Video makers 'post here'

[vtwiz]

Can you link me to any videos showing some fast moving action shot on VDSLR? I'm finding lots of videos with nice shallow DOF but those kinds of shots get old pretty quick in an action sports DVD and I also notice the shots going in and out of focus very easy.

The Canon 7D, 60D and 550D (among other brands) can all shoot 720p @50p & 60p. Using this setting pretty much gets rid of any noticeable skew with fast action. Also, you can do nicer slow-mo shooting at 50 or 60p.

Yes, you do generally get shallower DOF with the larger sensor but if you know about shutter speeds, Aperture, ISO and focal lengths you can get around it pretty easily (don't forget you have a focus ring to manually focus too!). If you are serious about your film making then get a VDSLR, it's a bit of a no brainer at the moment. If you just want to muck about and shoot your mates riding then a DSLR is a bit of a handful.

The Panasonic GH1 or now GH2 are also a good option. They have a micro 4/3 sensor which is smaller than the APSC found in the Canons. This means you get a slightly larger DOF for any given f-stop and they also don't suffer from motion skew (jello effect) as bad when shooting 1080p.

VDSLR's are all a bit of a compromise. I use a 7D for all my own professional work and definately wouldn't go back to a 'regular' video camera until they have sensors like we have in DSLR's (which isn't far away).

 

[jda]

I found this guide and its loaded with info on VDSLR, just thought I'd share

http://nofilmschool.com/dslr

 

[mty10@]

Hey guys haven't been around much lately, barely even picked up the camera for a few months.

Anyway, looking at getting a new camera with some money from a job before/around christmas.

I want something smaller, but also Full HD and decent audio as I'm gonna be doing quite abit of short film stuff too.

I'm not to keen on shooting with a DSLR (just personal preference I guess) so a "normal" camera would be great.

I've found these two; anyone have any other ideas around this price bracket? The JVC is sort the upper limit as I wish to "accessorise" haha.

 

[Downhill Domination]

Hey guys haven't been around much lately, barely even picked up the camera for a few months.

Anyway, looking at getting a new camera with some money from a job before/around christmas.

I want something smaller, but also Full HD and decent audio as I'm gonna be doing quite abit of short film stuff too.

I'm not to keen on shooting with a DSLR (just personal preference I guess) so a "normal" camera would be great.

I've found these two; anyone have any other ideas around this price bracket? The JVC is sort the upper limit as I wish to "accessorise" haha.

Can't comprehend why you'd need a new camera, you still have plenty of perfecting of your skills on your current one, don't think a new camera would be the best investment, but hey, your money...

 

[Sam.]

Can't comprehend why you'd need a new camera, you still have plenty of perfecting of your skills on your current one, don't think a new camera would be the best investment, but hey, your money...

That is probably up there with the most condescending things I've read on this forum. With all due respect, Ty some may argue the exact same point for you. I'm not claiming to be some top dog film maker here or anything along those lines, but who on earth are you to judge Michael, you've made one video for Nicho of Thomas and Andrew and got paid some money for it and have another one in the works... in no way can you say you're making an income off it. Time to eat some humble pie, I think.

Michael, for the money you really can't go past a 550d. I too was scared of the whole DSLR filming thing at first, and I still haven't come close to mastering it but after a couple of shoots with it, it gets easier. Shoot at f/8 and your focus needn't be completely bang on to get a nice shot, and you have a lot more freedom in terms of lenses, and adjustability. Unless you have a rig, hand held filming is pretty much impossible so tripod is always the go, but that really isn't a big deal, either as for race filming I tend to find that a tripod is what I like to use if I'm going to be on the hill all day. Granted, the microphone built in isn't the best, but with the money you're looking at spending you'll have money left over to "accessorize" like you want to. If you're ever down 'gong way, you're welcome to have a go of my 7d to see for yourself how good they are to film with, and I can show you a few things that I have learnt with my knowledge, albeit limited.

 

[vtwiz]

I've found these two; anyone have any other ideas around this price bracket? The JVC is sort the upper limit as I wish to "accessorise" haha.

Am I missing something here? Which two??? What price bracket????

 

[Downhill Domination]

That is probably up there with the most condescending things I've read on this forum. With all due respect, Ty some may argue the exact same point for you. I'm not claiming to be some top dog film maker here or anything along those lines, but who on earth are you to judge Michael, you've made one video for Nicho of Thomas and Andrew and got paid some money for it and have another one in the works... in no way can you say you're making an income off it. Time to eat some humble pie, I think.

