BUCKET CLIPS 3 | A FLINTA Ski Mixtape

Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

DSLR users: how do you optimize footage quality?

profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
I've been filming with a T2i for a while now, and have always noticed my footage just isn't quite as crisp as the "big" editors I've seen (Will Start, Braunstein, etc.)

I've got a 17-40 f/4L, so I know thats not the problem, and my focus is usually pretty on point. Even shots I take a while to set up and ensure the focus is absolutely perfect don't come out as well.

My editing settings in Premiere always match my footage, I correct histogram levels in AE, to me it seems like I'm doing everything I can.

I guess I'm just looking for any possible tips from people as to how you make your footage look the best it can be.

Thanks to everybody, +K.

Heres a video I recently made for reference if you think it may be my exposure/anything else.

Apr 26 2012 5:55PM
8 3
profile picture
FatWhore
Posts: 2213 - Karma: 1,098
Looks pretty good for a t2i. A lot of the better videographers dont use a t2i, obviously, so thats probably what your seeing.
Apr 26 2012 6:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Gonzo
Posts: 2552 - Karma: 87
looks fine to me, but where do you notice the drop in video quality, is it right off the camera or like after you export it or when you upload it to vimeo, depending on when the footage gets worse your going to have to treat the situation differently.
Apr 26 2012 6:08PM
0 0
profile picture
dispatchQ_main
Posts: 2619 - Karma: 629
What is your usual aperture? It did seem quite soft.
Apr 26 2012 6:14PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,314
are you fucking stupid, or just retarded?

there is NO difference in the t2i's footage compared to any of the other aps-c canon cameras...
Apr 26 2012 6:41PM
2 1
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,840
Quoting Snoop Dogg
"Watch your mouth never speak on what you not know"


Anyways, those guys he listed are all shooting on the EXACT same sensor that he has. Paul even uses the same lens...
Apr 26 2012 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
Even my raw footage doesn't look quite as crisp as it should, although its better than what makes it to Vimeo. I seem to lose a lot of the quality going from raw files on my computer into Premiere.

How exactly do you guys move your footage from start to finish? I'm starting to think I'm doing this wrong. I usually highlight all the files from my card and drag and drop them to my computer, then drag and drop again into the program.

What format do you usually render to?

And to whoever asked, my aperture was at 22 for the whole edit.

+K to everybody so far, really appreciate the help to get my footage to where it should be
Apr 26 2012 7:04PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,314
well theres your problem

lenses are optimized to be sharpest in the f8-11 range. Beyond that (especially stopped down to 22) they lose some quality
Apr 26 2012 7:08PM
0 0
profile picture
cwillygood
Posts: 6831 - Karma: 1,829
i have a tokina 11-16 and when i bump it up to 22 range ish it really doesnt looks much compared to 8 ish, idk maybe its just the lens
Apr 26 2012 7:27PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
Wow, thanks a lot, hope that fixes it.

Just in case, is there anything else anybody might have to suggest?

Also, I just noticed premiere only allows me to export to mp4 or uncompressed AVI (I dont even know what to do with files this big) Is mp4 real low quality as far as formats go?
Apr 26 2012 7:27PM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
Holy shit yeah dude at F/22 your lens will definitely not be that sharp try too keep in in the f/5-f/10 for sharpest images. If you needed to have it at f/22 to get the correct exposure then I would invest in a solid ND fliter so you don't have to stop down so much.
Apr 26 2012 7:50PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
When I do long exposures at f22 for landscapes with my 17-40 I have to do a serious amount of sharpening in post.
Apr 26 2012 8:24PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Mobile... So yah, shoot at f6.3-11 for best results, and nd's are super helpful for video. 17-40 is not the sharpest lens of all time either, but I find wides usually aret as sharp as standards or tele's, at least with zooms.
Apr 26 2012 8:28PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,329
mp4 is fine as long as you use the right settings. use "vimeo hd" preset and change the framerate to 23.97fps, that usually works pretty well.
Apr 26 2012 8:34PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
Thanks a lot to everybody, I'll look into ND filters.

I'll give these tips a try this weekend
Apr 26 2012 10:27PM
0 0
profile picture
KarmaInitiative
Posts: 2028 - Karma: 174
just curious, why would high fstops lead to less sharp footage?
Apr 26 2012 10:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Legion
Posts: 1374 - Karma: 29
noob question here- when you are doing a follow cam at a an aperture like 8, do you just focus to infinity to make sure you subject is in focus? I'm just kinda confused... what if you and your subject get farther apart or closer together... would that just lead to out of focus footage?
Apr 26 2012 10:59PM
0 0
profile picture
.Max.
Posts: 2930 - Karma: 701
If you're shooting on a wider lens; 20mm and below, and you are stopped down to F/8-f/16 focus to just below infinity and most of your frame should be in focus.
Apr 26 2012 11:11PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Yeah, with wides, and especially ultra wides and fisheyes even wide open everything is basically in focus.
Apr 26 2012 11:25PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiJay.
Posts: 1550 - Karma: 653
threads.. some good info here
Apr 26 2012 11:43PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
sorry to say this man but you've been spewing a ridiculous amount of nonsense lately.



