Which is the best settings to achieve the best possible picture with a Canon 60d?

V

vision_filmz

Carbonite Member
Lets just say I am shooting a scene in a studio with an artist ( Music Video ). How much light would you use at what f-stop and iso + which lens.

I want to know what I need to give me the Best possible picture from this camera.


I would light the artist from the front, side, back and even the top. Then possibly spot light the location creating a mood with light. Any experience from someone who has ever done this would be very helpful.


ps. This is all testing for now ( not an actual project yet, just want to be prepared )
 
Need more info to help you on this.

How many cameras? Will you be using a slider/stabilizer for any of the shots?

What lens do you have? Will you be renting?

What "look" are you going for in your video?

PAL or NTSC?

Final output? (Internet? TV? DVD?)

Just one artist or multiple people?


-----
Once you give some more info, we should be able to help you more.

Generally speaking, if you have that much control over lighting, you'll want to keep your iso low. 160 or 320 would work if you can control the lighting.

As far as F-stop... it really depends. If you want a real filmic, shallow DOF look, then stay in the f/2 - f/3 range. Don't overdo it. You can bump it to 4-5 and still have shallow DOF without going overboard.

More info will get you better advice.
 
Well, the easiest way to get a great picture and good moves and such and produce a quality video for the artist is to hire a DP who knows what he is doing.

now, if you are intent on doing it on your own I would do this:

1) try to keep the ISO as low as possible while still getting a proper exposure.
2) try and keep your aperture somewhere between f/3.5 and f/8 (unless you really want or need the super shallow DOF or you need to stop down more to get proper exposure)
3) try and get the WB as close to each other on each clip. This will help things in post

just some thoughts
 
jordy2324 said:
Need more info to help you on this.

How many cameras? Will you be using a slider/stabilizer for any of the shots?

What lens do you have? Will you be renting?

What "look" are you going for in your video?

PAL or NTSC?

Final output? (Internet? TV? DVD?)

Just one artist or multiple people?


-----
Once you give some more info, we should be able to help you more.

Generally speaking, if you have that much control over lighting, you'll want to keep your iso low. 160 or 320 would work if you can control the lighting.

As far as F-stop... it really depends. If you want a real filmic, shallow DOF look, then stay in the f/2 - f/3 range. Don't overdo it. You can bump it to 4-5 and still have shallow DOF without going overboard.

More info will get you better advice.
Click to expand...


Tripod, Dolly and some handheld shots would be My method for shooting. It would be a small project , but just want it to look good. Possibly only 1 to 2 people in front of the camera. The background would just be simple white,black,colored paper ( think photo studio like) . Maybe we can bring some props and create a scene, but nothing concrete as of yet. I was thinking two 1k lights, one 500 light and possibly one 150 light for some rim lighting. It would be for a rapper so obviously there would be movement. I generally like using soft boxes as I like the look of diffuse lighting.

Dof seems harder to achieve with wider lenses and a lot easier with longer focal length, still need to iron out the details exactly what we are going for. Lenses I am thinking about renting is the Canon 17-55mm, I have some Sigma wide class + tokina so I think I should be good. I think I can shoot the whole project with a Canon 17-55 2.8 especially since I will have lighting. Maybe rent an older Nikon prime 85mm for some nice tight shots as well.

So keep my iso below 400 and aperture in F2-F8 area. What about shutter speed? Thanks for the help everyone!
 
There's no way to answer your question without actually knowing the details of the location. There' hundreds of issues that will change the camera settings. As far getting the cleanest footage without grain, you will want to keep your iso as low as you possibly can. Although there's lots of variants that will play into the issue.
 
Fully understood. I just want to know what the professionals do to get the best image quality out of these cameras. I'm also sure the post process is very important , having correct color correction and grading.
:grin:
 
vision_filmz said:
I just want to know what the professionals do to get the best image quality out of these cameras.
Click to expand...

