C100: Video I made on C100 and 5D3

Eric Coughlin said:
For a video like the one originally posted in this topic, since it's not run n' gun and is just seated in one location I can't think of any reason to not use lighting other than that all of the budget was spent on a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. For $2000 you could add some nice lighting with a 24-105 or other lens and probably get better results than the optically superior Canon 70-200 f/2.8 without lighting.

Also, as well all know, lenses perform better when stopped down from their maximum aperture. There's also the overly shallow depth of field to consider; if your subject is moving at all then there's more risk of shots going out of focus when using a long focal length at f/2.8, and obviously an out of focus shot at f/2.8 is not going to be as sharp as an in-focus shot at f/4, regardless of the quality of the lens. Most of my corporate and doc work I aim for f/4-f/5.6 when filming indoors. I'll often prefer 1600 ISO at f/4 over 800 ISO at f/2.8, even if I'm filming with an f/2.8 lens. F/2.8 is nice to have when you need it in low light, or if you like the shallower look, but video lighting is even nicer to have when you have the time to set it up.
Click to expand...

Eric I liked the lighting how it was..... in fact next time maybe I'll shoot in candle light! You and Doug are insufferable in your defense of crap lenses.
 
Plexi Head said:
Better to be insufferable defending a lens than to be just plain insufferable.
Click to expand...

Now, someone else is sounding insufferable. Perhaps it's a good time to join in the discussion rather than eat popcorn on the side lines. Are you defending the universal usage of Canons mediocre 24-105 lens for all occasions? This discussion so far is why I trust a good photographer over you self proclaimed film makers...... LOL!
 
Well, let's compare sharpness. My cheap $150 Nikon 55mm f/2.8 with a full lighting setup at f/4 at ISO 320 vs the sharpness of your $2000 Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at I guess f/2.8 and I don't know what ISO. To be fair, these frame grabs were both taken from the 1080p online uploads instead of source files, and since I'd guess your end deliverable is online (at least mine is), the look of the end deliverable is what counts most. Click on the links to see the images full size.

http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2015/10/06/PriestFrameGrab1.png
PriestFrameGrab1.png



http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2015/10/06/MichaelThamesFrameGrab1.png
MichaelThamesFrameGrab1.png
 
Last edited:
Michael Thames said:
This discussion so far is why I trust a good photographer over you self proclaimed film makers...... LOL!
Click to expand...
I have no idea where you ever got the idea that film and photography are the same so lens choices of a photographer apply to all video as well; let's recall that most high end filmmakers use expensive cinema lenses and high end photographers use photography lenses. A filmmaker on a big budget movie may add silk between his lens and the 3.2k Arri Alexa sensor to soften the image while a photographer may be shooting 50 megapixels on a Hasselblad so they can get high resolution for a billboard or magazine. A lot of filmmakers (such as Shane Hurlburt with the C500, as just one example) don't like 4K because they feel it is too sharp, whereas I don't hear photographers ever complain about 4K (8 megapixels) being too much resolution. It's different strokes for different folks, and to assume the needs of all photographers are the same as filmmakers is not true.

Anyone spending a lot of money on sharp lenses to put on their not sharp H.264 5D video is to some degree wasting their money since the 1080p h.264 resolving capabilities is nowhere near what the sharp lens is capable of resovling, whereas you switch that very same camera to photo mode, for photographers, shooting 6K RAW, and suddenly the money spent on those sharp lenses on the same exact 5D is now money that was likely well spent. Again, photo and video are different. Even on a C100 which is quite sharp, you're still only shooting 2 megapixels so the difference between a really sharp lens and a not as sharp lens won't be as substantial as when shooting 22 megapixels on a still camera.

I don't understand how the idea that photographers "have been at it a lot longer" makes much sense. Photography was invented in 1827 and filmmaking in 1890. Since 1890 was 125 years ago, everyone who was around when both filmmaking and photographry was invented are already dead. Thus, no living photographer can claim they have more years of experience than a filmmaker simply because their medium has been around for an additional 63 years. I suppose you could argue that collectively photographers have a 63 year head start on filmmaking, but I don't think that argument would merit much substance to proving photographers "are more knowledgable than videographers in general."

