pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photographer trying out footage for the first time - at the airport  (Read 5293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« on: June 22, 2017, 02:31 »
0
Hey fellow photography / footage microstock grinders,

I'm a photographer but trying out some footage for the first time. I live close to a major airport and was there last night trying out. The light was a bit flat but just getting a feel for it, will go back there today as it seems to have cleared up.

Would you mind taking a look at some the footage and getting me your brutally honest feedback?

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/1595060?language=en

Was shot at 24 fps at f8, iso 800 and about 1/200 secs.

I also tried to do a timelapse - 3 mins into 20 seconds but was rejected for "Resolution / Aspect -- Clip is a non-standard resolution or is pillarboxed, letterboxed or matted." Still trying to figure out how to fix it.

Thanks

Alex


« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2017, 03:09 »
+2
Well, without even looking at the footage I can tell you that the shutter speed should have been 1/48th of a second.

« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2017, 05:02 »
0
I watched one clip.

It looked like an airliner in the distance driving along a country lane with high hedges before disappearing behind a tree.



« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2017, 05:24 »
0
Video is not photography. It is much, much, much, much harder.
Man, you have a loooooong way to go.
And BTW, why ISO 800???

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2017, 05:29 »
+2
Quote
Video is not photography. It is much, much, much, much harder.
Man, you have a loooooong way to go.
And BTW, why ISO 800???

That's why you guys are here to help! :D


« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2017, 05:46 »
+1
Hey fellow photography / footage microstock grinders,

I'm a photographer but trying out some footage for the first time. I live close to a major airport and was there last night trying out. The light was a bit flat but just getting a feel for it, will go back there today as it seems to have cleared up.

Would you mind taking a look at some the footage and getting me your brutally honest feedback?

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/1595060?language=en

Was shot at 24 fps at f8, iso 800 and about 1/200 secs.

I also tried to do a timelapse - 3 mins into 20 seconds but was rejected for "Resolution / Aspect -- Clip is a non-standard resolution or is pillarboxed, letterboxed or matted." Still trying to figure out how to fix it.

Thanks

Alex

Firstly the shots are just too far away could you get closer?  I know the boundary fence will prevent that but perhaps shots from the end of the runway?

This clip does a little shimmy https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-28035073-stock-footage-milan-italy-june-st-an-alitalia-airplane-takes-off-from-milan-s-linate-airport-an.html?src=gallery/_51vUnnlyuu_Ed4oXN3V0Q:1:5/3p

You have to be careful knocking the tripod

1/200 is too much 1/50 is good start point but you may need to use filters to hold back the light.  However you can then shoot at ISO 100 to 200.

I use Cokin P-Series filters both graduated and straight neutral density filters and they work fine and are cheap too.

Instead of 24 fps try 50 60 fps  whatever your camera supports it makes the video smoother

« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 05:54 by Sammy the Cat »

« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2017, 05:50 »
0
As mentioned, start by ensuring the shutter speed is about half the frame rate - so 1/50th of a second for 24 fps - all you have to do in this case is use ISO 200 and that would have done it.  Always best to use a lower ISO if you can anyway.

As for the timelapse, did you crop it to 1920 x 1080 px?

« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2017, 05:56 »
+1
Why do you think that video is that different to photography?

Think, for a moment, of your video as a series of still photographs.

None of the stills in your first video is well composed or interesting.

And, as a result, the video is poor. I don't know why it was accepted.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2017, 06:16 »
0
Great comment guys, thanks. I'm using a d7000 with a 18-300 lens. I'm not sure it goes higher than 24 fps but I'll check. I may have to upgrade.

I chose this angle because of the skyscrapers and on a clear day can see the mountains (see pic). It's tough these days because of the heat making it oof. Closer may be better but the fence is annoying.

I'll look into the ND filters and always shooting at ISO 100. Need to throw some photography concepts out the window...

Thanks

« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2017, 08:33 »
+1
Hey fellow photography / footage microstock grinders,

I'm a photographer but trying out some footage for the first time. I live close to a major airport and was there last night trying out. The light was a bit flat but just getting a feel for it, will go back there today as it seems to have cleared up.

Would you mind taking a look at some the footage and getting me your brutally honest feedback?

