upset with GL2 at DVinfo.net

Nicholas Oliver · February 4th, 2008, 07:12 PM

I bought a Canon GL2 a few months ago and have been doing a lot of testing with it and really "getting to know" the camera. Well... i've become very upset somewhat recently. I look up footage of the GL2 on youtube and other streaming video sites and see a lot of great footage. All of which aren't using any lens adapters or any extras on the camera. My camera isn't producing the footage that some of the videos I see have. I know the GL2 is perfectly capable of producing some great footage, as I have seen. I've used Sony Vegas for about 4 years now and, in my opinion, have become very good with it. I also have Premiere Pro CS3, and After Effects CS3. I have seen footage in which the description says just some color-correction was done in post with AE or PP. So I was thinking maybe it's the fact that I'm using Vegas still. Then, I'll see a video in which the description says it was edited and Vegas! I even saw a description that said he didn't change any settings on the camera, and just did some slight cc in AE afterwards.

What is going on here? Is it my render settings in vegas? Should I be using PP and/or AE rather than vegas? I haven't looked into AE much but have fooled around with PP. The only reason I don't switch from vegas to pp is because I don't know if pp is better than vegas and I have become so used to vegas and know it so well that I would hate to have to teach myself an entirely new program. Vegas is a great program and from all the tutorials i've read for PP, vegas can do all of the things PP can.

I know that it's also based on what you're filming as well. So before anyone says "well, your shot may just be bad", that isn't the case. Because when I see someone simply doing a little experimental test of shooting outside, clearly they're not going for any special shot or add any light to it or anything. So why isn't my picture coming out the way all these other people's are?

Help would be greatly appreciated. I really can't figure out why I can't obtain the footage others are getting.

Chris Harris · February 4th, 2008, 07:36 PM

To start, why don't you take a look at the footage you shot directly from the camera hooked up to the TV? Then, if you're satisfied with that, you know it's something else further down the chain.

Nicholas Oliver · February 4th, 2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harris

To start, why don't you take a look at the footage you shot directly from the camera hooked up to the TV? Then, if you're satisfied with that, you know it's something else further down the chain.

would it be bad if I hooked it up to our bigscreen? or should I hook it up to a normal sized television? I ask because the big screen, i'm guessing anyways, would lower the quality.

Tom Blizzard · February 4th, 2008, 10:08 PM

Shooting outside? Hope you are not shooting distant scenery. That never comes out looking good.

Test shooting people from 6 to 25 feet away...

Nicholas Oliver · February 4th, 2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Blizzard

Shooting outside? Hope you are not shooting distant scenery. That never comes out looking good.

Test shooting people from 6 to 25 feet away...

no, it isn't distant scenery.

Kevin Young · February 5th, 2008, 12:15 AM

You don't state what the problem is with your video. I use a GL2 and in auto mode outside I get great shoots. I look at them on my 50" Samsung Plasma 1080i the images are great.

Nicholas Oliver · February 5th, 2008, 01:08 AM

the problem is it just seems too 'video-like'. All these other videos I see look very film-like.

Chris Harris · February 5th, 2008, 01:39 AM

They might be using the "frame mode". Try out the frame mode on your camera and see if that makes it look more like the footage you're referring to.

Frame mode is in the menu somewhere, you might have to check the manual.

Graham Bernard · February 5th, 2008, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicholas Oliver

I really can't figure out why I can't obtain the footage others are getting.

Well you are asking the right question. What you now need to do is to analyze your not being able to "figure out". And again, what is it in these other videos that you see AND compare with your own AND recognise a difference? You really need to do this. We can't do this for you.

OK:

1] Look at the footage from others and note WHAT you like. Not that it is JUST film-like: Colour, Focus, Layers, Framing . . .

2] Look at your OWN footage and note WHAT you DON'T like.

We all have been here. Honest. Having a critical eye. Consciously SEEING what you are looking at is ALL what this craft is ever about - not the kit, that helps - but Seeing with your/or brains is the thing. There is no "hidden" secret. It is all about SEEING what is in front of us - PERIOD!

So get back here with your 1] and 2] observations because there are plenty of fine video-heads around here to provide gazillion solutions, eagerly wanting you to succeed and move up.

And again, you are fortunate to be recognising the most fundamental correct observation : "I really can't figure out why I can't obtain the footage others are getting." - and THAT is the BEST question that haunts ALL of us, latterly it turns on oneself! But you need to have the many observational analytical tools to do so. Now, if you know all this, and have been working in video for many years, I apologise and take it all back.

So, incremental steps, and get back here with your precise thoughts. The remedies WILL follow from the people hereabouts, I promise you.

Best regards

Grazie

Merlin Vandenbossche · February 8th, 2008, 04:51 AM

It could be numerous things really. Haunting the film-look, if this is what bothers you, is what keeps a lot of people busy. Concerning the GL2, Frame Movie Mode and post-coloring are probably going to get you the furthest to start with. Also bumping down color gain and sharpness in your custom preset reducing 'video-ish' feel. (video tends to saturate color and sharpen) Remember also that a lot of people like Magic Bullet a lot: a render-heavy 'video-to-film-look' conversion that also functions as the lookbuilder (coloring). Maybe quite a lot of footage you saw went through the MB first.

Second, also think about compression. If you don't like your footage as it appears on the net, odds are up it is compression that is bothering you. Youtube functions pretty well with MOV or MP4 wrappers in H264 codec. Also bumping up brightness and softening edges in your compressor is a good deal to get it better on-screen.

In the end it's really just experimenting: test out both compression and looks/CC/frame movie until you feel more satisfied.

Todd Clark · February 8th, 2008, 09:30 AM

The thing to do is hook your camera to a TV and see if the picture looks very crisp and clean to make sure the quality is there.

Once you are happy with that most of what you are probably seeing from other people is postproduction.

I shoot everything 60i and then convert to 24p. Makes a big difference. I do not shoot frame mode because you cannot convert to 24p from 30p. It does not look right.

Keep experimenting and have fun.

Nicholas Oliver · February 9th, 2008, 07:48 PM

Hmm.. well, I've been messing around with a lot of stuff lately, post-production that is. I've gotten some very good color-correcting done, good render settings, quality looks good, everything seems to be looking real good so far. I haven't tried changing the custom settings on the camera much, as far as sharpness/grain goes. I always do white balance and all of that so there's no problem there. I'll try changing the sharpness/grain settings on the camera and see what happens.

I shoot in frame 16:9 mode. I've read so many different opinions on what the best setting to shoot on is and I've just found that 16:9 seems to look the best. I'll mess around with a few more things and come back if I have any problems :)

Tom Blizzard · February 9th, 2008, 08:17 PM

16:9 mode ??....... well OK I guess, but I'd suggest a search to find out about how the GL-2 does 16:9 and what you might be missing.

Carl Middleton · February 9th, 2008, 08:29 PM

I see a lot of great advice here, especially the comment on actually seeing things by Graham - GOOD STUFF!

But not a soul has mentioned production values - planning your shots, planning your camera moves, good subject matter, LIGHTING... AUDIO.....

These are the things that will make or break the illusion of another world - which is the art of the filmmaker. Post production is important, granted, but so is the rest of the package.

Take the time to read tutorials on lighting, and to really properly plan a shoot when you go out.

I think the best way I can put it is this - unlike every job I have ever had, the time it takes me to do a project steadily increases. Instead of being faster as I get better, it works the opposite - I take the time to do things right. Compared to when I first started, it takes me a hell of a long time to do a proper shoot, especially one with the ambition of a film look.

C

Graham Bernard · February 12th, 2008, 03:17 AM

Carl - yes.

