PDA

View Full Version : Outtakes of a studio shoot



jchriston
01-04-2013, 08:18 PM
https://vimeo.com/56790820

Link: https://vimeo.com/56790820

Warning - might be really boring if you dont like the first shot haha - it's like a minute of shots very similar to each other.

Random outtakes of a quick studio thing we did the other day. Vimeo did something weird with the gamma i think, so she looks like she's wearing tanner in a lot of the shots, oh well. The spot turned into mostly graphics so a lot of this didn't see the light of day.

EDIT: should add that this was shot 2.5k raw and and spit out pro res files to the editor rather quickly. the workflow gets easier and easier each time i do it.

Figured some of you might be interested in seeing something like this.

This was shot all handheld with mostly a zeiss 28mm f/2 and when it punches in it's a leica r 60mm f2.8. Both wide open I believe.

Also posted this earlier today - a test of a tokina 11-16 that i bought - I have a dud one that was no good on the wide end of it, so i'm returning. but it's a good reference to see how wide you can get on the camera at different focal lengths.


https://vimeo.com/56772446

Link: https://vimeo.com/56772446

Jeff
01-04-2013, 08:31 PM
Where did you buy the camera from and what day?

jchriston
01-04-2013, 08:34 PM
I got it from ebay a while back.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
01-04-2013, 09:15 PM
Hi John: Thanks very much for sharing this.

I'd be interested in reading a brief description of the lighting set up, such as type of fixtures & approx. distance from the talent, and also whether you used an ND filter. Mostly I'm interested in the approx. light level required to achieve the result you got.

I often shoot with a FS100 in a studio with a similar-looking (http://www.kgw.com/on-tv/greater-portland-today?more=y) "set", so any additional info you can provide will help me understand what I'm seeing in your clips.

Great stuff. Cheers.

RobertJ
01-05-2013, 12:04 AM
The Tokina really shows it's weakness with tons of chromatic abberation in the corners, even on this "small" BMC sensor.

Look in the upper-right-hand corner starting at 15 seconds or so. That's pretty bad, IMO. But I love the footage. :)

karoliinasalmin
01-05-2013, 03:45 AM
I am thinking of using Canon EF-S 10-22. I have it for my current b-camera (60D) and been comparing it to my L-lenses and I have not seen any bad chromatic aberration on it unlike the cheap EF-models that some of them have tons of it. I have found it in my still photography quite good lens actually, much better than Sigma 12-24 which has such yellow tint that I really don't like it. The disadvantage of course is that it is only f/3.5 wide open. Apparently the f/2 is not very shallow depth of field yet on this crop and f/3.5 would be worse.

Seems the 60mm gets a very closeup on this crop sensor size. Actually my Sigma 50mm 1.4 might be with the crop good for shooting faces.

Based on the examples it looks like I would like to shoot 2.5K at all times. Because to my eye the Prores looks less detailed and softer than the videos originating from raw footage, which is understandable since it has to do scaling from the 1:1 pixels to less than 1:1 pixels, and at this amount of pixels (where there is not enough pixels to spend), some softness is unavoidable especially with algorithms that are possible in-camera - similar effect than putting LCD monitor to its non-native resolution - it just looks bad on any other resolution than on its native resolution - it requires pixel density of the Mac's retina displays to be able to scale to non-native resolutions without clearly visible side effects. Of course always using raw would mean running out of space very fast and would require enormous amount of storage and would make the workflow slow. I wonder why could Blackmagic not do a 2.5K prores recording option. That would enable doing scaling in post with high quality if the delivery medium is 1080p and not 2.5K and would retain all the detail in the footage until the last scaling and it would have the advantage of the less space requirement of the prores for footage where the advantages of raw are not needed. E.g. if I would shoot a movie where all shots are made best possible and will benefit from best possible image, it would be fully 2.5K raw of course, but if I would go to some event with the BMC, I would prefer to still have the 2.5K resolution, but the mildly compressed ProRes format would be good enough quality for this less important footage and would speed up the workflow (e.g. if someone is asking for me to upload what I recorded to Youtube quickly).

RobertJ
01-05-2013, 04:54 AM
Most of the EF-S lenses have great performance, because they are newer designs and have smaller image circles. The EF-S 60 macro is incredible, and the 17-55 IS f/2.8 zoom is very good as well.

The only ones that aren't good are most of the "Kit Lenses." Do not buy those crappy EF-S kit zoom lenses, like the 18-55, 18-135, 18-200, 55-250, 15-85. These are the crap lenses the sleazy camera stores try to sell to amateurs who don't know anything about cameras, lol.

The 10-22 is not bad.

I'm still waiting for the Samyang 10mm f/2.8, only because their 14mm is almost completely free of chromatic abberation, which is quite impressive.

Frank Glencairn
01-05-2013, 05:07 AM
Also posted this earlier today - a test of a tokina 11-16 that i bought - I have a dud one that was no good on the wide end of it, so i'm returning. but it's a good reference to see how wide you can get on the camera at different focal lengths.



Have you experianced some problems with infinity?
Just got mine (the old version) and it looks like, I can't get it sharp on infinity.

Frank

bowman
01-05-2013, 08:04 AM
I'm not convinced that the BMC is the ideal camera for All kinds of TV work. Sometimes people just want images to be clear, HD and stable and couldn't give a crap about dynamic range, in fact for some work footage looking like video is what people expect and want to see when they watch live studio type TV. Just an opinion.


You clearly don't need this camera, so please sell it to me...

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
01-05-2013, 01:42 PM
Have you experianced some problems with infinity?
Just got mine (the old version) and it looks like, I can't get it sharp on infinity.

See:
http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3807&sid=14671ea365d5753e37e37b356604646a

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
01-05-2013, 01:47 PM
I am thinking of using Canon EF-S 10-22. I have it for my current b-camera (60D) and been comparing it to my L-lenses and I have not seen any bad chromatic aberration on it unlike the cheap EF-models that some of them have tons of it. I have found it in my still photography quite good lens actually, much better than Sigma 12-24 which has such yellow tint that I really don't like it. The disadvantage of course is that it is only f/3.5 wide open. Apparently the f/2 is not very shallow depth of field yet on this crop and f/3.5 would be worse.

Seems the 60mm gets a very closeup on this crop sensor size. Actually my Sigma 50mm 1.4 might be with the crop good for shooting faces.

Based on the examples it looks like I would like to shoot 2.5K at all times. Because to my eye the Prores looks less detailed and softer than the videos originating from raw footage, which is understandable since it has to do scaling from the 1:1 pixels to less than 1:1 pixels, and at this amount of pixels (where there is not enough pixels to spend), some softness is unavoidable especially with algorithms that are possible in-camera - similar effect than putting LCD monitor to its non-native resolution - it just looks bad on any other resolution than on its native resolution - it requires pixel density of the Mac's retina displays to be able to scale to non-native resolutions without clearly visible side effects. Of course always using raw would mean running out of space very fast and would require enormous amount of storage and would make the workflow slow. I wonder why could Blackmagic not do a 2.5K prores recording option. That would enable doing scaling in post with high quality if the delivery medium is 1080p and not 2.5K and would retain all the detail in the footage until the last scaling and it would have the advantage of the less space requirement of the prores for footage where the advantages of raw are not needed. E.g. if I would shoot a movie where all shots are made best possible and will benefit from best possible image, it would be fully 2.5K raw of course, but if I would go to some event with the BMC, I would prefer to still have the 2.5K resolution, but the mildly compressed ProRes format would be good enough quality for this less important footage and would speed up the workflow (e.g. if someone is asking for me to upload what I recorded to Youtube quickly).

Judicious use of a small amount of sharpening in post might be useful with BMCC ProRes & DNxHD footage. Can't say for certain since I don't have my camera yet ...

Meanwhile, James Tonkin appears to get very nice, sharp results using BMCC ProRes, even under low light conditions. I don't know if he's sharpening in post.:
http://vimeo.com/55217018

Kholi
01-05-2013, 02:21 PM
Judicious use of a small amount of sharpening in post might be useful with BMCC ProRes & DNxHD footage. Can't say for certain since I don't have my camera yet ...

Meanwhile, James Tonkin appears to get very nice, sharp results using BMCC ProRes, even under low light conditions. I don't know if he's sharpening in post.:
http://vimeo.com/55217018

Sorry to go off topic (as usual, sorry guys) But the sharpening thing... ProRes can be helped a ton by shooting with sharp glass or at apertures that are sharper to begin with. Canon glass is just not very good wide open, and heck most glass isn't.

Will hopefully be able to illustrate this with some Zeiss Ultra Primes or Red Pro Primes when I get my MFT camera.

jchriston
01-05-2013, 02:36 PM
hey everyone -

Peter - It wasn't a ton of light, mostly she was being keyed by 2 4x4 kinos with tungsten bulbs in blasting through some opal. Beyond that we had a lowell rifa on for fill and I believe a tota behind her for a rim. the lighting isn't very good in this, i was cannibalizing another persons lighting setup to fit this in real quick, we basically built the set and then moved some of the lights around and then shot. i wouldn't take this as a really great example of a "studio" shoot, but none the less it's an example. i actually think I over lit her a bit as it seems a bit "source-y". I think something a biiiit more natural would have suited this better.

Frank - yeah i had some rather glaring issues with the tokina i had. it's infinity focus seemed way off at 11mm while it was wide open. at first i thought it just wasn't resolving enough detail or something, but it seems to be off. it's a shame as my copy was rather sharp and nice looking at 16mm wide open.

i'm considering going to b and h and having them let me try copies until i find one i'm satisfied with haha. i don't know if they'll go for that though.

bowman - haha thanks for the offer but i think i'm going to keep it. stuff like this isn't all i shoot.

And yeah to chime in on the prores stuff - the prores from the camera is MILES ahead of anything from dslrs in terms of resolution. but what kholi is saying about canon glass not being sharp is true as well. once you see it side by side to something else you'll start to notice it across everything that was shot with canon stuff.
that being said - resolution is separate from sharpening so you can sharpen it to your hearts content. but the bmcc will always resolve way more detail and you'll get even more out of that by using glass that resolves better than canon glass too.

but to kholi - i don't think the issues frank and i are seeing with the tokina are it not being good wide open - that was my first instinct, it seems to be way more off than that would be - makes me want an mft camera now….


anyways, if anyone wants to see the finished spot as well you can see it here: https://vimeo.com/56761991

Kholi
01-05-2013, 02:54 PM
Yeah, I don't think the Tokina is THAT soft wide open. It's pretty darn good, actually, for the price. Thus why it's been modded.

When I get a chance I'll go back to the camera and test it again, but I never saw anything that drastic on it. That one guy couldn't get beyond like fifty feet or something.

Kholi
01-05-2013, 03:08 PM
I just realized something: None of the 11-16's I used were EF mount, they were Nikon or PL. In the Nikon's case I used the adapter with the iris adjustment ring on the back (name escapes me right now) to EF. Can't sign into BMD forum but if you want to pass that info along to see if anyone wants to investigate that?

jchriston
01-05-2013, 03:18 PM
Yeah that might be a good solution - didn't think to use one with iris adjustment. do you remember what adapter you used?

Kholi
01-05-2013, 03:25 PM
Just found the name: NOVOFLEX

Maybe it's an issue with non Nikon mount 11-16's? The more I look online about it, the more I see the issues happening with Sony or Canon, but no mention of Nikon.

discussion moved here: http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?2351-Tokina-11-16-2-8-be-careful/page2

CaptainHook
01-05-2013, 08:22 PM
Canon glass is just not very good wide open, and heck most glass isn't.

Are you talking about the L primes as well? I admit i haven't done much testing in regards to that, but the ones we have at the moment (35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 100/2.8 macro) seem okay but i'm not often WIDE open (and i still shoot a lot more stills currently than moving image). I'm actually continually surprised by how much i like the 100/2.8L macro though which i use at 2.8 often. That thing seems pretty damn sharp.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
01-06-2013, 08:29 PM
Peter - It wasn't a ton of light, mostly she was being keyed by 2 4x4 kinos with tungsten bulbs in blasting through some opal. Beyond that we had a lowell rifa on for fill and I believe a tota behind her for a rim. the lighting isn't very good in this, i was cannibalizing another persons lighting setup to fit this in real quick, we basically built the set and then moved some of the lights around and then shot. i wouldn't take this as a really great example of a "studio" shoot, but none the less it's an example. i actually think I over lit her a bit as it seems a bit "source-y". I think something a biiiit more natural would have suited this better. ...

And yeah to chime in on the prores stuff - the prores from the camera is MILES ahead of anything from dslrs in terms of resolution. ... that being said - resolution is separate from sharpening so you can sharpen it to your hearts content. but the bmcc will always resolve way more detail and you'll get even more out of that by using glass that resolves better than canon glass too. ...

Hi John: Thanks for that. It's helpful in getting an idea of how the BMCC performs given the sort of light levels you were working with. And thanks also for the ProRes sharpness-related info. Cheers.

David
01-07-2013, 03:57 AM
Are you talking about the L primes as well? I admit i haven't done much testing in regards to that, but the ones we have at the moment (35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 100/2.8 macro) seem okay but i'm not often WIDE open (and i still shoot a lot more stills currently than moving image). I'm actually continually surprised by how much i like the 100/2.8L macro though which i use at 2.8 often. That thing seems pretty damn sharp.
More importantly, the 100mm 2.8L resolves a great amount of detail which is often overlooked because people want sharpness. In my opinion sharpness comes second to resolving actual detail. You can do a somewhat decent job of increasing sharpness in post. There is very little, may be nothing that can be done to increase resolved detail. That lens on a 5D Mark III is amazing for stills.

CaptainHook
01-07-2013, 06:18 AM
Yeah we use 2xmk3's (with a mk2 as backup) and it's really great for stills. I think that lens is underrated/overlooked by many, maybe because the body feels a lot cheaper than the other L series lenses.. but i'm a fan.

Nick Bibbo
01-07-2013, 10:33 PM
Needs more 24p.