General Canon 550D output

J

jerfai

Member
Hi Everyone,

I've just finished a short movie (trailer is here: http://vimeo.com/17969644)
I've used a 550d with the default lens (18-55mm) and shot in 1080p 24. I used some pretty descent lights (mix of fluo and incandescent) and I've edited my movie in première.

to be honest, I'm not happy with the quality of the picture. Even with the rushes I wasn't getting the impression it was "Full HD".

I've compared my movie with one episode of "the pacific" and with a few short movies and I'm quite impressed by the difference: my picture isn't as clear and as neat as in hollywood productions. :embarasse
Ok, I can hear you "They have millions of $$". but what about the other shorts? I'm sure some people in these forums have achieved a very good quality picture.

Guys, I need some help: am I doing something wrong? do I need to invest? basically what can I do to improve the quality of my motion picture?

Cheers,

Jérôme
 
I thought it looked very good. You certainly got the best out of the kit lens!

I guess the only thing is practice and experience? I can't see many technical issues with it...
 
Thanks for the feedback, maybe I'm becoming paranoid..

But I still think it isn't as neat as it could be. The reason is I've submitted my work to a couple of festivals and I've had a look at the past years submissions and I've noticed my image wasn't as good as the other competitors.
My god feel is :
1) the camera itself may play a role in the quality of the picture (although I've read that the 550d could achieve great results)
2) the lens I use is not good enough and buying a better lens may improve the quality of the picture (not sure about that - any comment?)
3) the light and the ISO: I've noticed that the picture is sharper on outdoor shot where I lower the ISO. => buy a new lighting kit?
4) I don't know how to use the focus and I can go and buy myself a pair of new hands.

Any ideas?
 
1) It is often said that a poor workman blames his tools
2) There are uses for the kit lens, but they are very limited compared to other lenses. While I may not be that hasty, I think most folks in this forum will tell you to ditch that lens right away!
3) Or use a lower aperture, which will also give you the creamy DOF that DSLRs are popular for. Your shots are good, but they look like you aren't using the DSLR for what makes it look great! In order to get good aperature, however, you will again need a faster lens (back to #2).
4)Nah, I don't think that's it.

I think you need more time and learn the ins-and-outs of the camera, perhaps underexpose your shots more to make it more gritty and filmlike and color correct in post, get a lower F-stop lens, and you should be golden.

Here's a good example of someone that used the T2i to get something that looked AWESOME:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU5M8hC_TvE

With some Vintage Nikon glass and some color correction, you could have something that looks like this:
http://vimeo.com/14445196

Keep working at it, you're definitely in the right direction.
 
Thanks Dishe, it really helps.

The vimeo video 'folklore" is exactly what i'm talking about. I really feel that the characters are drawn with black pencils and detach themselves from the background AND are really really crystal clear. Even tho I sometimes worked with a low F, my characters still seems to blur into the background as opposed to "detach" themselves.

In terms of lens, what lenses do you recommend?
also you mention a "Vintage Nikon glass", how does it work? is it a kind of sepia effect?

I've read somewhere that the color correction tends to reduce the quality of the picture and the less you color correct the better the final output, is this correct?
 
Color correction can actually help improve the look, but you don't want to go all crazy with it and turn your picture to mush. The vintage Nikons just provide a nice organic look to the image as opposed to the perhaps colder image of modern lenses...just my opinion there though. There are a ton of options for decent fast glass - Tamron, Sigma, Canon, Nikon (with adapter) Go to B and H or Adorama and do a search for lenses for Canon. Maybe put in a price range of $500 or less - look at the options and read the reviews ( a lot of the reviews mention video).
EBAY might be the place to look for vintage Nikons, or your local camera store or pawn shops.
 
jerfai said:
Thanks Dishe, it really helps.

The vimeo video 'folklore" is exactly what i'm talking about. I really feel that the characters are drawn with black pencils and detach themselves from the background AND are really really crystal clear. Even tho I sometimes worked with a low F, my characters still seems to blur into the background as opposed to "detach" themselves.

In terms of lens, what lenses do you recommend?
also you mention a "Vintage Nikon glass", how does it work? is it a kind of sepia effect?

I've read somewhere that the color correction tends to reduce the quality of the picture and the less you color correct the better the final output, is this correct?
Click to expand...

No, I'd say that's not true. In fact just about every high quality production I've seen uses at least some form of color correction in post. I don't usually bother for my style of videos (mostly documentary style interview), but it can yield some really nice results if you do it right. It can also royally mess things up if you do it badly. The common technique many film makers recommend around here is to shoot your video "flat". That means turning sharpness, saturation, etc, all the way down (there are custom picture styles you can download that do this well), and then tweak the exposure and levels in post.
Its an extra step and takes some time to get right, but it can make a difference.
Its not really my thing (I'd love to get more into film style shooting, but sadly that's not where my clients are), but I'm sure others on this board who are proficient in the art of color correction can help steer you in the right direction. The bottom line is that there was no "sepia" effect applied in camera, I'm fairly certain that was color corrected in post.

As for working with a low F... you can't really if you're using the Kit lens. The best you can get is 3.5, and that's only if you zoom all the way out, which also softens the image and often severely limits your framing, if not starting to exhibit a fisheye effect. If you want creamy DOF to better separate, you need to be able to zoom in to 50mm and still have a nice low F stop.

Lenses are a very heated and passionate topic around here. Some people love and swear by their choice of lenses. Its like car nuts and motor oil- everyone will swear their favorite brand is superior, but all options will yield good results if done right, you have to pick what works for you.

But I think the best option is to shoot they way they do in Hollywood- with specific prime focal point lenses. 50mm and 85mm are the most often used I believe (someone chime in with the numbers, I don't remember which sets film crews use most often anymore), however on our crop lenses you need a slightly wider range, which would equate more with a 30mm and 50mm.

I'm of the opinion that Vintage lenses (as in, old lenses from 20-30 years ago) give the best bang for their buck, and I started off with those and LOVE them. My favorite is a Nikon Nikkor 50mm F/1.4, that gives brilliant low light shots and DOF, and can be picked up from a used shop or ebay for around $100 (a similar canon lens will be $300+). All you need then is a cheap Nikon F-mount to EOS adapter to mount to your camera.

The old lenses are made are often made of much better build quality (metal instead of plastic), and durable so they retain their value better. Also, they tend to offer a look that works really well for video (maybe a bit soft for stills). Having big and easy to reach manual focus rings are also a huge plus for us, as is manual aperture ring since the t2i doesn't make that easy to adjust in camera. Still shooters don't like them as much from what I've seen, but for video they are cheap and awesome.

Meanwhile, if you want something a little more modern, the Canon 50mm 1.8 is a great place to start, and will yield a much sharper and more pleasing image than the kit lens. Or, if you like the versatility of a zoom, go with the Tamrom 7-50mm at a constant 2.8 aperture.
 
It looks very good. I don't know what part of post work is as important to finish a project people don't understand. Some shots are overexposed and some color correction might be needed. Nothing that can be fixed in post. You have to understand that any professional production goes thru the whole process. As for "detachment", really overrated, especially in the wide shots.
 
dishe said:
No, I'd say that's not true. In fact just about every high quality production I've seen uses at least some form of color correction in post. I don't usually bother for my style of videos (mostly documentary style interview), but it can yield some really nice results if you do it right. It can also royally mess things up if you do it badly. The common technique many film makers recommend around here is to shoot your video "flat". That means turning sharpness, saturation, etc, all the way down (there are custom picture styles you can download that do this well), and then tweak the exposure and levels in post.
Its an extra step and takes some time to get right, but it can make a difference.
Its not really my thing (I'd love to get more into film style shooting, but sadly that's not where my clients are), but I'm sure others on this board who are proficient in the art of color correction can help steer you in the right direction. The bottom line is that there was no "sepia" effect applied in camera, I'm fairly certain that was color corrected in post.

As for working with a low F... you can't really if you're using the Kit lens. The best you can get is 3.5, and that's only if you zoom all the way out, which also softens the image and often severely limits your framing, if not starting to exhibit a fisheye effect. If you want creamy DOF to better separate, you need to be able to zoom in to 50mm and still have a nice low F stop.

Lenses are a very heated and passionate topic around here. Some people love and swear by their choice of lenses. Its like car nuts and motor oil- everyone will swear their favorite brand is superior, but all options will yield good results if done right, you have to pick what works for you.

