Answers.Body: <p>This sounds like the end result of image stabilization on heavily moving footage.  There is nothing that can really be done for it.  The source of the problem is that you have motion blur on the original footage thanks to the movement of the camera.  </p>
  
  <p>Software can track how things are moving and adjust the position of the frame such that objects remain in constant position, but that doesn't change the fact that there is motion blur in the original frame as a result of the movement.  Thus, when the objects stay still, you still see the associated motion blur moving around the objects and this is what causes that "jelly" look you described.</p>
  
  <p>The best way to avoid it is to use a stabilized camera or use a higher shutter speed when recording your video to limit the motion blur incurred by a moving camera.  If you still capture, say, 24 frames per second, but you capture each frame in 1/1000th of a second rather than 1/30th of a second, you end up with far less motion blur, but need far more light.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-15T18:20:43.420Z
Answers.Text: He didn't say that the footage got stabilized in software.
  The effect that gets described could also be a rolling shutter effect.
Answers.UserDisplayName: timonsku
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-15T18:23:47.163Z
Answers.Text: @ProfessorFartSparkle - true, I took that from "affected by vibrations".  It's a typical action cam problem.  I'm making an assumption in my answer that it was being stabilized (either in software or in camera), but it seems to fit the description a lot more than rolling shutter since that would be "slugish" rather than "vibrations".
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-15T18:27:57.377Z
Answers.Text: I just imagine a fast ride on a motorcycle or something similar where you can get high frequency vibrations together with a rolling shutter effect when shooting from the side of the moving object. Could be a mixture of both with a result of passing objects jiggling all over the place.
Answers.UserDisplayName: timonsku
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-15T18:28:50.923Z
Answers.Text: Hmm, good point.  Either way, physical stabilization and/or faster shutter speed is still the answer though.  Even with rolling shutter compounding it, the problem is lessened with reduced vibration.
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-16T11:08:44.060Z
Answers.Text: I read that using an ND filter might help by causing a slower shutter speed. Do you agree with that @AJHenderson?
Answers.UserDisplayName: connersz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-16T12:43:13.993Z
Answers.Text: @connersz no that's the exact opposite of what you want. You need fast shutter, not slow.
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-17T01:29:40.423Z
Answers.Text: Rolling shutter is independent of shutter speed. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-crop-sensor-hd/480720-rolling-shutter-high-shutter-speed.html  and from http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/  "Skew and other rolling shutter artifacts aren't affected by shutter speed, they're affected by the frame rate."
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jason Conrad
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-17T02:20:55.073Z
Answers.Text: @JasonConrad - good point.  Updated my comment to be more clear.  Are you sure that frame rate actually impacts it though?  I'd expect that the maximum readout rate is always used, so I wouldn't expect frame rate to make a difference either.
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-15T18:15:08.307Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-06-15T18:24:24.817Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-06-15T18:24:24.817Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.Body: <p>They call this the <strong>rolling shutter effect</strong>.</p>
  
  <p>Also known as the jello or wobble effect and is caused by the side to side motion of cameras that have the CMOS sensor.</p>
  
  <p>The rolling shutter effect can be caused by:<br>
  fast moving objects, <br>
  moving or panning the camera quickly, or<br>
  camera vibrations.<br></p>
  
  <p>Why does this happen?<br>
  The CMOS sensor on the camera reads information a line at a time, from top to bottom. Thus different parts of the image is recorded at <strong>DIFFERENT</strong> times, thus creating the wobble effect. </p>
  
  <p>Cameras with the CCD sensor do NOT have this problem. This sensor records the whole image at once. Thus avoiding the rolling shutter effect.</p>
  
  <p>There are pros and cons for using different image sensors, however it looks like we are moving to a CMOS world. 
  This site below explains the differences between the sensors very nicely if you are curious.<br></p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Comparing-Image-Sensors.jsp" rel="nofollow">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Comparing-Image-Sensors.jsp</a></p>
  
  <p>Hope that helps</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-07-19T15:40:51.527Z
Answers.Text: @JasonConrad My mistake. I had seen those footage under rolling shutter, but its not. Was late last night and did not think it through.
Answers.UserDisplayName: eLouai
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-18T18:47:22.593Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-07-19T16:06:57.107Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-07-19T16:06:57.107Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: eLouai
Body: <p>I have some footage from an action camera that has been affected by vibrations. The footage seems to have an affect that looks a bit like jelly.</p>
  