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/1595060?language=en

Was shot at 24 fps at f8, iso 800 and about 1/200 secs.

I also tried to do a timelapse - 3 mins into 20 seconds but was rejected for "Resolution / Aspect -- Clip is a non-standard resolution or is pillarboxed, letterboxed or matted." Still trying to figure out how to fix it.

Thanks

Alex

Firstly the shots are just too far away could you get closer?  I know the boundary fence will prevent that but perhaps shots from the end of the runway?

This clip does a little shimmy https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-28035073-stock-footage-milan-italy-june-st-an-alitalia-airplane-takes-off-from-milan-s-linate-airport-an.html?src=gallery/_51vUnnlyuu_Ed4oXN3V0Q:1:5/3p

You have to be careful knocking the tripod

1/200 is too much 1/50 is good start point but you may need to use filters to hold back the light.  However you can then shoot at ISO 100 to 200.

I use Cokin P-Series filters both graduated and straight neutral density filters and they work fine and are cheap too.

Instead of 24 fps try 50 60 fps  whatever your camera supports it makes the video smoother

I think that this happens when he pushes the button to start the video capture.
It happens the same to me, so I cut the first frames when I edit the movie.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 08:37 by Chichikov »

« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2017, 08:36 »
0
Most films are released at 24 fps so that's not a huge issue unless you want to get some slow motion shots which would require 60-120 fps.

Others have said it, bring your ISO down, no need to have unwanted noise and it will allow you to drop your shutter speed.

Aim for a shutter speed around twice your frame rate. This gives a natural motion blur to moving elements. Higher shutter speeds end up looking a little weird. It's a little counter-intuitive when you start from photography since you're used to trying to freeze your moving objects with a high shutter speed.

For aspect ratios, try to go with a standard ratio such as 16:9 (cropping to this in lightroom is easy) which also corresponds to 1920x1080 for HD, 3840x2160  for UHD, and 4096x2304 for true 4K.

« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2017, 08:42 »
0
Quote
Video is not photography. It is much, much, much, much harder.
Man, you have a loooooong way to go.
And BTW, why ISO 800???

That's why you guys are here to help! :D

Do you think this is what what Canon is saying to Sony when they don't know how to improve their sensor technology?
Do you think Apple is asking Samsung for help, when they struggle to implement a new feature?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 08:44 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2017, 14:32 »
+1
don't want to be rude and it's my opinion, i know u are a good guy and come from my county:),....but really what's the point to upload this kind of stuff and most of all what drives anybody to accept it?

Light- terrible, harsh
exposure- underexposed
subjec- impossible to understand apart 2 ec in the end
composition. i'm speechless.

if anybody begin uploading anything we can reach 10 billion files in a month i think.

and your photo are not that bad, you showed a bit of capacity...why on the earth you uploaded this? just because you wanted to know if they would have accepted anything?


« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2017, 15:08 »
+2
If you want an honest comparison to your work, type in 'plane taking off at airport' into Shutterstock search and look at the clips that come up. Compare your clips to the best clips of the first page of your search. That is your competition, so unless you can match that standard or do better, probably not worth uploading. You have to be honest with your work and compare it to the best. These clips should never have passed QC.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2017, 15:37 »
0
Quote
and your photo are not that bad, you showed a bit of capacity...why on the earth you uploaded this? just because you wanted to know if they would have accepted anything?

I'm experimenting and uploaded just to test. To be honest I didn't expect it to be accepted so I guess it shows how standards have fallen lol

I don't get upset with the criticism, i'm new to video like i'm new to learning japanese so it's like climbing a tall mountain, one step at a time. most of the guys here are already high up in the mountain :)

Jonbull, you're from brazil?

« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2017, 15:51 »
0
OK, 3 tips if you want to shoot airplanes, although it is extremely difficult to sell a clip, as there are zillion of excellent quality (I must admit that I sell quite a few of them)
- Do some sort of slow motion , at least 48 fps, especially for taking off, with landing you might get away with real time 24fps
- Fill the bloody frame with the plane. You are showing a tiny little thing miles away behind the trees. If you did not say it was a plane, maybe we would not have noticed. If you cannot get any close, use a 400mm lens, or a 600mmm, or shoot in 4k so you can crop down a bit, but in any case fill that frame with the plane, or even part of the plane
- Since you will be using an extremely long lens, you need not only a very good tripod, but also an excellent fluid head and you have to spend days and days learning how to use it smoothly
- And specially, avoid at any costs trying to shoot planes from a perpendicular angle as you did here, simply a waste of time. You should be in line with the plane (parallel to it), so that you kill the angular speed. If you cannot do it in Linate, move to another airport
- Only shoot in good light, possibly at golden time. The light in those "clips" is simply the worst one can ever imagine. But you should know that, as the author of a best seller book about stock photography :-)

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2017, 02:05 »
+1
Quote
But you should know that, as the author of a best seller book about stock photography :-)

I have another best seller coming soon - "Fifty Shades of Microstock"  :-*

« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2017, 02:18 »
+1
Quote
But you should know that, as the author of a best seller book about stock photography :-)

I have another best seller coming soon - "Fifty Shades of Microstock"  :-*
For a moment I feared it was "How to shoot perfect video footage"

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2017, 03:13 »
0
Quote
For a moment I feared it was "How to shoot perfect video footage"

Haha it will be called more like "How not to shoot video footage".

Going out this evening into Piazza Duomo and gonna try out some time-lapses :D

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2017, 13:57 »
0
Put together this time lapse last night, please critique:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYasocP9eSY

I've submitted to SS and still pending.

Thanks

Alex

« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2017, 14:06 »
0
Tip:

Buy an ND filter and use longer shutter speeds, or you will have to spend lots of time blurring faces.  ;)

For natural looking motion blur, use a shutter speed of around half the interval time. So if you take a picture every 4 seconds, use a 2 second shutter speed. You will need an ND filter to do this during the day. Everything will look nicer and smoother.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2017, 14:17 »
0
Quote
or you will have to spend lots of time blurring faces.

No value in submitting editorials?

« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2017, 14:34 »
0
Sure, some. But more value submitting commercially ready. You won't be able to use Fotolia or some other sites.

But the motion blur issue still stands. Longer shutter speeds looks more professional.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2017, 14:36 »
0
Quote
But the motion blur issue still stands. Longer shutter speeds looks more professional.

Yes, will look into the ND filter for my 24-70 f2.8 lens. Managed to get it down to 1/80 but probably too fast. Thanks for your tips :)

By the way, SS accepted the footage but whether it will be licensed is another matter altogether, as always!

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/1595060?contributor=Alexandre+Rotenberg&editorial=1&page=1&perpage=100&sort=popular&translation_method=service&use_local_boost=0&language=en&lang=en

« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 15:43 by Brasilnut »

« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2017, 15:38 »
+1
1/80 won't do, you absolutely need ND filters for daytime motion blur. For any type of filming really, not just timelapses.

Yes, many will accept timelapses with clearly visible faces in single frames. Of course no one can tell who it is when the timelapse is playing at full speed but I don't like selling commercial clips where you can just pause the clip and easily identify any person in the clip. Especially if it's in 4k. I would rather blur out the faces or put it as editorial.

It takes time but I feel it's the right thing to do.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2017, 05:57 »
0
Any tips on my latest two time-lapses?

Managed to get the shutter speed down to 1/40 secs.

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/1595060?language=en

Any commercial value on these?

Thanks in advance

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2017, 07:21 »
+2
For me (and I'm no great video expert!), the street scene suffers from poor lighting - the bright building in the background attracts the attention and all the people are in shadow. I think it suffers a bit because of that. In the Piazza, the people in the background are interesting, but the ones that pass close to the camera are quite distracting. Not sure how you would have stopped that (except by being further away), but I think it detracts from the usefulness of the scene.

Steve

« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2017, 08:34 »
+1
Since they are both editorial I would say zero commercial value.   ;)

But if someone needs something from that exact street, then sure.

They're not really time lapses though, just sped up video (8 times?).

Of course, one can argue where "time lapse" begins, but I would say at 25-50 times real-time at least.

Anyway, to get good looking motion blur we're talking 1 second exposure time.

Better light, one picture every 2 seconds with a 1 second exposure time could increase the commercial value.

