T2i Music Video Pre-prod - NEED HELP!

[draven4]

Great! Cool to see when someone is pumped about a shoot! That's why we're all here! Also keep in mind when moving lights around to still try to keep continuity so that the light position and brightness and such looks similar to the wide shots. Hope I'm making sense.

When I P.A.'d long time ago on a slightly big budget film a grip told me -- every time the camera moves --- the lights move! This is pretty much true. The skill of the DP is to make it all look consistent but at the same time make each shot look top notch.

 

[jambredz]

if u want proper flares (i'm all for flares) get a streak filter. or add in post ...i personally like real flares....and short of an anamorphic adapter which u wont be using, a streak filter would be nice. watch this tutorial from our very own member here and u'll see how they look...in case u dont know http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5587PORymWI&feature=channel

 

[foreigndude]

Great! Cool to see when someone is pumped about a shoot! That's why we're all here! Also keep in mind when moving lights around to still try to keep continuity so that the light position and brightness and such looks similar to the wide shots. Hope I'm making sense. When I P.A.'d long time ago on a slightly big budget film a grip told me -- every time the camera moves --- the lights move! This is pretty much true. The skill of the DP is to make it all look consistent but at the same time make each shot look top notch.

Yeah, I'll keep that in mind. If I have to get the lights a bit closer in certain shots, I'll try to keep the similar look.

if u want proper flares (i'm all for flares) get a streak filter. or add in post ...i personally like real flares....and short of an anamorphic adapter which u wont be using, a streak filter would be nice. watch this tutorial from our very own member here and u'll see how they look...in case u dont know http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5587PORymWI&feature=channel

Haha, before I even clicked on that Youtube link, I had a feeling it was polcan99's tutorial. That is truly awesome and those lens flares look sweet, but I don't have time for that right now and it wasn't in my budget. I am probably going to get one later on.

 

[markblasco]

Throw the kit lens out.

This reply is not very helpful. The kit lens is just fine in terms of optical quality for this kind of work. It may not have as low an F-stop and it may be harder to focus with, but it can certainly produce great quality video, and there is no reason to just dismiss it outright.

 

[draven4]

@markblasco Which lenses do you own?

 

[dwyz]

Ohh lens fight.

 

[Psilocybe]

Here's the dealy though draven, at video resolutions you're not exactly running up against the sharpness limit of your lens. I've taken some excellent stills with the kit lens, and there are thousands of examples of excellent stills taken with that lens. If he had a specific problem, like depth of field, or low light shooting, then perhaps upgrading would be a good recommendation. As it stands though, he was reducing the brightness via shutter speed, so I'm not seeing that problem. I think it would work quite well, especially in a controlled lighting situation.

 

[foreigndude]

Here's the dealy though draven, at video resolutions you're not exactly running up against the sharpness limit of your lens. I've taken some excellent stills with the kit lens, and there are thousands of examples of excellent stills taken with that lens. If he had a specific problem, like depth of field, or low light shooting, then perhaps upgrading would be a good recommendation. As it stands though, he was reducing the brightness via shutter speed, so I'm not seeing that problem. I think it would work quite well, especially in a controlled lighting situation.

Psilocybe, thanks for steering the topic back on track

I have too shot some nice looking stills and clips with the kit lens. As far as reducing the brightness via shutter speed, I was only doing that while testing the stills, however, I will not be doing it during the video shoot. On that note, I really hope my blackwrap arrives on time!

 

[markblasco]

@markblasco Which lenses do you own?

I own several, including a kit lens, the 85mm 1.8, the tamron 17-55 2.8, and a couple of others that are in flux as I buy/sell/trade around.

The kit lens can give you very nice looking images if you are not looking for razor thin depth of field (which in my opinion is one of the things that makes so many DSLR videos look very amateur). There is nothing inherently wrong with the images it produces. It will not give you a very thin depth of field, and the mechanics of pulling focus with it are more difficult, but there is nothing about the image quality which makes it worth throwing out.

You can think about it this way: A music video shot on a t2i with the kit lens will look more "filmic" and visually flattering than almost ANY music video you see shot in the last 20 years that wasn't actually shot on film. If you cannot get the kit lens to look good, the problem isn't the equipment.

That being said, if you have the money to use a better lens, and you already have everything else that you need (lights, rigging, sets, costumes, etc), than going with a different lens can give you better results, but I guarantee you that if you took the kit lens, and you took a much nicer lens (let's say the canon 17-55 2.8) and filmed the same exact video twice, once with each lens using the same position and settings, the difference would be minor.

 

[draven4]

Here's the final thing I have to say about it since you seem so hard up on a kit lens that you seem to be missing. But in the end we can all just use what we want. In all honesty why buy a great camera and make films with a sh**ty lens. You're not getting the best out of the camera.

-- a kit lens does not have the quality of glass in it. Compare a shot to an L-glass and you will see the difference. Can they both capture an image, yes. Will there be a minor difference, yes sometimes, and other times you'll see the difference more. But usually it's those minor things photographers pay for.

-- is it smart to give advice to someone starting out to just use a kit lens. Not really.

-- reasons not to recommend a kit lens

1) slow aperture - you seem to think that if someone wants a fast aperture it is to get a "razor thin depth of field". Well I can tell you for sure that it is very important weather you would like to shoot razor thin or not, to have that option to be able to open up to f1.4 or f1.8. No only to have the option of "a razor thin depth of field" but because sometimes you need to simply grab a shot in lower light. This can be an absolute life saver. Being stuck at f3.5 will make you do things in a situation where you just don't have a light, like push the ISO up up. Grainy images start to appear. Go ahead and tell a new comer to stick with a kit lens, then wait and see when he is in a situation like that and finally buys a nice lens. You'll see that they'll rave about having the luxury to open up to f1.4. Not because they are amateur and just want an overused "razor thin depth of field".

2) lack of a constant aperture

3) soft image - tend to be softer than a higher quality lens with nice glass. Yeah we don't need it that sharp but go on youtube and type in 24mm Canon L 1.4 and see the footage shot with that lens. That lens has light gathering ability that kit lenses just don't have and it is beautiful.

4) poor build.


If you want to focus on the lower end of things and just say be happy with it because 20 years ago we didn't have it then that's your style then.


When a new person buys up some nice lenses they will see the difference. Bottom line. I've seen people on these same 7d forums reply back that they finally took the plunge and bought something better than a kit lens and it made a big difference.

Don't believe me, then a respected person Philip Bloom has mentioned to stay away from using kit lenses. It's on his 7d instructional video.

Do a youtube search for ... Canon 24mm f1.4L glass and see the look of that lens alone. Also try 35mm 1.4L, Sigma 30mm 1.4

 

[Psilocybe]

Well, Mr. draven, I'm afraid you've missed my point: For his application he doesn't seem to need the extra boost from a low f number, or the shallow depth of field, so he wouldn't gain much in that area. As for a constant aperture, that could be a problem if he were zooming during video. Whether that's his style, I don't know. Once again, at these resolutions, the softness of the glass isn't going to make anywhere near the kind of difference it would with stills, even on a 2k projector. Build quality is kind of subjective; I haven't run into any problems with the build quality on the kit lens.

Anyway, I guess I just mean to say that the kit lens isn't quite as bad as you make it out to be. I've seen some truly astounding things shot on the kit lens. In fact, here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqn6mWuqwE0

If that isn't a quality "filmic" look, I'm not sure what is.

To me, you really don't have to have an L lens to get pro results, and I think the above video can attest to that. Another example is the 50mm f 1.8. That is a raging beast of a lens for under $100 new. It's quite sharp at 2.5 and above, and its chromatic aberration and distortion is really stellar, especially for the price. Yeah, the focus ring isn't built for prebuilt dslr focus puller rigs, but again, this doesn't make it impossible to work with.