  <p>Is there a word for that effect and is there anything in after fx I can use to help improve it?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-06-15T18:02:10.867Z
Comments.Text: Could you post a frame from your footage or if its only visible in motion post a short snippet of the footage?
Comments.UserDisplayName: timonsku
Tags: <after-effects><editing><action-cam>
Title: What do you call it when the footage has a rippling effect?
UserDisplayName: connersz
ThreadText: # What do you call it when the footage has a rippling effect?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-06-15)
  
  I have some footage from an action camera that has been affected by vibrations. The footage seems to have an affect that looks a bit like jelly.
  
  Is there a word for that effect and is there anything in after fx I can use to help improve it?
  
  **Tags:** after-effects, editing, action-cam
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Could you post a frame from your footage or if its only visible in motion post a short snippet of the footage?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-06-18. Score: 4 | Accepted answer
  
  They call this the **rolling shutter effect**.
  
  Also known as the jello or wobble effect and is caused by the side to side motion of cameras that have the CMOS sensor.
  
  The rolling shutter effect can be caused by:  
  fast moving objects,   
  moving or panning the camera quickly, or  
  camera vibrations.
  
  Why does this happen?  
  The CMOS sensor on the camera reads information a line at a time, from top to bottom. Thus different parts of the image is recorded at **DIFFERENT** times, thus creating the wobble effect.
  
  Cameras with the CCD sensor do NOT have this problem. This sensor records the whole image at once. Thus avoiding the rolling shutter effect.
  
  There are pros and cons for using different image sensors, however it looks like we are moving to a CMOS world.
  This site below explains the differences between the sensors very nicely if you are curious.
  
  <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Comparing-Image-Sensors.jsp>
  
  Hope that helps
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: @username_3 My mistake. I had seen those footage under rolling shutter, but its not. Was late last night and did not think it through.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-06-15. Score: 1
  
  This sounds like the end result of image stabilization on heavily moving footage. There is nothing that can really be done for it. The source of the problem is that you have motion blur on the original footage thanks to the movement of the camera.
  
  Software can track how things are moving and adjust the position of the frame such that objects remain in constant position, but that doesn't change the fact that there is motion blur in the original frame as a result of the movement. Thus, when the objects stay still, you still see the associated motion blur moving around the objects and this is what causes that "jelly" look you described.
  
  The best way to avoid it is to use a stabilized camera or use a higher shutter speed when recording your video to limit the motion blur incurred by a moving camera. If you still capture, say, 24 frames per second, but you capture each frame in 1/1000th of a second rather than 1/30th of a second, you end up with far less motion blur, but need far more light.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: He didn't say that the footage got stabilized in software. The effect that gets described could also be a rolling shutter effect.  
  > **username_2**: @ProfessorFartSparkle - true, I took that from "affected by vibrations".  It's a typical action cam problem.  I'm making an assumption in my answer that it was being stabilized (either in software or in camera), but it seems to fit the description a lot more than rolling shutter since that would be "slugish" rather than "vibrations".  
  > **username_1**: I just imagine a fast ride on a motorcycle or something similar where you can get high frequency vibrations together with a rolling shutter effect when shooting from the side of the moving object. Could be a mixture of both with a result of passing objects jiggling all over the place.  
  > **username_2**: Hmm, good point.  Either way, physical stabilization and/or faster shutter speed is still the answer though.  Even with rolling shutter compounding it, the problem is lessened with reduced vibration.  
  > **username_0**: I read that using an ND filter might help by causing a slower shutter speed. Do you agree with that @username_2?  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 no that's the exact opposite of what you want. You need fast shutter, not slow.  
  > **username_3**: Rolling shutter is independent of shutter speed. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-crop-sensor-hd/480720-rolling-shutter-high-shutter-speed.html  and from http://dvxuser.com/username_3/CMOS-CCD/  "Skew and other rolling shutter artifacts aren't affected by shutter speed, they're affected by the frame rate."  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 - good point.  Updated my comment to be more clear.  Are you sure that frame rate actually impacts it though?  I'd expect that the maximum readout rate is always used, so I wouldn't expect frame rate to make a difference either.  
  
  ---
  
  