White balance - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Under Water, Over Land

Under Water, Over Land
Tools & Techniques for Nature, Outdoors, Wildlife & Underwater Videography.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 17th, 2007, 04:45 PM   #31
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: West Point, MS
Posts: 313
Absolutly agree with you Graham. Also to Brendan, I would highly look into getting a good sturdy tripod, will make your footage stand the test of time over handholding and zooming. Just a suggestion
John M. McCloskey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2007, 01:07 AM   #32
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 154
Graham,

As I have mentioned in a previous post, using a ND grad is simply not feasible due to the very uneven edges of the cliff. Even if we are to use a soft-edge, the tops of the cliffs will still be filtered and be underexposed.

Cheers

WeeHan
Yeo Wee Han is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2007, 12:34 AM   #33
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,004
Wee han,

I think there is a lot of truth to what grazie says here.

the trick is to get it reasonable footage, not perfect because you can't.

then adjust your brightness, contrast, saturation, hue, and then rgb to make it a much better clip!!

I shoot in the sky all the time and these are the only means I know to make things right.

The trick is to shoot it without burning out the image first!!

I am all open Ears to anything else we can do to create better footage!!
__________________
DATS ALL FOLKS
Dale W. Guthormsen
Dale Guthormsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2007, 12:43 AM   #34
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 154
Dale,

I definitely agree with you. I have been a nature photographer for some years though not professionally (there just isn't a market for that in my country) and environmental conditions do play a huge part on our images and much of the time, we have no control over it.

That said, what I was disagreeing about Graham's statement was the use of a ND grad on such an image where the ridge lines will pose the major problem of uneven exposure if the filter was used.

Cheers

WeeHan
Yeo Wee Han is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2007, 04:35 AM   #35
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Warrington England
Posts: 143
What I am going to say will not solve any problems but could not stop thinking of the old addage never work with children and ANIMALS.
Some very interesting comments made in this discussion I also have an XM2 that I have owned for 4 years and I have similar problems filming Aeroplanes at shows that I go to. I try to zoom in as much as possible to fill most of the screen with the subject matter but not always possible when aircraft are flying very fast and away from you.
Alan Craig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2007, 03:52 AM   #36
Old Boot
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeo Wee Han View Post
That said, what I was disagreeing about Graham's statement was the use of a ND grad on such an image where the ridge lines will pose the major problem of uneven exposure if the filter was used.

Cheers

WeeHan
I kinda disagree with your disagreement of my statement! LOL!

I bet, with GOOD use of these layers I could get a finished result that would be miles better than just that plain white sky!!

Now the thing here is NOT to be bound-up with what is the best technical way; it is not about that which we all kinda know - Grads on an uneven edge don't work ( kinda know that WeeHan??); not to view this as a flawed "compromise" which any, ANY of us can could do . . . BUT!!!! to openly and genuinely see this as an artistic creative option, that COULD burst upon the viewer's brain a dramatic and richly effective sequence!!

Knowing the rules means that you can break 'em. Knowing the extend to which a technology can then go ahead and "hobble" and hamper one, ain't a reason NOT to do it.

The other option here would be for me to shoot some MATT backgrounds of a fully rich sky - underexposed rock face - devoid of birds, bring THIS into my beloved VEGAS software, and do a DIFFERENCE Fx - kinda like chroma keying (now there's another thought) without the need to cover the SKY with GREEN? This would allow me to create a truly stunning establishing shot WITH the birds now brought back in!! I'd only need a few frames to establish and maybe a few at the end-sequence.

I respect your greater understanding of photography work - I came from a 3-D, plastic-arts background. Once we got a handle on the rules - we would rip up the book and start really experimenting. I guess that ain't left me.

There ain't no problems - only exciting solutions to be discovered!!

If I was to still disagree with you, it would be about experimenting with what COULD be.

. . and anyway, who said filmmaking WAS about reality? We got rugged rock faces. We got birds of prey. We got BIG skies! We would most certainly got some stupendous screeching! What more do you want?

Interesting thread.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back - email provider is having . . issues?

Wee Han? The next time you are in London, I'll buy you a beer - if not that, at least a coffee . . or whatever would be appropriate.

Love 'n Peace!

Grazie
Graham Bernard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2007, 09:59 AM   #37
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 154
Thanks Graham for the healthy discussion. What you have mentioned is very much possible and is akin to using layers in Photoshop for landscape photography with all the masking. My bad here as I was thinking of it as not a stationary shot but one where camera movement was involved.

I agree that we should experiment but Im still a try-to-get-it-right-out-of-the-camera kinda of guy and I would personally have chosen to shoot in better light. BUT that is not always possible and your suggestion on post-pro work is an extremely viable option.

Hold onto that beer, I will definitely head for London one of these days...though not in the near future. :)

Cheers

WeeHan
Yeo Wee Han is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2007, 04:55 PM   #38
Old Boot
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeo Wee Han View Post
My bad here as I was thinking of it as not a stationary shot but one where camera movement was involved.
Well .. . I'd have to think it through, but the aesthetics might even work here too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeo Wee Han View Post
I agree that we should experiment but Im still a try-to-get-it-right-out-of-the-camera kinda of guy . . .
I don't see these 2 paradigms - experimentation<>"camera-correctness" - as being mutually exclusive?WeeHan? I really don't?

I often think that some of my pre-post work looks really dull. It's only when I get busy on the timeline that I can lift or contrast-up my stuff and start digging out the narrative. Getting it "right", for me, means getting the BEST digital information. Yeah?

I CAN keep your beer . . . but not for TOO long!! I gets thirsty . .

Grazie
Graham Bernard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2007, 12:31 PM   #39
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by John M. McCloskey View Post
Absolutly agree with you Graham. Also to Brendan, I would highly look into getting a good sturdy tripod, will make your footage stand the test of time over handholding and zooming. Just a suggestion
I will be using a sturdy Benbo + Manfrotto for big bird landings and take-offs; here are samples of what I spoiled last year without a tripod ...
Attached Thumbnails
White balance-shudder.jpg   White balance-tremble.jpg  

Brendan Marnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 08:21 AM   #40
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: West Point, MS
Posts: 313
might even want to look into a varizoom VZ Rock LANC. The more you can keep your hands off the camera at full zoom the less shaky your video will be.
John M. McCloskey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2007, 12:20 AM   #41
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,004
Good evening,

I agree with John on the lanc remote!!!!

My lanc socket has been broken for a month and I am here to tell you I have got so used to always using it that I forgot how much harder it is without it!! of all my peripheral kit I use the lanc the most!!!
__________________
DATS ALL FOLKS
Dale W. Guthormsen
Dale Guthormsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2007, 08:49 AM   #42
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by John M. McCloskey View Post
The more you can keep your hands off the camera at full zoom the less shaky your video will be.
This must be the clearest quote I've read on DVInfo. Its implications are taking a week to sink in.

Sure I'm thick between the ears ... it's 2.5 years now since I got my XM2(GL2) and only today have I tried to figure out how the wireless controller works. I wonder how its controls might compare with those of a Varizoom?
Brendan Marnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2007, 10:00 AM   #43
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 154
Brendan,

John's advice is spot on there. I do high mag stuff and camera movement is a beast even though everything is solidly mounted on a Vinten 6. I now have a Libec lanc controller attached to facilitate faster recording and a Redrock Micro follow focus unit to avoid touching the lens to follow focus. These 2 items are a godsend and really really works.

Cheers

WeeHan
Yeo Wee Han is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2007, 11:43 PM   #44
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,004
Yeo,

What camera are you using the micro follow focus on?!!!

I use a gl and xl and i was under the impression these do not work acceptably on the canons!!

Is that not true?

Grazie,

Geeze, It never occurred to me to find that old remote, what a capital idea.
__________________
DATS ALL FOLKS
Dale W. Guthormsen
Dale Guthormsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007, 08:33 AM   #45
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 154
Dale,

Not true at all! All you need is a road system and lens gears to allow the FF unit to be used successfully with the cameras!

Im using the H1 and using the Redrock Micro Follow Focus. It's one of the better prices units and frankly, its really really smooth. Im using it with the EF adaptor and the 180 Canon macro. To have the follow focus unit work with this setup, you will need to "gear" the lens which is basically having a geared ring (Redrock sells this) and a of course rods to mount the focus unit. Im using the Vocas MB-250 mattebox which came with a rod system. Too expensive and you can get something way cheaper if you shop around.

After gearing the lens, it just a 10sec business to get the unit in place. Then you will have super smooth focusing esp when doing high mag rate or telephoto work.

I rec the follow focus whips as well. Got a set of them and use the 3 inch and the 12 inch the most.

I will post a pic once I have the chance to shoot my setup.

Cheers

WeeHan
Yeo Wee Han is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Under Water, Over Land

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:37 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network