Frage von Matthew1408:
Hi everyone, I'm looking for an effect name currently.
There are such scenes in Lost, Gladiator, BlackHawk Down ...
The effect will be used seems simply a reduction of the exposure duration to be and is more common in action scenes.
The picture looks slightly darker and chopped off strong.
Has the effect a name?
Antwort von AD Tom:
Can you post a specific example?
Regards
Thomas.
Antwort von Debonnaire:
He is called slow motion and made with special cameras for high-speed shots. The fact that the exposure time per frame is solid at the usual 1 / 50 second is clear. That the picture is darker contrast and may act as the plain-fact a bug which resulted from the specific recording technique in the high-speed recording.
The procedure described so of you is actually not an "effect" but a side effect, which is still unintentionally!
Antwort von pilskopf:
Can it be that he means a very short shutter? His three examples, I do not really know. No idea how the rotated in such moments on Lost have. An example would be not bad.
Antwort von soahC:
I think he the Effect Posterize Time says. " So he called, at least in Premiere. And here is a legendary example:
Antwort von Christian Schmitt:
To reach this "Effect" is with an extremely short shutter rotated (high shutter). This affects the Picture checked off strong, because the delay between each frame over time. Due to the low motion blur the picture looks sharper at the same time. Schön sees the private to the Omaha Beach scene of Saving Ryan, who is dirt thrown up by explosions, "literally in the air ...
In the post do you get the point, but every good Prosumer Camera (HVX, EX, etc!) Can be set and the shutter at 1 / 250 or 1 / 500 which should already be on show ...
Antwort von soahC:
What should be able to see at a shutter bitteschön s.1/250, or 1 / 500? It would then indeed be the other way around! The images must be exposed for more than 1 / 25 second.
And as I said, in Premiere and After Effects is called the effect "Posterize Time" and he funtioniert wonderful.
Antwort von pilskopf:
To precisely what effect it going now, like a soldier Ryan or otherwise?
Antwort von Debonnaire:
What should be able to see at a shutter bitteschön s.1/250, or 1 / 500? The short exposure time of each frame freezes "the motion picture pro hard one. This means that the usual motion blur (called Motion Blur and visible on the individual images, if a (fast) moving object was detected) does not record what the recording a "harder" gives "sharper" look. And, as said above, more time elapses between the recorded motion moments of frame to frame (as compared with the normal 1 / 50 second exposure), which also contributes to a ticked off look.
Have to go wait a minute future reference, what exactly is motion blur and how it relates to the visual impression and the perceived "liquid" effect of the movements.
And as I said, in Premiere and After Effects is called the effect "Posterize Time" and he funtioniert wonderful. With Posterize can get rid of Time Motion Blur in footage no longer hold. Even if you manage a certain heel between the frames, the objects in each frame are just blurs are still performing. That means you can only a (very) short exposure time (per frame) prevent!
Antwort von soahC:
Yes, thanks, I do realize what is Motion Blur. I film myself time to Slowmos with 50p and a 1000 shutter. That is because the individual images are sharper to me already clear. This has the effect but with whom I have shown (in Reservoir Dogs to do) anything. Here are the pictures for more exposed than usual, so that an individual is more than 1 frame
Antwort von Debonnaire:
Yes, thanks, I do realize what is Motion Blur. I film myself time to Slowmos with 50p and a 1000 shutter. That is because the individual images are sharper to me already clear. This has the effect but with whom I have shown (in Reservoir Dogs to do) anything. Here are the pictures for more exposed than usual, so that an individual is more than 1 frame No! When the single "exposed longer than usual", they would be heavily smeared (ver-blurred), what they are not. You'll get through this Stacy-effect, adding, for example, every second Picture out "slicing" and the other for each double-take. And then they should have been even less exposed than most "normal", so that they stand beautifully crisp sharp. In this way the film played will look slightly jerky. Definitely not you achieve this effect with longer exposure of the frames!
Antwort von Soulfly:
Hello?
perhaps someone a bit half-baked half-knowledge has to bring s.den man?
At 1 / 25 shutter movement is in fact synonymous choppy, but the images are not usually underexposed and the motion blur is größer.Logisch. So this is not the desired effect.
Shorter shutter times to bring us ever closer to the solution. Insofar as the underexposure as a feature is synonymous plausible. The choppy images created here by the higher Bewegunsauflösung, less motion blur. Alllerdings it is nonsense that passes between the individual frames more time movies have always 24 fps. It is lit only every frame shorter. Nobody says "more Unbelichtungszeit.
High-speed recordings that are played are slowed, synonymous an idea, but these should be rather very liquid, therefore, can not synonymous really come into question.
In my opinion, says the TE following:
When Saving Private Ryan was this stylistic device established and since then adapted in various action movies.
The material is taken up with very short shutter times and then accelerated in the post by about twice, so individual frames rausgerechnet. Then the accelerated material is brought back to normal. This creates one part of this choppy strobe effect (can be realized for example in the Timewarp Effect in Avid, so only every play xt Picture), on the other hand, the high resolution motion with little movement blur obtained.
Greeting Soulfly
Antwort von soahC:
I know, unfortunately, the examples from Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan, but at the Reservoir Dogs intro is indeed of "knackscharf" and underexposed "to see" nothing synonymous.
Edit: The Declaration of Soulfly sounds plausible
Antwort von Soulfly:
I'd say Steven Spielberg plays with his shooting is not so in the sandbox. The boy is full-fledged professionals, since one can assume that the images are properly exposed. I will only s.den legendary Stanley Kubrick. Who has leave for Barry Lyndon At extra make a Lens of Carl Zeiss.
