|
I resisted DSLR video for a long time, since it seems like a bitch to get synced audio and timecode on your video. I do a lot of work solo, so a 7D + rails and matte box + audio recorder is a bit unwieldy for me.. I've used them as b-cams, but for the most part I never use them as the main camera. Anyways, I just shot this promo for my friend's personal catering business on a 5D and I'm probably not going back to a standard video camera for a long time. http://vimeo.com/21540326 One thing that's important to note - if you ever get the urge to shoot stuff under tungsten and NOT white balance because you "want that warm look," you should shoot yourself in the face. Unfortunately I don't have a gun and instead spent hours in Color trying to get the look right because I tricked myself into doing something dumb. I used an L-series 16-35mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4 lens for this. So...what lens system should invest a bajillion dollars into? I have a couple Nikon F-mount lenses that are good (35mm and 50mm f/1.4 from the 70's), but something like the Panasonic 14-140 OIS lens would be sweet. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 29, 2011 |
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
Unless you're working in Premiere, I would transcode the footage to an intermediate format, either Apple ProRes or Avid DNxHD. You probably do not have fast enough disk drives to edit/playback 8-bit uncompressed footage.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Couldn't you take a photo while in live view mode and just look at the histogram? It's not as convenient as a real live peaking function, but it's useable enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
 Yeah I thought you were talking about having a waveform for exposure, not for focus peaking.I really don't like the zebras used in Magic Lantern - I've noticed that with Canon DSLR's the whites will get crushed before blowing out fully (in fact I'm not sure that I've ever seen fully blown out video on a T2i or 5D, at least reading the vectorscopes in Final Cut). The histogram is much more useful in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
I was thinking about the Birger Mount that gives you wireless focus and aperture controls for Canon EF lenses mounted on RED or the AF100 - why the hell hasn't someone come up with a remote focus control for Canon DSLR's? It seems like the camera has the ability to do this and someone would need to just have to figure out how the camera communicates to the lens and develop a controller for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
I have a set of 15mm rails, but I don't know if I would even get that Jag focus. My biggest concerns with something like that would be 1)the noise of the gears and 2)focus repeatability. The wired controller doesn't have a witness post, and I'm not sure that you could use that thing with any reliability.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2011 06:25
|
|
|
Yeah, those videos are not promising at all as far as the quality of the focusing. It's a shame, because that's the sort of device I am looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
I wouldn't say a Tascam or Zoom has better sound than even a cheap shotgun mic, but that probably depends on a lot of other factors. For outdoor recording I would definitely move towards a shotgun + boom + deadcat. p.s. stereo recording doesn't really mean poo poo, especially if both mics are inches away from each other pointing in the same direction. edit: Get PluralEyes to sync, or do it old-fashioned with a slate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
Some of the editing is herky-jerky, and there is a TON of rolling shutter skew as a result of the handheldedness. When I shoot I usually use the tension in the neck strap to stabilize the camera. I would also consider stopping down some - there are a bunch of shots where it looks like you are having trouble focusing with the shallow DOF. Nifty soundtrack though! Are those all loops or did you record anything? I did this on a pretty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsUKsyAIkEw
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Do the cuts make sense though? Is it too ADD? It was basically 3 long shots I put together to give it some variety. I need to keep more vigilent about rolling shutter, it's just so "normal" that I forget about it sometimes. The one shot that stood out was the cut away from the baby to the cupcake, and then like 2 seconds later the camera goes back to the baby. When I shoot I usually try to hold on a subject for like 5-10 seconds before moving or pulling focus, that way I have wiggle room for editing. I try to leave an extra 5-10 seconds at the beginning and end of clips for that same reason (although it can be hard if you're shooting in a non-controlled environment). I had about 6 hours of event footage and interviews to work with, and a lot of it was used in other short videos for that event. Some of the random clips came from my 4tb archive of past shoots.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I wish post processing video was as easy as lightroom, a couple of sliders and be done with it. Am I missing something? Every time I nudge the color wheel everything goes completely bonkers. Bottom Liner posted:Yeah, that's because it has to apply those sliders to every frame. Rendering is a bitch, no way around that. Not really, a lot of computers can apply minor adjustments like color and sharpening in real time. Either edit with hardware-accelerated software like Premiere Pro, or transcode to an intermediate codec that is less CPU intensive. It still won't be as easy as photos though, since your camera records so much more information in a RAW still image than it does as a 4:2:0 h.264 video. If you're looking for a little more flexibility in post and you're shooting with a Canon DSLR, try Technicolor's new Cinestyle color profile: http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/cinema/filmmaking/digital-printer-lights/cinestyle In general though you have to be very careful with exposure in video, there's basically no way to recover blown highlights and because of weak codecs on a majority of cameras you won't be able to push the codec very far in grading.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
Rent an HMC150 or similar 3-chip camcorder that will record to SDHC cards. A 32gb card will record a little over 3 hours of footage, and it will record 60p. Decent low-light sensitivity for a small chip camera. If the dance area is very well lit (i.e. daylight or stage lighting), you can rent the cheaper HMC40 which will be even sharper.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
A5H posted:You could rent a phantom for a grand I reckon? That would be amazing. I want to see dancing in 2000fps. A phantom is useless in the conditions he's likely to be filming in, so unless he can bring in a couple trucks worth of lighting all he would get is a useless expensive camera for a day that wouldn't be able to operate at it's full potential.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Even with a T2i and 5D I still get some banding even with the shutter set to 1/60. I think any camera with a rolling shutter is just going to struggle with it, but there are fewer and fewer CCD/global shutter cameras being made now.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Here's an 8 min video my wife and I did for Goons with Spoons, where it's being well received, but if you can sit through it, I'd love some real critique. I did all the music myself as well. I have plenty of crit on my own but before I go through and make excuses I want to hear from you. -Did you white balance? The shots look awfully warm -Not a fan of the 2nd handheld angle. I think it would've been better if it was also mounted on a tripod. -I think the main camera should have been head on instead of at an angle. It also would've hidden that shadow that is cast against the wall. -Too many jump cuts. You have 2 camera angles, you could've cut to a different angle instead of cutting within the same shot. If you have to do a jump cut I would recommend doing a flash frame in between. -You needed closer closeups on some of the detailed cooking directions/action shots. Also on a tripod. -On camera audio doesn't sound very good. I don't know if you have access to a mic preamp with phantom power, but I would definitely recommend getting some kind of hypercardioid condenser mic close up to the subject.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
There's not many cameras out there at a budget level that will get you anywhere near that wide. Even at the prosumer/professional level I can't think of any camcorders that are wider than 28mm (FF equivalent). And yeah, the window is going to be overexposed from that vantage point if you're going to shoot during the day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
I had to cut it off after like 40 seconds - your editing is way too slow considering the pace of the song.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
I would worry more about sharpness of the image projected to that size, but you can massage that a bit in post.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
I think the zoom mode uses a smaller portion of the sensor, so in theory it should actually reduce aliasing since the camera isn't skipping as many lines. I don't know for sure however.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:So I made the plunge and got an old copy of AfterEffects, which I'm finding while complicated fairly straightforward. I've been watching some tutorials from videocopilot.net and think they're really great. What codec/frame size/frame rate/etc are you rendering out with? Are there any playback problems if you do a full res RAM preview?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:*Any critiques on how the grade worked out would be great. You can't really push H264 very far, unfortunately. Overall the grade doesn't look bad, though I think the look of your shots would have been improved with better lighting in your interior scenes - outdoors it looks great, indoors it looks super flat. There was one insert shot of the gun where it looks like you didn't desaturate the shadows enough, so the gun looks reeeeeally blue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
To me it looks like the bigger challenge was the size of the rooms you were working in - I don't know where you would've jammed in a light with how close to the walls you were. In your situation I probably would have gone with a single rim light. You'd still have to get away from the walls a bit, but the rim light would help create some of that separation between subject and background.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
I use these, they're not very expensive and fit pretty snugly: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674547-REG/Cinevate_Inc_CNADNA000021_Canon_EOS_to_Nikon.html My only complaint - it is possible to improperly mate your lens to the adapter, resulting in your aperture ring being 90 degrees rotated to the side. And the connection is not secure at all when you do this. If your lens is mounted on the body but the aperture markers are not lined up along the top of the camera, you need to adjust the connection from the lens to the adapter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
Yup, no aperture ring = better off using an EOS lens. I like the old Nikkors because they don't control flare or CA quite as well as a modern lens - it's a very easy way to get a grungy look. It's not something I use all the time, but it's useful and those lenses have a nice feel and build.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
Yeah, and companies like Duclos sell declicked lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Are those new PL-mount primes?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
1080p, 8-bit 4:2:2 - the answer to RED 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
The Scarlet just absolutely pisses all over the Canon. It's a couple thousand cheaper and shoots 4k RAW.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
The brain on it's own is $9700. http://www.red.com/store/scarlet/product/scarlet-x-al-canon-mount-package SCARLET-X aluminum Canon EF mount package includes everything you need to start shooting. Made in the USA. Included: SCARLET-X brain Al CANON MOUNT DSMC SSD SIDE MODULE DSMC SIDE HANDLE RED PRO 5” TOUCH LCD REDVOLTS REDMAG 1.8” 64GB RED STATION 1.8” AC POWER ADAPTOR (DSMC) 1-Year Warranty 1st AD fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Nov 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2011 07:47
|
|
|
BeavisNuke posted:I think I shot the stills in too large of a resolution. Not possible  Did you batch process the raws first before converting them into video frames? I've been thinking about doing a time lapse this way to get the extra resolution and sharpness, but I'm discouraged by the amount of time it would take to crank out a 30 second time lapse, even though it would probably be worth it. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2011 08:23
|
|
|
Where's the camera going to be in relation to the ceremony? How wide do you want it to be? How much light is available where the ceremony is taking place? And how much are you willing to spend?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
Maverique posted:Also from what I understand the new 1D is still FAT32 but has a system that creates a new file automatically after you reach the 4gb mark. I don't know if there's a noticeable frame skip as it creates the new file. All the AVCHD camcorders do this and as long as you ingest the footage using an NLE that can read the card metadata (like Final Cut), it will be seamless. I assume Canon will embed metadata somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
chimheil posted:What about shooting RAW, doing your grade in Lightroom, syncing the rest, and then importing as a jpeg sequence in AE? You could also batch resize if you wanted, or keep the full rez and make some artificial pans or zooms. Yeah I was thinking this. However, I'm not used to grading in Lightroom aside from basic curves, HSL, and using the grad ND. Is there a way to create a secondary (non-destructive) grade inside a mask selection, or would I need to pop the frames into Photoshop?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
willroc7 posted:What's wrong with filming in 60p? Moire and aliasing in the current Canon DSLRs is awful at 720p60
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
FLX posted:If you want to capture tennis, then look at sports coverages of matches on TV and find similar camera spots. I guess an elevated sideline view would be good to capture the game, and a closer view of the players from the front (i.e. not from the back like in your clip) to get their faces and emotions. You can probably do both of these from the middle of the sideline with on camera for the game standing further back and one camera at the court's edge, alternating between both players. Of course the more cameras the better though It should also be noted that sports broadcasts are all done with small sensor cameras. Only things like replays and highlights are captured on a S35 format (like NFL Films does, for example), and those camera ops are pros handling steadicam rigs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:60p generally looks pretty gross, as does 30, if you're going for a cinematic look. If he's trying to go for a look similar to a sports broadcast, 60p is absolutely what he should be shooting at. Capturing action at 24 frames and a 180 degree shutter really, really sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
Yeah and it seems like he's trying to capture footage for post-game analysis, so moire and aliasing problems are not huge concerns. The best bet would still be to get a small sensor camcorder that can shoot 60p (lots of them do this nowadays) - fewer issues with the image, doesn't need to stop down as much, and much easier to focus.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
I'm not really sold on the idea, especially since it sounds like you're limited to 720p mode (which moires like crazy). BUT it's a cool toy that I'll play with once they update ML.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
Wow that makes it sound a lot less appealing. I tried looking for their actual workflow on how to do the frame interpolation, but the workflow link I've seen posted on Vimeo is a COMPLETE mess and all I can find are some scripts that do...something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
https://vimeo.com/34120262 This looks good, but the motion looks pretty awful if you view it full screen. I'm going to do some tests for the holidays, but I'm going to double the shutter speed and see if that makes a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 23:01
|
|