David Griffin Photography

Images, videos, tips and news from David Griffin Photography

Category Archives: Technology

Click on the title of the blog post to view the entire entry.


Why we’re buying an iPad

While I don’t expect to be first in line to buy an Apple iPad, we’re likely to be getting one pretty quickly.  There are a number of reasons for this and I thought it would be fun to write them down.

There are three perspectives at play here:

1) Media consumption in our home;

2) Business portfolio; and

3) Laptop “replacement” for Betsy.

We know we’re not the average household.  We have 2 (rather old) MacBook Pro’s that hang out around the house.  We have an Apple TV hooked up to our HDTV in the living room.  And we already own an “iPad Nano” (I have an iPod Touch) so we’ve already experienced some of the possibilities the iPad promises when it comes to applications such as the Apple TV Remote and the basic apps like email and Safari.

Lets look at each of our planned uses for the “magical” iPad

Media Consumption

We’ve been waiting for this type of device to augment our living room media experience.  We own and heavily use our Apple TV and I’m hoping that it won’t be too long before the two play together (more on this later).  While we have Comcast cable, it’s not like what most people consider cable.  We have the $13/month option that essentially gives us the “over the air” channels plus public access (a whopping 18 channels and only 8 of them are HD).  This is a long-winded way of saying we don’t consume a lot of television. While it only tallies up to maybe an hour a day at best, video podcasts are an increasing part of television time — we prefer to watch EarthTouch and GeekBrief.tv in HD on our television.  There are a fair number of video podcasts I’ve never seen on a computer screen — it wouldn’t even occur to me to try them that way.

I’m looking forward to having an interface that not only provides us with a nice web browser for looking up stuff during shows, but also something that integrates with the Apple TV.   It would be great to have a nice console for browsing the Apple TV podcasts, searching YouTube, finding photos, etc.  and “throwing” them up on the television as a way of sharing them in the room.  (It’s a slight disappointment that the iPad doesn’t have an IR port to turn it into a remote control for the TV itself, but that’s admitted a bit of a kludge at best.)

Having something hanging around on the coffee table that lets us casually check email, twitter, browse the web, and control the Apple TV will be a most welcome addition to the household.  I was slightly surprised that it didn’t have a camera — it would make a great iChat / Skype device — but such improvements are, perhaps, inevitable.  The only downside is we can see is that, unlike the “iPad nano”, hiding it from the grandson will be much, much harder.

Business Portfolio

I maintain a portfolio in my “iPad Nano” (my iPod Touch).  I have both photography and video portfolios along with examples of TurnHere style videos and family photographs. It is fantastic to have a high-quality and interactive portfolio in my pocket at all times. It comes out in a variety of social situations and always impresses people.

But in a planned business situation, calling on a potential customer or sitting with an existing customer, the 2×4 inch iPod/iPhone screen is simply too limiting to display and discuss my work and a laptop isn’t something that you easily can hand back and forth with a client. I fully expect that there will be custom applications for photographers and other media creators that will provide a great portfolio experience for both the photographer and their customers.

While the Safari browser on the iPod Touch and iPhone is pretty impressive, I still find it awkward to use for any type of interactive web sites (e.g., filling out forms, etc.)   I’m expecting the iPad to be at least passable for that type of activity (not sure I’ll be writing long blog articles with it though).  Coupled with the 3G wireless capability I can access forms and book gigs while at a client’s place of business or show them example videos in context of a similar business.  The best way to sell video is with video.

Which brings me to why we’re currently planning to purchase the 3G version of the iPad.   I currently pay Verizon $30/month for my data plan for my Blackberry.  That’s a lot of money for not a lot of value (to me).  While having email delivered to my pocket is handy, its not critical to my day-to-day life.  Most of the time I’m near a Wi-Fi and my iPod Touch has a far better email app than my Blackberry (I should note that my Blackberry is easily 4 years old at this point).  By converting my Verizon phone to just a plain cellphone I can potentially cut my monthly wireless data costs by half if I’m able to stay under the 250MB limit.  Even if I end up with the $30/mo plan it’ll be a wash dollar-wise and I’ll get a significant improvement in its utility to my business.  For those times when I need email on the road I’ll bring along the iPad (assuming I can get ahold of it — see the next section).

I’ll admit that my situation may be unique, but I think its an interesting sign of the times for how wireless providers are being transformed by Apple and Google into service providers not unlike ISPs.  We plug whatever device we want into the wireless network and pay for the bandwidth.  No 2-year contracts.  Dollars for bits.  And with the increasing density of Wi-Fi hotspots in restaurants, libraries, and other public areas the need for 3G access all the time keeps getting nibbled at.

Laptop Replacement

My wife, Betsy, has been waiting for the iPad for about 4 years.  She uses a old hand-me-down 15″ G4 MacBook Pro.  She reads email; plays Solitaire; writes the occasional letter/document; and occasionally surfs the web for shopping or booking a hotel room.  She’s been bugging me for years for the 12″ MacBook Pro.

She also attends a bunch of meetings and having the email and documents in electronic form would be preferable to printing them.  She occasionally takes notes at these meetings.

She hates lugging the laptop around and therefore it rarely leaves the house.  It is way overkill for anything she does day-to-day.  We’re anticipating that the iPad use model, perhaps paired with a Bluetooth keyboard once in a while, will take care of 80%+ of her daily computing needs.

I couldn’t part with my MacBook Pro.  It is an integral part of my photographic workflow.  Lightroom has burned a considerable amount of processor time the past few years and I occasionally use Final Cut Pro there too.  There’s over 100 gigabytes of photos and video on the disk.  I use Dropbox to sync numerous documents and files between my laptop and my office system.

There are millions of people like me.  There are millions of people like Betsy.  The iPad cannot replace a laptop, but there are plenty of people that have a laptop that really don’t need or even want one.  I can’t say at this point whether there’s enough capability in the iPad to make Betsy’s MacBook laptop obsolete, but we’re going to give it a try.

Summary

In 1991 I read an article in Scientific American written by Mark Weiser in which he envisioned what pervasive (or ubiquitous) computing would look like in the 21st century.  It made quite an impression on me.  Weiser and his team at PARC created prototype pads, tabs, and boards — intelligent devices that were tailored to specific uses rather than trying to be general-purpose computing platforms.

We have tabs today in the form of active badges and keyless automobile access. The iPod Touch, if it was a lot cheaper, might be an early example of a something between a high-end tab (an intelligent post-it note) and a pad,  a “scrap computer” that lies around the house ready to be used in a number of ways.  The iPad will inch closer to the capabilities that were envisioned in that article, although there won’t be a bunch of them hanging around the house anytime soon.  Boards exist mostly in corporate settings, but put a multitouch interface on the front of my HDTV and you’ll have a residential version of the PARC boards in the article.  (Microsoft’s “Surface” can likely trace its pedigree to the PARC board prototypes.)

Ever since I read that article I’ve been waiting for that type of computing to become mainstream.  My Palm Tungsten C, with its Wi-Fi capabilities, gave me my first taste of what Weiser’s dream might look like back in 2003.   Sadly Mark Weiser passed away in 1999, a few years before his vision became practical, but now we’re into the second decade of the 21st century and with the iPad we’ll inch a bit closer to true pervasive computing.  We’ll go along for the ride.

Quiet Concert Photography Techniques

wpid1582-20099-385-1975.jpgThis weekend I’ll be up in Maine for the Stone Mountain Arts Center Valentine’s Day show.  I’m doing my usual Stone Mountain LIVE photography plus I’m shooting some videos to help promote SMAC.

Today’s digital SLR cameras are splendid image-making tools.  They are insanely well-crafted machines, but that have a serious flaw when pursuing certain types of photography… they are frickin’ noisy.

Back in the “good old days” I had a couple of rangefinder cameras which had leaf shutters.  When you made an exposure there was the faintest click as the shutter mechanism tripped.   Along come SLRs with a large mirror and mechanics to move it in an out of the way in a fraction of a second and, not surprisingly, accompanied by what is affectionately known in photography circles as the “mirror slap” sound.

For those of you attending rock concerts and other events that really should require ear protection (and I’ve been to plenty of them), the sound of your camera clicking away is not really an issue.  But when you are at an acoustic event (or in the woods with a wild animal) that mirror slap can be a real nuisance to both you and the people around you (who have paid good money to hear the artist perform, not listen to a camera).

Most of the time I simply refrain from taking images during quiet passages.  If I know the song and can anticipate a louder section, I might try to time the photo for that moment — acoustic camouflage if you will.

However I found a way to get back to the old days of a quiet click using the Live View feature on my Canon 40D and 5D Mark 2.   (This feature is available on numerous other DSLRs — I just happen to own those two.)   Live View uses the sensor and LCD rather than the optical viewfinder to see and compose an image.  There are numerous benefits and drawbacks to the Live View mode which are well-documented elsewhere, and perhaps I’ll write about them in the future (e.g., I use it frequent for landscape photography).  But for concert photography I’ve found the near silent operation of Live View to be simply a great tool.

Canon 5D Mark 2 in Live View mode

There are a few constraints, but here is my technique:

1. For the Canon camera, go into Live View setup and select “Silent Shooting Mode 2″.  Mode 1 works too, but Mode 2 is even quieter and I recommend that.

2. Get into a stable position and use the optical viewfinder to focus and frame your subject.   This technique, admittedly, doesn’t work if your subject is moving around a lot, but then most quiet musical pieces aren’t normally accompanied by lots of motion.  You are focusing now because auto-focus isn’t available in Live View mode.

3. Bring the camera down low (under a table / below your knees / beneath a jacket) and engage the Live View.  There is a bit of sound associated with this, but if you time it right and keep the camera isolated from the room nobody is likely to hear it.  What you’ve done now is move the mirror sound from the shot to a time and place of your choosing.

4. Bring the camera back up to your shooting position.  You can no longer use the optical viewfinder, but the LCD will have the image showing.  Unless you have superhuman vision, you will not be able to clearly see the viewfinder because it’ll be too close.  You should be able to make out enough of the image to frame it.  Since you prefocused it, there’s no concern about that.

4. Wait for your moment, press the shutter button, and hold it down.  This will take the image.  In Mode 2 it is just a shutter release click – very subtle.  If you keep it in Mode 1 the shutter will reset.  While this is far quieter than the mirror slap, but a fair bit noisier than Mode 2.

5. Return your camera to below the table or wherever you can keep it isolated from the room.  Release the shutter button and the shutter mechanism resets.  Return to step 4 to take the next image.  Rinse and repeat.

6. When you are done taking images this way, keep the camera isolated and turn off Live View.  This returns the mirror to the normal position, with the requisite noise — but you can do this at the time of your choosing (like during the applause or when somebody’s cell phone starts ringing and everyone is looking at that person).

As you can see above, this works well for certain types of wildlife photography too.  :-)   There are plenty of variations on this theme: there’s nothing stopping you from composing and focusing in Live View mode, particularly if you have a tripod.

For this particular tutorial hearing is probably better than seeing, so I put together a quick audio clip of the different sound qualities.  Nothing scientific, but if you’ve never explored this feature of your camera here’s what it sounds like:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I hope you can see that using these features on your DSLR allows photographers to make great images without making a lot of noise.

Camera movements with a portable slider

wpid1600-20101-491-1066.jpg As a one-person production company I’m continually striving to create a look that rivals what normally is accomplished by teams of people.  Today’s technology, such as smaller cameras with low-light capabilities, allows individuals (or very small teams) to do the job that in the past required entire film crews.  (See Shane Hurlbut’s article on his team shooting on the high seas from a U.S. Navy sub for someone practicing this at a level I can only dream of.)

Many years ago we purchased our first set of kayaks.  No moving parts, just a watertight shell.   But after that purchase came the realization that “you’re gonna need accessories”…  Paddles, PFDs, dry bags, gloves.  It took several years before we could walk into an REI without avoiding a stroll through the paddling section.

Photography is no different.  The camera purchase itself is, quite often, the tip of the iceberg.  (For many years I’d tell folks that I had spent far more on lenses than camera bodies, although that balance is beginning to erode as my lens set is stable now but there’s a slow but steady march to upgrade the camera bodies.)    Camera accessories can go in a number of directions: lighting, stabilization, filters, remote controls, etc.  Add video to the mix and you have more lighting, microphones, matte boxes, monitors, and a wide range of stabilization options.  There are thick catalogs full of wonderful ideas waiting to empty your bank account.

I recently decided that to be competitive in video production I would need the ability to have some additional  ”camera moves” (providing movement within the frame) beyond the tilts and pans my fluid head could provide.  Professional rigging equipment costs a lot of money.  This isn’t a complaint: manufacturing equipment that performs at a high level of precision and is rugged costs money, but I have a limited equipment budget so I looked into some DIY portable dolly systems.   One that popped out at me is affectionately known as the “Zazaslider” (after the creator who posted the instructions for building it in the DVXuser forum). I’m not what you would call particularly skilled at building things, but this looked within my abilities so I gave it a try.   I won’t go into the construction details, those are outlined very well elsewhere, but I thought it would be fun to show my modifications, my plans, and a bit about how it is used.  First the rig:

wpid1594-20101-491-1063.jpg

Here’s the slider with my current camera mount, a Manfrotto HDV701 fluid head. My slider weighs in at 6.4 lbs, and the HDV701 head (with a Arca-Swiss quick release plate on the Bogen quick release plate) is 2.4 lbs – so I’m expecting it to stay under 9 lbs even with anticipated additions.

wpid1596-20101-491-1064.jpg

This is the bare slider.  The metal part is the primary piece, purchased from IGUS (just over the border in Rhode Island).  The DryLin W rail is 1 meter long and features a lubrication-free guide that provides a smooth and low-friction platform.

wpid1598-20101-491-1065.jpg

I had to drill and tap a 3/8″ hole for the mounting bolt.

wpid1602-20101-491-1067.jpg

The rail comes with predrilled holes, so I could put a 3/8″ tap in the center one for a mount point.

wpid1604-20101-491-1068.jpg

The rail needs a few basic tweaks to be useful.  The first is some nylon bushings tapped into the end that keeps the carriage from running off the rails.  That would be an expensive problem with a camera attached.  I added a couple of lightweight feet that are easily removed if needed (I need to give them a coat of paint).  I recently added a nylon screw to one end to help secure the carriage during transport.

wpid1606-20101-491-1069.jpg

My original foot was just a block, but after my first trip into the field with the slider I realized that if you want to perch this on top of a log, you need something that isn’t flat along the base, so a quick trip to the bandsaw was in order.

wpid1612-20101-491-1072.jpg

I tapped a 3/8″ hole so that my Gitzo G1321 leveling base can “simply” screw into the rail.  This works OK but makes setup a bit slow.  I plan to put a sturdy quick Arca Swiss or Bogen release plate there so I can more easily attach it to a tripod head.

wpid1614-20101-491-1073.jpg

And finally the full rig attached to my tripod.  The leveling base makes for quick work in setting up the slider.  While this configuration is fairly stable, it still requires additional support when extending the camera the full 1 meter length.

There are two basic moves you can do with the slider: dolly zoom (forward/backwards) or dolly sideways (truck/tracking shot).  Here is an example of a dolly zoom:

[qt:/video/20101-zoom-slide.mov 640 360]

And here are two examples of a tracking shots (one on the tripod and one with just the slider):

[qt:/video/20101-dolly-slide.mov 640 360]

[qt:/video/20101-floor-slide.mov 640 360]

The slider requires quite a bit of practice to use effectively.  I’ve also noted that the rail system’s tolerances are very close so if condensation builds up on the aluminum rails (say, by bringing it indoors when it is cold outside) it can bind up a bit.  I’ve used it in the rain and noted similar performance anomalies.  (A dolly rig based on roller wheels likely doesn’t have this issue.)

I’ve used this for commercial shoots and nature videos.  It is quite portable and definitely gets the job done for a very reasonable outlay (so far it has cost less than $200 for the parts and tools).

As I noted earlier I plan to add a quick release plate to make setup and teardown a bit easier.  I may add a second setscrew towards the center as it is awkward to set up with the carriage at one end (or add a brake to the carriage).

I’m also interested in finding a variable speed stepping motor so I can use the rail system to provide movement in time-lapse photographic projects.  I’ll be sure write about that when those pieces come together.   (First I have to add a follow-focus unit.)

I hope you found this tour of the slider useful.  You can find the same Igus technology used in some commercial sliders, so while this is a pretty simple DIY project it shares the strengths of a number of rigs costing a lot more.

wpid1616-20101-491-1076.jpg

The Myth of Cheap Disk Storage

At the end of 2009 I ran into a photographic workflow issue that I’ve never had to deal with before: I ran out of disk space.

A common phrase you’ll hear in articles about whether or not to keep digital photographs is that “disk space is cheap”.   Heck, I’ve said it to a number of people.  But something has bothered me about this statement.

Yes, disk space is cheap – but every time I need to buy drives I find myself spending about the same amount of money.  It’s cheap, but it’s not getting cheaper… Why is that?

Well one reason is that I’m shooting a lot more than I used to.  Here’s a plot of my (retained) image counts the past few years:

image-count

(and yes, that does mean that I shot almost as much in 2001 as the entire decade of the 90’s — technically 95 through 99, ‘95 is when I started shooting with digital cameras).

So overall, pretty stable till the jump in 2008 when I switched to photography full-time, but 2009 wasn’t that much of an increase over 2008.   What is interesting, again in a geeky way, is how much storage those images consume (in gigabytes):

gigage

Not exactly the same graph is it?  The difference can be traced to technology changes — you are seeing the impact of me using a variety of cameras over the past 10 years and the sensor size (in megapixels) growing.  I started with 0.3-megapixel Kodak cameras, switched to a 3-megapixel Canon D30 in 2001, and continued upgrading from time to time over the years (10D, 1DMk2, 40D, and finally, for now, 5DMk2 in 2009 which shoots at 21 megapixels).

Fun fact: A single image from my 2009 Canon 5D Mark 2 consumes the same amount of disk space as 140 images from my 1999 Kodak DC260.

So while my image counts aren’t going up exponentially, my disk storage is because my cameras are generating larger files every time I press the shutter release button.  But this is where the “disk space is cheap” part comes in.  Here’s a graph of how many gigabytes a US dollar gets you (more or less):

dollar-gb

This, as you can see, somewhat closely tracks my disk space usage graph, which also tracks to my impression of near constant expenditures on disks over the past decade.  To which my checking account can only say “thank goodness”.

So disk space is cheap – no doubt about that. But for the past 10 years the growth in sensor sizes in digital cameras has been almost a perfect match to the “density/dollar” ratio of disk drives.  This means that unless you haven’t upgraded your digital camera, disk space is cheap but it isn’t cheaper.

But, when it comes to the cost of storing your digital photographs, things are looking up for most owners of digital cameras.  The camera megapixel wars are pretty much over.  Sensor sizes are beginning to plateau as the technology now meets or greatly exceeds what folks really need in terms of image capture.  Disk densities continue to climb and so there’s a pretty good chance now that disk space will actually get cheaper for digital photographers.

That is unless, like me, they start shooting video too… :-)

Editing Canon 5D Mark 2 footage – tools and timings

2009-transcode-comp

The Canon 5D Mark 2 (and the 7D and a fair number of current video-capable DSLRs) record the footage using the H.264 codec.  I’ll leave it to others far more qualified than I as to the merits and lack thereof of this decision by the manufacturers.  For owners of the cameras wishing to use them for video it means you have some work to do after you shoot.

H.264 is often referred to as “distribution codec” — in other words it is optimized for end display rather than other purposes.  Of interest to the photographer this translates to “it is really lousy for editing”.

Because of the preponderance of its use in DSLR (and other) cameras I’ll predict that future editing suites will start to ingest H.264 footage directly, perhaps converting it quietly to some intermediate format — but until that time you’ll want to do this yourself before you edit your clips.

For about the past year, when I have a set of 5D clips for editing I’ve been transcoding them to Apple ProRes.  This is a high quality codec that works well with the editing tools.  It also eats up disk space like they have shares in Seagate.  I’ve heard of some folks using the XDCAM codec with a fair degree of success.  I’ve heard plenty of other people say “disk space is cheap” (which it is), but it isn’t free and it adds up quickly.

On Macintosh there are two tools that I have tried and used and I thought I’d share a few bits about them.  I edit using Apple’s Final Cut Pro Studio, which includes a transcoding swiss army knife called “Compressor”.    If you don’t have the budget for FCP Studio (and, as you will see, even if you do) you should look at “MPEG Streamclip” which has a number of great features including the ever popular price tag of free.  There are numerous excellent tutorials on each of these tools — just google around.

I’ve been using Compressor to transcode my 5D footage to Apple ProRes 422 pretty regularly because it has a really cool feature: droplets.  You can create droplets that correspond to specific Compressor settings and destinations, then either drag the input files to the droplet (or control-click to open the file(s) with the droplet.  As Emeril says.. “Bam!”

With the most recent release of Final Cut Studio (FCP 7) Apple introduced some additions to the ProRes codecs.  Originally there were two variations, the normal or standard quality (at 147 Mbps) and the high quality codec (at 220 Mbps).  For most of us this roughly translates into taking a lot of disk space and taking up an enormous amount of disk space.  Unless you are producing a high-end film with lots of compositing (or have specific technical issues with the footage around grading) the HQ version was overkill.  For most of us, producing videos for the web or DVD, even the standard quality ProRes was over the top.  Enter ProRes 422 LT and ProRes 422 Proxy.  The LT codec tries to find a balance between quality and space at 102 Mbps while the ProRes Proxy dives down to 45Mbps and is suited for editing on laptops.  (Note that even at 45Mbps that’s 9X what Vimeo and YouTube HD are accepting videos at.)

I have yet to play with the Proxy codec extensively, but the LT codec looked very appealing and I wanted to explore some issues I had with the MPEG Streamclip program so I ran a few tests.   MPEG Streamclip has the reputation of being very fast – and in a few tests I was running I never saw this.  The devil being in the details of course.   I also noted a gamma shift in MPEG Streamclip footage which bothered me.  Again, it was worth looking at a bit closer.

First the “gamma shift” problem.  Here is the output of the same video clip transcoded by Compressor (on the left) and MPEG Streamclip (on the right) as displayed by Quicktime Player:

gamma-diff

It’s pretty obvious that the MPEG Streamclip footage is darker.  Apparently this is caused by a small difference in the Quicktime file metadata.  Compressor adds a “gamma” tag that MPEG Streamclip does not.  The result is that Quicktime Player displays them differently.   Here’s the fun part: Final Cut Pro doesn’t look at this gamma tag, or does it differently.  The result is that the footage looks the same.  Here is a short Quicktime video of the same clip alternating between Compressor and MPEG Streamclip:

[qt:/video/2009-transcode-comp.mov 640 360]

Maybe a more well-trained eye can spot a difference, but I can’t.  So when it comes to editing it appears to me that the resulting clips are equivalent.  Whew!

With quality out of the way, that leaves just space and time to consider.  I processed 16 5DMk2 H.264 clips totaling 7 minutes of footage and consuming 2GB of disk space.

Depending on the project I often try to save disk space by converting the footage from the native 1080p to 720p (times are min:sec):

To ProRes 422 LT 720p via Compressor: 12:44 and 2.3GB
To ProRes 422 LT 720p via MPEG Streamclip: 14:52 and 2.3GB

To ProRes 422 LT 1080p via Compressor: 17:17 and 4.5GB (2.2X original)
To ProRes 422 LT 1080p via MPEG Streamclip: 10:54 and 4.5GB

Kinda eye-popping counterintuitive results there.  If you want to save disk space by downsampling to 720p, use Compressor.  If you want fast conversions the use MPEG Streamclip with no resizing.

For disk space comparisons, the standard quality ProRes 422 at 1080p would take 6.9GB (3.5X original files, MPEG Streamclip transcoded them in 11:46) .

My test configuration was pretty mundane and this was not an attempt to get the best performance out of either tool, but rather to see how they performed “out of the box”.   Source and destination files were to the same drive (as you would on a laptop). Compressor has ways of using multiple systems to distribute the encoding and improve the performance.  MPEG Streamclip has the ability to run multiple transcodes at once.  If you have a lot of fast CPUs in your system, this can certainly help.  I have a quad-processor MacPro and neither program would drive the system to full CPU capacity.  By adding increasing the MPEG Streamclip to 2 simultaneous tasks I was able to trim some time off the transcoding and saw the system CPU utilization approach 80%.  Adding a 3rd task didn’t do anything to increase utilization.  Those of you with 8-CPU boxes would likely see a benefit from using these features to take advantage of parallelism in your system.

