Axel

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350813593' post='20065'] What is a good way to test for banding? [/quote] You did it already. The lamp shots show it, both cameras have the problem. Clipping was to be expected, but the gradient on the wall is not even. To reliably get banding, the room should be completely dark, with only one bulb, and you pan up and down the gradient. Then the borders of the bands will move above the surface and can't be ignored. Also of course the remedy against banding: To avoid such situations. The GH3 has a softer fall-off, but no wonder, because the whole image is too soft.

I have the Oly, and I agree in general. Imo the distortion is not so prominent, but the image looks boring. Also, as with the 9-18 Oly, the lens introduces moire to the GH2, everything looks sharpened. This is the lens that needs the filter: The Tiffen Low Contrast 1, keep it on permanently. Then, at a daytime shoot, you may run-and-gun with working autofocus. Makes the video look as if from any other camcorder. I vote for the SLR magic.

All this, er, [i]depends[/i]. Nostalgic is good for night, vibrant for high contrasts, both not always. A 3-GOP hack @ about 80 mbps (i.e. Cake) will render a finer noise, comparable to that of the GH3, probably. Kirk, you may of course shoot non-flat and get your image right in-camera. There is no question about it. But don't get [i]everything[/i] right in-camera, don't get an overly sharpened and saturated image, you'd have no chance to correct anything later, let alone [i]grade[/i].

[quote name='tomekk' timestamp='1350709192' post='20024'] 5d mk3 + 6d as a B camera (when it's out ;)) + ML. Stills + video that's what you need for wedding, Nice combo imho.[/quote] Good for a 'best of'. Many customers demand uninterrupted reports of some church rituals. This could present a problem. We have been recording a rock concert not too long ago with three EOS (not the mk3 among them, but also GH2 and EX-3). It was two hours and to be edited with multicam. The first 45 minutes or so could be recorded with minor breaks, but afterwards, the breaks were longer, they missed bigger parts of the performance and the quality went down. This is my experience with my 7D also. I would never rely on it in such a situation. The FS-100 was tested to have way better lowlight than the GH2. I'd guess the FS-100, the GH2 and the mk3 are on par if you take the availability of fast lenses into account. You also have to find a satisfying audio solution. As I wrote in another thread, though it is [i]possible[/i] to use GH2 or EOS for a wedding, a classic camcorder (good lowlight performance provided) would be better.

Possible? Sure. You'd need a really fast lens like the Voigtlander Nokton 25mm or better yet the Nokton 17,5mm. You'd need some experience in focussing through the viewfinder. There are some issues with the Iso settings, they need to be dialed in a certain order to avoid noise. For lowlight, a hack with smaller GOPs. The combination of all these and on top of that raising the lower midtones in post lets the GH2 beat a lot of other cams as far as low light is concerned. Because of the viewfinder, the GH2 is imo better equipped than conventional DSLRs for this kind of job. On the other hand, other cameras like the Sony FS-100 (i.e.) will be more easy to operate and there will presumably be more useable shots. If you have done a wedding video before, you know that sometimes, [i]every[/i] shot has to be usable.

If you believe (and feel ascertained by the results) that any transcoding before grading is better, do so and trust your eyes. I have my own theory and follow it somewhat stubbornly, following my own advise. This is, any original is not getting any better if you transcode it. There are hundred thousand guys who use Premiere on a PC and take advantage of it's ability to edit with the native codec and even export directly to mpeg4. And their results are good too. With 32-bit render accuracy (that is, if you check 'maximum bit depth', of course), you can grade an image without degrading. There are, however, a few reasons why someone would want to transcode before that: ● Grading can change quite a few parameters of your original. Since grading is very much a WYSIWYG-affair and since the quality depends on the correct order of operations, you want to have an exact preview, not reduced for playback reasons. With every change, you cut off original values, the next step you perform on top of an image that's computed on-the-fly. Your hardware should really be fast enough or else a less compressed intermediate would serve you better. ● This is particularly important for compositing. Everybody reduces the preview quality in After Effects, because, while no realtime-application, waiting [i]too[/i] long for a fluid preview is a pain in the ass. That tempts you to make judgements on a very much rounded preview, a fantasy, where keyframes are being swallowed, something you often only realize in the final output (which is rendered way faster in a less compressed format). ● I made tests with different export codecs from AME. While there is visually no difference between a high bitrate mpeg4 and ProResHQ, the latter can be encoded to considerably lower-bitrate mpeg4 in a second step. If it is true, that modern graphic cards, RAM and multicore processors make the classic intermediates obsolete for playback, it is also true, that the additional HD space for ProRes has become ridiculously cheap. These things will change as soon as more All-I-mpeg4 codecs are implemented. FCP X doesn't [i]need[/i] ProRes either. It just improves performance and stability to a point where one has to admit: At least for mpeg4, it [i]does[/i] need ProRes. And again, hundred thousands edit with FCP (7 or X), using ProRes, and if there was a problem with the quality, we had heard about it.

I don't dare to guess which is which. On my brief encounter with the RX-100 I had two issues: First, the light flickered although with 1/50th shutter you don't expect that to happen in Europe. Second, the 50i recording (will be 60i in USA) showed the typical motion blur for interlaced (i thought I read somewhere this was just a flag like with the HBR mode of the GH2). So from this vague and few impressions I'd say some of the band's footage was from the Sony.

Very nice. I love the snorkel shots especially. Better than flying. Best wishes.

[quote name='pietz' timestamp='1350297504' post='19775']oh and does somebody have a good program on windows for framerate modification? i used cinema tools on the mac, which simply let me edit the fps without reencode. i havent been able to find something similar on windows. i dont like to do this through premiere because converting 24 to 25fps is a very odd number in percentage and i dont trust premiere doing it exact enough.[/quote] The only advantage of cinema tools was that you didn't need to export the video with the new framerate. It was just flagged (provided that you had it in an intraframe codec like ProRes). But with Premiere, the thing actually is as exact as in CT and causes no recompression either. If there is an easier workflow, let me know. I would proceed like this: 1. Export your film with the native 24p. 2. Re-import the film as footage. Right-click and choose [i]interpret footage > change framerate >25p[/i]. 3. Throw the whole clip into a 25p sequence. 4. Export the new version. Nobody can [i]see[/i] the difference (often proved with cutters, who'd spent weeks with the material and were unable to notice the change), but people with absolute pitch can hear it, because the sound is a halftone key higher. Afaik you can adjust the pitch with audition, but you'd have to google for the procedure. [quote name='pietz' timestamp='1350297504' post='19775']Edit: uhm...can the gh2 actually record 25fps? :D[/quote] Yes, with FW 1.1 and 'HBR' it is flagged as 50i, because then most newer bluray-players will accept it (25p is currently not supported), but upper and lower field have no different phases. In a 25p timeline (forced, no automatically created desktop project), it will behave like 25p, with no interlace artifacts. Don't apply a deinterlace-filter, because then you lose resolution.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350241367' post='19759']Some of those cameras are really heavy and wouldn't exhibit as much shakiness as a little GH3. One of the pitfalls of using a small camera is that it's more susceptible to jitters while handheld.[/quote] Add this to the recipe for a cinematic look-and-feel. It's not Scrat holding his beloved acorn, it's a giant's eye sweeping gently over the picket fences. Aside from heavy rigs there is that old pantomime, where you try to lift an empty trunk as if it contained a corpse. Or two guys holding a plank and do the [i]Evil Dead[/i]-trick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbOkt4qSE2w

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350071696' post='19679'] Kind of off topic but oh man, sometimes I just want to scream at those guys who post "video samples" from these cameras. "If you're just going to shoot shaky hand held crap on the street or in your back yard, just STOP RIGHT THERE!" I don't even want to see it! I don't know why but I find it so irritating.[/quote] Thurday I walked into the store with my GH2 and a blank SDHC card. I asked to test the Sony RX-100 with my card. It was crowded, but I got ten minutes. I had read the manual online in advance. The RX-100 clips were not too bad, but my GH2-clips were. It was steamy in the shop, I hadn't put my grip on, I was too eager to see the Sony's recordings asf. Based on the clips of my hasty test, nobody would ever have chosen the GH2.

Craig, you don't listen. The adapter works for mini-jack to cinch, for example the headphone output of your iPod to a stereo amplifier, but the other way is just horror. You've got a good mike, why don't you make up your mind and buy either a Juicedlink or Beachtek or a Tascam? Or you could go from XLR to mini-jack directly, with a short cable (wired in the right way, a friend of mine built such an adapter for himself, works) no problem. And then, your mixer is probably AC-bound, how practical is that? I understand, you have not much money. Then take your time with your limited equipment and concentrate on the imagery. Don't try to buy [i]everything[/i] for 500 $. There are good shorts without any dialogue. Be patient. Do something now. Wait for the occasions to buy more and better (or the right) things. As an amateur (or beginner, if you find [i]amateur[/i] insulting), you will never be able to have exactly the equipment you are dreaming of. The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350087667' post='19695'] Very true.... I was only looking for a longer cable because I figured someone else would be working the audio, with microphones and the mic away from the camera. Wouldn't it be better to have the controls near him and not me control it while i film? And I def need xlr in [/quote] Your solution is an [url="http://www.amazon.com/DR-40-4-Track-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B005NACC6M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350100008&sr=8-1&keywords=tascam+dr40"]external recorder[/url] with XLR, phantom power and good enough controls. With FCP X, you let the synchronization analyse all clips (best with your voice naming the take at the start), drink a cup of coffee, and then you have compound clips. All you have to do then (or later) is un-checking the unwanted audio tracks (i.e. the ones with the fail-safe level of minus 3 or 6 dB) in the clip's information window.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350071490' post='19678']And will syncing up be tough? I can use a clapboard, just wondering about a more efficient way.[/quote] Actually, you won't need any visual clue (clapperboard) to sync external audio. The GH2 captures the same sound, and all you have to do is identify them. You could say [i]scene two,[color=#ff0000] t[/color]ake three[/i]. The t in take is a perfect pike to set in-points for both sources, also visible in the audio waveform. What NLE do you use? The synching is automated in FCP X (like plural eyes), and it is quite straightforward manually in other NLEs. I hope your NLE can 'marry' the video to the new audio. The main task is to keep track of the tracks, as galenb mentioned. [color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='aaronmc' timestamp='1350065251' post='19674']I read up on HMI and it doesn't seem to make sense why anyone would use them?[/quote] Yes, as sanveer said, they have about three times as much light power as halogen (relative to the power they consume, 275W HMI equal about 800 W halogen), and the light is daylight. 'Daylight', on the other hand, can be between 4000°K and way over 10000°K, and a camera (not your naked eye) sees differences in steps of about 300°K, as a slight, but distracting cast. The HMI light says: sun! You don't have to bounce a sun shadow, you can nuke it away with HMI. Joke. There is another rule: Light loses intensity very fast at greater distances. But greater distances are what you need on a big set. With LEDs, you brighten surfaces a few feet away, but from, say, twenty feet distance they have no more effect.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349992524' post='19640']A last bit of advice: 3 point lighting is a nice little trick (...) but I can't tell you how many people I've run into who actually keep that as an unbreakable rule. [/quote] [color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1350034148' post='19661'] Agreed on the 3-point thing! People are so often obsessed with it but I rarely find it looks nice. It tends to be quite flat and TV soap looking as it's often used.[/quote] I also agree. Why I mentioned it at all: Imo it is useful as a rough guide as to how the direction(s) of light influences the look of it all. That one doesn't avoid backlight, since it can make a set look more three-dimensional. Like the rule of the 'divine proportion' or 'golden ratio' it can help you make an informed decision, that of course can deviate from the rule. In particular I find that many confuse 3-point lighting with a set of 3 lamps. Even in some books on lighting you see the triangle-diagrams that very often lead people to the belief that if they arrange their lamps in such a way their images will look perfect - on the contrary! [quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1350034148' post='19661']Hahaha watch Lord Of The Rings and find the shot without the obscenely over-powered blue backlight, or massive HMI blasting through trees! It's pretty funny how far we can suspend disbelief. [/quote][/background][/size][/font][/color] Not only funny. One way to make an image emblematic is to compose it of elements, like in Photoshop or After Effects, but not only by compositing layers, but by treating motif and background with some care. When everything you see is directed by the intention of the creator, it may look artificial, but it will draw attention and suspend disbelief. Highly stylized images are a way to tell a story. I use to go to exhibitions and take photos. The art objects themselves are dramatic, and so is the way they are presented, he light, the background, even snapshots transport the great gesture. Surely 'realism' is also just a style, and a good photographer (not me!) will sometimes try to be at least hyperrealistic, if not surrealistic. Google images 'Gregory Crewdson'. Almost film. [color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350043406' post='19665']Could someone assist me with my audio troubles? Im not getting answer on my other thread and I am pretty confused. Why wouldn't panasonic put an audio jack in the gh2? Seems really silly. What is the way around this? I have an azden shotgun mic and I would like to monitor the audio when I am recording.. Whats the best way?