Member of the Month

Biffbarf
March, 2025

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.

13 years ago
8 3
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31074 - Karma: 29,629
Ha more like so much bullshit that it should be stickied as a guide on what not to do and people not to listen to
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,296
Maybe you should add some of your awesome knowledge, because I haven't seen you contribute anything to this thread.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
tBatt
Posts: 9632 - Karma: 580
SO maybe we should make a new thread, putting all the non-bullshit into the OP. And then sticky that.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31074 - Karma: 29,629
On mobile at work atm, i'll see what i can do when i get home :)
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Dub_Digital
Posts: 2795 - Karma: 638
also lights are very helpful, I just got this

havent used it to film night skiing yet, but ive used it camping, and it illuminates the shit out of things...cant wait to use it skiing (granted it doesnt move around)
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
tell us how you like it when you get it.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
black
Posts: 208 - Karma: 250
as bitchy as TijmenDal is, you flaked on an opportunity to educate that young lad :)
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Strobe
Posts: 279 - Karma: 8
lol 1337's banned right now
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
black
Posts: 208 - Karma: 250
lol why?
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Strobe
Posts: 279 - Karma: 8
ban message say scrollbombing/postwhoring, but not sure where/when. a month for that though sounds excessive....
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Film.
Posts: 2649 - Karma: 2,297
Sony FS100
Click for larger image
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
Click for larger image do want. sort of

13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
I love my gh2, but when I saw the fs700 specs, lets just say I was happy/jealous
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,329
oh boy they finally put a handle on it, now i can upgrade from my vx1000 as long as this fs700 shoots 4:3
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,296
The thing that makes me happy is that in 6 years the FS will be really cheap - as well as the computers that have the horsepower to edit it's footage on.

13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Ha, that's what people said about the DVX. Once 24p was implemented, "no you have no excuse not to make a movie." Guess what, people found more things to bitch about. No interchangeable optics/shallow DOF. We got that, now it's "we want 10-bit RAW," and we're getting that too. People are never going to be happy. I'm interested to see what the next thing we're going to start bitching about.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,296
It's not like that. The only restrictions in life are physical. We will simply never have screens bigger than 30" in front of us, so it would be useless for a web-edit to have 4K and what not. From now on, camera's that come out are complete overkill for anything web-based. 5 years back that was a different story. And if these kick-ass camera will be 'affordable' in a few years, we don't have anything to bitch about.

I'm shooting with a 40D that was released 6 years ago and you don't hear me complaining. I'm VERY happy with my camera. Just because something newer is released the older version doesn't go to shit all of a sudden - if you look past the fact that the newer ís better, but the older one doesn't get worse just because there's a newer version, I don't see a problem.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1397 - Karma: 790
That's a very strong assumption... I think in a decade we will be able to paint the screens on our walls and they'll be as big as we want them to be. Plus in the next 12 months all the screens are gonna become 300 dpi (Retina as Apple and Intel like to call it). 4K is coming and there will be higher resolution after that...

...that said you have a point: what was the best 3 years ago is now entry-level. If you are patient enough you can have incredible technology for very little money.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,296
How can we have a screen as big as we want to be? In our kitchen? Project it on our cupboards? That's going to be enjoyable to watch.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1397 - Karma: 790
what a lack of imagination...
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 306
You're misunderestimating peoples' power to bitch. Maybe you won't bitch and are happy about what you have, but the electronics industry has always been one giant pissing contest with companies coming out with new products and features that the majority of users will never utilize. Tech companies literally design and market their products to try and make people feel that their older models are outdated and insufficient. Look at DSLRs. The newest models this year are coming out with like 20+ megapixels even though the only time you'd ever need a file that large is if you were shooting photos for billboards. But people still eat that shit up and bitch about cameras with only 12 megapixels. Trust me dude, people will always find something to piss and moan about.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,296
Sure, but that's not my problem. I think like one should.

Technology is reaching a point of saturation and until there is a new technological breakthrough there won't be he need to innovate - which doesn't mean people won't.

I think we're near what's physically see-able with our eyes. There is simply no need for more than 30 MP. If issues like moiré get totally fixed - what else is there fix? Sooner (several years) than later we will get the 'perfect' camera's that satisfy *all* our needs. Anything better than that would be possible, but not desirable. Like I said: any innovation after this point is useless, which doesn't mean people won't buy it.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
You make the false assumption that consumers are logical. There's always going to be the next big buzz word used for marketing purposes, regardless of whether or not its actually beneficial. A good example are the "HD Sunglasses" you see in SkyMall and whatnot. I wouldn't be surprised if they start selling "4K Sunglasses" (which is equally nonsense) or Youtube supports 4K, or our iPods play 4K video on a tiny little screen. If people will pay money for something, whether or not we need it goes out the window in the eyes of the manufacturer.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,296
Of course it's wrong to assume that consumers are logical. But that doesn't mean their logic can't be broken. If you would read everywhere (books, internet, newspaper, magazine etc.) that it's completely ridiculous to buy 4K sunglasses (I don't even understand what that means) and that it can be scientifically proven it's worthless people won't buy it. Only snobs would buy it, and there simply isn't big enough of a market for just those people.
And if we can't educate the consumers that'd be only good for me. Because in a few years time they will all dump their camera's and'only' 1080p sunglasses and I'll be able to pick 'em up cheaply.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 306
That's a pretty big hole you've dug yourself there
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Holte
Posts: 10750 - Karma: 7,995
MADDECENT, what version of Premiere are you using? Premiere CS5 had some significant problems with quality loss and noise addition upon import that were fixed in CS5.5. That said, I don't think your post workflow is your image quality problem. Most of that can be fixed in camera following the tips in this thread. The only thing I might change is kicking up your H.264 export bitrate for Vimeo/Yoube to 20-30mbps VBR. Theoretically it's overkill, but I have done several tests that show a quality difference on Youtube between footage that has been uploaded at 10mbps and footage that has been uploaded at 20mbps.

And to clear up a few incorrect points in this thread, you can read ProRes footage in Windows, you just can't write ProRes files (without using DaVinci Resolve 8.2 Beta 3 or Cinnafilm Dark Energy).
DNxHD 175e is almost exactly the same bitrate and quality as ProRes 422 (HQ).
DNxHD 175 is almost exactly the same as ProRes 422.
But there isn't a DNx equivalent to ProRes 4444.

If you REALLY want to do some serious HDSR image optimization in post, I would recommend looking into Cinnafilm's Dark Energy plugin for After Effects.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,296
I know, but we will get the perfect camera *some* day. The things we want are pretty limited right now. Until there's a breakthrough, like actual 3 dimensional filming where for instance you're in the scene instead of watching it and everything is revolving around you, that's when we will get new needs.

If we have a camera without moiré, banding, rolling shutter, no noise (even at ISO >5000), 20K RAW image in a 32 bit codec etcetc - there's nothing more for us to want. Why do you think bicycles haven't changed over the past 30 years (and I'm talking just normal bicycles, not mountainbikes etc.). It's still a steel frame, a saddle, two tires, a steer and some paddles. It's been exactly that for the same 30 years. It's perfect. It's decent, it's cheap and it works.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
SacZiplock
Posts: 2405 - Karma: 513
I still dont understand how a ND filter works, it darkens the image ? Lolwut
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,329
it blocks some of the light going into the lens like when you put on your favourite goggles
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
SacZiplock
Posts: 2405 - Karma: 513
Oh so that way you can keep the shutter speed at like ie 125 instead of boosting it have a darker image? Okok
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
Thanks for this, I've never really been sure what do make this value so I usually leave it at like 8 or whatever the default is.

13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
How I optimize my footage quality:

-Use magic lantern zebras for perfect exposure
-Shutter for slow mo between 320-600
-Aperture varies between 5.6-9
-Marvel Cine picture style
-ProRes footage
-Conform footage for best slow motion
-Good glass

Thats just my input on getting the best out of my DSLR. Works for me!
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24730 - Karma: 30,007
Great thread. I've been shooting a bitchload on a 60d and a t3i (which I actually think is better for video in some ways). Both give the same exact quality video and there's almost no difference with the iso noise. Pretty awesome that for less than 1000$ you can get a t2i and some at least decent glass and film amazing things.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
norgeanders
Posts: 1051 - Karma: 367
.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Casual.
Posts: 1125 - Karma: 28
can someone explain what is magic lantern/why is it useful?
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
magic lantern is a third party firmware for DSLRs (only canon as far as i know). basically it adds a bunch of features to a DSLR that will make it much more professional and like a real video camera.

when it first came out, it was most useful for its manual audio controls and zebra functions, among other features. i'm not that familiar with the newest versions but i know they've added a bunch more stuff.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
SkiJay.
Posts: 1550 - Karma: 653
not to be a dick but http://bit.ly/LM20DP

there are plenty of threads on here that have info about magic lantern.

13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
currentwestman
Posts: 3292 - Karma: 330
how would i optimize the quality of a timelapse created from stills? whats the best way to export w/o losing too much IQ?
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
currentwestman
Posts: 3292 - Karma: 330
bump, anyone know^?
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
what kind of pictures are you shooting? like dslr raw images or gopro pictures?

if you are doing something like gopro timelapse, use quicktime 7, go to open image sequence and select the first picture of your timelapse, then when you go to export it, use the same frame rate as any video you want to put with it and keep the original size of the images for export. then you can bring them into something like final cut or premiere and go from there.

or if you are shooting raw images from a dslr, you can open an image sequence with after effects and it will automatically give you the raw picture editor that you can apply to every photo and export from there in a similar fashion as the quicktime 7 with ordinary pictures
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
currentwestman
Posts: 3292 - Karma: 330
yeah they dslr raws. right now i usually use the photoshop image processor that bridge gives me but its really damn slow when theres a few hundred raws to export. is the AE exporter any faster? looks like ill have to acquire AE.

once the images are processed/converted to jpegs do you suggest using QT7 to finalize the timelapse?
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
special-J
Posts: 1572 - Karma: 4,477
tweads, about to buy a t2i.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
well i just recently learned how you can do it in after effects but basically, from what i understand and did just on a little trial timelapse, is just open after effects and import the image sequence, then it will bring up the raw processor with the first picture and you can tweak it however you want and then it automatically applies the changes to all of the pictures. and it already has them in sequence in the timeline. then you can do whatever you want to it like its any other video clip in after effects, then just export it from there and its good to go. but i think you have to have a composition set up already in the video format that you want before you open the image sequence. other than that its pretty damn slick, fastest way i've found yet
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
what I do is batch process them in lightroom which is fairly quick and then use quicktime 7 to make the movie which takes 2 seconds. its pretty easy and works for me but i would be interested to see how others do it.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
Thank you so much to everybody. I got an ND filter and it has done wonders. Here is an edit I just finished up. The quality is much better than I've ever gotten before

Two Days with Yackle Brothers Racing from Christian Reicheneder on Vimeo.

13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
bakedpow
Posts: 8770 - Karma: 10,467
Nice vid dude. Those bikes are wayyy to big for those kids ha! but they rip hard.

how old are they?
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
jkauffman22
Posts: 2592 - Karma: 1,150
Threads to read more about these tips
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
This is probably a really stupid question, but can somebody explain this to me, you say you are best to shoot around f/8 but how do you do that on a lens with f3.5 to 5.6 let's say, going to be buying a camera in the future and I'm just trying to understand it more, thanks
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
JStrathern
Posts: 8747 - Karma: 1,536
I'm pretty sure you are just referring to a variable aperture lens? Meaning that the aperture varies f/3.5 to f/5.6 depending on focal length, not that it is actually limited to f/5.6.
13 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,798
Yeah that's what I meant, but that's what I'm not understanding, why is there an arpetute setting on the camera along with it changing with the lens?
13 years ago
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4); Currently it's 1:56PM