The goal of the post was also to explain why 24p is seen as the holy grail of frame rate and to this effect why 1/48 sec is the preferred shutter speed. These setting are referred as ‘filmic’ because these are the settings people use the most. Anything that is different will stand out (like Crank or SPR).

The attention to details that you think about in film vs video is a debate by itself but you are right in some regards. For example, in video the night is black while it is blue in movies. So if you want a night shot to look what you see in movies, you better shoot it with lights and add a blue filter in post…

I agree with you that most people are too hung up on the whole 24p versus 30p thing, as I’ve encountered so many people who are convinced that by shooting at 24p they will instantly confuse an audience into believing a video is actually film. What many people associate with being a TV look is not 30p, but 60i, or 60 interlaced fields a second.

The shutter speed (or shutter angle) is just as irrelevant. The shutter is just one part of the cinematographer’s tools to influence the impact of an image. Even in your own explanation you site feature films that use high shutter speeds and the resulting effect. I don’t think anyone would argue that those films look like TV or video. While a 180° shutter angle is the standard, it will not make your video look like film.

What I think people are asking is specific to the 5D or 7D, as I asked myself this when first working with the 5D, “what is the ‘best’ shutter for the 5D, due to its rolling shutter distortion?” In this case you are still correct, that a slower shutter is “better” in that it helps disguise the skew as motion blur. As you increase your shutter you will reduce motion blur and bring attention to effects of an electronic sensor (which is a dead giveaway of video).

But back to your point about achieving a “filmic” look, I believe it is the filmmaker’s attitude and not their frame rate that will accomplish this. The look of film is something that developed through the constraints of the process. It was difficult to expose, required several highly trained people to operate, and was very expensive. Thus every single shot was highly planned, designed, and cared for.

Video is the exact opposite. It requires very little light, one person, and is dirt cheap. There is no need for lights, or crew, or planning of any kind. Thus the temptation for many people is to just shoot something and hope it comes out right. And if it doesn’t, there is no monetary loss to keep you from doing it again. This is an attitude that has never occurred on a film shoot, and I believe the main reason video and film seem so different.

Sorry for the rant, but I only took the time to do this because I find this site to be a valuable resource.

Best Regards

The key thing is not to have a 180 degree rotating shutter (close/open half of the time), the goal is to have an opening lasting close to 1/48, this is what people call ‘the movie look’. The rotating shutter only prevent the jelly effect since the whole sensor (or film) is exposed for the same duration at the same time while in the case of VDSLR, the sensor is scanned from top to bottom.

I hope I made it clear. But don’t sweat too much about this, most of the time you can get away using shutter speeds between 1/40 to 1/125 depending of the subject movement speed.