|
This is probably going to make me look like a massive amateur/stupid, but lenses are still magic and fairy dust to me sometimes, despite me having done filming and editing for 5 years or so. Sometimes I just do what works, and it'd be nice to start thinking specifically about things in order to get the shot that I need. Our cameras have fixed lenses so we're limited to whatever they can do, hence I don't get a chance to learn  Wide depth of fields, specifically in stuff like live sports on the wide shot of the field/ring/court/whatever. Is that just down to lots of light, narrow aperture, and short focal length? Or is there something else about the large TV Cameras with box lenses that gives the shot the look it has? Obviously when they cut to a mid shot/close up camera following a particular player, they're zoomed in a lot, and you can see the depth of field moving while they hunt focus, but that wide shot always looks absolutely sharp no matter what the distance to the camera is.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
thehustler posted:This is probably going to make me look like a massive amateur/stupid, but lenses are still magic and fairy dust to me sometimes, despite me having done filming and editing for 5 years or so. Sometimes I just do what works, and it'd be nice to start thinking specifically about things in order to get the shot that I need. Our cameras have fixed lenses so we're limited to whatever they can do, hence I don't get a chance to learn I don't know what cameras they're using, but smaller sensors also increase depth of field so that could be a factor as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
TV cameras have very small image sensors so they always have deep focus when wide. That's one of the huge reliefs for people who have mostly used digital when the move to HDSLR's came. Back when shooting with XH-A1's or XM2/PD-170 etc older digital camcorders it was a huge pain in the rear end to get any kind of shallow focus on the wide end so often I'd end up shooting everything zoomed in to get even some kind of object separation. The larger the sensor the shallower the dof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Thanks both, wondered about the sensors too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
A smug sociopath posted:That's one of the huge reliefs for people who have mostly used digital when the move to HDSLR's came. Back when shooting with XH-A1's or XM2/PD-170 etc older digital camcorders it was a huge pain in the rear end to get any kind of shallow focus on the wide end so often I'd end up shooting everything zoomed in to get even some kind of object separation. The larger the sensor the shallower the dof. As someone that also pulls focus, gently caress full frame cameras. Wide open used to be an actual aesthetic choice instead of ..whatever you want to call it now. A cliche? A trope? Really annoying?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:As someone that also pulls focus, gently caress full frame cameras. Wide open used to be an actual aesthetic choice instead of ..whatever you want to call it now. A cliche? A trope? Really annoying? Call it what it is -- what people who don't know anything about cameras shoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:As someone that also pulls focus, gently caress full frame cameras. Wide open used to be an actual aesthetic choice instead of ..whatever you want to call it now. A cliche? A trope? Really annoying? It's a relief to have the option. I find the vimeo-shoot everything open wide handheld-style as gross as anyone - but having spent so much time with small chip cameras, I have no love for them or their aesthetic. Except when I'm doing talkshow work, in which case I welcome the option to not touch the focus handle. A smug sociopath fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
What surprises me most is people using large sensor cameras wide open for ENG style interviews and documentary shooting. First time I saw that happen, with the poor operator pulling his own focus on a 70mm EF lens, I honestly thought that maybe he knew something that I didn't about focusing it because I couldn't imagine it being a good idea for a news-style interview. But sure enough, watching the finished item on tv it was out of focus constantly. Not just a little soft, completely out of focus! It was horrible to watch this huge close up where everytime the subject as much as breathed he would go out of focus. The operator obviously tried desperately to keep up but was always lagging far behind and his constant jerking of the lens was making the shot even more shaky than normal. I don't understand how anyone could possibly think that was a good idea. It could work in a wide shot with a 5.6 or up but this obsession with shallow DOF (because it's more cinematic I guess?) fucks that up so back to long lenses on 1.8 we go! Or 3.5 if they don't want to spring for a good lens, still wide open. The idea of 4K broadcasts fills me with dread now because that problem will only get worse (unless they start booking ACs for multicam shoots, but somehow I doubt people will be willing to pay for that since budgets are still shrinking). The idea of television cameramen having to pull their own focus on 4K with long lenses...it's terrifying!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Great points, I find it hard enough with a full 1080p ENG camera sometimes to do focus without a better monitor connected. Which then rather removes the point of it being pick-up-and-go ENG. Peaking on the viewfinder helps but it isn't perfect. And yes, those cliched film-look pieces are getting irritating now. The BBC used them during the Winter Olympics for short films around the camp, and seeing the constant quick zooms and focusing was irritating. You expect the shoddy bits to have cutaways over them but nope. Sometimes you see cameras like that used for extreme close-up second angle in a multicam setting and that's great but to use it as your main camera is just bad bad bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Shooting very shallow on full frame has an advantage for the small budget filmmaker - you don't need to spend money on set dressing if it's all gonna be blurry anyways 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Shooting very shallow on full frame has an advantage for the small budget filmmaker - you don't need to spend money on set dressing if it's all gonna be blurry anyways natural light is so organic, man
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
It's just got that feel
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Nice meeting you on Monday, EnsGDT! You guys destroyed us on tuesday wrapping out your stages. That had to one of the most chaotic days Ive had here. The l&d list is uh.....impressive. Perhaps Ill see you next year!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Great to meet you too! I can imagine that it was probably a little nuts over there. I was in a flight back to LA by the time our G+E was called to come wrap out. I hope that L&D wasn't too much stuff from out stage. Hopefully it was just the other ones  I hope I'm there again soon man!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Hey guys, I have a poorly constructed question If I wanted to get into making videos, what's more important? A good camera (like a Canon 5D MKIII) with like the standard Canon 24-105mm lens, or a entry level camera (Canon T3i) with a good lens? Was looking at this http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-35mm-f18-dc-hsm-a Let's say the stuff I'd be shooting would vary from night time urban scenery, to darker indoor stuff, to bright outdoorsy stuff. It isn't a that large of a stretch to get the 5D body only + that sigma lens, but I already have a T3i so I don't know if getting a 5D is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
It takes a lot to properly put video together, a camera and lens is only but one piece of the puzzle. Post examples of the videos you would like to make and that would give a better idea of the equipment you'd need. Also that Sigma lens is crop only, so while it works with your Rebel it won't on any full frame camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Why wouldn't you start with what you have? Depending on what you want to do, the camera and lens might wind up being the last things you'd want to spend money on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
A smug sociopath posted:I find the vimeo-shoot everything open wide handheld-style as gross as anyone Politicians will have to invent a way to look approachable and friendly when distorted by a fisheye.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
A lot of places are starting to issue journo's iPhones and expecting them to do stories with that, so you'll be waxing nostalgic for DSLR videos in the news media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
powderific posted:Why wouldn't you start with what you have? Depending on what you want to do, the camera and lens might wind up being the last things you'd want to spend money on. Well I have started but I'm extremely new and uneducated when it comes to cameras. Since I work around them all the time and have always been into audio equipment I'm pretty knowledgeable as to all the other things I need. As for videos that I'd like to make, it really varies. The only video I've ever done was from my first semester in uni with the kit T3i lens, a lightbulb, and a lovely $20 lav. I'll share, but with some reticence since the audio and videography is bad and there are some embarrassing edits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZAuez8eLEQ What do you guys think I could have done better video quality wise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
You need more motion in your shots (tripod pans, tilts, or dollies) because your shots are completely locked down in a lot of spots. It doesn't match the vibe of your music choice which is this beautiful sweeping piano piece. Also this is way too long. The old guy isn't saying that much that is all that interesting. This could be like a minute and a half long and it would say the same things. A new camera and/or a new lens wouldn't have helped you here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
1st AD posted:You need more motion in your shots (tripod pans, tilts, or dollies) because your shots are completely locked down in a lot of spots. It doesn't match the vibe of your music choice which is this beautiful sweeping piano piece. I appreciate your critiques but I wasn't really looking for a critique on the content itself since I already know it's not filmed or edited well. I'm more wondering if the captured video quality alone would have benefited more from a better camera or lens, or is the T3i capable, and I just wasn't utilizing it well enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
In what ways do you think that quality could have been improved that are solely attributed to your body and lens?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
1st AD posted:In what ways do you think that quality could have been improved that are solely attributed to your body and lens? Well when I look at the raw footage it's fairly grainy and just not that good looking. I don't know if that's the camera itself or me doing something wrong in the settings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Is grainy footage affecting your ability to tell the story of a coffee roaster?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Is grainy footage affecting your ability to tell the story of a coffee roaster? It affects my ability to have not grainy footage mainly
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
