The camera looks like it's being hand held as the camera operators, run, run, run, with the action, yet I do not see any jello effect. Unless I'm just not seeing it. How did they do it?
How was Act of Valor shot, on DSLRs with no jello effect?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Lots of time in post massaging each clip of video removing noise, jello and (I think) upscaling to 2K. They also had to convert from 30p to 24 because when they shot it, the only video DSLR out was the 5DmkII and it could only do 30fps back then.
Oh okay. Is this why a lot of DSLR movies at the local film festival this year, had mostly static shots, and very lacking in camera movement?
You would have to ask each and every director and cinematographer of those films. I shoot primarily DSLR and I put lot's of motion in. Others don't.
Jello isn't that big of a deal. Most of the time if you're moving fast enough to get jello, it would have been too fast for the audience to see what was going on anyway.
Jello isn't that big of a deal. Most of the time if you're moving fast enough to get jello, it would have been too fast for the audience to see what was going on anyway.
I agree, we have kind of made too big a deal about Jello. Most audience members would never see it, and it only exists when you whip-pan.
In my opinion, moire and aliasing are the bigger issues, because they can be really noticeable and distracting, to even the untrained eye.
One other Jello-like issue is one that I'm yet to see an accurate detailed description of what's causing it. These cameras don't respond well to jostling. Like, let's say the camera is mounted on a car, and you drive over a bump. Back when I was shooting on camcorder, this wasn't a problem. But now that I'm on DSLR, any semi-violent jostling will cause the image to get, well -- Jello-y. As much as I can wrap my head around it, though, I don't see how this could have anything to do with rolling shutter effect, so it's not technically what we call Jello, but something else. Anyway, shooting a movie like Act of Valor, this of course would be a concern.
In my opinion, moire and aliasing are the bigger issues, because they can be really noticeable and distracting, to even the untrained eye.
One other Jello-like issue is one that I'm yet to see an accurate detailed description of what's causing it. These cameras don't respond well to jostling. Like, let's say the camera is mounted on a car, and you drive over a bump. Back when I was shooting on camcorder, this wasn't a problem. But now that I'm on DSLR, any semi-violent jostling will cause the image to get, well -- Jello-y. As much as I can wrap my head around it, though, I don't see how this could have anything to do with rolling shutter effect, so it's not technically what we call Jello, but something else. Anyway, shooting a movie like Act of Valor, this of course would be a concern.
I want to strap my DSLR to my bike and ride down a rough rocky hill for a shot, in a short film. But of course there will be jello. Think most viewers are going to notice?
Be careful not to fall... wear a helmet... falls like these can be dangerous if your head hits the rocks. You can end up delirious making tons of strange questions about filmmaking.
Don't do it yourself! Pay a stunt to do it!
Viewers aren't going to notice.
Unless you really finish the short film...
Anyway there will be jello.
Last edited:
Oh I've been doing this since I was a kid actually, where I live, I just did some recent practice, to get back into it, after not being on it a few years. It should be cool.
TBH, Act Of Valor has some obvious give aways in a few shots. Stabilised in post and looking very weird and out of focus in some parts. Especially when Shane was backtracking with the 5D on his Mancam. The scene where they walk down the road, I remember as not being bang on. Wondered why they didn't shoot on something else. But good job on using a 5D for a theatre film! Very impressive overall!
That's why the movie goes out of focus so often. I thought the focus puller just sucked or they didn't have one in certain scene shoots, and they were too lazy to light bright enough for a deeper DOF. There is one scene though, where a guy is sitting in a chair and leans forward and goes out of focus. Are you telling me they got jello just from leaning forward and had to blur it in post?
No, it goes out of focus most of the time because it's low light/shallow DOF and it's crazy hard to focus. Half of that episode of House very one refers to is out of focus.
"Too lazy to light" was absolutely not the issue. Not able to add brighter lights or wanting a shallow DOF was. AOV is a unique movie in that most of it was spontaneous following seals on their drills and training. It was primarily in the field, you can't exactly set up a genny and HMI's when all you can carry has to fit in a backpack.
"Too lazy to light" was absolutely not the issue. Not able to add brighter lights or wanting a shallow DOF was. AOV is a unique movie in that most of it was spontaneous following seals on their drills and training. It was primarily in the field, you can't exactly set up a genny and HMI's when all you can carry has to fit in a backpack.
I'll also add here that Act of Valor was NOT shot entirely on DSLR. For some reason it's been perpetuated that it's the 'movie that's been shot completely and entirely on DSLR. That's not true, they did use DSLR for some of it, but a lot was also shot on 35mm plus Phantom for the slow-mo stuff.
The only way to be sure you won't get 'jello' is to test, test, test.
The only way to be sure you won't get 'jello' is to test, test, test.
If this was done run and gun, following the seals as they go, than that's impressive, because it is edited, with most shots lasting only half a second, as if the shots and angles were all staged. I guess it wasn't but just edited like so.
No, that's not what I mean. It's not because its out of focus. The jello introduces a weird blur.
Your old camera had a CCD Sensor, the read out's different.
CMOS sensors scan the image in sections at a certain refresh rate. Basically it's just like a tall jello mold: swing it left to right while holding the plate and the top needs time to catch up to the sway of the bottom.
Same "visual" representation. But not entirely technical.
Rolling shutter is the exact same thing.
And Paul's right about Act of Valor, aside from it not being shot entirely on DSLrs, there was a lot of post work that the no-budgeteer can't afford to do.
So a lot of the post work was because of the jello then? Why didn't they just stabilize their shots more?
When a DSLR is mounted on a Navy Seal's helmet, there's only a certain amount of stability you're going to get.
Check out Shane Hurlbut's blog if you're interested in more of the process. I haven't read it in a while but as far as I can remember, there's write ups on AoV as well a Terminator post processes and the issues/workflows etc for the DSLR footage
Why would they mount it on a guy's helmet? A lot of expensive post work went into it, but why couldn't they just get a steadicam operator or something, thereby resulting in less postwork?
