Photography has entertained, informed and infuriated me for 70 years. However, I am not a photographer. I use video and still photography to record and illustrate my observations of the natural world. In this blog I also comment on optical equipment used for viewing wildlife and on the changes in photography from the 1950s to the present day
In the past I have often carried a 1.4 or 1.7x lens extender for whichever camcorder I have had at the time. That extra reach a lens extender gives can be very useful for mammals a long way away and for small mammals, birds and reptiles. Purist still photographers hate extenders because they degrade the image a little and sometimes a lot; they also reduce the maximum aperture. However, I have found them really useful for video and Sony used to make both tele and wide-angle adapters for its camcorders. They no longer do that. When I bought the Sony AX-700 last year I looked around for a suitable tele-extender. Most that have been made in the past have a much smaller diameter than the lens on the AX-700. But one doesn’t: the Olympus Tele Extension Lens Pro TCON-14B. This fits the 62 mm diameter screw fitting of the Sony without needing conversion rings. I soon found a range for sale at camera dealers and on eBay. I bought a mint one for £5.
The AX-700-TCON-14B combination
I had read old reviews which praised the optical quality of this Olympus lens which was built for an early digital camera, the E-10, a model first sold in 2000. I have found it to be the best tele extender I have ever used. Its only disadvantage is its weight of nearly half a kilogram; it really is solidly built.
The TCON-14B is a 1.45x extender which means I can achieve a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 505 mm using optical zoom only or 757 mm using clear image zoom. The values are with stabilisation turned off since I cannot imagine using the combination without a tripod. I normally output 4k footage to 1080 which means I can up to double the effective focal length in post production to over 1000 mm.
At short focal lengths there is vignetting, as with all tele extenders and so I only use it near or at the maximum focal length of the zoom lens.
The close focusing distance of 100 cm does not change with a tele extender and so it can be used for close-up shots when greater separation between subject and background is needed.
The front end of the extender has the slightly unusual 86 mm diameter filter thread.
The match between the diameter of the extender and the outside diameter of the camcorder lens is very close. The TCON-14B could have been designed for the AX-700 rather than for a camera 20 years ago.
As I have written before the ergonomics of Sony camcorders fall short. After trying my AX-700 in the field for wildlife and travel with unchanged function buttons, I started to make a series of changes which have made life more convenient for my particular purposes.
An annoying feature is that some of the function buttons are labelled with their default function, so that their label remains when the button does something entirely different. If I do not use the camera for several months or hand it to somebody else, it helps to be reminded of what the new function is. Therefore I used to a labelling machine to mark new or changed functions. The labels, of course, can be removed if necessary.
Because I sometimes want to take a still photograph and on this model a visit to the menu system is needed to shift from video to still and vice versa, I assigned Button 3 to toggle between the two modes. Then Button 4 becomes the shutter release (as labelled) in Stills Mode.
The normal Menu button is inconveniently placed way along the side of the camcorder. In Video Mode, therefore, I assigned Menu to Button 4, which is convenient for the index finger of the right hand.
I am often using the camcorder to take birds in bushes or trees. To check quickly if the autofocus is on the bird or surrounding branches, I have Button 5 set for Focus Peaking—also convenient for a finger of the right hand. I can then quickly decide whether or not to switch to manual focus.
I found I needed the option to swap quickly between focus areas so I have assigned Button 6 to Focus Area.
Buttons 1 and 2 remain unchanged.
Thus far, I find the modified set-up works well for the kind of work I do. Here is a summary:
Continuing my search for the perfect camcorder for wildlife and travel I bought a Sony AX-700. I should say at the outset that for wildlife, a camcorder is far more convenient to use handheld than a mirrorless camera. A camcorder is more compact, has a sufficiently long focal length lens for most purposes and can be held without shaking much more easily. I can speak from experience since I have both. But camcorders do not sell well and the few manufacturers bring out a new model very rarely.
I was looking for a camcorder with more reliable and defined-area autofocus than is available with the contrast only autofocus systems on Sony and Panasonic camcorders with a 1/2.5 in sensor, where the camera will often focus on what it can focus on rather than on what I want it to focus on, even when the object is in the centre of the viewfinder.
The Sony AX-700 has phase as well as contrast autofocus. The sensor is bigger (13.2 x 8.8 mm) than in my previous Sony and Panasonic camcorders (5.8 x 4.3 mm) but not so big that the depth-of-field at wide apertures and with the lens at full zoom is minute. It is the cheapest but most compact of the professional non-broadcast range of camcorders introduced by Sony in 2017 since it lacks the audio handle and microphone of those ‘higher’ in the range.
I have now had the opportunity to use the AX-700 at home and in Iceland.
The curate’s excellent parts of this curious egg of a camcorder are: the quality of video output and the autofocus which is truly outstanding whether using a wide autofocus area or a small central area. The increase in weight over the 1/2.5 inch camcorders is worth the trade-off.
But there are outstandingly bad features. The buttons, menu system and manual can only have been devised by somebody who has never had to use the results of his or her efforts. The menu is turned on by pressing a button under the lens on the side while controlling the selection by a joystick on the back panel alongside the start/stop button. The arrangement of the menu items is illogical and although the functions of the pre-labelled menu buttons can be changed there is often little advantage in doing so because for many functions, pressing one button is insufficient and the menu itself has to be brought up.
I defy anybody to understand setting up for slow-motion on first reading the manual. This is because it takes a while to realise that the camera does not record, say, 100 (120 in USA) frames per second, to the card, leaving the editor the choice of what to do in post-production. No, it stores footage taken at high frame rates and then records to the card the completed slo-mo video at 25 (30) fps—eventually since it takes time for this process to be completed and further shooting is impossible until that clip is produced.
Really annoying is the description of Super Slow Motion. I had to actually try the different settings using a falling pencil at my desk to see what the instruction manual is trying to say. And all that has to be done with manually set exposure and manual focus.
Bob Myers of AVP Studios produced this excellent review of the AX-700 on Youtube. It is well worth watching and I will not repeat his criticisms here, other than to agree with them:
A number of difficulties seem to arise from the fact that for any of the ‘special’ features like slow-motion this is not a 4k camcorder. It is really a 1080 machine that will shoot 4k at 25(30)fps. But even at 1080 there are many features that cannot be used with autofocus and autoexposure. One might have thought that it would at its price shoot 4k at 50(60) fps but it doesn’t.
The AX-700 is probably over-priced and slightly over-heavy (although it will run for hours—no 30-minute limit) without overheating which suggests some of the weight is in heat-dissipating metal).
In conclusion, Sony’s AX-700 is not the perfect wildlife and travel camcorder. Many useful functions needed within seconds cannot be changed or accessed quickly enough. It is on the ergonomics where it falls short.
This camcorder then is typical Sony: some brilliant features let down by poor ergonomics, poor user interface and poor documentation.
In my post of 28 August 2018 I explained how I my Sony AX53 had failed when nearly new and why I decided to replace it with the Panasonic HC-VXF1. I also pointed out how the Panasonic compared with the Sony in my hands. I have now used the Panasonic for wildlife at sea and on land. I am just as impressed with it then as I was at the beginning, especially the arrangement and control of the menu system which is vastly superior to the Sony effort. In many ways it is the ideal travel camcorder. The only area in which I have found it to be less good than the AX53 is the autofocus under certain and unpredictable conditions. Even in good light on occasion, the camera has not focused on the bird or mammal in the centre of the frame but has picked on a patch of ground further away. In one case, the focus point it picked was a patch of grass in good light, in another, the pebbles of a beach. I just could not get the camera to autofocus on a cicada sitting on a tree trunk; again it eventually settled on the background. My impression was that, although I obviously did not have an AX53 with me to compare, the Panasonic's contrast-detection AF was not quite so good as the Sony's, although the latter does not get it right every time. Another user I know has found the same problem with even a large antelope in the centre of the frame being ignored and focus being established on the background well to the left or right. The answer, some my remind me, is to switch to manual focus but speed is often of the essence. Birds and mammals may be in view for only a matter of seconds and by the time several buttons have been pressed and a ring turned, the opportunity may have gone.
My Sony AX700 which has phase and contrast detection autofocus on its larger sensor does not suffer the problem of the contrast-only autofocus camcorders. It is perhaps unlikely that on-sensor phase detectors can be installed on the tiny sensors installed in the camcorders at the lower end of the market. However, there is a trade off between weight and sensor size so I may well keep my Panasonic for those occasions when I do not wish to or cannot carry anything heavier.
