Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: canon image stabilized lenses and motion  (Read 3319 times)
Tim Jones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« on: August 15, 2011, 01:34:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have any experience using canon lens stabilization on the 5Dii or 7D and shooting motion?
I have heard that the Red cameras can use it . Just wondering if it works well for smoothing hand held footage.
Thanks,
Tim
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1921



« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2011, 01:55:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have any experience using canon lens stabilization on the 5Dii or 7D and shooting motion?
I have heard that the Red cameras can use it . Just wondering if it works well for smoothing hand held footage.
Canon IS lenses with image stabilization work quite well for video up to about 50mm equivalent. Beyond that it depends on your skill as an operator and your subject.

But nothing, repeat nothing takes the place of a proper head and tripod or other proper camera stablization.

Post processing to eliminate unwanted camera movement can eat up a lot of your frame as the software moves the centre of the picture to keep it constant. A very modest amount of movement will require a blow-up up at least 10-15% and often more.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2011, 04:07:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have any experience using canon lens stabilization on the 5Dii or 7D and shooting motion?
... . Just wondering if it works well for smoothing hand held footage.
Yes. I've used it on the 24-105, 70-200 f2.8 & 300 f4 on a 5Dii, it does a great job of smoothing out hand held footage. It won't help bad technique, but if you've decent skills to start with it can make the difference between very usable and rubbish.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2011, 05:59:49 PM »
ReplyReply

very helpful say for an interview

but also there is are downside(s)

if you start to pan or tilt the lens thinks you are shaking so 'goes the other way'

also if you are using in extreme environments - shooting out of a moving vehicle for example the IS gets lost and resets - causing judder

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Tim Jones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2011, 01:13:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the info everyone!

 Im really interested in capturing motion with motion. Like shooting off a skateboard, or a bike. 
I think I read somewhere that the gh2 had image stabilization in camera, and that I worked as well as a steady cam.
Or, is it best to go with a gyro system or ?

Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2011, 04:11:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I read somewhere that the gh2 had image stabilization in camera, and that I worked as well as a steady cam.
Not at all. They work in entirely different ways and have very different purposes. You only have see a Steadicam rig to understand why it's an entirely different technology.
Quote
Or, is it best to go with a gyro system or ?
Gyro stabilised systems are another technology again. Frankly if you need to ask why, you won't be able to afford them, they are very, very expensive.

Whilst IS, either in lens or body, is a simple technology to take advantage of, both Steadicam and Gyro systems require training, skill and practice to get good results from. They really aren't technologies suitable for amateurs.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2011, 05:46:41 AM »
ReplyReply

About Steadycam, a lot of cheap derivated are flowrishing or even mini systems for light-weight cams (thinking of Manfrotto) supposed to work well. I wonder if all that is really the case, and probably not.


But is there a reliable not expensive solution that is known to work very well without breaking the bank account (regardless if a lot of practice would be needed)? 
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2011, 06:13:16 AM »
ReplyReply

About Steadycam, a lot of cheap derivated are flourishing.... supposed to work well. I wonder if all that is really the case, and probably not.
The bottom line with any steadicam type system is operator skill. The rigs for light weight kit are much easier and safer to wear, but to get good results needs a lot of practice and good hand to eye and body co-ordination, plus of course an understanding of how to use a camera creatively in three dimensions.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2011, 08:38:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Paul. I agree.
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2011, 10:09:11 AM »
ReplyReply

For what its worth - Switch off the IS for video, period. If you are on a secure mount or steadycam rig, then you don't want the IS to interfere with the operator's hand technique. If you are using it on a handheld or vehicle/helmet/whatever mount, then you don't want the IS to try to de-wobble your jello-work anyway - it just makes it worse.

The IS is only 'useful' when you are in handheld mode and trying your best to make it look steady - it doesn't work very well for long shots. Look at it this way: if the IS cannot be used for exposures of less than 1/20s (assuming - it can be any number) - how do you expect it to stay 'steady' for the many seconds you will the shooting with, even with a shutter speed of 1/20 or 1/50? The video world is used to not having IS at all - and the better method is to have solid technique or professional rigs.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2011, 10:58:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Look at it this way: if the IS cannot be used for exposures of less than 1/20s (assuming - it can be any number)
Don't know where you get that idea from. IS can be used at any shutter speed and can deliver acceptable shots at shutter speeds that was never possible before.
Quote
The video world is used to not having IS at all
You can't have much video experience if you think that. The broadcast world has had IS equipped lenses available for more than 15 years. All the best big broadcast lenses have integral IS now and it's very widely used.
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2011, 11:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't know where you get that idea from. IS can be used at any shutter speed and can deliver acceptable shots at shutter speeds that was never possible before.

Yes, but it only helps to a point. It does not replace a tripod or a rig.

Quote
You can't have much video experience if you think that. The broadcast world has had IS equipped lenses available for more than 15 years. All the best big broadcast lenses have integral IS now and it's very widely used.

I should have been clearer - I'm more from a fictional filmmaking background - no IS lenses here. I know there's IS in consumer brands - maybe in Broadcast cams too - I would love to know how much practical use they are in the real world, under the conditions I've mentioned. And there's also the point that the broadcast world (mainly ENG) has lower standards for video quality than fictional content. Even if you consider documentaries, the most beautiful ones are always shot on rigs.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2011, 12:04:13 AM »
ReplyReply

For what its worth - Switch off the IS for video, period.

If you have the appropriate grip tools for each job this is true

In most realities trying to hold static shots even on a rig IS is useful

You can of course argue that trying to hold a static shot is dumb - because you should use sticks - which is of course true if you dont have time constraints on your shots

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Tim Jones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2011, 12:32:32 AM »
ReplyReply

What I would like to know is, why is Red making cameras that use the canon IS system.
There must be some benefit ?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2011, 01:08:53 AM »
ReplyReply

It does not replace a tripod or a rig.
Did I suggest otherwise ? The OP was asking "Just wondering if it works well for smoothing hand held footage" I've already answered that

Quote
I'm more from a fictional filmmaking background - no IS lenses here. I know there's IS in consumer brands - maybe in Broadcast cams too - I would love to know how much practical use they are in the real world, under the conditions I've mentioned. And there's also the point that the broadcast world (mainly ENG) has lower standards for video quality than fictional content. Even if you consider documentaries, the most beautiful ones are always shot on rigs.
It's clear from what you've written that your range of experience is very limited. The broadcast world uses the most appropriate camera kit for the programme being made, that might be Steadicam, it might just be a tripod, it could be a pedestal mount, sometimes it will be hand held. If IS technology is appropriate and useful, it will, and is, be used. Often in conjunction with other mounts. Suggesting it's just an amateur technology of limited use demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the industry.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2011, 02:31:13 AM »
ReplyReply

What I would like to know is, why is Red making cameras that use the canon IS system.
There must be some benefit ?

 'Traditonal' cinematgraphers would not approve and would use 'proper' support/grip or enjoy the handheld look (that is a lot more pallatable with heavier cameras)

But the reality is a lot of stuff is handheld for speed/budget reasons and 'static' it helps a lot

Personally I use it for interviews, some cutaways, but little else, when I have been shooting more complex shots its off

-=---

Here is a test I did http://vimeo.com/25420776



 
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 02:40:36 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2011, 04:07:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Suggesting it's just an amateur technology of limited use demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the industry.

Whatever makes you happy...
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Tim Jones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2011, 09:46:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Morgan, in your test it looks like the footage with IS on appears to be the most smooth. I didn't notice any strange jerky corrections.
Looks like you have been thinking about this for a while.
Thanks,
Tim
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2011, 02:09:15 PM »
ReplyReply

If you can be bothered to plough through this one ( http://vimeo.com/13413361 )

- in the office scene there are a couple of over the shoulder shots where IS is helping me handhold a fairly static shot

Also the opening pan down is obviously on sticks and would be ruined by IS

- move to the car sequence and im shooting out of the back of a convertible towards the audi with the 24-105 at 105  at about 1.29 you can see some sort of jerk

its either the IS resetting or the the front element 'bouncing' in the lens casing - wahtever it is the shot are too much for IS or lenses of canons (lack) of robustness

the last sequence is entirely Handheld with a 16-50 non IS on the 7d, here the mood would be ruined by stabilisation, I had to stabilise him walking through the underpass in post

on the subject of stbilistation in post that is also good for mild jitter but becomes flawed at the point where your individual frames are blurred by movement (camera shake at 1/50th)

BTW Im handholding on a large rig - not just the camera

to summaris I belive an IS lens is part of your tookit

S

« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 02:18:52 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2011, 01:03:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Operating a Steadicam is an art, & requires endless hours of practice, so is best left to dedicated operators.

Years ago Cooter suggested looking into the Easyrig systems, but at the time I scoffed at the idea due to how silly they look.

www.easyrig.com

Recently I've seen them in action with some high profile DPs, & have changed my mind, so am testing one of their more affordable systems, the Turtle XS, & if need be may upgrade to their line of Vario(s). When I went to demo their systems the US distributer didn't have any Vario(s) in stock, & stated they fly off the shelves, so it seems they're becoming quite popular.

The Easyrig is not a substitute for Steadicam, but it does smooth out handheld work, a look I usually prefer to the floating footage of a Steadicam.

www.youtube.com/user/easyrig#p/a/u/0/aP5btPSaYog

www.youtube.com/user/easyrig#p/u/4/Cl7LHTGT46c

Best,
Bern

« Last Edit: August 21, 2011, 01:25:21 PM by Bern Caughey » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad