Is motion blur really "Cinematic'?

[Rob Burke]

Every drone instructional video I see tells how to to set the camera exposure so as to create motion blur. Why is this even desirable? Motion blur is the result of limitations in shutter speed and film sensitivity in traditional photographic cameras. We see it in traditional cinema film not because it is more realistic but because it cannot be avoided with that technology. As more and more cinema is created in digital form, why go to the trouble of degrading the digital image to give it a fake, "antique" feel?

 

[Thomas B]

Every drone instructional video I see tells how to to set the camera exposure so as to create motion blur. Why is this even desirable? Motion blur is the result of limitations in shutter speed and film sensitivity in traditional photographic cameras. We see it in traditional cinema film not because it is more realistic but because it cannot be avoided with that technology. As more and more cinema is created in digital form, why go to the trouble of degrading the digital image to give it a fake, "antique" feel?

The human eye expects it. Everything you watch on T.V. Has it. It’s what people are used to seeing and thing tend to appear unnatural without it.

 

[msinger]

why go to the trouble of degrading the digital image to give it a fake, "antique" feel?

You should give your videos the feeling you want. Why copy everyone else if you don't like the look?

 

[Rob Burke]

The human eye expects it. Everything you watch on T.V. Has it. It’s what people are used to seeing and thing tend to appear unnatural without it.

I don't think the human eye expects to see blurring but the current audience does. Won't people who grow up watching high resolution digital video think the "cinematic" movies look too soft and unreal?

 

[Thomas B]

I don't think the human eye expects to see blurring but the current audience does. Won't people who grow up watching high resolution digital video think the "cinematic" movies look too soft and unreal?

First is of course what I meant. Thanks for rewording.
High resolution can be presented, and recorded at various frame rates. Then there is the refresh rate on the viewing device to consider.

 

[LenSavage]

I fly some for TV and film projects and I would NEVER intentionally fly or shoot to cause blur. You can't un-blur, so if they want it, they can add it in post.
I give them clean, smooth 24-frame D-Log footage and they do the rest.
Hollywood will often take smooth footage and add fake camera shake to it to heighten the tension. I don't like it.
It reminds me that I am seeing this through a camera and takes me out of the moment.
Maybe that's just me.
Shoot it perfect. Screw it up later if you want.

 

[tcope]

It depends on how you want what you are filming to be view. Motion Blur gives the _appearance_ of... motion. It makes the person feel like they are turning quickly to view something. I find it also serves to make it feel as if there is a transition from one view to another.

 

[Kilrah]

Your eyes do motion blur in real life, so in video you want to recreate that. When you're moving 100km/h the road right in front of you and the trees going by the side are blurred, you don't see detail on every little stone on the ground or leaf.
On typical fast shutter speed gopro footage moving things appear like a "slideshow" since everything is perfrectly sharp on each frame, spinning wheels look trash / spinning backwards etc which all looks unnatural anytime the camera is close to the subject.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Really, looking "cinematic" has little or nothing to do with it, although that has become a shorthand way people describe how motion looks to the eye. And it's about how our eyes see in real life that counts, and that's with what some people call motion blur.

If each frame of video is exceptionally sharp, they don't look natural when strung together. That may be desirable if you're trying to shoot slow motion or to be able to extract still images from the video. But as video at normal speed it looks artificial.

 

[msinger]

If each frame of video is exceptionally sharp, they don't look natural when strung together.

And since we're flying drones here, it's also important to note that this is really only an issue if the subject you're shooting is close to the camera. If shooting landscape high up in the sky, attempting to slow down the shutter speed is not going to make the footage look more cinematic.

 

[FASTFJR]

Every drone instructional video I see tells how to to set the camera exposure so as to create motion blur. Why is this even desirable? Motion blur is the result of limitations in shutter speed and film sensitivity in traditional photographic cameras. We see it in traditional cinema film not because it is more realistic but because it cannot be avoided with that technology. As more and more cinema is created in digital form, why go to the trouble of degrading the digital image to give it a fake, "antique" feel?

You can also add

Every drone instructional video I see tells how to to set the camera exposure so as to create motion blur. Why is this even desirable? Motion blur is the result of limitations in shutter speed and film sensitivity in traditional photographic cameras. We see it in traditional cinema film not because it is more realistic but because it cannot be avoided with that technology. As more and more cinema is created in digital form, why go to the trouble of degrading the digital image to give it a fake, "antique" feel?

Skip to about the 8 minute mark and see what is more pleasing to your eye

.

 

[sar104]

Really, looking "cinematic" has little or nothing to do with it, although that has become a shorthand way people describe how motion looks to the eye. And it's about how our eyes see in real life that counts, and that's with what some people call motion blur.

If each frame of video is exceptionally sharp, they don't look natural when strung together. That may be desirable if you're trying to shoot slow motion or to be able to extract still images from the video. But as video at normal speed it looks artificial.

And since we're flying drones here, it's also important to note that this is really only an issue if the subject you're shooting is close to the camera. If shooting landscape high up in the sky, attempting to slow down the shutter speed is not going to make the footage look more cinematic.

It's really more fundamental to the way that we perceive motion. If the camera is stationary then the problem is less noticeable unless there is a lot of movement in the view, but if the camera pans then a set of pin sharp frames, replayed at 24 or 30 fps, looks jerky and unpleasant. The blur produced by a longer exposure time removes the jerkiness, even though it is at the expense of sharpness in each frame. The only alternative to achieve a similarly acceptable result with sharp frames would be to increase the frame rate to a rate beyond the refresh time of the human eye, at which point it would look sharp yet continuous. I think that's up around 60 - 80 frames per second.

 

[Dakarenduro]

You can also add
Skip to about the 8 minute mark and see what is more pleasing to your eye

I think that is a great comparison. I know which I prefer (blur) to watch aand have in my videos.

I've heard non blurred called 'Soap Opera' video because those shows are sometimes filmed without the blurring. Looks to me almost unnatural, everything is too crisp.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I've heard non blurred called 'Soap Opera' video because those shows are sometimes filmed without the blurring. Looks to me almost unnatural, everything is too crisp.

Yep. It was tough to get used to Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" in 48 fps. It looked cheap.