Readers of my previous post on the Lumix FZ82 bridge camera will know that it is a mixed bag. Some features I like; some desirable features are missing; implementation of some features is poor. However, I have it for its very long focal length. With 4K video the 25 mm equivalent maximum focal length is 1,680 mm. On the Tibetan Plateau in Sichuan, China, last November I used it to take videos of Blue Sheep a very long way away on an alpine meadow and of Pallas’s Cats also a long way away. I had the camera mounted on a Manfrotto Befree Live Video tripod. The wind was strong and gusting and even the crumbly soil (undermined by Plateau Pikas) caused a wobble. I could have done with having the tripod at minimum height but the camera does has not have a moveable screen! At maximum focal length shimmer caused by warmed air rising is always a problem that nothing can be done about. The footage is 4K. I was outputting at 1080 so could scale up by a factor of two if necessary, i.e. to the equivalent of about 3,500 mm. Yes, on a full-frame 35 mm camera and a non-telephoto design, that’s a lens 3½ metres or 11½ feet long. Here are some examples:
Video at these extremes and under such conditions is like the dog that talked with a Birmingham accent. The remarkable thing is not the accent but the fact that it could talk at all. I also used the camera at a long focal length to take close shots of a Plateau Pika. The distance—and, therefore, shimmer—was much less evident. These are the full versions of the videos on Youtube (most of the footage is from my Sony AX33):
Is there a non-professional and light camera that in the conditions could have done better?
I have been looking for a short-when-packed, light tripod with a video head for a long time. Strong enough to take by Sony AX33 camcorder or even one of my Nikon DSLRs, it would be my tripod of choice when travelling without the telescope and Gitzo tripod. I hoped that Manfrotto might come up with the goods in the wake of their success with the original Befree with ball-and-socket head and last autumn the Befree Live appeared—with a video pan-and-tilt head. Ted Forbes reviewed it very favourably in his Art of Photography YouTube video. Wex soon had one at my doorstep but before I could try it when I found another reviewer on YouTube who praised it but when I looked at the video he had produced the head appeared to be terrible—really jerky pans which he obviously thought acceptable. I found that this guy has half a million followers for his photography videos but on looking at a few I found them gut-crunchingly irritating. However, whose video to believe?
I set up the camcorder on the tripod and within minutes was producing smooth pans with the ‘fluid’ head of the Befree Live. I used the old trick of using a rubber band to give a gentle, steady pull. Then I tested it to see its ability would hold position (unlike many, particularly ball-and-socket heads) when locked. My extreme test for this was the Nikon P610 at its longest focal length of 1440 mm (full-frame 35 mm equivalent). It held position as I locked on to birds in the garden. It was as good as my full-fat Gitzo head. So I am delighted with it. Weighing 1.78 kg and, when closed, short enough to go in a backpack it it will be going on our first overseas trip of the year.
Sony’s infrared NIGHT SHOT setting on their camcorders is useful for nocturnal wildlife forays, both for the wildlife itself when a visible light source cannot be used and for videoing cutaways of the watchers and drivers in the pitch dark. It is said to operate by moving the filter from the sensor thereby allowing near infrared and infrared wavelengths to be recorded. I wondered if it would be possible to use Night Shot in daylight to turn the camcorder (AX33) into an infrared camera by putting suitable cutoff filters over the lens.
Unfortunately, life is not that simple. Even with an 850 nm IR filter, there was massive overexposure on the Auto setting—the only setting permitted since in Night Shot mode manual exposure adjustment is blocked. So I started stacking neutral density filters over the 850 filter. Eventually with an ND8 plus ND4 (i.e. 5 stops) I could get a reasonably exposed image even in bright sunlight. I return to this set up below.
I also tried a 720 nm filter to see if I could generate faux colour infrared footage. Using the technique in Final Cut Pro X I have used with my 720 nm infrared-modified Nikon D7100, I could get a weak blue in the sky but nothing really worthwhile.
In trying to find out whether or not anybody had attempted to use Night Shot by day I came across a small Flickr group. Members of that have used a 2003 model Sony still camera (DSC-V1) which has Night Shot. Again an IR filter plus ND filters were the answer.
The original footage has the usual weak green hue. I did a simple black-and-white conversion. Noise, always a problem with infrared photography using cameras with small sensors, was evident. Therefore, I used Neat Video for noise reduction but there is a downside in that rendering times are increased markedly—very markedly.
To try the set-up out I tried a few hand-held shots in the village. You will see from the footage that at the shorter focal lengths there was peripheral unsharpness. I do not know the cause. At longer focal lengths, however, that fuzziness disappeared.
While not as convenient or versatile as a modern infrared-converted DSLR, the use of Night Shot does provide owners of Sony camcorders with the capability of taking infrared footage with the simple addition of cheap filters.
One valuable feature of Final Cut Pro X is the ability to import photographs directly from Apple’s own Aperture and Photos via the Photos Browser. When I moved to Adobe Lightroom, in anticipation of the demise of Aperture and faced with the pretty useless Photos, I missed that feature. I thought there was no way of getting photographs from Lightroom into Final Cut Pro X other than by exporting them and then importing them into FCPX directly or via Photos. I was wrong.
