I'm just starting out and I find myself often having to pick between two of the best takes for a lot of takes. Usually the best acted one is near the beginning. But it's not shot as well, cause the actors often improve a little and their faces go off camera. The camera operator, is therefore late in following them as they move. Then there is the other best take of the same shot. This take is not as well acted but the camera stays on the actor, since we discussed after the improve what to do. But we still couldn't get it as well acted. So that's the choice I find myself having to make often. What would you guys often choose? So far I'm more confident choosing the better acted ones, even though the cam was a little off.
Better acting vs. better shooting takes.
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Okay thanks people. I think some of the quality is how I am importing it and exporting, and before I move onto the final edits, I need to play around to see which settings look the best, and do some more research on that.
I have other takes to go on besides that out of focus shot. I just like the way he says his lines best in that section of the edit. I could use the audio from those lines, and have the camera on the actor he is talking to, I just thought the camera might be on him a little too long for that whole time. There are other out of focus takes, which I have no other takes of that are in focus. At least one I came across so far, that I need to have in order for the continuity to not skip ahead. Plus I need it, so the movie cuts back and forth, and so it doesn't look like too much was shot from angle.
So if I have to sharpen that one, do I have to sharpen the whole movie to match the look of that, to maintain the same look?
I have other takes to go on besides that out of focus shot. I just like the way he says his lines best in that section of the edit. I could use the audio from those lines, and have the camera on the actor he is talking to, I just thought the camera might be on him a little too long for that whole time. There are other out of focus takes, which I have no other takes of that are in focus. At least one I came across so far, that I need to have in order for the continuity to not skip ahead. Plus I need it, so the movie cuts back and forth, and so it doesn't look like too much was shot from angle.
So if I have to sharpen that one, do I have to sharpen the whole movie to match the look of that, to maintain the same look?
Thanks I tried that, but it feels like the cut was just too quick, since it was only two words, before I wanted to cut back. I'll play around more. I have other shots, that go out of focus too. The actors lean forward or lean back, and then go out of focus, but it's not near as noticeable while shooting. I guess until I can find a more experienced DP to work with I will try to remember to tell me actors to try to avoid that.
I told her to do that thing where you zoom with the lens all the way, focus it, then zoom back, but she says that that doesn't work on all the shots, and gave me this huge physics explanation which I did not get. But I'll try to figure it out for next time.
I told her to do that thing where you zoom with the lens all the way, focus it, then zoom back, but she says that that doesn't work on all the shots, and gave me this huge physics explanation which I did not get. But I'll try to figure it out for next time.
That works will with traditional video cameras where you can set the back focus of the lens, but not on photo cameras. DSLRs should all have a button that digitally magnifies the image on the LCD viewfinder. On my 7D it gives you 5x then 10x then press it again to go back to normal. It is hard to focus sometimes on that screen, that magnification makes it easy without physically affecting the focal length of your lens.
Yeah I kind of wish I got a camcorder like the HV30 or something like that, where I could have it in focus the whole shot if I wanted. So is it possible to shoot things like chase scenes on DSLRS and still keep it in focus, or things where the camera is going to move fast with the actors? I will remember using the digital zoom for next time. Isn't that the same as using the zoom on the lens though, then zooming back? I mean why does it work for digital zoom but not lens zoom?
Last edited:
Yeah I kind of wish I got a camcorder like the HV30 or something like that, where I could have it in focus. So is it possible to shoot things like chase scenes on DSLRS and still keep it in focus, or things where the camera is going to move fast with the actors? I tried using the digital zoom on my Canon T2i just now, but it still has a limit and you move the camera close enough it still goes out of focus. If I wanted to do a shot where an actor is close to the camera, and someone is quite a ways away in the background, could I still have them both in focus?
The digital scaling is only to check focus, it doesn't actually record that way.
It's not the same as using a zoom on a lens becaus the focal length of the lens doesn't change. If you're set at 37mm instead of changing to 50 to focus then going back to 37, it stays 37mm and makes the pixels bigger on your viewfinder. Again, temporarily, as soon as you start recording it should switch back to normal.
It's absolutely possible to keep focus on a moving object, just takes practice and skill. Or more light and a wider lens. We talked about that a few weeks ago I think when you asked the same question.
It's not the same as using a zoom on a lens becaus the focal length of the lens doesn't change. If you're set at 37mm instead of changing to 50 to focus then going back to 37, it stays 37mm and makes the pixels bigger on your viewfinder. Again, temporarily, as soon as you start recording it should switch back to normal.
It's absolutely possible to keep focus on a moving object, just takes practice and skill. Or more light and a wider lens. We talked about that a few weeks ago I think when you asked the same question.
Yeah I just meant is it possible to set a focus length without having to constantly focus pull on a subject. Like one a focus setting where I have more range. If constant focus pulling is a must, I will consider switching to a more traditional video camera, during action scenes. There are no lenses for DSLR that can stay in focus all the time like a traditional video camera, but is it possible to attach one of those lenses to Canon T2i with a lens adapter?
There is one scene I wanted to shoot in one take, where the actor is about 30 feet away, and the camera moves closer towards him, while staying in focus the whole time. My DP was able to do this shot, but for some reason did not apply this same method, when it came to other scenes, and couldn't keep a guy in focus, just from leaning back in a chair. Not sure why she wouldn't use the same method for even the little shots.
There is one scene I wanted to shoot in one take, where the actor is about 30 feet away, and the camera moves closer towards him, while staying in focus the whole time. My DP was able to do this shot, but for some reason did not apply this same method, when it came to other scenes, and couldn't keep a guy in focus, just from leaning back in a chair. Not sure why she wouldn't use the same method for even the little shots.
Last edited:
The reason you're using a big lens and sensor on a DSLR is for shallow depth of field. If you use a 35mm on a video camera, again you're going to have shallow DOF.
Even traditional video cameras with smaller sensors and slower lenses have a certain DOF. Focus pulling is a normal part of using a camera. If you try it with a traditional camera and don't use manual focus, you're going to get crazy autofocus happenings where everything goes out of focuse for a second while your camera tries to follow the motion.
The solution here isn't to jimmy your way into using a camera without focusing, the solution is to learn how to focus. It's not that hard, just practice the take until you have it.
Even traditional video cameras with smaller sensors and slower lenses have a certain DOF. Focus pulling is a normal part of using a camera. If you try it with a traditional camera and don't use manual focus, you're going to get crazy autofocus happenings where everything goes out of focuse for a second while your camera tries to follow the motion.
The solution here isn't to jimmy your way into using a camera without focusing, the solution is to learn how to focus. It's not that hard, just practice the take until you have it.
More light = smaller aperture, smaller aperture = longer DoF, longer DoF = easier time focussing.
Wider lens = less magnification of the "circles of confusion" (feel free to google that, it's real) = easier time focussing
camera farther from subject = longer DoF (past a certain point, it's functionally infinite) = easier time focussing.
wider lens, smaller aperture (more light), camera farther away... these are the magic combo you're looking for... other than that, repeated takes with an external monitor and many eyes on the screen watching for focus to keep your DP honest with your takes... she should be telling you on set when you can still do something about it if the take is any good. If she's watching performances rather than purely technical considerations, she's doing someone else's job... and it's too much to do while trying to cam op... especially if you're pulling focus at the same time (which is a different person's job on bigger sets for a reason).
Without access to more people or more funding (which would get you access to more people)... deal with what you've got and move forward. Focus pulling is the HARDEST job on a camera... everything else is simple in comparison. It's a dance/performance in and of itself.
Wider lens = less magnification of the "circles of confusion" (feel free to google that, it's real) = easier time focussing
camera farther from subject = longer DoF (past a certain point, it's functionally infinite) = easier time focussing.
wider lens, smaller aperture (more light), camera farther away... these are the magic combo you're looking for... other than that, repeated takes with an external monitor and many eyes on the screen watching for focus to keep your DP honest with your takes... she should be telling you on set when you can still do something about it if the take is any good. If she's watching performances rather than purely technical considerations, she's doing someone else's job... and it's too much to do while trying to cam op... especially if you're pulling focus at the same time (which is a different person's job on bigger sets for a reason).
Without access to more people or more funding (which would get you access to more people)... deal with what you've got and move forward. Focus pulling is the HARDEST job on a camera... everything else is simple in comparison. It's a dance/performance in and of itself.
Okay thanks. It's not that I don't mind learning, it's just I'll probably have to act in the movie for future shorts, since actors can be hard to find, or keep. Which I don't mind doing at all. I was thinking light helps focus, cause a lot of the shots, that went out of focus, had not as much light in, and most that stay in have plenty.
More light forces you to a smaller aperture and that yields a deeper depth of field.
This has been explained a few times now.
Shooting at night forces you to open the aperture and this results in the shallowest depth of field your lens can produce. Harder to keep focussed.
I you would just shoot action scenes in broad daylight you can set ISO as high as possible (as long it doesn't get too noisy) with an aperture of 13 or higher, it's easier to stay in focus.
This has been explained a few times now.
Shooting at night forces you to open the aperture and this results in the shallowest depth of field your lens can produce. Harder to keep focussed.
I you would just shoot action scenes in broad daylight you can set ISO as high as possible (as long it doesn't get too noisy) with an aperture of 13 or higher, it's easier to stay in focus.
Oh you're talking about opening the aperture. Yes that was explained to me before. I thought you meant the amount of light going into the camera, just from light in the room, not from changing aperture.
If you stop down past f/8 - f/11 or so on a camera with an APS-C sensor, you'll start to see the effects of diffraction. You may be gaining depth of field, but you'll be losing sharpness and introducing all sorts of chromatic aberrations to the image.
The smaller the sensor, the larger the minimum recommended f-stop. This is why lots of point and shoot cameras with tiny sensors won't stop down any further than f/4 - f/5.6 or so.
Well, that too - the brighter your set is lit, the more you can close down the aperture without having to raise the ISO.
Okay thanks. That's what's happening when I play the footage back in the darkly lit seen, diffraction effects. Anything on AE that can tweak that? I have one image where everything is clear in a shot, but I would photoshop one actor in out of one take, and have him make contact with the other actor from the take where she is in complete clarity. By making contact I mean a punch. I would have to line them both up, then you have two actors in perfect clarity.
The aperture controls how much of the available light is going into the camera.
Adding lights to a scene without changing aperture increases the amount of light, but not the depth of field.
The ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor and thus defining how much light needs to go into the camera. The amount of light is defined by lightsources and aperture.
(And shutterspeed, but most of the time you want the shutterspeed to stay fixed at 1/(2xFramerate).
It's all connected: always!
Your choices will be defined by the available light, the depth of field you want and the amount of noise that is acceptable.
If there is little light, your choices are forced by the light, so you have to settle for a shallow depth of field.
(I hardly ever go beyond f8.... the max for APC-S is noted. Thanks!)
Diffraction or Barrel distortion? Diffraction is a function of physics and differing wavelengths of light being affected by the thickness of the glass in the lens as you get farther away from the center of the frame... more evident at the extremes of zoom and aperture... always try to avoid these extremes, all the way zoomed in or out, and all the way open or closed on the iris (aperture). Your best image will come from putting the settings all dead center on the image, diminishing returns that you have to make quality judgements on from there outward in both directions.
Barrel distortion is also based on the effects of the distance from the center of the image on said image, but have to do more with the "FISH EYE" type of effect. As an extreme, it can be quite cool for action sports vids and whatnot, but just a little bit can look very disconcerting.
ISO in canon DLSRs also seem to prefer multiples of 160 to minimize noise... so if you have to crank it up, prefer 320 over 300... there are youtube vids that illustrate all of these effects, look them up and learn this stuff.
LIFE IS PHYSICS learn them and love them and you'll fall down less painfully (gravity joke).
Okay thanks. Well I want to not use the out of focus shots. There are also some shots of the same thing from the previous shoot but those shots are too dark. I tried bringing up the brightness in After Effects, but you still can't see the actors clothes, and they are just shadows basically. Is it possible with AE to reanimate the details of their clothes and faces from previous takes? Since they are wearing ski masks, there won't be much face to reanimate but what about the materials of their clothes, as oppose to just all black shadow figure?
Last edited: