Settings for shooting skiing

Canuker

Canuker

Active member
So I just got my T2i and for the past few days ive been really trying to educate my self on all the different settings. I got to film skiing for the first time yesterday and found that the it was really over exposed.

This is my first DSLR and im still getting used to setting my own ISO, Fstop and shutter speed. Ive been learning alot from www.learningdslrvideo.com

Anyways, I know it depends alot if its sunny or cloudy outside but what are your go to setting for shooting out on the snow.
 
I like to shoot at a little faster shutter if im shooting skiing. The rule somewhat applies here but i feel like you could bump it up to 200 area if you want.

Totally depends on what type of skiing im shooting though.
 
Shooting a higher shutter for skiing is something I think is a must, the 180 rule is too blurry for my liking, i shoot at least 1/180 and up to 1/350.
 
I usually make it tad darker than usual. or use a polarizer..

you wanna keep the detail of the snow, not have it pure white.
 
I usually use the 50mm F/1.8, so I use an aperture of 1.8, ISO of 400/800 (Depending on how bright it is out), and shutter speed of 1/4000 @60 FPS
 
How do you manage to get crisp images shooting wide open? I could never use my 50mm for sports. I barely ever shoot wide open anyways (I like it around f/2.8 ish)
 
he isnt getting his best image wide open. if you want a crisp image, the sweet spot on lenses is around f/6 i believe.
 
i hoped you were, I could see shooting shallower depth of field for lifestyle/non-skiing, but even then it doesn't make sense to shoot wide open
 
I could see some people shooting wide open for skiing if they're trying to make a fancy edit or something, but yeah, other then that no really reason to shoot open.
 
f/1.8 is way too wide to make an edit. All of the shots would be out of focus. Maybe for tripod shots but even then it just wouldn't be practical in any way.
 
I mean, at a certain distance focuses to the hyperfocal length or around infinity, there will be a deep DOF but with a 50mm thats like 10m+ and farther away from the lens.
 
ISO 100-200

F/ 5.6- 15 (unless its night then 3.5)

Shutter Speed

- 720p 60 shutter speed= 1000+ (for good slomo)

-1080p 24 shutter speed= 60-250(use this if not doing slomo and for night filming)

(Never put ur iso above like 400 if possible skiing most ever to go is like 800 but try not to)

 
I would say that you probably shouldn't go all the way to 15. I don't know what specifically you are shooting on, and I know it won't make as big of a difference in video, but an aperture of 15 is getting into the territory of diffraction. It is probably a bigger issue for stills
 
There has been a lot of misleading info in here. If you just want a simple edit, do not put your shutter speed at 1000, or 4000 like someone recommended. There is nothing wrong with them doing that because it is based off of opinion, but to start out, I wouldn't go over 500. If your shooting 60fps, then I would have my shutter speed anywhere from 120 to 300. I usually keep mine around 200 or 250. Its a preference. I would AT LEAST have your shutter speed double your frame rate. Some people like to just always have it double, but I dont care for the blur it creates.

For ISO, always try to have it as low as possible. When skiing, you shouldn't have a problem keeping it at 100-200. I would say the highest ISO I would go to make a clip usable would be 1600. Its still pretty noisy, but isn't TERRIBLE. One mistake a lot of beginners will make is getting caught up in their aperture and ISO. Say your filming a jump on a tripod. You have your ISO set at 100, and your aperture set to a high number like 12 or 123or so, dont be afraid to kick your ISO up to 200 so you can put your aperture back down to a lower number. People think the change from 100 to 200 is night and day, its not dramatic at all.

For Aperture, I try to stay somewhere between f/5 and f/11. The sharpest picture in a lens usually comes at about f/6. It varies, but thats what it is for a majority of lenses. Try to avoid shooting wide open.

Now to Picture Profiles. Different people have different views on picture profiles. Obviously, it could change on the day you are filming. As a beginner, shoot a neutral picture profile. This creates less room for error with your colors in camera. You will have to do your color correcting in post afterwards. Some people like the picture profile "super flat". Its all preference. But you cant go wrong with neutral to start out.

Lastly, Frame Rate. On a Canon APS-C you have 2 choices. 1080p 24fps, 1080p 30fps, and 720p 60fps. Now I like to shoot all of my stuff in 60 fps then conform it in post. Once again, its personal preference. If you plan on doing a decent amount of slow motion, I would for sure shoot in 720p 60fps. Makes for smooth slow motion. If not, you cant go wrong with 1080p 30fps. I used to shoot in that, but find 60fps more flexible. I have never really dealt with 24p, but I have heard mixed reactions about it, but never really shot anything in it.

Also, get a Tiffen .6 ND filter. It makes it so you dont have to set your aperture to a really high number. I find mine very useful. Look into them more on google for a more sophisticated answer.

Hope this helped!
 
I shoot with a polarizer fyi:

ISO at 100, 160 or 320 depending on lighting

Aperture somewhere between f/8-f/13

Shutter speed at 4x the shutter speed (I shoot at 30fps, so 125)
 
this doesn't make sense. also the people talking about 1/1000 and 1/4000 were talking photos. general tip i like to underexpose so the snow isn't so blown out.
 
Going over that 180 rule by alot is really bad imo. You get juddering-ish looking footage, and when taking it way over the 180 you can get some artifacting and rolling shutter is exacerbated. Unless you have some silky smooth hands or a perfect stabilization system you are gonna get some un wanted results. Then again its all preference and i tend to not do slow mo soooo WDIK?

 
Rather than compensating for clipped white by under exposing, try dropping the contrast a little in your profile.
 
Why are people shooting ISO 100? Native ISOs yield a cleaner image. ISO 320 is the cleanest setting, followed by multiples of 160 (ISO 160 is actually not a native ISO and is thus noisier than 320).

- Don't shoot wide open. Just don't. The only thing worse than beating the dead horse that is shallow DOF as a novelty is having your shot out of focus. f/5.6 is the sweet spot on most lenses, down to f/8. f/16 and your image will degrade just as it will wide open.

- Shutter speed is preference. 180 degree shutter rule says that the shutter should be 1/48 when shooting 24p, but I prefer 1/60. However, I prefer 1/125 when shooting 60p because to me slow motion without any sort of motion blur whatsoever looks hideous and fake. Experiment to see what you prefer.

- Always use a polarizer (except for UWA). It brings out snow detail and makes colors pop.

- Unless you REALLY know your shit when it comes to grading, don't shoot flat. It almost always looks awful.

- Turn sharpness all the way down. This is probably what needs to be stressed the most when shooting DSLRs. Their biggest flaw (moiré) is only amplified as you raise the sharpness.
 
^Just curious, why do you say not to use a polarizer on an UWA? Never heard anyone suggest that before
 
Tiffen usually is fine for skiing with snow and poles and skis flying around, personally B+W is a little expensive. Really wouldn't want to have to replace one because of a mishap.
 
Polarization is based on the angle of light. Long lenses compress objects into a more uniform interception pattern, whereas UWA (or fisheyes), being distorted and all, intercept light at varying angles. Using a polarizer on an UWA causes banding in any uniform surface that spans across the frame horizontally (e.g. a blue sky). In some very specific circumstances, it's okay if you're careful.
 
cant qutoe because im on mobile. but unless you have ML, most people dont know about native ISO. and i dont think shooting flat looks awful. i have seen many circumstances where it looks good, and as a begginer, its going to be hard to get your in camera color settings to be correct.
 
It's much easier to dial in your look in-camera than it is in post if you're a beginner. In-camera involves what, five settings? With post there's a whole slew of things, such as power masking, selective color, motion tracking, input/output grades, etc. In post you have more control but it's much more difficult to make it look good if you don't understand basic color theory.
 
You're thinking of a Grad ND filter, which is a gradient from gray to clear. They work in specific landscape scenarios with flat horizons, but if there's a mountain or tree it doesn't look very good. If you're shooting sports they're practically useless since the camera will be moving.

Polarizers bring out detail, reduce reflections, and make colors more vibrant. The're especially useful when shooting snow, where it can be otherwise cumbersome to get snow detail at times. These are nice to use in all lighting conditions. If it's sunny, add an ND filter to bring it down a few stops.
 
Wow was not expecting to get so much feed back so quickly. Thanks for the help everyone i need to take some time to sift through all this great info.
 
Dave's videos are generally over-simplified. He has the right idea, but he often misses some key aspects, as the videos are targeted for beginners.

Based on his tests, you're right. The most significant effect was perpendicular to the sun. What he doesn't mention is that the intensity of the effect graduates from 0˚ (or 180˚) to 90˚. Meaning the polarizer works at any angle except for 0˚ and 180˚, some angles producing a more profound effect than others.

I don't know about you, but I don't shoot exclusively in 90˚ increments, so the argument that it only works at 90˚ is invalid at a practical level. What's more, the test was done on a grassy field with no reflections; a scenario where a polarizer isn't so vital. If you're shooting on snow however, it makes a huge difference because of the immense light reflection from the snow. If you have ever exposed for the rider/trees but had the snow blown out, a polarizer would bring the snow levels down and give them detail, while also making colors more vibrant.

Even if we are to analyze the effect of a polarizer on the footage in the test, the difference is phenomenal. I don't see how one could say it doesn't make a difference.

 
This is why I don't do a whole lot in post. I feel like I don't know enough to make the image look better than before. Any places to look to learn these basics of colour theory?
 
If you want to dramatically improve the quality of your footage, study painting (I feel like I've said this so many times haha).

Most colleges offer introductory painting/drawing/color theory classes. Even those are immensely helpful.
 
Sure, classes can be great. Books are also indispensable. Anything that focuses on color/form will be greatly beneficial.

I say this because I believe painting is a more refined art form than any form of photography. There is literally hundreds upon hundreds of years worth of human refinement in painting, whereas photography is a relatively new art form. Besides, much of what you find on the internet about video mostly deals with equipment/technology, which is kind of beside the point really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top