A cheap, decent camera for starting out?

[gibbo]

Hello, I wasn't sure if I should have posted this in the Camera section or here, I went with here as it is a newbie asking a newbie question. Before you shoot me, I did perform a search but could not find anything specific to what I want to ask.

Basically what I want to do is get an el cheapo 720p camera for starting out, I want to make semi decent quality short films with it for practice until I can graduate to something bigger and better.

I figure there's no point going out and getting a $1000 camera just yet, as I have not even made a short film yet I would be wasting my money because by the time I'm ready to do it properly there will be a newer, cheaper model with better features available!

Anyhoo, I have been doing some reading and saw a few people recommend Flip for complete beginners starting out. I did some more reading which lead me to the canon sd 940 which apparently does better video and audio than the flip for the same or cheaper price, also I get a decent point and shoot camera as well! I am considering the Canon unless someone can recommend something else?

Obviously, my budget is around the $200 AUD mark.

Thanks alot!

 

[directorik]

I think that's very cool and don't get me wrong, I love answering people questions as well and maybe one day i'll be answering questions on these board. It's just that alot of other forums I have visited have stickies and FAQ's that ultra newbies (like myself) can read through and find out alot of the basics quickly. Questions like these for example:

What is mini DV? (i have an idea what this is, but not 100% sure yet)
What is jello effect? (still not sure on this one)
What is a light metre?

And so on and so on.

I realise I can just google all those terms but there are things i'm not aware of that I need to know!

You are right. An ultra newbie can use Google and
Wikipedia to find out the basics quickly. You don't
even need a forum to find out what miniDV is, what
the jello effect is or what a light meter is and does.
So after a littlle research an ultra newbie can come
to this forum and ask a question and get a personal
reply. And very often that personal reply from a fellow
filmmaker will include information that you didn't even
know to ask about.

Or an ultra newbie can go to another forum and read
the FAQ or sticky. Because this forum exists as it does
that gives people more choices.

And that's a great thing.

 

[gibbo]

It's the format everybody was shooting on ten or so years ago. It's like VHS, but smaller and much better quality (and digital, instead of analog). The technology is basically obsolete, but you can still get some really nice footage with them.


With DSLR video, each line is recorded sequentially, from the top down. So, if you move the camera rapidly, horizontally, vertical lines get bendy. Watch the side of the buildings in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhfQnIQPMjM

I couldnt see it in that video, but it's very evident in this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANHPJPM0dPs&feature=related

Well, that depends on what you intent to do. Do you want to be a professional cameraman? Yeah, DSLR might not be so great for practicing on.

Well the dream is to be a director of course! The plan is tp make lots of short films until I have enough knowledge to shoot a low budget feature (it's gonna be a simple western in outback Australia )

I saw an interesting short film on youtube video the other day where they used 2 cameras to film: A prosumer one for action shots and a canon 7D for close ups (to get a shallow depth of field) It worked out really well.

However, if you are strapped for cash, and want your footage to look as good as possible, there's currently no better bang for your buck than the T2i. And as far as being a DP or a director is concerned, in some ways these cameras come closer to matching the look and capability of film than most camcorders.

hmmm. But something like a canon HV40 is cheaper than the t2i..... Am I missing something here?

Now read this:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=25684

Reading now! Thanks....

EDIT: You made a feature on a t2i? That's awesome, do you have anything online from it? Trailers or anything? I would love to see how it turned out!

You are right. An ultra newbie can use Google and
Wikipedia to find out the basics quickly. You don't
even need a forum to find out what miniDV is, what
the jello effect is or what a light meter is and does.
So after a littlle research an ultra newbie can come
to this forum and ask a question and get a personal
reply. And very often that personal reply from a fellow
filmmaker will include information that you didn't even
know to ask about.

Or an ultra newbie can go to another forum and read
the FAQ or sticky. Because this forum exists as it does
that gives people more choices.

And that's a great thing.

A very great thing... Are you guys aware of any FAQ's or sticky's I can read anywhere? I'm so curious and just want to learn it all now! I'm trying to get my hands on some good books too, I;ve read that bare bones camera course book and Robert Rodriguez rebel without a crew so far....

 

[directorik]

A very great thing... Are you guys aware of any FAQ's or sticky's I can read anywhere? I'm so curious and just want to learn it all now!

Go to any filmmaking forum (use google) and most will
have them. Any reason you don't want to ask your
questions here?

 

[gibbo]

Go to any filmmaking forum (use google) and most will
have them. Any reason you don't want to ask your
questions here?

It's just that I've got so many questions! And I like to know the little details of... it could get very annoying....

 

[directorik]

It's just that I've got so many questions! And I like to know the little details of... it could get very annoying....

Even after what Uranium City and I said?

That's too bad.

 

[gibbo]

Even after what Uranium City and I said?

That's too bad.

Let me first say I really appreciate everyone taking the time out to help me out!

Now, I do have something I would really like to know more about at this point, it's my 2nd major concern (the first being replicating the film/cinematic look in another thread I made)

It's about audio and more so, dialogue.

1) How is the audio done in movies? From what I can tell by watching the actual movie and the special features, Most movies don't use the audio from the mic+boom on set, but the sound (dialogue included) is done seperately at the studio and added in post? So what's the point of having the boom+mic there (this probably sounds dumb to more experienced members but it's baffeling to me!)

2) In peoples opinions, what would be a good way to go about tackling the audio part? I'm going to start making short films very soon, i've got literally hundreds of ideas written down so all I need is the equipment and know how and I can get right into it. I'm a bit concerned about the audio. I was going to do it Robert Rodriguez (El Mariachi) style; do the scene twice, 1st take silent and 2nd take with no camera but a seperate audio recorder then sync sound to video afterwards, rather than with a mic on a boom or the mic on the camera. OR even do the audio later on in a quiet room?

I'm thinking that the actual sound effects (foley?) would be alot easier as there is no lips to sync it with so it doesnt have to be perfect?

I was really concerned about dialogue scenes between 2 actors and 1 camera. So I thought that shooting them seperately would make it easier? As long as the actors can do the 2 takes the in the same way it wold make editing alot simpler because you can sync across cuts (say a close up of actor 1 talking and it cuts to actor 2's face with actor 1 still talking)

Oh man, my head hurts now...

 

[chilipie]

1) How is the audio done in movies? From what I can tell by watching the actual movie and the special features, Most movies don't use the audio from the mic+boom on set, but the sound (dialogue included) is done seperately at the studio and added in post? So what's the point of having the boom+mic there (this probably sounds dumb to more experienced members but it's baffeling to me!)

Not at all! Most filmmakers will try and use as much of the on-set audio (recorded while the cameras were rolling) as is possible, unless it's unusable - planes flying overhead, explosions in the background, etc. Recording on set is much cheaper compared to hiring a recording studio, the actors are in character and the "sound" of the location (in particular reverb and background noise) are already there for you, with no need to process them digitally to the same extent. Recording audio on location can be difficult, but for most films it makes far more sense to do so.

2) In peoples opinions, what would be a good way to go about tackling the audio part? I'm going to start making short films very soon, i've got literally hundreds of ideas written down so all I need is the equipment and know how and I can get right into it. I'm a bit concerned about the audio. I was going to do it Robert Rodriguez (El Mariachi) style; do the scene twice, 1st take silent and 2nd take with no camera but a seperate audio recorder then sync sound to video afterwards, rather than with a mic on a boom or the mic on the camera. OR even do the audio later on in a quiet room?

Whatever you do, don't use the mic on the camera - you're bound to get amateurish sound. The closer you get a microphone to the sound source, the better the signal to noise ratio is - this is a measure of the sound you want (signal, e.g. someone talking) v the sound you don't want (noise, e.g. the hum of a fridge). Putting a mic on a boom pole allows you to get the mic as close to the source as possible, hence the better quality sound. I'd try my best to get usable sound in every take - you're relying on your actors saying their lines with exactly the same timing as before.

If you know that a particular line is going to be unusable - because of things moving around, exploding, whatever - it's worth recording the line again in the same place but without the camera rolling. This will give you the audio you need in editing with the right "room tone" (background noise in the room) and other characteristics. If you go and record it later in a different room, you'll be making it more difficult for yourself, as the new room will sound completely different.

I'm thinking that the actual sound effects (foley?) would be alot easier as there is no lips to sync it with so it doesnt have to be perfect?

Half true - the sounds do need to match up with picture, but it'll be easier to edit them to fit than with dialogue recorded separately. However, footsteps (for example) not matching up properly can take people out of the film just as badly synced dialogue can.

