sanveer

​ Mercer (for Andrew Reid), first I could have bet, that I posted a reply successfully from my phablet, which doesn't seem to be in this thread, so, I am posting it again. I have used the Shure LensHopperVP83F as a sound recorder, and the sound quality is absolutely stellar. I haven't really used it much as a DSLR mic, and I am also very curious to compare the two sounds samples. The mic gain is in 1 dB increments on the flash recorder (Micro SD), and it sounds very sensitive. As a matter of fact, at 20dB, it seems more than sufficient enough to pick up most sounds. Also, the Headphone monitoring seems to apply for the Micro SD and not for the DSLR mic in (I didn't use the DSLR Mic in, so I cannot say with absolute certainty). I will check both of them extensively, and their levels, with the various settings, and post a video. Gimme a day or two.

​Make me an Admin and I shall discipline the b#tches. They had it comin. They seriously had it comin ...

​ I haven't used the Panasonic Official Mic for the GH4, but, it has some great sound by itself (the Shure LensHopper, i.e.). Also, since the LensHopper VP83F records Dual Sound, one of which is recorded in Wav Format on a flash card, it is far superior to onboard mics, especially those on DSLRs. Dave Dugdale at Learning DSLR spoke about the GH4 dropping quite a few frames, and that sound and video are not running from the same frame. Maybe someone had a similar experience regarding this?

Why are posts like these, and discussions like this even allowed on this Forum Andrew. I thought Admins had been appointed to helping sort things out. Could you please remove all the PMSing people and people suffering from ED here? We could do with some constructive discussions, rather allowing for whining and negativity. Thank you.

​ Watched the film (quite a bit of it) Things I noticed about the film: 1. The sound doesn’t assist the film at all. It does not sound too professional. Also, it’s very blaring in a lot of places, where I had to really turn the volume down, and the gadget with which you recorded the dialogues, has some serious humming sound (very high noise floor). 2. The video is obviously handheld, and I am guessing you used a 50mm lens, because it is reasonably shaky too. Maybe you should have used a tripod. Also, there isn’t any movement like a dolly or something. 3. The lighting isn’t helping, especially in the dark scenes, and the night shots (outside the house etc). I was barely able to make out that someone was in the frame. I am guessing you had a slow lens and no onboard light. Also, the indoor lighting only uses practicals in many frames, which makes the contrast very sharp. Maybe too sharp. 4. There is a strange kind of lack of energy in the film. It seems like a very lazy film. It’s like the cast and crew were made to run 10kms before each day’s shoot began. They seem tired, throughout, till the last 20-30 mins of the film. 5. You need to assist someone on a shoot. It doesn’t have to be a feature, it could be an AD, a wedding video, or even a short film. Something that has good production value. It will help you get better perspective. 6. I think the premise of the story is interesting. It just lacks a little pace. 7. The best critic is yourself. Watch this film again, and then, after a week, try shooting any single scene from it, with a look that exhibits much higher production value, much better sound, better video and more pace. And try using a tripod or a dolly. Add a few good laughs/ jokes. Don’t do the Sound and Camera yourself. Get someone to do it. You concentrate only on the direction. And add some energy to it. My two cents. Best of Luck

​ Well, there are many aspects to your post, and I can confidently say, that everybody here, at some point of time, has been in your spot. Even if it is for a day or a week. I will explain my perspective in point: 1. I am sure you have read a book called, "what they don't teach you at harvard business school"? Well, filmmaking instructions and manuals (and film schoold) only teach you certain aspects of filmmaking. People who are super successful would never want to discuss their 'dirty little secrets', like the fact that some of the biggest film stars slept their way to the top, because talent itself is not enough, for many people. Especially for people who don't wanna go back home, and who will not give up, more because that hunger can make them commit many crimes, only one of which is sleeping around. It's like that Ashton Kutcher film "Spread" (1999). I am not suggesting you do any of that, all I am saying is that making a film is only one of the Many things a successful filmmaker needs to do. A lot of directors start getting things right early. Like Nolan found his wife whose produced most (all) of his films, and Wally Pfister after shooting following (and who has moved to direction himself). 2. Most filmmakers would hate to admit it, but most of them are far better as directors than as screenwriters. That is one off the reasons for all the plagiarism. And the films that cannot be watched. IMHO Manoj Night Shamalam and the Wachowski duo come within this definition. The warchowski's have some superb perspective with direction. I think of them as the forerunners to great concept films, of the last decade or so. Also, unfortunately, like Night Shamalam, I think they started superbly, and then their films have not really been nailing it. Maybe, they need to admit to themselves, that they just need a good screenwriter. 3. You said you already made a Feature. I guess everybody around here is curious to see it, and if you could post a url to the same, it would be great. A lot of filmmakers, take very long to make a first feature. Most never really make one. You have been LUCKY to have found a cast and crew, the resources and everything else to make a feature. 4. To run out of ideas, usually means that you have burnt out, because you got too excited and too impatient somewhere on the journey. There is nothing wrong in making short films. As a matter of fact, they help hone your talent, in ways that you most often over-look. 5. You basically need a break from everything for 2 weeks. Tell everyone around to as not to scare them, and then Switch off your phone, stop checking mails, stop communicating with the world. When your back, think of the perspective you missed. 6. If your girlfriend/ fiance respects your space, you couldn't ask for anything else. You need to count your blessings. Like Seriously. 7. A lot of filmmakers want to start big, not realising, that the small films that make it Huge, were never made with the intention of being huge (ala Paranormal Activities). As a matter of fact, after Oren Peli struggled for people to watch his film, for the longest. If Spielberg was not sent a copy of the film, and if he did not happen to watch it, Peli would be in exactly the same boat as you. 8. This is the other part of the point above. MARKET. That is Far more important than just making a film. People need to see it, to appreciate it. Making a film for yourself is like a s#x tape. Hollywood stars make those for others too. So, you have to make sure as many people watch the film as possible. Send it to as many film festivals as possible, and then try and sell it. 9. Keep yourself open to the idea of making wedding videos, advertisements and documentaries and things like that. They make you money, and they are creative expressions as well. As a matter of fact making a great wedding video may be many times more difficult than making a film. You get a single take, and you have to get too many things right, at the right time. But, first start with your 2 week vacation, where you just go enjoy yourself. You don't have to spend thousands of dollars for it, and you don't need to go alone. What is important, though, is that you leave all your baggage at home. Best of Luck !!!

​ If I use any of the great tracks for a film, I shall credit you, where you cannot be paid, and pay you, where you can be. I have been a little off actual film production for a little while now. Should be back soon, though. Thanks again.

Eric Matyas, very vast and interesting collection. Great work !!!

​ Absolutely. I also feel, that if the Shure VP82 (the Short but impressive Shotgun Mic) had internal batteries, and was $50 cheaper, it would have done extremely well, with Indie Filmmakers. ​ ​I guess, what almost all LX100 agree upon, is that the LX100 would be Perfect, if it had (1) an articulated screen; (2) this was a touch screen; and (3) it had a mic in. I guess Panasonic might consider them for Version 2.0, IF it feels they do not make the LX100 infringe upon GH4 territory. Right now, though, I wish they would bring out a firmware for slightly better autofocus (since that's a grouse with some users), and better Video Profile (preferably with, perhaps, a slightly higher bitrate).

Though I had a strange bias against fixed lens cameras and onboard mics previously, I suddenly have thus new found fondness for two products which are precisely these. 1. Panasonic LX100: I guess it's one of the most underrated cameras around with its impressive Low Light, Lovely Dreamy Bokehs, Impressive Pics (especially considering its low total resolution) which IMHO appear better than those from many other similar MP sized sensors (including Pics from the Sony A7S), good dynamic range in video and stills, and nice colour overall. I initially didn't like the fact that it has a fixed lens, but considering that its pretty wide and pretty bright I think its a nice range. I didn't like the idea of not having a Mic In, but I guess it's not such a big issue either, especially considering that a recorder or mic can be fixed into its hot shoe mount for recording external sound. I wish Panasonic would jack up the bitrate for better grading and have a Flatter Video Setting. It seems like the perfect Gorilla Filmmakers Camera. It seems expensive for a Point and Shoot, but in my opinion it's Lot more than that. 2. Shure LensHopper VP83F: Another great product, especially considering how few video and other reviews there really are of this one. Super sound quality, built well, Dual Sound, and nice size. This is something that Rode wanted to make but didn't. Plus it can be used as a Field Sound Recorder which has almost No Self Noise (common to Most Field Recorders). The mic is extremely sensitive and for Flash Recording you can easily pick up good sound under 50% (under 30dB). The initial price of this one was ludicrous, but now one can get it on deals for a little over $200. What do you guys think.

I guess what will decide the Success of the A200 or whatever else it will be called will mostly be the form factor and how ready it is to use put of the box, like a C300. That is what it needs to compete against. IMHO

While I do like/ love Top Gear, I have also noticed that Jeremy Clarson Really doesn't know where to Draw the Line. The Argentinean episode with those SCANDALOUS number places, and hundreds of thousands of comments outrightly racist or politically incorrect to the point of being both insanely juvenile and terribly spiteful should have ensured that Clarkson was thrown out a Long Time ago. Next he will probably start using the 'N' word or talk shit about the Jews and the Holocaust, IF he hasn't already.

​I agree. get a decent camera (Panasonic LX100), with some good sound equipment, some portable lights, a tripod/ cheap stabilizer. The BlackMagic Cameras require a lot of workload and equipment to be able to work with them (very fast lenses, very good separate sound recorders, stabilizers etc etc).

