Off-topic: Cameralopnik

"GhostZ" (GhostZ) 07/15/2015 at 16:16 • Filed to: None

2

26

I know there are quite a lot of camera buffs here, so I need some help with a nasty, confusing problem that keeps resulting every time I try to get decent settings on my camcorder.

First off, I’m using a Sony HDR-CX405. It is a cheap camera, but I bought it specifically because it has the type of settings I should need to do what I want. It has a 3.1mm sensor and a high f/1.8 setting, along with 60fps 1080p video, which sounds great! ...except it just isn’t doing it.

Specifically, I want to blur the background in my recordings and photos, or “bokeh” as all the utterly useless tutorials out there tell me it is called. Here is an example of what I want to do:

Yes, smile Mr. Tutorial man, because your video was completely useless to me. Your advice does nothing. You are nothing.

I can get an aperture size of f/1.8, which is more than enough from what I’ve been reading to do something like this.

However, no matter what focal distance I use on that aperture, everything looks clear. At it’s blurriest, you can still make out the lines on a poster 30 feet away. There’s no “obscuring to oblivion” like what I expect.

At a distance of 30-40 feet from the background, All of the following seems to look identical:

1. Object 30 feet away at f/1.8
2. Object 1 foot away at f/1.8
3. Object 30 feet away at f/3.0
4. Object 1 foot away at f/3.0

At f/5.0 the background starts to get into a little more focus, but I cannot make it more blurry.

Another thing of note: f/1.8 doesn’t seem overexposed. In fact, changing the aperture setting defaults the exposure setting to “auto” as well. It does the same with shutter speed. Manually changing aperture seems to automatically change shutter speed and exposure to “auto”.

My focal distance settings are 0.1m, 0.2m, 5m, and infinite. Auto doesn’t seem to use those settings, but makes everything in focus.

I can either get a little blur on everything except for 2-3 inches away (which doesn’t help, since I need to be speaking on camera) or I can get moderate blur (not enough, still) on the whole image. Or I can get clear distance overall. The camera just simply will not get blurry under any circumstances, at any distance.

Because this is indoors, I have about 30 feet of distance to play with. I can use any combination of zoom, positioning, etc. within that distance. So I can’t just go outside and be an exorbitantly large distance away from my background.

What do I do? Give up? Would it be easier to blur the background in after effects?

Car tax:

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:19

1

photography.kinja.com

You’ll probably have more luck there. I’ve shared it for you for now, try to get authorship.

Ross Kraz > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:20

0

Isn't that the road rage guy who tried to punch out the motorcyclist?

GhostZ > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 07/15/2015 at 16:20

1

The only reason I posted it here is because I don’t have authorship anywhere else (and rarely ever post/read/comment) and needed someone to share it to the various photography blogs.

HammerheadFistpunch > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:23

2

Sensor size. Its REALLY hard to get small depth of field with a tiny sensor. Its a function of image circle (sensor size) and focal length. with a small chip camera you will need to be zoomed in quite a bit and have physical separation between subject and background to achieve any meaningful bokeh.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:25

0

Though, as I write this post and have moved my camera to a new location, it no longer lets me set f/1.8, making f/2.0 the next highest setting. I have no idea why.

Did you change the zoom level?

Another thing of note: f/1.8 doesn’t seem overexposed. In fact, changing the aperture setting defaults the exposure setting to “auto” as well. It does the same with shutter speed. Manually changing aperture seems to automatically change shutter speed and exposure to “auto”.

This seems wierd. Make sure you are in full manual, rather than shutter/aperature priority or program. Sorry if I sound a little IT-tech-dealing-with-grandma, but that’s all I got.

GhostZ > HammerheadFistpunch 07/15/2015 at 16:26

0

So what are my options, outside of trashing it for a camera that’s 3x more expensive?

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > HammerheadFistpunch 07/15/2015 at 16:26

0

How small do you consider tiny? Point and shoot size, or anything under full frame?

HammerheadFistpunch > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:28

0

Its about physical separation between subject and background and focal length, the more you manipulate those the better it will be. I had the same problem when I was shooting on 1/3rd and 1/2 inch cameras. Beautiful boken is going to be hard to get reliably with that camera.

GhostZ > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 07/15/2015 at 16:29

0

Changing the zoom got me back to 1.8, thanks.

And yeah, it is weird. Normally getting a f/1.8 setting should make your picture look over exposed, but the camera seems to be borking all the other settings to prevent that from happening, even when they’re set to manual.

HammerheadFistpunch > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 07/15/2015 at 16:31

1

Its all relative. Small sensors have their strengths as well as their weaknesses. For example, you can shoot at f/1.8 for low light and still have the subject be tack sharp...try that on a 5dII. Small, for me, is p&s under an inch. That having been said, I have a 1/2.33 size chip camera and I’ve takes some of my favorite pictures with it. Bokeh isn’t everything. Anything bigger than 1 inch is about where you can start getting bokeh reliably.

CB > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:31

1

If you want authorship, I can give it to you (Photography mod here).

GhostZ > HammerheadFistpunch 07/15/2015 at 16:34

0

It doesn’t have to be beautiful, as long as it makes the crap in the background not distracting and gives a clear focus on the speaker.

The focus distance settings are so arbitrary that I can’t manually set it to about 1m (only 0.1m, 0.2m, and 5m). 5m makes everything clear, the other two make everything blurry (unless I get so close to the camera my head takes up the entire screen) but none of the settings really get blurry enough to make it not distracting. Setting it to auto makes the background and speaker clear as well.

HammerheadFistpunch > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:36

1

Its not about setting the focus manually, its about putting the speaker a long way away from the camera, and then a long way again from the background. the long and skinny of it is that you will get your best results at the long end of your zoom.

GhostZ > HammerheadFistpunch 07/15/2015 at 16:38

0

So I’ll need a massive room or a new camera, basically.

It’s been a rabbit hole of bad advice ever since I tried to start shooting video, and I’ve been at it for weeks without anything I’d feel comfortable showing anyone else, family included. I still don’t know how people can just set up and do amateur youtube videos without spending over $2000 on makeup, lights, and a high end camera and employ 2 other people to help them set it all up.

HammerheadFistpunch > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:42

0

sad but true story. This is a solution that used to be very popular before large sensor cameras became a thing, but it doesn’t really help on the cost front. What it does is artificially create a new full frame image circle on a spinning or vibrating disc and then the small sensor films that disc.

DuckDraper > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 16:42

1

Hey isn’t this the same guy?

blackchair > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 17:14

0

What hammerhead said basically.

The bigger the ration of camera-subjet to subject to background the more bokeh. 1 ft in front of the camera and 50 ft behind to the bg will work. The iPhone 6 has a f/2.2 aperture but doesn't produce great bokeh unless you're focusing on something very close to the camera with the bg far away.

MarquetteLa > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 17:25

0

I don’t know what you’re filming, so this may not work for you, but another option would be to film the speaker in front of a green screen, then film the background out of focus and composite the two together.

Yes, it’s way more work than just having a camera that can capture narrow depth of field, but that’s the situation you seem to find yourself in.

mcseanerson > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 17:37

1

It is really difficult to get bokeh on a consumer camcorder. Hell, it’s even difficult to get bokeh on a prosumer camcorder because it’s not what they’re designed for.

If you want bokeh in video you really want at least an aps-c sized sensor dslr with a lens that will open up wide. Also, unless you are trying to playback in slow motion you want to film at 24 or 30 fps. If you really want to pursue this I can give you advice on getting a cheap dslr setup for filmmaking but be warned: It gets real expensive real fast if you can’t practice restraint.

mcseanerson > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 18:03

0

What is the subject matter you are going to be filming? Is it just going to be you talking into the camera for a youtube channel or did you have more in mind? If you want a powerful and versatile kit for video a Canon T2i with a Canon 50mm 1.8 and a Rode Videomic Go would give you a really video quality and versatility for around $500 all in.

