Going back over clips of bird flight I notice that whenever I shoot with sky as background, especially bright grey sky, the bird remains in silhouette, showing no plumage detail or colour except perfect shape in black. Once the bird flies below the horizon plumage detail is revealed again. Sometimes, when the sky is blue and the sun is also shining on the bird the plumage detail and colour contrast can be quite good, even above the horizon.

Operating my XM2 (GL2) on auto I have never practised the use of white balance but I think it might be useful in this situation. But the XM2 Manual only advises the use of "Outdoor Mode" for close-ups and when the subject is of one dominant colour, otherwise it advises the auto setting.

Perhaps this problem is sort of inevitable and there's nothing white balance can do about it ...

Any advice please?

That's all exposure. Has nothing to do with white balance.

The only thing white balance will do is give the proper colors for the light you're shooting in.

Thanks Kevin. Now where's the section on exposure in my Manual ?? Oh, isn't this the AE Shift trick ? About which I know nothing ...

... Manual says, Levels are from -2 to +2 and the higher the setting the brighter the image. Does that mean that if I raise AE by +2 it will help counteract the brightness of the sky and accentuate the colours on the bird's plumage?

Yeah, AE shift you can use to overexpose or underexpose what the camera wants to do in auto mode.

The problem is that to likely expose the bird you blow out the sky.

Try shooting when the sun is low on the horizon and over your shoulder. You stand a better chance of getting a better exposure.

Put the sun at your back, that way your lens is facing away from the sun and the sun is lighting your subject,(the bird). Also a polarizer can be a huge help in that situation. Run your exposure manually and set it to your subject not the background also trust your viewfinder.

John,

Why would a polarizer be useful when you are shooting opposite the direction of the sun? It has always been to my knowledge that there will be no effect at that level and the effect itself is maximized if we shoot at 90 deg to the sun. i.e aim at zenith if the sun is low on the horizon.

Cheers

WeeHan

Brenden has a GL2 which gathers light very good which makes the use of a polarizer in bright light effective, If he were shooting a HDV camera which is many stops slower than a DV or Mini DV a polarizer would be unusable. The polarizer zoomed in all the way on birds in flight lowers the bright backlight to where you can bump your iris up much more to bring the darker bird into better exposure. If you are shooting mid zoom to wide, a polarizer is not going to help since more than half of your frame is filled with sky, bird will be a sillouette no way around it. If you can get most of the sky out of your frame the polarizer will subtle the brights and allow you to bump iris up a good bit to lighten the bird up. Do it all the time and it works fairly well, in bright light,9:00 am to 3:00 pm.

Brendan,

There are good points in the aforementioned.

for shooting in the sky I think it is important to manually white balance/

I was shooting commerants today with almost all sky background. In auto at first the sky was bleached or burnt out, more a grey instead of a subtle blue. I manual white balanced and it made the sky color better!! This also made the picture appear less of a silloutte.
Now, i did the shot with a the polizer as well as without out it. In General I totally agree with john's opinion!! At least with my gl2.

Also for shooting flying birds and such the better the depth of field you have the better your chances of having things in focus.

I totally avoid shooting toward the sun, that will always give you a sillioutte, unless of course that is the effect you want!!

Also, there is a reason early morning, evening and overcast days are most peopels favorite times to shoot!!

Brenden has a GL2 which gathers light very good which makes the use of a polarizer in bright light effective, If he were shooting a HDV camera which is many stops slower than a DV or Mini DV a polarizer would be unusable. The polarizer zoomed in all the way on birds in flight lowers the bright backlight to where you can bump your iris up much more to bring the darker bird into better exposure. If you are shooting mid zoom to wide, a polarizer is not going to help since more than half of your frame is filled with sky, bird will be a sillouette no way around it. If you can get most of the sky out of your frame the polarizer will subtle the brights and allow you to bump iris up a good bit to lighten the bird up. Do it all the time and it works fairly well, in bright light,9:00 am to 3:00 pm.

John,

Have you tried this method before? In all my years of nature photography, I have not heard of this theory. The reason being the polarizer will lower the exposure of the entire scene (including the bird) by 1.5 to 2.5 stops and bringing back the exposure for the bird will also bring back light to the sky. The direction from where the sun is shining at will affect the usage of the polarizer and not the focal length of your lens....Although using too wide a lens will result in uneven polarization (that has to be with the Canon HD 6X or with a WA converter though).

What im trying to say is the polarizer does not help with contrast ratios. Its not a ND grad or softening or contrast-lowering filter.

