Shooting live concerts

Does anyone have experience shooting live concerts with BMD products? I'm a (hopefully) soon to be rookie of BMD products. I've shot live concerts before, but with prosumer camcorders on auto.

Questions I have: What is the best frame rate? I've always shot in 60i/p but the space limitations of the BMPCC and SD cards may force me to shoot in 24p. Is that acceptable for this kind of shoot? The subjects will be anywhere from low light in a bar to typical venue type lighting and the end product will most likely be posted on YouTube and authored to Blu-rays.

I also am looking for a decent lens for this type of shoot to go with the BMPCC (and possibly BMCC with the recent price drop). Needs OIS and zoom as I may be close to the stage but might be all the way in the back, the more compact the better.

Was looking at these:

http://amzn.com/B005J5TZVG

http://amzn.com/B00843ERMW

Thanks!

Haven't you already got threads open for this Tom?

We typically shoot 720p50 on HMC150s and NX5s, with a moderate shutter speed. On the BMPCC I'd just shoot 1080p30, which seems to be the fastest frame rate it supports.

In terms of lens, are you shooting on stage, from back of room, side, etc. Clearly makes a huge difference. We typically put cameras with highest zooms at the back of the room, and this is usually around 100mm lenses. Shorter lenses go on stage or in the crowd.

I asked the question buried in a thread concerning general questions about the BMPCC, thought it was thread-worthy at the top-level of a Cinematography forum, sorry if it's overkill.

I'll typically be in the back of the room and not doing close-ups of the band. Just a full stage shot and zoomed out to show the lights. Mostly.

Is it true that 60 is better than 24 for low light conditions?

I asked the question buried in a thread concerning general questions about the BMPCC, thought it was thread-worthy at the top-level of a Cinematography forum, sorry if it's overkill.

I'll typically be in the back of the room and not doing close-ups of the band. Just a full stage shot and zoomed out to show the lights. Mostly.

Is it true that 60 is better than 24 for low light conditions?

We shot 30p with the BMCC EF using film setting for ProRes in a concert situation a month ago. We had the BMCC set up at the sound control position in middle of auditorium. I selected the my old Nikon 1970/80 lens as a fixed lens since we were doing the same thing you want to do, locked down for wide shots. This was fairly easy, as stage lighting remained constant. Camera worked well and resulting image was very clean, crisp, and displayed the camera wide dynamic range.

Shooting ProRes 422 HQ at 24 fps will save about 20% bandwidth compared to 30 fps, or the other way round you can record about 25% longer at 24p than at 30p. Don't know if that difference is enough to influence your framerate decision.

From my experience in concert filming the difference between 24 and 30 fps is noticeable, but not too severe - just don't select less than 90 degrees (better 180 degrees) shutter angle when using 24 fps; yet if you want to upload to youtube or vimeo you should always use 30 fps to avoid framerate conversions (either at their servers, or during playback) - otherwise you'll likely get that periodic stutter every 5 or 6 frames.

I asked the question buried in a thread concerning general questions about the BMPCC, thought it was thread-worthy at the top-level of a Cinematography forum, sorry if it's overkill.

I'll typically be in the back of the room and not doing close-ups of the band. Just a full stage shot and zoomed out to show the lights. Mostly.

Is it true that 60 is better than 24 for low light conditions?

Higher frame rate is way better for what you are doing.

Regarding lenses.. how far back will you be from the stage? I use the BMCC for my church and I stand about 40 feet away. To get all the stage and up to mid torso in the frame I have a 70-200mm lens. So you need something like that.. If it's the pocket camera your using, you'll need a longer lens.. but stay within the 50-70mm range for the lower end. Maybe a suitable 70-300mm if you can find one.

If it's the pocket camera your using, you'll need a longer lens.. but stay within the 50-70mm range for the lower end. Maybe a suitable 70-300mm if you can find one.

You need to rethink that.

Regarding lenses.. how far back will you be from the stage?

Distance could be pretty varied. I might be at a bar, a club or all the way across from the stage at MSG.

Was looking at these two for the pocket cam:

http://amzn.com/B005J5TZVG
http://amzn.com/B00843ERMW

Is it true that 60 is better than 24 for low light conditions?

Who told you that? Shooting 60 fps will gather only 40% the light compared to 24 fps! Especially in low light situations you want to record the lowest framerate possible. Of course, if you can, get a faster lens, as fast as possible! And note that long focus (tele lens) usually means low aperture, so less light; this means: always try to get as near to the stage as possible (this will increase the depth perception as well, and let your viewers experience that "been there" feeling).

Regarding lenses.. how far back will you be from the stage?

Distance could be pretty varied. I might be at a bar, a club or all the way across from the stage at MSG.

Was looking at these two for the pocket cam:

http://amzn.com/B005J5TZVG
http://amzn.com/B00843ERMW

Hi there, I shoot Music videos and concerts for a living, I have pre ordered the pocket camera for this purpose also. In my experience concerts tend to be pretty dark so you need quite a good aperture to keep the ISO down. on my canon i find the 50mm 1.4 to be the best for these situations. so something that would be the equivalent of this would be the best bet in my experience. maybe the Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm or 25mm. but they don't come cheap and it's not a zoom lens.

Do you shoot in 60p?

I'll take a look at those lenses but I definitely need OIS and zoom.

Do you shoot in 60p?

I'll take a look at those lenses but I definitely need OIS and zoom.

No I shoot at 25fps as said earlier, you lose light at 60fps.
I don't use IS because I have a sturdy shoulder rig. Zoom would be handy but getting a great low light zoom will lose you light again.

Do you shoot in 60p?

I'll take a look at those lenses but I definitely need OIS and zoom.

No I shoot at 25fps as said earlier, you lose light at 60fps.
I don't use IS because I have a sturdy shoulder rig. Zoom would be handy but getting a great low light zoom will lose you light again.

Herpy derp!

*a zoom will lose you light!

Ah, thanks. I thought that you gained light with 60p, not lose it.

In your experience, as stated above, is uploading 24/25fps to YouTube/Vimeo problematic?

I'll probably wind up with two rigs, one that is rock solid steady where I don't need OIS or a zoom lens and one that is more stealthy and portable that has both.

Ah, thanks. I thought that you gained light with 60p, not lose it.

In your experience, as stated above, is uploading 24/25fps to YouTube/Vimeo problematic?

I'll probably wind up with two rigs, one that is rock solid steady where I don't need OIS or a zoom lens and one that is more stealthy and portable that has both.

Had no problem at 25, not tried 24

maybe the Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm or 25mm. but they don't come cheap and it's not a zoom lens.

The .95 lenses cost more than the whole camera - probably not what he's looking for... Although these are very good lenses, not only because they're incredibly fast.

maybe the Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm or 25mm. but they don't come cheap and it's not a zoom lens.

The .95 lenses cost more than the whole camera - probably not what he's looking for... Although these are very good lenses, not only because they're incredibly fast.

You can get similar SLR magic ones for around £350

I can understand why you guys are suggesting 24fps... but for a concert, that is just going to be too jittery.. Lots of fast movement.. lots of fast panning, probably. Unless you want the film look.. I don't recommend that frame rate.

I have filmed theatrical productions before where it goes from complete darkness to intense brightness.. all in 30fps. It came out gorgeous. And that was with a long ENG zoom lens at about f2.

All the points you guys made are valid and good.. but 24fps, I don't recommend that... 30fps is better.

And don't fry your camera...

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=20115

24fps, I don't recommend that... 30fps is better.

... if you _don't_ aim at BluRay. It's really simple: what is your intended audience and distribution media? If you are going online, 30 fps is the best option. If you want to sell BluRays, go for 24 fps. In PAL-Land it's even more complicated than that, because many people still have 25/50 hz tv-sets...

If my target is Blu-ray and online, should I go with 23.976?

BluRay only allows 24 fps, so i would go for 24 fps. Internet video can also be 24 fps, but as most monitors run at 60 fps this is not the optimal framerate (yet still ok). I also believe that viewers on the internet won't complain about the occasional micro-stutter, while BluRay-buyers might send the disc back...

Maybe the best way to go is to do some test recordings and compare the results.

Ok this is totally a rookie question but if Blu-ray only allows 24p what happens when I author Blu-rays with 60i footage?

