Some footage from my Panavision HD900F (sony f900) - football game

TubEfingers said:
Can see the dynamic range is limited but the footage/colours look very nice - specially for a 20 year old sensor!
Click to expand...

Well with the kodak gamma tables, it does really limit the camera to about 8 stops, but, if set up correctly I can get 11.5 stops no problem with the 900. I just liked the more contrasty look for the stadium lights. I am shooting another game tomorrow night and plan to use either the Cineon LOG gamma table or the Panavision default settings and experiment with some light grading later, we will see. :)
 
paulears said:
I'm really sorry, but if you removed the camera label from the video, we'd have comments on poor depth of field, amazingly wobbly pictures, very soft images and over contrasty look. No detail in the shadows, and unless the grass really was that weird dark green colour, some strange colorimetry. It's clearly far too big a camera to use handheld. Saying that, I'd love to have one - but sports with a lens wide open, handheld would probably have looked better shot on a current budget consumer handicam where near two far would have been in focus and the light weight making stability much easier.

We're all impressed a nearly 20 year old camera can still be used - but I have an even older broadcast Ampex (Sony) Betacam SP, that still works in good old SD. I don't think I could shoot with it shoulder mounted smoothly as it weighs a ton too - so this post is not in any way criticism of your operating skills - just that I don't see what people are getting excited about, and I could spend five minutes in the edit making the image look like that by degrading something more modern and cheaper.

I don't see the plus points everyone else does? You couldn't actually use those shots for real?
Click to expand...

*Apologies up-front if I come across as an asshole on this, but I AM an asshole, so... ; )*

OK, here we go. As someone who has spent their career(20+ years) shooting sports, this type of camera body is EXACTLY what you want to be shooting sports handheld with. NOT a little budget camcorder or little cine camera. This is not a knock on Mike, but all that camera needs is a 20x or 22x lens and someone that has the talent and skill to shoot football(or other sports). As someone that has spent half their life doing just that(football, basketball, racing, baseball, etc.), I feel especially qualified to say that you are wrong in your comment regarding the camera not being right to shoot sports with handheld.

When NFL Films, some of the best sports shooters in the world, transitioned from high-speed film(16mm Arri cameras) to digital, they went to mostly Amira's for game capture, which are in essence shoulder mount video cameras, just like the F900, but not as ergonomic.
 
I would like to add that I have a sports video company and the PX270 camera has been the perfect fit for one person productions. 22x zoom. Light enough to handhold all game with very nice 10bit image quality. I used to own a Varicam "H". Actually sent Mike my settings a few years back. I love the larger cameras on tripod for their inertia but for getting creative shots as a one man band, the smaller camera allows so much more. Add in great autofocus and IS and I can get a lot more creative than with one of the old tanks. Even if I had the chance for a "new" tank I would stay with the PX270 size.

NFL type of shoots are very specific. The larger cameras have certain roles to play amongst the group of cameras. When I shoot a Friday night game I am everywhere. Much farther beyond the role of a NFL sideline camera op imho. The larger camera would actually make it more difficult.
 
Are you talking about running around shooting "creative shots/art" or actual follow-the-ball, highlight game coverage? Because I'm talking about actual game coverage.
 
mavs said:
im with you mike. looks good. and looovvvee John H too. wait....so this footage is not good enough for the "good enough" gh5 crowd? well isnt that nice! a little too ironic. dont you think?
Click to expand...

There is good-shakey...and then there is bad-shakey.

It is subjective, or course. And it is difficult to put into words what makes one manner of camera shake "bad" and another manner of camera shake "good". The "good" camera shake ( camera-frame movement ) is generally consistent. It isn't random per se and generally adheres to a pattern. The overcorrections are consistent. The mis-framings are consistent. The misplacements of the subject within the frame are generally equi-distant. Good camera-shake looks intentional and does not look unintentional or "accidental". It has art to it. "Bad" camera shake ( movement of the frame ) is inconsistent. It less looks like the Camera Op is intentionally making the framing active and more looks like the Camera Op is unable to hold the frame steady. Bad-shake looks more like inability than intent.
 
JPNola said:
There is good-shakey...and then there is bad-shakey.

It is subjective, or course. And it is difficult to put into words what makes one manner of camera shake "bad" and another manner of camera shake "good". The "good" camera shake ( camera-frame movement ) is generally consistent. It isn't random per se and generally adheres to a pattern. The overcorrections are consistent. The mis-framings are consistent. The misplacements of the subject within the frame are generally equi-distant. Good camera-shake looks intentional and does not look unintentional or "accidental". It has art to it. "Bad" camera shake ( movement of the frame ) is inconsistent. It less looks like the Camera Op is intentionally making the framing active and more looks like the Camera Op is unable to hold the frame steady. Bad-shake looks more like inability than intent.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I dont really know why i would pre-plan all my movements at a football game when A.) i had not shot a football game since 2005 and was moving quickly and B.) I was just randomly capturing shots for fun.

I understand your ideals on handheld movement and if this was a narrative or a pre planned idea, i totally agree with you on the pattern. But you are saying handheld shots that do not adhere to a pattern is automatically bad then i call BS on that. Tons of documentaries and run and gun shoots have what you consider "bad movement" and have won awards. I think you are nit picking my stuff, especially something i did just for fun. I had complete control of my equipment so your sense of being "unable to hold the frame steady" is false.
 
Run&Gun said:
*Apologies up-front if I come across as an asshole on this, but I AM an asshole, so... ; )*

OK, here we go. As someone who has spent their career(20+ years) shooting sports, this type of camera body is EXACTLY what you want to be shooting sports handheld with. NOT a little budget camcorder or little cine camera. This is not a knock on Mike, but all that camera needs is a 20x or 22x lens and someone that has the talent and skill to shoot football(or other sports). As someone that has spent half their life doing just that(football, basketball, racing, baseball, etc.), I feel especially qualified to say that you are wrong in your comment regarding the camera not being right to shoot sports with handheld.

When NFL Films, some of the best sports shooters in the world, transitioned from high-speed film(16mm Arri cameras) to digital, they went to mostly Amira's for game capture, which are in essence shoulder mount video cameras, just like the F900, but not as ergonomic.
Click to expand...

Hey, no knock taken man. As I said in my last comment, i had not shot a football game since 2005 so i am rusty on this subject. This was all in good fun and i am shooting another one tomorrow night. If i was being paid large sums of money i would be attacking these with more of a "plan". im not getting paid, its something im doing for fun. You've always supported my work and told me like it is run&gun and i thank you for that man. :)
 
Run&Gun said:
Are you talking about running around shooting "creative shots/art" or actual follow-the-ball, highlight game coverage? Because I'm talking about actual game coverage.
Click to expand...

Stop reading my mind and being my brother-from-another-mother, R&G. I was JUST about to post the same thing, nearly word-for-word.
 
Run&Gun said:
Are you talking about running around shooting "creative shots/art" or actual follow-the-ball, highlight game coverage? Because I'm talking about actual game coverage.
Click to expand...

All of the above. The past four years I have been making creative game edits for a local team. I try to cover all of the play and story all around the game from the sideline. It is a lot but is helped by being nimble with a small-ish camera.

BTW, I am in no way talking about Mike's shooting in the clip posted. I was talking about the camera image. I think it is fine, but does not stand out to me as anything more than fine compared to more recent cameras. As Mike stated, he does not need to justify which I agree.
 
Bassman2003 said:
All of the above. The past four years I have been making creative game edits for a local team. I try to cover all of the play and story all around the game from the sideline. It is a lot but is helped by being nimble with a small-ish camera.

BTW, I am in no way talking about Mike's shooting in the clip posted. I was talking about the camera image. I think it is fine, but does not stand out to me as anything more than fine compared to more recent cameras. As Mike stated, he does not need to justify which I agree.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i think there is this locker room gossip forming about a little for fun video i made. I think some people thought that me posting this meant i was trying to say "look at me, my 2/3' camera is better than your 2018 cmos XYZ".. completely far from the truth. I've owned and operated almost 60 cameras big, small, HD, 4K, SD, etc and after almost 20 years of working with cameras you find your own way of doing things that you enjoy and the goal is people want to pay you for how to share your vision of the world which i have been lucky enough to have. It does not mean my way is the best, i def do not do a lot of things by the book creatively speaking (i think working and swearing by 2/3" Cine cameras is a good example of that) and at the end of the day, reguardless of what anyone might say, i always have fun doing what i do and enjoy doing it and have been blessed to win some awards on my documentary work. I will never degrade another filmmaker because i dont find the reasoning to put energy into asking them "well why did you shoot like that, it looks like trash" or "why are you using that heavy dinosaur when you could have a XYZ camera with a billion K of resolution, etc. If a cilent ever wants to nit pick the quality, guess what, rental houses still exist and am more then happy to rent equipment to please a cilent, but personally for ownership, i happen to use a camera that was thrown to the wayside 10 or so years ago when the panavision genesis came out and i dont really feel the need to justify it. It doesnt mean any of you have to use these cameras.

Give respect, get respect. Its pretty easy. I respect all ways of creating and all camera technologies both analog and digital alike.. they all have a place in this creative eco system.
 
I think you are being a little defensive if this is pointed at me. I have said nothing to the affect of what you just posted about. I have not disrespected you nor suggested you should do anything. My additions to this thread were more about the responses to your thread. I just happen to have a dissenting opinion from the responders.

BTW, I really like the image where the players are looking up at the fireworks. Looks great.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think you are being a little defensive if this is pointed at me. I have said nothing to the affect of what you just posted about. I have not disrespected you nor suggested you should do anything. My additions to this thread were more about the responses to your thread. I just happen to have a dissenting opinion from the responders.
Click to expand...

Oh no, nothing toward you my friend, do not worry :). I was just quoting your last post in a way to continue what you were saying in my response. Bassman2003, you are one of the coolest people on DVXuser, as is Run&Gun, DUH :D
 
Mike Krumlauf said:
I think some people thought that me posting this meant i was trying to say "look at me, my 2/3' camera is better than your 2018 cmos XYZ".. completely far from the truth.

Give respect, get respect. Its pretty easy. I respect all ways of creating and all camera technologies both analog and digital alike.. they all have a place in this creative eco system.
Click to expand...

I took your posting the video as your wanting to share what you think to be good work, something you are proud of, and something that reflects well upon your ability as a cinematographer.
 
JPNola said:
I took your posting the video as your wanting to share what you think to be good work, something you are proud of, and something that reflects well upon your ability as a cinematographer.
Click to expand...

And you are mostly correct on it. I am proud of almost all I put effort into. I’m very happy with the images I’ve shared and I stand behind them. I respect people’s opinions not liking what I do as a filmmaker just as I respect those who support me. If you don’t like what and how I make things you have the right to believe that. As I said earlier in this thread “too each his own”
 
I for one don't miss the ENG form factor at ALL, but I'm surprised how much I like the look of this footage you've been posting so thanks for sharing. Are you recording to an Atomos? And out of curiosity, what's the final weight of that camera with the lens?
 
QuickHitRecord said:
I for one don't miss the ENG form factor at ALL, but I'm surprised how much I like the look of this footage you've been posting so thanks for sharing. Are you recording to an Atomos? And out of curiosity, what's the final weight of that camera with the lens?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the ENG form factor is def a "you love it or hate it" thing, i personally love it. I shoot HDCAM tape and digitize as prores into my mac pro using an AJA KiPro recorder. The weight i believe is somewhere between 25-30ibs i think? you'd think that would be a bit of a ***** to deal with, but with the miranda box sitting on the back, once you get the camera on your shoulder it actually balances out nicely, the ergonomics of the rig are really awesome, for me at least :b
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top