|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
DSLR Video frustrations
I wish they would just tell us what DSLR video can do out of the box, instead of giving all this hype that requires a creative team of a dozen and thousands of dollars of accessories. Can anybody suggest a couple of basic scenarios where I can employ video with my 7d or 5d Mark iii, without embarking on months of research, or remortgaging my house? Feb 14 17 03:21 pm Link Your question is strange and confusing because your creative process is backwards. Instead of asking "I want to build a wood table-what tools do I need?" you are asking "I have a hammer-what can I build with it, and why doesn't it cut wood?" DSLRs have great image quality and shallow depth of field that used to cost $10K+ to do in the past. DSLRs sill need microphones, lenses, tripods, lighting, video editing, and all the things that create good video in a wide variety of situations regardless of your camera. On its own, DSLRs work great in bright light with no sound recording. Feb 15 17 08:18 am Link do you know that some great videos have been created with cell phones? there was a girl creating vine ads for major corporations with an iphone at about $35k per 7 second video. knowing how to use what you have only requires skill. of course, she lay in the soundtrack in post and other things that deal with the limitations. many other users have used nothing more than a camera body and lens ever since movies were invented. telling a compelling story does not require much more. have seen some great work done with only a super 8 camera or a phone. Feb 15 17 08:32 am Link PhotoPower wrote: As someone else already mentioned, it's impossible to answer your question with the information given. Are you looking to shoot home movies? Corporate events? Testimonials? Low budget films? Feb 15 17 12:21 pm Link Can anybody suggest a couple of basic scenarios where I can employ video Go into a room with a southern exposure and plenty of light. Put either of these cameras on a tripod. Turn the music up loud. Ask a clothed or a nude model to dance. Press record. When finished, press stop. Feb 15 17 12:30 pm Link Learning to shoot video well will take about as long as it does to shoot still photos well. There are no shortcuts, It's an entirely different discipline. Cheers, Noah Feb 15 17 01:43 pm Link Yeah, really weirdly worded question. Its very important to understand that in photography / videography to do anything at a professional level, requires lots of skill, experience and knowledge, along with a whole bunch of equipment. You can't just pick a camera up without knowing what you are doing and without having the various others bits of gear and 'just start doing stuff' Feb 16 17 01:17 am Link PhotoPower wrote: Of course they don't tell you that it's called marketing Feb 16 17 04:11 am Link PhotoPower wrote: There are thousands of different production scenarios, all with different needs. I don't know how they could cover all of them. That's like looking for one lens to do everything. Feb 16 17 07:50 pm Link guts and a good story Paranormal Activity (2007) Budget – $15,000 Worldwide Gross – $196,681,656 Return – 655,506% Primer (2004) Budget – $7,000 Worldwide Gross – $424,760 Return – 6,068% Clerks (1994) Budget – $27,000 Worldwide Gross -$3,894,240 Return – 7,112% El Mariachi (1992) Budget – $7,000 Worldwide Gross – $2,041,928 Return – 14,485% Feb 16 17 08:56 pm Link Toto Photo wrote: Thank-you Feb 17 17 01:38 pm Link Okay, I love Toto's suggestion. In fact, all of this is very interesting. So I put a 28mm lens on my 5D Mark iii, to approximate my iPhone lens, and I can capture a video clip, with basic sound, just like with my phone. Okay, so my grandson is tasting ice-cream for the first time, and I happen to have my Mark iii in my bag (because I'm a photo nerd), so rather than reaching for my phone, can I reach for my DSLR instead? I think this is a fair question. I want to pimp up my Mark iii so it will function like an iPhone! What are the basic, out-of-the-box settings to get a quick video clip with my Mark iii that I can post on Facebook to share with my family? And actually Toto, I live in a college town, and think I might be able to find a dancer! Ha, ha! Feb 17 17 01:55 pm Link Here's an item that covers some of what I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong I love my 7D. I brought a 5D Mark III into the family for captures of Celtic dancers in low light. I'm just saying the video side with Canon and Nikon requires a lot of work. http://improvephotography.com/30439/iph … -mark-iii/ Feb 17 17 02:37 pm Link PhotoPower wrote: Yes, stop using a DSLR and go get a video camera, this is what they are designed for! Feb 17 17 04:50 pm Link 1.)Flip the mode dial to green square (auto intelligent). 2.)Flip the video/photo switch to video. 3.)Depress the trigger half way to focus and wait for the confirmation beep. 4.) Hit the start/stop switch on the video/photo mode switch to begin recording 5.) Don't move unless you are prepared to manually focus. No continuous AF on the 5d3 in video mode. 6.)Stop recording. 7.)Remove the memory card and upload the video to facebook. Your expensive DSLR is now an iPhone minus the ability to make phone calls, browse the web, play angry birds OR impress women.  Cheers, Noah Feb 17 17 04:54 pm Link Yes, LondonFog, I have a video recorder, and want to upgrade it to complete my multimedia kit. However, what I'm out to determine is a sort of sweet spot for shooting basic video with my DSLRs. This relates somewhat to my work in journalism. I am a business reporter, with passion on the side for still photography. So I'm perplexed at a news conference to see several professional photographers using iPhones to capture some footage, with expensive DSLRs on straps around their necks. So, even though I am passionate about still photography, I want fall-back, basic setup and understanding of what my DSLRs can do with video. Feb 18 17 12:53 am Link PhotoPower wrote: In bright lighting, there is not a big difference in the video capabilities of a DSLR over an iPhone. The DSLR will have slightly better image quality, shallow depth of field, optical zoom. and better options for using high quality microphones. If you are filming a high quality video to be shown at on a big screen in 1080p or 4K- it is clearly a better choice. The iPhone is unquestionably easier to use, focus, transmit, do basic edits of your videos, and is a better choice for videos only viewed on the web.. Feb 19 17 08:33 am Link Noah Russell wrote: And that's the short version. EDITING video takes MUCH longer than editing stills. And Audio is 60/70/75% of your video, depending on who is quoted; so now you're into audio recorders and audio editing. It's a full time job learning all that stuff, and lots more gear. Feb 21 17 11:35 pm Link PhotoPower wrote: Londonfog was right. Think of it like this...you want to hang a picture on the wall and can't find a hammer, so you take off your shoe and use it to hammer in the nail. Problem solved. Now, just because your shoe did a good job at hammering in that nail doesn't mean you want to start a roofing company using shoes to hammer-in the nails, right? Of course not. Why? Just because the shoe did an OK job at hammering in one nail doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job in many other cases. Your DSLR and video is the same thing. Feb 22 17 12:04 am Link Shot By Adam wrote: A cell phone will produce better video in the hands of someone lacking the skill to operate a manual focus video camera with a large sensor. Feb 22 17 01:39 am Link Loki Studio wrote: I'll say it again...a video camera will do the job properly everytime. Feb 22 17 05:22 am Link PhotoPower wrote: Why bother? Feb 22 17 05:56 am Link L o n d o n F o g wrote: That's not actually true. It's the right tool, but that doesn't make good imagery any more than a hammer ensures a house that will stand up to a gentle breeze. Why do people insist on using the wrong tools? Especially when there are so many good video cameras at pretty much every imaginable price point nowadays... Feb 23 17 02:46 pm Link Adam and London Fog are absolutely right. You CAN make incredible video from a DSLR. The movie Rubber was shot entirely on Canon 5D and it looks fucking gorgeous. But I don't believe there's anything casual about using a DSLR to shoot video. If you want casual video, use a video camera, or your phone. They're far better at fast autofocus and keeping your depth of field deeper because of smaller sensors, they're FAR better for recording sound and they generally have better image stabilization than DSLRs. Still... if you want to use your DSLR for video, I'd suggest using a good fluid head tripod, PLENTY of light, using a shutter speed twice whatever frame rate you're using (1/50 for 24fps or 1/125 for 60fps) and using either a field recorder and decent mic for recording the audio or the best boom microphone you can afford with a 1/8" jack (your DSLR DOES have a mic input, doesn't it??) I'd further suggest you use the flattest color profile the camera offers and learn a bit about color correction and color grading. Basically, you've opened up the rabbit's hole and unless you're willing to jump in with both feet and no safety harness.... just use your phone. Feb 23 17 03:44 pm Link I disagree with the notion that there is a one size fits all right/wrong camera to use. The right tool is the one that allows you to achieve your creative goals for the shot. If your creative goal (hypothetically) is to shoot a 30 second sound byte from a press conference held by a talking monkey, the iPhone may very well be the right tool for YOU. The person standing next to you at said press conference may have different goals and need a different camera entirely. DSLRs need much less than light than most video only cameras thanks to their large sensors. I have shot a scene which was illuminated by a single string Christmas lights that provided PLENTY of light. I've also shot a bath scene lit with only 5 candles and had PLENTY of light. Both were shot using a 50mm F1.2 on a 5d3 which produced noise free video at 3200iso. On the other hand I have a digital cinema camera (Dedicated video camera) which maxes out at 800iso and is noisy at that!. These shots would have been impossible on my "video" camera, but were well within the reach of my DSLR. In terms of ergonomics for video, the DSLR is a nightmare. With a matte box, follow focus, shogun recorder, HDMI rats nest, and a couple xlr mics + rats nest it's one unwieldy beast. My cine camera is a dream to operate in comparison even with the follow focus, matte box and mics. My sentiments on shutter speed echo those I have on the right/wrong camera front. Shutter speed is a creative tool which you the photographer/videographer can use to achieve your goals. Shutter speed in video, as in still photography, is responsible for (among other things) how blurry moving objects are. In the olden days of film, the camera shutter in a 35mm video camera was a spinning disk with a certain number of degrees cut out of it. The "standard" shutter was a half circle and gave a shutter angle of 180 degrees or a shutter speed of frame rate x 2 or 1/48th of a second. A shutter speed of 2x frame rate will create motion blur will be similar to what people are used to seeing in a 24FPS video. 24FPS is on the lower end of the FPS necessary to fool the human eye into thinking it's seeing "moving pictures" A faster than "standard" shutter speed causes jerky motion because there is less blur to help blend the frames together. When shooting at a higher FPS the jerkyness problem (technical term) goes away. Motion blending between frames when shooting at 60FPS with a 1/60 shutter speed 1.25X less than at 24fps BUT the frame rate is 2.5x faster. The footage will still appear very fluid because there is less movement between frames. For slow motion video it's not uncommon to shoot at 120FPS or higher. At 120FPS and a maximum iso of 800, I'd need PLENTY of light to adhere to the 2x frame rate "rule". Rabbit hole is getting deeper......................................  My 0.02. Cheers, Noah Feb 24 17 04:12 am Link Noah Russell wrote: It always irks we to see such formulaic questions and advice on artistic subjects... like when people ask what the best lens is for photographing people, or assume that for landscape photography you should always use a wide angle lens (I shot some of my favorite landscapes with a 500mm lens). Feb 24 17 10:46 am Link PhotoPower wrote: The simple answer is yes. And when you do so you'll immediately see things you'll want to change. Just like you did after the first few shots with your still camera. You'll probably want to hold it steadier or, maybe the 28mm wasn't the right choice including too much more than your grandson's face and the candle. I guess what I'm saying is you're at the beginning of a learning curve, enjoy it. Take some videos. It won't be the beginning for long. PhotoPower wrote: The article you site shows how camera manufacturers could do that. Swapping out for better batteries, wifi, updates and such. It would be great if they took a play out of cell phone's playbook. Howver, when I think of pimping out my DLSR for video I think of an expensive frame onto which I could add a pull-focus rig, a sharp LCD an off camera mic or the like. And I'd love a SteadyCam. But maybe we are different kinds of pimps. Which brings us back to those