Erik Anschicks
Forum Replies Created
-
First, what is your budget? I would always recommend building a custom rig if you can, but that is more expensive. Is it a rig JUST for the setup you described or do you want to use it as a base to grow with and expand?
Also, I might suggest not locking yourself in completely to the idea of a body mount. Balance is more important than anything else and if you went with a rails-based solution, a properly counterbalanced rig won’t necessitate a front body mount.
-
[Todd Terry] “Not really… it’s not really a “crop factor,” it’s a bit apples and oranges there. People (especially those using the jumbo-sensor Canon DSLRs) seem obsessed with “full frame” sensors these days. They seem to forget that “full frame” means different things to different formats. A “full frame” of 35mm film when shooting stills is completely different than 35mm film when shooting cine footage. Why?… people seem to forget that a still camera shooting 35mm film shoots horizontally, a wide image down the strip of film… whereas a cine camera shoots vertically on that strip of film. So, the two “full frames” are different depending on the format. The C300 has a Super35mm sensor, and shoots exactly the same field of view as any S35mm cine camera. Put it side-by-side with a top-of-the-line Panavision Millennium XL2 and the fields-of-view for each focal length is exactly the same.”
Please understand I’m not doubting you at all, but I have read conflicting info with that…for example https://c300user.co.uk/2012/02/canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-lens/ or here is AbelCine’s comp chart comparing how the mm appears on a C300 vs a 5D: https://abelcine.com/fov/…Looks like you have to input the camera info on your own, I just chose to compare the C300/500 with a 5D. Of course I might not be understanding it all correctly as you’re much more familiar with the cam than I am!
As far as the NFL Films era, it wasn’t specified which era he was talking about. I know they did shoot on 16 so the optical range would be different, but I think that was just a “fun fact” rather than any kind of practical advice 🙂
[Todd Terry] ” The recording time is exactly the same. That’s because even though you’re switching from 1080 to 720, the bitrate for each remains at 50Mbps. That’s assuming, of course, you’re shooting at the highest bitrate (you can also shoot at 35Mbps, if you choose). You can do the math, but the easiest thing to do is just put an empty camera card in the camera and turn it on at whatever settings you want to shoot with. Within a couple of seconds the display will show you remaining shoot time.”
That’s what I had read/thought, thanks for confirming!
In fact, thanks for taking the time to respond in general Todd!
-
Just to follow up with Terry and revive this thread a bit…
Terry, first of all, unfortunately you were correct. Duclos does not service or modify Russian lenses at all because getting replacement parts and/or giving accurate quotes/timetables on these lenses is almost impossible. If you’re interested, Matthew spelled it out in more detail on a reduser forum, scroll almost all the way down: https://www.reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-70456.html
I also ended up going with the 70-200mm that I can use my extender on if needs be. Your instinct was correct (as was Angelos’ in his response, thanks!), 105 was not long enough. I talked with some of the producers and they said you often have to have a pretty long focal length to get what they are looking for in terms of the closeups. One such setup for that on the C300 that they use is actually a 400mm DO prime. Combine that with the fact that these Canon lenses have a 1.5x crop factor on the Super 35 sensor and you’re looking at about 600mm, which I was also told was the traditional NFL Films standard length on their end zone cams for the Super Bowl! Most of the time on the field, we’d be using a hi hat anyway and it’s understood that lenses like the DO are rental items so the 70-200 is a good base to own. If I need to go handheld in the tunnel or other places, my primes will be just fine.
One last question about shooting 60fps (I know it drops to 720)…I haven’t really done that extensively on the C300 yet, but on a 32gb CF card, how long of a recording time do you have compared to the app 80 minutes at standard 24/30 fps at full HD?
Thanks everyone!
-
Todd, everything you say makes perfect sense and I agree with it…the issue is I’m kind of locked into shooting with an EF mount C300. I am not totally unfamiliar with using still zooms on this camera or even a DSLR, so I do understand the differences and I agree that it takes some getting used to. I’m not really THAT concerned with lenses “breathing” as I have noticed that a lot of broadcast lenses, especially some standard-length Fujinons, often have a bit of breathing as well.
My thought process is basically that I have shot quite of bit of similar sports “gameday” programming with EX-3’s for Comcast Sports. I used the manual zoom almost exclusively as I like that quick zoom bump-in look for sports. So I am very used to zooming and focusing quickly with one hand! The native lens tops out at 81mm and I was able to get some “close enough” shots of the players during the game. I figure the 24-105 is a good range for a lot of what I would want to do, and I can always easily rent a 70-200 and swap for when I really NEED the length. We shoot this stuff from a very cinematic POV, so we don’t have to follow every play ENG-style and we have time to switch lenses or shoot other stuff that we see fit.
I have been assured by the executive producer that the network has used C300’s many times for this, and it looks awesome so I know someone’s doing this, the question is how exactly! I will ask one of the producers I know, but my guess is that it’s a good bet that at least some of them are using some still-photo zooms. I know most of it is handheld and it would be INCREDIBLY difficult to go handheld or run and gun with a big ol’ cine-style PL zoom that gets you longer than 200mm, especially without an AC! I can’t imagine that’s what’s often going on.
-
So Todd, I have put in an email to Duclos and we’ll see about the Foton. Either way, thanks for the tip!
To go back to the original question though, do you think that the 24-105 would make the most sense for this type of shooting and just as an overall best first zoom choice for this camera? Just FYI, I have a full set of Zeiss primes that I love to death so I have plenty of other lens choices.
-
For the purposes like in the photo, you’re right. But those guys look almost exclusively like still shooters with monopods who won’t be moving and still have to be able to get tight shots anywhere on the field. I’ll primarily be working one half of the field (with another op for the other side and one “floating” cam), on a shoulder rig, and at least somewhat mobile.
Of course I’d love to be as tight as possible, but any zoom lens significantly more than 200mm for run and gun live shooting for around a 10 hour day (my work includes pregame “gameday atmosphere” and postgame shooting) would be terribly heavy and not particularly practical. I may not be able to get the extreme close ups that you see, but those shots are usually gotten by ops on sticks and platforms in the back of the end zone so they can use a much longer lens. From my experience, unless they are specific-shot cams, most general broadcast rigs that handheld sideline guys use top out around 175mm or so. Of course, that’s just a general baseline that could be more or less depending on the needs!
-
Angelo –
The 70-200 is a consideration as well. 200mm would be plenty tight enough from where my vantage points would be in the game (mostly end zone and sidelines). The only potential downside is that perhaps a max width of 70mm would not be wide enough? Do you think that might be an issue at that length? Especially for plays coming right at me, or sideline stuff, or in the tunnels pre/postgame. Last season on a lark, I once tried to see what I would get with an 85mm prime during warmups, and it was VERY tight, unless I moved FAR away from the action.Todd –
Interesting! That seems a perfect zoom range, I’ll email Duclos lenses and see if an EF installation is possible. On the same note, I know I’ve seen some of your other posts where you rave about the low-light capability of the C300. I have used it enough to know this as well, but my question is that in your experience, would it be OK to go with an F4 aperture lens since some will be at night with only stadium/natural light? Normally I’d say that’s too slow, but I’d imagine a high(ish) ISO could handle it? Especially since even shooting nighttime, I’m going to be in Big 10 stadiums like the Big House or Camp Randall, so the lighting is far better than almost any natural-light nighttime situation. If you do think that would work, is there any max ISO you wouldn’t feel comfortable going past?Thanks to both of you for the ideas!
-
Terry is right on about a black background and uniformity not always equaling a professional look! In fact, I’d honestly go a step further and argue that it looks cheaper and unimaginative. Especially if you have multiple interview subjects, background uniformity can get pretty boring after a while. Personally, I would never suggest a purely black background to any important/high end client of mine. Furthermore, to really nail that look in a practical home requires a reasonably high degree of light and spill control coupled with the right room dimensions and proportions. So even the basic black look is not always as simple from locale to locale.
On the other hand, if you go with natural settings, you have to be willing and able to combat them. I second Terry again by saying this will indeed often mean “taking over” a space. I have shot probably hundreds of interview subjects in their own homes/places of business and I’ve literally never, not once, drew the ire of the subject by simply arranging (fairly) easily movable items and furniture. That’s not to say that it never will happen, or hasn’t happened to others, but I believe there exists a vastly disproportionate paranoia about this. With a respectful and courteous attitude (sense of humor helps too!), this will in all likelihood be less of a problem than you think!
There is always something you can do in natural settings, whether it’s creating patterns or shadows, using windows when exposure permits, darkening portions of a room, etc. But then you have to be able to combat this with lighting and grip gear as well. What is your arsenal in that regard?
-
To echo what John said in part, I often prefer lighting the background behind the person, sometimes with color, sometimes not, as opposed to using a traditional backlight. Indeed, with your desire to avoid reflections on a balding head that might be the way to go. Especially if you find yourself in a location where the background has texture to it which often looks very nice and creates a good profile.
Like with anything else, traditional backlight is an aesthetic choice! There’s no rule that says you must use it.
-
One last suggestion…one interesting technique I like is to use a mirror reflector – usually 4×4 or 42″ x 42″ and bounce a super-harsh sunbeam INTO another material like the ultrabounce, which then is used to light the talent. Here’s an example of what the result looks like from a shoot I was the key grip on a couple years back:
