C100: Video I made on C100 and 5D3

Michael Thames

Michael Thames

Carbonite Member
Thought I'd share the latest video I made last night. My Kessler 3 axis second shooter is arriving tomorrow so there might be time to spend one more day shooting on Friday, when I get it. The first day of shooting was a horror story because I forgot to change the picture profile in the 5D3 from standard to neutral.

Any suggestions for improvement are always welcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUpgGODNb0
 
Michael Thames said:
Thought I'd share the latest video I made last night. My Kessler 3 axis second shooter is arriving tomorrow so there might be time to spend one more day shooting on Friday, when I get it. The first day of shooting was a horror story because I forgot to change the picture profile in the 5D3 from standard to neutral.

Any suggestions for improvement are always welcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUpgGODNb0
Click to expand...

You matched both cameras well considering you messed up the 5D3 profile. So far as advice, the transitions are really jarring and really detract from the gentleness of the piece. No need for transitions at all. Be great if you could punch in tight and show the guitarists hands and fingers on fretboard.
 
As pointed out above, the second camera should reveal a different POV, either a closer shot or a longer shot or a different angle, your 2 cameras are positioned too close so the cuts didn't work.
If you're a one man band, try keeping your wide shot locked off and have the second camera go close between his face and details of the guitar.

Your lighting is a bit flat, there is no modeling on his face try keying more from the side and with less fill.
 
Nice piece but I agree with the others, lighting and framing. Audio seems good, BG and subject are nice looking but the lighting is very flat and one dimensional. There are a million ways to light this but it is a dramatic piece, put some drama into the lighting. Heavy rim, a hard slash across the body and or neck of the guitar that his hands can dance in and out of, etc. Also agree, make one camera lock off master and do some moves and vary the framing on the other cameras. Long, slow dissolves in this sort of piece rob it of any visual drama, learn how to use cuts well. Visually, a dissolve signifies a change in time or location so your use of them here leaves the viewer subliminally confused as you are not changing time or location. How about some CUs of the hands, hands on frets, picking hand, ECU on his face, even the reflections in his glasses? Some well thought out movement too would help, although your Kesseler will improve that.
 
Sound is pretty good. But you have to vary your shots. 2 static cam that give about the same framing is not a good idea. Why not put one static cam and with the 2nd cam do some close ups? What I do in these situations is I put a static cam that will record sound as well and do close-ups with the 2nd cam. After, I ask the artist to redo is performance and I remove the mic and do some very wide shots. That way I have the choice of 3 cameras when I edit. In your situation, I would use the C100 for wide shots and the 5D for close-ups.
 
Here is an example of a 2 cam set-up that I did 2 years ago. It's really not perfect...the grading, the lighting, the editing too. But I had 2 hours to do the interview and shoot the performance...and not much time to edit either. But you can see how a 2 cam set-up (and filming the performance twice) can give you multiple angles and possibilities. https://vimeo.com/80304938 Watch from 7:45.
 
Last edited:
Well first off ..... thanks for all the suggestions and input, I have seriously taken to heart all of them.

I understand from the perspective of a film maker that one must over power the senses with all kinds of trickery, different angles etc. It's akin to eating out, chefs must over power the taste buds with all kinds of different spices and seasonings. I have seen videos that guys have paid $10,000 for that do this kind a thing. However, from the persecutive of a guitarist I don't want to see a million different shots from many different angles, I want to focus on the essence of the music, and I feel that many different angles are more of a distraction from the essence than anything else. However, most clients know nothing about this and would be happy with anything. In the past I've done the many different angles thing , and grew tired of it. I guess these days I prefer a more Zen like film. OK that aside.......

My neighbors moved in a few months ago and the wife is an extremely accomplished photographer from Italy. She came over last night and helped me with the lighting, (which many of you suggested). She also lent me her 70-200 2.8 IS lens which was simply a revelation! She also had a 100mm mico 2.8 lens that was scary sharp, in addition to that she set up the lighting. I'm going to apprentice with her.... she is light year beyond my capacity.

I'll post what we did last night fair soon, sit back and digest the comments.
 
Doug_EX said:
Here is an example of a 2 cam set-up that I did 2 years ago. It's really not perfect...the grading, the lighting, the editing too. But I had 2 hours to do the interview and shoot the performance...and not much time to edit either. But you can see how a 2 cam set-up (and filming the performance twice) can give you multiple angles and possibilities. https://vimeo.com/80304938 Watch from 7:45.
Click to expand...

Yes, nice angles for interviews etc. I've watched many guitar videos and I find it rather distracting to be switching to many different camera angles in a performance. It is especially complicated in catching a flawless performance out of 20 or 30 takes! Although I do understand if you are a film maker that's what film makers have to do to earn a living.

In the past I did shots up and down the fingerboard with both hands going in and out of focus...... it is almost cliche at this point for me, and I would rather let the audience just focus on the players hands. In some ways I prefer just a single camera for this, but as they say "use em if you got em"....... so I used em.
 
I discovered something that has changed my life...... it's called the Canon 70-200 f2.8 lens. My neighbor lent me her 2.8 for the C100, and her 100mm prime 2.8 for the 5D3. I have seen youtube videos where guys compare the 70-200 f4 (what I have) to the 70-200 f2.8, and say the f4 is sharper....... this is absolute BS! It's almost the difference between SD and HD. I think the single most important thing we can do is get good lenses. If you get a C100 MKII and shoot with that crapy 24-105 you are missing the point! Your money is better spent buying the 70-200 f2.8. This of course is inside shooting, but you can really get the ISO down with these 2.8 lenses.

She also helped me with the lighting as some very helpful guys here suggested and the result was much better. Here is the lasted video I did with the improve lighting and 2.8 lenses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCNCsyUL9jo
 
Michael Thames said:
Yes, nice angles for interviews etc. I've watched many guitar videos and I find it rather distracting to be switching to many different camera angles in a performance. It is especially complicated in catching a flawless performance out of 20 or 30 takes! Although I do understand if you are a film maker that's what film makers have to do to earn a living.

In the past I did shots up and down the fingerboard with both hands going in and out of focus...... it is almost cliche at this point for me, and I would rather let the audience just focus on the players hands. In some ways I prefer just a single camera for this, but as they say "use em if you got em"....... so I used em.
Click to expand...
The problem Michael is that you use 2 cams to do basically the same shot. Totally useless. If it's the look you want, why not use only one camera? Because, I assure you, the second cam is useless if it's framed almost exactly like the first one.

Secondly, how is it distracting to go from a wide shot to close-up of his hands? Answer: it is not distracting at all if it's well done.
 
Michael Thames said:
I discovered something that has changed my life...... it's called the Canon 70-200 f2.8 lens. My neighbor lent me her 2.8 for the C100, and her 100mm prime 2.8 for the 5D3. I have seen youtube videos where guys compare the 70-200 f4 (what I have) to the 70-200 f2.8, and say the f4 is sharper....... this is absolute BS! It's almost the difference between SD and HD. I think the single most important thing we can do is get good lenses. If you get a C100 MKII and shoot with that crapy 24-105 you are missing the point! Your money is better spent buying the 70-200 f2.8. This of course is inside shooting, but you can really get the ISO down with these 2.8 lenses.

She also helped me with the lighting as some very helpful guys here suggested and the result was much better. Here is the lasted video I did with the improve lighting and 2.8 lenses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCNCsyUL9jo
Click to expand...


This video was much better.
question about the 70-200 f4...were you referring to the "is" model?
 
Last edited:
You must have a bad copy. There shouldn't be a noticable difference between the 2 except that the image from the 2.8 will "pop" more because of the shallower DOF.
 
Doug_EX said:
I did not say that you were lying...geez! I believe you. What I said is that there shouldn't be any noticable difference between the 2. So, maybe your 70-200f4 is not as good as it should be.
Click to expand...

As soon as I popped on the 2.8 I saw a dramatic difference. I've had my f4 for about 3 years now, and haven't noticed a problem with it. When I bought the 5D3 the kit lens was the 24-105. I remember reading mixed feelings about it. However, the same thing happened, when I got the 70-200 f4 IS I felt like the image was so much better than the 24-105, so I don't think I have a problem with my 70-200f4 lens. The woman who lent me the 70-200 2.8 said I would see a dramatic difference from my 70-200 f4 and she was right. Not only that but the guitarist was blown away at the difference, and he is not into the technical issues in photography and video.

If the questions and answers on this forum about "What's the best lens for the C100" are any kind a indicator, I have noticed most of the guys with C100's seem to use cheap lenses. There is plenty of discussion about moving up to an FS7, or C100 mkII from the MKI. I think the single best thing you can do is buy a good lens! I'm a convert now.
 
Michael Thames said:
As soon as I popped on the 2.8 I saw a dramatic difference. I've had my f4 for about 3 years now, and haven't noticed a problem with it. When I bought the 5D3 the kit lens was the 24-105. I remember reading mixed feelings about it. However, the same thing happened, when I got the 70-200 f4 IS I felt like the image was so much better than the 24-105, so I don't think I have a problem with my 70-200f4 lens. The woman who lent me the 70-200 2.8 said I would see a dramatic difference from my 70-200 f4 and she was right. Not only that but the guitarist was blown away at the difference, and he is not into the technical issues in photography and video.

If the questions and answers on this forum about "What's the best lens for the C100" are any kind a indicator, I have noticed most of the guys with C100's seem to use cheap lenses. There is plenty of discussion about moving up to an FS7, or C100 mkII from the MKI. I think the single best thing you can do is buy a good lens! I'm a convert now.
Click to expand...


Can't argue on that. Good lenses are a must! I really like my Sigma 18-35. If you need a lens in this range, you can't go wrong or with any ART lenses from Sigma for that matter. I used the 70-200 2.8 II many times, and yes, it's a wonderful lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top