some grizzly footage from this weekend
 

www.adventurefilms.net/Media/BrotherlyLove.mov
www.adventurefilms.net/Media/FollowTheLeader.mov
http://www.adventurefilms.net/Media/...eRiverbank.mov
www.adventurefilms.net/Media/LunchTime.mov
http://www.adventurefilms.net/Media/...ngTheRiver.mov

sorry for the "slight" camera shake, I left my arm at home, so I had to actually hold the back of the camera to move it

Chris, except of the camera shake, I wonder why you got som much air waves in your footage? Don't think it is heat waves because of the snow on the ground.

Also the picture looks a bit soft to me. My guess is that you are using an extender with your zoom lens?

I have been noticing that I see the waves whenever I use my 100-400 lens. I am not using an extender, just the adapter to except the lens.

Any suggestions I can use to get rid of the "wave"

Is anyone else getting this issue when using a telephoto lens?

What shutter speed and aperture are you using? In the PAL world I try to use the 1/50 shutter (NTSC: 1/60) then try to bring the aperture between 5.6 and 11 (not any lower!) Compensate with ND- or polarization filters to maintain the aperture at this level.

that will get rid of the atmospheric wave?

well, no guarantee Chris! But I found that I have to experiment with my lenses to find the aperture level that give me the best picture. And I have found that my lenses gives me the best picture at these aperture levels.

The quality of the glass (optics quality) are the main factor here. Bad optics quality = bad pictures.

*kkkkkk* paging tony davies-patrick! *kkkkkkk*

he knows a lot about that haze issue, if i recall correctly. if you don't hear from him soon on this thread, you should e-mail him your question directly. super-helpful guy with great insights on shooting long lenses. i'm pretty sure he has addressed this in a past thread.

long lenses take a lot of practice and experimentation. and a bomber tripod!

i don't know if this is relevant, but i think that i get that haze primarily when i am shooting too close to the end of the zoom....

Meryem has a good point. My personal opinion of the 100 - 400 Canon lens(assuming you are using Canon) is that it is soft at the long end. Try it at 300mm and as wide aperture as you can get, f2.8 or f4. As a trial , use a faster shutter speed to get the aperture open. Lock your tripod and don't pan. Be very careful with your focusing, it seems a lot of the frames were out of focus and a bit overexposed. I beleive a lot in what Per says; But I have to dissagree with the heat wave issue. You have heat waves in most of the clips,snow or not. Some of the worst heat waves I have had were in the snow. Wide open apertures will help!
Chris, Jackson has some of the best wildlife videographers in the world. Give me a call and I'll connect you with two or three.
You really should have a RONSRAIL too!!
I spend a lot of time in YNP. Where did you get those bears?
Ron
www.ronsrail.com

oh yeah, i shoulda paged ron, also!

chris, you might also want to experiment more with creating a long lens custom setting as well, which is specific to the lens you use most. i find that you have to saturate colors more when you work with the adapter because shooting through multiple lenses tends to result in more washed out colors. pump up your color settings a mite and you'll get better results.

I shoot the bears at cattlemans bridge near Ox Bow, I would love to meet up with anyone who could help or show me how to better use my camera.

Right now I have a mount that works the same way, I don't think I can afford one of those other ones right now, but I will start budgeting for one.

what do you mean pump up my color settings, I know where to do that but I have no idea what to set it to, could you give me settings to try and I will shot next weekend with those. I will try and not go pass 300mm as well and see if that helps reduce the haze

Tony's XL2 Globetrotter 2006 Preset
 

Chris,
I'm using Tony's new setting, on my set up I get nice og rich colors, here's a link:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=76682 scroll down a little to Tony' replay.
Good luck!

I agree with the others that there is too much camera shake and both contrast and sharpness is low in most of the bear footage (slightly underexposing the subject or upping contrast in post may help sometimes).

It is often much better to frame your subjects and lock the tripod head tight and then let the subjects move in and out of frame. When the subjects (bears) move out of shot, simply reframe and lock-down again. Also try to interpret the direction they are moving and let them move into the empty frame.

Try to avoid panning most of the time if possible, although some slow and steady panning can add impact to some sequences (often it is the start and end of each pan that has shake, so sometimes a pan can be saved at the post editing stages by only using the central portion of a pan and then fading this into the next clip). Remember that that the wider the angle, the easier it is to pan, so only use the extreme telephoto end sparingly until you have practiced long and hard with technique.

I also noticed that the exposure shifted each time that the bears moved. Once you have sorted the correct exposure (it should remain stable in overcast or clear conditions) it is wise to then press the Exposure Lock button for the rest of the sequence.

Use a polarizer to intensify colours and contrast (A UV filter can also help cut through some haze).

Above all else, if possible (taking consideration of safety etc), try to get closer to your subject to improve image quality, lessen camera shake and avoid haze.

Another option is to use a remote-controlled tripod-mounted camera + shorter lens setup (although this means only a static framing can be used…unless you also employ a battery-powered revolving pan-head).

Time of day can also be a factor, and shooting at the start and end of each day can help avoid haze…although mid-morning or early-afternoon bright sun shining over your shoulder and falling directly on the subjects can often provide awesome deeply saturated colours when in combination with a polarizer (just watch out for harsh shadows, especially if the animals are moving in and out of forest cover or bushes etc).

Wind is also another big problem when using the longer lenses, so even if your subjects are in the wind, try to position the video camera somewhere where the lens is not being buffeted by side winds (taking off the lens hood also helps as it shortens the lens during high winds and sometimes a sandbag or beanbag draped over the lens/camera helps absorb shake). Adjusting the tripod to its lowest setting and splaying the tripod legs for low-level shooting also helps.

ok will try this stuff this weekend, if I have the money I will try and get a polorizer, any suggestions on what to get?

What is this remote head your talking about, I didn't think they made anything that woud support an XL2 for pitch roll and yaw, or is it just pitch and yaw? How much does that thing cost and how big s the tripod for it?

mostly what i meant was press the color gain (i'm noticing tony's setting is at +4) and press the blacks. tony has shared a nice pre-set, but you should also play with those custom features to figure out what you like best. pre-sets are usually good starting points, but different outdoor conditions mean that it is good to also tweak these on-site (maybe you want to push the reds if you're shooting in redrock country, for more landscape contrast, or maybe you want to push the greens a little, if you're in a wildflower field, etc.--i shoot a lot in canyon country and that means pushing the reds a bit, generally, and increasing overall saturation).

so which would be pushed more if you were in a field that was like wheat?
would the general rule be to push red more for open feilds, blue for skys and green for trees?

i don't usually push blue for skies, because it also inflects the wildlife color. the answer to your question depends on what you are shooting. for example, i experience the redness of canyons when i'm in them as more extreme than it appears in the footage. in footage, they generally look washed out, so i'll push the reds to saturate the landscape, and the animals in that landscape (lizards, snakes...) can usually "hold" that color without disturbing what looks natural to them. keep in mind as you play with the colors that your first priority is how the wildlife will be impacted.

the polarizer is a must for skies...and probably a better choice than enhancing the blues, because it won't affect the animals...

The point has been taken on the polorizer, will a 7" monitor help as well? I have been looking at getting one of those.

Chris; Start with the normal factory settings, which are pretty good, although a little flat, at least in the XL H1, and increase the CGN one step at a time until you get the color setting you like. The EF lens will require more gain than the standard lens. Reduce the blue gain for overcast, early morning and shadow shots. This will bring out more yellow and reduce the blue haze.
I sent you an e-mail with some contacts in Jackson who may be able to help.

Ron

Shooting outdoor and 100+ metres from moving target how and when would your Arctic footage be improved or disimproved if you used 1/500 shutter, Per Johan?

Would Meryem have observations on this question too in red rock canyon country?

I'm talking basic stuff now but I'll be on to Tony, Ron & Co. when I've properly understood how moving targets respond to faster shutters and wider apertures.

I can't look at your clips as I am on a dial-up connection, but I have used the big telepotos and camcorders for quite some time now and the atmospheric disturbances are a fact of life at certain times, regardless of the season or the tempearature. There would be a scientific explanation for it, such as a difference in the temperature of the earth and air that causes the disturbance, but I am not clear on this-I just know it happens and getting close is the only good answer or shooting at a time when this condition does not exist. No filter or setting will eliminate this particular phenomena if it is the same as I have experienced. I may be incorrect on this point, but it seems to me that it is what long range (1,000 yard) target shooters mean when they talk about "mirage". At least in my area this is not a problem enough of the time sothat the big lenses are a very viable option in most cases.

Also I forgot to mention that it is not the fault of the 100-400mm IS. A 500F4 can show it, a 70-200 2.8 will and even the normal lens does if the conditions are right or should I say wrong. It is not a hze to cut through, it is motion in the air waves and no quality lens on earth can eliminate it, just as none can shoot through dense fog. etc.

yeah I figured, I'm a physics guy, so I know that their is no way to "avoid" it, I actually like the haze someof the time, it does add a nice affect. although I haven't noticed it much when using the XL2 lens, only when I am zoomed out all the way, again, the haze isn't bothering me, it the under exposer I am doing and the lack of color, curse 4:1:1 cameras, why can't we all have a RED camera, problem solved, you'll have to carry a Terabyte of HD in a backpack, but the picture would look great!

what would you guys reccomend for a polorizer (brand name and model) for a canon 100-400 tele, 70-200 tele, and the XL2 lens,

Thought you might be interested in seeing where Chris shot his sow and cubs. This photo is of OXBOW BEND. The bears were evidently around the bend to the left near the now defunct Cattlemans Bridge. Up until the last few years it has been uncommon to see grizzly bears or wolves in Grand Teton Nat. Park. They are on the comeback and will no doubt be more in evidence in the coming years.
See photo at;

www.ronsrail.com/gallery.html

Ron

Ron,

Not to hijack the thread, but after looking at the ronsrail.com web site, which I assume is yours. How do the older canon 600mm and 150-600mm lenses hold up, image quality wise, in HD with the XL H1??

Duane

Hi Duane;
The 600mm is not an "L" lens and doesn't compare to the 150 600 mm L lens. Both lenses are FD lenses and the technology is about 20 years old. Though both are good lenses, the 150 600 resolves better and will give clearer images than the 600mm. I have a 50 300 mm FD L lens that does very well with SD, I've used it several years as my standard lens on the XL1, as does the150 600. Both of these lenses are used on cinema cams and the SD XL cameras and they serve very well.
None of them stand up to the Canon 20XHD. The two are close to being usable with HD, but the difference does show. The Canon EF L lenses are much better;But in my estimation, not as good as the 20X either.

Ron

Ron - it is strange that you say the Canon FD-ED and 'L' lenses fall well below the 20X lens in image quality when bayoneted to the XL cameras. Any 35mm SLR lenses more than 135mm are going to be much longer than the 16X, 20X SD and 20X HD lenses, so therefore cannot be compared. All the XL lenses provide equivalent to about 800mm or less in equivalent SLR lens terms, so you'd need to match the 20X with something like the Canon FD 100mm f/2, EF 100 f2/0 USM or EF 135mm f/2 L USM in 16X9 format or the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L in 4:3 format.

Even going up a notch longer to something like the superb Canon FDN 200mm f/1.8 L would place it in a much longer telephoto range than the XL 20X lens so they cannot be compared because, as mentioned, atmospheric and other factors come into play at extreme ranges over 1000mm (although I’d doubt that even the previously mentioned 200mm or equivalent Nikkor 200mm f/2 lenses would slouch behind the 20x lens in image quality when bayoneted to the XL body).

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...nses/200mm.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...nses/index.htm


I've seen superb results with Nikkor lenses on the XL bodies, but would say that lenses such as the 105mm f/1.8s would match the 20x lens in telephoto reach and would match image quality of the 20x lens.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...or/105mm18.htm

To compare shorter ranges in the 20X lens zoom we would need to compare lenses such as the 85mm f/1.4, 58mm f/1.2, 28mm f/1.4, 15mm etc or zooms in those ranges such as the 17-35mm f/2.8 or 50-135mm.

Even incredible quality zoom lenses like the Nikkor 50-300mm f/4.5 ED or 200-400mm f/4 ED would far exceed the telephoto range of the 20X lenses, yet I’m sure that these lenses can produce outstanding results on both the XL2 and H1 bodies.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...F/200400mm.htm

When we use SLR super telephotos like the 600mm on the XL cameras we are reaching into moon crater images (around 4,800mm)…so are way beyond the 800mm reach of the 20X lens. Even so, I absolutely love the quality of images given by lenses such as the 200mm f/2 ED, 300mm ED and 600mm ED lenses on the XL bodies (although of course the 200mm f/2 is always going to achieve slightly better image footage than the 600mm due to problems with stability and extreme-range waving air affects etc).

any reason why I can't seem to get good video when I use my 2X extender on my XL2 with either of my tele lens? I can never seem to get it to focus and the video is always just out off focus, watch the birds of prey video:

www.adventurefilms.net

Is there anything I could buy that would increase my 20X lens and allow me to keep the auto focus? and auto zoom?

(sorry Ron but I have to ask), who else has a Ronsrail, and do you like it, is it worth saving for?

Tele-x-tenders are basically a magnifying glass of the image coming from the prime lens. As such, no matter what the quality of the glass in the x-tender, they magnify all the lens imperfections, as well as the basic image. There will always be a loss of resolution and a general loss of contrast when an x-tender is used. Sometmes an x-tender will show better contrast when the prime lens is stopped down because the light baffling is more effective (internal reflections are minimized). So finding the best f-stp for the best performance is a trade with the optimum f-stop for the prime alone.

ok so here's another question: I am going to be shooting some snowboard and skiing stuff this winter and next , and I need to get the best lens that will get out the furthest fo SD.
It will be used with the XL2, I would love to use the 2X etender, but if I can't that fine as well. Some of what I am shooting will not allow me to be close, we are trying to get full runs, (top to bottom). I will be shooting with 2 cameras, one for the close ups and one pulled back to cut back and forth from.
Has anyone had any experience doing this type of shooting?

when you add the 2x, the focus zone becomes razor-thin, too thin, probably for shooting birds completely in focus. depending on your aperture, the DOF can be so shallow that you can, say, have just the eyes and beak in the foreground in focus, and the rest will be out of focus. you can't shoot a wide-open shutter. close it up and see if that helps. that shallow DOF is cool for photography, where you might have the face sharply focused and the body behind blurred, but it doesn't work for video, which just looks out-of-focus because the image is moving and the photographically-desired bokeh effect is spoiled. these are photographic lenses that you're using, used to deliver these effects, but it doesn't always translate to good video.

interesting discussion, guys. i always like these long lens fireside chats.

Canon make the 1.6X converter (extender) for the XL cameras, although I've heard mixed reviews of performance with the 16X and 20X lenses, but its probably the best quality you are going to get combined with the 20X lens.

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php

As far as converters go (with non XL lenses), it is best to stick with 1.4X to maintain quality and some, like the Nikkor TC-14C matched with the 300mm f/2 and 500mm f/4 provides amazing quality that his impossible to judge compared to the prime lens alone (although such converters are very rare). Easier to find is the TC-14B that provides high quality performance with telephoto lenses. The newer TC-14E provides even better performance. Some 2X converters do provide good performance, such as the TC-20E.

I haven't tried the latest Canon 1.4X II converter, but it should match well with the 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm L class lenses:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...er-Review.aspx

are l class lens the Prime lens?

What I mean is that the prime lens alone (prime as in the main fixed non-zoom lens in use) gives the best performance, but that some top-class matched converters bayoneted together with the prime fixed lenses can provide image quality that is hard to distinguish from the performance of the prime lens alone. This is rare however, and most converters will deteriorate the image enough to be easily seen in both stills and video footage.

So the best bet is to not shot with any extenders, (if I want the best possible picture)? I would rather have quality first, so I applied the settings that were posted earlier, what settings are you guys using for "snow"?

Tony;
There are a lot of variables in comparing lenses. However the comparisons I have made include those made with resolution charts indoors and out, with primarily Canon lenses, under reasonable and consistent conditions. and good old every day field use.
You and I agree on the fact that the Nikon lenses may very well produce better results because of the lack of glass in the adadpter. That has yet to be proven, at least as far as I know, but does stand to reason.
The 600 FD lens is not as good as the newer 600 EF lens. Theres a difference of 15 or 20 years in technology.If the glass isn't better, at least the coatings have been improved and different lens configurations have been used.
Atmospheric conditions don't have an affect on the glass, only on the image, and cannot be used to compare lenses. A major difference in image quality can be attributed to the difference in aperture settings required for the still camera lenses. It is difficult to test with the same aperture settings between the 20X and 35 mm lenses without adding filters or increasing the shutter speed.
My comments apply to the HDV format rather than the DV format. I have found that the lenses in question, the 600 FD and the 150 600 FD do not give the video quality that the 20X HD provides. With the added auto features that the 20X provides, it is inevitable that the average videographer will obtain better overall video with the 20X lens.
As I have stated, the FD L lenses are adequate for SD, and the EF or Nikon premium lenses are also adequate for HDV. However, keep in mind that one persons idea of a good image is not necessarily the same as someone else'.
I am convinced that the Canon 70 - 200 mm 2.8 L and the 300mm 2.8 L will provide a better than "good enough" HDV image for my taste. However, it requires considerable control over the lens and the XLH1 to come up with that "good enough" image. It took me a while to convince myself of that!!

Ron

Chris; Yea The RONSRAIL is worth it. Start saving. Check out the TESTIMONIALS page on the website.
www.ronsrail.com

Ron

I have recently been to show in the Uk and picked a promotional DVD by Formatt Filters (www.formatt.co.uk) it featured an artical by Arthur C Smith 111 He uses these filters with an XL2 you can see samples of his work and project here http://www.auroraeducationproject.org/project.html.
The cost of a circular polariser from them here in the UK is £70. They are marketed in the states.
Hope this is of help. His artical on the DVD is very enlightening

Regards

Mick

extenders
 

Chris,

I have the 1.6 plex for my xl2 and the 2x century for my gl2. I also purchased a converter and a few fd lenses.

1. all converters soften the pictures, especially at the end of the zoom.

2. On the fd lenses I have a 35-200, a 300mm and a 150 to 500

I like the 300 best, the 35 to 200 second and the 150 to 500 third (this is mostly because I have found 500 to be almost unmanagable).


A ronsrail is a beautiful piece of machine work, and I will likly purchase one down the road myself.

However in the mean time I have been building my own rail out of a piece of aluminum channel and other pieces of aluminum. I am a builder by nature so I find it a challange and pleasure to make my own.

While the ronsrail may seem expensive, if you know anything about machine work, the amount of work to make one is not something to laugh at!! they are definitely worth the money!!!!!

May sound like a sales pitch, but I do not even own one!!