating shutter, which also produced image artifacts similar to rolling shutter.

Image
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 12957
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 5:30 pm

Rick, TV cameras were 3-CCD GS cameras, so no shutter artifacts and a sharp image which is what a GS on a single CMOS sensor would look like -- too clean.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 14320
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 5:47 pm

Gene, thanks for the diagram. I see the analogue rotating shutter could behave something like an electronic rolling shutter as a telephone pole traverses the horizontal frame during the period of the exposure, but I think the blurred motion of the pole would dominate the look often compared to the sharper bent pole typical of a digital camera.

But why would we say the global shutter looks like TV? Was that intended to say the global shutter snapshot in time simply doesn't emulate a film camera shutter and therefore it's not filmic or cinematic?

Am I being a Luddite to prefer telephone poles that don't lean over or wheels that look like they are round? Whether it's TV or film or it's not, isn't that satisfying visually to have a global shutter when there is motion in the frame?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 6:18 pm

Rick, I don't think you are being a Luddite in any way. The world has enjoyed over a century of great films shot with rotating shutters. For all purposes it was the first exposure (pun intended) that people had to stories told with pictures that move. I'm no expert, but my guess is that people learned that this was how a "proper" motion picture should look. In the 1950's the US and later the world was exposed to television. It is only until recently that video production equipment could approach the resolution and color space of film. So people are now exposed to a new kind of moving picture. In the next one hundred years people will get very used to that kind of experience and I expect that they will find the original 24 fps rotating shutter film moving pictures to be somewhat quaint and dated, like an old Tintype.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 12957
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 6:25 pm

Rick, I'm with you on this. I was also looking forward to the GS in the Micro camera, for the same reasons, and sold my Pocket camera in hopes to get less artifacts. That said, the new RS in the Micro Studio won me over, as it almost looks like a GS, and the Micro Cinema camera is not far behind it, in this respect, with a better RS than the Pocket has. I love the Cinemattic/Film look, but most of my current work is for DVD/TV distribution, so "TV/Video" look is what I need, along with 30 and 60fps. So, I am still happy win the upgrade to both Micro cameras, and still look forward to a future GS camera or upgrade to the Micro. A Ursa Mini would be nice, but the smaller sensor works for me, and is an upgrade from my former 2/3-inch 3CCD cameras, in both reduced size and increased resolution. Long live Super 16! :mrgreen:
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

Matt White

  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:18 am
  • Location: NYC

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 6:49 pm

Denny Smith wrote: Long live Super 16! :mrgreen:
Cheers


The ages of high school and college are such a short period of time, but seem to completely saturate the rest of our lives, for some reason.

In the same way, in my "youth" I shot Super 16. Now, decades later, everything I do is subconsciously compared with that. Even though on every level the technology I am using now is orders of magnitude greater, somehow that old, crude, mechanical method still informs every image-making choice I make now.

I believe something similar happens to all of us when we create images: there is something about the "taste" of images that we long to recreate, or re-experience.

Perhaps when we say "filmic" or :cinematic" we are not so much referring to something technical as to something emotional.
Specs:
    Puget Systems, Windows 10 Pro
    B550 VISION D
    AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor
    64.0 GB RAM
    NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080
    BM MiniMonitor 4k to FSI BM210 and LG UHD
    Apogee Symphony Desktop
    Resolve 17 Studio Beta
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 4145
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 6:59 pm

Jamie LeJeune wrote:While no one beyond a few fetishists wants to see gate weave and scratches...


I'll concede you scratches, but gate weave is another constantly and randomly changing artifact -- along with grain -- which is inseparable from how most of us understand "cinema". The lack of weave in video, both in its acquisition and projection (compounded in film), is unsettling, for anyone old enough to have moved from film to video. You get used to it, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing for the viewer.
Offline

Anders Holck

  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:17 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 9:49 pm

Rick,
By altering shutter angle you could work your way around and get straight poles. Else blur would get too messy. But even if you watch a modern action movie shot on film you will see, where it's 180° shutter @ 24fps, that it sometimes could look like rolling shutter.
Now, both anamorphic and other stuff do affect the pole to a more straight pole.
Those times I've been into 35mm, leaning objects have been taken into consideration regarding changing shutter angle for the specific shot.

A

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
==============

BlackMagic URSA mini 4.6K EF & BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera
Sony FDR-AX100 & Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Still and video
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSat Mar 26, 2016 10:21 pm

It's funny to note that even this 1994 cartoon exhibits what appears to be rolling shutter in the background cacti. The cacti are upright in scenes where the characters are stationary.

Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2814
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: Does

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 12:06 am

Gene Kochanowsky wrote:Film was shot with a rotating shutter, which also produced image artifacts similar to rolling shutter.

Image


I don't think so gene...

I've posted about this before, but essentially it's easy to THINK it's the same because the shutter rotates, but in actual fact it's a rotating shutter that behaves as a Global Shutter.

A frame is PHOTOGRAPHED more or less all at the same time across the frame over a shutter cycle. A CMOS rolling shutter is created a line at a time over a shutter cycle.

As the shutter SWEEPS across the frame the frame exposure time is more or less even for the whole frame at the same time, with a bit of attenuation at the beginning and end of the frame cycle as the shutter sweeps across it. This is not the same as a RS. There is very little temporal offset. Some shutters are also offset so on a diagonal, the bottom corner of a frame has the shutter moving at a different speed to the top corner. Also there are many cameras that have other kinds of shutters too, like butterfly shutters which work in slightly differing ways. A rolling shutter in a digital camera does NOT capture the whole frame at more or less the same time, it goes line by line, so the temporal offset, that is the time between each part of the frame being exposed, is greater

I have yet to see a RS artefact on a film camera originated shot. It's a very hard case to make. :-)

JB
Last edited by John Brawley on Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2814
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 12:09 am

Anatoly Mashanov wrote:
Jason R. Johnston wrote:achieved with digital cameras by shooting at 24 frames per second, with no more, or less, than two shutter exposures per frame,


For the sake of stupid exactness: There is exactly one exposure per frame. The 2 (or 3 for 16mm) exposures relate to the projection only. It puts additional stress to the projector mechanics since it must move the film during 1/4 or even 1/6 frame time. So even the projector film drive (maltese cross transmission) is different from the camera's.


Actually almost every 35mm projector I've seen has three blades so the image is "flashed" three times, giving most film projectors a refresh rate of 72Hz.

JB
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 1300
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Does

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 12:28 am

John Brawley wrote:
Gene Kochanowsky wrote:Film was shot with a rotating shutter, which also produced image artifacts similar to rolling shutter.

Image


I don't think so gene...

I've posted about this before, but essentially it's easy to THINK it's the same because the shutter rotates, but in actual fact it's a rotating shutter that behaves as a Global Shutter.

A frame is PHOTOGRAPHED more or less all at the same time across the frame over a shutter cycle. A CMOS rolling shutter is created a line at a time over a shutter cycle.

As the shutter SWEEPS across the frame the frame exposure time is more or less even for the whole frame at the same time, with a bit of attenuation at the beginning and end of the frame cycle as the shutter sweeps across it. This is not the same as a RS. There is very little temporal offset. Some shutters are also offset so on a diagonal, the bottom corner of a frame has the shutter moving at a different speed to the top corner. Also there are many cameras that have other kinds of shutters too, like butterfly shutters which work in slightly differing ways. A rolling shutter in a digital camera does NOT capture the whole frame at more or less the same time, it goes line by line, so the temporal offset, that is the time between each part of the frame being exposed, is greater

I have yet to see a RS artefact on a film camera originated shot. It's a very hard case to make. :-)

JB


Thank you JB for always providing us some facts (and sanity) from the real world knowledge of a seasoned cinematographer. This forum benefits immensely from your posts.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 12:34 am

Image

Sorry, but it is very similar to a digital rolling shutter. If the image is moving across the frame, side to side, as the shutter opens from the top to the bottom, vertical lines will skew. The only difference is that a 180 shutter will start off horizontal, and end at an angle for a rotating shutter.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2814
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 12:40 am

The film frame itself doesn't move during the exposure cycle.

JB.
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 12:47 am

Agreed, but we are talking about images that move from one side to the other as the shutter sweeps across the frame from top to bottom. Granted it's not identical to digital rolling shutter but it will show a distorted image due to the shutter motion.
Last edited by Gene Kochanowsky on Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Andrew Deme

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 12:48 am

'Rolling Shutter' has been around since the dawn of film but was never seen as a massive problem for two reason, one is that focal plane of the 'shutter' mechanism meant it was much harder to notice as did the impact of the exposure rate and the chemistry of the film itself....and of course relied on a synced projector and our brains to piece it all back together perfectly. The mechanics of a shutter rotating or passing over a moving bit of film was just one component.

Now the 'sensor' is digital it has an ever increasing refresh rate and in some cases digital video sensors are supported by mechanical shutters. The race to create high dynamic range, high pixel count, global shutter cameras will be fantastic for virtualisation and pixel peepers (of which I happily admit to being).

It is a shame kids nowadays don't get the chance to build film cameras for themselves......
Last edited by Andrew Deme on Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 12:52 am

I would contend that film rolling shutter artifacts have been so common for so long, that we unconsciously expect it. Which is why I posted the roadrunner cartoon. The cartoonist put in image skew because that has become part of the language of moving images.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2814
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 1:00 am

The movement of the shutter sweep is not always top to bottom. It can be corner to corner.

The frame is being exposed from the second it sees light.

The shutter sweeps across and is then open until the shutter sweeps closed.

The whole of the frame for the majority of the exposure cycle is receiving light equally.

In a CMOS RS the image is made up line by line. So therefore there is a time difference between what's happening at the top of the frame to the bottom.

In a film frame for MOST of the cumtive time required to make an exposure the whole of the frame is being exposed at the same time. And then ONLY when the shutter is sweeping across, which is only a small part of the shutter cycle, do you get a difference in exposure time.

The best case for this is the fact that you never see RS on film originated material.

JB.
Last edited by John Brawley on Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline

Andrew Deme

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 1:33 am

For motion picture film, being film then it might be more correctly called 'blur angle'....it has always been there, but almost impossible to notice.
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 2:07 am

And the amount of 'blur angle' would depend entirely on image movement in relation to the rotating shutter. An object that starts on one edge of the frame and ends on the other edge of the frame within the time the shutter sweeps from the top to the bottom of the frame will be quite noticeable.
Offline

Andrew Deme

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 2:17 am

Gene Kochanowsky wrote:And the amount of 'blur angle' would depend entirely on image movement in relation to the rotating shutter. An object that starts on one edge of the frame and ends on the other edge of the frame within the time the shutter sweeps from the top to the bottom of the frame will be quite noticeable.


Think it is actually very difficult to notice given slight difference in focal plan between the mechanical thingo that blocked and let light in and the layer of the film itself.

Also there was a tad of trickery in how the mechanical thingo went about its business that made it even harder to notice.

Reason it kinda jumps out at us now is that focal plane of the sensor and the 'scan' across the image are perfectly the same.

I think in essence the term 'rolling shutter' is actually designed to explain a fundamental issue that digital sensors have and like 'crop factor', doesn't translate back to film exactly the same.

Either way there was a massive amount of effort in design and engineering to solve this exact issue, albeit with moving parts, time and chemistry.....like I said, shame kids today don't get to try and crack this one themselves.
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 2:45 am

So here is a paper that works out motion blur for all kinds of shutters and cameras...

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7768/9 ... 527da0.pdf
Offline

Thuyen Nguyen

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:35 am

Re: Does

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 3:31 am

rick.lang wrote:@Lee
I guess the Sigma Foveon sensor comes closest to emulating film given its colour register layers. But that's never migrated to a cinema camera.
The Foveon will have will have a microlens infront of the pixel so it probably wont act like film in this respect.
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 1300
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 4:11 am

Gene Kochanowsky wrote:And the amount of 'blur angle' would depend entirely on image movement in relation to the rotating shutter. An object that starts on one edge of the frame and ends on the other edge of the frame within the time the shutter sweeps from the top to the bottom of the frame will be quite noticeable.


If you want to continue to argue this point, how about providing some actual evidence with a real frame of film that exhibits anything which remotely resembles a single frame from a digital sensor with rolling shutter? I've certainly never seen one.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 4:16 am

Jamie, I've been looking for such frames but it's rather difficult to do on the internet which appears to have primarily digital generated content. In any case there is the IEEE paper describing exactly how to model it.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2814
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 4:21 am

Gene.

You will be lucky to find anything. It doesn't work that way.

JB.
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline

Anatoly Mashanov

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:36 am
  • Location: Russia

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 4:22 am

To find extreme rolling shutter specimens please search Youtube for plane pilot education lessons and look at propellers.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2814
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 4:24 am

We're talking of FILM originated RS skew.

Here's an example gene. Look at the animation. The shutter moves through line by line.

It's not the same thing as the whole frame being ON at the same time with a timed on off with shutter sweep.

http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~bevans/pro ... rSmall.jpg

JB.
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 4:38 am

John, I agree, it's not exactly the same, but it's the same principal at work.
Offline
User avatar

Ivon Visalli

  • Posts: 305
  • Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:17 am
  • Location: California, USA

Re: Does "filmic" = film ?

PostSun Mar 27, 2016 5:08 am

Gene, the point John (and I think others) are trying to make is that a classic rotating mirror shutter in a film camera is more equivalent to a global shutter -- not a rolling shutter -- in digital. You are correct that a film camera with rotating shutter will exhibit artifacts, but not the same as a RS. Skew being the most significant artifact of a RS.

If you shoot out of a moving car with a film camera (again assuming a rotating shutter), the telephone pole whizzing through the frame will exhibit motion blur, but not skew like it would with a RS. That's because during the time the film is being exposed, the frame being exposed is motionless. All of the frame is getting light at the same time for MOST of the exposure time. There is a period where the shutter enters and exits the frame, but it does not cause skewing. It's predominant artifact is shadowing. This artifact is brought out by a light flash, not a moving object. Whereas with a RS, the exposure of each row is occurring at a different point in time.

Exposure in a film camera: all at the same time. Exposure in a RS camera: each row at a different time. Exposure in a GS camera: all at the same time.
Last edited by Ivon Visalli on Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Next

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Overlander and 14 guests