Slow motion shots

[steve hyde]

Here is a scene I filmed at 54fps:

http://www.steve-hyde.com/waterslide1.mov


Steve

[mattias]

if you're really on a budget and think premiere speed effects look good then why don't you shoot everything at say 4 fps and slow it down in post? ;-)

/matt

[mattias]

Here is a scene I filmed at 54fps:

cool, but here's lesson two from your internet streaming course: never put interlaced material online. you have to do reverse pulldown or at least deinterlace first. scaling down to an even divisor of the frame height, i.e. 240 pixels, is the easiest way.

/matt

[teadub]

And if its just doubling frames to make 60fps, then that's not highspeed at all!!

It's my understanding is shoots at a constant rate of 60fps, then based on your user settings it will flag the frame rate 9fps - 60fps though some proprietary software.

So if you pur 60fps footage on a 24fps timeline, you'll get slow motion.

check out (I just googled "varicam" + "Slow motion", and found this link)

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/dv ... balis.html

[VideoFred]

Do you guys think it is advantageous in any way to take footage that is shot at say 24fps and then transfer it at say 12fps?

How do they transfer? If it is frame accurate, transfer speed does not matter at all. Frame rate of the result does not matter also. Can be changed in a second.

EDIT: I see...Thompson Shadow..I assume they do frame rate conversion 'on the fly', with hardware. But then you gonna get duplicates, interlacing artefacts etc.....

You could ask them for a -not interlaced- frame accurate transfer. Then you can 'play' with it afterwards.

The reason I ask is because I have some really old 8mm footage (family stuff)

I have lots of this old footage, too. The only way to make this footage play real smooth, in my opinion, is by using the software I mentioned in this thread. And stabilizing it, after frame rate conversion. But again, source must be frame accurate, no duplicates.

For NTSC use a traditional frame rate converted 15fps file gives 30fps, by showing each frame twice. With this software you get 30 different frames. Motion corrected, not just re-aligned.

But I agree nothing beats the real thing, of cource.
But we can not re-shoot these old films, can we

Fred.

[steve hyde]

....when I ask for a transfer, I tell them what frame rate I want used for the transfer. I always ask for 24fps and I often shoot at higher frame rates for slow motion.

Recently the posthouse made a mistake. I asked for 24, but when I reviewed the footage I noticed it was slowed down. It appears the footage was xfered at 18fps. Fortunately, I really liked the effect. It footage from a wedding I shot overexposed on 7265. The slower framerate enhances the dreamlike quality I was going for.

In audio recording (analog) it is common practice to run the tape faster than real time so that more information is laid onto the tape. Or put differently, so that more tape is used to record the information. Then the sound is sped up in post for a richer sound. (I'm not a recording engineer, but this is what my recording engineer friends tell me)

Maybe I'm not making sense.

Think about it this way:

To save time at transfer, should I ask the colorist to transfer my film shot at 24fps at 54fps??

Of course not!

That will put 20 mins of footage on the tape in about 10mins. I imagine I would get a transfer with lots of drop outs.

Alternatively, if I shoot my film at 36fps and transfer it at 12fps, I imagine I will have more latitude for making speed adjustments in the NLE software, because there is literally more information on the tape.

Time is information.

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

"Alternatively, if I shoot my film at 36fps and transfer it at 12fps, I imagine I will have more latitude for making speed adjustments in the NLE software, because there is literally more information on the tape."

The "extra" information is pointless if frames of the original (film) source are being duplicated. If you shoot at 24 fps, there is no reason to transfer at anything less than 24 fps - the effect will not be any different than slowing it down later. If you use standard NTSC DV (29.97 fps), there are already more frames per second on video than the source film... of course, a 24p transfer would be ideal since the film frames would remain discrete and not interlaced.

[sooper8fan]

Steve, that waterslide clip looked great (aside from the auto-exposure ) It looked solid and smooth. Thanks for posting it!

[mathis]

In audio recording (analog) it is common practice to run the tape faster than real time so that more information is laid onto the tape. Or put differently, so that more tape is used to record the information. Then the sound is sped up in post for a richer sound. (I'm not a recording engineer, but this is what my recording engineer friends tell me)

Quite funky idea. But there is no realtime tape speed, there´s only higher or lower speed = resolution, just as in film. So a high speed tape machine is like a film camera capturing at 54fps AND a projector playing back at 54fps.

And I agree that transfering at less speed than photographed there is absolutely no improvement of resolution. It´s the same information spread out and duplicated on multiple tablets.

[steve hyde]

Thanks. Okay, so if it is the same information spread, why don't people transfer at faster frame rates to save on transfer time?

It's because at 54fps each image is recorded at 1/54th of a second demanding less tape space.

Okay, let's take a hypothetical scenario.

I'm on the beach in Miami photographing beach babes at 24fps when suddenly a twin engine airplane above bursts into flames and begins plunging toward the sea. I turn my camera towards the airplane and capture the 5 second event.

Now I'm at the posthouse talking to the colorist. How should we xfer the footage? Should we record it at 24fps or 1fps? Which will yeild the best slow motion return?

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

"Which will yeild the best slow motion return?"

If you shot the plane crash at 24 fps? Transfer it at the normal rate (24 fps pulled down to 29.97 fps).

[JGrube]

Quite funky idea. But there is no realtime tape speed, there´s only higher or lower speed = resolution, just as in film.

A better way of putting it is that there is a commercial standard tape speed. Film is generally 24 frames per second, cassette tape is 3.75 inches per second. You can achieve better sound quality by using wider tape (quarter inch, half inch, one inch, etc.) just as you can get better picture quality by using a larger film format (16mm, 35mm, 70mm etc.). One way in sound recording to get the best possible sound out of whatever width tape you happen to be using is to run the tape faster (ultra professional sound recordings are generally done at 30 inches per second, for example).

Just a detail, I used to do a lot of analog reel-to-reel recording before I got into film. The main difference presently is that 54fps playback is not a standard practice, wheras most professional reel-to-reel tape machines will have playback speeds greater than 3.75ips.

It is an interesting idea though, it would use up more film to shoot/playback at higher speeds than 24fps, but the "cumulative" effect of using a higher framerate might produce a better image. Not yet seen it in practice though.

Jason

[MovieStuff]

If you shoot film at 60fps and project at 60fps, the motion will look like video. I've seen it and it is also used in many ride films because it has a more "live" look than 24fps film. If you have an Elmo editor, try rewinding quicky through the viewer and watch the image. Looks just like video when you hit about 60fps.

Roger

[super8man]

Roger, I have a sneaking suspicion that you work for the film industry...

First you tell us to shoot at 30fps so that we can avoid any pulldown and get better detail (and use almost twice as much film than at 18fps).

Then, you tell us to shoot at 60fps so that we can make our films look like video.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Heaven will direct it.

Nay, let's follow him.

[MovieStuff]

Roger, I have a sneaking suspicion that you work for the film industry...

LOL. Yes, it does appear that way. I know, let's shoot at 3600 frames a second on a rig with 24 super 8 cameras that revolve like a ferris wheel every minute!

First you tell us to shoot at 30fps so that we can avoid any pulldown and get better detail (and use almost twice as much film than at 18fps).

Then, you tell us to shoot at 60fps so that we can make our films look like video.

Actually, both statements are correct. For NTSC video applications, shooting at 30fps simply maximizes the amount of detail you can get from film and still have motion characteristics that look like film because the human eye is still subconsciously aware that the motion is broken up into discrete segments. But when you up the frame rate to 60fps, there is no longer any perceptible break in motion and it looks very "live", like video. It's interesting to watch but I prefer 24fps.

Roger