Author Topic: Photographer trying out footage for the first time - at the airport (Read 21105 times)

Brasilnut · « **Reply #25 on:** July 10, 2017, 05:57 »

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 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 10, 2017, 07:21 »

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

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #27 on:** July 10, 2017, 08:34 »

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 »

I would suggest uploading to POND5 as well.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #29 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:01 »

You have a recurring issue with not keeping your horizon level.

Brightontl · « **Reply #30 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:02 »

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 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:28 »

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 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:35 »

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.

Brightontl · « **Reply #33 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:41 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 10, 2017, 09:35

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

PigsInSpace · « **Reply #34 on:** July 10, 2017, 10:42 »

From the title, I was sure this thread was going to be about an airport security guard trying to confiscate your camera.

miR156 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 10, 2017, 11:01 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 10, 2017, 09:35

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 »

Quote from: PigsInSpace on July 10, 2017, 10:42

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 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 10, 2017, 09:35

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...

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #38 on:** July 10, 2017, 12:48 »

Quote from: wds on July 10, 2017, 12:37

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #39 on:** July 10, 2017, 13:24 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 10, 2017, 09:35

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 »

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on July 10, 2017, 12:48

Quote from: wds on July 10, 2017, 12:37
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.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #41 on:** July 10, 2017, 15:24 »

Quote from: wds on July 10, 2017, 15:19

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 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 10, 2017, 15:27 »

Shot this one today:

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

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

Noedelhap · « **Reply #43 on:** July 10, 2017, 15:59 »

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 · « **Reply #44 on:** July 10, 2017, 16:21 »

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

travelstock · « **Reply #45 on:** July 10, 2017, 20:41 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 10, 2017, 16:21

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 · « **Reply #46 on:** July 10, 2017, 23:05 »

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 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 11, 2017, 01:01 »

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.

Brightontl · « **Reply #48 on:** July 11, 2017, 01:40 »

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #49 on:** July 11, 2017, 04:56 »

Quote from: travelstock on July 10, 2017, 20:41

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 10, 2017, 16:21
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photographer trying out footage for the first time - at the airport (Read 21105 times)

Brasilnut

steheap

increasingdifficulty

wds

SpaceStockFootage

Brightontl

Noedelhap

Brasilnut

Brightontl

PigsInSpace

miR156

csm

wds

increasingdifficulty

sharpshot

wds

increasingdifficulty

Brasilnut

Noedelhap

Brasilnut

travelstock

SpaceStockFootage

SpaceStockFootage

Brightontl

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors