Why are movies still made with jiggly cameras?

[alkemyst]

It's amazing some of the men here can't even watch a movie without getting motion sickness.

 

[Kaido]

give me my glorious 24 fps or give me death!

I too am a 24 FPS fan. I did not like the High Framerate 3D at all for The Hobbit. Regular 3D is okay if the movie is 100% made for 3D, like Avatar, but I still prefer 2D films. As as much of a digital nerd as I am (love RED cameras & Sony's F65), I still really like film & film grain the most.

 

[Oil]

And actually I think it is getting worse. It's getting to the point where I don't want to go to the movies because half the time I'm getting motion sickness. They have had steady cams for quite a long time now. What gives?

Blair Witch Project

 

[destrekor]

And even consumer-level cameras have image stabilizing, though some of them don't do a very good job.


Next step: Getting over the "smooth framerates = eewwww, soap opera!" mentality.

I've only seen a 60fps video once now...
I don't know why anyone would want 24fps or 29fps instead of it.

24fps especially (well, 23.976) looks lousy on movie screens when the camera's panning past something, like a fast slideshow rather than a fluid video.



I guess there's hope for that. After all, movies are no longer played back at odd or inconsistent speeds, caused by the camera operator's manual cranking of the film wheel. 😀

I don't mind image stabilization, but don't dare put that higher framerate shit on my TV.

We don't see that way, it looks like shit! Our brain doesn't see in a measurable framerate, true, and constant motion could be said to be even faster, but we have very few high-quality visual receptors for motion, and our own tracking ability is extremely limited. By that, I mean we cannot discern a great amount of detail from an entire scene while also moving our eyes - our range of focus is incredibly limited, in that we can SEE a lot but we can only see in detail in a very very minute portion of our overall field of vision. The further away from that limited portion of our FOV, we get loss of fine image resolution and less accurate imagery. It's accurate because we can track to it whenever we want and fill in the real detail, and we keep our brain updated with both real, perceived, and imagined data - filling in the blanks until we can process the full resolution again.

Result = we can really only resolve what we are focusing on while the rest of the scene is extremely vague.

All that is with constant motion.

Now, I haven't SEEN a full high-production movie shot at a faster framerate, so the raw data actually presented correctly might be much different. Most is either bad production (which clarity of image brings to focus much easier), or the image is converted from slower framerate to a faster framerate; that may be lending to the way it is perceived.

If you could "film" in constant motion, no frames involved, and present that to us on a TV or at the theater, it would look natural. Production values would still be important, but it wouldn't look wrong. Either the camera or our eyes can control focus and see lifelike detail in motion.

Instead, we are presented frozen photography in fast motion. Making that even faster means less motion blur is captured in every single frame. Keep making that faster and faster, the visuals are going to look alien, because most likely what we are watching this motion picture on, is almost entirely centered within our "sharper" FOV. However, just because it's in our FOV doesn't mean we would see the full detail within the entire scene.

Which is fine, except there's a disconnect between reality and what we see in that narrow cone of vision. We expect to only really "see" so much fine detail, and then our eye is thinking it can drink in so much detail but gets confused based on the way the camera pans and the way the motion is acted out within that narrow scope of our visual field.


It's much better trickery to actually capture the motion blur on the frame itself, because combining that with the director's choice of focal lengths and depth (what's the DoF, what's in focus, how much range compression or expansion is there due to focal length as well), if we choose to allow the directory to hold our hand and pull us along for the ride (we force our eyes to keep up with what is in focus, drop our guard when it appears nothing it in focus), it's going to be FAR more effective at drawing us into the experience, and overall feel more natural.

Smooth panning can be beneficial, but the overall result of high framerate with intense action and high-motion scenes is actually far more jarring, it doesn't feel like I'm there at all. In fact, it more and more feels like I'm watching a staged production as opposed to seeing something through a window - which, combined with HD picture and strong surround sound, that's entirely my goal and you can keep your high framerate to yourself, good sir!

 

[zinfamous]

I too am a 24 FPS fan. I did not like the High Framerate 3D at all for The Hobbit. Regular 3D is okay if the movie is 100% made for 3D, like Avatar, but I still prefer 2D films. As as much of a digital nerd as I am (love RED cameras & Sony's F65), I still really like film & film grain the most.

:thumbsup:

 

[destrekor]

It's amazing some of the men here can't even watch a movie without getting motion sickness.

You're a terrible troll and yet successful because I'm responding. :\

As if that has anything to do with being less manly?

What goes on in your brain, combining input from the inner ear and eyes, will either be compensated for mentally, or not at all and cause a cascading physical "confusion" that tends to result in the effects of motion sickness.

What your unconscious brain does, at a level deeper than instinct, is hardly a measure of masculinity.

 

[alkemyst]

You're a terrible troll and yet successful because I'm responding. :\

As if that has anything to do with being less manly?

