14 replies to this topic

[howeikwok]

Shaky footage on my first trip with a proper video cam. Continuation from my june trip to manado. Thanks to NAD, Simon & Zee for everything.

[youtubehd]ItoPOrxUlbA?hd=1[/youtubehd]

Edited by howeikwok, 20 August 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[Oceanshutter]

Nice job. I enjoyed it.
Dustin

[escape]

Well done. Alvin.
Hope to see you at NAD soon.

[peterbkk]

Good stuff but you need to keep the camera still.

For that extreme macro stuff, you need a tripod or monopod.

I find that a monopod is sufficient and easier to work with.

I bought one of these legs (http://reefphoto.com...roducts_id=5364) and mounted a ball under the housing close to the center of balance. When not in use, the leg folds up out of the way under the housing. One twist and it drops down and the leg can be lengthened. You can set it at any angle so it can work horizontal (e.g. against a wall), vertical (e.g. sand or rubble) or anywhere between. Just need to find a place where you won't squash something and lean on the housing to form the other brace point.

Regards
Peter

[howeikwok]

Thinking of the XIT base plate that EJ uses. Just not sure if i'll be going the videocam way in the future or upgrade my DSLR and use that for video.

[peterbkk]

Just not sure if i'll be going the videocam way in the future or upgrade my DSLR and use that for video.

Of course, you can use a top-end DSLR for shooting quality video. The upside is you can shoot both photos and video. The downside for video is:

- poor vertical stability (pitch)

- awkward controls (for video)

- lack of depth of field (in some situations this as a plus)

- limited length of clip (has been fixed on most new cameras)

- tiny pixels (which usually means poor low light capability

- poor motion compression

Regards

Peter

[Oceanshutter]

If you get the xit404. Make sure to get the twist clamps. They are great, but a little expensive.

Dustin

[escape]

Of course, you can use a top-end DSLR for shooting quality video. The upside is you can shoot both photos and video. The downside for video is:

- poor vertical stability (pitch)

- awkward controls (for video)

- lack of depth of field (in some situations this as a plus)

- limited length of clip (has been fixed on most new cameras)

- tiny pixels (which usually means poor low light capability

- poor motion compression

Regards

Peter

AFAIK, DSLR's huge sensor gives great low-light capability and it's out performing many prosumer camcorder.

EJ.

[peterbkk]

AFAIK, DSLR's huge sensor gives great low-light capability and it's out performing many prosumer camcorder.

EJ.

Not quite right. A huge sensor does not necessarily translate to good low light capability, if it is crammed with tiny pixels. It is the size of each pixel that affects low light capability. A smaller sensor with less but larger pixels will perform better than a large sensor with tiny pixels.

For video, we only need 1920x1080 pixels. The rest are thrown away (although some systems use the discarded pixels to better interpret the color and movement for the kept pixels)

For best low light video, a large sensor with 2 million large pixels would be ideal. However, a large sensor with 36 million sensors will be suboptimal for video in low light.

Before buying a camera for video, it is useful to know the pixel size df the sensor.

The large sensor does give low depth of field. Which is good for isolating subjects from the background but poor at keeping moving critters in the sharp zone.

In the end, it is all trade-offs. Can not say that one system is "better" than another. They all have strengths and weakness,

regards
Peter

[Drew]

That's pretty much right Pete. It's mostly about the area size of the photo sites (pixel pitch etc) on the sensors. For example, the 5D3 has 6.3µm and the D4 7.3µm photo sites, while the D800 has 4.9. Compared to a purpose built video camera, the big 35mm sensors do very well for noise.
A (3x)2/3" 2 mp of a F950 is about 5.4µm. A 1/3" x 2mp will have a 3.2µm site and a 1/2"x 2mp sensor will have 4.3ishµm. These are all approximate but basically the larger the photo site, the better noise performance. This is why the S35mm 8-14mp size sensor is so popular. The size of the photo site is about 5µm, which is equivalent to a 2/3" standard BUT at higher resolution.
EunJae is correct that the DSLR sensors outperform the smaller sensors in noise. Where they lose out is resolution. As Pete says, it's about resolution as well and DSLRs don't nearly hit 1920x1080 resolution, most hovering around or below the 1300x700 range, plus the lower bit h.264 encoding makes is look even softer, which is why more mbps helps with resolution.

[escape]

I understand larger pixel is capable of capturing more photon.
Alvin, Now you need get interchanble lens video camera with Super 35mm sensor.

[Drew]

Eun Jae, don't forget super slo mo and 4k!

[howeikwok]

It's all greek to me!! but i will do more research and ask more questions when the time comes for me to decide to spend $$ on a new system. Right now a 2nd hand video cam and my old canon 50D works fine for me.

[peterbkk]

It's all greek to me!! but i will do more research and ask more questions when the time comes for me to decide to spend $$ on a new system. Right now a 2nd hand video cam and my old canon 50D works fine for me.

Quite right. Having the latest and greatest equipment is not necessary to create a masterpiece.

In fact, my preference has always been to stick to one system for as long as possible. The value gained from knowing how it will react to any situation is more that the dubious value of new features and functions...

[SimonSpear]

Seeing as that wasn't shot with a tripod it was very good. Well done and don't worry too much about the technobabble. Best way to improve is to get out and dive!!

Cheers, Simon

Edited by SimonSpear, 26 August 2012 - 04:38 AM.