Best standard practice for filming with 600D with PP in mind?

[Roman]

ML features are ever expanding! And it can be a little overwhelming for new users.

So I was just wanting to hear some opinions on a general guide for best standard practice / starting point for filming with a 600D for giving the best scope for adjustment etc in PP.

Was thinking along the lines of:

-Set to 1080p, 24fps or 30fps as desired

-180 degree shutter speed

-ISO 100 if possible

-Neutral or flat picture style (If the total scene is within the dynamic range without a flat profile, are you better using a normal one?)

-Set sharpening, contrast, etc to zero

-Auto set the white balance? Does this matter much if this is a little off, if doing PP?

-Does ETTR mean anything useful for video/non raw? Or best to expose 'correctly'?

-It seems to be in debate currently, are there any tangible benefits to increasing the bitrate?

I've probably missed a thing or two, but you get the idea.

[1%]

Funny thing with shutter speed, maybe I'm missing something... It appears that its made up by movie expo sim. The shutter isn't actually moving. There does appear to *some* difference but its more of a sampling speed than anything.

Everybody swears by 180deg shutter but I don't see much difference other than exposure.

[Andy600]

Roman - Most of what you listed looks like a good basic set up but I would suggest learning to set your WB manually or use a grey card (or even a white piece of paper) with auto WB.

For ISO try to stick to 80,160, 320 etc as they are proven to be less noisy than 100, 200 etc

For PS, I would usually shoot flat settings and only use a very flat PS if the RGB histogram is maxed out at both ends.

For me personally, I think 0 sharpness is way too soft on crop sensor cameras so I always use a setting of 1 or 2. I've never been able to achieve a better sharpness in post when shooting 0 sharpness than I can in camera. Setting to 1 is my default.

Always expose for highlights and use the Zebras in ML. Try the shot with HTP ON if the highlights are just clipping before resorting to a more flat PS (i.e. Cinestyle).


For bitrate, I've shot with 1%'s Tragic Lantern since he first released it and I always have it set higher than default with Gop set to 1 or 3. The difference between standard BR and the higher settings is very subtle but there is an improvement especially when shooting high ISOs. I think a lot of that gets lost when footage is converted on Youtube and Vimeo. It's more noticeable when you're working with it and it can also speed up playback on your NLE (especially when using reduced GOP settings).


1% - yeah, I think the same way about shutter speeds. It's not until you shoot something very fast moving that the motion blur (or lack of it) is apparent. I shot this last year (my first music video) http://vimeo.com/38020459 It was very sunny, snow was on the ground and I didn't have an ND. I had ISO set to between 80 and 320, aperture at between F11 - F16 and everything would still blow out so the only option I had (to keep some shallow DOF) was to decrease the shutter speed. Most shots in this video were with 1/2000 or 1/4000 shutter and it's barely noticeable. (excuse the over exposure and hand held wobble in some shots. I'd say it was for artistic effect but it's really because I didn't have a rig LOL)

Lately I've been deliberately shooting high shutter speeds and using RSMB if I need motion blur.

[Roman]

Whoa thanks guys! This is the kind of info I'm after.

Regarding shutter speed, I have definitely noticed the difference in various things.

For example filming cars at a track, can make the difference between motion blur on the wheels, or weird effects like the wheels looking like they are slowly spinning backwards. Having closer to 360 degrees helps for that.

Alternatively with skateboarding or similar where everything is happening really fast, a super fast shutter speed looks a lot better especially if slow motion is in mind.

Thats good to know about the sharpness, I've been wondering if it's my PP or not but I can never seem to get sharpness or contrast looking quite the same as a pre applied style.

To me sharpness does kinda seem better to have in there pre compression, as wouldnt the contrast/sharpened edges count be competing with the noise for which detail gets captured in compression? (just a guess)

[Roman]

Try the shot with HTP ON if the highlights are just clipping before resorting to a more flat PS (i.e. Cinestyle).

Thanks for that! I had a bit of an experiment, and can see the difference. As well as that of a flat style vs not, after some comparisons with zebras turned on.

Also I've been turning up the sharpening... damn! Looks so much better having it a bit sharper to start with, I cant seem to get it that good myself. (Have only got Sony Vegas to use)

Filming a racetrack event this coming week, so also bodged together a crane out of some stuff in the garage.

Kit 18-55mm works really well, being super light and having IS.

When I set it to 35mm, even examining a still frame I cant tell the difference between the kit lense and my Samyang 35mm. So after it's been recompressed onto Youtube I doubt the casual observer will be able to tell much difference. (And based on Youtube analytics thing, most people watching my vids do so from a mobile device, so not exactly massive screen 1080p to nitpick things)

When it's on the end of a jib the better ergonomics or brighter lense of the 35mm dont help much, and the extra weight is a big hinderance as because of the length/leverage it means I've got to add a lot more counter weight. (Have made it a bit tider than lead weights in a bag now, haha)
I'll be wanting to get lots of depth of field because focus pulling isnt overly practical, so set to 18mm works great as crane type shots look best with a wider lense when the foreground is in the pic anyway, in my opinion. Have also got Samyang 8mm to use as well, but will see how that goes.



Will probably use the 35mm for some other shots just on the tripod though, which is where the MUCH better ergonomics really shine.

Either way, my editing and the creative part of throwing together a fun to watch video are where I'm going to need to focus my efforts. It's easy to get caught up with tech stuff and forget why you're filming something in the first place!

[scrax]

Is that tripod a linhof?

[Roman]

It's a presumably ancient Velbon tripod.

My Dad was on a trip down the country, and found it in an old second hand store way up on a top shelf, got it for $40.

It's bloody awesome!

Obviously not as light as a carbon fibre equivilent or whatever, but it's rediculously sturdy, and didnt cost bazillions of dollars.

[scrax]

It's a presumably ancient Velbon tripod.

My Dad was on a trip down the country, and found it in an old second hand store way up on a top shelf, got it for $40.

It's bloody awesome!

Obviously not as light as a carbon fibre equivilent or whatever, but it's rediculously sturdy, and didnt cost bazillions of dollars.

I have one really similar from a friend of mine that had found it when changing home, he sold it for only 10€ because was not using it, It's really sturdy and quick to set up, I like it a lot too.

[Roman]

It's one of the best camera accessories I've got, by far.

One thing I dont get about tripods though...

It seems if you want anything that can hold some weight, you need to spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I mean, sure it's nice having options for super lightweight carbon fibre, but a tripod isnt a complicated structure!

Three sturdy legs and a turny bit, if needed.

If I wanted something to hold a bit more weight than what I've got, making my own seems the only practical option.

(Something that would forgo portability and light weight, for sake of rigidity in certian situations without spending moon beams)

As not everyone plans on taking their tripod on a hike through the arctic wastelands or something.