They make sure there's plenty of light, just as they do with 16mm and 35mm film, VariCam, CineAlta, RED, Alexa, etc. The camera loves light. How much light depends on lots of things, such as the size of the area to be lit and the amount of available light in that space.

As has been mentioned, keeping the aperture between f/3.5 and f/8 (or, between f/4 and f/8 depending on whom you ask) and keeping the ISO low are important. And then you have to assume that you'll be shooting with a 1/60 shutter under artificial light, especially if you're using florescent or HMI fixtures. So if you're at f/5.6, 1/60, and ISO 100 or 200 and the image is still drastically underexposed, you need to add light.

vision_filmz said:
I'm also sure the post process is very important , having correct color correction and grading.
Click to expand...

True, to an extent, but post can only do so much if the images aren't properly exposed or are pushing ISO higher to compensate for less light.
 
So quick question "C2V" no matter how fast these lenses are and how good these dlsrs are you DO NOT recommend shooting without proper lighting when possibly? I mean if I'm on a dark road and just run and gun a shot than obviously I can't have lighting, but for any and everything else we should use proper lighting correct?

Thanks for the info , I'm only trying to learn and shoot better

thanks
 
That's pretty much it. Yes, there are times when shooting available light in low-light conditions may be necessary. When it's beyond your control, it's beyond your control. But if you can light it, light it.

In fairness, I've seen some pretty impressive stuff shot in low ambient light. That comes at a cost, either shallower DOF due to open aperture or a little more noise due to higher ISO. Sometimes both. But the consistent mark of a high-end production is light. Even when the picture looks dark or "low-light", you can rest assured it was filmed/recorded under controlled conditions with added light and then graded in post to look like night, or like a dimly-lit house/apartment, or ______.
 
In post production, what I actually do is denoise my footage in 16 or 32 bit project in After Effects. This helps get rid of artifacting and digital noise. Then on top of that, I color grade (sometimes just curves for a contrast boost, sometimes stylish). On top of that, I add an unsharp mask. Then, to finish it off, I add my own grain on top of everything. The grain is slight, but it adds a lot imo. Gives the illusion of a sharper, filmic picture.
 
Last edited:
HansSteinert said:
In post production, what I actually do is denoise my footage in 16 or 32 bit project in After Effects. This helps get rid of artifacting and digital noise. Then on top of that, I color grade (sometimes just curves for a contrast boost, sometimes stylish). On top of that, I add an unsharp mask. Then, to finish it off, I add my own grain on top of everything. The grain is slight, but it adds a lot imo. Gives the illusion of a sharper, filmic picture.
Click to expand...

Any examples of your work? Not to put you on the spot I just want to see your examples, maybe even Pm me a link

thanks
 
how about an image comparison?


before2j.png


after2sda.png


I can do a before/after of the video clip so you can see it in motion if you want. I hate digital noise, it looks so unnatural and inorganic to me, so my goal was to get rid of that crap, and replace it with soft grain that's much more aesthetically pleasing.

This was shot wide open at f1.4 with a Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens on a Canon 60D, in case anyone was wondering.
 
Last edited:
hanssteinert said:
how about an image comparison?
...
I can do a before/after of the video clip so you can see it in motion if you want. I hate digital noise, it looks so unnatural and inorganic to me, so my goal was to get rid of that crap, and replace it with soft grain that's much more aesthetically pleasing.
Click to expand...

nice!
 
HansSteinert said:
how about an image comparison?

This was shot wide open at f1.4 with a Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens on a Canon 60D, in case anyone was wondering.
Click to expand...

I would love to have a prime in the 30 range, and I have been looking at that lens. I have also read many bad reviews on how it operates on the canons. How has your experience been with this??? Sorry Not trying to hi-jack this thread.
 
The main complaints are due to inconsistent auto-focusing for photography. Sigma seems to have some quality-control when it comes to that. If you get a good one, it's awesome, but there's a slight chance you'll get a dud and the AF will be front focusing or back focusing. Luckily, it comes with a 4 year warranty and Sigma's calibration is effective (although it does take 2-4 weeks when you ship it).