i use a T2i (along with a Sony FS100), and it's a fucking amazing camera. it's fully manual, so if you install ML on it it doesn't leave too much to be desired as far as a DSLR for video goes. plus, some of the shots in PBP's Grand Bizarre were shot on a T2i.

it has the same sensor as the T3i, 60D, and 7D, therefore producing the same image.
Apr 26 2012 11:56PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
its like squinting your eyes...when you squint a little sometimes things close (or far) may get a little more crisp but if you squint past that it gets fuzzy again..of course its different for everybody and thats the only way i could think of to describe it. if the hole letting light through is too small there will be refracting and images won't be as crisp.

to the OP. its definitely how you handle your footage. im not too sure on the workflow for premiere as far as importing, but all the dlsrs from canon are shit codecs. they are all h.264 and that is a "distribution" codec, not a "production" codec. its like editing pictures with a jpeg vs raw files. the jpeg degrades over time. same with h.264...the more you tamper with it and change things the more it will degrade. yeah its very slight but over time that adds up.

like i said not sure the premiere work flow but with final cut pro...i ingest my footage as apple prores 422 (LT) codec which is a production codec. they are a lot bigger files because they preserve more information than a h.264 codec. this way you can edit without any quality issues. you are not making the image better by transcoding, only preserving what information there is so that nothing degrades.

as for exporting, you should export the video with the settings of whatever medium you want to show your video on. for vimeo some of the standard settings are h.264 codec, the "distribution" codec, and AAC audio at 41000 hz or whatever that is. your data rate should be somewhere in the 5000-9000 kbt range for hd footage. just match them to whatever vimeo's standards are.

i guarantee your problem is in the importing your files and exporting. you are losing some quality loss the way you bring your footage in and then send out the final product. find out the best way for importing your footage into premiere and you will be golden

hope this helps
Apr 27 2012 12:03AM
0 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 305
If you're shooting at f/22 then you're probably shooting at a (relatively) high ISO for how sunny it looked in those shots. It'll be very minimal, but if you stop it down to like the 100-200 range it will improve the quality as well.
Apr 27 2012 12:29AM
0 0
profile picture
phreshpow
Posts: 834 - Karma: 133
shots at like 1:57-2:03 or so looked much sharper than the rest of them (to me) and judging from the somewhat narrow DOF, it looks like they may have been shot at a wider aperture than f/22, if that's the case, then I'd say, as everyone else did, that, that may be the main source of your problem

good luck!
Apr 27 2012 4:21AM
0 0
profile picture
mammothpunks
Posts: 5724 - Karma: 372
You NEED an ND filter. Here is an ok one for cheap.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/58716-REG/Tiffen_77ND9_77mm_Neutral_Density_ND.html

I pretty much stick around f/6.3 1/125 iso100 when I'm shooting skiing with a 5d with the 17-40 and that filter linked above.

You want to stay away from both f stop extremes for the best quality, but i find shooting wide open will give you less problems than shooting all the way closed down. Most people get a dslr for the depth of field. Shooting with your aperture closed all the way defeats the purpose. Might as well shoot on some HD camcorder if you don't like shallow depth of field.

As for focusing on followcam, just pre focus in the range that the skier will be in. On a wide enough lens you will usually be at infinity anyways.
Apr 27 2012 11:15PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,314
wat
Apr 27 2012 11:32PM
1 0
profile picture
BROBRO
Posts: 563 - Karma: 1,245
Many you got to do some research bud....
Apr 27 2012 11:39PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
It varies from lens to lens, but the "sweet spot" is usually f/5.6 - f/8 for most lenses.


OP, here's some tips to achieve your typical sunny "punchy" image:

- Get an ND .09 filter (or two) and shoot around f/8 for follow cams. Try to shoot around f/5.6 for longer shots where you can control focus.

- Keep your iso at the lowest possible native value, which is 320. If you must use another ISO, do it in increments of 160 (320, 640, 800). 160, despite being an increment of 160, isn't a native ISO.

- Turn your sharpness all the way down to reduce moiré.

- Transcode to ProRes 422 LT (anything higher causes banding). Adjust levels to make it "punchy" but not enough so that the lows and highs clip. If setting the levels for the focus of the shot causes clipping in some other area, use broadcast safe to feather the highlight rolloff (knee). This is often overlooked and makes a HUGE difference. Another way to add perceived contrast without adjusting levels is to make the shadows complimentary to the mids. So if you want a "warm" image, make the shadows a cyan/blue/magenta tone. Adjust to taste, but don't overdo it.