The Published Smart Folder created in Lightroom
I found a workaround that had been published on an internet forum in September 2015. In Lightroom it involves creating a Publish Service to any local drive. I first created a folder called LR for FCP (to remind me what it contains) in the Pictures folder. I then used Lightroom to create its own ‘Published Smart Folder’ within that folder. I set up the latter folder to contain anything Flagged in Lightroom. I only used ‘Flag’ as as example for automatically including photographs in the Smart Folder—all the other smart folder options (star rating, colour label, keywords) can be used.
The contents of the smart folder are held there until you right click and press ‘Publish Now’. The queued photographs are exported to Published Smart Folder.
The Published Smart Folder open in FCPX
That folder is now dragged into the Photos Browser of FCPX and there are the photographs ready to drag onto the Timeline.
Provided you have FCPX set up to ‘Copy to library storage location’, the photographs can be deleted from the Published Smart Folder and those in its smart folder in Lightroom can be unFlagged and removed (the original photos are left in place of course).
I think I now prefer this method to using Aperture or Photos since I do not need have to wade through all their folders and photographs In the Photos Browser in FCPX to find what I want.
This method also works with Motion and I found another advantage. Layered graphics in psd format (such as the ones I use for moving maps) can be saved directly from Photoshop to the Published Smart Folder. They can then be dragged to the Canvas in Motion with the option for them to appear as separate layers (in FCPX the layers can be separated in the Timeline).
I have been in a quandary over how to replace my five-year old model camcorder (Sony HDR-XR550) which has served me so well. It was, I recall, one of the last hard drive/memory card models and I began to worry that hard drives do not last forever. In the meantime I have added a Nikon Coolpix P610 with its superzoom lens and this has provided with me with full HD at very long distances with its over 1400 mm equivalent maximum focal length. However, a dedicated camcorder does offer some advantages for general use. Last year I rejected the AX100 when it appeared. Its large sensor is better in terms of video quality, low noise in low light and the ability with its smaller depth of field to throw the background out of focus. However, for wildlife ‘on the fly’ I saw that its autofocus was relatively slow and its optical stabilisation nothing special. In short it was ideal for ‘film makers’ who have control of the carefully staged scene but not for me where wildlife does what it does and the camera has to meet the needs of the scene; rapid autofocus and good depth of field go with a smaller sensor. This year I saw the appearance from Sony of the AX33 with a smaller (1/2.33) sensor (but somewhat larger sensor than the one in the old XR550 (1/2.88)). Well, that’s not true because all I saw was the AXP33 on the Sony UK website. The ‘P’ stands for built-in projector and who on earth wants to carry around such a gimmicky addition. Only a couple of weeks ago did I discover that Sony made a non-projector version, the AX33; not only was it considerably cheaper than the ‘P’ version but it just about met all the requirements I had in mind. A major consideration was weight and size; a low-end professional camcorder is simply too big for me. The first essential was a viewfinder. A camcorder without a viewfinder and just a screen is useless in tropical sunlight. So that was a Panasonic model of similar video specifications but no viewfinder ruled out. Sony have a big plus point in Night Shot, retained in the AX33. I am not going to repeat the many descriptions and reviews that are available online. The outstanding feature is Balanced Optical Steadyshot (BOSS) (not incorporated into the AX100). By comparing this new model with my 5-year old camcorder I was pleasantly surprised that the battery type was unchanged, the Sony micro accessory shoe has been replaced by a standard shoe and that zebra and focus peaking are standard. Negative points so far are:
No GPS (a very useful standard feature of my old XR550)
In-camera battery charging (useless for travel)
No neutral density filtration
Only 10x optical zoom (although the Clear Image Zoom may well compensate to some extent)
The zoom lever is very close to the still photograph button
Poor manual (even the downloadable version is poor, with almost no explanatory information)
The Sony UK website and the manual are really short of useful information. For example, the Sony USA website has the following: Direct Pixel Read Out The FDR-AX33 incorporates 'direct pixel readout' utilizing the entire width of the image sensor without line skipping or pixel binning. Therefore in both HD and 4K video acquisition it can read and process data from every one of the sensor's pixels, resulting in smooth edges and color gradation giving you the incredible video from a tiny camera. I can find no mention of this attribute either in the manual or on the UK site. The stills are said to be upscaled by interpolation. I have not yet had a look to see how good the stills are. My impression is that Sony have gone for connectivity features (Wi-Fi, NFC) and made the camcorder down to a price for the consumer market (I have over the last ten years or so paid £200 less for each of three successive Sony camcorders). Better for me for had Sony charged more and included GPS, a separate charger and a proper manual. Sony also make a great fuss of playback into their 4k televisions etc when all the likes of me need is an ability to capture the video into Final Cut Pro X on a Mac. Quick trials show the 4k and HD video to be very good. I will now test it using 4k and HD recording with typical subjects under all sorts of lighting conditions at different focal lengths and with optical and Clear Image Zoom before our next big trip. The Sony FDR-AX33 together with the Nikon Coolpix P610 seem, at the moment, to be an ideal combination for travel and wildlife.
I can now report on how the P610 performed over two weeks in the state of Gujarat, India. In short, I used it for 95% of my video and 95% of the still photographs. Originally, I was intending to use the camcorder for video plus the odd still and the Nikon for stills where I needed a focal length of greater than 500 mm (in full-frame 35 mm equivalents). The longest focal length I can manage on my Sony camcorder with the awkward screw-in extender fitted is 300 x 1.7 = 510 mm.
I only used my Sony Camcorder for 5% of the footage. The reason for this was two-fold. Firstly, the large mammals (Asiatic Lions, Blackbuck and Asiatic Wild Asses, for example) in the national parks and sanctuaries of Gujarat were far more wary of vehicles than similar mammals in Africa and photography was therefore at a greater distance. I needed more than 500 mm, and so the Nikon, being used for stills was pressed into service to see if I could get video footage that I would have been unable to get with the camcorder. Secondly, the outrageously high camera fees charged in the parks and sanctuaries of Gujarat. Camera fees, payable in rupees, were GBP12.50 per camera per visit. Since we had six visits to Gir, the camera fees for that park alone were £75. The charge is per camera not per photographer so one unfortunate in our party was spotted with a second camera in her bag (which she had no intention of using) and dragged off to pay another fee. I was not going to pay for a second camera in order to add support to the bureaucratic lunacy of the ministry responsible for running the parks so carried only the Nikon to use for everything.
To cut to the chase, I could not distinguish the quality of the full HD video between the two cameras. If anything the Nikon had the slight edge (it has a larger sensor, 1/2.3 compared with 1/2.88 of my now obsolete Sony). Stabilisation also seemed similar. I was able to take video, sometimes at the full 1440 mm equivalent focal length by pressing the camera against the side of the vehicle or by pressing the camera into the flesh of my attractive assistant who received the simple instruction: ‘Stop breathing’. Of course, there were the usual problems of taking video from a vehicle with other people on board, with their slightest unintentional movement causing me and the camera to move. The Nikon seemed slower than the Sony in changing focus. However, at focal lengths equivalent to the range available on the Sony, I had no problems at all and it may be the effect of a larger sensor and the long focal length that made the Nikon seem slower. The depth of field at a distance of 50 metres and an aperture of f/5.6 is only a couple of metres and a lion walking quickly towards the camera would need the autofocus to shift quickly. The only disadvantages of using the Nikon compared with the Sony were the recording of the noise of the zoom motor and of the wind whistling past the microphones. I have a Micromuff fitted to the Sony which helps with the wind problem. On the Nikon the stereo microphones are mounted on the top of the flashgun. Had I thought I should have tried raising the flashgun to change to angle of the microphones in relation to the direction of the wind.
I also made full use of the built-in GPS (as I did with the camcorder also). Before leaving, I bought a package of a battery charger and two cheap batteries, so that I also had two fully charged spares with me. I did not take the supplied Nikon in-camera charger. I did not have to change a battery in the field but replaced the battery after each morning or evening session. The cheap batteries performed just as well as the original Nikon.
So can the P610 replace my camcorder for video? For most purposes, my answer would be ‘yes’. However, the Sony does have the edge in two respects: its low lux capability and night shot (infrared). The capability of the cheap P610 does leave me with a problem for the not-too-distant future: what do I buy to replace the Sony camcorder; another Sony camcorder and if so which sensor size and output or a compact system camera with an added microphone, the Panasonic Lumix with a 4K video option, for example? I have already discounted an SLR for wildlife video since I do not want to have to use live view through the screen as a viewfinder nor do I want the very restricted depth-of-field for wildlife shots on the fly (desirable as that narrow depth of field would be in certain circumstances). I am putting off making that decision.
So, having found the P610 excellent for both stills and video (and a major improvement on the P510, as I explained in my previous post) were there any niggles? There were three; one was on performance, the others ergonomic. At full zoom and on a little of the hand-held, pressed-against-the-flesh video footage there was some ‘shimmering’ down the edges. Was this the result of the in-camera stabilisation fighting against or trying to help my keeping the camera still? Somehow, I found I had the electronic as well as the optical vibration reduction turned on, so that may be the reason. More testing will be done—not, sadly with a desert fox cub as the subject but a garden chair.