dancers, so maybe we are more similar than different in motivation at least. PhotoPower wrote: I use the exact settings I'd use for a still photo. In fact I often start with a still photo as a reference, a starting point for my framing and exposure. Then I simply flip the switch from still to video and hit record. PhotoPower wrote: That's exactly what I did, quite inspirational. Feb 24 17 01:46 pm Link PhotoPower wrote: PhotoPower wrote: except like other completely inaccurate comparisons, this article ignores basic scientific facts of physics. an iphone only has a throughput of 17.5 mbps from a sensor about 1/8" size. a larger sensor pushing 50-200 mbps does not use the same energy as the iphone - it requires much more energy. the accuracy of the autofocus for a larger sensor also requires much more work. the larger lens takes more power to move. Feb 24 17 06:55 pm Link PhotoPower wrote: That post comparing the 5d3 to the iPhone is amusing, but completely absurd. I am irritated by certain features that have been held back by Canon in the replacement for the 5d3, but I'm not crying on the Internets shoulder because it won't play angry birds or give me directions to grandmas house. Feb 26 17 02:51 pm Link Noah Russell wrote: Absolutely agree, but at the same time, there are some tools better at doing certain jobs than others. Many video cameras can pull still images out of the footage too but that doesn't make it a good choice for still photography. Again, just because a device CAN do something doesn't mean it's a good choice for that job all the time. Feb 27 17 09:26 pm Link http://www.darrenbrade.com/video/ All shot using my Canon 5d Mk3 (or my earlier work on the Mk2). For fashion videos, shoot the footage and then in editing as an now track. I'm self taught and have started dabbling in indie filmmaking. I started shooting video at fashion fashion shows so I could edit that into a slideshow style video of my photos and make it look more interesting than a boring slideshow. It's funny looking back, but this is that video https://youtu.be/H_3OVEIFvsc Feb 28 17 12:47 am Link So just to close this off - my silly question about a quick/easy setup for DSLR video - I stumbled across an easy solution the other day, coming home and my teenage daughter is watching a silent film (Greta Garbo: A Woman of Affairs) and suddenly I got it for basic vid for me. Think in terms of 1920s filmmakers, and keep it very simple with static setups. My original post seemed to generate some wrath from seasoned videographers, but I have to say I'm surprised they are even hanging around here. Also received some encouraging comments, and thanks to all for that. Bottom line: DSLR makers could sell more gear by simplifying video or at least demonstrating its limitations. Mar 04 17 05:12 am Link PhotoPower wrote: IMO they'd make more sales by making "video optimized" version of their dSLRs simply by building the same electronics package into a more video friendly form factor and calling it a video camera that also shoots stills. Mar 06 17 05:05 pm Link As others have said, (In different ways) it takes more than a good camera to make a good movie. As an actor, I've done a number of really good movies of various lengths, shot with nothing more than a DSLR, a cheap tripod and a couple of lavalier mikes and a couple of lights from Home Depot. I've also shot a number that were pure crap, shot with expensive professional filmmaking equipment. As the song says, "It ain't what ya got, it's what ya do with it." If you're really interested in getting started in filmmaking, you might want to take a beginning course at your local community college--There the likelihood is that you will be working with professional cameras so it's worth while checking out the course and equipment before sinking money into it. You might also try Meet Up-- many cities have both photography and filmmaking groups functioning at every level. And you will certainly want to just plain wing it. Make up little stories like "MY KID'S FIRST BIKE RIDE", "A TRIP TO THE SUPERMARKET" or even, if you and she are of a mind for it, "MY WIFE LEARNS STRIP TEASE", and just go ahead and film them. Then play them back, analyze your mistakes and correct them. It's essentially like learning to shoot stills, only with a hell of a lot more frames. And reading the book might help. too. All IMHO as always, of course. Mar 06 17 06:18 pm Link Rays Fine Art wrote: Definitely. Even some ASC cinematographers have stated that