I mentioned ProRes 422 Proxy and I think I will dig into this a bit more.  It has a data rate of 45Mbps.  The Canon 5D Mark 2 with the current firmware clocks in around 38Mbps – but I don’t know if this is an apples to apples comparison.  MPEG Streamclip transcoded the test files to ProRes Proxy at 720p in about 14 minutes and the resulting files were just 1.1GB (half of the original) and the full 1080p transcode took about 10 minutes and the resulting files were 2.2GB (slightly larger than the originals).  I, quite honestly, didn’t see much of a difference between the full ProRes standard quality and the Proxy transcoded files with the 5D footage, so this deserves a bit more investigation to understand exactly what kinds of scenes are being compromised.  If the typical delivery is going to be 720p web video (or an SD DVD) and you are doing minimal grading and editing, using the ProRes Proxy format may turn out to be a perfect editing format and you can always reconnect to higher quality versions (standard or LT) if you need them.  Certainly something worth investigating further.

Harmony Halloween Horse Show – A Different View

wpid1320-2009A-385-3050.jpg

When I do an event shoot I take a LOT of pictures – (often) hundreds to (occasionally) thousands of them.  When I post galleries I edit them down to to a small fraction of the day’s captures and then I whittle it down to a handful of personal favorites for a blog posting.  My editing process involves several passes of the photographs: the first pass involves deleting bad frames (badly blown or out-of-focus exposures, test shots of the ground) — you know, utter garbage.  And I really delete them.   The subsequent phases involve various forms of rating and have a lot to do with the particular event and why I was there and what kind of story I’m trying to tell with the images.

The bottom line is that a LOT of photos end up on the proverbial cutting room floor.   Wouldn’t it be nice if I could use them all without inducing eye-clawing boredom on the viewer’s part?   Well, here’s my quick attempt at such a thing — let me know what you think.   758 images in 100 seconds…

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/7483048[/vimeo]

(Also available on YouTube HD)

Technical stuff:

I originally approached this using a new feature of Lightroom 3 (Beta) that allows exporting of slideshows in H.264 video.   This is a really cool feature and I will certainly make use of it for certain projects.  (It is also a slick way to easily produce more traditional time-lapse videos directly from Lightroom.)   As with most things there are tradeoffs and the drawback of this direct-from-Lightroom technique is one of performance and flexibility.  It takes a LONG time for Lightroom to generate the video and when you are done you may find that you wanted a different pacing — and then you’ll end up generating it again.

The bulk of the time was spent tuning the images in Lightroom.  In a normal edit I only spend time fine-tuning the looks of the selected images, but in this case all of them needed some level of processing.   Fortunately I shoot in manual mode so the input exposures are pretty consistent.  This means that I can apply the same corrections to large sets of images at a time using the Synchronize tools in Lightroom.  I even created a few Develop Presets along the way to make this even easier for the shoot.  The emphasis was on creating groups of similarly exposed images so that the video levels wouldn’t be jumping too far out of whack. There are a couple of ways of approaching this, but in my case I created a separate Lightroom catalog with just this shoot in it — so the edits of my selects didn’t affect the edits for the video.   I could have also achieved the same result with a collection of virtual copies and may well do this in the future because it allows me to keep both end-products in the same catalog.

I used the same Slideshow capability in Lightroom, but opted to generate JPEG images instead.   (This output option is plain to see Lightroom 2, but you have to press the Option (Alt on PC’s) key in the new Lightroom 3 interface.)  For this video I selected the output size 1280×720 to match the 720p HD frame size.  Lightroom took almost an hour to generate the 758 frames on my 4-processor MacPro.  From there I open the images as an Image Sequence in Quicktime Pro and  select a frame rate.  10 frames per second happens to be close to the burst rate of my Canon 1DMk2 camera so the jump sequences almost play in “real time” and the pacing for the rest of the images is pleasingly frenetic.   The important part here is that if I didn’t like the frame rate choosing a different one and previewing it takes a few seconds rather than hours.

It is important to note that the use of Lightroom’s Slideshow feature is important to the success of this workflow.  If you chose to simply export the images they would end up being different sizes (unless you used identical cropping on every single one of them) and they also would not be sized for a video frame.   If the generated images are not identical in terms of aspect and resolution they will not be included in the Quicktime image sequence.  Using the Slideshow option allows you to generate consistently sized image frames with whatever background you want to use.

After generating the frames in Lightroom and rendering them as an image sequence with Quicktime Pro, I imported the video file as a clip into Final Cut Pro where I added the titles and credits and then added the soundtrack (thank you Duke!).  Once I had the music there I realized it might be fun to break up the video a bit to correspond to the music.   This is a creative process where you can absolutely go overboard.  Since this video was meant to be just a fun use of “excess” images I tried to keep it simple.  I then added the titles and credits and then uploaded it to the YouTubes…

I did some basic color grading in Final Cut, keeping the images coming out of Lightroom pretty basic.  I edit video in a different gamma than photographs (1.8 versus 2.2) so it is better to send Final Cut “flat” images and work the final result from within the video editing suite.