What goes on in your brain, combining input from the inner ear and eyes, will either be compensated for mentally, or not at all and cause a cascading physical "confusion" that tends to result in the effects of motion sickness.

What your unconscious brain does, at a level deeper than instinct, is hardly a measure of masculinity.

Ok, so your instincts tell you when the shit hits the fan to puke on yourself?

 

[destrekor]

I too am a 24 FPS fan. I did not like the High Framerate 3D at all for The Hobbit. Regular 3D is okay if the movie is 100% made for 3D, like Avatar, but I still prefer 2D films. As as much of a digital nerd as I am (love RED cameras & Sony's F65), I still really like film & film grain the most.

I wish I had a closer IMAX screen.
True 35mm motion picture film love right there, for the movies that even have a sprinkling of imax scenes, it's worth it.
(for those unaware, "IMAX film" and "35mm film", for motion pictures, use the same physical film stock, but IMAX film is horizontally fed whereas 35mm is vertically fed. End result = 35mm film actually has a much smaller image size than true "35mm still photography" film, especially once you factor in extra room for the audio content actually written to the film.
Imax, on the other hand, results in a frame potentially the same exact size as achieved with a 35mm film camera (still).
Combine with good film stock, it's one of the best visuals to be seen when projected on a large screen. 🙂


I only recently got a DSLR - I accepted that the digital workflow is much better than the workflow for color film photography - but I'll always miss film.
That, and I refused to accept anything other than the standard 35mm "Full Frame' sensor, which is what I got.

Honestly, I have no idea what the sensor size is on digital cinema cameras. Curious if it's the same as the 35mm (135) film stock (horizontally fed orientation), or if they simply stayed true to the old-school and went with a sensor that matches the vertically fed "35mm" smaller frame.



Also, I actually enjoy 3D (active-shutter) on my Panny plasma. If it was larger that would be much better, and the future (longer term) goal is to get a high-quality projector for epic screen sizes. 😀
But the 50" I've got now, with true 3D content, has looked wonderful.
Some people had told me they preferred the Motion Smoothing set to anything but Off (a Panasonic setting) with 3D, and still Off for everything 2D... but I found it still looked like disorienting crap in 3D so I turned it off. The 3D isn't jump in your face, but it adds valuable depth and I enjoy the overall presentation. 3D ain't for everyone, true, but I like real 3D (post-conversion can sometimes be decent, but generally that's just riding the train - filmed in 3D is a must. Prometheus had terrific 3D as viewed on my plasma.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon had shots filmed in 3D, and while the whole movie was entertaining watched in 3D, there were times when the image went from OK to HOLY HELL. The "POP" was phenomenal when the real 3D scenes came about.

 

[destrekor]

Ok, so your instincts tell you when the shit hits the fan to puke on yourself?

When shit hits the fan in real life, that has nothing to do with motion sickness.

Motion sickness is either sitting still and perceiving motion or moving yer perceiving you are still, and your body not compensating.

In other words, it's rarely a real-life situation for most people who suffer motion sickness. Car rides reading a magazine/phone? Riding rollercoasters? Not something the body thinks is natural, and for some people the disconnect between what is experienced and what the body feels should be experienced cannot be solved internally, and this usually means motion sickness.

I think boat rides are about the only "natural" event for the body, and even then, not really. It's something far more likely to experience in a real life danger situation, as opposed to other sources of motion sickness, but our body expects solid stationary ground under our feet and the brains of some can't figure out what the hell is going on.



Also: I've never puked from motion sickness. I'm not defending, I'm laughing at your miserable perception of the world.

 

[alkemyst]

When shit hits the fan in real life, that has nothing to do with motion sickness.

Motion sickness is either sitting still and perceiving motion or moving yer perceiving you are still, and your body not compensating.

In other words, it's rarely a real-life situation for most people who suffer motion sickness. Car rides reading a magazine/phone? Riding rollercoasters? Not something the body thinks is natural, and for some people the disconnect between what is experienced and what the body feels should be experienced cannot be solved internally, and this usually means motion sickness.

I think boat rides are about the only "natural" event for the body, and even then, not really. It's something far more likely to experience in a real life danger situation, as opposed to other sources of motion sickness, but our body expects solid stationary ground under our feet and the brains of some can't figure out what the hell is going on.



Also: I've never puked from motion sickness. I'm not defending, I'm laughing at your miserable perception of the world.

So is car sickness manly?

 

[JBT]

My wife and daughter both get car sick. My son and my self never get car sick. With that said I am also driving 99% of the time which makes me even more manly.

 

[Jeff7]

When shit hits the fan in real life, that has nothing to do with motion sickness.

Motion sickness is either sitting still and perceiving motion or moving yer perceiving you are still, and your body not compensating.

In other words, it's rarely a real-life situation for most people who suffer motion sickness. Car rides reading a magazine/phone? Riding rollercoasters? Not something the body thinks is natural, and for some people the disconnect between what is experienced and what the body feels should be experienced cannot be solved internally, and this usually means motion sickness.