lighting makes much more difference in image quality than the kind of camera you use. Mar 06 17 07:38 pm Link DSLRs can do a lot more than video cameras which cost five times as much if they are used strategically. Here's a great example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klNRaeJJj7E Shot on a Nikon D800 with Nikkor lenses. Half my income comes from making video for a wide variety of corporations and clients, and I use a drone, an Osmo, and two Nikon D810s, and not once has any client said anything about upgrading to a video camera. And here's the interesting fact: I work with other shooters who use $20K rigs and I can see them losing their clients because they charge too much. A lot of the video being shot on a Canon 300 or in 4K could just as easily have been shot on a DSLR, and clients of all kinds are catching on to it. Jul 09 17 11:10 pm Link Some of the discussion makes me think of the Youtube "Philip Bloom, Barbie Camera Challenge" clip. Watching a pro create and make a short film off the top of his head with a really cheap Barbie Doll video toy that they provided him with. And yes, there's a lesson there...(!) Jul 09 17 11:58 pm Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: What you can do with cellphones --- Jul 10 17 01:12 am Link Those shot on i-phone ads are not what they seem. https://www.dpreview.com/videos/7189460 … -they-seem Jul 10 17 01:21 am Link So I'm not a big video guy. I spent a summer or so practicing and trolling Lynda.com because it looked like there was going to be a second Video I class in the fall that the usual instructor couldn't cover, but we were able to fit everyone into one class. So that's where I'm at: I can honestly say I know more than the average bear, but I'm not a video guy, and don't necessarily think like one. Based on what I've seen, most of what's been said in this thread is correct - especially in regards to the amount of post-production time and extra gear needed to get professional video. One thing that's easily overlooked by still guys is the audio equipment; your film can look gorgeous, but if you're just using the built-in mic you'll really ruin the sense of immersion in the video. What I think isn't correct is the idea that you ALWAYS need extra stuff. People mentioned hammers, and you know the expression: if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Well when you're a video pro, everything seems like a pro shoot - the same way that we always tell newbies you "need" XYZ gear, or your stills will suck. Perfect example is a DSLR vs. a proper video camera. Obviously some are better or worse on a case by case basis, but the only advantage ALL video cameras have is that they can run almost indefinitely, while DSLRs generally have a 5-30 minute clip limit before overheating. If you're doing a real video shoot, this is a big deal - if you're making a pet project or shooting for fun or practice, you may not even notice this limitation. At the level you're at, there are four things to be aware of: 1) exposure will be a lot more important, hence all the lights. When you consider file sizes, you're basically shooting minimum quality jpgs, and your video will edit as such. That's why people use LOG settings and grade in post; reducing contrast and adding it later gets around some of these limitations. 2) steadying the camera is a lot harder, but keeping it static on a tripod may be boring, depending on what the video is. You can digitally stabilize in post, but doing so crops, reduces quality, and may not be compatible with other changes or effects you'd like to apply. 3) even if the camera focuses in video mode, it will almost always be slower than in still mode, will often have a visible "bobble" where things jump in and out of focus, and unless you're using external audio gear it will almost always make noise in your footage. If you're using it like a camcorder, it is what it is ... If you've got a planned shot, the best thing to do is measure focus distances, mark it on your lens, and manually focus between those points. 4) always shoot more than you think you need, and leave a few seconds of footage at the end of every clip. You won't always be fading or doing other transitions, but you want the option, or else your footage will look jumpy and staccato. Let things breathe. Keeping those things in mind certainly isn't enough to turn you into a pro. It should, however, be enough to get you going and making work that you're pleased with. Jul 10 17 07:24 am Link |
