What did I do wrong? I have el cheapo lights, but are they the cause? Is it the lens? The Kelvin I set too high? I color corrected in FCP so she doesn't look like a yellow alien, but it still sucks. Please help!

Here's my settings:
Canon 60D
Vivitar 50mm
f/5.6
60 shutter
ISO 320
Kelvin 7000 (dummy me...ugh)
24fps/1920x1080

I color corrected in FCP 3 way color corrector, but that's about it. I'm at a loss and feel so totally discouraged. I watch all these awesome videos on here and I can't even make a simple one scene take look decent! Ai yai yai!! When I white balance it looks so washed out, but maybe that's right? I also use Philip Bloom's setting suggestions for video with the contrast, saturation and sharpness set down. I thought the kelvin would "warm" it up, but I went way too far.

The video should be up by morning. It's uploading now. I'll be taking it down again after tomorrow though.

This is a password protected video on Vimeo
password: MBSR

Grain should be coming from lack of light as far as I know. f5.6 is restricting light compared to wide open settings. I don't know how much bumping ISO does to compensate for the smaller aperture. When you set this up, did you look at lower f stops and ISOs at all, or just go with these settings right out of the box ???

Hi Lisa,

It's not that bad :)
It looks like it was well lighted ...is that why you adjusted the aperture to f5.6? Normally for us, we keep it at f2.8 or lower and work our way up depending on the lighting conditions. We adjust the aperture than play around with the ISO ...also,your shutter setting should have been 50 at 24p...if you are really concerned about the looks/colour of your video, you can get a colour plug in for FCP like Magic Bullet or Genarts Sapphire.

Cheers,

Kren
Vertical Video Works* Winnipeg Wedding Videography (http://www.verticalvideoworks.ca)

Hi Lisa

On my HMC's even when lit I'm working around the F2.8 mark so at that aperture it seems like you are severely underexposed!!

I was looking at using a 3rd DSLR like the GH2 (well it's not quite a DSLR an EVIL actually) and Jeff Harper says he gets rotten results with the kit lens which is F3.5...the way I figure it if I used a setup like that I would need at the VERY least a decent say 15 -50mm zoom at absolute minimum of F2.8 ...F1.7 would be even better!!! Lenses that come with the camera are seldom ideal for low light receptions!! Jeff mentioned his favorite is the 20mm pancake which is fast at F1.7. Wedding receptions are always badly lit and you cannot really walk in with 20 kw of studio lights and make it into day!!!

Over here a decent fast lens costs more than the camera and I also agree with Jeff that that is your number one priority!! Get really decent and fast glass before you even begin!!! Pushing the ISO is not really going to help if you are using a slow lens!!! It's much the same as pushing the gain right up on a video camera. I think you need to spend some money on a fast lens to get good results!!

Chris

I would usually use the portrait setting in my camera. Then adjust the White Balance to suit. Kelvin 7000 is way too high. If you're new, make good use of the AWB. If the AWB gives you some strange colour (bluish outdoor or yellowish indoor), adjust it manually.

Am i correct, in understanding that you're using a 60 shutter speed with 24FPS recording???
I'm don't shoot 24fps, but i'm pretty sure that most folks would stick to 1/48th shutter speed..

But i may be wrong..
Anyhoo....I don't see the problem with grain.

I don't think that it looks particularly grainy but is a bit soft (maybe the Vivitar lens causes this?). It probably is underexposed but as you have already played about with colour correction & is not the original footage we cannot tell exactly where you went wrong. You also edited it then compressed it & uploaded it to Vimeo who compressed it yet again. So all in all without original footage off the camera we are deeply in the realm of speculation.

The counsel of perfection for WB is to do it manually but generally it's good enough to use the presets for tungsten, daylight, fluorescent as appropriate then tweak in post. You should be able to see on the camera's LCD that the WB is there or thereabouts. 7000K is way outside anything you will find indoors as tungsten lights are around 2500-3500K & fluorescent lamps around 4000-5000K

I have a 5DII not a 60D but generally with all the Canon DSLRs you are safe to bump up the ISO to 640 or 800 without any appreciable grain being noticeable.

While your camera settings are fine the question I think is what did you do to it in post?

I noticed the slight grain and given your low ISO (and using a multiple of 160 which should mean cleaner video) the only cause I can think is that you boosted your levels in post or had to over process the image due to colour correction?

Also, when shooting at 24fps you should stick to a shutter of 1/50th. Peter is right but the canon DSLr's dont have 1/48 as an option so 1/50 is the next best thing. Although to be honest with DSLR.... it doesnt really matter.

OK, thanks guys. So, it sounds like it was the kelvin. I'm not used to that setting at alll, but after today, I have a feeling I'm going to be an expert on it! Perhaps it's the lens too, but it sounds like I should've kept it wide open at 1.9, but it looked so blown out. I will be in "school" today online learning how to compensate. Anyone have any good links?

I did close up the aperture (oh, I'm showing my true noobie self here...please be nice!). I saw on this forum lots of others using 60 shutter with 24fps, so I thought that was right, but I'll keep it at 50 next time. For a wedding, will that cause too much blur though?

Perhaps for a music video where I bring in the lights, I use 60fps and 120 shutter next time...wow, I gotta be a mathematician! And I got the ISO thing doing in increments of 160 from Philip Bloom at least.

Sigh, okay here we go. Off to more learning. If anyone else has any more tips out there, I am so very grateful for any thing you can teach me.

Thank you guys!

BTW, the video can now be seen here: YouTube - Someone Like You Adele - Madilyn Bailey (Cover) TeenHootContest!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRZ9x7Ua3c4)
If you vote "like" for her, she can win the contest!

While your camera settings are fine the question I think is what did you do to it in post?

I noticed the slight grain and given your low ISO (and using a multiple of 160 which should mean cleaner video) the only cause I can think is that you boosted your levels in post or had to over process the image due to colour correction?

Also, when shooting at 24fps you should stick to a shutter of 1/50th. Peter is right but the canon DSLr's dont have 1/48 as an option so 1/50 is the next best thing. Although to be honest with DSLR.... it doesnt really matter.

Yes, this could be it...here is a screen grab of it before color correction...I think you may be right.

Do you know why the strings look red? The lights I used were two 6400K fluorescent lighting with white umbrellas over them.

Oh one more thing...maybe next time I should use ProRes 4444 instead of ProRes 422 LT because of the filters, huh?

The white balance has nothing at all to do with whether it looks grainy or not. If the WB is wrong but exposure correct it will still be sharp & detailed but with a colour cast.

If your footage was underexposed & you fixed it in post then this can look much worse than recording with a higher ISO in camera. You can safely use up to ISO 1250 without appreciable grain but if you underexposed it & need to lighten it in post it will likely wind up grainy.

Remember doubling the ISO value is the same as opening up to the next F stop. So in this situation changing to F/4 allows double the amount of light onto the sensor & has the same effect on exposure as upping the ISO to 640.

try that same scene at Kelvin 2500

Ok, got it. So I should have used:

60fps with 120 shutter or 24fps with 50 shutter
100 or 160 ISO
1.9 aperture
2500K

Until Kelvin comes natural, I'm using camera presets for where I'm at (indoor tungsten, fluorescent, daylight, etc.). I wonder what I should've done though if it was still blown out? Go up a stop or two? Yeah, 5.6 sounds like I overdid it.

Whew, ok, not so daunting now. Still learning...

Took a quick look at the still, and didn't look too bad - then looked at the video... is part of what you're seeing perhaps moire rather than "grain" - I know DSLR's are prone to that problem... guitar strings were very noticeable, so I'm guessing that's what caught your eye? Jumped at me right off the bat, and AFAIK, no way to win that battle...

The other thing I might suggest is that your lighting looks a bit "flat" - I'm no lighting expert, probably just a little ahead of you in that dept., but seems like you might want to light the background to pull the talent "off" of the background, and maybe rig a hair light? the still didn't look "bad", but lacked that "pop" that good lighting can bring. There was also a hard reflection off the guitar pickguard, probably need to use your lighting a bit more "dramatically" and perhaps a different background?

Yes, all points taken. Working on renting a studio right now. Looks like it's gonna happen too! Yey! For sure better background, I hear ya there. I just used the cleanest background I could find in my house. All other walls have windows.

And yes, a hair light would be great. And the background. Sigh. Wish I had my own studio. Maybe someday.

I love how you all pipe in and answer. That just means the world to me. Thanks again.