You did use the term "videographers" instead of filmmakers or cinematographers, in which case, since videographrs do sound, lighting, stabilization, camerawork, editing, etc., as their skill-set is more spread-out than a photographer who does mostly camera and lighting, it would stand to reason that the average photographer would have more time to spend researching lenses than the average videographer, though that doesn't change the fact that photographers and videographers still have different needs as far as lenses are concerned.
 
Last edited:
I have filmed probably 20+ television shows this year using the 24-105 on a C100. No complaints from either producers or editors. In fact, have not heard of any of the million or so viewers calling the Network to complain about how sharp the images were. Great IS, great wide shots and versatile. Don't see the problem.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Well, let's compare sharpness. My cheap $150 Nikon 55mm f/2.8 with a full lighting setup at f/4 at ISO 320 vs the sharpness of your $2000 Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at I guess f/2.8 and I don't know what ISO. To be fair, these frame grabs were both taken from the 1080p online uploads instead of source files, and since I'd guess your end deliverable is online (at least mine is), the look of the end deliverable is what counts most. Click on the links to see the images full size.

http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2015/10/06/PriestFrameGrab1.png
PriestFrameGrab1.png



http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2015/10/06/MichaelThamesFrameGrab1.png
MichaelThamesFrameGrab1.png
Click to expand...

Yea Eric, I have a 1.4 50mm that is sharper than that, but for my purposes I didn't want to stick the camera and slider 18 inches from the talent.... LOL! I rarely use the 50mm 1.4 prime for my purposes.
 
BTW, Eric I was focused on the guitar rosette and fretboard, I never focus on his face why would I want to do that? I wanted the guitarist to be slightly blurred. There is no way in hell your image is sharper than mine if you consider where the cameras are focused, but, someone of your expertise probably knew that considering you could read the label in the guitar from 15 feet away...... ha ha!
 
Yeah, I noticed the image was focused on the guitar leaving him slightly soft, which I suppose makes it harder to tell which image is sharper, though I'd hardly agree yours is definitively sharper as you say.

If you'd set it to f/4 or f/5.6, particularly at a shorter focal length, you could have easily had both in full focus. I'm not saying that's what you wanted, but it is how I would have done it. Why? Well, I'd see it as a performance of both the guitarist and the guitar, so to have the guitarist fully in frame like that while just slightly soft on focus is a bit jarring to me. Since you know the music industry and the particulars of the shoot better, perhaps you know it is best to separate them, in which case if you want to separate them, you already have a tight shot of his hands in the video, or if you wanted to separate them in a medium shot while maintaining him in the shot, I'd think it would be better if there was more separation, such as could be achieved on an 85mm f/1.2, for example, along with perhaps positioning his head or the camera angle so there is more distance from his face to where you are focusing on the guitar. I guess the whole slightly soft focus on him while having sharper focus on the guitar just doesn't do it for me, and makes it look like you missed focus on him.

18 inches? Our two shots are framed pretty similarly; I'm about 10-12 feet away from the talent, which is plenty of distance. At 70mm-100mm on your 70-200, then you're about 15 feet away instead of 10-12 feet, which doesn't make much difference in terms of distance from talent.

11034360_660653134041286_1669132113400239874_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
I have no idea where you ever got the idea that film and photography are the same so lens choices of a photographer apply to all video as well; let's recall that most high end filmmakers use expensive cinema lenses and high end photographers use photography lenses. A filmmaker on a big budget movie may add silk between his lens and the 3.2k Arri Alexa sensor to soften the image while a photographer may be shooting 50 megapixels on a Hasselblad so they can get high resolution for a billboard or magazine. A lot of filmmakers (such as Shane Hurlburt with the C500, as just one example) don't like 4K because they feel it is too sharp, whereas I don't hear photographers ever complain about 4K (8 megapixels) being too much resolution. It's different strokes for different folks, and to assume the needs of all photographers are the same as filmmakers is not true.

Anyone spending a lot of money on sharp lenses to put on their not sharp H.264 5D video is to some degree wasting their money since the 1080p h.264 resolving capabilities is nowhere near what the sharp lens is capable of resovling, whereas you switch that very same camera to photo mode, for photographers, shooting 6K RAW, and suddenly the money spent on those sharp lenses on the same exact 5D is now money that was likely well spent. Again, photo and video are different. Even on a C100 which is quite sharp, you're still only shooting 2 megapixels so the difference between a really sharp lens and a not as sharp lens won't be as substantial as when shooting 22 megapixels on a still camera.

I don't understand how the idea that photographers "have been at it a lot longer" makes much sense. Photography was invented in 1827 and filmmaking in 1890. Since 1890 was 125 years ago, everyone who was around when both filmmaking and photographry was invented are already dead. Thus, no living photographer can claim they have more years of experience than a filmmaker simply because their medium has been around for an additional 63 years. I suppose you could argue that collectively photographers have a 63 year head start on filmmaking, but I don't think that argument would merit much substance to proving photographers "are more knowledgable than videographers in general."

You did use the term "videographers" instead of filmmakers or cinematographers, in which case, since videographrs do sound, lighting, stabilization, camerawork, editing, etc., as their skill-set is more spread-out than a photographer who does mostly camera and lighting, it would stand to reason that the average photographer would have more time to spend researching lenses than the average videographer, though that doesn't change the fact that photographers and videographers still have different needs as far as lenses are concerned.
Click to expand...

If you had read a previous post I did in fact acknowledge photographers and videographers have different needs as far as functionality goes. For starters photographers don't need to pull focus constantly. I also think the bar is lower for videographers you know..... wedding films, corporate videos, interviews TV, etc. Cinematographers are a cut above.

Photographers have their photos frozen in time, where as video takes place in time. Regardless of who is what, one thing is for sure...... photographers know a sharp lens when they see one, and videographers as you have pointed out aren't concerned with a sharp lens. In the context (sharp lenses) of my original comment about photographers I think I wasn't that far from the truth.

It's interesting you mention sound. I guess I'm just one of those idiots who buy the best mics on the planet instead of what most of you guys probably use. I'm sure you will now tell me the quality of microphones and external recording devices are a waste of money too.

I've seen countless videos demonstrating different lenses on the C100 and 5D3 and I won't be bamboozled into thinking that there is no difference between the 24-105 and the 70-200 f2.8 like I've said, I've seen it with my lying eyes. I guess it is more of an issue of money and economics for most of you guys.

Eric said: "Even on a C100 which is quite sharp, you're still only shooting 2 megapixels so the difference between a really sharp lens and a not as sharp lens won't be as substantial as when shooting 22 megapixels on a still camera."

Again you prove my point that photographers know more about the difference in sharp lens..... thank you.

So let me get this straight according to you all we need is the 24-105 and were fine. Got it! Thanks!
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Guitar maker.

MichaelThamesFrameGrab2.png
Click to expand...

It seems Eric we have a commonality, I shoot guitarists, and you shoot priests. I also read, write, and speak Tibetan.

Yes, I'm a world class guitar maker with years of orders, I have some of the best guitarist's in the world playing my instruments I've made over 900 guitars in my life, and have many in the hands of conservatory professors as well as world class performers. I also, have played baroque lute, Renaissance lute, read fluently both musical notation as well as historical early music manuscripts. In addition, I have a recording studio. My other interests include videography, and photography. I'm sure I'm missing a few other things..... LOL!

I guess you can think of me as a Guitarmaker who knows what a sharp lens is.
 
Michael, I can't tell if your kidding or not. Do you make Thames guitars? I have been a musician my entire life...so I am curious.

("historical early music manuscripts" - curious)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top