The catch that closes but does not lock the battery compartment
Ergonomically, I found the video start/stop button in an awkward place. That is probably because I am a partial left-hander and hold the camera to my left eye. The rest of my face prevents my right thumb from gaining easy access to the video button. Finally, and despite all the plaudits, a real demerit for the Nikon designers. This is what happens. Binoculars are permanently welded to wildlife watchers and the camera dangles above them. Unfortunately, the catch that closes the battery compartment snags the top of the binoculars and the flap springs open. A fellow traveller had noticed this with here P510 (soon to be swapped for the P610) and had actually lost the battery because the tab holding the battery had also been pulled across by the binoculars or their strap after the compartment had flipped open. Nikon really do need to redesign the battery compartment catch; simply pushing it to one side to open it is too easy. At present a piece of sticky tape seems the most useful precaution.
It is very difficult to illustrate how good video or stills are on screen. However, here is a video shot at focal lengths beyond 1000 mm equivalent of parakeets seeing off a marauding rat snake.
Examples of still photographs (more on shown on my Flickr page). Nearly all are crops from the full-size (4608 x 3456 pixels) photographs, with processing in Aperture with Nik Software plug-ins.
So, to conclude, buying the Coolpix P610 shortly before we went to India paid off, enabling me to get video footage and still shots that would not have been possible with my Sony camcorder with its very limited (x10) zoom. Having tested it in action, I am extremely pleased that it did more than I asked.
There will be more information on the wildlife of Gujarat on my other blog, Zoology Jottings.
A letter from Stuart Smith, also I see writing from Ayrshire, to Amateur Photographer (31 May) welcomed the news that the magazine would give more attention to videography. Like me he finds 'it odd there has never been a magazine for the amateur in this field'. However, the reply from the Group Editor (I am not sure one can edit a group) backtracked: 'we are not going to start writing about camcorders but we will be offering advice on getting more from the movie-mode button on still cameras'. How can one describe the performance of a still camera's 'movie mode' without comparing it to a proper, made for the job, high-level camcorder? The video performance of many if not most still cameras on the market seems to be pretty poor, judging from experience and comments on the internet. Will then AP take on the task of explaining the simple language of cinephotography? One has only to look at amateur video on YouTube to see that such guidance is desperately needed. Before the now-defunct camcorder magazines of the 1990s, AP itself embraced cinephotography. In the 1950s and 1960s pages were devoted to the topic in most issues. Much of the advertising then was devoted to cine cameras and projectors. With the decline in sales of amateur, low-end camcorders (as 'movie mode' has appeared increasingly on still cameras), leaving just a few 'pro-sumer' and professional camcorders at the high end of the market, perhaps AP feels there is not enough advertising revenue to justify the proper treatment of moving pictures.
All my early videos from the early 1990s on were stored on playable DVDs. Digital storage in the days of Hi-8 and then miniDV tape was very expensive. DVDs deteriorate with time and with ‘smart’ televisions having USB sockets and streaming from macs to televisions being a matter of routine, I decided to transfer all the completed videos on DVD to hard drives and memory sticks.
All the information on the best way to do this on the Mac can be found on web sites. However, I never did find it all in one place. This is the routine I eventually used for DVDs having no menus or only one item in the menu.
1 Copy the VIDEO_TS folder from the DVD to the desktop
2 Use the VIDEO_TS folder as the Source in the free software, Handbrake, and Desktop as the destination
3 Copy the resulting .mp4 file to two external hard drives
Large files cannot be copied to the standard format (FAT32) of a USB memory stick on a Mac. Our ‘smart’ television (a Samsung that with its video recorder has the worst user interface I have ever known and wish I had never bought) uses Windows compatible memory sticks that cannot be produced by the standard software on the Mac. I therefore bought Paragon’s NTFS for Mac OS X which adds the option to format any drive to the Windows NT filesystem in Disk Utility. Windows NT Filesystem appears as an option when using Erase to reformat a drive, in this case a memory stick, in Disk Utility.
4 Plug in a new USB memory stick and format it using Disk Utility to Windows NT Filesystem
5 Copy the .mp4 file, or collection of files depending on the storage capacity, to the usb memory stick
The only complication comes with the different items of a DVD with a menu of more than one item. The different menu items will appear as options in the source window in Handbrake but can only be converted one at a time. In other words, the different Menu items are output as distinct .mp4 files. This did not affect me since the few DVDs with such menus held separate files anyway and had only been lumped onto one DVD for convenience. If the items are related or follow on one from the other, then the separate .mp4 files can be recombined in Quicktime Player and saved (a slow process) or using video editing software.
In the end I finished the job over several days and now have all my early videos on two external hard drives and on memory stick, the latter being very convenient for playing on a smart TV. Handbrake: http://handbrake.fr Paragon NTFS for Mac OS X (US $ 19.95): http://www.paragon-drivers.com/ntfs-mac/
Still photographers seem to hate video in the same way that they hated cine. During the rise of cheap, amateur cine cameras Amateur Photographer covered both. Eventually, however, that magazine became still photography only. I find video far more rewarding for travel and family. Not only do you capture movement but also the ambient sound. Sound may be the key because even sound with still photographs is better than no natural sound at all.
A reader, Michael Dennis, wrote to Amateur Photographer (19 April 2014) complaining about that magazine's review of the Fujifilm X-T1, 'where you ignore the video capabilities of the camera under review…You probably feel you're being professional by focusing on the stills side, because professionals don't want/need video. But I think that more and more people do want good video—in my case it's 50:50 between this and stills." I could not have put it better myself.
Instead of being brushed off, the editor replied, "…we have plans to give more attention to the video side of things, without detracting from our camera tests, in our forthcoming redesign of the magazine. There will also be some video-related editorial features in the magazine starting in a couple of months' time."
Well, is the amateur photography press eventually catching on to the fact that video is important even if not to members of camera clubs/photographic societies that the magazine was for so long the house journal.
Incidentally, Michael Dennis concluded by quoting from other reviews that the video performance of the XT-1, "is not just poor, but terrible."
The useful article The Definitive Camera Guide in the new magazine, Digital FilmMaker, together with a discussion in Amateur Photographer on whether to buy separate video and still cameras, prompted me to remind myself, in the headlong rush to use full-frame and APS-sized cameras for video, why a small sensor, as found in most amateur, 'prosumer' and some professional camcorders, is preferable for the type of video photography that I do – travel, wildlife and documentary. Film makers which I define as those setting out to make a movie with actors or a staged documentary, appear to be fixated on getting a film-like appearance. Since the appearance of film can be more easily achieved with the depth of field range of a larger sensor (as with 35 mm cine cameras) some follow the fashion and use a large-sensored DSLR. The fact that we see in such videos endless focus shifts that the dramatic effect is expected and therefore ruined is neither here nor there. Such is the world of arty film making.
For travel, wildlife, family and documentary videos there is one great disadvantage in using a DSLR for video. The depth of field is simply too shallow. I have seen some awful efforts. Even if the camera can be focused, the slightest movements lead to the autofocus hunting to regain focus; objects slightly in front or slightly behind the point of focus that are needed to be sharp to provide context are fuzzy. DSLR video is fine for controlled shooting. The many rigs now available can be used; focus can be pulled manually after rehearsing the shot.
Camcorders are not thought cool any more. But they do work and work very well, especially those in the prosumer ranges of the major manufacturers (even though the gimmicks, like the projectors now added by Sony for example are a real pain and very silly). The quality of the full HD video is superb. I have sold wildlife footage from my Sony camcorder.
So what is the advantage of using a small sensor for video? For stills, the bigger the sensor the better, particularly for the prevention of noise. The advantages of a smaller sensor in terms of depth of field are very great for travel and wildlife. In general, with the same final image size, depth of field increases inversely to the size of the format. That is because for the same picture size, a shorter focal length lens can be used with the smaller format. Shorter focal length equals greater depth of filed. Even though the circle of confusion has to be reduced as the format size decreases, the depth of field is still increased.
The first graph illustrates the point. I compare five formats: 1. Full-frame 35 mm; 2. APS (I know the various sensors vary in size a bit but I have taken one for comparison); 4/3 format as used on many modern non-DSLR cameras; 2/3 sensor as used on many professional camcorders; 1/2.88 sensor as used on many amateur, prosumer and some professional camcorders. I calculated for each the equivalent focal length of the lens and, using the circle of confusion appropriate to each format, read off the hyperfocal distance at f/11 and f/4. The graph shows the near point of acceptable focus (i.e. half the hyperfocal distance), the far point of course being infinity.
The difference in depth of field is clear and dramatic. At a small aperture and at focal lengths shorter than the equivalent of about 50 mm, it is difficult to be out of focus using a camera with a small sensor.
