Blackmagic Forum

What difference and importance IS makes when we are equipped with tripod, Fluid Head or on a edelcrone pocket dolly?

Also Metabones SpeedBooster vs IS i.e MFT vs EF ? which is more useful and considered in a feature film shoot?

You're talking about lens stabilization?
I always turn that off when the camera is on a tripod, dolly, etc.

Leaving it on sometimes gives some pretty weird results as the lens is trying to stabilize a pan or dolly move.
Sometimes I leave it off even if I'm on a steadicam.

Jake

kk5hy wrote:You're talking about lens stabilization?
I always turn that off when the camera is on a tripod, dolly, etc.

Leaving it on sometimes gives some pretty weird results as the lens is trying to stabilize a pan or dolly move.
Sometimes I leave it off even if I'm on a steadicam.

Jake

yeah...I mean to ask if I go with bmcc mft , it is passive mount so IS is not possible, so how shall I handheld it for a smooth video without shakes ??? like how to use it like a steadicam?

Luctantem wrote:yeah...I mean to ask if I go with bmcc mft , it is passive mount so IS is not possible, so how shall I handheld it for a smooth video without shakes ??? like how to use it like a steadicam?

I've seen good footage using the Blackbird camera stabilizer. It's not as big as steadicam with arm vest etc.
http://www.camotionllc.com/blackbird-a-78.html

Link to video (by Andrew Julian) here:


Not sure if that's what you mean?

Cheers,
Jules

Oh I see,
First off, I don't have any BMC yet. In my example, I'm talking about my DSLR or Canon C300 but the information should be the same no matter what camera you are using.

Like I said, usually I turn off the lens stabilization on the lens if I'm on a steadicam. It should be steady enough without any additional lens stabilization anyway.

I don't hand hold any camera body without some support, usually a shoulder mount or in the case of my C300 I have a Zacuto Target Shooter that has a "gunstock" piece that rests on the front of my arm/shoulder.
So I have a few points of contact to help stabilize the camera, in which case I may or may not keep the lens stabilizer turned on depending on the shot or if I'm moving around a lot.

Jake

Luctantem wrote:yeah...I mean to ask if I go with bmcc mft , it is passive mount so IS is not possible, so how shall I handheld it for a smooth video without shakes ??? like how to use it like a steadicam?

Probably you'll never get smooth video in handheld mode, even with IS! You'll need some kind of support, like a shoulder rig, a Glidecam or a Steadicam.

The shoulder rig still gives this handheld effect, but without the annoying shakes coming from the hands. Alternatively, you can buy a camera cage or even Blackmagic's handles (I don't know how well they work though).

The Glidecam is a stabilizer that is more difficult to operate than Steadicam, but with practice you can get pretty good results with smooth movement, and the whole thing costs a lot less than Steadicam.

And Steadicam... well, it's Steadicam.

I usually turn IS off when the camera is on a tripod. About other stabilisers: I should receive my gimbal stabiliser in September and will test it with both the 5D Mark III + ML RAW hack and the BMCC 2.5K. It will be interesting to see whether lens-based IS adds anything to gimbal stabilisation.

I turn my stabilizer off too.. It will do some weird fluid motion.. it's not bad, but it's noticeable and weird, when the camera is still and the subject is not moving.

so I can probably do steadycam shots with passive bmcc MFT with lens wino no IS with a decent practise? am I ryt?

Luctantem wrote:so I can probably do steadycam shots with passive bmcc MFT with lens wino no IS with a decent practise? am I ryt?

Yes, people have been shooting smooth-looking steadicam-supported film/video (without using lens IS) for decades.

And yes, using a steadicam-type system typically requires a lot of practice to get good results.

-

If I'm right, there's no professional cine lens that has IS. I think that IS was a technology meant to be used by still photographers only, from its beginnings.

I think you're too obsessed with IS

Don't use it for features.

Jules

georgetsirogiannis wrote:If I'm right, there's no professional cine lens that has IS. I think that IS was a technology meant to be used by still photographers only, from its beginnings.

Yes, the Image Stabilisation feature on some stills lenses actually looks odd when used for video. On the EF mount, the Canon 24-105mm F/4 L IS lens is pretty decent for video though.

Jules Bushell wrote:I think you're too obsessed with IS Don't use it for features.
Jules

Sry, I dint get you.

georgetsirogiannis wrote:If I'm right, there's no professional cine lens that has IS. I think that IS was a technology meant to be used by still photographers only, from its beginnings.

Very Interesting... Can someone plz elucidate more.

So choosing MFT over Ef is pretty easy coz we are almost getting everything on mft.

Luctantem wrote:

Jules Bushell wrote:I think you're too obsessed with IS Don't use it for features.
Jules

Sry, I dint get you.

It's simple really... Don't ever use IS when shooting a feature film. Use tripod, tracks/dolly, jibs, shoulder rig, steadicam, motion control, After Effects etc. Don't ever use IS.

Now do tell me which movies use lens IS and then I can be re-educated. I'm always willing to learn.

Jules

Luctantem wrote:

georgetsirogiannis wrote:If I'm right, there's no professional cine lens that has IS. I think that IS was a technology meant to be used by still photographers only, from its beginnings.

Very Interesting... Can someone plz elucidate more.

There's not much to say actually. If you have a DSLR, try taking photos in moderately long exposures with and without IS. Then try shooting a short video with and without IS. You'll get the difference.

In a nutshell - don't go handheld, if you want a pro result.

Frank Glencairn wrote:In a nutshell - don't go handheld, if you want a pro result.

I hope you're not suggesting/recommending that pros never shoot handheld.

I agree that, for most productions & most scenes, handheld isn't appropriate, but occasionally it's perfect for the story being told. Right?

-

Peter J. DeCrescenzo wrote:

Frank Glencairn wrote:In a nutshell - don't go handheld, if you want a pro result.

I hope you're not suggesting/recommending that pros never shoot handheld.

I agree that, for most productions & most scenes, handheld isn't appropriate, but occasionally it's perfect for the story being told. Right?

-

I guess "handheld" here means grabbing your camera with bare hands, which of course is not much professional except for cases where the script/mood/atmosphere of a particular moment in a film asks for it. The "professional handheld" shot, so to speak, is the one where the camera is on a shoulder rig or some other kind of "moderate" stabilization. At least when talking about lightweight cameras.