Canon T3i - First video test

[darkshark]

This is my first video test with my T3i. It's really nothing fancy or anything, pretty boring scene with some of my friends bullshitting in San Francisco.

http://vimeo.com/35864690

I just wanted to see what I could push the footage to do with this camera, and I'm actually really happy with the performance. This was shot at 720p, 60fps, 1/400 shutter speed with a 2.2x diopter attached to the kit lens. I did some major post color correction, vignetting, tracking, temporal changes, etc to get a nice film look to it. I can't wait to get together a good storyboard and use this to shoot a short story or something. Anyone else try their hand at any videography? I certainly need to learn more about it.

/excitingnewmedium

Original color


Post edit

[Zageron]

Slo-mo~
I want this camera.

[sticklydude]

Only you can make something like that actually interesting.

[Renevatia]

dam pretty nice what you can made out of that footage.

[Spenner]

Pretty good, I think it's a bit overfiltered though. I understand the aesthetic you're going for but it looks a bit cliche, and it forces a lot of clipping on the subjects.

It really does have that kit lens muddy look to what's out of focus, any idea what lens you're going to get next? with a good 50mm or something with a max aperture that was in below 2.8 or something, you would be so far better off shooting people like this. Even the cheap 50mm f/1.8 would be fun to play with, only like $100 (though you get what you pay for, mind you~ it's cheaply built. With your budget I'd go all out and get the f/1.2 )

But yep, good test! Just watch out for the post processing; while it may help with contrast, it kills a lot of the details and levels it out with clipped portions.

[TheNoSoMan]

It kind of feels like a music video for some reason.

[Izzy]

I like the effects, but the music seems to much to me. I'd prefer some music that was more toned down.

[darkshark]

I originally had different music on this, but when I uploaded it to facebook it got deleted for infringement, so I changed it to something I have permission for which isn't as good =/

I was looking at those 50mm 1.8 lenses, the shallow depth seems amazing on them, but I really want to be able to keep my ability to zoom. I guess I could use the digital crop zoom, but I'd like to avoid that if possible.

Also - It's ridiculous how much quality is lost when you upload through a video hosting site. Here's the uncompressed quality version http://www.icandidigital.net/icandidigital/MVI_1551.wmv

Huge difference.

[Renevatia]

Originally Posted by darkshark

Huge difference.

Dat frame rate

[Spenner]

Very nice frame rate, the T3i has some silky smooth video capture I think you chose the right camera for filming (as for the canon line).

Again, though, the image quality isn't spectacular. But you're not a professional photographer at the moment, so no worries!

Originally Posted by darkshark

digital crop zoom

NOPE. Don't let yourself, because it's not worth settling for such a lower quality capture. If you're planning to shoot higher quality, invest in a good telephoto.

Also, do you have a budget specifically? I know you're planning to make some phat staxx$$$.

The 24-105mm lens would be very reliable, though if you want a beast of a lens; I'm not sure what sort of focal range you're looking for. But as a general one, that's good stuff. I guess the only drawback is that it's maximum aperture is f/4.0, but at full zoom it's not really possible to get that kind of thin depth of field without a really pricey super telephoto. This is another VERY good zoom lens but it doesn't have quite the range, but it DOES shoot in f/2.8. Again, I'm not sure what focal range you'll need to be shooting in, but if you want pristine image quality and versatility in the 24-70mm range (knowing what your 18-55mm will do, just use that as a reference). Make sure you think of your camera as a brain, the lens as the eye. People can be extremely good at thinking about the details of things, but maybe their vision isn't too great. A good camera body with a poor quality lens. Maybe someone can see SUPER sharp but can't exactly interpret the range their eyes can see to it's full potential, which would be a great lens on a more poor camera body. Luckily the T3i is excellent, so with some good glass you'll have good results. This is all thinking into the future tense of course, not sure if you want to invest now before practicing more. I'd even rent the lens first-- when buying one over 1000 dollars it would definitely be best to actually use it first to be sure it's what you want >_>

It all really depends what you're shooting, but using a prime lens isn't really a bad thing, because of how consistent the composition of the video and everything would be. But I understand that versatility is definitely important with filming. But I think the 24-70mm f/2.8 is a great choice if you don't need TOO much zoom. I don't think there's much more of a better choice. But I'm not a professional, anyone else who knows better can share their opinion on that 8]

ASFJHASJKLFHASL I'm so sorry I'm nerding out with this camera stuff AFHJASKJFHJKAS I love camera crap

[darkshark]

That 24-70mm 2.8 lens looks like it got some of the best reviews out of any lens on the market pretty much. Though the lens is more expensive than the camera it's going to be attached to, I think it's still an affordable option considering how versatile it is. It's kind of a toss up between the 24-105mm though, because I really like the option of long zooms, but I think the f2.8 aperture would give more of that shallow depth I'm looking for and be better for film use though. What lenses do you have Spenner?

[Spenner]

I have the the 18-55mm kit lens 'course, the 100mm f/2.8 (macro) , 10-22mm f/3.5 (wide angle) , and now the 50mm f/1.4 lens. I don't make enough money to go up to the L series range just yet, but I can assure you it's beneficial to get better glass if you can help it. I'll probably be selling my wide angle sometime as well, in exchange for a more versatile lens like this when I have the money.

Personally in your case I think you'd be better off with the shorter focal range. There is no "everything" lens, but the 24-70 does an amazing job with what it does cover. Use that for the 24-70 range, use a 70-70+ super telephoto zoom for anything greater (if the money was not an issue, this). I'd rather have one for each end of the spectrum and do an amazing job, and cover everything, than have one in betweeny that might limit you with aperture and focal length eventually.

Also, don't forget you can use a teleconverter if you want extra zoom, saves you from having to buy a whole other lens depending what you're covering. The extender II (1.4x zoom) and III (2x zoom) seem to be fantastic from what I've heard. Definitely way better than sticking a zooming filter on, or some kind of glass that doesn't read through the sensor, because that's like putting glasses on that aren't for your eyes :B

And yeah, seeing the lens far more expensive than the body itself is a bit unnerving, but it's reality, really. The body is one part, the lens is another. Look at each individually.

[Renevatia]

Id say get a 7d or a markII with that if you are gonna go with USM tho, I dont see why not.

Or in ds' case, get a phantom flex.

@DS, is that twixtor?

[Spenner]

Originally Posted by Renevatia

Id say get a 7d

USM lenses seem to be working juuust fine for me. I might upgrade here and there but for now, practicing to get a feel for the professional standards is more than in reach with the USM and crop sensors. The thing is, if I wanted to go full frame, I'd also want top of the line glass to go with it, to make up for the softer edges you see on uncropped full frame images. So for now, the 7D is the most ideal choice.

[Spenner]

Forgot to mention... whichever lens you purchase with the intent of filming with, DO try to get something with image stabilizing. For filming, it makes a big difference, very noticeable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MFUzS3gmJU

Still a bit of shaking but it is dramatically reduced. Without IS you can have a great lens but perhaps not a great one for film. You can stabilize frames in After Effects but it's a hell of a lot of work for something that can be done automatically, and doing that after will reduce the size of the output.

Just something to remember~ forget if I mentioned.

[darkshark]

Oh yes, IS is a must. Although I can correct shaky footage with literally one click in AfterEffects, it's much easier to not have to do that, and it would certainly cut down on any blurring that could occur if I had to use lower shutter speeds.

I might do a lens rental service to try some higher end lenses out before I buy one and do a good in-depth comparison to see which one would suit my needs the best. Seems like the best way to go instead of blindly spending thousands on a lens.

[Spenner]

Totally, I know I'm doing the same before my next purchase which will be christmas. As well as reading basically every in depth review on the internet pertaining to the lenses I'm interested in :L I can't wait to shoot some high quality video with the 7D as well, the T1i is really choppy and has a pretty bad noise problem :I