[Steve Crow]

You actually seem in pretty good shape in so far as lenses go…although that 35mm does sound very nice. But I always suggest to people that they think about their sound capture if they want to make a dramatic improvement to their videos.

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

Hey Tim – thanks for that – I was so confused why my mask image was resizing – your solution worked great!

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

I may have made a mistake in referring to “pixel density” – I was just trying to make a differentiation between the frame size of an image or video still and the amount of actual data captured within it. Obviously you could take a still frame from a standard definition video (640 x 480) and if you increase that say in Photoshop to 1920×1080 it’s going to look like crap because you haven’t increased the amount of actual data in that image – just “stretched it out” if you get my drift

Actually, “down-rezzzing” that camera still photo to HD probably made it look even sharper ☺

You can try not filming with the Cineflat codec and get closer to what you are hoping for out of camera. You can’t make it sharper though, not really. Some pros prefer to film in “flat” or “log” format because there’s more room (dynamic range) to play with in editing – but it’s much harder to focus using one of these “cinema” profiles as I’m sure you discovered. It’s all about tradeoffs right?

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

Cineflat codec is just a tool for achieving a wider dynamic range in a video than you would get in using the normal picture profiles – you have to then edit the footage to increase or decrease contrast, sharpness, saturation and color values the way you prefer. It’s for capture not for export. While you can bump up the perceived sharpness of video somewhat in post – it is what it is and the photograph is going to have much higher resolution and pixel density so even if you resize the photo down to the dimensions of the video it’s still going to look sharper to you – that’s where video technologies like 4K, 8K, etc etc come in.

Still, according to an article I found online: “4K resolution is either 3840 x 2160(UHD) or 4096 x 2160(DCI). This resolution works out to about 8.3 megapixels per frame.” So compare that to a 24MP still image – of course the still image is going to be sharper no matter what. Video is always going to be somewhat “soft” – I think that’s part of the attraction to the more “dreamlike” characteristic of a movie vs a still image but that’s just my personal opinion.

https://alphauniverse.com/stories/-cinephotography—pulling-stills-from-4k-video/

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

I THINK it’s the green laser shining directly into the camera lens – if I’m correct, shutter speed wouldn’t matter. You can see the same bands on this video if you go frame by frame

https://photofocus.com/2013/09/14/beware-lasers-can-kill-your-cameras-sensor/

I don’t think there is anything you can do about unlike the banding you can get under florescent lights which I think is what you were thinking of in which case shutter speed would have a role to play very directly

Steve

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

Oh, that’s a cool solution too – thanks for the follow up, it’s always nice to when people come back to the forum to post the outcome/solution – so often you never hear back.

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

I’m not sure but maybe you could try shooting with a flat color profile or even a log. It appears that those areas which are deep purple are essentially blowing out. (It makes total sense to me that the forehead and nose are two areas being overexposed due to sweat) Because of the colored gels being used for the lighting what would have been blown out whites is now blown out purples. This is a theory. I wonder if you could possibly get an actor to stand under the lights in the same lighting conditions to try different color profiles in your camera.

Failing that, maybe shooting a little underexposed to protect the highlights and then bringing up exposure carefully in post. This is an interesting problem and one that I’ve actually wondered about, like how to do video shooters successfully film bands during concerts when the lighting is often so challenging.

Please post back if you find a working solution – otherwise you may just have to live with it or have the actors use heavier makeup on the forehead and nose areas.

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8 Lens
Filter Thread Front: 52 mm

Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm
Filter Thread Front: 62 mm

52-62mm Step-Up Adapter Ring

So you need a 62mm ND filter and then you also need to buy a 52 to 62mm Step Up Adapter Ring to screw onto your Nikon 55mm lens so that you can use the one ND filter on both lenses without issue. Like this: https://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-62mm-Variable-ND-Filter/dp/B005TFU7YK

Look into step up and step down rings and you can get most ND filters to work with any lens – check out Fader ND filters with 8 stops too – it’s really so much easier than you are making this!

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

By far, it’s the ND filter, without it you will have a hard time achieving a shallow depth of field without blowing out your exposure. Circular polarizers are neat too for getting rid of reflections like off of windows or water. But basically get a Fader ND and be happy!

Steve Crow

[Steve Crow]

Yes I would agree. By zooming in on post from the full body to face detail you are enlarging and therefore softening the image. The examples you posted probably used a 4k camera so that softening doesn’t occur. High shutter speed to reduce motion blur will help you. For now with a 1080p camera you may have to shoot each scene twice, that’s basically what they do in Hollywood except maybe 4 or so angles and focal lengths. (establishing, wide, two shot, close-up, over the shoulder etc)

Steve Crow