Music video with my M42 50mm 1.8 lens

Derkoi

Derkoi

Well-known member
First time out with this lens, really happy with the results.

Pentacon MC 50mm f1.8 M42 lens with adapter.
ISO 100, aperture at 1.8, used shutter speed on full to expose as I didn't have the right size ND filters for the lens.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
looks good, I liked the framing. I'd like to have seen more places than a grassy field though.
 
This is good. Nice colours too. The only critique I have is that it is a bit too static. Even if the song is acoustic, I would have expected to see cuts of them standing up and dancing-moving a bit (on a stage, or in a studio) for the more rythmic parts of the song. Maybe having a microphone in front of the girl on these standing shots would have appeared more natural, given the echo of the voice.
What was your shutter speed to shoot wide open without ND filter in full sunlight?
The Pentacon 50 1.8 is a very nice, inexpensive lens going to almost macro.
 
Last edited:
bimdas said:
looks good, I liked the framing. I'd like to have seen more places than a grassy field though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ideally so would i but this wasn't really planned and we had to scout the areas for locations on the day of the shoot.

kostas said:
This is good. Nice colours too. The only critique I have is that it is a bit too static. Even if the song is acoustic, I would have expected to see cuts of them standing up and dancing-moving a bit (on a stage, or in a studio) for the more rythmic parts of the song. Maybe having a microphone in front of the girl on these standing shots would have appeared more natural, given the echo of the voice.
What was your shutter speed to shoot wide open without ND filter in full sunlight?
The Pentacon 50 1.8 is a very nice, inexpensive lens going to almost macro.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'd have done more but it was a quick video for some friends and we didn't plan it, just got together and filmed it when we found the location. I'd love to have had a slider to give some motion but my money ran out. lol

Shutter speed was on max, 4000 or around 2000 in the shade.
 
Very nice video. Loved the pacing, and the lens was a really great choice.
Also, did you use more than 1 camera or did you guys just repeat doing the song each time with different angles (yea i'm new lol).
 
Justin R. said:
Very nice video. Loved the pacing, and the lens was a really great choice.
Also, did you use more than 1 camera or did you guys just repeat doing the song each time with different angles (yea i'm new lol).
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Just used one camera. What i do is get a take for each band member and focus only on that member, so when editing i can always cut to them when i want, then i get a master wide shot of all of them, and then i get a random shot where i do whatever. Covers all angles for me. :)
 
Gotta get one of those lenses for my kit. Colors look great. One thing about the uber-highs hutter speed is that it exposes the waving action of the strings... not necessarily a great look. Shooting everything at 1.8 gives you such shallow DOF, and when it's in every shot it becomes a bit uninteresting after a short time. Keep the eye moving: give the viewer something to engage the brain a little more.

I'll echo what has been said about the piece being a bit static, but then my biggest challenge as a viewer/listener was sticking with the song... the guitar needs new strings and a better tuning job, and there's way too much reverb. Sounds like the recording was a home-spun demo that wasn't done very well. Her vocals fall behind in the mix too often, and the guitar is both muddy and boomy.
 
C2V said:
but then my biggest challenge as a viewer/listener was sticking with the song... the guitar needs new strings and a better tuning job, and there's way too much reverb. Sounds like the recording was a home-spun demo that wasn't done very well. Her vocals fall behind in the mix too often, and the guitar is both muddy and boomy.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was a home demo, i had nothing to do with that. I don't like the reverb on the vocals myself but it's not my song. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top