You're not going to be happy with any DSLR. DSLRs shoot grainy, lovely footage. There is no way around it. If you don't like the image quality in what you just linked, don't buy another DSLR. I've put my Zeiss glass on my 5D for some small things and the image still sucks, because it's a DSLR. It's an image that people have come to accept because of the convenience, and its look has become teeth-gratingly popular because it's accessible to everyone on every budget.1st AD posted:Is grainy footage affecting your ability to tell the story of a coffee roaster? This is exactly what I mean – grainy footage sucks, and people are so used to lovely DSLR work that nobody even cares any more how noisy something is. I applaud your desire to have a better quality image but you're not going to get it on a DSLR budget.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:You're not going to be happy with any DSLR. DSLRs shoot grainy, lovely footage. There is no way around it. If you don't like the image quality in what you just linked, don't buy another DSLR. I've put my Zeiss glass on my 5D for some small things and the image still sucks, because it's a DSLR. It's an image that people have come to accept because of the convenience, and its look has become teeth-gratingly popular because it's accessible to everyone on every budget. This is the kind of answer I was seeking, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
I've posted as such earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating. I'd recommend renting equipment before you make any big purchases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Shogunner posted:This is the kind of answer I was seeking, thank you. I think that using a T3i is perfectly adequate for a camera to own. Anything more expensive should be rented and not bought. You could improve your lighting technique. Increasing light would alleviate noise issues. And/or perhaps better Canon lenses. And try to shoot with a 1/50 shutter, it'll do wonders for cinematic visual quality. DO NOT believe anyone when they say you need to buy a more expensive camera. T3i is perfectly fine to low budget stuff, don't throw away your money. If anything buy better lenses that are faster, like any of the L series f/2.8 zoom lenses. Again if it's not cutting it for a particular job then you should just rent better cameras.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
I'd add that you shouldn't buy gear beyond a cheapo body and a couple primes if you're not making any money from this. Like, image quality on a DSLR isn't a show stopper unless you are doing paid work. And even then it might not be. Shot this on a hacked 5Dmk3. I probably wouldn't ever do this again since I had to rent it and the cards needed and work with a janky raw workflow, but it got the job done. The most important thing in this piece was really the lighting and the motion graphics anyways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2CFgzqPzvM
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
1st AD posted:A lot of places are starting to issue journo's iPhones and expecting them to do stories with that, so you'll be waxing nostalgic for DSLR videos in the news media. I love my Facebook feed. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I love my Facebook feed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
When making the Battle of Algiers cinematographer Marcello Gatti bought pretty much the cheapest film stock he could find to make the film as grainy as possible. Because back in those days graininess was considered realistic. Newsreels were grainy black and white while colour was mostly for musicals and epics. When it gets remade it's probably going to be found footage shot on a phone because that's realistic now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:When making the Battle of Algiers cinematographer Marcello Gatti bought pretty much the cheapest film stock he could find to make the film as grainy as possible. Because back in those days graininess was considered realistic. Newsreels were grainy black and white while colour was mostly for musicals and epics. When it gets remade it's probably going to be found footage shot on a phone because that's realistic now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Speaking of DSLRs... http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-cameras-used-to-film-london-live-24139 quote:Nikon UK today announces that London Live, the first 24 hour entertainment channel devoted to London, will be using Nikon digital SLR cameras in their new London-based studio. This is mad, right? Progressive output would look crap on a news show, and I'm going to imagine that very few live broadcasts are produced in progressive and not interlaced. If we were at 50fps broadcast framerates for 1080HD we'd be ok, but otherwise this is just going to be weird. Worth noting that these local TV stations like London Live are a brand new thing that's just starting in the UK so obviously they don't want to spend £££ on broadcast camera heads and CCUs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
It sounds like a publicity thing for Nikon and the robotics company. I love my D800 in general but can't imagine it being a great choice for this kind of thing, and the D4 is terrible if it's not shooting in crop mode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
I imagine the real expense here is the lenses, but nobody's piping up about supplying them because they're embarrassed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Also lets hope they don't overheat. I know DSLRs sometimes have a cut off so you don't record for long periods of time, but do they overheat when not actually recording?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
thehustler posted:Also lets hope they don't overheat. I know DSLRs sometimes have a cut off so you don't record for long periods of time, but do they overheat when not actually recording? I've never had a D600 or D800 overheat. The recording cutoff has a lot more to do with certain taxes applied to cameras that function as video recording devices; the recording limits allow manufacturers to bypass this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 17:21
|
|