January 9, 2018 at 7:04 AM #96550
I'm a visual artist and amateur film maker.
I wanna ask advice on shooting a still image video of an indoor space with dime lighting.
The challenge is to make the video look so still that it can be mistaken for a image. I'm hoping to create the effect of watching a image on a screen which you can only notice to be a video by looking very closely. I hope my equipment is adequate. I have a D7000 canon to shoot with.
A video with poor lighting often shows on the image surface as grains flickering, thereby creating a small sensation of movement in the image. This is what I need to prevent, but it is not easy since the room is not very well lit.
The video is for a visual art piece. It will be shown in a art gallery on a monitor.
Thanks in advance for any advice on this subject
January 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM #278104
Why a video when there is no movement in it? Why not use a still image?
If you must use video, lock down the camera on a tripod and open the iris as wide as it will go. Supplement the light in the room. You don't have to illuminate the entire room; just pick out some specific elements and illuminate them.
January 26, 2018 at 9:59 AM #278197
The Diva's would be great to better illuminate the entire room. I was thinking more along the lines of lighting — really "highlighting" — specific areas or objects in the room, keeping the overall feeling dark but bringing focus to specific elements in the shot. Perhaps a mix of both: Divas to bring up the overall illumination and help surpress the video noise he's experiencing, practicals and area lights to provide focal points in the shot.
January 26, 2018 at 10:24 AM #278198
If there's no motion in the frame, you can also lengthen your shutter speed pretty far to let mor light in. The typical rule is 1/60 sec for 30 fps, 1/48 sec for 24fps, etc. but that's to get "natural" looking motion. If you don't have motion or have so very little, you could go with shutter speeds close to 1/30 sec for 30 fps and close to 1/24 sec for 24 fps. That would also increase the light to the camera.
Another possibility would be to do it as a time lapse with stills and set for properly exposed photos.
January 27, 2018 at 7:51 AM #278207
Why not take a still, and then dupicate it thousands of times? Can;t quite see the point, unless in the performance art aftyer an hour or so, something happens? Any decent editor can do this, in whatever resolution is required.
February 9, 2018 at 3:05 AM #278259
What you photograph is completely up to you. Have a search around the house to see if you can find something simple but interesting to start with. Please don’t feel like you have to take photos of fruit or flowers just because everyone else does: think outside the box without being overly ambitious.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.