# Results: Filming 720p 60fps at super high shutter speeds



## acelegendary (Apr 15, 2013)

Hey there,

Long time reader, first time poster.

I recently filmed an engagement session, and wanted to utilize a shallow depth of field in bright light without an ND filter. So, knowing that I would end up slowing the footage down to 40%, I cranked up the shutter speed in order to hit around f/2. The results? Well, see for yourself:

http://acelegendary.com/blog/2013/4/9/sean-liz-save-the-date


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 15, 2013)

I take it your pleased with the result based on your response, but I can tell you used a high shutter speed here and it seems to have affected the motion blur. Whether or not the effect is positive is subjective, but I personally don't like it. Doesn't look bad or anything just not great IMO, then again 60P is kind of the bare minimum for slowmo so you can only expect so much out of it. I'm sure the client is elated and that's what matters in the end.


----------



## acelegendary (Apr 15, 2013)

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that a high shutter speed was used, but getting that shallow DoF without an ND filter would've been impossible.

Under normal circumstances, however, I try not to break the 180 rule too much.

And yes, they loved it


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 15, 2013)

Nice work! What camera?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 15, 2013)

Quite nice, and a very good job keeping the focus where you wanted it at f/2. What supports/focus puller/etc did you use?


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 15, 2013)

I'm a video noob. And I'm curious... What's wrong with shooting at 60fps?

I understand how ND filters work with aperture, but if slo-mo is what you want, why would you shoot at 30fps with an ND filter, rather than 60fps without one?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 15, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> I'm a video noob. And I'm curious... What's wrong with shooting at 60fps?
> 
> I understand how ND filters work with aperture, but if slo-mo is what you want, why would you shoot at 30fps with an ND filter, rather than 60fps without one?



Nothing wrong with shooting at 60fps, in fact it's often used so that in post-production you cut the output framerate in half to get 30fps output so you double the time it takes, which give slow-motion.

Beyond that, the general rule in video is to get a 180-degree shutter which gives a nice, smooth look you shoot at 1/(shutter speed * 2). So for 30fps you shoot with a shutter of 1/60, and with 60fps you shoot at 1/120, or as close to that as you can get (so 1/125 on most DSLRs). So the only way to control exposure is with ISO or aperture, or to use ND filters to cut the amount of light. Since the OP wanted a very shallow DoF he needed to use some ND filters to cut the light to allow his aperture to be wider since he undoubtedly had his ISO set very low (100-200). Since he had no ND filters, he had to raise the shutter speed significantly. This can give video a more stilted look, since every frame is much 'sharper' and there won't be any motion blur like you can sometimes get with the slower shutter speeds.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 15, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a video noob. And I'm curious... What's wrong with shooting at 60fps?
> ...



Very well explained! Thank you. I'm saving up for a variable ND filter.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 15, 2013)

i don't know much about video, but i've heard of a 180degree rule, but it had nothing to do with shutter speed.


----------



## TAF (Apr 15, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> I take it your pleased with the result based on your response, but I can tell you used a high shutter speed here and it seems to have affected the motion blur. Whether or not the effect is positive is subjective, but I personally don't like it. Doesn't look bad or anything just not great IMO, then again 60P is kind of the bare minimum for slowmo so you can only expect so much out of it. I'm sure the client is elated and that's what matters in the end.




I thought the results were outstanding; I like the way each frame is crystal clear (to each his own, I suppose). Now that I know the 'why', I plan on experimenting with high shutter speed video.

To the OP, thank you for posting that.


----------



## melbournite (Apr 15, 2013)

Impressive and inspiring. 

I'm a photographer and this makes me want to go out and shoot video - with no ND filter!

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 16, 2013)

risc32 said:


> i don't know much about video, but i've heard of a 180degree rule, but it had nothing to do with shutter speed.



See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed#Cinematographic_shutter_formula, it comes from the mechanical rotary shutter traditional video cameras have used. I suppose it's not really called the 180-degree rule, it's just that's what stuck with me in my head from the traditional 24fps @1/48s shutter speed.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 16, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > dirtcastle said:
> ...



You're welcome! Comes from hanging around film guys too much. Sometimes it seems that's all there is here in LA, but really just the friends I have.

I'd take a look at http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14219.0 thread in which there's a good video about variable-ND filters. They may be useful, but they also have their downsides.


----------



## LOALTD (Apr 16, 2013)

acelegendary said:


> Hey there,
> 
> Long time reader, first time poster.
> 
> ...



Holy hell, that looks FANTASTIC! I usually obey the shutter speed rule as well, but, thanks to you, I am now unafraid to break it!

You make me want to marry someone just so I can hire you to make one of these!


----------



## acelegendary (Apr 16, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Quite nice, and a very good job keeping the focus where you wanted it at f/2. What supports/focus puller/etc did you use?



I used a Glidecam HD2000, but tilted it upside down. For the most part, I just set the plane of focus to a few feet in front of me and tried to keep pace with them. No focus puller


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 16, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> You're welcome! Comes from hanging around film guys too much. Sometimes it seems that's all there is here in LA, but really just the friends I have.



I'm in L.A. too. I hear you... seems like half my friends are either shooters, editors, or screenwriters. After years of resisting the dark side, I'm looking at getting into the business myself. But I still have a lot to learn.


----------



## acelegendary (Apr 16, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> acelegendary said:
> 
> 
> > Hey there,
> ...



Well thank you very much! Do keep in mind, however, that the footage is almost unusable when not slowed down. It almost looks like CGI due to the lack of motion blur. Very odd.


----------



## acelegendary (Apr 16, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Nice work! What camera?



The moving shots were filmed on a T2i/50mm f/1.4, mounted on a Glidecam HD2000. The static shots were filmed on a 7D/Zeiss 50mm Makro-Planar f/2.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 16, 2013)

acelegendary said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > Nice work! What camera?
> ...



Great results with modest gear! You should be proud.


----------



## acelegendary (Apr 16, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> acelegendary said:
> 
> 
> > dirtcastle said:
> ...



Thanks! I would've loved to use my 5D Mk II, but the lack of 60 fps killed my concept.


----------



## acelegendary (Apr 16, 2013)

TAF said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > I take it your pleased with the result based on your response, but I can tell you used a high shutter speed here and it seems to have affected the motion blur. Whether or not the effect is positive is subjective, but I personally don't like it. Doesn't look bad or anything just not great IMO, then again 60P is kind of the bare minimum for slowmo so you can only expect so much out of it. I'm sure the client is elated and that's what matters in the end.
> ...



Thank you, and you're welcome! As I mentioned earlier, however, the footage does look super videogame-ish when not slowed down. So use this method with caution!


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Apr 16, 2013)

Fantastic video. The shots on the glide cam were very well done, and a fantastic job at keeping the focus at such a shallow depth of field. 

Oh, and just for future reference, the 180 degree rule has nothing to do with shutter speed. It's the imaginary line between two people cinematographers use while framing shots. For example, you wouldn't begin a scene that has two people talking with the camera positioned on their left side, and the suddenly switch from one persons POV to their right side as it would look as if they suddenly were talking to the back of the other person's head. The general rule for shutter speed if double whatever your frame rate is. Be careful with bumping up the shutter speed too much on DSLRs though, as at higher levels it can create clipping and rolling shutter, which you definitely do not want. 

Great job overall though. Keep up the good work!


----------



## JasonATL (Apr 16, 2013)

DanThePhotoMan said:


> Oh, and just for future reference, the 180 degree rule has nothing to do with shutter speed. It's the imaginary line between two people cinematographers use while framing shots. For example, you wouldn't begin a scene that has two people talking with the camera positioned on their left side, and the suddenly switch from one persons POV to their right side as it would look as if they suddenly were talking to the back of the other person's head. The general rule for shutter speed if double whatever your frame rate is.


I think that, in the context of this thread, the 180 degree has _everything_ to do with shutter speed and is well-known to mean specifically double-the-frame-rate, as is already stated in this thread.

And yes, the 180 degree rule that you cite is a common rule of composition.

For future reference, you might want to clarifying the following.


> Be careful with bumping up the shutter speed too much on DSLRs though, as at higher levels it can create clipping and rolling shutter, which you definitely do not want.


It is my understanding that rolling shutter is not caused by shutter speed at all, as you seem to imply. Rolling shutter refers to how the data are read off the sensor and occurs on regardless of shutter speed or frame rate. It is most noticeable on fast motion, regardless of shutter speed. I'm also unsure of your use of the term "clipping". I have always used "clipping" to refer to loss of detail in bright objects because the sensor "clips" by reaching its RGB highest value. This is usually caused by an image being overexposed. It seems that a high shutter speed would (holding light, ISO, and aperture constant) go against clipping. But, perhaps I am unaware of another common meaning of the word "clipping" when referring to video.


----------



## blacksap (Apr 16, 2013)

I think it looks great, maybe the motion looks strange but honestly most of the clients wont even notice or care, I have a question for you, wich piece of software did you use for color grading? 

very nice video BTW


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 16, 2013)

DanThePhotoMan said:


> Oh, and just for future reference, the 180 degree rule has nothing to do with shutter speed. It's the imaginary line between two people cinematographers use while framing shots. For example, you wouldn't begin a scene that has two people talking with the camera positioned on their left side, and the suddenly switch from one persons POV to their right side as it would look as if they suddenly were talking to the back of the other person's head. The general rule for shutter speed if double whatever your frame rate is. Be careful with bumping up the shutter speed too much on DSLRs though, as at higher levels it can create clipping and rolling shutter, which you definitely do not want.
> 
> Great job overall though. Keep up the good work!



Wrong, do some research, the 180 degree shutter rule (not to be confused with the 180-degree rule) has everything to do with shutter speed/angle.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 16, 2013)

JasonATL said:


> For future reference, you might want to clarifying the following.
> 
> 
> > Be careful with bumping up the shutter speed too much on DSLRs though, as at higher levels it can create clipping and rolling shutter, which you definitely do not want.
> ...



I think higher shutter speeds can accentuate the rolling shutter but you are correct they are definitely not the cause of the rolling shutter, it's just a byproduct of CMOS sensors.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 16, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > You're welcome! Comes from hanging around film guys too much. Sometimes it seems that's all there is here in LA, but really just the friends I have.
> ...



Good luck, there is some _expensive_ equipment out there for video. Even more so than for stills, especially if you start going cinema lenses and such. I've flirted with it a bit here and there, but so far mostly stayed away unless my friends said "hey, we need your help", which really means I have a 5d2/5d3 and they want to borrow them


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Apr 16, 2013)

Well, my apologies, but I have never in my life heard of a "180 degree shutter rule" used by a cinematographer on any of the films I have worked on.

And I did not mean that raising the shutter speed is the sole cause of rolling shutter, but from my experiences with a DSLR it seems to make it more pronounced with the higher shutter speeds.


----------



## acelegendary (Apr 16, 2013)

blacksap said:


> I think it looks great, maybe the motion looks strange but honestly most of the clients wont even notice or care, I have a question for you, wich piece of software did you use for color grading?
> 
> very nice video BTW



I did all of my color grading within Premiere, actually.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 16, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



I get the same question too!

I'm looking more at getting into the software/editing side of things: Premiere, After Effects, and DaVinci Resolve. My current work revolves around Photoshop and websites, so moving into Premiere and After Effects is a logical expansion.


----------



## dasgetier (Apr 16, 2013)

This is just plain awesome 8)



acelegendary said:


> Hey there,
> 
> Long time reader, first time poster.
> 
> ...


----------

