Impact of Changing Shutter Speed On Video / Shallow DOF

S

scrow9

Member
So I am waiting for Amazon to deliver my Fader ND but I thought I'd go out this morning to a local recreational lake area and try out my new T2i in 1080p 24 mode. My goal was to film some shallow depth of field video using the widest aperture my lenses could offer

Arrived at 8am on a sunny morning but not super bright outside or glare-y.

Immediately I found that my picture in Live View mode was waaay blown out, literally a white screen.
icon_mad.gif


To deal with this, I set the ISO to the lowest it would go (100) - that didn't help much. Next, I set aside my shallow DOF goal and tried to use a F stop that cut down the light but still no go. The only thing I could get to work was increasing the shutter speed from 50 where, Ideally, I would have liked to keep it ( 180 degree rule)

So here's my question - if you find yourself in a pinch like I did and have to increase the shutter speed, what impact will that higher shutter speed have on my video?

I know the films like Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan used VERY high shutter speeds to get a staccato look to the video but assuming I didn't push it quite THAT far, what can I expect to see?
 
The shorter the shutter speed, the crisper the images and the less motion blur and the more staccato the motion. The degree of the effect you experience is directly related to how much shorter a shutter you use.
 
Jordan - not sure what I should be looking for in your video, did you shoot the entire thing with a higher shutter speed or...?
 
scrow9 said:
Jordan - not sure what I should be looking for in your video, did you shoot the entire thing with a higher shutter speed or...?
Click to expand...

It's not my video. If you read through the thread, you'll see that the OP used a short shutter speed.
 
A Variable ND filter should be in your camera bag for this sort of situation. Because sometimes it's so bright out that you can't dial out enough ISO and shutter to get a good shot at wide open apertures. That's what an ND filter is designed to do.

Noah
 
Yes Noah, I totally agree. If you read the first line of my post you will see that it hadn't arrived yet - I get it tomorrow.
 
If it's a real job, I wouldn't mess with the Shutter speeds or you might get some weird results. If you're just messing around, then that's another case.

Since you're waiting for you Fader ND, do you just have some traditional ND 3,6 and 9s laying around? Just use those in the meantime.

Some people say they shoot without anything in front of the lens, but I just DON'T see how you possibly can shoot without NDs, either traditional or Fader because you just can't obtain the proper exposure.

For video, there are set shutter speeds that you should work (24fps = 50 shutter, 30fps = 60 shutter, 60 fps = 120 Shutter) with and you should not adjust the shutter speed to compensate for exposure.

You can get away with that for stills, but not so much for video. Only mess with the shutter speed if you want to get a certain effect on purpose (like the Saving Private Ryan look). But don't mess with it to get proper exposure. That's what NDs are for.
 
Shutter speed once available on video cameras in the 80s gave video the same features stills people had had for years - the ability to have bur on fast motion, or not. Shutter speed, aperture and neutral density are all inter-twined exposure components. You can't say a high shutter is not to be used, it's just better suited to certain shots. If the object is to capture fast moving objects as sharply as possible, then it's perfect for the job. If you use it inappropriately, it looks odd. When they started to use it on Grand Prix programmes lots of people though the cars were going slower, because the cars stayed in sharp focus as they went across the frame.

However - a question. I've never seen a variable ND filter. Is it some kind of polariser that rotates on another?
 
An alternative to using ND: you can add motion blur in post. There are a few plugins which work very well.


I run at high shutter speed if I know I'm gonna steadymove in post, because it gives crisp edges for steadymove to work its magic;

also the rolling shutter plugin works better with crisp edges...


then when done I add the motion blur
 
Paulears - yes that's a pretty accurate description, there are two major brands out there, the best one is from Singh Ray but is very expensive, a good alternative is called the Fader ND and is from a company called something like Light Craft Workshop, you can find it easily.

They cut down the exposure by up to 8 stops which is really amazing
 
Fader ND is not good optically. You can see it on tele shots if you just look through the x5 & x10 on screen. That's why its cheap - plastic lenses. Both brands use a circular polarizer with a linear pol in front.
 
That's probably too but no one is going to be viewing my video at 5 or 10x the original size. The Fader is pretty much the standard ND choice for professionals like Philip Bloom and Vincent Laforet and that's more than good enough for me.

I think the bar for "sharpness" when shooting video with a DSLR is a lot lower than what pro photographers want. In fact, in video, I don't even WANT sharpness all that much.

Even 1080p video (the best we can produce right now) can barely be considered a 2K format which is very low compared to still resolutions.
 
Pick your own poison. Its pretty bad when you use a long lens. If you don't care about sharpness throw away your Canons and go with Sigma. If Phil Bloom doesn't care about sharpness why is he using Zeiss lenses. Phil also has the Singh-Ray. He tried the fader ND and said it looked the same to him. But Phil doesn't have time to do exhaustive tests and he's often missed those kinds of things. He's too busy making beautiful pictures. Anyway its your choice - just a heads up.
 
Last edited:
The fader nd is fine with video. Sure for stills it cuts down the sharpness by a considerable amount but for video it's perfectly fine.
Why does Bloom use zeiss? I don't know, maybe he can afford it. My knowledge is he also uses nikon and canon glass and it doesn' matter what glass he uses, he seems to be able to create great looking images either way. I'm sure he's even made good looking shots with the stock gh-1 lens and an iphone. Great expensive glass doesn't magically give you awesome skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top