foreigndude
Member
That one should be available in a few days. Same price... http://goo.gl/j3UMq
T2i Music Video Pre-prod - NEED HELP!
- Thread starter foreigndude
- Start date
Snapper123
Well-known member
About lenses, the reality is that anyone who actually tests things will tell you that the camera and it's video recording technology does more to harm the video image than any lens could possibly imagine doing. The difference that Canon's video technology makes onto recording video is almost like putting a piece of blurry plastic in front of the human eye. Even kit lens owners can snap a shot with a kit lens, look at it at 1:1, and while it won't look perfect, it'll look 10x better than the videos they get with that very same lens. It's simply the video technology that muddies everything up, and even the photography technology does it to a certain extent with photographs. But the reality is: use a dusty old kit lens and switch your photograph quality to L, snap a photo of something at a realistic distance, and then zoom in to 1:1 on even just the LCD, and you'll see amazing detail. Take a video using that exact same position and picture style settings, then view the 1:1 video on your computer, and it'll look like someone put a piece of plastic in front of the lens between the takes. It's nothing to do with the glass. If if looks great in a 1:1 photograph, then it should look great in a 1:1 video. But it doesn't, and that's Canon's fault, not the people who didn't foolishly spend $1,000 on a L lens because some guy at the camera store said "Hey, you spend an arm and a leg on a camera, why not do it on a lens too?"
Now that's not to say more expensive lenses don't make things easier, they certainly do (and if someone would hurry up and make a small-bodied, 15-135mm 2.8 IS lens, I'd pay possibly even more than $1,000 for it), but slight difference in glass quality sure wouldn't be the reason, and could only serve as a bonus.
Here's the difference between a 1:1 crop photograph taken with the 50mm 1.8 ($100), on the left, and then a 1:1 crop of a video taken of the exact same shot, on the right:
It looks like I must have slapped on a "L lens" for the crop on the left. For the life of me, I don't understand why the crop on the right is "smaller" though, I cropped both of these from 1:1 views, and it shouldn't matter that the aspect ratios for photos and videos are different, the native objects should still be the same size at 1:1 view, as pixel size never changes. Hm.
Now that's not to say more expensive lenses don't make things easier, they certainly do (and if someone would hurry up and make a small-bodied, 15-135mm 2.8 IS lens, I'd pay possibly even more than $1,000 for it), but slight difference in glass quality sure wouldn't be the reason, and could only serve as a bonus.
Here's the difference between a 1:1 crop photograph taken with the 50mm 1.8 ($100), on the left, and then a 1:1 crop of a video taken of the exact same shot, on the right:
It looks like I must have slapped on a "L lens" for the crop on the left. For the life of me, I don't understand why the crop on the right is "smaller" though, I cropped both of these from 1:1 views, and it shouldn't matter that the aspect ratios for photos and videos are different, the native objects should still be the same size at 1:1 view, as pixel size never changes. Hm.
Last edited:
True, better test would be to show a 1:1 crop of Kit to Video (as above) then good lens glass to Video. Then 1:1 Kit to good lens glass. (side by side video)
I agree about the loss.
Because if you are loosing that much detail already then might as well start with the best lens possible.
I agree about the loss.
Because if you are loosing that much detail already then might as well start with the best lens possible.
Last edited:
markblasco
Well-known member
Another thing you might want to think about that doesn't involve lenses:
You are probably shooting at 24P. One trick (that you may or may not know about) is to have a version of the song which is sped up by 25%. Play that version, and film some of the shots in 30P. Then, in post, slow those shots down by 20% (down to 24P), and they will sync up with the original song, but they will have a subtle slow motion effect. It won't be a John Woo level of slowness, but it will be noticeable and give those shots a bit of a dreamy quality, which works well for music video's.
You are probably shooting at 24P. One trick (that you may or may not know about) is to have a version of the song which is sped up by 25%. Play that version, and film some of the shots in 30P. Then, in post, slow those shots down by 20% (down to 24P), and they will sync up with the original song, but they will have a subtle slow motion effect. It won't be a John Woo level of slowness, but it will be noticeable and give those shots a bit of a dreamy quality, which works well for music video's.
foreigndude
Member
Update
Update
markblasco,
I've experimented with this before, so I am aware of the the trick. I shot the video in 24p this Saturday and I have about 2:30 of footage all together. We talked about the overcranking options, but the decision was made that we should go with 24p. The scripted part, which I will be shooting soon (hopefully) may involve some of that to give the story the 'dreamy' look. The funniest thing was trying to get the band to play to a speed-up version of the song (and shooting in 60i)...lip-synch was impossible...due to all the laughter at least.
