Return to Answer

A 180º shutter isn't a hard, fast rule, as much as it's a benchmark. It's the most common setting in film, and you can think of it as a "normal" amount of motion blur for film and broadcast. It's the average setting, for what people are used to seeing on any random moment of film or TV, and as a camera operator, it's the simplest decision to make, when you're aiming to produce "normal" motion.

If you don't have an ND filter handy and you're shooting in bright conditions, you can use a higher framerate to darken your exposure, but it will cut the amount of blur in each frame by half. How this affects your output depends on how you intend to display it.

Let's say you record the footage with a 180º shutter at 60FPS, then plan to play it back on your timeline at 30FPS for broadcast, by displaying every frame you recorded, sequentially. This results in "slowmo" or "off-speed recording." In this case, the amount of blur feels natural, because it's exactly the same amount of blur an object would have if it were traveling half the speed.

On the other hand, let's say you don't want slowmo, you want the action to occur "realtime," so you use the "nearest frame" method of interpolation, which throws out every other frame. In this case, because each frame has half the amount of blur as "normal" footage played at 100% speed, it will look stutter-y, more crisp, or less smooth, by comparison. It will look more like the action movies which employ the technique for creative effect (Saving Private Ryan, 28 Days Later, e.g.)

But you can also blend the two frames together instead of throwing one out, and if you do it intelligently, you can re-create the natural blur you'd get by using an ND filter and a slower framerate. Optical Flow computes a vector analysis of each pixel's movement, and can re-create the way a frame should look with natural blur.

Older optical flow algorithms use a purely mathematical approach, which struggle in certain cases, can produce artifacts, and have difficulty with regularly-repeating patterns. Newer algorithms, like DaVinci Resolve's "Speed Warp" use machine learning based approaches, and can give better results, but is very computationally expensive.

Some software will blend the two frames together for you automatically, by simply layering one frame over top of the other, with 50% opacity. This is easy for computers to do, and produces more smooth motion than you'd get otherwise, but when you pause a frame, you'll see a ghosted image, and discerning individuals will notice a difference on playback.

Of course, most Cinematographers and hardcore pixel peepers will tell you there's no substitute for a good ND filter, but ultimately the decision to get one is between you and your pocketbook. To make a truly informed decision, you should compare some of your own footage using the methods I mention, but be careful, or you'll become a pixel peeper, too.

A 180º shutter isn't a hard, fast rule, as much as it's a benchmark. It's the most common setting in film, and you can think of it as a "normal" amount of motion blur for film and broadcast. It's the average setting, for what people are used to seeing on any random moment of film or TV, and as a camera operator, it's the simplest decision to make, when you're aiming to produce "normal" motion.

If you don't have an ND filter handy and you're shooting in bright conditions, you can use a higher framerate to darken your exposure, but it will cut the amount of blur in each frame by half. How this affects your output depends on how you intend to display it.

Let's say you record the footage with a 180º shutter at 60FPS, then plan to play it back on your timeline at 30FPS for broadcast, by displaying every frame you recorded, sequentially. This results in "slowmo" or "off-speed recording." In this case, the amount of blur feels natural, because it's exactly the same amount of blur an object would have if it were traveling half the speed.

On the other hand, let's say you don't want slowmo, you want the action to occur "realtime," so you use the "nearest frame" method of interpolation, which throws out every other frame. In this case, because each frame has half the amount of blur as "normal" footage played at 100% speed, it will look stutter-y, more crisp, or less smooth, by comparison. It will look more like the action movies which employ the technique for creative effect (Saving Private Ryan, 28 Days Later, e.g.)

But you can also blend the two frames together instead of throwing one out, and if you do it intelligently, you can re-create the natural blur you'd get by using an ND filter and a slower framerate. Optical Flow computes a vector analysis of each pixel's movement, and can re-create the way a frame should look with natural blur.

Older optical flow algorithms use a purely mathematical approach, which struggle in certain cases, can produce artifacts, and have difficulty with regularly-repeating patterns. Newer algorithms, like DaVinci Resolve's "Speed Warp" use machine learning based approaches, and can give better results, but are very computationally expensive, a cost which rises (literally) exponentially with resolution.

