Shooting in Alaska next week: Few questions

K

kpprobst

Member
Hey everyone.

So i'll be taking my HMC150 on my family vacation to Alaska for about 9 days. I will be shooting almost everything I can to cover the vacation so I'll be shooting verite handheld style as well as composing some real nice shots throughout.

I'm still figuring out everything with this camera but I'm curious what you guys think I should shoot this in? I've been shooting a lot in 1080/24p and I am loving the look, but it doesn't fare very well with documentary style I don't think. Having said that, the colors in 24p look amazing for well composed shots.

I don't like 60p at all. I would much rather prefer 30 over 60 with my experience, but I wouldn't be completely opposed if someone were to sway me in that direction.

So, what are your opinions on how I should shoot this? Sorry if this question seems so basic, but it is a forum afterall and I figure I should get help from people willing to give it. So if you have an opinion please let me know!

Also, is it dire that I get some sort of UV filter if I am going to be outside shooting all around Alaska all week?
 
Welcome to the Great Land. Once you go, you never come all the way back.

You didn't mention where in Alaska . . . it's a really big place . . .

1. Yes you'll need and want a UV filter - and some high quality repellent. And some sunblock ... and a hat and a polarizing filter and an extra nd filter. There'll be lots of sun on water and sun on show and sun on glaciers and - you get the idea.

2. Forget sleep. Thats what Alaskans do in the winter. Depending on where you go, you're going to have lots n lots of daylight.

3. You're going to have a lot of panoramas, and wildlife - both don't do handheld well at all.
Unless you're really really good handheld pretty much sucks anyway. If you can't swing full sticks, at least bring a monopod. Practice with it first. You'll be very glad you did.

If you're travelling the road system, be sure to get a copy of The Milepost.

Enjoy.
 
+1 to everything pixelated said. Especially the monopod. Handheld looks ok-ish when you're shooting, but when you watch it it can really make viewers sea-sick. Decent handheld takes a great deal of skill and is a pain. A monopod will really make a huge difference (even if you're not standing still, it can help to stabilize a moving shot)
 
Lots of opportunities for great wildlife shots. When going to extraordinary lengths to get the "perfect shot", keep in mind that you are not at the top of the food chain!

I really like 24P, but I haven't yet been able to get a handle on panning slow enough to prevent strobing. If you're following some action, or for mostly stationary shots, I love the look.

-vic
(Fairbanks, 1970s)
 
Oh, that's another good point. 24p starts to look bad if you're doing any fast pans or action. Movie directors take great care during action sequences to make sure that despite the low framerate, things aren't strobing (by increasing shutter speed, for instance). Honestly I'd recommend 60fps, and if you really like the 24p look it isn't too hard to drop it down to that in post. But a lot of my non-filmmaking peers (read: family) strongly prefer 60fps, which is why I'd lean that way for a family video.

Not to mention, if you decide to deliver in 24p then having 60p masters allows you to drop down to slow-mo :)
 
I think I might go with the 60p and then drop it down to 24p in post. But that just means outputting to 24p right not dropping it into a 24p timeline? Because that would make it slow motion?

I am going to be able to bring a crummy tripod for stills and maybe some decent pans but other than that, I don't have access to a monopod and I won't be able to get my hands on any filters before sunday unfortunately.
 
Very interesting to hear these opinions on hand held. I have always liked the look of hand held; to me it gives more of a you are there feel, ala the films of Herzog and Cassavetes, both of whom blur the lines between fiction and documentary. Another reason I much prefer hand held is it gives you a ton of freedom to move around and get the unexpected shot. I use the tripod only for formal interviews.
 
Last edited:
ramkuma said:
Very interesting to hear these opinions on hand held. I have always liked the look of hand held; to me it gives more of a you are there feel, ala the films of Herzog and Cassavetes, both of whom blur the lines between fiction and documentary. Another reason I much prefer hand held is it gives you a ton of freedom to move around and get the unexpected shot. I use the tripod only for formal interviews.
Click to expand...

Are you sure those weren't shot with a steadicam? True handheld, especially with a camera as light as the HMC150, is like I said, pretty dag-gum tricky to pull off well. But try it - see what you think. Maybe I'm just more particular about this.
 
I know that Aguirre, Fitzcarroldo, and Grizzly Man were shot hand held. You may be right about Cassavetes.
 
What do you guys think about shooting in 1080/30p? I find it to be a nice middleground between 24 and 60. I don't know but for some reason I just can't get into the feel of 60p at all. It looks way too life-like for me.

But my question is: if I output at the end to 24p will it still look like 60p the way that it does compared to 24?
 
Hey everyone. I'm in Alaska now shooting and getting some great footage. I decided to shoot in 720/60p and I am using the Cine V setting as default. I don't have any filters but my footage is still looking pretty great.

Can anyone recommend me some other settings that might work well when shooting glaciers and such? Is there sometihng better to shoot in than Cine V?
 
I already shot in Denali, but now I am in Seward. I hiked up to the Harden ice fields today and got some good footage. Tomorrow I will be on a Kenai Fjords cruise.
 
Just gonna give this as food for thought.

Here's a guy taking a fairly complex and powerful camera to a very remote and rugged place, and yet while on location, he can reach out to the camera community for help & suggestions for shots.

There was a time even 10 years ago where that kind of trip & footage would have been a herculean task to achieve.

Been reading up on the early pictorial representations of new lands, and what those artists/photogs had to prepare for.. just incredible.
 
Yeah, kinda amazing, isn't it? After spending many content (read, simple) years with my XL-1, it's been a fairly steep learning curve to take advantage of all of the features of the HMC-150. The differences in the capabilities and functions between the cameras can, at times, seem overwhelming. This site, along with Barry's books, have made the journey much more smooth & productive.

I continue to appreciate this site for the wealth of information available, and the helpful comments and advice provided by the dvx denizens around the planet!
 
ramkuma said:
Very interesting to hear these opinions on hand held. I have always liked the look of hand held; to me it gives more of a you are there feel, ala the films of Herzog and Cassavetes, both of whom blur the lines between fiction and documentary. Another reason I much prefer hand held is it gives you a ton of freedom to move around and get the unexpected shot. I use the tripod only for formal interviews.
Click to expand...

Hand held done right can look pretty good. But I have to be honest, I have seen WAY to much stuff done hand held that is simply unwatchable. Off kilter, poorly framed, unnecessarily shaky... a lot of it tends to look like amateur video with a nice camera. It's really hard to do with a camera this light. I'm fast enough with a tripod that I would rather lug it around everywhere than shoot hand held and have most of it look like amateur video.
 
If you get to do any aerial sight seeing shoot at 60p and then slow it down. You can achieve beautiful aerials with your HMC by doing this.

BTW if you get a chance check out the area by Black Stone Glacier, IMO it is the most beautiful part of the state period, giant bonsai trees and waterfalls everywhere!
 
Mike Harvey said:
Hand held done right can look pretty good. But I have to be honest, I have seen WAY to much stuff done hand held that is simply unwatchable. Off kilter, poorly framed, unnecessarily shaky... a lot of it tends to look like amateur video with a nice camera. It's really hard to do with a camera this light. I'm fast enough with a tripod that I would rather lug it around everywhere than shoot hand held and have most of it look like amateur video.
Click to expand...


After reviewing my recent footage, I would have to agree. I think the best option is to get a light tripod and run around with it attached and collapsed. I think hand held works well with Herzog and Cassavetes primarily because there themes are chaotic anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top