How many of you make good use of the video capabilities on your dslr?

Joe, "playback on other websites has been disabled by the video owner" is coming up when clicked on that vid : /
 
I've got half the toys to make a good use of mine. I still need the whole audio setup, continous lighting and ideally a lens with IS. Then I'd have to get Magic Lantern, because the 5D3 files don't look very sharp to my eyes. ML RAW video conversion would give me more than I want. Sooner or later I'll get 'there', maybe when I have 4K with proper AF...
 
Jayst84 said:
When do people use AF for serious videography?
Click to expand...

That was exactly the question when AF first entered the world of photography. Now have a look - there are just a few focusing manually. Video AF will be no different. Old conventions do not bother me.
 
daugirdas said:
That was exactly the question when AF first entered the world of photography. Now have a look - there are just a few focusing manually. Video AF will be no different. Old conventions do not bother me.
Click to expand...

So, nobody then? (It was a serious question, I don't know anybody who uses it, and video cameras have been around for a long time).
 
Jayst84 said:
So, nobody then? (It was a serious question, I don't know anybody who uses it, and video cameras have been around for a long time).
Click to expand...

no idea personally since I am not seriously interested in videography. However the AF (originally from 70D) enables sharp interview videos at f/1.8 as opposed to f/8 before... I don't see any reason why it can't go a lot further. And yes, it can be slow and arty if needed.
 
daugirdas said:
I've got half the toys to make a good use of mine. I still need the whole audio setup, continous lighting and ideally a lens with IS. Then I'd have to get Magic Lantern, because the 5D3 files don't look very sharp to my eyes. ML RAW video conversion would give me more than I want. Sooner or later I'll get 'there', maybe when I have 4K with proper AF...
Click to expand...


Film makers do NOT use auto focus :) Watch the end credits of any movie, and one the credits you'll always see if "focus puller". It's a highly skilled job in film making. All focus is manual. If you use AF you'll actually see it working, and hunting around. Film makers NEVER use AF. It's probably the least important feature on a moving image camera intended for serious use.

daugirdas said:
That was exactly the question when AF first entered the world of photography. Now have a look - there are just a few focusing manually. Video AF will be no different. Old conventions do not bother me.
Click to expand...


No.. AF will never be used in professional film making. It's not an old convention, it's the best way to do the job. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
The main problem with focus pulling on a DSLR is the size of the LCD assistance is needed with either a loupe or a larger add-on screen, plus some form of control rather than twisting the lens barrel. A lot of users would not want the expense or the more cumbersome setup, and a useable AF system is desired.
 
artyman said:
The main problem with focus pulling on a DSLR is the size of the LCD assistance is needed with either a loupe or a larger add-on screen, plus some form of control rather than twisting the lens barrel. A lot of users would not want the expense or the more cumbersome setup, and a useable AF system is desired.
Click to expand...

That's the same with any camera though isn't it? You either use a loupe (or eye piece which is basically the same thing) or you attach an external screen designed for the job - that will give you other tools like false colour, etc. as well.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Film makers do NOT use auto focus :) Watch the end credits of any movie, and one the credits you'll always see if "focus puller". It's a highly skilled job in film making. All focus is manual. If you use AF you'll actually see it working, and hunting around. Film makers NEVER use AF. It's probably the least important feature on a moving image camera intended for serious use.




No.. AF will never be used in professional film making. It's not an old convention, it's the best way to do the job. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Just as I can't "drive safely", I am also not a film-maker (!). I bet you prefer me using AF when I am overtaking somebody at 60mph on a bend, don't you?

Back to serious talk, I take it that you have never seen what 70D AF can do, now also in the professional C-series, 7D mkII and still evolving. Holywood has the budged for PL primes and focus pullers, we don't. AF does a job 99.99% just as good as long as you tell it to do the right thing. Sometimes you can't even have 30 takes that filmakers do to get the perfect pull. You may only get one or two, particularly if it is a documentary.
The most likely filming I will do for a start will be interviews. Frankly I do not have any intention to buy the lights for f/11 ISO160 shooting, not I intend to pay for a focus puller to use something more sensible. AF it is I'm afraid.

P.S. Just in case you live in an isolated Nikon / Sony world, the things have really moved on since D800 / 5DIII era.
 
I've seen people use elastic bands for smooth focus and zooming, without slips or judders from just using your hands. Smooth, but very slow, I imagine.
 
Cagey75 said:
I've seen people use elastic bands for smooth focus and zooming, without slips or judders from just using your hands. Smooth, but very slow, I imagine.
Click to expand...
Actually, the focus throw on most modern DSLR lenses is way too fast/short. The main reason AF isn't used is it's not reliable/stable... with most cameras it will constantly "fine tune" and shift slightly (best case).
 
The few times I have used video on dslr, I've only used MF. Watched a few vids on youtube beforehand and that was enough to show me AF was a bit iffy. I remember on the D90 if you didn't lock AE the result was like someone switching lights on and off constantly!
 
daugirdas said:
Just as I can't "drive safely", I am also not a film-maker (!).
Click to expand...

Then stop pontificating about things you know b****r all about.



daugirdas said:
Back to serious talk, I take it that you have never seen what 70D AF can do, now also in the professional C-series, 7D mkII and still evolving. Holywood has the budged for PL primes and focus pullers, we don't.
Click to expand...

We're not moving image makers, that's why. Film makers do not use AF. DSLRs are geared for AF speed.. we want instant, snap-like focus.. film makers do not. Film makers want to use the ACT of focusing creatively.. we do not.. we want our cameras to achieve ever faster and faster focusing.. film makers have no interest in that.



daugirdas said:
The most likely filming I will do for a start will be interviews.
Click to expand...

Why exactly does filming an interview require AF?



daugirdas said:
Frankly I do not have any intention to buy the lights for f/11 ISO160 shooting, not I intend to pay for a focus puller to use something more sensible. AF it is I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

You're not a film maker.. but that's irrelevant. Why do you need AF to make an interview?

You keep banging on about the 70D's AF for some reason... you clearly don't realise that in order to shoot video, you need live view.. the mirror is up... the camera's STILL imaging AF system is disabled, and instead is now relying on a crappy contrast detection system that it slow, and hunts around like a b**tard to achieve focus. In moving image you will SEE that happening. AF has n place in film making, even if it's just an interview. Why not just set the lens first. So you have AF on... the interviewee leans forward briefly during the interview, and then the crappy contrast detect AF system starts hunting around to catch up... that will look LOVELY, yes... :) Very professional :)




daugirdas said:
P.S. Just in case you live in an isolated Nikon / Sony world, the things have really moved on since D800 / 5DIII era.
Click to expand...

Moved on how? ALL these DSLRs use live view to record video... so their still imaging AF capabilities are completely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
This just sums up that you know b****r all about Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS AF. Go and educate yourself http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/daf_videos then see some real life example on youtube. Long gone are the days you had to flip back the mirror, unless of course you shoot Nikon :p

Despite you shouting louder, the interview guest is not likely to be on a crucifix even if I wanted. They move about, in and out of frame - and guess what - they are likely to go out of focus. Which is why the AF is a life saver. Maybe this is why Canon is offering to upgrade all C100 and C300 bodies... of course they know f*** all about making video.

Pookeyhead said:
Then stop pontificating about things you know b****r all about.





We're not moving image makers, that's why. Film makers do not use AF. DSLRs are geared for AF speed.. we want instant, snap-like focus.. film makers do not. Film makers want to use the ACT of focusing creatively.. we do not.. we want our cameras to achieve ever faster and faster focusing.. film makers have no interest in that.





Why exactly does filming an interview require AF?





You're not a film maker.. but that's irrelevant. Why do you need AF to make an interview?

You keep banging on about the 70D's AF for some reason... you clearly don't realise that in order to shoot video, you need live view.. the mirror is up... the camera's STILL imaging AF system is disabled, and instead is now relying on a crappy contrast detection system that it slow, and hunts around like a b**tard to achieve focus. In moving image you will SEE that happening. AF has n place in film making, even if it's just an interview. Why not just set the lens first. So you have AF on... the interviewee leans forward briefly during the interview, and then the crappy contrast detect AF system starts hunting around to catch up... that will look LOVELY, yes... :) Very professional :)






Moved on how? ALL these DSLRs use live view to record video... so their still imaging AF capabilities are completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
 
If you want to do significant video, Panasonic GH4 is your best bet right now....
 
daugirdas said:
Long gone are the days you had to flip back the mirror, unless of course you shoot Nikon :p
Click to expand...
Well, it is sensor based PDAF during recording... I think the mirror has to be up.;)
IME, (with less dedicated cameras and w/o sensor based PDAF) AF is *more* of an issue with relatively stationary subjects. And when you don't "want" the focus to shift to a new subject/point. But it must have AF activation/deactivation... and it has "movie mode" AF which looks to be smoother/slower.

It doesn't surprise me at all to see this... fixed lens camcorders have used AF only for a long time. But I don't know that it's "better." Having the option is certainly nice. Actually, it probably *IS* better for use w/ short throw DSLR lenses...
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
If you want to do significant video, Panasonic GH4 is your best bet right now....
Click to expand...

It quite possibly is (4K is on the wishlist for next 5d), but most of tend to take a lot of stills and there are better alternatives for that.

sk66 said:
Well, it is sensor based PDAF during recording... I think the mirror has to be up.;)
IME, (with less dedicated cameras and w/o sensor based PDAF) AF is *more* of an issue with relatively stationary subjects. And when you don't "want" the focus to shift to a new subject/point. But it must have AF activation/deactivation... and it has "movie mode" AF which looks to be smoother/slower.

It doesn't surprise me at all to see this... fixed lens camcorders have used AF only for a long time. But I don't know that it's "better." Having the option is certainly nice. Actually, it probably *IS* better for use w/ short throw DSLR lenses...
Click to expand...

By the time it hits 5DIV it will be pretty much perfect for me. Hollywood has different standards, however that is irrelevant here.
 
daugirdas said:
This just sums up that you know b****r all about Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS AF. Go and educate yourself http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/daf_videos then see some real life example on youtube. Long gone are the days you had to flip back the mirror, unless of course you shoot Nikon :p
Click to expand...

..and Canon, and Hasselblad, and Phase one, and Pentax, and Linhoff.

Err.. I think you'll find the mirror is still up.

Loving the way they use really crap examples of manual focusing BTW. :)
The only remotely useful example I saw there was tracking that skater, but it still looked bloody awful when it hunted around to regain focus on the people sat at the back of the scene, and this is the problem with AF in moving image - you SEE it's imperfections.. all of them. Any decent shot here would have stopped pulling when he was on the same plane as the people sitting, and let him drift out of shot as the camera settled on the sitters. The other stuff, like tracking that pizza leaving the oven is actually not impressive at all... the camera is dollying back and forth and the distance from camera to pizza remains fairly static. With enough DOF set that required hardly any focusing at all. A great many of these shots are clearly carefully set up to play to the camera's limited abilities. The slow transitions is exactly the kind of thing that should be done manually.. because they are so easy, and it gives you total control of the focus speed, whereas this doesn't.

You're just a sucker for an advert.

Other things you're conveniently overlooking: Setting focus points for the servo AF requires touch screen use, but surely you wouldn't be hand holding this camera professionally (if you'd be using it at all), it would be on a shoulder rig, or in a steadycam rig... and probably using a decent external monitor, not be relying on the crappy on camera screen for previewing anyway. These are consumer gimmicks. There's nothing here that camcorders don't already have, and they're just as bloody useless with AF. You're putting a great deal of faith into a promotional video.

Nothing here can't be achieved easier, and better with manual focus with practice and a decent focus pulling mechanism. Like all consumer devices though, they're aimed at those who can't be arsed learning a new skill.

I see nothing here that excites me or makes me want to buy a 70D, and I already have access to more Canon lenses than I do Nikon, and nearly always use Canon cameras for shooting video. Why are you assuming I use a Nikon to shoot video?


daugirdas said:
Which is why the AF is a life saver. Maybe this is why Canon is offering to upgrade all C100 and C300 bodies... of course they know f*** all about making video.
Click to expand...

It's not a life saver.... it's an additional feature. You also assume that the 70D is getting the same system as a £10,000 high end camera.
 
Cagey75 said:
The main advantage for videographers would be lens choice I guess?

I Just don't get why they're trying to push 4K video now, into a market that mostly won't make use of it. It's just another gimmick then really
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the video betamax argument back when I was a chavie ;)

Before you all KO this is a tongue firmly in the cheek post ;)
 
daugirdas said:
It quite possibly is (4K is on the wishlist for next 5d), but most of tend to take a lot of stills and there are better alternatives for that.
Click to expand...
Ahahah... You just can't be positive about anything you don't personally want or own can you... There's far better alternatives than Canon for photos too (including micro 4/3rds when looking at crop sensors ;)).
 
Last edited:
Addison said:
Reminds me of the video betamax argument back when I was a chavie ;)

Before you all KO this is a tongue firmly in the cheek post ;)
Click to expand...


Aha, aye, back then bigger [VHS] actually won out. Nowadays the smaller the better .... apparently.
 
I've always used the video capability no matter what I have - mobile phone (eg K750i), F11, smart phone, F50, G12, 70D all included. But I'm hoping to make much more use of the 70D's video capability than just leaving it on a tripod and pointed at a single target.
 
Found that the 70d video capability coupled with the STM lenses is really rather good, for my purposes at least. Which tend to be spontaneous footage of the kids, nothing more than capturing a "moment". I see it as a bonus feature of the camera rather than an USP.
 
with regards to the question of video we use it quite alot in our wedding work
 
Joeturner11 said:
Strange will have to look into that :confused:

Click on the video at the top of the page if you wish to view...


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=kingfisher the fishing master&oq=kingfisher the fishing master&aqs=chrome..69i57.9316j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...


Cool. it works also if you click the youtube logo bottom right of the clip on the previous page. You must have your privacy settings ticked to not share or something on YT?

Nice clean footage, but with some in and out of focus parts. Was that MF? tricky when zoomed in that much I imagine?
 
Cagey75 said:
Cool. it works also if you click the youtube logo bottom right of the clip on the previous page. You must have your privacy settings ticked to not share or something on YT?

Nice clean footage, but with some in and out of focus parts. Was that MF? tricky when zoomed in that much I imagine?
Click to expand...

Was using AF but didn't use the AF much as the entire perch is at the same distance, it was my first proper time using video and shooting at 900mm ( with the converters and 1.5x dx crop ) So you can imagine its hard to move with the least amount of jerk as possible, This is my first time videoing so there is much to improve on but thank you for your comments :)
 
900mm! Holy crap. The most I have really ever shot stills at was 510mm, and that can be tough enough even with high shutter speeds and decent lighting. Never shot video over 50mm I'd say, on the dslr. Mostly just wide footage, easy to keep focus, and it'll just be the kids messing in the garden or a birthday party. Must give some longer video shooting a try. I mean, it's there, may as well experiment :)
 
I have started using the video on my 70d mainly for filming badgers at a local set, I have been very surprised at the quality of it, night time and iso 6400 with a 40mm f2.8 and 3-10x digital zoom used here, manual focus, of which isnt the best on the 40mm


Now what I would like to know is, would a gh4 at 4k give me better quality in this situation, or would I have to go ff at 1080 to better it?
 
One day there will be a thread that pookeyhead isn't arguing with someone (joke) lol.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You keep banging on about the 70D's AF for some reason... you clearly don't realise that in order to shoot video, you need live view.. the mirror is up... the camera's STILL imaging AF system is disabled, and instead is now relying on a crappy contrast detection system that it slow.
Click to expand...

Except that the 70D (and the 7D MkII) don't do contrast detection - they use Phase Detection using a grid of PD sensors. Yes, the mirror is up, but the focussing is fast and accurate. And the 7D MKII now has the ability to adjust how fast the AF moves the lens - so you can get something like that nice slow focus change you can get with manual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top