I think boat rides are about the only "natural" event for the body, and even then, not really. It's something far more likely to experience in a real life danger situation, as opposed to other sources of motion sickness, but our body expects solid stationary ground under our feet and the brains of some can't figure out what the hell is going on.



Also: I've never puked from motion sickness. I'm not defending, I'm laughing at your miserable perception of the world.

Sudden drop in blood pressure? Result: Nausea.
Sensory inputs don't agree with each other? Result: Nausea.

Some of the body's first responses are like that. 😀


Your body's procedure for Something is Going Wrong, executed in any sequence:
- Vomit.
- Create mucus in the affected area.
- Cause swelling in the affected area.
- Increase body temperature.
- Empty bowels and bladder.

If that doesn't fix the problem.....make even more mucus, and try vomiting again?

 

[Murloc]

It isn't even the action scenes anymore. It's just all over the place. Touching love scene? Shakey cam. Weeping over the body of a slain brother in arms? Shakey cam. Two people talking about what to cook for dinner? Shakey cam. Showing outside of a building? Shakey cam. Jeff Bridges having explosive diarrhea in a reimagined Dumb and Dumber? Shakey cam. It's really quite ridiculous.

actually I haven't noticed this, it's just a few movies for me.

My wife and daughter both get car sick. My son and my self never get car sick. With that said I am also driving 99% of the time which makes me even more manly.

lol even if you're prone to car sickness you can't sick when you're driving duh

 

[mizzou]

 

[mizzou]

Hey OP, this one is produced by mr. shakycam himself. Record yourself in the theatre getting uncomfortable and throwing up lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp6jpeDeQmE

 

[Rakehellion]

Because if you re-watched that action scene with a normal stabilized camera you'd realize how little is actually going on.

Pretty much. Camera shake makes things more EXCITING!

Back in the day, they used to just reserve that sort of thing for explosions.

 

[artvscommerce]

I didn't realize how common this was until I got a TV with the "auto motion plus" feature. When it's in "standard" mode it is basically a heavy amount of image stabilization. It seems to remove all of the camera jerks/jiggles. Ever since playing with this feature I've noticed nearly everything I watch seems like it's filmed with a jerky camera. The effect lets you see fast motion better but I find it overly distracting since it's so uncommon to see scenes like that.

 

[Kaido]

Heck, you don't even need Steadicams anymore - $15k can buy you a gyro-stabilized rig that pretty much requires zero skill to stabilize. Check out this footage:

http://vimeo.com/62917185

And the Behind-the-scenes:

http://vimeo.com/63357898

* accidentally posted this in the JJ lens flare thread & moved it over here

 

[HendrixFan]

Heck, you don't even need Steadicams anymore - $15k can buy you a gyro-stabilized rig that pretty much requires zero skill to stabilize. Check out this footage:

http://vimeo.com/62917185

And the Behind-the-scenes:

http://vimeo.com/63357898

* accidentally posted this in the JJ lens flare thread & moved it over here

Amazing footage!

Kubrick is rolling in his grave with all this shaky cam business. I'll take the beauty of a perfectly framed shot or fluid motion with a camera (thanks PTA!) any day of the week.

 

[sdifox]

Shaky cam is so popular it was built into ios7

 

[alkemyst]

Amazing footage!

Kubrick is rolling in his grave with all this shaky cam business. I'll take the beauty of a perfectly framed shot or fluid motion with a camera (thanks PTA!) any day of the week.

I am sure if Kubrick knew one day we'd film movies easily with simple devices; he'd done one.

Most that go out and about at night like adults should, know about shaky camera vids.

just sayin'

 

[BoberFett]

Kubrick is rolling in his grave with all this shaky cam business. I'll take the beauty of a perfectly framed shot or fluid motion with a camera (thanks PTA!) any day of the week.

🙄

 

[HendrixFan]

I am sure if Kubrick knew one day we'd film movies easily with simple devices; he'd done one.

Most that go out and about at night like adults should, know about shaky camera vids.

just sayin'

Kubrick and PTA were/are masters of the moving shot but they make it elegant. Shaky cam is purely a cheap style that should only be used sparingly.

 

[Triumph]

🙄

Why?

 

[BlitzPuppet]

It semi ruined bourne supremacy. The director should be put in front of a firing squad for how he so severely fucked up the action scenes in that movie with his shaky bullshit.

Agreed, the last bourne was ruined for me because of the annoying drunk camera man.

Motion/Jiggly doesn't translate well from movie screen to my head...

I can sit in my chair, shift up and down move around, run around etc etc and remain focused on a fixed point with no confusion...my brain automatically translates everything in the action. When watching one of these movies I have trouble figuring out wtf is going on, it's even hard to figure out who is who when the camera can't remain still.

"Be a part of the action" my ass...what's next? Vertical iPhone video type movies?