November 23, 2014, 08:28:51 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RunAndGun

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1

  • Still camera lens zoom ranges are laughable by video standards, and changing lenses while recording video is not really very practical.  For event videography work, I would consider an 8:1 optical zoom range to be the absolute minimum usable zoom range unless you can afford to throw several extra cameras and tripods at the problem.  These days, most high-end ENG/EFP gear has 20:1 or higher optical zoom ratios.  So even Canon's 28–300 lens with its 10.7:1 zoom ratio—the longest zoom ratio available in a Canon still camera lens—is considered just barely passable for ENG/EFP purposes.
  • Electrically operated zooms give much cleaner results that are more likely to be usable without the need to attach long sticks to them.



Yes.  The right tools for the job.  Just because a 'camera system' is capable of producing a good image, doesn't mean it's a 'good camera' for what it's being used for.

Shooting an event like that is basically an ENG scenario where you need long, versatile glass because the camera needs to be away from the action and not the center of attention.  If you're shooting a movie or a performance strictly for camera, you can use focal lengths like that.  I shot some interviews a few days ago with my C300 and 5DIII as a reverse.  50mm on my C300 was a waist up medium shot at approx. 8' and the 85mm was medium/tight(collar bones up) after moving in a bit.  The 135mm on the full-frame 5D was just slightly tighter than medium for the over-the-shoulder reverse of talent.  Even 200mm, 300mm plus isn't very long on a full-frame or APSC or s35 sensor.

At the distances they should have been working, they wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell of being able to get the coverage they needed with a 50mm lens.  You really need to be using glass in the range of our 22x(7.8-172) ENG lenses, which would work out to the FF equivalent of approx. 30mm-654mm.  Flip the 2x and you're over 1300mm on the top end.

3
The picture of the second guy confirmed what I saw and was thinking with the first set of pics.  These were kids.  They probably talked their parents into buying them each a dslr because they think they can be the next Spielberg, Michael Bay, Ridley Scot, etc.  This illustrates perfectly one of the major negative consequences of the democratization of video because of ultra affordable equipment that can produce image quality not available for even quadruple the money even ten years ago.

I am a TV photographer and I am in the camp that believes STILLS are the most important in a wedding.  When I got married, I only had stills done.  I didn't want video, as strange as that may sound to some.

Also, the term videographer is derogatory in the circles I run in(if you're referring to a professional that knows what they're actually doing) and it connotes in my mind, and most people I work with, exactly what was shown in those pictures, some clown shooting a wedding.  I usually say "uncle Bob shooting a wedding with someones camcorder", but this was the same thing.  So, yes, those guys are videographers.

I have seen some absolutely beautiful wedding videos done by some talented shooters, but that's not going to be one of them.

4
...the videographer shows up late literally missing the groom getting ready... The other videographer was late for the bride...

I have a saying, "Better never than late".

I've been shooting for the better part of two decades and I still show up EARLY for everything.  It's not that hard.  "When do you start shooting?" "How long does it take to get to the location?"  "How long will it take you to get ready/set-up once you arrive?"  Back time it and add pad for traffic and other assorted possible snags on-site.

5
The videographer then asked me can I have a ride to the venue.  I said sure, because I'm a nice guy. (Not to mention he doesn't have a car, his mom dropped him off)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces CN20x50 Cine-Servo Ultra Zoom Lens
« on: October 16, 2014, 10:46:55 PM »
You can see that it starts at T5 and I'm hearing it ramps from T5-8.9.

And I'm kind of surprised at hearing $78K. I thought $80K-$90K+, at least.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 27, 2014, 05:19:43 PM »
The same reason I went with Canon SLR/DSLR's in the first place: The glass.  Followed by the color.

Honestly, all manufacturers cameras are capable of producing incredible images and "outperforming" most of the photographers using them, anyway.  It really comes down to personal preferences.  And one of my big preferences is their glass.  I've always thought that Canon had a better selection of lenses.  I have about $12k+ in EF lenses and another $25K in CN-E (cine) lenses.  Plus an EOS 3, 2 x 5D II's, a 5D III and a C300.  But the glass will probably be around long after the bodies are retired and replaced by whatever better eventually comes out.

8
Most screens are actually "too white". The color temp is way too high. I think manufacturers do it to make them seem brighter and "contrastier".  The first time I calibrated the screen on my old MBP it looked yellow/dirty after being properly set to 6500K and the brightness lowered, because my eyes had become accustomed to looking at it with a color temp probably around 9000K-1000K and the brightness jacked.

Calibrating computer monitors is pretty easy nowadays. You just hook-up the probes and the software takes care of almost everything else. And you can re-do it anytime you need to.  I just sent two of my broadcast monitors off for professional calibration a few months ago.  Over $600 plus shipping them. And that's just one time.

Also, if you're printing, you need to make sure everything in the chain is calibrated or you can still end up way off with the print.  I decided to have a nice metal print made of one of our dogs for my GF's birthday. A friend of mine had an account with a printing company and instead of setting up my own account and having samples printed(you send them a few pictures and they send back print samples and you know the printing profiles to use then, etc.) to make sure everything is right, I just sent the file to him and he ordered it. The print is so dark you can barely see it. Lesson learned.

9
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:08:12 PM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

It's funny you mention websites.  Several years ago I was shopping around insurance companies just to see what other rates were.  One of the companies(the company I have my auto and home with) wanted to know if I had a website.  They looked at them as a liability.  In the end, I ended up staying with my long time business agent, partly because I have incredible rates and coverage and partly because when my "other" insurance company found out I was a TV photographer(the policy was essentially ready to go) they wouldn't have anything to do with covering me because they said the liability was too high(huh?).
That's crazy but not too surprising.  I've worked with actuaries at insurance companies before and they are actually a logical bunch, but the people that you deal with are often quite irrational.  What I know for sure is that you need to be totally honest upfront because they'll find any excuse they can to avoid covering your claim, and the larger it is, the more they dig.

That brings up another good point for everyone.  Please make sure your insurance includes coverage for "mysterious disappearance".  It's when your gear is stolen or lost without explanation.  For example, you leave your gear in your unlocked car at a wedding reception, state park, etc., and minutes later you return and it's gone.  You have no witnesses, no fingerprints, and there's no damage from a break in or something, and the police report indicates just that.  These types of claims are considered a red flag for fraud and many policies exclude coverage altogether.

I actually could rationalize the website part better than I could the TV part.  Nowadays, it seems EVERYONE has a website for everything, but his was probably about 10 years ago…  So many people in this business advertise/list their equipment packages on their sites, especially when it comes to the cameras du jour.  You can get calls JUST because you own a certain piece of gear(C300 is a PERFECT example), whether you're any good or not.  Even if you don't list your address, it doesn't take too long for someone that wants to know it, to find it.  So as an insurance co(and sane person), I can see where a website could be considered a liability(and a shopping list for a thief).  I just didn't get why they considered the liability higher/unmanageable for TV vs. Stills.  Yes, our gear costs more(WAY more), but they said they were fine with the dollar amount of coverage I wanted.   It was probably just ignorance/lack of understanding on the ins co's part, since they don't specialize in the field like the company I deal with for my business policy.

10
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 24, 2014, 06:05:08 PM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

It's funny you mention websites.  Several years ago I was shopping around insurance companies just to see what other rates were.  One of the companies(the company I have my auto and home with) wanted to know if I had a website.  They looked at them as a liability.  In the end, I ended up staying with my long time business agent, partly because I have incredible rates and coverage and partly because when my "other" insurance company found out I was a TV photographer(the policy was essentially ready to go) they wouldn't have anything to do with covering me because they said the liability was too high(huh?).

11

I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself.  More light, not less.  IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly.  Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.  :)

Yes.  I want to be able use my aperture as much for creative decisions as just technical(exposure).  It's baffled me for years hearing the excuse thrown around from manufactures and other photographers alike that we no longer need fast glass because cameras are now capable of ISO speeds in the realm of science fiction when all you had was film or even just 5-10 years ago with digital.  Hell, because we have cameras that can shoot in the 100K+ and 200k+ ISO realms, should manufactures just start making all lenses starting at f/8?  8)

12
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 20, 2014, 09:38:50 PM »
My policy is "replacement cost", covers rental gear and errors & emissions and liability coverage of $2mil.  This is a true business policy and my premium is about $1800-$1900/year.  But well worth it when you look at the fact that a catastrophic theft would total more than a house.  My first(and thankfully only) theft, which was largely just lighting and grip, went well over $40K, not counting personal effects and damage to my vehicle.  And that was almost a decade ago.

13
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 05:44:14 PM »
I am still wishing for a hybrid viewfinder. What I mean is a viewfinder that can be used for video... I guess only few people care.

I just dont see how it's possible. You have to lock the mirror up to shoot.  Only way to do it is mirrorless.

Right, you would need an OLED screen mounted in a way that if turned on when the mirror is away it could get its light through the viewfinder. I should try to patent this idea.

Btw - all the people saying the photography portion cannot be improved. I disagree. I think the dynamic range could still get an improvement. You know dark areas and bright sky. Way to go in this regard.

Why would it need to get light through the viewfinder?  OLED panels are self illuminating.  They don't require a backlight source like an LCD panel.

But anyway… I would like to see high quality EVF's on DSLR's.  The optical VF's on still cams, even on 5D series and 1D series cameras, are almost microscopic in comparison to what I'm used to on the motion side.  I believe my color LCD EVF's on on my VariCam's are 3" panels and the Alphatron on my C300 is 3.5".  And the newer OLED EVF's(like on the Sony F/5 and 55 and Panny's new VariCam and the new Zacuto Graticle) could be adapted to stills use(they are less than 1" and are more highly magnified than the larger LCD's and still beautiful) and make everyones life much easier and better.  They could even be articulated like we have on the motion side so you wouldn't need an angle finder or have to use the rear panel.  Yes, you would have to have power to look through it, but if you haven't used a quality EVF, you don't know what you're missing.  I've had 5 series still cams(ii & iii) for almost six years and been shooting TV with EVF's for over 17.  I'll take a high quality EVF any day of the week(especially the newer color flat panel tech over our old 1.5"-2" B&W tubes) when I actually need to see and focus(remember, we're focusing everything manually).

14
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:27:38 PM »
Are you asking for personal or business?  If it's just personal gear, it's probably covered by your homeowners(or renters) policy, unless it's an unusually large amount.  My business policy doesn't require me to specify or serialize my gear(although having a list of everything with serial #'s is a good idea.  Helped me immensely when I had a large, almost complete theft eight years ago).  I just told them the dollar amount I wanted.  Depending on your deductible and what is stolen, it may not be worth a claim(i.e. just a small lens), or it may save your @$$(i.e. an 800mm or in my case, I work in TV and even "inexpensive" things may be several $K).

15
Dear "J,"
……………………..
……………………..

 Just remember this. It is not you...it's him.

Now THAT is some funny $h!t, I don't care who you are.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13