Quote: "To reflect the mood of Baroque pictures authentic, Kubrick shot several scenes entirely by candlelight, with no electric lighting. This was made possible by the use of an extremely bright lens (f = 0.7), originally of Carl Zeiss for NASA produced has been. In addition, extremely light-sensitive film material was used to make the difficult shots that seemed unthinkable before. "
I did at that time the Kubrick exhibition at the Martin-Gropius-Bau inveigled into Berlin, was issued because, among other things synonymous this Lens. In view of such treats you get ever NEN manicured semi-rigid.
And, sharp images in the film mentioned here are definitely examples.
Ergo I'd say we wait for me, what does the TE on the above proposals.
Greeting, Soulfly
Antwort von Debonnaire:
Ouch, Soufly, but now you've set several times, quite angry in the nettles!
Shorter shutter times to bring us ever closer to the solution. Insofar as the underexposure as a feature is synonymous plausible. Shorter shutter times and under exposure times have to do basically anything with each other, if the camera via either opening the aperture and / or increasing the gain can compensate for the loss of light (and this time we go out, especially if filmed on is automatic) or by it is more artificial light to compensate!
Alllerdings it is nonsense that passes between the individual frames more time movies have always 24 fps. It is lit only every frame shorter. Nobody says "more Unbelichtungszeit. You must READING, before begging, boy! What I have said above, this is exactly the following:
And, as said above, elapses more time between the recorded motion moments of frame to frame (as compared with the normal 1 / 50 second exposure time), which also contributes to a choppy look. The operative words in this are "captured moments of movement of frame to frame" and not your reinterpreted (probably not easy to get it) "between each frame passes more time"! My word choice was very aware and accurate. - In a much shorter exposure with shutter speed than 1 / 50 second is what happens: Let's for example is a uniform front of the camera left to right moving ball. Will he at 50 half frames per second with 1 / 50 second per frame exposed, the result is a virtually vollflüssige movement because (except for a micro-fraction of a second while the will be changed each of frame to frame, but that in the electronic over mechanical image recording can actually be neglected), the ball is actually continuously exposed to the sensor. He will leave but a blur, because it is during the 1 / 50 second exposure per frame, just move next. Would you now illuminate but only with 1 / 1000 seconds per frame, the ball would of course be hard freeze any frame, as he left his image on the sensor's only during 1 / 1000 second. Where it is synonymous to you yet clear, huh? - What makes the ball now but during the remaining time until the next frame in turn exposed while only 1 / 1000 second? Correct: He moves next evenly (for exactly 0019 seconds), which is the Camera (the exposed frame) but its not there mitkriegt 1 / 1000 second exposure time already long past. And this unaufgenommene further movement may result in faster objects, jumping to a visible jerking of the moving objects! It has nothing with more-time to do between frames (This is at a given frame rate always the same, we know all of them), but with how much path-per-frame makes-the-object-to- the sensor! - Clear now?
The material is taken up with very short shutter times and then accelerated in the post by about twice, so individual frames rausgerechnet. Then the accelerated material is brought back to normal. I have yet unraveled s.einem concrete example, minutely explained above:
You'll get through this Stacy-effect, adding, for example, every second Picture out "slicing" and the other for each double-take. And then they should have been even less exposed than most "normal", so that they stand beautifully crisp sharp. In this way the film played will look slightly jerky. So, now go again about the books and you think your ill-Coolio-award
Antwort von Soulfly:
Locker, Denonnaire!
Shorter shutter times definitely cause a lower exposure. I thought this shortcoming is offset by various countermeasures.
I meant the way, not you, but Christian Schmitt with "To achieve this" Effect "is with an extremely short shutter rotated (high shutter). This has checked the Picture strong because passes between the individual frames more time."
Unsharp meinerseits.Touché formulated.
Even if you suspect otherwise, I recognized the principle of moments of movement is quite common.
Of course you have the desired effect on the way already explained briefly and clearly, I have to explain the whole thing ultimately just different. Think like a Beginners. "Frame, cut the next delete, copy + paste of the previous frame. And the next .... etc." I would imagine that this could well be the result of your execution. And with rausrendern 200% acceleration, and again slow down to 50% a Änfanger is surely better served. How do I make it clear right times, like that I do not think for a half-knowledge-disseminators, that you have often proved in the forum. You stop thinking like a pro, because you're so obviously synonymous. Only good is not a layman, if he is not what is said can abstract.
Greeting, Soulfy
[/ Quote]
Antwort von Debonnaire:
Smile @ Soulfy! Did you not (so hard) piss, sorry! But here's just has a lot Möchtegernehalbwissende who think if they had buckled and show neither sustainable nor formulate precisely. Thank you belong not to those! - Friends? :-)
Antwort von Soulfly:
Friends:)
Antwort von masterseb:
So, in summary bottom line: the so-called "private ryan effect" or "45grad shutter effect" achieved by WIRS extreme underexposure on a very short shutter. especially for video DSLRs that goes very well. s.einem of shutter is about 1 / 500 or 1 / 800 to the equation really. with much light and constant DOF Gibts knackscharfe images with jerky motion-acting. voila. reached in the post NOT! aja is: prerequisite progressive recording. steven spielberg has at the analog cameras for private ryan then discovered that a high shutter can be used as a medium and style that has dragged through the entire film (now almost used often to death) that have been converted for extra cameras. this film brought a second synonymous revolution: saving private ryan was the first fully digital film cut!