What I usually do in Premiere is encode separate audio and video streams with the video stream encoded h.264 Blu-ray legal and then use Encore to author the Blu-ray.

Ok, i wasn't quite thorough in my answer...

All BluRay players must support three standard formats: 1080@24p, 720@50p and 720@60p. Some player support different size/fps combinations as well, especially newer ones and software players; but to stay fully standards compliant your video either has to be 24 fps at full 1080 or 50/60 fps at 1280x720.

Most "export" functions in editing applications only let you choose these formats, so i assume your application wants to create 1080@24. If you put 60i material on your timeline, the application has to convert the framerate somehow, and there are several ways: Usually the 60i fields are first de-interlaced into 60p frames. Then the simplest way to get 24 fps is to only use 24 out of the 60 frames and drop the rest. But because 24 is no integral divisor of 60 you can't just take every 2nd (that would result in 30 fps), sometimes you have to skip more than one image, that's why simple "frame dropping" results in stuttering pans. Better algorithms create additional images in between the recorded images, either by simple blending, or by motion compensated interpolation. In both ways the software has to invent new images, and that will always go wrong occasionally...

Ah ok, that makes sense now. Since my video streams have always been 1080, it's probably safe to assume my encoder (Adobe Media Encoder) converts the framerate to 24p when I use the h.264 Blu-ray encode settings.

I encode twice, once for YouTube and once for Blu-ray which is why I guess I've never seen any problems posting my stuff to YouTube or Vimeo.

Is posting 24p on YouTube/Vimeo really poor practice and noticeable? I ask because the space savings I'll get by filming 24p vs. 60p makes it very attractive.

No, 24 fps on youtube / vimeo isn't that bad at all - just look at all the cinematic trailers, they usually are 24 fps (as are almost any movies, except the hobbit...). 1080p and anything above 30 fps is usually to fast for flash anyway...

But instead of us talking theory, just take do some test shots and find out if 24 fps fits your needs. It fits mine ok.

I went ahead and did a test.

1080/60p and 1080/24p with a Sony HDR-CX760V and Canon Rebel T2i.

Uploaded all four videos to YouTube and honestly I couldn't see the difference other than the crop factor (I think I used that right) between cameras.

I think 23.976 will work nicely.

I went ahead and did a test.

1080/60p and 1080/24p with a Sony HDR-CX760V and Canon Rebel T2i.

Uploaded all four videos to YouTube and honestly I couldn't see the difference other than the crop factor (I think I used that right) between cameras.

I think 23.976 will work nicely.

There was a very long thread on RedUser.net that concluded 23.976 fps was the best way to shoot as all other frame rates could be rendered from that better than say going the other direction and shooting 30 fps to render all the other slower rates. I'm not an expert to fully appreciate why that was the expert opinion, but pass it on in case it supports your decision.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

If you didn't discover any shortcommings of 23.978 fps, stay with it.

I went ahead and did a test.

1080/60p and 1080/24p with a Sony HDR-CX760V and Canon Rebel T2i.

Uploaded all four videos to YouTube and honestly I couldn't see the difference other than the crop factor (I think I used that right) between cameras.

I think 23.976 will work nicely.

There was a very long thread on RedUser.net that concluded 23.976 fps was the best way to shoot as all other frame rates could be rendered from that better than say going the other direction and shooting 30 fps to render all the other slower rates. I'm not an expert to fully appreciate why that was the expert opinion, but pass it on in case it supports your decision.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This makes no sense to me, surely its easier to remove frames to make 24fps out of 30fps rather than trying to add frames that aren't there?

Converting between 24 fps and 30 fps is painfull, no matter which one is the source. At 24 -> 30 you need to double every 4th image, the clip will stutter 6 times a second. At 30 -> 24 you need to drop every 5th image, the clip will jump 6 times a second. Both doesn't look good... So? Just don't convert! Use 24 fps for BluRay, and upload the same clips to youtube/vimeo. Usually computer monitors run at 60 Hz, so playing back 24 fps material will effectively be a 24 -> 60 conversion, and that is much smoother because the occasionally added image is only visible 1/60 of a second. On some systems there won't even be any conversion, they just render the clip at 24 fps and don't care if sometimes only half of an image is shown (known as tearing).

I went ahead and did a test.

1080/60p and 1080/24p with a Sony HDR-CX760V and Canon Rebel T2i.

Uploaded all four videos to YouTube and honestly I couldn't see the difference other than the crop factor (I think I used that right) between cameras.

I think 23.976 will work nicely.

There was a very long thread on RedUser.net that concluded 23.976 fps was the best way to shoot as all other frame rates could be rendered from that better than say going the other direction and shooting 30 fps to render all the other slower rates. I'm not an expert to fully appreciate why that was the expert opinion, but pass it on in case it supports your decision.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This makes no sense to me, surely its easier to remove frames to make 24fps out of 30fps rather than trying to add frames that aren't there?

Richard, you may want to search for the thread on RedUser.net then. I'm not saying you should shoot 23.976 fps but in the thread when they were concerned about delivering to multiple frame rates, it appeared the argument for 23.976 was accepted.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

One thing that really pisses me off (I know so may things do) is that people casually throwing around terms like 24fps, 30fps etc, when they really mean 23.976 and 29.97.
And then there is Apple, who's in all of their wisdoms decided that 23.98 is an acceptable shorthand for 23.976
Result - software that interpreted 23.976023 as a 23.98000. Students trying to stick 23.976 sources into 24.000 timelines ("but it said 24p on camera's LCD!")
I have even seen a camera that actually shoots 23.98000fps.
So please can we refer to 23.976 as such and only call 24p what is actually 24.000fps, and 29.97 is that and not 30p.
Oh and it's 59.94i, not 30i.
Etc etc blah blah.

... I have even seen a camera that actually shoots 23.98000fps...

Now that would be useful... not! I'm sure many people share your frustration with unnecessary short forms of values. I remember it took me and others many posts to explain that the crop factor of the BMCC and BMPCC cameras were not 2.3x or 3x, but 2.28x and 2.88x when comparing sensor sizes with a common 16:9 aspect ratio. Thankfully that effort has resulted in many people using the more precise values here. Let's hope 23.976 catches fire too.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

All BluRay players must support three standard formats: 1080@24p, 720@50p and 720@60p. Some player support different size/fps combinations as well, especially newer ones and software players; but to stay fully standards compliant your video either has to be 24 fps at full 1080 or 50/60 fps at 1280x720.

All Blu-ray players support 1080@60i, too, and it's possible to embed 30p into a 60i stream by duplicating fields, making that a valid option as well.

Ok I should really know this by now, but I've had to teach myself everything I know as far as video is concerned. But why is there 24fps and 23.976? Which one should I be using and why?

I tried looking this up earlier and it has something to do with converting video for broadcast on TV. Something about true film should be shot in 24 but if it's to be shown on TV, 23.976 is the way to go. Also if you shoot 24 something about the audio being out of sync if you convert it for other uses and the audio will need to be slowed down to compensate.

Or something like that.

Basically I confused myself even more when I did some research, I'm sure someone else here will have a much better answer.

You are right to demand correct numbers - but in the first place this thread revolved around the question whether one should shoot the highest possible framerates (for best motion reproduction) or the lowest possible framerates (for best light registration). In that range of arguments it doesn't matter whether you shoot 24 fps or 23.976 fps.

I don't know the best answer, but I can share my setup for shooting in dark clubs. I've been using a Canon 5D2 with Magic Lantern RAW, 1/50 s, 23.976 fps, 1880x800. The results look great. I haven't tried shooting at greater than 24 fps due to space restrictions.

In my opinion, good audio makes average video look a lot better. I'm using some compact CA-11 cardioid mics fed into a battery box and Sony PCM-M10, and they've handled very loud shows with no problem.

Looking forward to the BMPCC mostly due to the smaller size.

Ok I should really know this by now, but I've had to teach myself everything I know as far as video is concerned. But why is there 24fps and 23.976? Which one should I be using and why?

Shoot 23.976 and save yourself a mammoth amount of hassle down the road. Do the BM cameras offer both options?

Ok I should really know this by now, but I've had to teach myself everything I know as far as video is concerned. But why is there 24fps and 23.976? Which one should I be using and why?

Shoot 23.976 and save yourself a bunch of hassle down the road. Do the BM cameras offer both options?