Comments on: Cinematic Look, Part 2: Frame Rate and Shutter Speed https://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-frame-rate-shutter-speed/ The science and magic of shooting moving pictures Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:53:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: cpc https://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-frame-rate-shutter-speed/#comment-49972 cpc Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:15:15 +0000 http://www.shutterangle.com/?p=677#comment-49972 Good ND is best. Can be a hassle though in low budget land. Xume adapters may help with usability. Polas, including vari-ND polas, shouldn't be used on people other than on purpose (as a special effect) cause they can make skin overly matte and zombie-like by canceling some of the skin sub-surface scattered polarized light (skin glow). Good ND is best. Can be a hassle though in low budget land. Xume adapters may help with usability.

Polas, including vari-ND polas, shouldn’t be used on people other than on purpose (as a special effect) cause they can make skin overly matte and zombie-like by canceling some of the skin sub-surface scattered polarized light (skin glow).

]]> By: Uscenes https://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-frame-rate-shutter-speed/#comment-49971 Uscenes Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:01:51 +0000 http://www.shutterangle.com/?p=677#comment-49971 After the criticism followng The Hobbit I will be fascinated to see Avatar 2 shot at an even faster fps. The first film has a nice floaty feeling with lots of flying and sweeping movements, so it seems strage to have the next one going in the direction of something like Saving Private Ryan. I have just read up on said film and they used both 45 degree and 90 degree shutter angles. I think this link compliments your article well for those like me who want further reading https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-degree-shutter-in-saving-private-ryan/ I dislike the idea of using variable ND filers and polarizing filters outdoors (although polarizing filters can do amazing things), but I prefer it to higher fps. I have heard the motion blur software/plugin can harm the video quality too. Now that I have decided to stick with Panasonic lenses I think I will just have to invest in the best filters rather than the cheap NDx8 I currently use. I am guessing a top quality ND or polarizing filter will be preferable to a faster fps? After the criticism followng The Hobbit I will be fascinated to see Avatar 2 shot at an even faster fps. The first film has a nice floaty feeling with lots of flying and sweeping movements, so it seems strage to have the next one going in the direction of something like Saving Private Ryan.

I have just read up on said film and they used both 45 degree and 90 degree shutter angles. I think this link compliments your article well for those like me who want further reading https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-degree-shutter-in-saving-private-ryan/

I dislike the idea of using variable ND filers and polarizing filters outdoors (although polarizing filters can do amazing things), but I prefer it to higher fps. I have heard the motion blur software/plugin can harm the video quality too. Now that I have decided to stick with Panasonic lenses I think I will just have to invest in the best filters rather than the cheap NDx8 I currently use. I am guessing a top quality ND or polarizing filter will be preferable to a faster fps?

]]> By: Michael Denham https://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-frame-rate-shutter-speed/#comment-1265 Michael Denham Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:02:54 +0000 http://www.shutterangle.com/?p=677#comment-1265 Thank you for the response! :) Thank you for the response! :)

]]> By: cpc https://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-frame-rate-shutter-speed/#comment-1258 cpc Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:31:42 +0000 http://www.shutterangle.com/?p=677#comment-1258 This is where <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter" rel="nofollow">neutral density filters</a> come into play. They limit the amount of light that passes to the lens and allow larger apertures to be used with slow shutter speeds. On cinema camera setups these filters are rectangular or square and usually go in the filter holders of the matte box in front of the lens. Standard screw-on circular filters can also be used with photo lenses. Conventional ND filters cut a fixed amount of light. Variable ND filters have become popular in recent years. Vari-NDs can be set to reject a continuous range of light stops by rotating their front element. They have some drawbacks though, related to the fact they are actually made of a pair of polarizing filters. This is where neutral density filters come into play. They limit the amount of light that passes to the lens and allow larger apertures to be used with slow shutter speeds.

On cinema camera setups these filters are rectangular or square and usually go in the filter holders of the matte box in front of the lens. Standard screw-on circular filters can also be used with photo lenses.

Conventional ND filters cut a fixed amount of light. Variable ND filters have become popular in recent years. Vari-NDs can be set to reject a continuous range of light stops by rotating their front element. They have some drawbacks though, related to the fact they are actually made of a pair of polarizing filters.

]]> By: Michael Denham https://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-frame-rate-shutter-speed/#comment-1256 Michael Denham Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:08:00 +0000 http://www.shutterangle.com/?p=677#comment-1256 Hi, thanks for the information. The only thing that confuses me is that if you set your shutter speed to 1/50 for 24fps, surely you are limiting your control over depth of field. What if you want a nice blurry background but the larger aperture requires a shorter shutter speed? Hi, thanks for the information. The only thing that confuses me is that if you set your shutter speed to 1/50 for 24fps, surely you are limiting your control over depth of field. What if you want a nice blurry background but the larger aperture requires a shorter shutter speed?

]]>