In summary, yes, it does take technique, skill, and a bit of artistic flare to work with equipment that's not in the "pro" line, but that doesn't mean it's junk, or that you can't get virtually the same results.

 

[foreigndude]

Anyway, I guess I just mean to say that the kit lens isn't quite as bad as you make it out to be. I've seen some truly astounding things shot on the kit lens. In fact, here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqn6mWuqwE0
If that isn't a quality "filmic" look, I'm not sure what is.

I remember seeing this. Beautiful and inspiring.

For this music video that I'll be working on, we will also have a scripted part, for which I may rent a wide angle lens. The reason being that most of the scripted part will happen in the car and in a bathroom (girl getting ready for a date kind of a thing).

 

[Psilocybe]

Ahh, very nice! I hope we get to see it finished sometime! What are you thinking of renting? It would be really great to see some wide angle work done with the T2i.

 

[foreigndude]

Ahh, very nice! I hope we get to see it finished sometime! What are you thinking of renting? It would be really great to see some wide angle work done with the T2i.

I am hoping to rent the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L Mark II USM. It would run me about $115 for a whole week...I won't be shooting with it for more than a couple days, but would like to play with it a bit.

 

[markblasco]

Here's the final thing I have to say about it since you seem so hard up on a kit lens that you seem to be missing. But in the end we can all just use what we want. In all honesty why buy a great camera and make films with a sh**ty lens. You're not getting the best out of the camera.

-- a kit lens does not have the quality of glass in it. Compare a shot to an L-glass and you will see the difference. Can they both capture an image, yes. Will there be a minor difference, yes sometimes, and other times you'll see the difference more. But usually it's those minor things photographers pay for.

-- is it smart to give advice to someone starting out to just use a kit lens. Not really.

-- reasons not to recommend a kit lens

1) slow aperture - you seem to think that if someone wants a fast aperture it is to get a "razor thin depth of field". Well I can tell you for sure that it is very important weather you would like to shoot razor thin or not, to have that option to be able to open up to f1.4 or f1.8. No only to have the option of "a razor thin depth of field" but because sometimes you need to simply grab a shot in lower light. This can be an absolute life saver. Being stuck at f3.5 will make you do things in a situation where you just don't have a light, like push the ISO up up. Grainy images start to appear. Go ahead and tell a new comer to stick with a kit lens, then wait and see when he is in a situation like that and finally buys a nice lens. You'll see that they'll rave about having the luxury to open up to f1.4. Not because they are amateur and just want an overused "razor thin depth of field".

2) lack of a constant aperture

3) soft image - tend to be softer than a higher quality lens with nice glass. Yeah we don't need it that sharp but go on youtube and type in 24mm Canon L 1.4 and see the footage shot with that lens. That lens has light gathering ability that kit lenses just don't have and it is beautiful.

4) poor build.


If you want to focus on the lower end of things and just say be happy with it because 20 years ago we didn't have it then that's your style then.


When a new person buys up some nice lenses they will see the difference. Bottom line. I've seen people on these same 7d forums reply back that they finally took the plunge and bought something better than a kit lens and it made a big difference.

Don't believe me, then a respected person Philip Bloom has mentioned to stay away from using kit lenses. It's on his 7d instructional video.

Do a youtube search for ... Canon 24mm f1.4L glass and see the look of that lens alone. Also try 35mm 1.4L, Sigma 30mm 1.4

OK, I don't deny that you have some valid points (although I would disagree that the kit lens is not sharp enough to do video, especially since most people advocate turning the sharpness down on the camera and adding it back in in post).

Yes, having a lens that goes to 1.8 or 1.4 will help you in low light situations. However, the original poster clearly is using lighting, and therefor it is not vital that he can open up the aperture that wide. If he were out shooting on the street with no lights than I wouldn't suggest the kit lens, but he is on a set with lighting.