For me I HAD to develop my Lexicon of just understanding what I was/AM looking at. I have to have a "cupboard" FULL of "words" and descriptions - EVEN to myself - to understand just what I was/am looking at. Niether could I put into words, nor formulate thoughts because I hadn't the video-awareness-language to do so. I couldn't analyse, because I truly didn't have the verbal building blocks to do so. And yes, you are very correct. And again, we say the phrase "production values". Does our friend have a clue as to what this means? - I didn't until I was in place where my "production values" meant I either GOT the job or I didn't!! - Yah kinda learn pretty darn quick? Yeah?

However, get out there and SHOOT! - And make notes as to what you do and come back here for some assistance - if you wish.

This was shot on the XM2/Gl2 http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0443658/

And this is the thread with Jim Cole's responses: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=40437&page=2

(Chris, I hope I haven't broken any "linkage" rules here? I wish for people to learn about this camera more? - Yeah?)
Grazie

February 4th, 2008, 07:12 PM	#1
Nicholas Oliver Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 100	upset with GL2 I bought a Canon GL2 a few months ago and have been doing a lot of testing with it and really "getting to know" the camera. Well... i've become very upset somewhat recently. I look up footage of the GL2 on youtube and other streaming video sites and see a lot of great footage. All of which aren't using any lens adapters or any extras on the camera. My camera isn't producing the footage that some of the videos I see have. I know the GL2 is perfectly capable of producing some great footage, as I have seen. I've used Sony Vegas for about 4 years now and, in my opinion, have become very good with it. I also have Premiere Pro CS3, and After Effects CS3. I have seen footage in which the description says just some color-correction was done in post with AE or PP. So I was thinking maybe it's the fact that I'm using Vegas still. Then, I'll see a video in which the description says it was edited and Vegas! I even saw a description that said he didn't change any settings on the camera, and just did some slight cc in AE afterwards. What is going on here? Is it my render settings in vegas? Should I be using PP and/or AE rather than vegas? I haven't looked into AE much but have fooled around with PP. The only reason I don't switch from vegas to pp is because I don't know if pp is better than vegas and I have become so used to vegas and know it so well that I would hate to have to teach myself an entirely new program. Vegas is a great program and from all the tutorials i've read for PP, vegas can do all of the things PP can. I know that it's also based on what you're filming as well. So before anyone says "well, your shot may just be bad", that isn't the case. Because when I see someone simply doing a little experimental test of shooting outside, clearly they're not going for any special shot or add any light to it or anything. So why isn't my picture coming out the way all these other people's are? Help would be greatly appreciated. I really can't figure out why I can't obtain the footage others are getting.

February 5th, 2008, 12:15 AM	#6
Kevin Young New Boot Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Everett, Wa Posts: 14	Upset with GL2 You don't state what the problem is with your video. I use a GL2 and in auto mode outside I get great shoots. I look at them on my 50" Samsung Plasma 1080i the images are great.

February 8th, 2008, 04:51 AM	#10
Merlin Vandenbossche Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Holsbeek BELGIUM Posts: 40	It could be numerous things really. Haunting the film-look, if this is what bothers you, is what keeps a lot of people busy. Concerning the GL2, Frame Movie Mode and post-coloring are probably going to get you the furthest to start with. Also bumping down color gain and sharpness in your custom preset reducing 'video-ish' feel. (video tends to saturate color and sharpen) Remember also that a lot of people like Magic Bullet a lot: a render-heavy 'video-to-film-look' conversion that also functions as the lookbuilder (coloring). Maybe quite a lot of footage you saw went through the MB first. Second, also think about compression. If you don't like your footage as it appears on the net, odds are up it is compression that is bothering you. Youtube functions pretty well with MOV or MP4 wrappers in H264 codec. Also bumping up brightness and softening edges in your compressor is a good deal to get it better on-screen. In the end it's really just experimenting: test out both compression and looks/CC/frame movie until you feel more satisfied. __________________ Canon XM-2 AVID Xpress Pro 5.7