[/quote] Your options: • Use your microphone directly on the GH2. Even with different input levels, it will finally be an automatic level. You can't control it, so there is no need to monitor it over headphones. Doesn't need to be bad. • Use a Beachtek (or something like this). I was often tempted to buy one, but I admit I have no personal experience with this. • Buy an external recorder as Chrad recommends. They are not too expensive and a useful tool if you care for good audio. Good audio is often even more artificial than the image. It's composed (mixed) from various sources, and to do this in the best way, the separate events need to be as clean as possible. Speech in particular. Get a directional boom mic (I hope that's what it's called, correct me) and get as close to the speaker's mouth as possible. Let someone else capture the audio. The above mentioned Tascam for example allows two parallel recordings with different gain to always get the highest level and stay on the safe side. With an old fashioned clapperboard, it is unbelievably easy to synch video and external audio in your NLE. And you can record your own ambient sound with the good built-in stereomics. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='kirk' timestamp='1349983569' post='19631']It is very arrogant to assume that the chinese are incapable of producing original, highly sophisticated products... and there are produced a hell of a lot of shitty products in the US and Europe as well! [/quote] Alright, the exception proves the rule. The chinese even fake their own food for the foreigners. I am not arrogant, I have chinese friends, but they think the same. I buy chinese products. There is a wise saying: cheap, fast, good, pick any two.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1349981418' post='19629'] Ok Ok great. I just found 2 construction lights (those orange ones) in my basement. They seem to work alright, do you think this could be usable or are these lights crap for film? Maybe I should get some reflectors or something... [/quote] DIY a couple of wooden frames. Buy some heavy duty clamps to attach them to back of chairs and the like (the more easy solution were [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Manfrotto-super-clamp-without-stud-/320992342888?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4abca27368"]Manfrotto super clamps[/url] with studs on the cheapest [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/656-200cm-Light-Stand-Tripod-for-Photo-Video-Lighting-SCP-0059-/221114768369?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337b779bf1"]light stands[/url]). Over the frames, you can tape [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lee-Filters-LF-LF250-1-2-White-Diffusion-Lee-Filter-Color-Gels-21-x-24-/330755568405?pt=US_Stage_Lighting_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4d02917315"]diffusor gel[/url]s (heat no problem), black tissue, rescue blankets, whatever. Styrofoams to bounce, they are neutral white (a white wall also works). There is an old concept of how to light a set. It's called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-point_lighting"]3-point-lighting[/url] (you don't need to read that). Forget about the three points. But keep in mind, that there are indeed three things to stay aware of: a) The key light. Think of it as the spot that lights your main motif. B) The fill light. Reducing the shadows caused by the key light and/or lighting the surrounding set. c) The back light. Highlights the outlines, avoids the surface to look flat. Not always plausible, but always interesting. The backlight can of cause also be the fill light. Or the key light. Neither of the light categories needs to be a [i]lamp[/i]. A person standing at a window will have a bright side and a dark side. You could position him/her, so that the profile is highlighted and the face would be a silhouette. You could bend a [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pro-43-Light-Mulit-Collapsible-disc-5-in-1-Reflector-110cm-/280994241982?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item416c8fddbe"]reflector[/url] to focus the light from the window back to the face. The face will still be darker, but look natural, and the brighter outline will make the head stand out. With one natural light source, you have key light, fill light and backlight. You got the picture. It's like painting. You have to manipulate the scene through the viewfinder until you get what you want. With your construction lamps, you need to avoid daylight, because the color temperature doesn't match. Your options are: ● Exclude daylight. Use the tungsten WB (or better yet: Make a manual WB). A lamp behind a diffusor is like a moveable window. ● buy filter gels for the windows (conversation filter daylight to tungsten), they stay in place if you make them wet and press them on the pane with a squeegee, reusable. You can also stop down the light from outside by attaching ND gels. Again: Use every light that suits you. Experiment. Perhaps some day you buy more lights. Spots for example. Or borrow them. Some are just too expensive to buy.

][quote name='kirk' timestamp='1349939840' post='19592'] I agree on the usability of no-brand stuff ! There's a LOT of snobbery about what is needed to do a bit of filming. [/quote] I say! This is true for a lot of things. There are a few things, that, while still being affordable, are of another class. Any microphone will do, but a real leap in quality you will have only if you go over a certain price limit. If you had this thing once, you think of all cheaper options simply as junk, not worth their small price, not worth to carry around. Headphones that don't playback every frequency you recorded - what are they good for? Why should you bother to take them on? Lenses that have a nice first look, but always degrade your image unnecessarily, one- or two hundred bucks cheaper than a good lens? Finally: A tripod that weighs as much as the rest of your equipment plus something and that you need ten tries with to get that Andrew Reid pan - instead of one because the head of the more expensive is way better? [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349975876' post='19624'] Exactly! Good point! A lot of the so called superior name brand equipment is made in China and then re-branded in other countries. They Sometime even license Chinese goods for sale in their own country and no one is even the wiser. What's even sillier is that some of the brands that we think are of superior quality are actually outsourcing to china. Eventually we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that not everything that comes from China is poorly made. Yes, there are a lot of cheap knock-off goods that are just made to look like they are passable but the same can be true for equipment made anywhere. I live in the US and I would not say that everything made here is of higher quality. [/quote] There you mix something up. Things are more complicated. A lot of products are made in China but invented elsewhere. Take an Apple computer. It's american. Chinese people just can't. Take precision clockworks, cars, tripods. Manfrotto has a reputation, their tripods are high tech products. Sachtler would be out of business quickly if they delivered something that's not up to the highest expectations. Every part, it may be plastic, carbon fibre or magnesium, is thoroughly tested. You can dissasemble it, make a equal-looking copy, but it will never work the same. You [i]can[/i] buy a chinese LED light without much risk, because the design is quite simple and it costs 50 bucks. Maybe the 200 $ Litepanel version has a slightly smoother dimmer wheel. There were comparisons, and afterwards it seemed possible that the [i]brands[/i] (also 'Made in China') were the copies, but you can't generalize this. On the other hand: A [i]very[/i] cheap tripod can do. You have to train yourself to overcome the limitations. You can put some pressure on the head while panning and, with great concentration and enough time for redos, you will get what you want. You don't need redheads (or fresnels, Kinoflos, HMIs) to light, you can also take the cheap halogen floodlights from the department store. And so forth. Pans, when do you need them? Imho pans are like zooms, the rarer you use them, the better the film. The narrational functions are limited. They are and should be ends in themselves. They tell (in the language of film): Look, brace yourself for a grand panorama I am about to show you. And a fast follow of the main character, a passing train, all this can be done almost as well with a cheap head. It's not the question if a tripod for 150 $ is better than one for 70 $, it's just that you won't get a decent tripod for under, say, 500 $. [color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1349965956' post='19614']GalenB's suggestions were awesome, its just weird that some of the reviews on amazon say those tripods are terrible, and some say they are awesome. [/quote] Same story. If you can afford only a 300 $ camcorder, you are surprised at how good the video is. Not if you tried a GH2 before, let alone a Sony FS-700 or higher.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

There are imo two completely different concepts of lighting, and to understand why can get you faster to where you like to be with light. 1. Lighting every take to the greatest effect, bending logic as far as needed, excluding natural light from the set or at least rigorously changing it. You study the characteristics of certain types of lights and choose the ones that fit. 2. Looking at natural light on a set. Since someone scouted the set as suitable for the scene, it very probably has something special. It will already capture and reflect the natural or existing light in a nice way. You think hard about what it is that makes the light work and then you merely amplify this mood, usually seldom by much more than reflectors or diffused floodlamps. Once these two methods were called expressionistic and impressionistic, but if you take them as a yin & yang thing and not as contradictions, you have found the key to see the world through epiphanies of light. Consider every lightsource as usable - for certain purposes. If there ever was a craft to which 'WYSIWYG' could be attached, it is lighting. But you need to learn how to see.

Set your mind at rest forever with the Sachtler ACE (preferably the ground spreader version). For another 150 bucks more, you get the [i]definite[/i] solution. That is, if you really plan to make fluent pans. If you just need a stand, get some 70$ junk, enough for the lightweight GH2.

I once was camera assistant for a video doc shot on SD U-matic high called [i]beauty & awareness[/i], produced by some rich german, lifted women, who sought spirituality in their lavish lifestyle. They invited a fat american female guru, the whole show was in american english, with the germans trying to sound californian above their heavy german accent. The rooms were white and lit with soft bounced highkey, smoothing their skin. They took each other by the hands and expressed their dedication to beauty, that came out of a pure heart. In the end, the guru performed a playback to Michael Jacksons [i]man in the mirror[/i], and it became apparent that she was a transvestite. Ever since I discovered youtube, I tried to find the film, but couldn't. Perhaps I misunderstood your approach, but nothing is funnier than reality.

Yes, I have. These presets are just combinations of parameters every color correction software has built-in. And the 'look' is just applied as an effect, there is nothing genuine to it. When will we finally be freed from the urge to make such awful mock-ups? You want a sophisticated look? Create it. Save combinations of filters you experimented with to your own, unprejudiced liking. Do it for a reason. Enhance the emotional impact of a scene. If you want it to taste special, never use spice blends!

Breathtaking. Yes, it is dark, but it should be. Is this really motion jpeg? Must give it a try. The sound mix is really beautiful. Heard it over my excellent Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro, a highly recommended headphone that forgives nothing and sounds great. Very well done! Best wishes.

I have the Oly 12. As with all system lenses, it is clean and sharp, but has no cinematic magic. I bought it for steadicam shots, because the AF is quite good. Before I had the Oly 9-18, same thing, but way too slow. The 12 mm turned out to be a good compromise, but I am determined to buy the SLR magic additionally. There are other options of course, but adapted Canon lenses (for example) are often quite big and heavy, I prefer MFT for the wider angles.

In this video, there finally is a good explanation of the iDynamic function. As it increases noise in the shadows, I suspect it would be best to turn it off. Comments?