If I wanted to make a video.....

Regarding DSLR's, unless something has changed significantly in what's out the now, I don't believe they have the capability to auto-focus when shooting video even with a lens that is AF capable (this applies to Canon DSLR's last I knew). If your doing "selfie" videos without someone else doing the actual shooting it may be difficult to set and maintain focus as it needs to be done manually. Narrow DOF would make it more difficult.
The higher end ones, e.g. the 7D, can (and, I think, the 70D can, as well). If you're shooting low-light, autofocus is problematic, anyway, as it tends to hunt unless the scene is static.
 
.......I think I'll look into animation software instead. :eek:



:D

That's waaaaaaaay harder!

But seriously, as long as you're not moving massively forward or backwards, then focus variations shouldn't be an issue - so you'll have to can the "race up to the camera and poke your face into it" moves, perhaps... you wouldn't want a huge blur effect behind you anyway like you would for a portrait of your honey in front of a hedge, so you'd be probably sticking to higher f stop numbers (8/11) instead of your 4s and 2.8s, and so you'd be fine.

Jeez, that sounded impressive. I even vaguely know what I'm talking about... nice change :laughings:
 
The Sony P&S option removes the focus issues - it DOES autofocus during video. Just saying ...

All do, they're talking about DSLR cameras and DOF (Depth of Field) where you can sharp focus on the image you want to capture and leave everything else a little blurry, or that neat effect where the target stays in focus and constant and the background seems to back away or move in on the target. Have to do those things with manual focus...
 
Regarding DSLR's, unless something has changed significantly in what's out the now, I don't believe they have the capability to auto-focus when shooting video even with a lens that is AF capable (this applies to Canon DSLR's last I knew). If your doing "selfie" videos without someone else doing the actual shooting it may be difficult to set and maintain focus as it needs to be done manually. Narrow DOF would make it more difficult.

My Nikon D3200 (the most basic DSLR they do, I think) will autofocus during video recording, but it's noisy (so drowns out most other audio in the video!) and takes a while because the mirror is open so it uses contrast detection. Manual focus isn't much quieter either.
 
This is something I am working on as well RAMI. I will report back in a few days with more info but I am testing a Nikon D3500 camera, I also have a Drift HD camera (used normally for recording video while on my motorcycle but I figure I'll test it anyway). And I am going to mix in some iPhone video. My boss has a camcorder type camera that I might borrow and test as well but I am thinking the Nikon is going to be my best bet.
 
All do, they're talking about DSLR cameras and DOF (Depth of Field) where you can sharp focus on the image you want to capture and leave everything else a little blurry, or that neat effect where the target stays in focus and constant and the background seems to back away or move in on the target. Have to do those things with manual focus...

That's not what arcaxis said ... But Rami isn't going to do any fancy stuff like that anyway ...
 
Just checked the camera, it's a Nikon D5100 not 3500. Again though I will post back in a couple days with more info.

We started doing recordings at open mic night. Setup a PC and digi003 and record their session tracked out in PT. This week I am going to add some video and see if I can make some videos for the people doing open mic. We will see how that goes.
 
Yeah DSLRs actually make really kickass video cameras. I have a Nikon D5000, it only does 720P but its pretty awesome.
 
The video in this post was filmed entirely with a Lumix G2 DSLR:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/gener...latest-video-raine-wageman-flirtation-366891/

The video here was recorded on a Panasonic handycam:

The camera work, direction, composition and editing in both videos is really quite good. My only observation goes to technical quality. The video shot with the Panasonic camcorder looks like it was shot with a camcorder -- it has that flat, limited-dynamic range which is typical of consumer video (and soap operas). The one shot with the DSLR, on the other hand, looks much more filmic. The only indication that it's not the result of a more professional production is the lighting (or, rather, lack of it) and color mismatches from shot-to-shot. Not grading shots makes cuts really jarring. It's one of the strongest arguments for shooting raw, rather than compressed.
 
The camera work, direction, composition and editing in both videos is really quite good. My only observation goes to technical quality. The video shot with the Panasonic camcorder looks like it was shot with a camcorder -- it has that flat, limited-dynamic range which is typical of consumer video (and soap operas). The one shot with the DSLR, on the other hand, looks much more filmic. The only indication that it's not the result of a more professional production is the lighting (or, rather, lack of it) and color mismatches from shot-to-shot. Not grading shots makes cuts really jarring. It's one of the strongest arguments for shooting raw, rather than compressed.

I appreciate your very pertinent observations. I acknowledge the limitations resulting from the technology. They are, though, the consequences that many dabblers here will have to deal with when they put together videos using similar equipment. In HR we frequently hear how important room treatment is to getting a good result. I guess the cinematographic equivalent is still room treatment . . . but treatment to deal with light, rather than sound. Having a great camera is not necessarily going to produce great results unless you can manage the light on and around the subject, and that is another area requiring particular skill and equipment.

Nevertheless, pointing a camera in the general direction of your subject and hitting record can produce watchable results if you are reasonably adept at angles and editing.

An additional thought. You said: "Not grading shots makes cuts really jarring. It's one of the strongest arguments for shooting raw, rather than compressed." Another common HR theme is the importance of critical listening. This means hearing what's really there, instead of what you think is there, and being able to understand the significance of what you are hearing, and then being able to figure out how to deal with it. The same applies to vision in putting videos together: i.e. being able to see what's there and understand its significance. Sadly, for me, I have no idea what your sentence means, which means I have a mess of learning still to do.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your very pertinent observations. I acknowledge the limitations resulting from the technology. They are, though, the consequences that many dabblers here will have to deal with when they put together videos using similar equipment. In HR we frequently hear how important room treatment is to getting a good result. I guess the cinematographic equivalent is still room treatment . . . but treatment to deal with light, rather than sound. Having a great camera is not necessarily going to produce great results unless you can manage the light on and around the subject, and that is another area requiring particular skill and equipment.
I think that's an excellent analogy. Controlling the light is very much like controlling the acoustic environment in a studio,

Nevertheless, pointing a camera in the general direction of your subject and hitting record can produce watchable results if you are reasonably adept at angles and editing.
I think you're underestimating the skill and talent required to be reasonably adept. I generally don't like non-professionally produced videos. However, I think yours show considerable talent.

An additional thought. You said: "Not grading shots makes cuts really jarring. It's one of the strongest arguments for shooting raw, rather than compressed." Another common HR theme is the importance of critical listening. This means hearing what's really there, instead of what you think is there, and being able to understand the significance of what you are hearing, and then being able to figure out how to deal with it. The same applies to vision in putting videos together: i.e. being able to see what's there and understand its significance. Sadly, for me, I have no idea what your sentence means, which means I have a mess of learning still to do.
"Grading" is matching color, exposure, dynamic range and gamma from shot to shot so they look consistent. Most semi-pro video editing packages (Adobe Premiere Pro, Vegas, etc.) have the tools to do this. It's harder to do this with processed, compressed video, i.e. that which comes out of most non-pro cameras, though not impossible. The reason its harder with compressed video is that all video compression is lossy. That which gets thrown away is, generally, also that which needs to be manipulated when grading. However, it is still possible to introduce a fairly significant amount of correction to lossy-compressed video. This, by the way, is another reason why controlling lighting is so important -- it's easier to remove a blue cast from outside light by putting up screen over a window then to try to correct the color temperature of clips shot from one direction so they match the other clips in the scene post-production. Grading is a tedious, but necessary, step in the post-production process.

There's an excellent web forum for video at dvinfo.com -- it's the video equivalent of homerecording.com. A lot of what I know about video I picked up there. It's worth checking out.
 
Back
Top