Anyway, the biggest problem that I noticed already on some of the trans-coded footage is focus. There is a bunch of shots where my focus isn't good, but we'll see what comes out of it. As far as the lighting goes, I think it went very well; better than I expected. I ended up mixing tungsten lights with daylight lights, because adding a CTB gel to the tungsten lights decreased my light greatly (as expected).
Most shots were filmed with a dolly and/or tripod combination - about 70%. The others were handheld, with LCD loupe as only additional point of contact for stability. I had a friend help with setting up some shots (he can be seen in all the BTS photos below). That helped tremendously, especially because of time constraints.
Some things that I had planned for the shoot didn't pan out because I didn't receive/get certain items on time: Glidecam4000 (borrowed, couldn't balance it to save my frickin life), my shoulder rig didn't arrive, blackwrap didn't arrive (ended up using foam core and tape to block off light).
Things weren't perfect by any means and I have a lot to learn, but all things considered, what's most important to me is that everybody is satisfied with the raw footage. Definitely a learning experience. And an awesome one.
Here are some BTS photos (cellphone) to give you guys an idea of the two set-ups we did:
Also, here is a screenshot of transcoded footage (this was done while transcoding other files and this particular clip was skipping like a mofo, but I managed to grab this. I crushed the blacks and played with the contrast/saturation a tiny bit. This is kind of what I'm going for:
Note: This image was scaled down quickly and the noise level went up the wazoo, so ignore that for now
Update
markblasco,
I've experimented with this before, so I am aware of the the trick. I shot the video in 24p this Saturday and I have about 2:30 of footage all together. We talked about the overcranking options, but the decision was made that we should go with 24p. The scripted part, which I will be shooting soon (hopefully) may involve some of that to give the story the 'dreamy' look. The funniest thing was trying to get the band to play to a speed-up version of the song (and shooting in 60i)...lip-synch was impossible...due to all the laughter at least.
Anyway, the biggest problem that I noticed already on some of the trans-coded footage is focus. There is a bunch of shots where my focus isn't good, but we'll see what comes out of it. As far as the lighting goes, I think it went very well; better than I expected. I ended up mixing tungsten lights with daylight lights, because adding a CTB gel to the tungsten lights decreased my light greatly (as expected).
Most shots were filmed with a dolly and/or tripod combination - about 70%. The others were handheld, with LCD loupe as only additional point of contact for stability. I had a friend help with setting up some shots (he can be seen in all the BTS photos below). That helped tremendously, especially because of time constraints.
Some things that I had planned for the shoot didn't pan out because I didn't receive/get certain items on time: Glidecam4000 (borrowed, couldn't balance it to save my frickin life), my shoulder rig didn't arrive, blackwrap didn't arrive (ended up using foam core and tape to block off light).
Things weren't perfect by any means and I have a lot to learn, but all things considered, what's most important to me is that everybody is satisfied with the raw footage. Definitely a learning experience. And an awesome one.
Here are some BTS photos (cellphone) to give you guys an idea of the two set-ups we did:
Also, here is a screenshot of transcoded footage (this was done while transcoding other files and this particular clip was skipping like a mofo, but I managed to grab this. I crushed the blacks and played with the contrast/saturation a tiny bit. This is kind of what I'm going for:
Note: This image was scaled down quickly and the noise level went up the wazoo, so ignore that for now
Last edited:
Snapper123
Well-known member
Here's an example for the 18-55mm kit lens, both crops were taken with the same exact lens, focal length, picture style settings, aperture, ect ect, but the crop on the left is from the photograph and the crop on the right is from the video.
Can someone tell me what they spot wrong with the crop on the left and how that crop would not be used in an official film production? Because my eyes see nothing wrong. But when you look at the video crop, it looks horrible, as though someone put plastic in front of the lens. This is the "plastic" look that many people associate with the kit lens, but it is not the kit lens doing it at all, it is Canon's fraudulent camera. Both Nikon, Panasonic, and Pentax have made 1080P/1080i cameras that do this quality difference to a lesser extent.
P.S. The left crop is a just a bit JPEG-ish because I do these crops in a hurry and I don't bother with 30-minutes of processing with RAW, but the point is still there in exact form. The kit lens has just as good as glass as anything you'll find, it's incredibly sharp and I've taken some of the best photographs of my experience with it. If it was a bad lens, it would look even worse in the JPEG than it does in the video crop, but it does not, it looks 10X better.
As well, I'm not the only one suggesting this, a famous DSLR bloggist did a bunch of tests proving the same exact thing, it caused a pretty big uproar but the L lens fanatics and pro-Canon guys refuse to ever mention it whenever people ask why the quality sucks. I'm not for or against Canon, I just want to make quality films that look realistic and not like a Lensbaby product, so concerning that, a change to a Nikon, Pentax, or Panasonic camera will most likely make a bigger difference than an expensive lens would ever dream of.
Can someone tell me what they spot wrong with the crop on the left and how that crop would not be used in an official film production? Because my eyes see nothing wrong. But when you look at the video crop, it looks horrible, as though someone put plastic in front of the lens. This is the "plastic" look that many people associate with the kit lens, but it is not the kit lens doing it at all, it is Canon's fraudulent camera. Both Nikon, Panasonic, and Pentax have made 1080P/1080i cameras that do this quality difference to a lesser extent.
P.S. The left crop is a just a bit JPEG-ish because I do these crops in a hurry and I don't bother with 30-minutes of processing with RAW, but the point is still there in exact form. The kit lens has just as good as glass as anything you'll find, it's incredibly sharp and I've taken some of the best photographs of my experience with it. If it was a bad lens, it would look even worse in the JPEG than it does in the video crop, but it does not, it looks 10X better.
As well, I'm not the only one suggesting this, a famous DSLR bloggist did a bunch of tests proving the same exact thing, it caused a pretty big uproar but the L lens fanatics and pro-Canon guys refuse to ever mention it whenever people ask why the quality sucks. I'm not for or against Canon, I just want to make quality films that look realistic and not like a Lensbaby product, so concerning that, a change to a Nikon, Pentax, or Panasonic camera will most likely make a bigger difference than an expensive lens would ever dream of.
Last edited:
You .... are ... missing the point. Being able to open up with a fast aperture is a life saver. Not to mention an additional look. L lens or not. Faster glass in general is a plus.
Why are you comparing one lens to itself? Why a still to video grab. That doesn't matter in the end.
Test a --- good lens video grab next to ---a kit lens -- video grabs only.
That plastic look happens from the downscaling from the sensor to video size.
Knowing how much your video degrades when downscaling to video wouldn't it make more sense to use the best lens you can get your hands on (that budget would allow)?
Why are you comparing one lens to itself? Why a still to video grab. That doesn't matter in the end.
Test a --- good lens video grab next to ---a kit lens -- video grabs only.
That plastic look happens from the downscaling from the sensor to video size.
Knowing how much your video degrades when downscaling to video wouldn't it make more sense to use the best lens you can get your hands on (that budget would allow)?
foreigndude
Member
Can we stop with the lens wars, please?
Thanks :thumbsup:
Thanks :thumbsup:
foreigndude
Member
Hey everyone, I'm back! The video has been finished and posted on Youtube (officially) on 3/10. It has almost 4000 views already and this band is completely new and unknown. They're crediting their (mini) success mostly to this video. First things first - I made a ton of mistakes in every aspect. Shooting, lighting, composing, framing, and god, editing. For the editing part, some things were left on purpose. But, all in all, I couldn't be happier. More importantly, the band is very happy with it. Have I learned a lot? Hell yes. I couldn't have done without this community!
Is there help for a million light years of improvement? It would be pathetic to say "no". This being my very first music video, or video gig in general, it's a fricking Avatar.
For those interested in seeing it, here it is. It's a foreign language video and the song is about long distance relationships. The title roughly translates to "Shortcut to the dream".
Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8K7XNNpH7I
As I mentioned, band largely credits the video for it's success on Facebook and, get this, getting air play on a few BIG market radio stations in Europe, where they're originally from! Mission accomplished.
Is there help for a million light years of improvement? It would be pathetic to say "no". This being my very first music video, or video gig in general, it's a fricking Avatar.
For those interested in seeing it, here it is. It's a foreign language video and the song is about long distance relationships. The title roughly translates to "Shortcut to the dream".
Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8K7XNNpH7I
As I mentioned, band largely credits the video for it's success on Facebook and, get this, getting air play on a few BIG market radio stations in Europe, where they're originally from! Mission accomplished.
recordingwhiz
Well-known member
Looks nice. congrats, good work
vision_filmz
Carbonite Member
I like the B roll shots, but not so much the performance scene in the warehouse. I think that wide and medium shots look pretty bland and dead. Should have done some kind of effect on that scene to spice it up, other than that good job for a project.
markblasco
Well-known member
First of all, congrats, I wouldn't have guessed that this is your first music video after watching it. It was very well done.
A few notes on things that stood out for me:
All of the B roll had a very shallow depth of field, and all of the performance had a very deep depth of field, which when combined back and forth, made them not feel tied in. It was almost like two separate music video's were cut together.
I found it a little jarring when the panning or zooming would start halfway into a cut. I would have preferred it if the pan or zoom was already happening when you cut to each angle. I found the zooming in general to not work well for me.
The wide shot of the band seemed weird. For some reason I noticed that there was a lot of floor. I don't know why that stuck out. Form what I remember of the photo's of the set, it seemed pretty big, but with how it was shot, it seemed pretty small. If you had more room, maybe backing up some to get more of a sense of space?
You could have used more closeups, and tighter closeups. There seemed to be a lot of wide shots of the band, but I would have liked to see other things, like a real closeup of the drummer from below the hihat, or a shot of the singer from the side where you can see him really wailing into the microphone.
After seeing this, I'm excited to see your next video, I'm sure it is going to be great!
A few notes on things that stood out for me:
All of the B roll had a very shallow depth of field, and all of the performance had a very deep depth of field, which when combined back and forth, made them not feel tied in. It was almost like two separate music video's were cut together.
I found it a little jarring when the panning or zooming would start halfway into a cut. I would have preferred it if the pan or zoom was already happening when you cut to each angle. I found the zooming in general to not work well for me.
The wide shot of the band seemed weird. For some reason I noticed that there was a lot of floor. I don't know why that stuck out. Form what I remember of the photo's of the set, it seemed pretty big, but with how it was shot, it seemed pretty small. If you had more room, maybe backing up some to get more of a sense of space?
You could have used more closeups, and tighter closeups. There seemed to be a lot of wide shots of the band, but I would have liked to see other things, like a real closeup of the drummer from below the hihat, or a shot of the singer from the side where you can see him really wailing into the microphone.
After seeing this, I'm excited to see your next video, I'm sure it is going to be great!
foreigndude
Member
Hey everyone,
Thank you so much for the feedback. I really appreciate the constructive criticism. Like I said before, I am here to learn.
Markblasco, I had some close-up shots taken, and honestly, I didn't know what to do with them. I'd cut them into the mix and it just seemed WEIRD. Weirder than my wide shot
As far as doing shots from other angles, I ran into an issue that wasn't there before - there was a big ass semi right behind me and on the band's right side, there was a brand new Chevrolet Malibu, and a bunch of parts of semi trucks, so I was a bit limited. Thanks for the editing hint (panning, tilting while cutting). The "zoom" part - agreed. I don't think I'll be doing much of that any more.
I already got a couple offers for more music videos after people saw this one. Time to get better!
Thank you so much for the feedback. I really appreciate the constructive criticism. Like I said before, I am here to learn.
Markblasco, I had some close-up shots taken, and honestly, I didn't know what to do with them. I'd cut them into the mix and it just seemed WEIRD. Weirder than my wide shot
As far as doing shots from other angles, I ran into an issue that wasn't there before - there was a big ass semi right behind me and on the band's right side, there was a brand new Chevrolet Malibu, and a bunch of parts of semi trucks, so I was a bit limited. Thanks for the editing hint (panning, tilting while cutting). The "zoom" part - agreed. I don't think I'll be doing much of that any more.
I already got a couple offers for more music videos after people saw this one. Time to get better!
markblasco
Well-known member
Keep up the positive attitude and willingness to learn, and in no time you'll be a pro at this. As for how to incorporate closeups, just spend a little time watching some video's by real big name bands (who can hire expensive video teams and directors) and see how they cut together a live performance section. I think your B-roll stuff worked really well, so try to find some performance video's. Groups like the Foo Fighters, Metallica, Nickelback, etc. would be a good place to start, as their video's are likely to have lots of performance pieces to them (rather than more artsy bands who may never even show the band in the video).
62stratplaya
Member
:thumbsup: Nice job on the final composition.