But I think the best option is to shoot they way they do in Hollywood- with specific prime focal point lenses. 50mm and 85mm are the most often used I believe (someone chime in with the numbers, I don't remember which sets film crews use most often anymore), however on our crop lenses you need a slightly wider range, which would equate more with a 30mm and 50mm.

I'm of the opinion that Vintage lenses (as in, old lenses from 20-30 years ago) give the best bang for their buck, and I started off with those and LOVE them. My favorite is a Nikon Nikkor 50mm F/1.4, that gives brilliant low light shots and DOF, and can be picked up from a used shop or ebay for around $100 (a similar canon lens will be $300+). All you need then is a cheap Nikon F-mount to EOS adapter to mount to your camera.

The old lenses are made are often made of much better build quality (metal instead of plastic), and durable so they retain their value better. Also, they tend to offer a look that works really well for video (maybe a bit soft for stills). Having big and easy to reach manual focus rings are also a huge plus for us, as is manual aperture ring since the t2i doesn't make that easy to adjust in camera. Still shooters don't like them as much from what I've seen, but for video they are cheap and awesome.

Meanwhile, if you want something a little more modern, the Canon 50mm 1.8 is a great place to start, and will yield a much sharper and more pleasing image than the kit lens. Or, if you like the versatility of a zoom, go with the Tamrom 7-50mm at a constant 2.8 aperture.
Click to expand...

I agree with this - I think he meant to say Tamron 17-50 though (a lot of people swear by this lens) I also agree since you haven't invested yet,primes are a great way to go - 20 or 35, 50 and 85. You can get these 3 Canon prime lenses for $1200 or less. All of them get great reviews, have good build quality,good focus rings, and have apertures of 1.8 or 2.8.
 
John, thanks for The feedback, I just think that between where I am now and the top end, there's a huge gap.

Dishe: right, I think I need to invest in more pro lenses and most of all, experiment to get the right ones...

How many lenses are you guys using and for which purpose? Choosing a lens seems to be an art on its own! :)

Thanks for the input.
 
John, thanks for The feedback, I just think that between where I am now and the top end, there's a huge gap.
Click to expand...

But you are on your way. Your stuff looks much better than a lot going around from self proclaimed "experts". It reminds me a lot of the BBC television series style, which I like a lot.
 
Last edited:
pulpfiction007 said:
I agree with this - I think he meant to say Tamron 17-50 though (a lot of people swear by this lens) I also agree since you haven't invested yet,primes are a great way to go - 20 or 35, 50 and 85. You can get these 3 Canon prime lenses for $1200 or less. All of them get great reviews, have good build quality,good focus rings, and have apertures of 1.8 or 2.8.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, I typed that in a hurry. Tamron 17-50 is the one people love. You can get those primes for waaaay cheaper if you go Vintage style. I shoot mostly with a 50mm 1.4, a 28mm 2.0, and a 75-150mm zoom, which cost me about $300 all together. I've got others and I'm expanding my set as well, but those are the three I use the most and enough to get started if you don't want to spend more than the value of the camera up front... ;)

jerfai said:
John, thanks for The feedback, I just think that between where I am now and the top end, there's a huge gap.

Dishe: right, I think I need to invest in more pro lenses and most of all, experiment to get the right ones...

How many lenses are you guys using and for which purpose? Choosing a lens seems to be an art on its own! :)

Thanks for the input.
Click to expand...

In fact, there is a whole subsection of the forum on the topic that perhaps you missed:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?193-7D-Lens-Discussion

and here's the vintage lens thread in particular:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?201760-The-Vintage-Lens-Thread
 
Get other lens,shi.. i mean kit lens isnt too good,its ok for wide ngle shots sometimes but thats it.Get 28mm for regulr shooting with cinemascope crop and 50mm for close ups,get also 70-200mm zoom ,its useful for nice closeups with good flat perspective.Those arent expemsive pro lenses,just regular stuff.
In your stuff picture isnt issue,sound is.Its a bit late behind the picture,echo in wc is distracting.
 
@dishe: thanks, for the links it's full of info!

@bwwd: For my next movie, I'll invest in lenses since they can make quite a difference (although the man behind the camera eventually makes the difference!). for the sound issue, the out of sync comes for vimeo (it works fine on my computer). cheers for the feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top