I was really concerned about dialogue scenes between 2 actors and 1 camera. So I thought that shooting them seperately would make it easier? As long as the actors can do the 2 takes the in the same way it wold make editing alot simpler because you can sync across cuts (say a close up of actor 1 talking and it cuts to actor 2's face with actor 1 still talking)

You're making it too difficult for yourself! No actors will be able to do two perfectly identical takes. In your example, all you would need to do is extend the audio from the close-up of actor 1 over the video of actor 2. These types of edits are usually called "L" and "J" cuts, because of how they look on the timeline, and should be very simple to do in any decent editing software. Editing is about the manipulation of time, and you shouldn't just be editing things in perfect sync like you shot with two cameras. Exaggerate a pause, make one actor interrupt the other, put in the smile from the previous take - you need to tell the story while creating emotions, not cut it like an interview.

 

[directorik]

chilipie is correct. I’ll just expand a little on his excellent
post.

In post production the dialogue must be completely separated from
any other sounds. This is because movies will be dubbed into
different languages. We don’t really face that but the independent
producers and studios do. So very often even the production sound
will be re-recorded to insure a very clean, quiet, separate
dialogue track. The other countries will then have everything else
(called the M&E - music and effects) exactly as the filmmakers
intended and only change the dialogue tracks.

Before you use Rodriguez’s technique you need to understand why he
did this. He was using a film camera that was not a crystal sync
camera. This is where research comes in; type crystal sync into
Google or Wikipedia for details. So he knew the audio would ne
sync up easily. He used a creative way to overcome that specific
challenge. You won’t face that challenge using a video camera.
Even if you use a separate audio recorder they will both stay in
sync. In that case you will use a slate to find the sync point.

I was really concerned about dialogue scenes between 2 actors and 1 camera. So I thought that shooting them seperately would make it easier? As long as the actors can do the 2 takes the in the same way it wold make editing alot simpler because you can sync across cuts (say a close up of actor 1 talking and it cuts to actor 2's face with actor 1 still talking)

Shooting them separately has always been done. Actors doing the
same thing many times, over and over is what actors do. A simple
three page scene of two people sitting at a table will be covered
from at least six different camera angles (and as many as eight to
ten) and repeated more than 20 times.

For example: Scene 22 is Bob and Mary sitting at a table - it’s
three pages long. You will set up the “Master Shot” - both people
at the table, camera getting a head to foot shot of both of them.
On your slate you will write “Scene 22 - Take 1”

Scene 22 - This will be the entire scene from one angle. All three
pages.

Adjust the lights, move the camera and shoot Bob’s side of the
table. The entire scene - all three pages.

Scene 22A - Close up of Bob.
Scene 22B - Over Mary’s shoulder on Bob.
Scene 22C - A slow dolly push in on Bob - from a full shot into a
close up.

Then you will shoot some inserts:
Scene 22D - an insert shot of Bob lighting a cigarette.
Scene 22E - a close up on Bob’s hand putting the cigarette in the
ash tray.
Scene 22F - a close up of Bob taking the contract, looking at it
and signing it (from Mary’s point of view)

Now move the lights, move the camera and cover the scene from
Bob’s side of the table. The entire scene - all three pages.

Scene 22G - Close up of Mary.
Scene 22H - Over Bob’s shoulder on Mary.
Scene 22J - A slow dolly push in on Mary - from a full shot into a
close up.

No for some inserts:
Scene 22K - an insert shot of Mary putting the contract on the
table.
Scene 22L - a close up on Mary’s hand snuffing out the cigarette
in the ash tray.
Scene 22M - a close up shot of Mary putting the contract on the
table, putting a pen on the contract and pushing it to the middle
of the table.
Scene 22P - a close up of Bob taking the contract, looking at it
and signing it (from Bob’s point of view)

You want that cool overhead shot so you will relight and put the
camera on that rig you built to get the shoot. You will shoot the
entire scene - all three pages.

Scene 22Q - the overhead shot.
You won't use I or O on the slate because those letters could be
confused with the numbers 1 and 0.

And this goes on and on until the entire scene is covered - until
all the shots the director wants have been shot. If you do three or
four takes of each camera set up the actors might repeat this
three page scene 25 to 35 times. It's what they do.

Then when you are editing you have plenty of angles to choose
from. All the sound is in sync and if you recorded it well, with
no ambient noise, it will cut together as smoothly as the picture.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Nice posts, chili and Rik!!!!

 

[gibbo]

Thanks for the replies guys, I'l address each on in separate posts!

Not at all! Most filmmakers will try and use as much of the on-set audio (recorded while the cameras were rolling) as is possible, unless it's unusable - planes flying overhead, explosions in the background, etc. Recording on set is much cheaper compared to hiring a recording studio, the actors are in character and the "sound" of the location (in particular reverb and background noise) are already there for you, with no need to process them digitally to the same extent. Recording audio on location can be difficult, but for most films it makes far more sense to do so.

OK, It's just that I've seen so many short films with that tinny sound to the dialogue and sometimes some echo and it sounds cheesy, For example a scene in a hallway that echos alot... but there's also movie that have this same scene that sound perfect.

Whatever you do, don't use the mic on the camera - you're bound to get amateurish sound. The closer you get a microphone to the sound source, the better the signal to noise ratio is - this is a measure of the sound you want (signal, e.g. someone talking) v the sound you don't want (noise, e.g. the hum of a fridge). Putting a mic on a boom pole allows you to get the mic as close to the source as possible, hence the better quality sound. I'd try my best to get usable sound in every take - you're relying on your actors saying their lines with exactly the same timing as before.

If you know that a particular line is going to be unusable - because of things moving around, exploding, whatever - it's worth recording the line again in the same place but without the camera rolling. This will give you the audio you need in editing with the right "room tone" (background noise in the room) and other characteristics. If you go and record it later in a different room, you'll be making it more difficult for yourself, as the new room will sound completely different. [/quote]

Noted, thanks. Will cameras that have a 3.5mm jack mic input be sufficient with a decent mic? Is that just not an option?

Half true - the sounds do need to match up with picture, but it'll be easier to edit them to fit than with dialogue recorded separately. However, footsteps (for example) not matching up properly can take people out of the film just as badly synced dialogue can.

Right, OK. I was thinking: Using a mic+boom for everything but recording the audio seperately?

You're making it too difficult for yourself! No actors will be able to do two perfectly identical takes. In your example, all you would need to do is extend the audio from the close-up of actor 1 over the video of actor 2. These types of edits are usually called "L" and "J" cuts, because of how they look on the timeline, and should be very simple to do in any decent editing software. Editing is about the manipulation of time, and you shouldn't just be editing things in perfect sync like you shot with two cameras. Exaggerate a pause, make one actor interrupt the other, put in the smile from the previous take - you need to tell the story while creating emotions, not cut it like an interview.

Yeah well not exactely the same but something like:

Hhave the actors watch the scene afterwards on a TV or something and just speak into a voice recorder to match the dialogue on screen, they would probably have to do it a few times to get it right but this way they don't need to act the whole scene out again and again, And for the other sounds/noises, just use the audio captured on set through the boom mic.

Does this sound feasible?

 

[chilipie]

OK, It's just that I've seen so many short films with that tinny sound to the dialogue and sometimes some echo and it sounds cheesy, For example a scene in a hallway that echos alot... but there's also movie that have this same scene that sound perfect.

The tinniness would suggest the used the on-board mic built into the camera, echoes indoors can happen quite easily if you choose the wrong type of microphone to use indoors. Search for posts by Alcove Audio - he's made a lot of recommendations for good mics, recorders and mixers.

Noted, thanks. Will cameras that have a 3.5mm jack mic input be sufficient with a decent mic? Is that just not an option?

Well, I've done it and got sound I was fairly happy with at the time, but I'd never do it if I could afford to upgrade. If you record sound separately it does make things a lot simpler on set - having the cameraman manage audio cables and set levels is never going to be as good as having a dedicated sound person, for starters. You can get bits of hardware that allow you to convert a balanced signal (XLR cables, used in professional microphones) to an unbalanced one (like your 3.5mm jack), but you can get a portable recorder for the same money, which just seems to make more sense to me.

Right, OK. I was thinking: Using a mic+boom for everything but recording the audio seperately

Yep, that's how the pros do it!

Yeah well not exactely the same but something like:

Hhave the actors watch the scene afterwards on a TV or something and just speak into a voice recorder to match the dialogue on screen, they would probably have to do it a few times to get it right but this way they don't need to act the whole scene out again and again, And for the other sounds/noises, just use the audio captured on set through the boom mic.

Does this sound feasible?

Again, it sounds much more complicated than it needs to be. Why do you think the audio from the boomed mic on set is going to be unusable? What you're describing is called ADR, and is done in post when the audio on set wasn't good enough or couldn't be recorded.

Even if you're using the audio captured on set, you'll probably have to put what's called "foley" over the top - sounds performed in sync to actions on screen (footsteps, doors creaking, clothes rustling etc.). If you only use the dialogue recorded later, you'll have to add back in even more sounds - you can't just extract the ambience and footsteps etc. from the files you recorded on set if people were doing their lines over it.

There are professional actors who struggle with ADR - don't underestimate how difficult it is to say the same words in exact sync while conveying the same mood as on set and staying completely in character. In my view it should only be used as a last resort, not only because it's expensive and time-consuming, but because the performances are never going to be as good.

 

[gibbo]

I really appreciate the replies, thank you.

chilipie is correct. I’ll just expand a little on his excellent
post.

In post production the dialogue must be completely separated from
any other sounds. This is because movies will be dubbed into
different languages. We don’t really face that but the independent
producers and studios do. So very often even the production sound
will be re-recorded to insure a very clean, quiet, separate
dialogue track. The other countries will then have everything else
(called the M&E - music and effects) exactly as the filmmakers
intended and only change the dialogue tracks.

OK so, they seperate the dialogue from the audio taken on set, thus have 2 audio tracks: 1 dialogue and 1
for everything else.

Before you use Rodriguez’s technique you need to understand why he
did this. He was using a film camera that was not a crystal sync
camera. This is where research comes in; type crystal sync into
Google or Wikipedia for details. So he knew the audio would ne
sync up easily. He used a creative way to overcome that specific
challenge. You won’t face that challenge using a video camera.
Even if you use a separate audio recorder they will both stay in
sync. In that case you will use a slate to find the sync point.

A slate hey? That would really only work if they are recorded separately but at the same time? What about recording the dialogue a day afterwards watching it on a TV (as stated above) - maybe I miss-assumed the amount of flexibility I would have in video editing software. I thought I could just import the audio and video and move them around until the match up? *cowers in the corner*

Shooting them separately has always been done. Actors doing the
same thing many times, over and over is what actors do. A simple
three page scene of two people sitting at a table will be covered
from at least six different camera angles (and as many as eight to
ten) and repeated more than 20 times.

For example: Scene 22 is Bob and Mary sitting at a table - it’s
three pages long. You will set up the “Master Shot” - both people
at the table, camera getting a head to foot shot of both of them.
On your slate you will write “Scene 22 - Take 1”

Scene 22 - This will be the entire scene from one angle. All three
pages.

Adjust the lights, move the camera and shoot Bob’s side of the
table. The entire scene - all three pages.

Scene 22A - Close up of Bob.
Scene 22B - Over Mary’s shoulder on Bob.
Scene 22C - A slow dolly push in on Bob - from a full shot into a
close up.

Then you will shoot some inserts:
Scene 22D - an insert shot of Bob lighting a cigarette.
Scene 22E - a close up on Bob’s hand putting the cigarette in the
ash tray.
Scene 22F - a close up of Bob taking the contract, looking at it
and signing it (from Mary’s point of view)

Now move the lights, move the camera and cover the scene from
Bob’s side of the table. The entire scene - all three pages.

Scene 22G - Close up of Mary.
Scene 22H - Over Bob’s shoulder on Mary.
Scene 22J - A slow dolly push in on Mary - from a full shot into a
close up.

No for some inserts:
Scene 22K - an insert shot of Mary putting the contract on the
table.
Scene 22L - a close up on Mary’s hand snuffing out the cigarette
in the ash tray.
Scene 22M - a close up shot of Mary putting the contract on the
table, putting a pen on the contract and pushing it to the middle
of the table.
Scene 22P - a close up of Bob taking the contract, looking at it
and signing it (from Bob’s point of view)

You want that cool overhead shot so you will relight and put the
camera on that rig you built to get the shoot. You will shoot the
entire scene - all three pages.

Scene 22Q - the overhead shot.
You won't use I or O on the slate because those letters could be
confused with the numbers 1 and 0.

And this goes on and on until the entire scene is covered - until
all the shots the director wants have been shot. If you do three or
four takes of each camera set up the actors might repeat this
three page scene 25 to 35 times. It's what they do.

Then when you are editing you have plenty of angles to choose
from. All the sound is in sync and if you recorded it well, with
no ambient noise, it will cut together as smoothly as the picture.

Wow..... I had no idea it was like that.

I'm sorry to keep beating a dead horse with a stick but I mean, I'm completely racking my brains (and driving myself crazy) trying to figure this out:

Shooting the same scene 20 times from 6 different camera angles then going through and choosing what to keep in editing VS spending more time on preperation, story boarding and visualising the scene and only shooting the bare minimum of what you want

In my mind the latter makes more sense? At least for low budget/indie type productions?

 

[Cracker Funk]

In my mind the latter makes more sense? At least for low budget/indie type productions?

No way. The latter only makes more sense when you are REALLY tight on time. Coverage is good for everyone.

 

[gibbo]

The tinniness would suggest the used the on-board mic built into the camera, echoes indoors can happen quite easily if you choose the wrong type of microphone to use indoors. Search for posts by Alcove Audio - he's made a lot of recommendations for good mics, recorders and mixers.

Cool thanks.

Well, I've done it and got sound I was fairly happy with at the time, but I'd never do it if I could afford to upgrade. If you record sound separately it does make things a lot simpler on set - having the cameraman manage audio cables and set levels is never going to be as good as having a dedicated sound person, for starters. You can get bits of hardware that allow you to convert a balanced signal (XLR cables, used in professional microphones) to an unbalanced one (like your 3.5mm jack), but you can get a portable recorder for the same money, which just seems to make more sense to me.

Food for thought.

Yep, that's how the pros do it!

Again, it sounds much more complicated than it needs to be. Why do you think the audio from the boomed mic on set is going to be unusable? What you're describing is called ADR, and is done in post when the audio on set wasn't good enough or couldn't be recorded.

Even if you're using the audio captured on set, you'll probably have to put what's called "foley" over the top - sounds performed in sync to actions on screen (footsteps, doors creaking, clothes rustling etc.). If you only use the dialogue recorded later, you'll have to add back in even more sounds - you can't just extract the ambience and footsteps etc. from the files you recorded on set if people were doing their lines over it.

There are professional actors who struggle with ADR - don't underestimate how difficult it is to say the same words in exact sync while conveying the same mood as on set and staying completely in character. In my view it should only be used as a last resort, not only because it's expensive and time-consuming, but because the performances are never going to be as good.

Ok, I found a good example of what i'm stuggling on getting my head around in this short film. I just stumbled across it earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeYJ275_GTs

Notice at 45 seconds when mike (white shirt) says "just a black coffee thanks" the camera is one the other guy, then it cuts to mike as he finishes his sentence:"feeling a little bit tired tonight" I assume they wanted it seemless like in the movies, but the cut is very obvious, how could they have acheived this properly?

That's the whole reason why I was thinking that a separate dialogue track would be an advantage because they could lay the whole sentence "just a black coffee thanks, feeling a little bit tired tonight" over the video of the first guys face, then mikes face without any interuptions in the dialogue!

and at exactly 37 seconds when the girl comes in on the wheelchair just as she starts to talk you can hear the, umm... I don't know what it's called, maybe the base noise? Anyway, it's goes from a low noise to a louder noise

God, I hope i'm making sense, in my mind it does but I can also see how it could be confusing.

I'm logging off now for the day, I'm going cross eyed from all this!

Thanks!

 

[gibbo]

So I've pretty much decided on getting a DSLR (550D/t2i) after reading that thread and looking at the video on youtube, I'm almost sold.

Anyway, A couple more concerns/questions if you don't mind!

1) Using it on a steadicam/tripod: If you're doing a moving steadicam shot and you want to keep the shallow depth of field going while the subject is moving, would you just use auto focus? I'm pretty sure you would but I just want to confirm.... And if you are using manual focus on a steadicam or tripod how would you adjust it without moving the camera (I assume you would see a little bit of the camera shaking/movie while adjust manual focus on a tripod?)