If you sell it as editorial I think it's better to just upload the real-time video. Better chance of selling.

wds

« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2017, 08:48 »
0
I would suggest uploading to POND5 as well.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2017, 09:01 »
0
You have a recurring issue with not keeping your horizon level.

« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2017, 09:02 »
0
Pay much more attention to details.
Example, the 3 clips in Piazza Duomo:
- You have the worst possible light you can choose: summer, sunny, middle of the day. That is the time when photographers sleep. Extremely harsh shadows, flat colours; come on you can go there at sunrise, Piazza Duomo doesn't move much
- No clouds in the sky. Static time lapses of landmarks (I call them dynamic postcards) need at the very least moving skies. I would never do one in a cloudless day
- In two of them the top of the Duomo is chopped off
- In another one there is a van of Carabinieri covering part of the subject!

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2017, 09:28 »
0
I'm no video footage expert by any means, but personally I don't like the composition in the Piazza Duomo clips. The lighting is just plain boring. In other words: the Piazza lacks pizzazz-a.

The plane videos are mostly just boring. The subject is a tiny dot in the distance and the hay field takes up most of the screen. The camera movements are jerky.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2017, 09:35 »
0
Great stuff! I need to improve a lot, that's a given.

Any free software anybody would recommend to start off with to post-process the video...then perhaps something that's inexpensive (I'm on PC btw)? Also need some ND filters...I have one for my 10-20mm but need one for my 24-70mm.

 

« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2017, 09:41 »
+1
Great stuff! I need to improve a lot, that's a given.

Any free software anybody would recommend to start off with to post-process the video...then perhaps something that's inexpensive (I'm on PC btw)? Also need some ND filters...I have one for my 10-20mm but need one for my 24-70mm.
Welcome to video!
You will need software much more complex and expensive, tripod with a fluid head, slider (motorised for timelapses), hand held gimbal, several ND filters for each lens, motorised panning head, drone... and so on.
Video is another world compared to photography

« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2017, 10:42 »
0
From the title, I was sure this thread was going to be about an airport security guard trying to confiscate your camera.

« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2017, 11:01 »
0
Great stuff! I need to improve a lot, that's a given.

Any free software anybody would recommend to start off with to post-process the video...then perhaps something that's inexpensive (I'm on PC btw)? Also need some ND filters...I have one for my 10-20mm but need one for my 24-70mm.

I would say LRtimelapse which is almost essential in my workflow for time lapses, especially useful for ramping parameters in changing light conditions. I started shooting some time lapses not long ago and managed to have clips online ( and actually sold some). You can see mine here. https://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/461209?language=en

csm

« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2017, 11:21 »
0
From the title, I was sure this thread was going to be about an airport security guard trying to confiscate your camera.

Set camera to manual during the day and use RAW to avoid flicker.

As for the airport ones, where would they be used? That`s I`m always thinking when I upload anything?

That`s what I like about video, the bar is much higher than stills, video is still early days for me, but it`s a lot harder for anyone to just start doing good footage overnight, with the glutton of stills images being uploaded everywhere, I`ve given up on stills. But for video, less competition, I think with video, clients are less likely to use poor videos. I like to look at the front page of the SS video page, for example,  and think that`s what I need to be aiming for, quality wise.

wds

« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2017, 12:37 »
0
Great stuff! I need to improve a lot, that's a given.

Any free software anybody would recommend to start off with to post-process the video...then perhaps something that's inexpensive (I'm on PC btw)? Also need some ND filters...I have one for my 10-20mm but need one for my 24-70mm.

How about DaVinci Resolve...

« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2017, 12:48 »
0
How about DaVinci Resolve...

It's not free for 4k. And if you're doing time lapses, you're doing 4k.

Anyway, get ND filters for your biggest lens and you can use step down rings for the smaller lenses. Same filters.

« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2017, 13:24 »
0
Great stuff! I need to improve a lot, that's a given.

Any free software anybody would recommend to start off with to post-process the video...then perhaps something that's inexpensive (I'm on PC btw)? Also need some ND filters...I have one for my 10-20mm but need one for my 24-70mm.
I use virtualdub for a lot of my timelapse workflow http://www.virtualdub.org/

wds

« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2017, 15:19 »
0
How about DaVinci Resolve...

It's not free for 4k. And if you're doing time lapses, you're doing 4k.

Anyway, get ND filters for your biggest lens and you can use step down rings for the smaller lenses. Same filters.

I'm pretty sure it does UHD...so probably close enough.

« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2017, 15:24 »
0
I'm pretty sure it does UHD...so probably close enough.

Yes, probably.  :)

I like to do real 4k (4096x2304) or 5k when I can.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2017, 15:27 »
0
Shot this one today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4r9TrUS8kQ

Please critique. 20 mins into 17 seconds at 64x.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2017, 15:59 »
0
The composition still isn't interesting. I'm looking at bushes and a fence.

I can see some planes for a length of 3 frames. What's the point of timelapsing if the landing can't be seen?

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2017, 16:21 »
0
Quote
I can see some planes for a length of 3 frames. What's the point of timelapsing if the landing can't be seen?

How about this wobble wooble one?

https://youtu.be/eK2TObqDgcM

I need to try to find a better angle somewhere...no doubt

« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2017, 20:41 »
+2
Quote
I can see some planes for a length of 3 frames. What's the point of timelapsing if the landing can't be seen?

How about this wobble wooble one?

https://youtu.be/eK2TObqDgcM

I need to try to find a better angle somewhere...no doubt

Confused... are you seriously looking for criticism or intentionally producing awful material as some form of strange trolling?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2017, 23:05 »
+2
What everyone else said. It's a shot of a plain looking field in poor lighting, that happens to have a few planes that fly by very rapidly, every so often. The non-timelapse is better as it makes the plane more of the prominent feature, rather than the field. Timelapse doesn;t work from that angle. A good airport timelapse would show planes landing, taxiing and taking off.

I'm not even a photographer, and you can barely call me a videographer, but I'm pretty sure you can change three things to get a decent framed shot...

1. Move your subject. Not going to work here, the airport wouldn't be very happy.

2. Change your focal length. Probably not going to work here either. Zoom in and you've just got more field and even less plane. Zoom out and are you gaining anything?

3. Move the camera. That fence isn't going to help though. Is there higher ground somewhere around the airport? Do you have a friend with a van that you could get on top of for a better angle?

Option four is to not bother. If you can't change the parameters above... or you can and the image still lacks interest, just give up and shoot something else. Take your photo of the drink with Rio in the background. Imagine if you put the camera on the floor of the balcony, pointed it at the drink, removed your hand, and shot it at noon on a cloudy day. That's what we have here. Would it sell? Would there be any point in creating it?

Apart from changes to your setting, and a few other considerations like ND filters and interesting movement within the scene... you should be dealing with videos the same as you would photos. i.e. lighting, composition, content... they're the big ones in any setup.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2017, 01:01 »
+1
Minimise the fence/field vibe, get a better angle, add a city in the background for interest, go real time, add some kind of rogue planet entering the atmosphere for a swashbuckling adventure vibe, a bit of golden hour action... and you're good to go.




« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2017, 01:40 »
0
I think the fence actually looks really cool.
Too bad that from time to time you can kind of see for a moment some sort of birds or insects in the background, very distracting

« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2017, 04:56 »
0
Quote
I can see some planes for a length of 3 frames. What's the point of timelapsing if the landing can't be seen?

How about this wobble wooble one?

https://youtu.be/eK2TObqDgcM

I need to try to find a better angle somewhere...no doubt

Confused... are you seriously looking for criticism or intentionally producing awful material as some form of strange trolling?


My guess is he is getting free input from you all for his second book on shooting video.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2017, 08:49 »
0
Good stuff. That angle doesn't work.

I've decided what I'll do...I can just about get the small aperture in one of the holes from the fence and see what I can do at full zoom (300mm on a crop sensor). Here's what I captured with the still and hope to replicate with footage with hopefully better lighting conditions.

This is cropped because the edges are vignette due to the wires so may have to crop on the videos too (not sure how to do it but i'll figure it out).

Thanks (almost) everybody for your comments  :D
« Last Edit: July 11, 2017, 08:51 by Brasilnut »

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2017, 14:08 »
0
For whatever it's worth, here's my latest attempt:

https://youtu.be/NgE3sBYnu6M

Thanks

csm

« Reply #52 on: July 11, 2017, 15:19 »
0
Did you knock the tripod at the beginning?
Look at the SS video homepage, that`s what you need to aspire to.

