GH2 Shooting actors in front of the moon (2400mm vid included)

ErikTande

ErikTande

Well-known member
I'm planning on shooting some shots for a music video in front of the moon tomorrow and Saturday. The moon rises here at 5:30 and 6:30 pm respectively. My plan is to get about 100 yards from the actors, get the camera pointed where the moon will rise and have them sing their parts.

I'm just hoping I can get both the moon and the actors in focus, I plan on shooting at f16 or f22. Plus it rises really fast, so we'll only get one or two takes.

I'm also concerned with shooting through that much atmosphere, when the moon is on the horizon I'm probably going to get more distortion than when it's in the sky.


I shot this test about an hour ago, let me know if my math is off. The shots of the GH2 were taken with my Sony Cybershot, that little camera shoots 1080 and impresses me every time I use it.

password = moon

 
Last edited:
Very interested in seeing a final shot... Will you post it before the entire music vid is to completion?
 
I think you're doing everything right thus far.
You could have maybe checked your focal depth by having a person as a stand-in for your test shot, but at f22 you're probably fine.
Count me in as someone who wants to see the final shot!
 
^^ I couldn't have anyone in front of it today, the moon was too high by the time I got home. It's going to be a rush to get setup tomorrow, but tomorrow is mostly for testing the location anyway. On Saturday the moon will be almost 100% full, so those will probably be the takes we use. We'll see! I'll post the results next week whether they work out or not.

The video has a release date of July 1st, I'll definitely post it here.



And yeah, f22 will be my best bet. The lens tends to be just a little soft, especially when you add the 2x converter and the m4/3 adapter to an already old lens. I hope it works, I think it will look really cool to see someone completely engulfed by the moon.

I'm thinking knees up, or maybe even full body (head to toe) for framing.
 
ErikTande said:
^^ I couldn't have anyone in front of it today, the moon was too high by the time I got home. It's going to be a rush to get setup tomorrow, but tomorrow is mostly for testing the location anyway. On Saturday the moon will be almost 100% full, so those will probably be the takes we use. We'll see! I'll post the results next week whether they work out or not.

The video has a release date of July 1st, I'll definitely post it here.



And yeah, f22 will be my best bet. The lens tends to be just a little soft, especially when you add the 2x converter and the m4/3 adapter to an already old lens. I hope it works, I think it will look really cool to see someone completely engulfed by the moon.

I'm thinking knees up, or maybe even full body (head to toe) for framing.
Click to expand...

The moon subtends an angle of arc of .54 deg. Which I believe your 2400 lens set up is delivering...

Here is a general calculator for figuring out these sorts of things. I used it with 2400mm lens, and a multiplier factor of 2x relative to still 35mm film, and basically... take walkitalkis...

From http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

At 1200 feet distance:

Height of Field of View: 4 feet
Width of FOV: 8 feet.

Recall that still 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 3:2... so the 16:9 will be slightly wider...

For a near 'full' height shot:

At 1500 feet distance:

Height: 7 feet
Width: 11 feet.

----------

On the topic of DoF...

From http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

This one only went up to 1200mm lenses, @ f/16, and selecting GH-2 camera type...
Subject distance 1200 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 1131.3 ft
Far limit 1277.6 ft
Total 146.4 ft

In front of subject 68.7 ft (47%)
Behind subject 77.6 ft (53%)

Hyperfocal distance 19689 ft
Circle of confusion 0.015 mm

The hyperfocal distance of about 4 miles means... you are going to have fuzzy moon... or fuzzy people...

This is one of the reasons why these sorts of shots are in fact 'composites'...

And while we're on this topic... f/22 may cause diffraction, and so your image will be 'soft' despite the small aperture...
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
For a near 'full' height shot:

At 1500 feet distance:

Height: 7 feet
Width: 11 feet.
Click to expand...

Thanks! That's super helpful, I'll plan for more distance between the actors and camera then.


The hyperfocal distance of about 4 miles means... you are going to have fuzzy moon... or fuzzy people...

This is one of the reasons why these sorts of shots are in fact 'composites'...

And while we're on this topic... f/22 may cause diffraction, and so your image will be 'soft' despite the small aperture...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to have to live with the moon a little out of focus.


I know composting would look sharper and better, I just love the idea of shooting it all in camera. :thumbsup:



thx1138.jpg
 
A split field filter might help if you can keep the actor within half the frame. Might require some fiddling to find an angle and composition that works but if you can keep the actor within half the frame it could work. And you can keep the actors close (within talking distance). The seam of the two fields blend fairly gracefully. At infinity focus you can move either the actors or the camera to find the sweet spot, whichever's easier.
 
Wow, at those focal lengths, the moon will be rising really fast. Extremely tight window of opportunity.

Good luck with it!
 
ErikTande said:
Weather was a total bust, we had complete cloud cover all three nights. :/
Click to expand...

For this reason I never became an astronomer... in college I signed up as an observatory assistant. All the nights that I was assigned were cloudy for an entire semester... I took this as an indication the gods did not want me staring at them...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
For this reason I never became an astronomer... in college I signed up as an observatory assistant. All the nights that I was assigned were cloudy for an entire semester... I took this as an indication the gods did not want me staring at them...
Click to expand...

Most interesting reply I've read all day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top