Some software will blend the two frames together for you automatically, by simply layering one frame over top of the other, with 50% opacity. This is easy for computers to do, and produces more smooth motion than you'd get otherwise, but when you pause a frame, you'll see a ghosted image, and discerning individuals will notice a difference on playback.

Of course, most Cinematographers and hardcore pixel peepers will tell you there's no substitute for a good ND filter, but ultimately the decision to get one is between you and your pocketbook. To make a truly informed decision, you should compare some of your own footage using the methods I mention, but be careful, or you'll become a pixel peeper, too.

A 180º shutter isn't a hard, fast rule, as much as it's a benchmark. It's the most common setting in film, and you can think of it as a "normal" amount of motion blur for film and broadcast. It's the average setting, for what people are used to seeing on any random moment of film or TV, and as a camera operator, it's the simplest decision to make, when you're aiming to produce "normal" motion.

If you don't have an ND filter handy and you're shooting in bright conditions, you can use a higher framerate to darken your exposure, but it will cut the amount of blur in each frame by half. How this affects your output depends on how you intend to display it.

Let's say you record the footage with a 180º shutter at 60FPS, then plan to play it back on your timeline at 30FPS for broadcast, by displaying every frame you recorded, sequentially. This results in "slowmo" or "off-speed recording." In this case, the amount of blur feels natural, because it's exactly the same amount of blur an object would have if it were traveling half the speed.

On the other hand, let's say you don't want slowmo, you want the action to occur "realtime," so you use the "nearest frame" method of interpolation, which throws out every other frame. In this case, because each frame has half the amount of blur as "normal" footage played at 100% speed, it will look stutter-y, more crisp, or less smooth, by comparison. It will look more like the action movies which employ the technique for creative effect (Saving Private Ryan, 28 Days Later, e.g.)

But you can also blend the two frames together instead of throwing one out, and if you do it intelligently, you can re-create the natural blur you'd get by using an ND filter and a slower framerate. Optical Flow computes a vector analysis of each pixel's movement, and can re-create the way a frame should look with natural blur.

Older optical flow algorithms use a purely mathematical approach, which struggle in certain cases, can produce artifacts, and have difficulty with regularly-repeating patterns. Newer algorithms, like DaVinci Resolve's "Speed Warp" use machine learning based approaches, and can give better results, but is very computationally expensive.

Some software will blend the two frames together for you automatically, by simply layering one frame over top of the other, with 50% opacity. This is easy for computers to do, and produces more smooth motion than you'd get otherwise, but when you pause a frame, you'll see a ghosted image, and discerning individuals will notice a difference on playback.

A 180º shutter isn't a hard, fast rule, as much as it's a benchmark. It's the most common setting in film, and you can think of it as a "normal" amount of motion blur for film and broadcast. It's the average setting, for what people are used to seeing on any random moment of film or TV, and as a camera operator, it's the simplest decision to make, when you're aiming to produce "normal" motion.

If you don't have an ND filter handy and you're shooting in bright conditions, you can use a higher framerate to darken your exposure, but it will cut the amount of blur in each frame by half. How this affects your output depends on how you intend to display it.

Let's say you record the footage with a 180º shutter at 60FPS, then plan to play it back on your timeline at 30FPS for broadcast, by displaying every frame you recorded, sequentially. This results in "slowmo" or "off-speed recording." In this case, the amount of blur feels natural, because it's exactly the same amount of blur an object would have if it were traveling half the speed.

On the other hand, let's say you don't want slowmo, you want the action to occur "realtime," so you use the "nearest frame" method of interpolation, which throws out every other frame. In this case, because each frame has half the amount of blur as "normal" footage played at 100% speed, it will look stutter-y, more crisp, or less smooth, by comparison. It will look more like the action movies which employ the technique for creative effect (Saving Private Ryan, 28 Days Later, e.g.)

But you can also blend the two frames together instead of throwing one out, and if you do it intelligently, you can re-create the natural blur you'd get by using an ND filter and a slower framerate. Optical Flow computes a vector analysis of each pixel's movement, and can re-create the way a frame should look with natural blur.

Older optical flow algorithms use a purely mathematical approach, which struggle in certain cases, can produce artifacts, and have difficulty with regularly-repeating patterns. Newer algorithms, like DaVinci Resolve's "Speed Warp" use machine learning based approaches, and can give better results, but is very computationally expensive.

Some software will blend the two frames together for you automatically, by simply layering one frame over top of the other, with 50% opacity. This is easy for computers to do, and produces more smooth motion than you'd get otherwise, but when you pause a frame, you'll see a ghosted image, and discerning individuals will notice a difference on playback.

Of course, most Cinematographers and hardcore pixel peepers will tell you there's no substitute for a good ND filter, but ultimately the decision to get one is between you and your pocketbook. To make a truly informed decision, you should compare some of your own footage using the methods I mention, but be careful, or you'll become a pixel peeper, too.

A 180º shutter isn't a hard, fast rule, as much as it's a benchmark. It's the most common setting in film, and you can think of it as a "normal" amount of motion blur for film and broadcast. It's the average setting, for what people are used to seeing on any random moment of film or TV, and as a camera operator, it's the simplest decision to make, when you're aiming to produce "normal" motion.

If you don't have an ND filter handy and you're shooting in bright conditions, you can use a higher framerate to darken your exposure, but it will cut the amount of blur in each frame by half. How this affects your output depends on how you intend to display it.

Let's say you record the footage with a 180º shutter at 60FPS, then plan to play it back on your timeline at 30FPS for broadcast, by displaying every frame you recorded, sequentially. This results in "slowmo" or "off-speed recording." In this case, the amount of blur feels natural, because it's exactly the same amount of blur an object would have if it were traveling half the speed.

On the other hand, let's say you don't want slowmo, you want the action to occur "realtime," so you use the "nearest frame" method of interpolation, which throws out every other frame. In this case, because each frame has half the amount of blur as "normal" footage played at 100% speed, it will look stutter-y, more crisp, or less smooth, by comparison. It will look more like the action movies which employ the technique for creative effect (Saving Private Ryan, 28 Days Later, e.g.)

But you can also blend the two frames together instead of throwing one out, and if you do it intelligently, you can re-create the natural blur you'd get by using an ND filter and a slower framerate. Optical Flow computes a vector analysis of each pixel's movement, and can re-create the way a frame should look with natural blur.

Older optical flow algorithms use a purely mathematical approach, which struggle in certain cases, can produce artifacts, and have difficulty with regularly-repeating patterns. Newer algorithms, like DaVinci Resolve's "Speed Warp" use machine learning based approaches, and can give better results.

A 180º shutter isn't a hard, fast rule, as much as it's a benchmark. It's the most common setting in film, and you can think of it as a "normal" amount of motion blur for film and broadcast. It's the average setting, for what people are used to seeing on any random moment of film or TV, and as a camera operator, it's the simplest decision to make, when you're aiming to produce "normal" motion.

If you don't have an ND filter handy and you're shooting in bright conditions, you can use a higher framerate to darken your exposure, but it will cut the amount of blur in each frame by half. How this affects your output depends on how you intend to display it.

Let's say you record the footage with a 180º shutter at 60FPS, then plan to play it back on your timeline at 30FPS for broadcast, by displaying every frame you recorded, sequentially. This results in "slowmo" or "off-speed recording." In this case, the amount of blur feels natural, because it's exactly the same amount of blur an object would have if it were traveling half the speed.

On the other hand, let's say you don't want slowmo, you want the action to occur "realtime," so you use the "nearest frame" method of interpolation, which throws out every other frame. In this case, because each frame has half the amount of blur as "normal" footage played at 100% speed, it will look stutter-y, more crisp, or less smooth, by comparison. It will look more like the action movies which employ the technique for creative effect (Saving Private Ryan, 28 Days Later, e.g.)

But you can also blend the two frames together instead of throwing one out, and if you do it intelligently, you can re-create the natural blur you'd get by using an ND filter and a slower framerate. Optical Flow computes a vector analysis of each pixel's movement, and can re-create the way a frame should look with natural blur.

Older optical flow algorithms use a purely mathematical approach, which struggle in certain cases, can produce artifacts, and have difficulty with regularly-repeating patterns. Newer algorithms, like DaVinci Resolve's "Speed Warp" use machine learning based approaches, and can give better results, but is very computationally expensive.

Some software will blend the two frames together for you automatically, by simply layering one frame over top of the other, with 50% opacity. This is easy for computers to do, and produces more smooth motion than you'd get otherwise, but when you pause a frame, you'll see a ghosted image, and discerning individuals will notice a difference on playback.