Oh ok. I did some reading up on codecs after you posted your reply. And, I realised, that the end user doesn't specifically pay for them, and that is the reason that the codec market isn't growing as big as it should, and why the profit margins can be more democratic. I am sure for a few dollars (well under $10), consortiums who own these codecs could sell them to consumers, and make a reasonable amount of profits, on them. Not to mention, make consumers move to higher bit rates, selling accessories to be able to edit, grade, and view the same. Also, if they were more easily available, people could test all sorts of codecs to see, which they are most comfortable with, rather than just live with the ones that come on their cameras. There are open source codecs, but they aren't free. They mostly have 1-time payments. Also, some of them are in dispute with the more popular ones.

Watching all the new launches of New Cameras, and the issue with video, and understanding the whole thing from the perspective of RAW on the Canon Cameras (ala MagicLantern), I realise, that the main issue with vieo in cameras, is 1. The Codec; and 2. Features in cameras (a lot of cameras disable 24p or 60p or something else). This is my suggestion: 1. Codecs should be available to be bought and installed (or installed by retailers), over the shelf. 2. Sony has a superb new codec, the XAVC, wherein they have a 4-2-2- codec at 50Mbps. Maybe they should allow anyone and everyone to install it on their cameras. I am guessing that most new cameras would have the processing power to run the codec. 3. Democracy should be the new feature. While it is superb to have a hundred new cameras every year, the Manufacturers actually completely miss Introducing new cameras, from the Perspective of the Needs of a Customer. Like the Sony A5100 has a touch screen, but most features on the screen except focus have been Disabled. Apart from the fact that the menu is pretty lousy, too, and the Picture Profile is Not FLAT. 4. The whole External Recorder bit is also bullshit IMHO. When the SanDisk Extreme PRO Card can do 280 MBps, I am quite certain that most cameras can record the video internal AND keep the quality as good as an external recorder (especially when the Canon's do 14 Bit Raw with MagicLantern). What do you guys think? Should there be democratisation of Codecs (and features)?

​thanks Zack. I guess you're right. As long as the final product looks good, it doesn't matter what it's shot on.

Permissions are usually expensive and a headache. Try gorilla shooting but remember: 1. Keep cast and crew small and inconspicuous. 2. Don't take hours to finish any scene. Elaborate scenes should be shot inside/ indoors. 3. Rehearse. 4. Don't carry equipment outside that draws too much attention. Just a single camera with hidden lapel kics with wireless kindda recorders. 5. There should always be a production guy who can handle the cops. Also everyone should scoot while he does that. 6. Tiny handheld stabilizer like the Nebula 4000 or extreme wide lenses and a steady hand. B

I am a little upset with the inclusion of the Canon. The whole spirit of this group and most posts and discussions in it were to celebrate the existence of alternatives to expensive cameras and equipment for filmmaking. Just because the Canon's prices have come down in the used market doesn't make it a candidate here IMHO. Tomorrow if for some reason some Alexa or RED which costs a fortune right now costs 2-3 times as much as mid range DSLRs, it may too make it to the list. 2015 seems bleak ... hehehe

​ABSOLUTELY. Ideas or nothing.

I wish they would test the Sony A5100 too, since it uses the same Codec.

I saw a few videos of the LX100, and IMO it seems to have about 1/2 to 1 stop better low light, compared to the GH4. Has anyone checked?

I kindda agree. But, they're tiny, and cheap. And the form factor makes it simple to diffuse. You could mount a few of these on portable softboxes, spots and (with mini barn doors) a decent hairlight. For Low Budget Filmmaking, this seems pretty ideal. Seriously dude. And, upto 5 of them, from a single device (and individually adjust each light, separately via a single device). What I am curious about, right now though, is what is the throw of this light. Maybe I post it on their Kickstarter Forum and find out. If anyone else has any doubts that they have posted on their Kickstarter page, please post the same here, too. Thanks

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1193685734/lume-cube-flash-and-video-light-for-gopro-iphone-a?ref=nav_search Though the Switronix TorchLED Bolt seems like a great product, it's awfully expensive. Also, considering that it's impossible to make do with just one of those (it has to be softened down, and probably reflected off to get it as fill light apart from the spot light), it is not the right tool for Low Budget Indie Films (especially Shorts). I saw this a few days ago, but, it's only now that I read the entire specs sheet. This is a Superb Idea for Indie Filmmakers. With 3 of more of these, you have Super Portable Lighting, which is controllable via your smartphone (both Android and iPhone). The brightness, and flash can both be synced via the phone, and you can control upto 5 of these devices via Single Device (phone). What's even more amazing is that it's water resistant, has a magnet, and some dirt cheap mounting options via Joby. I doubt whether it can get better than this. The Cherry on the cake, though, is that it has internaiton shipping. I think this would be superb, especially for smaller spaces. What do you guys think? Check it out: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1193685734/lume-cube-flash-and-video-light-for-gopro-iphone-a?ref=nav_search

I saw pics from the NX1 on techradar and dpreview. The colours and details are superb. The dynamic range doesn't seem too much though. IMHO.

Andrew i really like the lab/ retriever closeup of the Eye. I am using it as my watsapp DP. I hope it's with you.