ghosting problem

i think its called ghosting, any solution (it may look like motion blur but the image is blurring through out and i see ghosting on little movement)
any solutions to this? its originally a 1080i converted to 720 to remove the interlacing but then i am stuck with this ghosting and it looks like the time effect.
any solution to noise?

thanks in advance.

there is pretty much only one solution, but it's going to change the look of your footage drastically. What you have to do is crank your shutter speed up. Start by doing tests with it at like 180 if you can, and then work down from there to get to a good point you are happy with. This is the technique they used in the movie "Saving Private Ryan" during the battle scenes to get that hyper real, see all the gritty and gravel falling in front of the camera no motion blur look. Good luck man! Otherwise that is just good ol plain regular motion blur.

-Z

yep, zach is correct. That is motion blur. The base of the thumb is blurred less that the finger tips, because it is closer to the pivot point (the wrist). That is definitely motion blur. And a higher shutter speed creates less motion blur.

any way to reduce this without camera settings and through software (my camera is consumer not pro gz-hd7 jvc)

I am going tomorrow to the shop and try to change it with the newest sony or the new mini hd progressive samsung, on the bases of the OIS (optical image stabilizer) isn't working.

ANY RECOMMENDATION FOR A GOOD PROGRESSIVE SCAN CAMERA.... quickly i have a children school i have to take footage off.
(to get further into post production) and i don't want to break the bank sorta speak, this cam kinda wasted my savings and now i have to try and live through the deinterlacing and all.

any good pan solutions i need a steady pan and yes not breaking my bank .

Yeah man, the only way to really get rid of it as far as I know is in camera, the slower the shutter speed, the more blur, the faster the shutter speed, the less blur. You can't really take it out using any software i've ever heard of, and deinterlacing won't do it either, because if you deinterlace, you're not removing blur, you're just combining frames that were captured on separate fields. So the motion blur is there, In fact, the only way to get rid of motion blur is to film something with a camera that captures frames faster than you can move. Ala high speed camera, And you may, but I doubt it, have access to one or have enough money to buy one. So this leaves you at a crossroads, you can act out slowly what you want with a high shutterspeed and retime it in comp, or work with projected stills and add cg elements that you don't want blurred, or some sort of combination. Maybe Sean has an idea or two on removing inherent motion blur.

-Z

nope, I got nothing. But I love your idea of acting it out really slowly and then retiming in post. That sounds fun!

Yeah, I got that Idea actually from a cinefex article I read from forever ago on "little shop of horrors" because the plant was a puppet, and therefore so huge that there was absolutely no way everyone involved was going to puppeteer the thing. So they shot it with high speed cameras, acted the scenes out slow, and then retimed to footage to the sound, making it in all actuality, into a rather convincing performance from the plant. And you can get away with quite a bit if you shoot things right and do the re-timing later on. You just have one problem then, and that's that you have no motion blur, and that makes things look funky depending on what you are doing with the shot. I'd say that you'd have quite a challenge on your hands to add motion blur to a shot, RSMB does a good job of adding motion blur, but can be buggy and a complete pain if your shot isn't worthy of a cherry picking.

-Z

Oh, and for deinterlacing, try this cool new preset.

http://www.aenhancers.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1069

actually i just got my method of perfect interlace to progressive

the image quality is too dam good i was shocked, shaky footage is camera stupid ois not working.

but i am now working around methods of reducing the shake at least, i may have to buy a new camera. any suggestions? i want a mid priced one with all the tiny pity things for film makers.

and any suggestions or name of tool to perfect panning, maybe a special tripod, and what do you think of the manfrotto tripods and their wheel extensions.

I made myself 2 different steadicams over the past few years. You can see them here, and find links to where i got the instructions.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3183

probably any steadying device yo get will help, but if something moves through the frame quickly, it's still going to motion blur.

I had to do that at my old studio for reference. The only cam we had was this crappy little webcam that captured like 6fps or something horrendous. So to film referrence we had to act it out reallllllllyyyy sloooooooowwwwwww. If you moved at normal speed the entire video was just a massive blur. =)

Hey, long time no post from me!

This is precisely the issue we're having with our little show - it's all shot in front of greenscreen and the motion blur of fast moving hands, etc., is a real pain to key nicely - the motion blur turns the greenscreen area into a kind of muddy green, which dispite being recorded in HDCAM-SR (albeit in 4:2:2 and recompressed into an Avid codec) is rather noisy. To make matters worse, we're forced to record, composit and output in interlaced! Our only option is to increase shutter speed, but that will look rather juddery and unnatural - something the BBC won't allow (the interlacing demand is theirs!).

C

CHRISTIAN LETT i have an issue because of that, but here is my other question if you roto how can you pull back some of that motion blur, or do you virtually do it???? i mean when you roto do you ignore motion blur (but that wont be looking realistic at all).

many methods to roto, i have done some rotoing but i am stuck with this question roto motion blur or just 100% body of actor, and if i do that what should i do with the motion blur effect >< i would love if you share some of your expertise in this assuming you guys came up with the solution.

hahahahahaha....

sorry,these posts have me smiling.

Once you guys get that motion blur keyed, you'll find that almost overnight, you are better compositors! This is one of those things you can't explain properly in forums, people just have to get in there and do it to see how big of a problem it is. You know what I mean? Like, people are always posting things like "I hate Keylight, it always leaves dark lines around my keys" or "How do I get rid of all that noise in the blurry parts of my key?". People seem to think that stuff should just magically key away, and it doesn't. This is why keys sometimes take WEEKS to do! This is the kind of thing people don't understand until they have to deal with it themselves. And you guys are! Isn't it great!!

There is one solution - garbage rotos. I know you hate to hear it. EVERYONE does. Who likes roto? NO ONE. But it exists for a reason. More often than not, it's the only way.

Do garbage rotos around EVERY individual section. Like, if the arm is blurry, garbage roto the edge. Like this:



Then, separate out those parts into their own layers and KEY THEM ALL SEPARATELY. Use feathering and expansion settings on the garbage masks to blend them all together so there's no gaps.

Also, don't be afraid to use the individual color channels! Usually one of the channels is very contrasty, and you can just straight up use that as an instant matte, no keying involved, you just may have to tweak the levels on it once you've converted it to a matte. The channels will ALWAYS and DEFINITELY give you a smoother gradient than you're going to get with any keyer.

Also keep in mind that how that blur looks is VERY dependant on the background you're putting behind it. For example, if you put a really dark background, you will have to do a COMPLETELY different key then if you put it over a really light background.

A few times, in extreme cases where nothing would work, I would roto OUT all of the blur, then, using a very precise, feathered roto of the blurry areas, I would use a solid to "cheat" back in the blurry parts. Basically recreating them with a solid and roto. Which sucks. But, hey, that compositing!!

i am not complaining i know how roto works (it took 7hours to finish a 15sec sequence before) but great info there, i guess i cant find a less tedious solution ALL HAIL THE GREAT ROTO.

sings:
-roto roto roto is what you do.
-roto roto roto is what kills you la lalalala lala .

Hey Sean, I had to laugh at "This is why keys sometimes take WEEKS to do!" I wish I had the luxury of spending even a day on a shot for our show, but unfortunately we're on a schedule where three of us have to composite 120 shots in two weeks! It's not just keying either - we've got to build backgrounds from hundreds of assets, key, compose and add effects, etc. to each shot. So we've had to compromise on quality really, which is frustrating, and cheat our way along by disguising things with strategically placed trees and sparkly particles!

My usual way of working is to pull two mattes - a core and an edge, then use the combined matte as a track matte on the original footage. I've set up an AE template so we can get started on each shot pretty quickly, which seems to work well. The one advantage of this is your aim is simply to get a decent alpha channel, so you don't have to worry about the extra noise Keylight can introduce with its colour correction (especially if using the bias controls), and you can slap on rough solids over top of your two keys to plug holes etc. Often I just look at the alpha channel view (ALT-4) to see how it's coming along. I've also found pulling high-con mattes using the shift-channels/levels/minimax/blur technique has gotten me out of some scrapes too (thank god for Mark Christiansen's book!).

If I've one complaint it's working in interlaced. That is a major pain in the arse because you can get nasty interlace artifacts or stuttery motion if you resize your footage, choke your mattes, etc.

But I'm being reminded that our target audience are three-year-olds (a bit of a cop out!), so we're not likely to get letters of complaint about poor keying... I hope... First episode is due on Friday. I'm obviously too critical because I'm very close to it, but it's a nice colourful show and I bet the kids will love it!

C