I used the same data to calculate the depth of field with the camera focused at 3 metres, again at f/11 and f/4.
It can be seen clearly why footage from a small-sensored iPhone (1/3.2 – similar to 1/2.88) often produces better results in casual photography than a DSLR.
These calculations were all for the equivalent of a 50 mm lens. At 200 mm the effects are even more marked. Imagine a subject moving (e.g. a child playing or a group of otters) in the frame of full-frame DSLR where the depth of field is only a total of 14 cm at f/11 compared with a camcorder with a depth-of field of 100 cm.
Shallower depth of field can be obtained with a small sensor (even if not to the extent possible with a large sensor) by using neutral-density filters (built-in in some professional camcorders) or a polarising filter.
I sometimes pick up a photographic magazine other than the two to which I subscribe. This month I picked up a copy of Professional Photographer. Because clients demand video (who wouldn't), still photographers are having to learn cinematographic techniques and language. Many seem to be going about it the hard way by using a DSLR. The only advantage (and there are lots of disadvantages) of using a DSLR rather than a camcorder that I can see is the ability to use shallower depth of field to isolate the subject — as on a 35 mm film camera. I read with some amusement an article on the art of focusing and the concept of focus pulling because it had a box at the foot of one page entitled Focusing Jargon Buster. There were definitions for sharp, soft, rack focus/pull focus and, would you believe it in a 'professional' magazine, depth-of-field! I first saw the art of focus pulling in the 1970s when making an Open University/BBC programme with that great BBC cameraman Henry Farrar and his assistant (the focus puller). As each shot was set up and timed, a thin length of sticky tape was attached to the distance scale to show where the focusing ring had to be moved to at a particular time in the shot, as the camera was moved, the lens was zoomed or the subject moved. Complicated takes had several bits of thin tape. It was the focus puller's job to move the ring gradually to the next mark at the right time. It was a pleasure to watch the masters of their craft in action. And remember, there was no way to check whether they had got it right until he film was processed. Also remember that this was location filming and that film was expensive.
The latest update to Final Cut Pro X (version 7.0.7) arrived just as I was starting a major editing job. The contrast with the initially released version is striking. There has been a gradual improvement with each update but this one set the record. I edited two finished videos, each of approximately 80 minutes, without a single crash. The video was full HD (HD-FX from my Sony HDR-XR550) plus a large number of 4000 x 4000 pixel stills. The various exports (Apple use the awful term 'share' for most export purposes) worked flawlessly. I also used the latest version of Motion 5 (5.0.6) and, with FCPX, the excellent free Pan and Zoom and Manifesto from Noise Industries. Pan and Zoom provides the controls for moving around a still photograph that are absent from the 'Ken Burns' function in FCPX. Manifesto is excellent for rolling credits. I still think Apple did itself harm by releasing FCPX in a state that showed potential but which lacked key features and was unstable is use. The damage is being repaired and the latest version, I can say without a shadow of doubt, is excellent. With the available add-ons it is even more so. The Noise Industries Website is at: http://www.noiseindustries.com/fxfactory/
Why is there no coverage of making moving images in UK photographic magazines? Apart from a mention of the (increasing) video capabilities of cameras in reviews and comments like, clients demand video from professionals, there is nothing. No reviews of video quality, of camcorders, of editing software — nothing. Video is treated as vaguely embarrassing that no real photographer would be interested in. But with more and more people using everything from camera phones to DSLRs, why the omission?
It is not as if coverage of the techniques of film making were not needed. Look at the appalling footage uploaded to Youtube and you will see that even the most basic knowledge is lacking - keep the camera still, don’t zoom unless you have to and so on. After the demise of the devoted video and video editing magazines (which were set up when the technical aspects of capturing and editing video were cutting edge) the photographic magazines have not picked up on the demand from readers. Cinematography has a different language from still so perhaps the magazine editors know nothing about it. But, the publishers are missing a trick somewhere.
Because of the difference in ‘language’ still photography and cine photography have tended to exist in isolation. However, this was not always the case. Amateur Photographer had a section devoted to cine many years ago.
As a still and cine photographer (standard 8 mm, Super 8, H8 video, mini DV and now HD) I see no virtue in excluding video from photographic magazines. Quite the opposite since increasing numbers of consumers are seeing still photography as being second best. Stills of wildlife (including children) no matter how good, just don’t capture the essence of a subject. They lack the fourth dimension of time and that’s where video scores. Most animals move and it is that movement, even over a very short sequence, that, to me, is essential. Even the shortest movie tells me more than a still photograph. After all, nobody would watch a BBC wildlife programme made up of still photographs, would they?