Michael, for the money you really can't go past a 550d. I too was scared of the whole DSLR filming thing at first, and I still haven't come close to mastering it but after a couple of shoots with it, it gets easier. Shoot at f/8 and your focus needn't be completely bang on to get a nice shot, and you have a lot more freedom in terms of lenses, and adjustability. Unless you have a rig, hand held filming is pretty much impossible so tripod is always the go, but that really isn't a big deal, either as for race filming I tend to find that a tripod is what I like to use if I'm going to be on the hill all day. Granted, the microphone built in isn't the best, but with the money you're looking at spending you'll have money left over to "accessorize" like you want to. If you're ever down 'gong way, you're welcome to have a go of my 7d to see for yourself how good they are to film with, and I can show you a few things that I have learnt with my knowledge, albeit limited.

Did you think I was being serious? hahahaha
Me and Michael are parnters in crime, sarcasm didn't convey well there, Samuel.

As for VDSLR's, I have been holding abck on getting one for ages now, the thing I'm msot concerned about is buying the body and having shit lenses to work with. It's an absolute joke at how much they cost. So, can anyone suggest two lenses, one standard do it all lense for more static shots, and one zoom lense, something that would be good to use at races for long shots. I also don't want somethign that will cost me an arm and a leg to buy, so ideally nothing over a couple of hundred ($300) each. Keep in mind, that I won't be shooting photography at all, so I don't really mind if they aren't going to perform well for photography.

 

[jda]

Read that link I posted, it gives plenty of info on lens choice and how to save some money.

 

[vtwiz]

Did you think I was being serious? hahahaha
Me and Michael are parnters in crime, sarcasm didn't convey well there, Samuel.

As for VDSLR's, I have been holding abck on getting one for ages now, the thing I'm msot concerned about is buying the body and having shit lenses to work with. It's an absolute joke at how much they cost. So, can anyone suggest two lenses, one standard do it all lense for more static shots, and one zoom lense, something that would be good to use at races for long shots. I also don't want somethign that will cost me an arm and a leg to buy, so ideally nothing over a couple of hundred ($300) each. Keep in mind, that I won't be shooting photography at all, so I don't really mind if they aren't going to perform well for photography.

What camera are you looking at? Most DSLR's come with a kit lens of around 17-135 for just a few hundred $ more. For now, go with the kit lens. Also, if you get a Canon, I would recommend getting the 50 1.8 as it's just over $100.

OR, If you are mainly wanting a prime lens for video work only then you can get old MF lenses off ebay for under $50. You will not get autofocus on these when used for stills like you get with the new Canon's but you can outfit yourself with a few primes and a zoom for a couple of hundred. A lot of the older lenses don't have multi-coated glass but have a great 'look' to them. Also, for video work, I like how the older lenses have the aperture control on the actual lens barrel rather than clicking the wheel on the camera body. Just make sure that all the lenses you get have the same mount (m42 is popular). You can then just buy one M42 adapter and leave it on the camera body.

 

[Downhill Domination]

What camera are you looking at? Most DSLR's come with a kit lens of around 17-135 for just a few hundred $ more. For now, go with the kit lens. Also, if you get a Canon, I would recommend getting the 50 1.8 as it's just over $100.

Canon 60D, to be honest, I know NOTHING about lenses at all.

 

[Sam.]

Did you think I was being serious? hahahaha
Me and Michael are parnters in crime, sarcasm didn't convey well there, Samuel.

As for VDSLR's, I have been holding abck on getting one for ages now, the thing I'm msot concerned about is buying the body and having shit lenses to work with. It's an absolute joke at how much they cost. So, can anyone suggest two lenses, one standard do it all lense for more static shots, and one zoom lense, something that would be good to use at races for long shots. I also don't want somethign that will cost me an arm and a leg to buy, so ideally nothing over a couple of hundred ($300) each. Keep in mind, that I won't be shooting photography at all, so I don't really mind if they aren't going to perform well for photography.

I know that, that's why I was especially so offended by it. Judging on your past efforts things weren't looking good for you in the sarcasm department, ha! My mistake, sorry for that one!

Basically for lenses, with that price range you're probably gonna be looking at a 50mm f/1.8 and you might scrape in an older, second hand Sigma 24-70 if you're lucky. Personally I'd be looking at saving up and spending a bit more, 17-40L because of its constant aperture (The Sigma does have that too, though), L series glass/optics etc etc, and 17mm will be wide enough for you to use, prime for your dolly actually and much better than 24mm. 70mm is probably the longest I'd want to film with for normal rider segments on a reasonably closed track, for anything a bit more open you could shoot a much longer lens but lets not go there for now.

 

[Nick53]

As I've said previously it really is worth buying good glass to start off with. I was pretty shocked when I saw the price of the lenses but when I saw the resale price it was all good. Canon L series lenses hold their value extremely well.

I can't think of much for under $300 but I found this for about $400. It's a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Not too bad for the price but Tamron aren't very highly regarded at all and there quality isn't so great. Then something like a 50 f/1.8 or 1.4 could be used as a second lens and they are cheap and relatively good quality.

In other news I should have a Canon 60D, Canon 24-105L, possibly a Tokina 11-16 f2.8, a Nikkor 50 f/1.4, a Rode videomic and some other shiz that is sort of compulsory in my possession by Sunday...hopefully...if all goes to plan...which it probably won't...because this was suppose to happen over a month ago :|

 

[U.D.O]

Just throwing it out there, but I highly doubt the quality difference of filming with L lens's is going to outweigh the price difference. It just seems mostly for the wank factor. Fine if you're doing photography as well, but if not I'd save your money.

 

[Oliver.]

Just throwing it out there, but I highly doubt the quality difference of filming with L lens's is going to outweigh the price difference. It just seems mostly for the wank factor. Fine if you're doing photography as well, but if not I'd save your money.

Spot on.

L Lenses are more suitable for photographic purposes (and even arguably fall short on the really high MP sensors like the 5dII)

You have to bear in mind that full HD video is two megapixels. Basically, bugger all. You will not notice the sharpness or definition of L lenses nearly as much (if at all) as with a photograph.

I would opt more readily for any lens with IS, or a more useable range. Also, look at primes. Great bang for buck, great low light capability and good DOF and flare handling.

Looking at whether a lens is L quality or not is pretty irrelevant if you're only going to be shooting video.

 

[Oliver.]

Can you link me to any videos showing some fast moving action shot on VDSLR? I'm finding lots of videos with nice shallow DOF but those kinds of shots get old pretty quick in an action sports DVD and I also notice the shots going in and out of focus very easy.

Yeap

http://vimeo.com/9121465

all shot on a DSLR, without IS too...

 

[vtwiz]

Yeah, I wouldn't bother trying to get L glass if your on a budget. The cheapest one mentioned it the 17-40 f4. For a start f4 is not all that fast and secondly if your going to spend that kind of money a little more gets you the 17-55 2.8. This is a much better lens due to the f2.8 constant aperture (much faster) and also it's image stabilized. I highly recommend a lens with IS if your spending that kinda cash anyway. I have the 17-55 2.8 with IS and the Tokina 11-17 and trying to do handheld with the 11-17 s pretty hard. Wide angles mask the shakiness slightly but shooting with the Canon is much easier. Also, the 17-55 2.8 is L quality glass. Canon just don't badge any EF-S lenses (ie not full frame) with the L.

The 60D is a great camera. I would prob go with 3 or so MF primes of ebay and a MF zoom if you are only doing video. If you are going to do ANY stills (or do a lot of handheld video) then i'd recommend getting the kit lens for now (18-135 IS??) as it's only a few hundred more and will get you started and the 50 1.8.

Yes, you might all say that it's best to spend the money now and get a great lens but a budget is a budget

 

[mty10@]

Can't comprehend why you'd need a new camera, you still have plenty of perfecting of your skills on your current one, don't think a new camera would be the best investment, but hey, your money...

hahaha, I had no I dea about editing "skills" such as exporting/colour correcting untill about a few months ago, I was just reling in AVCHD and MASSIVE (2gb+ in some cases) to get something that looks decent. Haven't uploaded anything in a while, proabbly should.

The amount of stuff I have read/watched in the past week is insane, having been home sick, is insane. Now wanting to work on some other cams and stuff, not like this one which barley has a full XV colour pallete.

That is probably up there with the most condescending things I've read on this forum. With all due respect, Ty some may argue the exact same point for you. I'm not claiming to be some top dog film maker here or anything along those lines, but who on earth are you to judge Michael, you've made one video for Nicho of Thomas and Andrew and got paid some money for it and have another one in the works... in no way can you say you're making an income off it. Time to eat some humble pie, I think.

Don't worry Sam, its ok. Internet dosn't do sarcasm well. Or Ty for that matter.

Did you think I was being serious? hahahaha
Me and Michael are parnters in crime, sarcasm didn't convey well there, Samuel.

point proven.

Michael, for the money you really can't go past a 550d. I too was scared of the whole DSLR filming thing at first, and I still haven't come close to mastering it but after a couple of shoots with it, it gets easier. Shoot at f/8 and your focus needn't be completely bang on to get a nice shot, and you have a lot more freedom in terms of lenses, and adjustability. Unless you have a rig, hand held filming is pretty much impossible so tripod is always the go, but that really isn't a big deal, either as for race filming I tend to find that a tripod is what I like to use if I'm going to be on the hill all day. Granted, the microphone built in isn't the best, but with the money you're looking at spending you'll have money left over to "accessorize" like you want to. If you're ever down 'gong way, you're welcome to have a go of my 7d to see for yourself how good they are to film with, and I can show you a few things that I have learnt with my knowledge, albeit limited.

Thanks for that, I have reasons for not going to DSLR, but I'm still open to ideas, If you look can convince me, hell I dunno.

Am I missing something here? Which two??? What price bracket????

yes, yes you are.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/707153-REG/Sony_HXR_MC50U_HXR_MC50U_Ultra_Compact_Pro.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/597842-REG/JVC_GY_HM100U.html

haha, sorry I'm rushed can give you more info/reasons/wants later if you have any specifics.

 

[Sam.]

Any reason, in particular? Mostly just for ergonomic reasons?

Also Olly, what you said, I agree with to an extent, but there is the whole issue with the zoom/focus rings too, which play a HUGE part in DSLR filming, moreso focus of course as autofocus isn't really an option.

I have a lens which uses the front element of the lens to focus, and then L series glass too, focusing via the dedicated focus ring on L series glass, or any other lens with a reasonably sized dedicated focus ring, for that matter is a lot easier than using the front element that is typically found on kit style e-fs lenses. So although you may not be selling yourself short optically in not buying L, you may find (well I do anyway) that getting a smooth shot is a lot harder by using cheaper glass, with manual focus configurations such as focussing via the front element.

 

[vtwiz]

Any reason, in particular? Mostly just for ergonomic reasons?

Also Olly, what you said, I agree with to an extent, but there is the whole issue with the zoom/focus rings too, which play a HUGE part in DSLR filming, moreso focus of course as autofocus isn't really an option.

I have a lens which uses the front element of the lens to focus, and then L series glass too, focusing via the dedicated focus ring on L series glass, or any other lens with a reasonably sized dedicated focus ring, for that matter is a lot easier than using the front element that is typically found on kit style e-fs lenses. So although you may not be selling yourself short optically in not buying L, you may find (well I do anyway) that getting a smooth shot is a lot harder by using cheaper glass, with manual focus configurations such as focussing via the front element.

I would recommend the 18-135 (as I previously mentioned) as it does have a dedicated focus ring. I see now that they are charging $400 more for this kit lens over the body alone so not that great a deal. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is not bad and only slightly more than the kit lens that is slower and doesn't have constant aperture.

 

[Downhill Domination]

I know that, that's why I was especially so offended by it. Judging on your past efforts things weren't looking good for you in the sarcasm department, ha! My mistake, sorry for that one!

Basically for lenses, with that price range you're probably gonna be looking at a 50mm f/1.8 and you might scrape in an older, second hand Sigma 24-70 if you're lucky. Personally I'd be looking at saving up and spending a bit more, 17-40L because of its constant aperture (The Sigma does have that too, though), L series glass/optics etc etc, and 17mm will be wide enough for you to use, prime for your dolly actually and much better than 24mm. 70mm is probably the longest I'd want to film with for normal rider segments on a reasonably closed track, for anything a bit more open you could shoot a much longer lens but lets not go there for now.

Ehh, all this talk of lenses jsut confuses me, I think I'll just go the distance and get a video specific prosumer.