I agree that more expensive lenses are better than the kit lens in many ways, be it build quality, constant aperture, usability, etc. This does not mean the kit lens is garbage. It is quite usable, and shouldn't be dismissed outright. If you have the means for a better lens, than go ahead and use a better one. But in this case, for a video set with adequate lighting, the kit lens is not going to be the thing that makes your video look bad.

While I respect Philip Bloom, if you go by his advice, everyone should have $20,000 invested into lenses, with an additional $5,000 invested into the camera support rig.

 

[foreigndude]

While I respect Philip Bloom, if you go by his advice, everyone should have $20,000 invested into lenses, with an additional $5,000 invested into the camera support rig.

...and then you could have a 'fawkin byootifol bokeh!"

 

[draven4]

Dude you're missing the point.

It's not that I don't think the kit lens can do the job. (I get this, I get it really)

All I'm saying is that having a lens that is made of better glass and gives you that aperture to open up is a life saver.

Were you not reading what I posted about having the ability to open up the lens in a situation where needed?

That was my point. So if you tell a newbe to just stick with a kit lens then they might be screwed when they got into situation where they could have opened up the aperture more. That's my main point.

So stop replying back... well fantastic images can be had with a kit lens. I know that, but it is limiting because of the f-stop in certain situations.

Do your homework. A constant aperture's main benefit is simply being able to adjust your lens focal length and stay at the same f-stop. (seems like that you know but you think it is just a benefit for when someone wants to zoom in on a take) It is very important just in general, to be able to do that to keep your ISO and shutter speed consistent when shooting to get a constant look. (constant aperture doesn't JUST benefit when zooming in) (besides how many of us use zoom in on takes?)

Does a wider f-stop apply to him. Well honestly you never know. He might get into a situation where a more open f-stop could have benefited his video had he had another lens with a better f-stop.

I'm am not saying we all need L-lenses because shure as heck we can't all afford them. I can't. But I was just using the example how quality glass makes a bit of a difference and most importantly that ability to open up when needed.

Here is a simple example. Very simple and quick.

Look at this youtube video of this guy shot with the 24mm 1.4L lens. Look at the light gathering ability of it. Now if someone shot in the same exact light situation I guarantee there will be a quality difference using a kit lens. In fact first off you'd need more light on the first shot because the kit lens wouldn't open up that much. Second in trying to capture the right exposure you'd have to push up the ISO and the image would become grainy.


Here is some better glass than a kit lens. Not necessarily L glass.
Sigma 30mm 1.4
You give a daylight example and I give some examples with low light. Kit lenses fail in low light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP1GrmM8Dc8&feature=related

L

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPgImFwO4wc&feature=related

Slider test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ohyWWccIug

Daylight fishnets example. Right away the lens quality can be seen. Shooting a simple net.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrT_I-vizEs&feature=related

Here's a NIKKOR 35mm f2 (vintage) better than a kit. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQp9rcKEbY&feature=related

 

[markblasco]

I am hoping to rent the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L Mark II USM. It would run me about $115 for a whole week...I won't be shooting with it for more than a couple days, but would like to play with it a bit.

The Tokina 11-16 is widely hailed as a great wide angle lens, and the zoom on it would give you some options. It also goes wider, which might be needed for something like the interior of a car. I would suggest you see if your rental place has one available.

 

[foreigndude]

The Tamron 11-16 is widely hailed as a great wide angle lens, and the zoom on it would give you some options. It also goes wider, which might be needed for something like the interior of a car. I would suggest you see if your rental place has one available.

If I rent, I'd get it at BorrowLenses (.com). They do have it in stock and it would run me ~$87. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[markblasco]

If I rent, I'd get it at BorrowLenses (.com). They do have it in stock and it would run me ~$87. Thanks for the suggestion.

OK, before you do anything, I think I meant the Tokina 11-16, not the Tamron. I always get the names confused, because the Tamron is often suggested for the 17-50 2.8 (which I have and it works very well), but it is the Tokina 11-16 which people love.