- Composition: let the skier travel within the frame. Don't keep the rider in the same spot on the screen. If you're shooting a jump from the knuckle and he takes off on the left side of the frame, pan just enough so he lands on the right side.
Apr 28 2012 2:27AM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
I've got to correct you there. 160 and the increments of that number aren't native ISO's. 100 is, and all it's multiplications. When ISO was made digital they kept native ISO (100, 200, 400 etc.) but also made a third stop down and up from native ISO. That's where ISO's like 160 (one stop down from native ISO 200) and 250 (one stop up) come from.

The thing with video is that all the third stops UP from native ISO give terrible noise (now I don't know why that would be) and the ISO's one stop down from native give much lower noise, but you also lose a lot of contrast, which, in turn is good for the 'flat' image/smaller dynamic range of the video.
That's why people always shoot in increments of ISO 160 with video.

The above is all negligible for photography btw.
Apr 28 2012 3:33PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
When I used a 17-40, I would find myself oftenly getting out of focus. For follows you really should be at 17mm with the focus a hair below infinity.

With magic lantern you get a few tools to help you make sure the object you want is in focus. So if you don't already have it, get it.


and I lol'd at the kid hating on T2i's...
Apr 28 2012 6:57PM
0 0
profile picture
dispatchQ_main
Posts: 2619 - Karma: 629
I AGREE. Why have all the hassles of a large sensor then stop down to make it look like dv...
Apr 28 2012 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
J-Sway
Posts: 685 - Karma: 111
threads

Apr 29 2012 12:03AM
0 0
profile picture
currentwestman
Posts: 3292 - Karma: 330
thredz
Apr 29 2012 4:47AM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
.........why..

like 1337 said, f8-f11 will give you the best results. personally I find the 17-40 to peak around 7.1 for photos on a FF sensor. If you are trying to keep your shutter speed in check with that aperture, I suggest you invest in a ND filter
Apr 29 2012 12:51PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
Everyone has given you a lot of information here OP, so I don't have a lot more to add.

One thing to keep in mind though is that while your footage is probably at times not as sharp as it could be due to shooting at f/22, it's also very common to be hypercritical of your own stuff, particularly when it comes to sharpness. i've had quite a few kids ask why their DSLR footage isn't sharp, and in reality it looks just as sharp as stuff shot by pros. for example, you mentioned me in your post, but i often find myself watching other filmers' videos and wondering 'dang how did they get it looking so sharp?'
Apr 29 2012 2:52PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9932 - Karma: 9,411
I don't think sharpness is your biggest issue (because it really isn't an issue, that looks acceptable for a t2i) but you should invest in a glide cam
Apr 29 2012 3:02PM
0 0
profile picture
SacZiplock
Posts: 2405 - Karma: 513
and what do you guys do for filming night skiing, ( poorly lit terrain park ) and get kinda good footage quality ? i got a t3i and low light filming is not really reliable
Apr 29 2012 5:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
Fast lens
Apr 29 2012 7:12PM
0 0
profile picture
mammothpunks
Posts: 5724 - Karma: 372
The 5d is much better for low light filming.
Apr 29 2012 9:40PM
0 1
profile picture
powninja
Posts: 1053 - Karma: 242
Some very good info here..
Apr 29 2012 10:11PM
0 0
profile picture
.Max.
Posts: 2930 - Karma: 701
Yeah, I don't think he's going to spend another $1500 for a 5dii instead of his t3i. Sacrifice manual audio controls, 60fps and the crop sensor for slightly better ISO performance... Unless I'm missing something...
Apr 29 2012 10:27PM
1 0
profile picture
JStrathern
Posts: 8747 - Karma: 1,536
This so much
Apr 29 2012 10:28PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
Thanks so much to everybody. I ordered an ND filter, it should help. +K to everybody that said anyting
Apr 29 2012 11:23PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
I guess I'm gonna keep it up with the noob questions, hopefully i'm not the only one wondering this.

How exactly is this done? I'm editing on a PC, I've only ever heard prores being used in relation to Final Cut. I used to do video conversions with MPEG streamclip, but that's when I was editing in vegas (hehe) and had to convert my raw clips to even edit them. I haven't done any conversions since premiere since it edits my nati
Apr 29 2012 11:28PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
...native footage without a problem.
Apr 29 2012 11:28PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,329
you can't use prores on a pc, it's an apple product. i believe you can use dnxhd, which is pretty much the same thing as prores, but i'm not sure how that works. i tried it once and didn't have much luck so i went back to editing the native footage, the final product looks fine to me
Apr 29 2012 11:36PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
With premiere you don't have to convert codecs
Apr 29 2012 11:45PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,329
yeah i know you don't have to, my computer just bogged down when playing through the whole timeline when i didn't prerender so i thought i would try a more computer-friendly codec
Apr 29 2012 11:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Will.T
Posts: 3453 - Karma: 1,281
so much good tips in this threads..

should be a sticky
Apr 29 2012 11:52PM
0 0
profile picture
tBatt
Posts: 9632 - Karma: 580
Seconded.
Apr 30 2012 12:23AM
0 0
profile picture
SacZiplock
Posts: 2405 - Karma: 513
thirded.
Apr 30 2012 12:30PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)