Which leads me to my next question:


2) Auto focus noise: I read somewhere that the auto focus is noisy and can be heard when playing back video using the internal MIC and also with another MIC that you plug into the camera, like a Rhode one or something. Is this really true?


3) Auto settings: I read a review where someone was taking pictures with this camera outside during the day and it automatically bumped up the ISO to something like 2400 and at night the camera decided on ISO 400. They returned the camera because of this. Is this true?

THanks for the replies guys!!

 

[Zensteve]

at exactly 37 seconds when the girl comes in on the wheelchair just as she starts to talk you can hear the, umm... I don't know what it's called, maybe the base noise?

Technically, it's called "crappy audio".

In situations like this, you'd be asking the sound-guy where the room tone audio is so you can try to mask the blatant disparities.

Notice at 45 seconds when mike (white shirt) says "just a black coffee thanks" the camera is one the other guy, then it cuts to mike as he finishes his sentence:"feeling a little bit tired tonight" I assume they wanted it seemless like in the movies, but the cut is very obvious, how could they have acheived this properly?

Without having access to the actual footage, it's impossible to say why it was edited the way it was.

Maybe there was an error importing video at that point; maybe the boompole dropped into frame on a single take; maybe the take was interrupted; maybe the editor was trying for a particular feel or effect; maybe the editor is just lame; maybe the editor made it to match director's precise storyboards; who knows.

 

[chilipie]

So I've pretty much decided on getting a DSLR (550D/t2i) after reading that thread and looking at the video on youtube, I'm almost sold.

Anyway, A couple more concerns/questions if you don't mind!

1) Using it on a steadicam/tripod: If you're doing a moving steadicam shot and you want to keep the shallow depth of field going while the subject is moving, would you just use auto focus? I'm pretty sure you would but I just want to confirm.... And if you are using manual focus on a steadicam or tripod how would you adjust it without moving the camera (I assume you would see a little bit of the camera shaking/movie while adjust manual focus on a tripod?)

If you're using it on a steadicam you're SOL when it comes to focus - the 550D won't autofocus while recording video. Your best option is to close the aperture, giving you a deeper depth of field so more of the shot is in focus. It's not that easy to maintain a precise distance between the camera and subject (and it would limit your shots enormously) while flying a steadicam, so the only other option is to drop thousands on a remote follow focus and a steadicam big enough to take it, which isn't worth it for the 550D. I haven't had any problems with camera shake while focusing on a tripod, but I haven't used that many long lenses with it yet… YMMV.

Which leads me to my next question:


2) Auto focus noise: I read somewhere that the auto focus is noisy and can be heard when playing back video using the internal MIC and also with another MIC that you plug into the camera, like a Rhode one or something. Is this really true?

The noise of the autofocus depends on the lens - Canon lenses that have USM (ultrasonic motor) in the name will have a virtually silent autofocus. That said, you can't autofocus during a shot anyway, and the internal mic is good for nothing except syncing with another camera or a sound recorder. I've used a Røde mic on the hot shoe for syncing with a track in a music video and it was fine, but booming a mic is always going to sound better.

3) Auto settings: I read a review where someone was taking pictures with this camera outside during the day and it automatically bumped up the ISO to something like 2400 and at night the camera decided on ISO 400. They returned the camera because of this. Is this true?

THanks for the replies guys!!

Is the story true? I've no idea. I wouldn't be that concerned about it though, if I'm honest - you should be using full manual controls when shooting video on it, anyway.

 

[gibbo]

Technically, it's called "crappy audio".

In situations like this, you'd be asking the sound-guy where the room tone audio is so you can try to mask the blatant disparities.

Ok..

Without having access to the actual footage, it's impossible to say why it was edited the way it was.

Maybe there was an error importing video at that point; maybe the boompole dropped into frame on a single take; maybe the take was interrupted; maybe the editor was trying for a particular feel or effect; maybe the editor is just lame; maybe the editor made it to match director's precise storyboards; who knows.

Fair enough. I think that particular short was made in a rush by first timers... so it's probably a combination of all of the above!

If you're using it on a steadicam you're SOL when it comes to focus - the 550D won't autofocus while recording video. Your best option is to close the aperture, giving you a deeper depth of field so more of the shot is in focus. It's not that easy to maintain a precise distance between the camera and subject (and it would limit your shots enormously) while flying a steadicam, so the only other option is to drop thousands on a remote follow focus and a steadicam big enough to take it, which isn't worth it for the 550D. I haven't had any problems with camera shake while focusing on a tripod, but I haven't used that many long lenses with it yet… YMMV.

Sorry, whats SOL and YMMV?

So the standard of shooting short/feature films on DSLR is to only have a shallow depth of field on stationary objects (closeups etc...) And use the deeper depth of field for the rest?

How hard is it to keep a shallow depth of field on a moving object? As an example, at the beginning of "A fistful of dynamite" (for some reason that movie keeps coming to mind) The mexican guy is watching/waiting for a horse drawn carriage to approach him, there is a shot side on of the carriage moving along. How hard would it be to keep that carriage in focus and have everything else drowned in Bokeh(?)

The noise of the autofocus depends on the lens - Canon lenses that have USM (ultrasonic motor) in the name will have a virtually silent autofocus. That said, you can't autofocus during a shot anyway, and the internal mic is good for nothing except syncing with another camera or a sound recorder.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by that (part in bold)

I've used a Røde mic on the hot shoe for syncing with a track in a music video and it was fine, but booming a mic is always going to sound better.

OK, I googled what a hot shoe is. Does that mean that an external MIC just plugs into the hot shoe and not a 3.5mm jack input? Again, I don't understand the rest? (bold again)

Sorry, I'm a complete newbie at this :|

Is the story true? I've no idea. I wouldn't be that concerned about it though, if I'm honest - you should be using full manual controls when shooting video on it, anyway.

Yeah true, I think the review she was actually shooting stills though. And Autofocus isnt an option in video anyway....

Sorry about all the questions guys. It;s just that I need to get a camera really soon and there's so much to know!

 

[chilipie]

Sorry, whats SOL and YMMV?

S*** out of luck, and your milage may vary

So the standard of shooting short/feature films on DSLR is to only have a shallow depth of field on stationary objects (closeups etc...) And use the deeper depth of field for the rest?

How hard is it to keep a shallow depth of field on a moving object? As an example, at the beginning of "A fistful of dynamite" (for some reason that movie keeps coming to mind) The mexican guy is watching/waiting for a horse drawn carriage to approach him, there is a shot side on of the carriage moving along. How hard would it be to keep that carriage in focus and have everything else drowned in Bokeh(?)

Not quite, sorry if I wasn't clear enough - if the camera's on a steadicam then you can't pull focus without a very expensive remote follow focus because to do so would unbalance the camera. Any other time - handheld, on a tripod, on a dolly, on a jib where you can reach the camera - you need to be pulling focus all the time if you want that shallow depth of field, and while it takes some practice to do it quickly and accurately, camera shake is pretty minimal.

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by that (part in bold)

The built-in mic doesn't really give you sound that's high enough quality to use in a finished piece, but it can be useful when you record sound separately, as it makes it easier to sync the video with the audio.

OK, I googled what a hot shoe is. Does that mean that an external MIC just plugs into the hot shoe and not a 3.5mm jack input? Again, I don't understand the rest? (bold again)

My bad, "cold shoe" would have been more accurate - the mic just sits on top of the camera (like a flashgun would), and then it plugs into a 3.5mm jack on the side.

Hope that's cleared things up a bit!

 

[gibbo]

S*** out of luck, and your milage may vary


Not quite, sorry if I wasn't clear enough - if the camera's on a steadicam then you can't pull focus without a very expensive remote follow focus because to do so would unbalance the camera. Any other time - handheld, on a tripod, on a dolly, on a jib where you can reach the camera - you need to be pulling focus all the time if you want that shallow depth of field, and while it takes some practice to do it quickly and accurately, camera shake is pretty minimal.

Right got it... I guess you could get decent results with a halo rig and alot of practice...

The built-in mic doesn't really give you sound that's high enough quality to use in a finished piece, but it can be useful when you record sound separately, as it makes it easier to sync the video with the audio.

And you could lay the external audio over the top of the built it mic audio in post? Thats a bloody good idea! Thanks a bunch...

My bad, "cold shoe" would have been more accurate - the mic just sits on top of the camera (like a flashgun would), and then it plugs into a 3.5mm jack on the side.

Hope that's cleared things up a bit!

Yes, thank you very much! more food for thought....