Under-exposed images/Aperture and the FX1000/Lens ramping

Ken Ross · January 3rd, 2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terence Murphy

I don't think a FX1/Z1 would solve your problem, as it is probably at about the same aperture for a given level of zoom (but without the 12x-20x range), and has less sensitivity to boot.

You might be able to adapt your shooting style by setting the exposure to work for your wider shots (e.g. f2.4 and however much gain needed), and either toggling in another +6 dB of gain when you zoom in for extreme close-ups (to compensate for the lens ramping to f3.4), or switching to auto-gain for the close-ups (on the assumption that lighting will be relatively uniform in the field of view so auto should work well. Just make sure your AE shift is set to something that works well ahead of time). The hard part is to remember to switch back to manual-gain when you zoom back out.

-Terence

I would agree with this. If you couple the fact that the FX1/Z1 also drops down (but only to F2.8 from 1.6) together with the fact that it is significantly less sensitive, you'd be in the same position or worse in terms of your 'zoomed in exposure'. At least that's how I would see it.

Jeff, in terms of grain and being fully zoomed, I think you're seeing more the world of HD in anything near this price class rather than the FX1000 vs the Z1 or the Canon A1. This is just the 'light hungry' nature of HD.

Terence Murphy · January 4th, 2009, 09:40 AM

Glad to hear the shoot went well. I have a couple of other thoughts, and to transfer a discussion back onto this thread :-).

One, for your close-ups -- you're used to doing close-ups with your VX2100 probably at full-zoom (35 mm equivalent 518.4 mm) and f2.4. On your new FX1000, the zoom is another 40%, but you don't have to use it if its dark. So figure out what zoom you need (more would be better of course, but how much zoom do you really need to get the shot?), and figure out the max aperture you can use with that zoom. I don't do weddings so I don't have to use full zoom on my Z1 and routinely set the aperture at f2.2 or f2.4 and don't zoom past 83% or 87% (the max zoom for those apertures).

Two, for brightness and gain -- I have a VX2100 and Z1, and the Z1 definitely struggles compared to the VX2100. The VX2100 can make a setting look a couple of stops brighter than reality and looks great doing it. But if you want the image to look darker (more like reality), then the colors are much flatter. In contrast, the Z1 has better color when the image is dark. So you may find that you can keep the image darker than you would have and it will still look good even though it is dark. Or you can boost the dark image in post without it looking flat.

-Terence

Jeff Harper · January 4th, 2009, 10:51 AM

Thanks Terence, I did end up doing exactly that. I basically watched my zoom, set the iris, and worked from there. It was OK.

You have stated the dilemma I have found myself in pefectly.

For extreme closeups, and I mean full zoom at less than ten feet away from the altar, I obtained bright, detailed closeups of bride's faces or groom's faces with the VX2100 during the ceremony. Those shots were priceless. While I was not always able to be in the position to get those shots, often I was, and I have used those closeups to sell my work. One bride-to-be made the remark that she "felt she knew the people in my videos even though she had never met them".

I'll just have to work with the camera the way it is and find another way to get those closeups.

BTW, the footage from the wedding yesterday turned out extremely well. Very good stuff, very nice camera.

Jeff Harper · January 5th, 2009, 04:21 AM

I have found the Raynox HDP-9000EX 1.8 telephoto lens which would allow closeups without lens ramping. Only issues are : cost ($800) and weight (almost two pounds!).

I would love to have one for a day, it would be very interesting to play with.

Martin Duffy · January 5th, 2009, 05:11 AM

Jeff, surely just zooming into the 12X range on the FX will be the same or similar to what you were getting on the VX?

As far as a 1.8 well I would think that would be a problem with regards to wide shots and having the black ring that comes with having a tele lens on.

In an earlier post I was talking about how on my Sony TRV900 I used a Sony 1.4 tele with great results. No loss of image quality and no black ring at all on the wide shot.

A 1.4 means you get 40% more tele and I believe that is a big difference. I used a 1.4 for the filming of a football game recently via the TRV900 and it worked a treat. As that cam was a 12X optical it takes it out to 16.8. Pop a 1.4 on a FX1000 and you get to 28X Optical. Now thts pretty cool.

Jeff imagine the really cool long distant shots off of the tripod you could get.

My style of filming wedding (when I did them regualrly a few years back) was very discreet and I was into long shots from the tripod.

The above approach may be a goer for you?

Ok gents now who knows of a 72mm tele thats about a 1.4 suitable for the FX1000?

Martin.

Jeff Harper · January 5th, 2009, 06:27 AM

Its not the same, not even close. What I did with the VX2100 was zoom in and open iris full wide, and it was like I put a spotlight on the face, it was that bright. Mind you I'm talking about being close to the altar to begin with. I tried it during photo shoot yesterday, no way. I can't zoom in close enough to get the face to fill the frame (eyes and mouth, top of head cut off) without losing too many f-stops.

The Raynox lens I mentioned above looks really nice. But I cannot imagine hauling around a 2lb lens. I can't even imagine how wacked the weight distribution would be with the lens mounted. Sounds like it would be a bizarre setup, but what I wouldn't give to try one out.

Ken Ross · January 5th, 2009, 07:17 AM

Jeff, I think you've fallen out of love with the 1000 once again. It's a good thing it's not a woman, you'd lose her forever! ;)

Jeff Harper · January 5th, 2009, 07:48 AM

No, not really. It's great for what it can do. But it has it's weaknesses.

You have to understand my mindset. My old cams had no flaws whatsover for what I used them for: 4:3.

After every job I would dowload the footage and I was consistently amazed at the quality of the images. I started working on two weddings last week shot with the 2100/PD cams, and as always I was stunned by the images.

For my closeup work it was perfect. I even turned off the stabilizer feature to optimize the image even further. That's how fanatical I was for the clear, crisp image.

You also have to remember I shot LOTS of extreme closeups, not just a few here or there. For example I shot extreme closeups of family members during photo shoot, bridal party, and of course tons of the bride and groom.

Ken Ross · January 5th, 2009, 08:03 AM

If you're tripod mounted for these shots (and I assume you are given you turn off OIS), then the weight of an extender may not be a significant issue.

Otherwise I don't know of any camera anywhere in this price range that will do the job for you unless you modify your techniques. Let's face it, going from 4:3 SD to 16:9 absolutely mandates major changes in your work style.

Jeff Harper · January 5th, 2009, 10:47 AM

The zoom lens could work, I don't know. I'm likely going to order one, but it means something else will have to wait!

Martin Duffy · January 5th, 2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

The zoom lens could work, I don't know. I'm likely going to order one, but it means something else will have to wait!

Jeff, I went through a stage of using a 1.4 tele for weddings and in the end it gave me the shits.

Hey this in not a debate on how to film weddings but personally not having so many close ups of every day people in a wedding video is maybe not a bad thing.

The other thing to think about is that one downfall of 16:9 is that you do in fact get all this sometimes unwanted space on the sides. This may mean you are then zooming in too close in order to fill the screen

Sounds like you are really into what you do Jeff and I take my hat off to you for that.

Martin Duffy · January 5th, 2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

The zoom lens could work, I don't know. I'm likely going to order one, but it means something else will have to wait!

Jeff, I went through a stage of using a 1.4 tele for weddings and in the end it gave me the sh... taking it on and off for that "perfect look".

Hey this in not a debate on how to film weddings but personally not having so many close ups of every day people in a wedding video is maybe not a bad thing.

The other thing to think about is that one downfall of 16:9 is that you do in fact get all this sometimes unwanted space on the sides. This may mean you are then zooming in too close in order to fill the screen.

Sounds like you are really into what you do Jeff and I take my hat off to you for that.

Jeff Harper · January 5th, 2009, 04:29 PM

I have to admit Martin, I do not enjoy changing lenses during a wedding. It is an unusual wedding where things are not rushed to the point that changing lenses can be a major inconvenience.

I had a very nice wide angle I used on occasion with my 2100, and after a few weddings I stopped using it. Of course the wide angle was not as multi-purpose as the zoom would be, but nevertheless, a 2lb lens costing $800 would not be a treat to deal with. It's also one more expensive piece to lose.

I really appreciate your feedback. Thanks much.

Tom Hardwick · January 13th, 2009, 11:26 AM

I too have a very nice Canon 1.4x tele-extender for the Z1 that claws back the tele-reach I lost when moving from the VX2000. But like you guys say - fiddling and faffing about with screw-thread lenses at a wedding is letting the seconds tick by without you recording bits that will not happen again.

So I've abandoned the tele but just couldn't shoot a wedding without a wide-converter. I took a close look at the Z1's hood and copied the bayonet, so now my widie bayonets on and off in about a second.

tom.

Martin Duffy · January 14th, 2009, 03:35 AM

QUOTE=Tom Hardwick just couldn't shoot a wedding without a wide-converter.

Gee I would have thought given we are now in 16:9 there would be no need for a wide angle lens.

Also here's a dumb question but does a tele or wide lens that was once running on a 4:3 camera also work on a 16:9?

Assuming so.

January 5th, 2009, 05:11 AM	#20
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	Tele lens for FX1000 Jeff, surely just zooming into the 12X range on the FX will be the same or similar to what you were getting on the VX? As far as a 1.8 well I would think that would be a problem with regards to wide shots and having the black ring that comes with having a tele lens on. In an earlier post I was talking about how on my Sony TRV900 I used a Sony 1.4 tele with great results. No loss of image quality and no black ring at all on the wide shot. A 1.4 means you get 40% more tele and I believe that is a big difference. I used a 1.4 for the filming of a football game recently via the TRV900 and it worked a treat. As that cam was a 12X optical it takes it out to 16.8. Pop a 1.4 on a FX1000 and you get to 28X Optical. Now thts pretty cool. Jeff imagine the really cool long distant shots off of the tripod you could get. My style of filming wedding (when I did them regualrly a few years back) was very discreet and I was into long shots from the tripod. The above approach may be a goer for you? Ok gents now who knows of a 72mm tele thats about a 1.4 suitable for the FX1000? Martin.

January 4th, 2009, 09:40 AM	#17
Terence Murphy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 161	Glad to hear the shoot went well. I have a couple of other thoughts, and to transfer a discussion back onto this thread :-). One, for your close-ups -- you're used to doing close-ups with your VX2100 probably at full-zoom (35 mm equivalent 518.4 mm) and f2.4. On your new FX1000, the zoom is another 40%, but you don't have to use it if its dark. So figure out what zoom you need (more would be better of course, but how much zoom do you really need to get the shot?), and figure out the max aperture you can use with that zoom. I don't do weddings so I don't have to use full zoom on my Z1 and routinely set the aperture at f2.2 or f2.4 and don't zoom past 83% or 87% (the max zoom for those apertures). Two, for brightness and gain -- I have a VX2100 and Z1, and the Z1 definitely struggles compared to the VX2100. The VX2100 can make a setting look a couple of stops brighter than reality and looks great doing it. But if you want the image to look darker (more like reality), then the colors are much flatter. In contrast, the Z1 has better color when the image is dark. So you may find that you can keep the image darker than you would have and it will still look good even though it is dark. Or you can boost the dark image in post without it looking flat. -Terence

January 4th, 2009, 10:51 AM	#18
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Thanks Terence, I did end up doing exactly that. I basically watched my zoom, set the iris, and worked from there. It was OK. You have stated the dilemma I have found myself in pefectly. For extreme closeups, and I mean full zoom at less than ten feet away from the altar, I obtained bright, detailed closeups of bride's faces or groom's faces with the VX2100 during the ceremony. Those shots were priceless. While I was not always able to be in the position to get those shots, often I was, and I have used those closeups to sell my work. One bride-to-be made the remark that she "felt she knew the people in my videos even though she had never met them". I'll just have to work with the camera the way it is and find another way to get those closeups. BTW, the footage from the wedding yesterday turned out extremely well. Very good stuff, very nice camera.

January 5th, 2009, 04:21 AM	#19
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I have found the Raynox HDP-9000EX 1.8 telephoto lens which would allow closeups without lens ramping. Only issues are : cost ($800) and weight (almost two pounds!). I would love to have one for a day, it would be very interesting to play with.

January 5th, 2009, 06:27 AM	#21
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Its not the same, not even close. What I did with the VX2100 was zoom in and open iris full wide, and it was like I put a spotlight on the face, it was that bright. Mind you I'm talking about being close to the altar to begin with. I tried it during photo shoot yesterday, no way. I can't zoom in close enough to get the face to fill the frame (eyes and mouth, top of head cut off) without losing too many f-stops. The Raynox lens I mentioned above looks really nice. But I cannot imagine hauling around a 2lb lens. I can't even imagine how wacked the weight distribution would be with the lens mounted. Sounds like it would be a bizarre setup, but what I wouldn't give to try one out.

January 5th, 2009, 07:17 AM	#22
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Jeff, I think you've fallen out of love with the 1000 once again. It's a good thing it's not a woman, you'd lose her forever! ;)

January 5th, 2009, 07:48 AM	#23
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	No, not really. It's great for what it can do. But it has it's weaknesses. You have to understand my mindset. My old cams had no flaws whatsover for what I used them for: 4:3. After every job I would dowload the footage and I was consistently amazed at the quality of the images. I started working on two weddings last week shot with the 2100/PD cams, and as always I was stunned by the images. For my closeup work it was perfect. I even turned off the stabilizer feature to optimize the image even further. That's how fanatical I was for the clear, crisp image. You also have to remember I shot LOTS of extreme closeups, not just a few here or there. For example I shot extreme closeups of family members during photo shoot, bridal party, and of course tons of the bride and groom.

January 5th, 2009, 08:03 AM	#24
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	If you're tripod mounted for these shots (and I assume you are given you turn off OIS), then the weight of an extender may not be a significant issue. Otherwise I don't know of any camera anywhere in this price range that will do the job for you unless you modify your techniques. Let's face it, going from 4:3 SD to 16:9 absolutely mandates major changes in your work style.

January 5th, 2009, 10:47 AM	#25
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	The zoom lens could work, I don't know. I'm likely going to order one, but it means something else will have to wait!

January 5th, 2009, 04:29 PM	#28
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I have to admit Martin, I do not enjoy changing lenses during a wedding. It is an unusual wedding where things are not rushed to the point that changing lenses can be a major inconvenience. I had a very nice wide angle I used on occasion with my 2100, and after a few weddings I stopped using it. Of course the wide angle was not as multi-purpose as the zoom would be, but nevertheless, a 2lb lens costing $800 would not be a treat to deal with. It's also one more expensive piece to lose. I really appreciate your feedback. Thanks much.

January 13th, 2009, 11:26 AM	#29
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I too have a very nice Canon 1.4x tele-extender for the Z1 that claws back the tele-reach I lost when moving from the VX2000. But like you guys say - fiddling and faffing about with screw-thread lenses at a wedding is letting the seconds tick by without you recording bits that will not happen again. So I've abandoned the tele but just couldn't shoot a wedding without a wide-converter. I took a close look at the Z1's hood and copied the bayonet, so now my widie bayonets on and off in about a second. tom.

January 14th, 2009, 03:35 AM	#30
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	QUOTE=Tom Hardwick just couldn't shoot a wedding without a wide-converter. Gee I would have thought given we are now in 16:9 there would be no need for a wide angle lens. Also here's a dumb question but does a tele or wide lens that was once running on a 4:3 camera also work on a 16:9? Assuming so.