I thought the result was pretty cool and tells the story of the event in a unique and entertaining way.  I’ll likely alter my shooting slightly to enhance the results of future videos.  What I would normally consider gratuitous shots can now form the basis of short stop-action sequences.  Yet another tool in the story-telling kit.

—–

My thanks to Duke Levine for his permission to use his music in my blog videos.  If you like what you hear, visit Duke Levine’s MySpace page and pick up one of his albums.

Photos from the Harmony Halloween Horse Show can be found at: events.dmg-photography.com

Lightroom-enhanced time-lapse video

[video filename=http://dmg-photography.com/video/bsd2-24fps.mp4 title=Autumn-Mist-Timelapse /]

I’m in the process of putting together a short video highlighting some of the fall foliage and other seasonal changes happening here in central Massachusetts.  I hope to have it ready for viewing next week.    I wanted to include a couple of time-lapse sequences in it.   On Sunday I shot a test sequence on the Assabet River just upstream of the Ben Smith Dam.  Happy with the results, I headed out this morning hoping to catch the sunrise on the water along with the mist.

I happened to be using the Canon 5D Mark 2 because it was handy.  Normally I use either my old 10D or the 40D for timelapse captures.  I set the 5D to “SRAW2″ because I only need HD resolution. SRAW2 exceeds that and leaves plenty of breathing room on the flash card.   The camera was attached to the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, with polarizing filter, set at 34mm.   I set the exposure at 1/60 second, f/8.0, ISO 200.   I could have, and you might argue, should have, slowed the shutter down a bit more — but motion blur with slow-moving mist and clouds isn’t that noticeable.

The interval timer was set for 2 seconds.  I captured 450 frames.  That’s just 18 seconds at 24fps and 14 seconds at 30fps.   (Remember it is just a clip for a larger work.)  I could have captured longer but, quite frankly, the “show” was mostly over.    (I need to see if the 5D can sustain out 1 frame/second of SRAW2 files.)

The choice of a polarizing filter was problematic.  It provided me with the saturated colors I wanted in the foliage, but the wide angle of the shot means that the polarizing effect would drop off across the image … and this happened.  Here’s a sample source frame:

wpid1210-2009A-263-3195.jpg

Because of the combination of both the polarizer and the sheer brightness of the sun, the right side of the frame got “hot” as the sequence went along.  Not overexposed or anything, but definitely much brighter.  I used Lightroom to create a 1/2 stop graduated filter across the right 1/3rd of the image – providing a bit more room for details in the clouds.  The color still changes (adding blue to the filter is an option, but it colors the mist as well so I kept it neutral).  This change, coupled with some other minor exposure and contrast tweaks, coupled with a 16×9 crop, was then synched across all 450 frames.

I have to admit that this is probably just my first attempt at editing this sequence.  I may well try other edit configurations.  The ability to try them out with Lightroom and then easily apply the changes to hundreds of images is really a joy.

—-

This post is actually two tests in one.  I’m also trying out a WordPress plugin that uses the JW video player to directly play H.264 files and I want to see if it is worth purchasing a license for.  Drop me a line (or comment) if you like or dislike it (vs. YouTube HD or Vimeo hosted files).

Moose Highway Enfused

wpid1038-20099-263-1374_enfuse-w0.jpg

We arose (a bit too late) one morning and attempted to visit nearby Screw Auger Falls before the sun burned through the fog.  Unfortunately, if there was fog at the falls it was gone by the time we arrived.  (The water level was pretty low anyway.)

On the way back we stopped at a field that had a number of visual elements, including a heavy veil of morning fog.  It turns out this photo shows two highways: a human highway on the right and a moose highway running parallel to it down the center of the image.  The muddy ground was full of moose tracks and the occasional rustling in the nearby woods made one stop and take notice.

While the human vision system can take in 13 stops, my Canon 5D Mark 2 can “only” capture 11 stops — and the meadow scene was clearly more than 11 stops.  There are two ways of handling this: a graduated neutral-density filter or “digital darkroom” techniques like HDR.   The GND filter really wouldn’t work well here — the trees and contours would accentuate the GND filter’s line making it more obvious than usual that it was being used.

I took a series of exposures (4 in all) to capture the foreground detail and the sun’s disc in the foggy sky.  Here are the longest and shortest exposures:

wpid1034-20099-263-1374.jpg wpid1040-20099-263-1377.jpg

What needs to happen in the post-processing is to essentially compress the dynamic range captured in the multiple images back into one.   There are a variety of ways of doing this.  HDR and tone-mapping is one way (Photomatix is a popular tool for this).  The other technique is to use Enfuse – which blends the exposures but avoids creating an HDR file.  Being a Lightroom junkie I use LR/Enfuse which makes it very easy to perform this computationally intensive task.

However when I took the default blending weights (Exposure=1.0, Saturation=0.3) the result was this:

wpid1036-20099-263-1374_enfuse.jpg

While the foreground was blended very nicely, the Enfuse algorithm didn’t handle the gradual transitions in the trees and fog.  The result was a muddy sky and a halo over the treeline.

Fortunately LR/Enfuse makes it relatively simple to play with the weighting factors and I started monkeying with them at the extremes to see what would happen.  When I set the exposure weighting to 0 the halos went away, but the sky ended up a bit bright and the foreground ended up a bit too dark (see result below).  However, because we had a nice 16-bit file to work with, this was easily compensated back in Lightroom by lowering the exposure about 3/4 stop and cranking up the Fill Light (to 73).

wpid1043-20099-263-1374_enfuse-w0.jpg

The resulting image (at the top of this post) very closely matches what I saw in that field that foggy morning and thanks to tools like LR/Enfuse it is relatively straightforward to extend the capabilities of my camera closer to that of my eyes.

REALLY getting it right in the camera…

This morning I was a contract shooter for a company that photographs triathlons. This was a big event – over 3,400 women athletes participating in the swim / bike / run race sponsored by Danskin (they’ve been doing this for 20 years now).

This also marks the first time I’ve shot JPEG in probably 8 years (and likely the first time my 1DMk2 has ever been in JPEG mode!) and possibly the most my flash has ever been used.  I shot over 1,700 photos in 4 hours (which is probably low compared to others on the photo team) and while it is embarrassing to say considering what the athletes were going through, it was pretty intense as a photographer and I think I sweated several pounds off today.  (I also have no idea how well I did because they keep all of the photos — a bit nerve-wracking.)

The challenge, for me, is one that photojournalists deal with all the time and my respect for their ability to pull that off on a daily basis could not be higher.  I normally shoot in RAW mode, which has numerous benefits but has one significant drawback: it demands a certain amount of post-processing (using a program like Lightroom or Aperture).   When you have 8 shooters and 3,400 subjects that equals a potential 10-20K images that need to be processed at the end of the event — so they are counting on the photographers to deliver “finished” images in the camera: exposure, composition, and white balance.

When one shoots RAW and expects to do some post-processing you can be a bit more cavalier about  some things.  White balance is one thing that I NEVER worry about in the field — that’s something I consider to be thought about and chosen later.  I’m usually pretty picky about the exposure, but composition kind of sits in the middle: there are times when I know I’m going to crop the photo later on so the composition in the camera isn’t as important.   (I also don’t think about whether or not the image fits nicely in an 8×10 frame.)

Interestingly, many of these disciplines of getting the white balance and other aspects of the image nailed down are still required for video.   Until we all get the equivalent of a RED camera (which is probably only a 2-4 years away) that shoots RAW video, it’s very costly to not get all aspects of the shot right in the camera.

With all that said, if you want to sharpen your action photography skills I can highly recommend trying to photograph a race (say a finish line or some other discrete event).  When the goal of having full-frame individual photos of each participant comes up against 8 athletes arriving more or less at the same time, you learn how to prioritize, frame, and shoot very quickly.  While your pulse may not be the same as someone finishing a half-mile swim, you’ll probably be burning some calories.   Add in that there’s no “RAW crutch” and there might even be a little sweat fogging up the eyepiece.

Anyway, my camera is safely back in RAW mode and after I clean off the beach sand and sweat stains it’ll be back to my comfortable shooting practice.  But it was certainly fun to have to perform “out of my element”, if only for a few hours.

And to the 3,000+ women who ran today’s Danskin triathlon: you are all amazing.

40 Years Ago

Forty years ago I was 11 years old and glued to the television for the better part of a week, with today being the really big day.  School was out and as certain members of my family can attest, I was a certified NASA junkie.

There are plenty of photos around of this event, but this rather hazy one means the most to me:  my dad had the foresight to grab his Argus 35mm rangefinder and snap a picture of our television as we watched Neil Armstrong and listened to Walter Cronkite make history.  (And yes, I have that Argus sitting on a shelf.)

There are plenty of books out there that document the Apollo trips to the moon, but if you have more engineer than explorer in you I highly recommend that you read “Apollo” by Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox — it is, by far, the best book on how we got from here to there (let’s put it this way, unlike most other tellings of the story the astronauts are not the stars of this book).

When I worked for DEC back in the late 80’s, NASA was using the DECnet network and I had the opportunity to visit nearly every NASA center in the U.S.  It was fascinating to see the various bits of history the space race left behind: test stands, unused rockets, full-scale models and test articles, control rooms that look more mechanical than electronic.

Today I’ll remember Tang, “Space Food Sticks”, ads by Gulf gasoline, switching between “the 3 channels”, NBC, CBS, and ABC to see who had the more intelligent commentary (and less hokey models and simulations),  and playing with my carefully made Revell models of the Saturn V, LEM, and CSM, imagining what it was like to be up there, on the moon.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
AJAXed with AWP