Maybe im missing something?

Cheers.

WeeHan

I totally understand what you are saying but what I am saying is my subject is the bird flying, not the sky around the bird. My total interest is capturing the bird as well as I can. Now if you are trying to capture a realistic portait of what your eye is seeing you are involving all surrounding subjects along with the bird. A polarizer and many other filters are very helpful in picking a subject among many and keying in on it and making it something more vivid than what you eye sees, I call it shooting subjects not scenics. I always shoot wide scenics of areas then go in an pick many subjects within that scenic and use more of a EFP approach than an ENG approach. Filters, bounce boards, what ever it takes to make the subject vivid, then in post take the wide scenics and color correct as good as possible to make the tight subjects pop when intercut with the wides. Also drop in filters work much better than screwons.

Sorry John, still not getting it here. The sky is overexposed while the subject is properly exposed. This either calls for more light on the subject so that I can bring down the overall exposure which makes the sky properly exposed....or shoot with a higher dynamic range medium. If I use a polarizer, I lower the overall exposure and bringing up the 2 stops by opening up the iris DOES NOT reduce the contrast ratio between the whites of the bird and the sky.

The polarizer just does not work at all angles....and when you are talking about drop-in filters, I presume you are talking about those for telephoto still lenses? I have never seen a difference between them and the screwons.

Cheers

WeeHan

This may help to identify my problem ....

.... here is one frame (from a clip) showing that even without flight to distract me I am not doing something I should be doing to show a bit of detail on the birds ... the cliff is 150 yards away and I'm at x20 on XM2 (GL2) on a tripod. Isn't two-thirds of this frame made up of solid greys? what am I failing to do to counteract the brightness of the sky? The sun is well clouded over and it's mid-afternoon facing approx. south in April in Spain ... I have done no editing at all in post ...

Brendan,

The range from shadow to highlight is just too great for any sensor to handle. As the birds are at the very top of the cliff, there is not much a ND grad can do even though you may try using a 2 or 3 stop soft-grad to bring down the brightness of the sky. The jagged rock formations will however rule that out.

The only way I can think off at this time is to shoot when the sun is lower in the sky and with it behind you.

Cheers

WeeHan

I believe you WeeHan and thank you for explaining the difficulty ... here's another unedited frame, shot handheld from the same location within same half-hour ... please take a minute to describe why so much detail can be seen on this bird ... you are good at describing images, if you can find the time ?? And what settings would you try out to improve this sort of shot?

The 2nd one looks like you're shooting against the cliffs or a hill of some sort which is much, much darker than the sky. That's why you have detail on the bird because the background and the bird are closer together as far as exposure goes. Whereas the sky is dozens of times brighter than the bird and you're camera can't handle the range of both.

Brendan,

Kevin's comment is what I would exactly put it as.

Cheers

WeeHan

Brendan

The one picture is what i would call burnt!!! Just to bright causing more of a silloutteing effect which reduces detail. When I shoot I do everything I can to avoid those kinds of shots. As yee mentioned, position of the sun is deadly important. No filter is going to salvage a picture that is that burnt, though you might find use for a silloutte at some other point in you video. Of course, the problem is that the birds do not always select perches that are conducive to the best picture!!! Hearing how different people deal with these problems is always enlightening. So far no revolutionary advice, standard photography principles.
Do not discount what John has proposed!! There are circumstances where the use of the filters is valuable and will give you better results. learning the parameters is just practice and more practice.

Oh yea, the smaller the aperature (say f 22 or 32) the more contrast you will get in your pictures. By using the filters you are allowed to open up your aperature and this will have a some effect on that contrast, and of course a silloutte is the ultimate in contrast and you are wanting to go the other direction.
I rekon that is why so many people say that 5.6 seems to be a majic aperature.

Two more filters I forgot to mention is a center spot polarizer and also a graduated polarizer. Fantastic for brightly backlit subjects.

Gentlemen, thank you, one and all,

Before I bury myself in catalogues about filters and polarizers ...

Would you happen to know, John, what effect would either of those polarizers have on bird flight that climbed above the horizon for half a minute and then dropped below the horizon for a minute ? (Please assume that above the horizon means a bright background and below means a dull background.)

... when I read "fantastic for brightly backlit subjects" you may be assured that I am wound up and giving you my undivided attention ... speak to me, in your own good time.

If it goes from backlit to unbacklit, change your iris and in post cut out the spot where you changed your iris and fill that in with a shot of the bottom of the canyon to show what the bird is looking at. In other words, show your good backlit shot then add a shot of the canyon bottom then a shot of your unbacklit bird shot at the right exposure. Simple use a cutaway dont even need a disolve.

Anybody think that John's is a reasonable suggestion?

I think it's brilliant ... just the sort of thing that's never covered in my manuals.

Cutaways are your friend. :)

Two more filters I forgot to mention is a center spot polarizer and also a graduated polarizer. Fantastic for brightly backlit subjects.


John,

Do you have any info of these 2 filters you are talking about? I have never heard of them and a search yielded nothing. There are only graduated neutral density filters and for center spots, there are the soft focus ones.

Then again, if the center spot polarizer does exist, the bird or subject will need to be the size of the "center spot". If it isn't there will be a good darkened halo around the subject due to the differences in exposure.

Cheers

WeeHan

I understand your concern, but as with videoing nature/wildlife you have 2 choices, go video your subjects and shoot as much of them as you can with the tools you have and hope you get what you need. The other option is go to a Zoo or a animal trainer that can setup shots with an animal in a confined area. Pre-Production on a wildlife shoot doesnot include a script for the animals to follow, so you get what you can get and hope it works for you. If you are worried about small exposure issues, get you some different filters and shoot your subject at different exposures and I bet you will get some video you can use. I sure wish I could tell the bird flying over to circle back around out of the horizon and stay in the shadows but thats not going to happen, you get what you get and its up to the videographer to get the extra shots to make the piece work as a whole in Post. THX

I know what you mean John but that was not my concern at all. My main point was there will be times when filters do not help anything and Brendan's case of a very high contrast range with a moving subject is not the situation where any filter can help. Shooting in better light is the only solution.

If Brendan was shooting landscapes then alot of filters can come into aid.

Cheers

WeeHan

Sometimes when you go to video wildlife or anything outside the light (natural light) is not going to be exactly perfect, so would you just not video the moving birds because your lights not perfect or would you try to dig in your box of tricks to make the best out of a not so perfect lighting situation? If you are going to video outside, you must be able to come up with solutions for, rain, light, wind, noise, bugs, its true ENG.

John,

Of course I would be rolling. As a matter of fact, I was shooting a praying mantis at pretty extreme mag rates despite the 12 noon sun. Better to have something than nothing.

Then again, Brendan's issue was how to deal with the extreme contrast range and not whether to record it at all or not.

Cheers

WeeHan

After sorting 6 tapes of clips (95% bird flight) shot in Spain in Spring and deleting at least 70% of the content I find 17 clips I call "Griffon (vulture) lands" or Griffon landing". Partly edited they add up to 300 seconds. As the 2 cliff locations are comparable (approx.south-facing oxidised limestone with little vegetation on cliffs) it is possible
1.to observe and distinguish the better clips from the others, and
2.to guess why the plumage detail on some clips is better than others, and
3.to spot some patterns causing the differences

As you have all been suggesting in one way or another, success in this tricky area of videography is, in the first place, a matter of searching for the better lighting ... two likely answers are now obvious; One you all seem to know; evening light/side light can really show off under-wing and over-wing patterns, but also, against pale/bright limestone midday sun can reflect light upwards too and reveal good underwing detail.

In second place, the pattern that stands out is a matter of getting as much of the bird as possible to occupy the screen throughout the landing sequence ... this is a framing+timing+zooming issue and as I get more handheld practice at it I find XM2 (GL2) is fast to respond in autofocus. There are some things I've learned not to do that help autofocus ... the main one is, when waiting for the action, keep the cam pointing in the mid-distance of where the action is likely to happen (pointing it lazily at the ground or crazily at the sky are exactly how to have already confused the autofocus response before the bird arrives).

My education continues, with all your help ...

Brendan,

""when waiting for the action, keep the cam pointing in the mid-distance of where the action is likely to happen (pointing it lazily at the ground or crazily at the sky are exactly how to have already confused the autofocus response before the bird arrives)."


This is so true!! I had trouble with my gl2 using auto focus for the longest time and that was the issue!!

One trick I now do is to focus on an object the approximate distance I will shoot at. I leave it in manual. When the shot starts I grab it and hit auto focus and it sharpens while I concentrate on other issues.
On other occassions I leave it in manual and adjust as I follow, this has taken some practice to be sure!!

Learning never stops!!!

Picture 1 would have benefited from a ND Grad and a Pola. I would have positioned the "edge" just to the top of the ridge line; opened up the iris to expose the rock face; rotated the pola for BEST colour definition for the rest. I'm fortunate in as much I could also slap on a further ND Grad to close down the sky some more too!

This all on an XM2.

Mixed natural light scenarios are ACHING for a matt box and a range of NDs ND grads and a pola. I have now had added another static slot for my Matte box.

Grazie

Absolutly agree with you Graham. Also to Brendan, I would highly look into getting a good sturdy tripod, will make your footage stand the test of time over handholding and zooming. Just a suggestion

Graham,

As I have mentioned in a previous post, using a ND grad is simply not feasible due to the very uneven edges of the cliff. Even if we are to use a soft-edge, the tops of the cliffs will still be filtered and be underexposed.

Cheers

WeeHan

Wee han,

I think there is a lot of truth to what grazie says here.

the trick is to get it reasonable footage, not perfect because you can't.

then adjust your brightness, contrast, saturation, hue, and then rgb to make it a much better clip!!

I shoot in the sky all the time and these are the only means I know to make things right.

The trick is to shoot it without burning out the image first!!

I am all open Ears to anything else we can do to create better footage!!

Dale,

I definitely agree with you. I have been a nature photographer for some years though not professionally (there just isn't a market for that in my country) and environmental conditions do play a huge part on our images and much of the time, we have no control over it.

That said, what I was disagreeing about Graham's statement was the use of a ND grad on such an image where the ridge lines will pose the major problem of uneven exposure if the filter was used.

Cheers

WeeHan

What I am going to say will not solve any problems but could not stop thinking of the old addage never work with children and ANIMALS.
Some very interesting comments made in this discussion I also have an XM2 that I have owned for 4 years and I have similar problems filming Aeroplanes at shows that I go to. I try to zoom in as much as possible to fill most of the screen with the subject matter but not always possible when aircraft are flying very fast and away from you.

That said, what I was disagreeing about Graham's statement was the use of a ND grad on such an image where the ridge lines will pose the major problem of uneven exposure if the filter was used.

Cheers

WeeHan

I kinda disagree with your disagreement of my statement! LOL!

I bet, with GOOD use of these layers I could get a finished result that would be miles better than just that plain white sky!!

Now the thing here is NOT to be bound-up with what is the best technical way; it is not about that which we all kinda know - Grads on an uneven edge don't work ( kinda know that WeeHan??); not to view this as a flawed "compromise" which any, ANY of us can could do . . . BUT!!!! to openly and genuinely see this as an artistic creative option, that COULD burst upon the viewer's brain a dramatic and richly effective sequence!!

Knowing the rules means that you can break 'em. Knowing the extend to which a technology can then go ahead and "hobble" and hamper one, ain't a reason NOT to do it.

The other option here would be for me to shoot some MATT backgrounds of a fully rich sky - underexposed rock face - devoid of birds, bring THIS into my beloved VEGAS software, and do a DIFFERENCE Fx - kinda like chroma keying (now there's another thought) without the need to cover the SKY with GREEN? This would allow me to create a truly stunning establishing shot WITH the birds now brought back in!! I'd only need a few frames to establish and maybe a few at the end-sequence.

I respect your greater understanding of photography work - I came from a 3-D, plastic-arts background. Once we got a handle on the rules - we would rip up the book and start really experimenting. I guess that ain't left me.

There ain't no problems - only exciting solutions to be discovered!!

If I was to still disagree with you, it would be about experimenting with what COULD be.

. . and anyway, who said filmmaking WAS about reality? We got rugged rock faces. We got birds of prey. We got BIG skies! We would most certainly got some stupendous screeching! What more do you want?

Interesting thread.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back - email provider is having . . issues?

Wee Han? The next time you are in London, I'll buy you a beer - if not that, at least a coffee . . or whatever would be appropriate.

Love 'n Peace!

Grazie

Thanks Graham for the healthy discussion. What you have mentioned is very much possible and is akin to using layers in Photoshop for landscape photography with all the masking. My bad here as I was thinking of it as not a stationary shot but one where camera movement was involved.

I agree that we should experiment but Im still a try-to-get-it-right-out-of-the-camera kinda of guy and I would personally have chosen to shoot in better light. BUT that is not always possible and your suggestion on post-pro work is an extremely viable option.

Hold onto that beer, I will definitely head for London one of these days...though not in the near future. :)

Cheers

WeeHan

My bad here as I was thinking of it as not a stationary shot but one where camera movement was involved.


Well .. . I'd have to think it through, but the aesthetics might even work here too!

I agree that we should experiment but Im still a try-to-get-it-right-out-of-the-camera kinda of guy . . .

I don't see these 2 paradigms - experimentation<>"camera-correctness" - as being mutually exclusive?WeeHan? I really don't?

I often think that some of my pre-post work looks really dull. It's only when I get busy on the timeline that I can lift or contrast-up my stuff and start digging out the narrative. Getting it "right", for me, means getting the BEST digital information. Yeah?

I CAN keep your beer . . . but not for TOO long!! I gets thirsty . .

Grazie

Absolutly agree with you Graham. Also to Brendan, I would highly look into getting a good sturdy tripod, will make your footage stand the test of time over handholding and zooming. Just a suggestion

I will be using a sturdy Benbo + Manfrotto for big bird landings and take-offs; here are samples of what I spoiled last year without a tripod ...

might even want to look into a varizoom VZ Rock LANC. The more you can keep your hands off the camera at full zoom the less shaky your video will be.

Good evening,

I agree with John on the lanc remote!!!!

My lanc socket has been broken for a month and I am here to tell you I have got so used to always using it that I forgot how much harder it is without it!! of all my peripheral kit I use the lanc the most!!!

The more you can keep your hands off the camera at full zoom the less shaky your video will be.

This must be the clearest quote I've read on DVInfo. Its implications are taking a week to sink in.

Sure I'm thick between the ears ... it's 2.5 years now since I got my XM2(GL2) and only today have I tried to figure out how the wireless controller works. I wonder how its controls might compare with those of a Varizoom?

Brendan,

John's advice is spot on there. I do high mag stuff and camera movement is a beast even though everything is solidly mounted on a Vinten 6. I now have a Libec lanc controller attached to facilitate faster recording and a Redrock Micro follow focus unit to avoid touching the lens to follow focus. These 2 items are a godsend and really really works.

Cheers

WeeHan

Yeo,

What camera are you using the micro follow focus on?!!!

I use a gl and xl and i was under the impression these do not work acceptably on the canons!!

Is that not true?

Grazie,

Geeze, It never occurred to me to find that old remote, what a capital idea.

Dale,

Not true at all! All you need is a road system and lens gears to allow the FF unit to be used successfully with the cameras!

Im using the H1 and using the Redrock Micro Follow Focus. It's one of the better prices units and frankly, its really really smooth. Im using it with the EF adaptor and the 180 Canon macro. To have the follow focus unit work with this setup, you will need to "gear" the lens which is basically having a geared ring (Redrock sells this) and a of course rods to mount the focus unit. Im using the Vocas MB-250 mattebox which came with a rod system. Too expensive and you can get something way cheaper if you shop around.

After gearing the lens, it just a 10sec business to get the unit in place. Then you will have super smooth focusing esp when doing high mag rate or telephoto work.

I rec the follow focus whips as well. Got a set of them and use the 3 inch and the 12 inch the most.

I will post a pic once I have the chance to shoot my setup.

Cheers

WeeHan

Good Evening, Brendan.

I am not aquainted with your cam. With my Xl-1s, or, my Xl-2, I shoot many tapes each year on wild life.

My solution to your backlight problems, is to find a ground level coloration of your subject; and, than, use the exposure lock on the lens, which will keep the iris from changing as you pan into the sky. (I do not know if your cam has exposure lock).

For instance: If your subject is dark in colouring, lock on a deeply shaded item. If it is lighter, adjust accordingly.

might even want to look into a varizoom VZ Rock LANC. The more you can keep your hands off the camera at full zoom the less shaky your video will be.

Any other comments on remote controllers with slow zoom and good focus? Some are having trouble using ZR 1000 with Canon ... does anyone use Bebob Zoe with Canon. Varizoom recommend VZ Pro-L and VZ PG-L for Canon ... any experience with these, please?

Robert, I'm going to try out your exposure lock suggestion ... thank you.

I have owned a Varizoom VZ Pro-L for a number of years. I love it.

Any other comments on remote controllers with slow zoom and good focus? Some are having trouble using ZR 1000 with Canon

Working fine here.

Grazie

Tom and Grazie, thank you. You are both Canon users.

1. What length of cable to use with your controllers? I'm being offered 30cm (= 1 ft) with ZR 1000. I need up to 20ft ...
2. Have you used autofocus and manual focus via your controllers, successfully?