Jumped at me right off the bat, and AFAIK, no way to win that battle...



What does "AFAIK" mean?

As Far As I Know = AFAIK.

I'm fiddling with how to set up some sort of "proper" studio, either in a spare room or part of the garage myself, so I feel your pain! Considering a low dough light and backdrop set off eBay to get something fast and cheap!
I'm working on the theory you only have to make what the camera can "see" look good, and it's not that big an area!

Lighting is an art I have yet to entirely get a handle on, but I have realized it's a HUGE part of getting a profesional looking result for the sort of shot you've got here. This video stuff is a bit more complex than it looks! BTW, your audio sounded great! That's usually the "worst" part of video, so nice job there!

I'd bet with a backdrop and some tinkering with the lighting (great section on DVi on that subject), you'd get what you expect from your camera. It's the old "garbage in" - the camera can only do so much with what's in front of it, no matter how much of a wizard you are with manual settings.

Ah, I see! AFAIK...got it. I feel so old sometimes, and I'm only 39! That's not that old, is it?

I'm excited to take a look at the studio tomorrow of a photographer in our little, teensy town. He has multiple backgrounds he's willing to let me use and maybe some lighting, although his lighting is primarily for photography so we'll see. I'm doing a shoot on Wednesday of a couple for their "love story", how they met video I'm doing for their early June wedding.

Ugh, I'm so nervous! I hope I do a decent job! You're right. This videography stuff ain't for no wimps!

OK, come on brain...concentrate on learning some more stuff now....

Oh, here's a couple links of some background stuff on ebay I've been thinking of:
6 X 9 ft White MUSLIN BACKDROP BACKGROUND - eBay (item 400166172529 end time May-19-11 09:32:18 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400166172529&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_2522wt_1141)

Photo Backdrop Muslin Standing Background Support 905S - eBay (item 180525108274 end time May-21-11 06:00:19 PDT) (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180525108274&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_2321wt_1141)

BTW, your audio sounded great! That's usually the "worst" part of video, so nice job there!



Thanks for the compliment on the audio...really must pay it to Maddy though. Isn't she amazing!?

Lisa, the red you see in the strings is caused by chromatic aberration and originates from your lens. The aperture you select does have an affect on how much CA you experience as it all goes to how you're bending the light.

As a general rule of thumb, if you can control your light source, you should not be using the f-stop and ISO to get correct exposure. You need to know your lenses so that you can get the best out of each one. Under ideal situations you should select your aperture based on what the limitations of your lens are and what effect you want to achieve. Using an f 1.9 will give you a shallower depth of field (DOF) than say 5.6. Using an f 5.6 isn't necessarily bad as long as you have enough light and you want greater DOF. If you've got lights up using a 5.6 with an ISO of 320 shouldn't be that underexposed (of course depending on the lights). I'm shooting a movie with a 7D and just shot a low key boudoir scene to simulate a late 40's look. We used two 650w frenels and one 300 plus one bounce card for a hair light. the camera was set at ISO 320 and f 4.5 because back then they didn't have a lot of fast lenses to give sallow DOF. We had to use 1/2 and full scrims on the key and fill to get the right exposure.

Again, you need to know the limitations of your lens to select the best aperture. For instance I very rarely close the stock lens on my EX3 down below f8 because beyond that point the image becomes very soft.

I would actually caution against using AWB because you can get some pretty ugly color shifts as it tries to adjust. The best thing to do is use a grey card or white card and take a manual WB. If you want to warm up the look you can use a warm card to WB or if you have enough experience you can take a WB from a white/grey card then tweak a dialed in setting. I often do this but it doesn't take much to warm it up. Every camera that I've used, even when doing multicam shoots with the same models, read color temp differently. So I always WB to a card then tweak the setting to fit the scene (of course that's if the footage isn't going to be graded in post). For your fluorescent lights, say if you get a WB reading from y our camera of 4300K, going to 4500K will give a noticeably warmer look Going to 5000K will give a lot warmer look. The best thing to do is to take some test shots so you can experiment with the look.

Finally, what are you using to set exposure? If you're using the camera's lcd and how it looks there you have to stop that right away. The camera's lcd screen is not calibrated and you can't rely on it. If you don't have a monitor with a waveform and other scopes use the meter on the camera, take the exposure reading and make very slight adjustments as needed from doing test shots. That's one of the greatest things about this digital age. Instant gratification. You can set up your lights, Do a quick 30 second test.

Good luck and keep shooting,
Garrett

LIsa, one of the best things that I have purchased has been my background kit. Like this

Calumet Heavy-Duty Background Support (http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/calumet_heavy_duty_background_support/mf6095)

I love having this option for pre wedding videos. I usually just shoot them in the couples house or apartment. I ask how much room I'll have ahead of time so I know what size paper I need to buy. But there's obviously several options as far as background goes.... they can choose their own colors. Or sometimes in order to help tell the story I'll have them draw out a (cutesy) background with pastels.

Steve

Oh how I wish I had Donald Trump's money, Einstein's brains and Steven Spielberg's knowledge right about now.

Ok, got it. So I should have used:

60fps with 120 shutter or 24fps with 50 shutter
100 or 160 ISO
1.9 aperture
2500K
..

Almost there..

Quoted from Vimeo
"As a rule of thumb, you want the denominator of your shutter speed to be approximately double the number of frames per second that you are recording. In other words, if you are recording at 30 frames per second, you want your shutter speed to be 1/60th of a second.."

So if you're shooting 24FPS (frames per second), then shoot 1/48th shutter speed..

Almost there..

Quoted from Vimeo
"As a rule of thumb, you want the denominator of your shutter speed to be approximately double the number of frames per second that you are recording. In other words, if you are recording at 30 frames per second, you want your shutter speed to be 1/60th of a second.."

So if you're shooting 24FPS (frames per second), then shoot 1/48th shutter speed..

Unfortunately the Canon DSLR's don't have 1/48th as an option so 1/50th when shooting 24fps is the best alternative.

-Garrett

I really don't think your footage turned out as bad as you advertised, haha! I thought it was decent and definitely far from terrible. :)

I really don't think your footage turned out as bad as you advertised, haha! I thought it was decent and definitely far from terrible. :)

Ryan, I agree. When I watched the video, I thought I was viewing the wrong one.

Aw, thanx guys. After yesterday, seeing that makes me start my day on a much better foot.

I know I need work (ain't THAT the truth!)...I use the best videographers out there as a benchmark and I fall so short. I have hope though, I'm still learning. I have drive, so I know with time and applying what I learn, results will follow.

Lisa -
Always remember that it's easier to be critical of every flaw in your own work, you KNOW the flaws are there, so it stings... As you get an "eye", you'll be surprised how much poorly done footage makes it into "the big time".
Smurf-esque WB is one of my personal faves every time I see it on TV! There's a prominent financial channel that when doing their international broadcasts has the most interesting array of fleshtones imagineable... every day! One anchor is bright orange, another is greenish, the third is "sorta right"...

Why does 99.999% of the viewing public not notice all the flaws? Because the content goes by so fast that they never even notice it almost all the time! And ultimately it's the CONTENT that makes media work (or not, as the case may be). If the content is there, people WILL watch, although certainly you want to make it look as good as you possibly can, if for no other reason than professional pride in your craft!

If guitars weren't a major part of my life, I prolly wouldn't have even noticed the strings and pickguard reflections! I thought the video looked and sounded quite good, you needn't worry!

Another thought... did you enable highlight tone priority?

If so then that bumps up the iso in the darker areas of the image. We no longer use this (used to).

some other things to remember.

iso 160 on these cameras is cleaner than 100.

You will only want to film at 60fps if your looking to do some cool slow mo. Otherwise stick to 30fps (for regular old US TV) or 24 for that film like look. then use a shutter speed appropriate for that fps.

Ya know, I think highlight was accidentally turned on...not sure, but I think when I was going through the setting I noticed it being on. I turned it off because I know I don't want it on, but it may have been on for this shoot. And 160 ISO, okay...got it. I was wondering if that rule applied for that low range.

You don't need to obsess too much about ISO. The received wisdom is that the 'odd' ISOs 160, 320, 640 are less noisy than the 'even' ones 100, 200, 400 but honestly you would be hard pressed to see any difference in noise between 100 & 640 & all the ISOs in between. The important thing is that the image is correctly exposed & that you don't have blown highlights or featureless shadows.