With that said, these problems are exclusive to photography. You manual focus in video, which always works well. The only slight complaint is that the focus ring isn't as smooth as Canon L lenses or Zeiss lenses, but they do get much better after use and they really aren't bad to begin with. My lens works perfect, and it's epic for both video and photography. You can't beat this lens for the price. If money isn't an issue, check out the new Zeiss 35mm f1.4, the Canon 35mm f1.4 L, or even the Canon 24mm f1.4 L if you want something a tad wider. If money is an issue (which it is for most), the Sigma delivers near equal film quality at a fraction of the price.

I would buy soon if I were you. Prices are rising fast due to the whole Japan crisis. Remember, this lens will not work on a full frame camera, which is partly why the price is cheaper.

If you want to see some photography examples from this lens, check out this thread.
 
Last edited:
For shutter speed you should always keep it at 180 degrees to the framerate (in film terms). In shutter speed terms this means to keep the it at twice the framerate (if you are shooting at 24fps) shoot at 1/48th of a second. 30fps should be 1/60th, etc. This can be broken to do certain effects, but do it carefully.
 
Oh, also, shooting on iso's 160, 320, 640, and 1250 provide the best video image performance. Those are the iso levels I would shoot with, and within that list: the lower, the cleaner the image.

Don't mess with Highlight Tone Priority unless you're in a very high contrast area, and you absolutely can't keep the highlights from being blown out any other way. Use it as a last resort, as it increases digital noise substantially. Keep it disabled as often as you can.

Recommended canon picture profile: "Neutral" with sharpness and contrast turned all the way down, and saturation turned down 1 or 2 notches.
 
I love "moody" shots. I also love the "film" look when indoors. I would go for 24fps, and use a low light lens like a 1.4. This will give you plenty of lighting options and a wide shot. For closer shots with a 50mm or less lens, Just move closer. I've always found it easier to work with a low light 50mm. I have a nikkor 50mm 1.4 and it is usually my go to lens. Especially indoors.
 
JPM Photography said:
For shutter speed you should always keep it at 180 degrees to the framerate (in film terms). In shutter speed terms this means to keep the it at twice the framerate (if you are shooting at 24fps) shoot at 1/48th of a second. 30fps should be 1/60th, etc. This can be broken to do certain effects, but do it carefully.
Click to expand...

Except that anything other than 1/60 under synthetic light (especially HMI and floros) is going to cause strobing. In PAL country, that's 1/50. The 180º shutter rule is just fine under natural light, but anywhere else it needs to be matched to the electrical system.
 
HansSteinert said:
The main complaints are due to inconsistent auto-focusing for photography. Sigma seems to have some quality-control when it comes to that. If you get a good one, it's awesome, but there's a slight chance you'll get a dud and the AF will be front focusing or back focusing. Luckily, it comes with a 4 year warranty and Sigma's calibration is effective (although it does take 2-4 weeks when you ship it).

With that said, these problems are exclusive to photography. You manual focus in video, which always works well. The only slight complaint is that the focus ring isn't as smooth as Canon L lenses or Zeiss lenses, but they do get much better after use and they really aren't bad to begin with. My lens works perfect, and it's epic for both video and photography. You can't beat this lens for the price. If money isn't an issue, check out the new Zeiss 35mm f1.4, the Canon 35mm f1.4 L, or even the Canon 24mm f1.4 L if you want something a tad wider. If money is an issue (which it is for most), the Sigma delivers near equal film quality at a fraction of the price.

I would buy soon if I were you. Prices are rising fast due to the whole Japan crisis. Remember, this lens will not work on a full frame camera, which is partly why the price is cheaper.

If you want to see some photography examples from this lens, check out this thread.
Click to expand...


yeah, I would not use auto focus at all, so your right. For me, cash is an option although i would love to have a L lens in that range, the sigma just makes more sense. Thanks for the info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top