If you are just going to sit in the same spot consider changing your mindset and being more focused on your goal. From what I’ve read you want the audience focused on the speaker and not distracted by the background. One way to achieve this without bokeh would be with a green screen.

Hitfilm 3 Express just launched recently and it’s free and pretty powerful. Toss in a green screen and you’re in business for under $100.

Another option, I would personally say a better option, production design.

(start at 5:20 if Kinja is being Kinja)

If you’re making youtube videos for a specific audience design your set so that it caters to that audience. Kind of like how Top Gear filmed in a hangar in car seats with an engine block table.

Stephen the Canuck > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 19:40

1

I think it’s already been said pretty much. It’s mostly sensor size that would restrict you here, and that the camcorder really likely does not have a full manual mode, likely either shutter or aperture priority.

It is a very budget camera, so it’ll have been limited in a variety of ways. Sony would prefer you spend more money to get what you want.

Blurring the background in After Affects, or just accepting a lack of blur are probably going to be your best options for sticking with the camera you have.

Finding a inexpensive used DSLR and a half decent lens would be a viable option. You could probably swing it below $400. McSeanerson does a fair bit of video and could probably give you a good list to check out.

Anon > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 22:02

0

Get a sony A5100 for $400.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > GhostZ 07/15/2015 at 23:19

0

I feel your frustration.

Hammerhead pretty much nails it with the small sensor. I do not understand the physics of it, how a given lens does a good job on what’s not in focus. Yes, bokeh is the term.

Along with the larger sensor, pictures with buttery-soft background have a big hunk of GLASS hanging out there.

You’re going to need a DSLR to begin approaching the look that you want. (I happen to have a Nikon D5100 kit I’d like to sell... Oppo Price...) Either the D5100 or the Canon T3i/T4i are going to be the most affordable DSLRs that will give you good video.

Drop me an email if you want to talk more: oliphant.chuckerbutty@gmail.com

GhostZ > mcseanerson 07/16/2015 at 01:01

0

Thanks for the advice. The T2i seems to discontinued unless you buy a lens with it, putting it nearly $900.

That being said, for the price of a green screen and the lost time in post production, I would be better off selling what I have and rolling forward into a better camera. $200 extra to save myself hours of uncertainty and a steep learning curve is worth it.

So if it’s a deal of max aperture size vs sensor size, what’s the ratio I should be looking at? The T2i has a bigger sensor, but a lower max f number.

The HDR has a 1/5.8” sensor. I see the canon has a 23.7mm x 15.6mm, what is the rate here? Is 1/5.8” (~4.4mm) the sensor length, ie 4.4mm vs 15.6mm meaning the cannon is 4x longer? What’s the standard metric for comparison here if I go shopping for other cameras with similar sized sensors?

mcseanerson > GhostZ 07/16/2015 at 10:58

1

Don’t buy the kit lens if you’re going for bokeh. Just buy a used T2i (or if you can find a little extra money get a T3i so you can flip the screen around) and buy a canon 50mm f/1.8 to go with it. You can get a used T2i in excellent condition from Keh for around $300. The lens can be had for under $100 and that leaves you with $100 for a quality Rode mic to mount in the hot shoe.

I wouldn’t even try to compare a camcorder to a dslr or mirrorless camera because camcorders are designed to stay in focus as much as possible so you’re fighting against the design trying to achieve bokeh.

PardonMyFlemish16 > mcseanerson 07/25/2015 at 20:52

0

Yea, this. Get the cheapest DSLR body you can find with 1080p and then the cheapest AF 50mm 1.8 you can get. For Nikons this means an AF- S , NOT an AF- D, and something like a D3100 body, which should be like $200 used on Amazon.