Complete newbie - audio options

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:09:32 +0100, Stuart McKears
wrote:


The decline in standards goes right through the whole programme chain,
beginning with operators who don't seem to know how to focus a camera
on a foreground talking head instead of the trees or buildings in the
background

It's called auto focus!

No. It's called incompetence. It's possible to take a correctly
focussed picture with either manual or automatic focus. Whichever
system you use, it's just a matter of learning the proper technique.
It must be on or near Page 1 of just about any book on photography.

Rod.

In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:09:32 +0100, Stuart McKears
wrote:


The decline in standards goes right through the whole programme chain,
beginning with operators who don't seem to know how to focus a camera
on a foreground talking head instead of the trees or buildings in the
background

It's called auto focus!

No. It's called incompetence. It's possible to take a correctly focussed
picture with either manual or automatic focus. Whichever system you use,
it's just a matter of learning the proper technique. It must be on or
near Page 1 of just about any book on photography.

Personally, I'd be quite happy if the pictures in 'Gardener's World'
focussed crisply on the flowers and allowed the presenters to be
out-of-focus. Alas, for a fair part of the time, nothing in shot seems
clearly detailed.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:23:56 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:09:32 +0100, Stuart McKears
wrote:


The decline in standards goes right through the whole programme chain,
beginning with operators who don't seem to know how to focus a camera
on a foreground talking head instead of the trees or buildings in the
background

It's called auto focus!

No. It's called incompetence. It's possible to take a correctly
focussed picture with either manual or automatic focus. Whichever
system you use, it's just a matter of learning the proper technique.
It must be on or near Page 1 of just about any book on photography.

Rod.

The problem you described is typical of auto focus left on and the talent moves.
In all probability, if you look at the unedited clip, you will see probably see
when the focus changes.

However your conclusion that focusing for film and video is the same is
incorrect.

With film cameras, movie and still, you're focusing on the film plane albeit via
a mirror in most cases.

With video, you're focusing using a processed image almost certainly displayed
on display whose native resolution is considerably less than the native
resolution of the camera - this is especially true for HD.

The result of this compression/processing may mean that some high contrast
subjects will look sharp when they're not and some flat, high resolution
subjects will look soft when they're not. (The effect is exactly the same as why
some 16mm to video will look soft)

Of course, the camera makers try to ensure that their processing makes the
correct allowances but you have to be aware of your camera's possible
limitations on focusing - that is not something that is covered on page 1 of a
photography book :-)

regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:12:12 +0100, Stuart McKears
wrote:


The decline in standards goes right through the whole programme chain,
beginning with operators who don't seem to know how to focus a camera
on a foreground talking head instead of the trees or buildings in the
background

It's called auto focus!

No. It's called incompetence. It's possible to take a correctly
focussed picture with either manual or automatic focus. Whichever
system you use, it's just a matter of learning the proper technique.
It must be on or near Page 1 of just about any book on photography.

Rod.

The problem you described is typical of auto focus left on and the talent moves.
In all probability, if you look at the unedited clip, you will see probably see
when the focus changes.

However your conclusion that focusing for film and video is the same is
incorrect.

I said no such thing. Simply that whatever technology is being used
the person who is being paid to get it right should learn the
appropriate technique and get it right. If the foreground subject is
visibly fuzzy while the background is sharp, then it's wrong. And if
it starts right but the talent moves in such a way as to go out of
focus, then you adjust it.

Most of the offending shots that I've seen don't look as if autofocus
is being used, because it appears fixed - at infinity. My guess is
that somebody set the camera up by focusing on the background before
anybody even stepped into shot, not realising that this would alter
the situation.

Everybody makes mistakes sometimes, but news and documentaries get
this wrong on static talking head shots so often that I really can't
think of any reason for it other than basic ignorance on the part of
whoever is operating or setting up these cameras. Focusing should be
the first thing you learn about lenses - *if* you learn about lenses -
because that's what lenses do.

Rod.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:11:07 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:12:12 +0100, Stuart McKears
wrote:


The decline in standards goes right through the whole programme chain,
beginning with operators who don't seem to know how to focus a camera
on a foreground talking head instead of the trees or buildings in the
background

It's called auto focus!

No. It's called incompetence. It's possible to take a correctly
focussed picture with either manual or automatic focus. Whichever
system you use, it's just a matter of learning the proper technique.
It must be on or near Page 1 of just about any book on photography.

Rod.

The problem you described is typical of auto focus left on and the talent moves.
In all probability, if you look at the unedited clip, you will see probably see
when the focus changes.

However your conclusion that focusing for film and video is the same is
incorrect.

I said no such thing. Simply that whatever technology is being used
the person who is being paid to get it right should learn the
appropriate technique and get it right. If the foreground subject is
visibly fuzzy while the background is sharp, then it's wrong. And if
it starts right but the talent moves in such a way as to go out of
focus, then you adjust it.

If you can't see whether it's sharp or fuzzy due to the limitations of the
technology or due to the limitations of the environment then you can't adjust
it.


Most of the offending shots that I've seen don't look as if autofocus
is being used, because it appears fixed - at infinity. My guess is
that somebody set the camera up by focusing on the background before
anybody even stepped into shot, not realising that this would alter
the situation.

In my experience, I've never seen that error occur due to the circumstances of
your guess. It's actually quite difficult to set auto focus cameras to infinity
in error. If it's not auto focus, then it would be very surprising that a
cameraman, even as a PSC, would "forget" to focus - if you're experienced enough
to use a that type of camera then it's not something you forget!


Everybody makes mistakes sometimes, but news and documentaries get
this wrong on static talking head shots so often that I really can't
think of any reason for it other than basic ignorance on the part of
whoever is operating or setting up these cameras. Focusing should be
the first thing you learn about lenses - *if* you learn about lenses -
because that's what lenses do.

As I explained, focusing on video cameras is not solely about lenses.You're not
looking direct at the image from the lens, you're looking at the processed
image.

However, don't forget that differential focus like "wobble vision" rarely occurs
by accident, it's more usually the director being "creative"!!!!

regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:58:07 +0100, Stuart McKears
wrote:

However your conclusion that focusing for film and video is the same is
incorrect.

I said no such thing. Simply that whatever technology is being used
the person who is being paid to get it right should learn the
appropriate technique and get it right. If the foreground subject is
visibly fuzzy while the background is sharp, then it's wrong. And if
it starts right but the talent moves in such a way as to go out of
focus, then you adjust it.

If you can't see whether it's sharp or fuzzy due to the limitations of the
technology or due to the limitations of the environment then you can't adjust
it.

True, but if that's really what's limiting the ability of camera
operators to focus cameras, then they're being provided with the wrong
equipment. Don't television cameras have viewfinder peaking any more?
or lenses with numbered markings for the distances? Even if the
viewfinder picture itself isn't good enough to see directly what's in
focus, a good operator should know how to use these other indications,
or even an extension monitor. It's a poor workman, as they say, that
blames the tools.

Most of the offending shots that I've seen don't look as if autofocus
is being used, because it appears fixed - at infinity. My guess is
that somebody set the camera up by focusing on the background before
anybody even stepped into shot, not realising that this would alter
the situation.

In my experience, I've never seen that error occur due to the circumstances of
your guess. It's actually quite difficult to set auto focus cameras to infinity
in error. If it's not auto focus, then it would be very surprising that a
cameraman, even as a PSC, would "forget" to focus - if you're experienced enough
to use a that type of camera then it's not something you forget!

Just watch the news for a while, or any documentary or current affairs
programme, or anything that includes topical static talking-head
shots, and sooner or later you'll see one, probably several. Look at
the face, particularly the eyes, of the person who is talking, and
look at the buildings, trees, or whatever they may be, in the
background. It's the unmistakeable optical effect of the lens being
focused too far away, and although I don't know exactly how this comes
about, it happens a lot, and somebody must be responsible for it.

Everybody makes mistakes sometimes, but news and documentaries get
this wrong on static talking head shots so often that I really can't
think of any reason for it other than basic ignorance on the part of
whoever is operating or setting up these cameras. Focusing should be
the first thing you learn about lenses - *if* you learn about lenses -
because that's what lenses do.

As I explained, focusing on video cameras is not solely about lenses.You're not
looking direct at the image from the lens, you're looking at the processed
image.

Nonsense! Focusing ANY camera is ALL about lenses! No matter what
indication you use to achieve it - a picture on a monitor or seen
through a side tube, or a numerical indication on a lens barrel
matching a reading from a measuring tape - the aim is to focus the
optical image of the object of interest on the photosensitive material
(film, tube or chip) in the camera. That's the *first* thing you have
to do, and if you can't get that right, nothing further down the line
will be able to correct it.

However, don't forget that differential focus like "wobble vision" rarely occurs
by accident, it's more usually the director being "creative"!!!!

I'm not talking about "differential" focus. I'm talking about *wrong*
focus. I'm talking about the sort of static utilitarian shot that is
part of a topical programme wherein it is unequivocal that the
intended object of interest is the sole foreground object, namely the
person who is talking - and they're out of focus. There would be no
justification for being artyfarty in a news report. It's just plain
wrong. It's somebody not doing their job properly, when only a little
care would be needed to do it right.

Rod.