February 9th, 2008, 08:29 PM	#14
Carl Middleton Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Fernandina Beach, FL Posts: 562	I see a lot of great advice here, especially the comment on actually seeing things by Graham - GOOD STUFF! But not a soul has mentioned production values - planning your shots, planning your camera moves, good subject matter, LIGHTING... AUDIO..... These are the things that will make or break the illusion of another world - which is the art of the filmmaker. Post production is important, granted, but so is the rest of the package. Take the time to read tutorials on lighting, and to really properly plan a shoot when you go out. I think the best way I can put it is this - unlike every job I have ever had, the time it takes me to do a project steadily increases. Instead of being faster as I get better, it works the opposite - I take the time to do things right. Compared to when I first started, it takes me a hell of a long time to do a proper shoot, especially one with the ambition of a film look. C __________________ Carl Middleton Whizkid Mediaworks

February 4th, 2008, 07:36 PM	#2
Chris Harris Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 487	To start, why don't you take a look at the footage you shot directly from the camera hooked up to the TV? Then, if you're satisfied with that, you know it's something else further down the chain.

February 4th, 2008, 10:08 PM	#4
Tom Blizzard Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: West Rosemary Beach, Florida Posts: 199	Shooting outside? Hope you are not shooting distant scenery. That never comes out looking good. Test shooting people from 6 to 25 feet away...

February 5th, 2008, 01:08 AM	#7
Nicholas Oliver Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 100	the problem is it just seems too 'video-like'. All these other videos I see look very film-like.

February 5th, 2008, 01:39 AM	#8
Chris Harris Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 487	They might be using the "frame mode". Try out the frame mode on your camera and see if that makes it look more like the footage you're referring to. Frame mode is in the menu somewhere, you might have to check the manual.

February 8th, 2008, 09:30 AM	#11
Todd Clark Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Parma, Oh Posts: 172	The thing to do is hook your camera to a TV and see if the picture looks very crisp and clean to make sure the quality is there. Once you are happy with that most of what you are probably seeing from other people is postproduction. I shoot everything 60i and then convert to 24p. Makes a big difference. I do not shoot frame mode because you cannot convert to 24p from 30p. It does not look right. Keep experimenting and have fun.

February 9th, 2008, 07:48 PM	#12
Nicholas Oliver Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 100	Hmm.. well, I've been messing around with a lot of stuff lately, post-production that is. I've gotten some very good color-correcting done, good render settings, quality looks good, everything seems to be looking real good so far. I haven't tried changing the custom settings on the camera much, as far as sharpness/grain goes. I always do white balance and all of that so there's no problem there. I'll try changing the sharpness/grain settings on the camera and see what happens. I shoot in frame 16:9 mode. I've read so many different opinions on what the best setting to shoot on is and I've just found that 16:9 seems to look the best. I'll mess around with a few more things and come back if I have any problems :)

February 9th, 2008, 08:17 PM	#13
Tom Blizzard Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: West Rosemary Beach, Florida Posts: 199	16:9 mode ??....... well OK I guess, but I'd suggest a search to find out about how the GL-2 does 16:9 and what you might be missing.

February 12th, 2008, 03:17 AM	#15
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Carl - yes. For me I HAD to develop my Lexicon of just understanding what I was/AM looking at. I have to have a "cupboard" FULL of "words" and descriptions - EVEN to myself - to understand just what I was/am looking at. Niether could I put into words, nor formulate thoughts because I hadn't the video-awareness-language to do so. I couldn't analyse, because I truly didn't have the verbal building blocks to do so. And yes, you are very correct. And again, we say the phrase "production values". Does our friend have a clue as to what this means? - I didn't until I was in place where my "production values" meant I either GOT the job or I didn't!! - Yah kinda learn pretty darn quick? Yeah? However, get out there and SHOOT! - And make notes as to what you do and come back here for some assistance - if you wish. This was shot on the XM2/Gl2 http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0443658/ And this is the thread with Jim Cole's responses: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=40437&page=2 (Chris, I hope I haven't broken any "linkage" rules here? I wish for people to learn about this camera more? - Yeah?) Grazie