I am still trying to improve my technique and would be grateful for constructive critiques. I am shooting with an EX3, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 lens, -3 gain, shutter @ 180 degrees, 1080p 30fps. I have recently switched from Cine4 to Cine1 settings. I processed this clip with Avid Liquid 7 (increased saturation and applied unsharp mask).

I am particularly interested in comments about framing, panning technique, colors, post-processing and sharpness.

YouTube - Long billed Curlew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=capNmeTnLQc)

Thanks!

Jerry Merrell

2 comments I'd make: get a better tripod, and be good to grade the pictures as they look very washed out (no doubt due to the Cine settings - these are designed to make flat pictures containing as much dynamic range as possible for you to work on afterwards).
Also try some slightly higher frame rates - this often makes small bird movement look more natural and takes the edge of some of the camera movement.
Cheers,
Steve

Steve, Thanks for the comments. I will experiment with grading the pictures.

I was recording at 30 fps. Are you recommending overcranking and playing back at 30 fps or shooting at 60i?

Jerry

If you're playing back at 30P try shooting maybe 40 or 50 fps, it's a funny thing but animal movement often looks a lot nicer (and actually more natural) when slowed a bit. You'd probably be surprised how much TV nature footage is off-speed without people even knowing.
I'm no editor so don't know the ins and outs of grading but in essence you're trying to put contrast back into the flattened shots, so deepen the blacks and brighten the whites.
Steve

Steve,

Here is the reprocessed clip.

Although I am comfortable with digital SLR RAW files, color grading video is new to me. I adjusted the RGB histograms individually to darken blacks, enhance the highlights and add more contrast.

YouTube - Long-billed Curlew - reprocessed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hHn82z3Qs)

Thanks for the comments. I will experiment with overcranking and start shopping for a better tripod.

Jerry

You are definitely moving in the right direction with regards to grading.

When framing shots, make sure you always consider the rule of thirds. You did well to place the curlew toward the right third of the frame initially, but as the shot progresses the shift toward centered framing leaves something to be desired. It is sometimes difficult, especially when just starting out, to avoid centering subjects during pans, but with practice the rule of thirds will become more second nature and you won't even need to think about it (I also think that you will find it easier to focus on framing once you are no longer struggling with an insufficient tripod). I can see where this would be a unique challenge for someone transitioning from still photography to video since maintaining good framing while both the camera and subject are moving can be quite difficult. Keep up the good work!

Hi
I see no problems in framing the bird - the air in the picture are in front of it, as it is walking - when it stops and turns you center it - now you cannot tell which way it will walk - if it will? Only problem, as I see, is the stative that is not smooth enough - it could be because of a cheap stative or wind on the camera or yourself when moving - sometimes I grab the head of the stative instead of the pin sticking out to make a smooth pan....

Hi Jerry,

The repost looks lovely to me!
As to the slight vibrations you get I do the following which really helps:
To avoid the vibrations caused by the wind I always use a hide which blocks the wind - extremely useful.
In order to avoid vibrations caused by touching the camera/handle/tripod I attach a rubber band to the handle and only touch it. Also very effective.

Keep it up mate,

Regards,

Ofer

I see no problems in framing the bird...

I understand the practical reasons for centering the bird once it stops because you don't know which way it might move, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. Sometimes the best shots come from taking a guess as to which direction an animal might move. Nice work though Jerry. Overall I think the shot is a success.

I understand the practical reasons for centering the bird once it stops because you don't know which way it might move, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

I also can't see any issue with the framing and personally wouldn't have done it any other way. I would have zoomed in if it was possible but framing is fine IMHO. As I am sure you know, composition has a lot to do with personal taste as opposed to sharpness, exposure etc. The "rule of thirds" is only a suggestion and the actual framing can be fantastic even without following this "rule" - it all depends on the shot and personal taste.
Cheers,
Ofer
Ofer Levy Photography (http://www.oferlevyphotography.com)

The "rule of thirds" is only a suggestion

True. I think the shot is solid and honestly, in what was perhaps a futile attempt to be helpful :), I was just looking for ways it *might* be improved.

Thank you for all the helpful comments.

Jerry

Nice Jerry.
The old advice about tripods is still true, buy the most expensive you can afford and the heaviest you can carry.
My favourites for the EX3 would be Ronford 2004 or O'Connor 1030, but I know a lot of guys (like Ofer) go for the Millers with a lot of success. If funds are tight I'd always go for an old Sachtler (like Video 18 II or Video 20 II) rather than a brand new Manfrotto or the like.
Steve

Gerry,

I think the shot is lovely, particularly the improved one.

The focus seems to soft to me. Was it shot in DV or HD?

Steve, thanks for the tripod recommendations.

Dale, the clip was shot in HD (1080p).

Hi,

Liked the clip, but as the others have pointed out a bit shakey. Filming with a tripod is as much of art as getting the camera settings right when useing a long lens. Its all down to practice and as Ofer has pointed out a little bit of inspiration. Use the heaviest you can afford, then practice as much as possible adapting your handling use etc. As Ofer has indicated a blind to protect him from the wind has been of great use in his case as well as a couple of ballons. Another important point is to ensure the camera and head are properly balanced so the camera can move to any angle without creeping back when pressure is taken of the handle.

Mick

I agree with the tripod comments and the rubber band trick is a god send.
The video appears to me to suffer from improper exposure for the conditions you were shooting in. I am not big on doing much PP'ing I would rather get it the best I can in camera. What conditions were you shooting in? What time of day?

I am not big on doing much PP'ing I would rather get it the best I can in camera. What conditions were you shooting in? What time of day?

The way the cameras work, you'd be losing a lot if you just tried to "get it right in camera". The way to ultimately get the best image is to shoot really flat which can extend the dynamic range by at least 2 stops, then grade to pull out the full potential of the camera. Otherwise you're going to end up with shots that have burnt out highlights and/or crushed blacks and that scream "amateur video" at you.
Steve

... What conditions were you shooting in? What time of day?

Clip was captured last week before 9 am (sunrise was 07:18) with the sun directly behind me. I used histogram + zebras @ 100% to set exposure.

The way the cameras work, you'd be losing a lot if you just tried to "get it right in camera". The way to ultimately get the best image is to shoot really flat which can extend the dynamic range by at least 2 stops, then grade to pull out the full potential of the camera. Otherwise you're going to end up with shots that have burnt out highlights and/or crushed blacks and that scream "amateur video" at you.
Steve

Yes, cameras can and will work that way however proper expoure allows you to capture whites and blacks properly. The balance of detail in both is the reason for proper exposure. To claim as you did above saying you will blow out the whites is ludicrous, proper exposure will not blow out highlights nor will it lose detail in blacks. Shooting flat is something I do not practice for the sole reason that to me the term amateur is defined as a computer animator who chooses to create video via pp rather than get it right in camera as best they can then rely on as little pp as possible. I realize there are two very different schools of thought on this much the same as in DSLR photography. I make no claim as to which is better, I can only choose which works best for me.
I think there is a fine line between a videographer or photgrapher and a an animator. Post processing is a nesessary part of it but to not understand and practice proper exposure seems careless.
I have captured footage of subjects like Bald Eagles, Terns and Penguins, all having black and white distinct and contrasting features and have yet to blow the whites or lose details in the blacks by using proper expousre so I am unsure of how you can possibly convince me as to your advice being sound Steve.

Tim,

First let me say that I really appreciate your comments. I am learning a lot from this thread and want to develop a work flow that produces the best possible images.

You are implying I do not understand proper exposure. I do understand exposure and of course agree that this is critical to getting a good image. Here is a sample of my still photography:

Immature Little Blue Heron Feeding Behavior - Birds Photo By: Jerry Merrell (http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/displayimage.php?pos=-3754)

Fulvous Whistling Duck - Birds Photo By: Jerry Merrell (http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/displayimage.php?pos=-1368)

Purple Gallinule - Birds Photo By: Jerry Merrell (http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/displayimage.php?pos=-1314)

My goal is to be able to capture video images as good as my best digital slr images. I agree with you that this requires excellent lighting and proper exposure. I have a hard time seeing how Steve's point is not right on. The two stops of extra information in the flat images is worth the hassle of color grading if the goal is to have the best final image possible. Assuming they are properly graded, it is illogical to think that these settings might produce images that are in any way inferior to those captured with standard settings.

Based on the incomplete knowledge I have of my camera, it appears to me that outdoors in daylight, the cine1 settings will provide the most raw data with which to work. I now need to learn how to color grade (and to get a better tripod).

Thanks.

Jerry

Yes, cameras can and will work that way however proper expoure allows you to capture whites and blacks properly. The balance of detail in both is the reason for proper exposure. To claim as you did above saying you will blow out the whites is ludicrous, proper exposure will not blow out highlights nor will it lose detail in blacks. Shooting flat is something I do not practice for the sole reason that to me the term amateur is defined as a computer animator who chooses to create video via pp rather than get it right in camera as best they can then rely on as little pp as possible. I realize there are two very different schools of thought on this much the same as in DSLR photography. I make no claim as to which is better, I can only choose which works best for me.
I think there is a fine line between a videographer or photgrapher and a an animator. Post processing is a nesessary part of it but to not understand and practice proper exposure seems careless.
I have captured footage of subjects like Bald Eagles, Terns and Penguins, all having black and white distinct and contrasting features and have yet to blow the whites or lose details in the blacks by using proper expousre so I am unsure of how you can possibly convince me as to your advice being sound Steve.

You are so, so wrong!
When you shoot say a Varicam with factory settings it might have a dynamic range of about 8-9 stops, whereas you put in BBC Wildlife settings (designed for Planet Earth) and you get 10-11 stops - the difference is HUGE. You can see it by eye in the viewfinder, on the zebras, and on scopes in post production. You can get the "correct" exposure as much as you like, but you're always limited by the dynamic range of the camera, and if the blacks or whites are beyond that then one or the other needs to be sacrificed.
Sorry, but it's not debatable, it's pure scientific fact.
The only reason not to shoot with settings like these is you are not able to do post properly, don't have time to (ie news gathering) or don't want to - all of which are valid reasons.
Steve

Tim,

First let me say that I really appreciate your comments. I am learning a lot from this thread and want to develop a work flow that produces the best possible images.

You are implying I do not understand proper exposure. I do understand exposure and of course agree that this is critical to getting a good image. Here is a sample of my still photography:

Immature Little Blue Heron Feeding Behavior - Birds Photo By: Jerry Merrell (http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/displayimage.php?pos=-3754)

Fulvous Whistling Duck - Birds Photo By: Jerry Merrell (http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/displayimage.php?pos=-1368)

Purple Gallinule - Birds Photo By: Jerry Merrell (http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/displayimage.php?pos=-1314)

My goal is to be able to capture video images as good as my best digital slr images. I agree with you that this requires excellent lighting and proper exposure. I have a hard time seeing how Steve's point is not right on. The two stops of extra information in the flat images is worth the hassle of color grading if the goal is to have the best final image possible. Assuming they are properly graded, it is illogical to think that these settings might produce images that are in any way inferior to those captured with standard settings.

Based on the incomplete knowledge I have of my camera, it appears to me that outdoors in daylight, the cine1 settings will provide the most raw data with which to work. I now need to learn how to color grade (and to get a better tripod).

Thanks.

Jerry

Jerry,

No I was not and can not imply you lack understanding of proper exposure, I have no clue what you know and would never make a comment such as that. I was however saying that understanding proper exposure is essential and your Curlew video appeared to me to suffer from improper exposure. I did not see any significant improvement on the re-edited version as well. I am sorry I can only call it as my eyes see it.

As for Dynamic Range and so fourth Steve? I shoot nothing but outdoors using only natural lighting and have no dissapointments in my finished video color, quality, or any other aspect of it as it truly represents what was captured without a bunch of post proccessing trickery. As mentioned I have great detail in the whites without blowing them and I capture great details in the blacks without losing detail or muddying it.
While making the leap from still imaging and self admittedly having under a year in the HD arena, I will not contest your claim of what you refer to as scientific fact however I will say that how I shoot and the advice I gave works very well for me and many many others. I am not into having to so severely massage my footage or images in PP that it no longer is what I originally was after in camera. I would rather spend my time afield instead of behind a computer altering the footage I am able to accurately capture in camera via proper exposure based on the conditions I am shooting in and the desired effect I am after.
I feel that what I see and want to capture in nature is possible with proper exposure. it is not my intention to argue or stir up a debate. What works for you is fine but one size never fits all.

Regards,
Tim

Would a program like Smoothcam be capable of removing the unfortunate unsteadiness of this sequence?

Jerry,

No I was not and can not imply you lack understanding of proper exposure, I have no clue what you know and would never make a comment such as that. I was however saying that understanding proper exposure is essential and your Curlew video appeared to me to suffer from improper exposure. I did not see any significant improvement on the re-edited version as well. I am sorry I can only call it as my eyes see it.

As for Dynamic Range and so fourth Steve? I shoot nothing but outdoors using only natural lighting and have no dissapointments in my finished video color, quality, or any other aspect of it as it truly represents what was captured without a bunch of post proccessing trickery. As mentioned I have great detail in the whites without blowing them and I capture great details in the blacks without losing detail or muddying it.
While making the leap from still imaging and self admittedly having under a year in the HD arena, I will not contest your claim of what you refer to as scientific fact however I will say that how I shoot and the advice I gave works very well for me and many many others. I am not into having to so severely massage my footage or images in PP that it no longer is what I originally was after in camera. I would rather spend my time afield instead of behind a computer altering the footage I am able to accurately capture in camera via proper exposure based on the conditions I am shooting in and the desired effect I am after.
I feel that what I see and want to capture in nature is possible with proper exposure. it is not my intention to argue or stir up a debate. What works for you is fine but one size never fits all.

Regards,
Tim

One of the big problems we faced when going from Super 16 to HD was dynamic range. Even the most modern video cameras have a lot less DR than film, and when filming birds in forest against the sky for example no matter what you do you'll be way beyond video's capabilities. This is why we use these settings. Whatever results you are getting, you'd more more info in the image with these settings, though as I said, if you don't want to post-process then you're right to stick with wht you have. It doesn't affect me as I don't edit, so the problem is someone else's! The producers would rather have that time spent in exchange for the best possible image.
Steve

Interesting discussion!

First - Jerry, second what others have commented to your clip. Shooting with huge focal lengths require a very sturdy tripod and some practise and patients to optain good footage!
I have never tried the EX3, so I have no tips/advise how to get the best look for wildlife filming.

My setup today is the Canon XL H1 and I´m curious how to get the best DR (dynamic range). Steve, do you know if BBC have any white papers on this camcorder for best setup?
I have done my own custom setup, but could be interesting to compare what pros at BBC have come up with!

Another question is how good is the HDV format compared to eg. the EX3 XDCAM format regarding post processing (color grading and so on) I believe that XDCAM is of much higher bit rate which could benefit when adjusting levels and color correcting in post?

Jerry, sorry if you feel I´m hijacking your post. Maybe we could start a new thread on this subject?

Per, this is the BBC site BBC - R&D - Publications - WHP034 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034.shtml) but as far as I know they don't have settings for the XL-H1. This is because they don't like it much I think! Largely down to the HDV compression, as yous ay the one on the EX3 is much better, but when combined with tht Nanoflash you've got an amazing bit of kit.
Always been VERY impressed with your work Per, do you feel you lose out not having slow motion? I know I'd never want to use a camera for wildlife without at least 60 fps. This is the other flaw with the XL-H1 I feel. If you do consider the EX3 though I'd look very carefully at the effects of skew from the rolling shutter. I tried one a few times and didn't like it one bit, but other seem to feel it's OK.
Steve

Always been VERY impressed with your work Per, do you feel you lose out not having slow motion? I know I'd never want to use a camera for wildlife without at least 60 fps. This is the other flaw with the XL-H1 I feel.
Thanks Steve! I feel that the XL-H1 is quite outdated compared to the new range of camcorders who got tapeless system, better codec, over/undercrank etc... So I´m sitting on the fence looking for what´s coming up. As I was reading in other threads on this forum, I was hoping for a major update from Canon regarding their semi-pro camcorders.
In fact I´m tempted to try out the Canon 7D DSLR, who got 720p50/60, even if it´s lacking something, like proper viewfinder, audio etc. It´s price (body only) is quite reasonable and I have eos lenses to start with even though I will miss those huge focal lengths the H1 provided (7.2x when using 35mm lenses)!

Look VERY carefully at skew on these, from what I've seen it's atrocious! There are some threads on here about it.
What this means is that you film a bird flying against a hill and the hill will seem very jittery as the rolling shutter tries to keep up with the move. Most people don't notice it because they never do fast moves like that, but we encounter it all the time.
Steve

Yes, the rolling shutter is a big concern. I might rent one for a week just to check it out before any buying!
Would you say that this is of no concern with the EX3, regarding fast panning, much movement eg. leaves in the woods?

With fast panning (eg following action) I found the EX3 horrible, especially when you follow a bird down to land, the background seems to go really jittery. But, others have not seen this problem, you'd need to check it yourself. Other than this I think the EX3 is brilliant, nice viewfinder (you'll wonder how you ever managed with the Canon), easy use of slow motion, good codec, even better with Nano, image from the sensor is really really good, decent dynamic range.
Steve

The way the cameras work, you'd be losing a lot if you just tried to "get it right in camera". The way to ultimately get the best image is to shoot really flat which can extend the dynamic range by at least 2 stops, then grade to pull out the full potential of the camera. Otherwise you're going to end up with shots that have burnt out highlights and/or crushed blacks and that scream "amateur video" at you.
Steve

Steve

I'm also a newcomer to video and the EX3. Can you recommend any settings please to get the most out of this cam. When you say shoot flat...do you mean with Sony's default settings?

Thanks

Definitely NOT Sony default settings! When cameras are shipped they tend to have nice punchy settings installed that'll give a pleasing image "straight out of the box".
To give best dynamic range you're looking at changing the gamma curve (usually to a "cine" type curve), as well as adjusting knee and other technical stuff! Also you can set the camera to record "illegal" levels of white, typically upto 109%, that need to controlled in post.
Do a search on the forum for EX1 and EX3 profile "recipes", there has been quite a lot of talk about them. I can't suggest anything as I've not used the cameras more than briefly, and can only talk about Varicam and the big Sonys, for which there are specific BBC settings and a lot more control in the menus.
Steve

Try the BBC approved settings for this camera, at

BBC - R&D - Publications - WHP034 - Addendum 27 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034-add30.shtml)

Just a word of caution re the BBC settings though, AFAIK they haven't spent that much time with the EX cameras, so don't neccessarily treat the document as gospel as you would with the Planet Earth Varicam settings. Alan Roberts himself will admit that with many of the cameras he's only able to spend a little time assessing them.
Steve

In 25P with shutter - the Sony EX 3 looks completly as all other cameras when panning. I cannot see any difference on the material from my Panasonic HVX2100 and my Sony EX3. With 25P and shutter at 1/50 or 1/60 it will look stuttering....

In 25P with shutter - the Sony EX 3 looks completly as all other cameras when panning. I cannot see any difference on the material from my Panasonic HVX2100 and my Sony EX3. With 25P and shutter at 1/50 or 1/60 it will look stuttering....

We'll have to agree to disagree there then, it certainly looked different to me. At 25P a 1/50 shutter is the best one to use, and is the standard, and when shot on Varicam etc. it has gentle blur, but not stutter. Any higher shutter speed and you'll get horrible strobing.
And there's no such thing as an HVX2100, do you mean HPX2100 or an HVX200?
Steve

Yes HPX2100 - then.
Maybe I should try a shutter speed below 1/50 on HPX 2100 - it will produce more blur and less stutter.

Steve and Alan thanks for the info and link...that's a great help.

Dave