« Reply #53 on: July 11, 2017, 15:37 »
+1
For whatever it's worth, here's my latest attempt:

https://youtu.be/NgE3sBYnu6M

Thanks
Actually this one is much, much better.
You got the angle almost right now and the right lens, and you got the action of the tyre smoking pretty well.
But forget about shooting in Milano during the summer: that grey sky kills any kind of footage and Milano in the summer is like that all the time.
As said previously if you want to sell footage you must be in the first page, which means that everything must be perfect, like perfect blue sky with nice white clouds and possibly a huge moon raising

« Reply #54 on: July 11, 2017, 15:39 »
+1
Keep practicing this shot a lot, than go back in the winter at sunrise or sunset in a day without fog, if you find one in Milano.
Then you might sell one

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #55 on: July 11, 2017, 22:44 »
0
Did you leave image stabilisation on, while on a tripod? The sudden appearance of the plane would make the camera think the scene is changing due to movement, which may have caused the wobble. Always best to turn stabilisation off when on a tripod. Or did you shoot hand held and use some image stabilisation effect in post? The same thing can happen if the scene changes dramatically... the software tries to compensate, rarely that well.

Apart from that, the content and framing is loads better. Sky still looks a bit poor. Are you shooting using a flat/neutral colour profile? Looks a little bit 'contrasty'. 

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #56 on: July 12, 2017, 16:59 »
0
Quote
Did you leave image stabilisation on, while on a tripod? The sudden appearance of the plane would make the camera think the scene is changing due to movement, which may have caused the wobble.

Yes. I was using a tripod. I will switch it off next time, thanks for the tip. I tried to compensate on software later anti-wobble.

Quote
Are you shooting using a flat/neutral colour profile?

No post-processing, straight out of the camera.

I'll go back to the same scene in late summer/early autumn as it's way too hazy now.


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #57 on: July 12, 2017, 23:58 »
0
But you can set the colour profile in the camera. You'll usually have options like portrait, landscape, vivid, neutral/flat etc. You've probably never used them as you'll be shooting stills in RAW all the time, so there's no need, but with video it can add (or at least simulate) a bit more dynamic range, reduce the contrast, and leave more room for post with a picture that looks closer to shooting in LOG. Worth a go!   

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #58 on: September 08, 2017, 11:01 »
0
Hey Hey I'm back!

Would you guys give me some advice on this video, please?

Also, are these types of beach shots "done to death"? Thanks in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuS_wWEMBh4&feature=youtu.be

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2017, 22:39 »
0
It's a bit dark! I would have shot it 15 minutes earlier... more or less. If you're getting a blown out sky as a result, I'd take two shots and mask them together. Relatively simple as it's a static shot with not too much detail on the horizon.

And you still seem to have the recurring issue of not getting a level horizon!

Best thing to do... watch the video full screen. Pause it. Would you upload that as a still image? If not... head back to the drawing board.

« Reply #60 on: September 10, 2017, 00:36 »
+1
Hey Hey I'm back!

Would you guys give me some advice on this video, please?

Also, are these types of beach shots "done to death"? Thanks in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuS_wWEMBh4&feature=youtu.be

Is the horizon straight? Doesn't look it

« Reply #61 on: September 10, 2017, 03:21 »
0
Hey Hey I'm back!

Would you guys give me some advice on this video, please?

Also, are these types of beach shots "done to death"? Thanks in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuS_wWEMBh4&feature=youtu.be
In your video settings reduce contrast and saturation. The aim is to a a very flat profile to increase the dynamic range, you can then increase them as needed in post production.
In this clip there is way too much contrast: the highlights are blown out and the shadows too dark. Not much you can do in post production


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
8978 Views
Last post February 18, 2011, 12:28
by m@m
2 Replies
1047 Views
Last post August 19, 2014, 15:30
by PeterChigmaroff
3 Replies
1082 Views
Last post October 06, 2015, 12:00
by cobalt
2 Replies
817 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 07:23
by enstoker
5 Replies
950 Views
Last post February 03, 2017, 17:08
by Wrighty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors