galenb

Nice! At first when I read the thread title I thought you where asking for matte box recommendations. ;-) The whole time I was reading I kept thinking, "well this one seem fine to me?" I have to confess that I've never really fully understood the use of matte boxes. I mean, holding filters and blocking light from hitting the lens seem to be the main advantages right? But I can just use screw on filters and use flags to block the light right? I always thought matte boxes where used to hold actual holdout mattes painted on glass. Am I missing something? By the way, you have one of the objects I lust after: SmallHD monitor! Mainly because I love their implementation of focus peaking. Sadly, I won't be getting one till I get a new camera. The GH1 doesn't have the ability to send a signal out the HDMI while shooting. :-( Cheers!

Interesting. Coincidentally I was just reading a blog earlier today about a guy who switched from Canon to Nikon. He listed off a bunch of reasons and one of them was dynamic range. He felt it was much better then Canon in general. I love to shoot with the shadows falling toward the camera and that's one of those situations where wide dynamic range really helps you to be able to pull detail out of the shadowed areas like face and still see the background.

The mic input jack is under it's own little rubber door just in front of the shoulder strap eyelet on the left side (when facing the back of the camera).

Weird. I was just looking on the Weifang website and they actually make a ton of stuff that's sold here under different names. It appears Fancier is actually made by them too!

Wow, the glidecam shots looked like regular steadycam shots! Very nice! So, how was it shooting with the D800? Did you have any issues with aliasing and moire? Or was that not an issue? Any post tips for using it? [quote] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Anyways, hope you enjoy watching the video as much as we did making it. Leave a comment, thanks! [/quote] [/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]LOL! Yeah I bet you did! It's pouring down rain as I type this...[/font][/color]

Here's some threads that I turned up with a simple search: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?181-GH1-GH2-Hardware-Lenses-etc http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?249469-Newb-First-Lens http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?239822-Newbie-Question-About-Lens

By the way, [url="http://www.dvxuser.com/"]http://www.dvxuser.com/[/url] has a huge community of professional filmmakers with tons of very specific forums for these kinds of questions. There's a great "Filmmaking" forum there that can really help a lot when you are just starting out. [quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350240689' post='19757'] GalenB, is this true of a lumix lens as well? Is the 20mm pancake crop to 40mm? [/quote] Yep. All lenses. Even if they are made for MFT mount. A lens focal length isn't something that changes. It's the sensor that changes it. It crops in on it. Like if you had a wide angle photo of a bunch of shops on a plaza and then you cropped in on only one of the shops. The view would no longer be wide angle. [quote name='canonkid47' timestamp='1350240817' post='19758'] I don't have a lens right now. My dad has the gh2 with the kit lens but broke the kit lens, so I am going to buy a lens or two so I use the camera. I want it for video, so if I get the 20mm pancake, would that be wide enough if its not a wide angle lens? Should I go with something like a nikon 14mm instead for primary? [/quote] Actually, I hate to say this but if you are just starting out, a good zoom lens is going be more versatile then a bag of primes because you onlu need to cary around a single lens. Primes are definitely better then a zoom lens because they are usually shaper and sometimes have wider aperture. But I really feel like those are things you should be worrying about when you have a better grasp of photography and your skills outpace your equipment. If you have a specific look in mind that can only be achieved with one or two specific focal lengths then yes, just get an old prime from ebay. But if you don't even know how you want things to look, a zoom lens is going to help you figure that out and learn about focal lengths better... In my opinion that is. I've seen a few other people on this forum that say the opposite though. The argument is that a single focal length is better because it forces you to better think about the composition of the shot. In other words, you can't just zoom out and get everyone in the shot, you have to physically move back. And, I suppose there might be a tendency to set the focal length to whatever looks good on the zoom lens and not even think about what focal length that is. But I still think that if you are just starting out, it helps to have a lens that can cover the basics. (I'm trying to be as even handed as I can here) You can get the 14-42mm kit lens for about $100 now.

That'd be a funny experiment though. Take an Epic, C300, F65, Alexa, etc, and put a some canon kit zoom lens on them and walk around sooting someone's back yard like a video camera at 30fps. I think it would be funny to see how bad you can get the footage to look. That way, when we see these crappy video looking clips we can always say to each other, "Well, remember how bad the those cameras looked that one time." :-D Hmmm I guess there is one problem though. 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.

All lenses on the GH2 are cropped by the sensor to 2x their original focal length. So, a 14mm = 28mm, 35mm = 70mm, 50mm = 100mm, etc, etc. What are you shooting with now?

Thanks for that last vid. It was a lot better. But still... Not the breakthrough I was hoping for. As far as the other videos go, you really can't judge the quality of video when the camera is being held by someone who doesn't normally shoot video. I think the most disappointing bit of news I've seen is that [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Photography Blog says that this is indeed indicative of the final image quality for video. They said Panasonic mentioned that only the still image portion of the firmware is still being worked on. So, that's it folks. If you don't like what you see now, it's not getting any better until Vitaliy finally hacks it. It's funny, for me this really just puts the final nail in the coffin for this years Photokina. For me, there really wasn't anything ground breaking or otherwise noteworthy. I was really hoping something was going to pop out and stun us all but everything just seemed to fall short of my expectations. [/font][/color] [font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#282828"]Seriously though folks, this just strengthens my resolve. I'm saving my money for an MFT Blackmagic Cinema Camera. I just don't care about it's limitations if the footage looks that good. I have a Mac, I'll get an external battery, and I much prefer telephoto to wide angle most of the time so it's perfect for me. Until then, I'll just keep shooting with my GH13. What else can I do? ;-)[/color][/font]

LOL! My favorite is when someone gets ahold of a whatever the latest amazing spec camera and shoots at 30fps at the lowest quality settings... ARGH! Actually another thing that kills me are those 'first look' camera reviews that are basically just a hand holding the camera and a guys voice listing off the names of the buttons the most basic of features. "So, here we have the click wheel and over here is the menu button where you can access your various menu options." Really? You do realize there are press photos along with the press release right? Again, I just wanna say to them, "Stop right there! put that camera down. You are unqualified." Alright, Sorry guys. I'll stop talking about this now. I just had to get that off my chest. ;-)

Yeah, I guess so. I've never used either of the Beachtek or Juiced link though so I can't really say. I know Juiced link because it seems everyone and there mother has one but the Beachtek seems to offer more at a lower price. Although, as it seems here, the juicedlink is cheaper but doesn't offer XLR in. I don't know, maybe someone else can chime in. About the cable: I think that one is actually to long. Usually you mount the box to the camera. In the case of the Beachtek, you mount it to the tripod and then mount the camera to the box. There are nice mounting points above and below. It looks like the Juiced link has mounting points too but it looks like they are mainly meant to be mounted to a rig that holds the camera and not necessarily to the camera it's self. Anyway, Beachtek make's a little cable that runs from the box to the camera in a few inches. I suppose you could just wind up the cable and tie it down somewhere but it seems kind of silly as I don't see it sitting anywhere except under the camera.

OMG you guys! That's practically the same tripod he picked out earlier? Did you guys even click on the link before you dismissed it? Hahahahaha! Seriously guys! This is the one Craig picked out: [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Professional-Heavy-Duty-FT9901-75mm-Video-Camera-Tripod-with-Fluid-Drag-Pan-Head-/120996664371?pt=US_Tripods&hash=item1c2bf69433"]http://www.ebay.com/...=item1c2bf69433[/url] And here's the one Rich picked out. [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/360495479025?nma=true&si=IpW8TCfQYlyzNVkQwYvhnc3GSWY%3D&rt=nc&_trksid=p4340.l2557&orig_cvip=true#ht_3023wt_1141"]http://www.ebay.co.u...#ht_3023wt_1141[/url] It looks like the exact same tripod! I'm sorry but you guys make me laugh sometimes. ;-)

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350074165' post='19681'] Thank you for that description. I understand a lot better. Unfortunately, I can't afford a beachtek (anything over 150) right now, so maybe I will just record with my mic and hope it doesnt get too loud. [/quote] Actually it's the other way around. The signal coming from the mic is not going to be loud enough. And, if it's a condenser mic (I'm pretty sure it is) then it will probably requite some sort of power. So, if you were to plug it into the camera you wouldn't hear anything.

[url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Shop-by-Brand-Beachtek/ci/4/phd/4291592403/N/4294255798"]http://www.bhphotovi...03/N/4294255798[/url] You'll see the adaptor just a little ways down the page too. Maybe others will disagree with me here but I really think the best option for you is just a simple beachtek preamp and an adaptor. So a preamp does three things, one is that it usually provides something called "phantom power" to your mic. Most condenser mics require a little power so phantom power is just power that's sent back to the mic through the audio cable. The second thing is that it amplifies the signal (raises the volume) coming from the mic. Then, it sends that amplified signal out to your camera so that you can record it directly into the video clips. That way, you don't need to deal with the whole logging, transferring, sorting, and synching of separate audio and video files. Finally, the third thing is that it gives you a way to monitor the audio with headphones or at least providing some kind of levels indicator on the device so you can see when it's to loud.

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 name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350058814' post='19670'] Sweet guys. I am going to make a clapperboard and use that for syncing... Question though, if I purchase an h4n, and then have my external mic go through the h4n which then goes to my camera, would I still need to sync stuff up? Wouldn't it be saved right on my camera with my video? And is this a waste of an h4n just using it as a connector, should I purchase something cheaper? [/quote] So yes, that would be redundant. You really only need a pre-amp like a juiced link or something running into the audio in port. Usually you can monitor through the pre-amp. Does that make sense? Years ago, my brother made a short film and recorded all the audio on DAT tape. Afterwords we had to go through all that tape and match the takes to the shots. Man, that was horrible. Not un-doable, just not easy or pleasant in any way. Actually, now that I think about it, the best solution for audio is to have someone else deal with it. Someone else who knows what they are doing. It's pretty much the only job on the set that I think I really would not be able to do on my own with all the rest of the stuff that needs to be done. I mean, I'm sure I could stick a mic on a stand and just record away. But I think the best results come from having a boom operator who can follow the action and dialog and who then deals with logging and stuff like that. Then I can concentrate totally on lighting and camera. An important thing to remember about audio is that it has a lot more influence on the final result then a lot of us initially think. Just remember that when watching a movie, it's only reaching us by way of two senses. Visual and audio. It may not be an entire half of the experience our brains have to compute but it's much larger then many of us give it credit for. Also when making a movie, it's not just "Audio", it's Dialog, music, foley/sound FX. It's a whole art and science unto it's self.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350043406' post='19665'] Thanks again. 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] Wait... are you talking about audio in or audio out? There is a mic in jack on the GH2... At least there is on my GH1. It's not with the other (USB/HDMI) ports though. It's up and to the left, toward the front of the camera under it's own little rubber door. If you flip it open it says, "Mic" on top and "Remote" below. You'll need a little adaptor because it's an odd format 3/4" plug or something. Of course you'll need a mic pre-amp to plug in your shotgun and then you plug the pre-amp into the mic socket on the camera. I've never tried it before but I've heard of people going this before so I'm pretty sure there's no problem. As far as monitoring goes, well, hopefully there's a some sort of a meter or at least a clip LED on the pre-amp you get. ;-) [EDIT] Okay I see you already know about the audio in port. Sorry, I was a little to quick on the draw there.

Here's just a one of the multiple sources for learning about lighting: [url="http://www.lowel.com/edu/"]http://www.lowel.com/edu/[/url]

LOL yeah that was a typo. I definitely meant to write "Diffuser" Sorry about that. I can't remember exactly so hopefully someone else can chime in here: I think the amber gels are called CTO and can be bought in rolls or large sheets. The come in varying degrees from 'full CTO' which is really Amber/Orange and come in something like 1/2 and 1/4 and so on shades. I think blue gels are the same way too but are called 'CTB'. I don't remember the range that diffuser gets come in but I seem to remember 172 - 250 being the standard range we used to use a lot. You'll see a number associated with them and that's the amount of diffusion they apply. I would just recommend getting a daylight to tungsten conversion kit. Usually this includes a bunch of amber gels and some diffusers and maybe a sheet of ND. I think they were pretty cheep if I remember right. Also, please look on youtube for lighting tutorials and especially about using gels. There's tons of free information out there.

I must be board today... are you ready for this? :-) This is all working from memory because I haven't seen that one in a couple of years other then some scenes I just watched off youtube: Well I noticed that most of his films use a variety of Studio and natural lighting techniques. He has a tendency to mock or go beyond reality in some of this scenes to achieve a sense of almost theatrical disconnection... Al least, that's how I interpret it. :-) He's all over the place in his lighting theory. Sometimes the shots look very defused (You can get this effect by putting a large defuser of some sort in front of your light (although as axel pointed out, be careful it's made of some kind of non-flamible material, if there is a lighting a grip shop in your town, they will sell it in sheets) or bouncing a light off of white surfaces. Other times he's intentionally making the lighting look fake in order to achieve a subtle yet surreal look. As far as I can tell, some of those shots use an amber gel on a large light coming from the window the the left (or at least in the direction of the window) and then a cooler, softer fill light coming from the opposite side on the right. If you look at the opening scene, where the three kids are sitting with Royal and he's telling them that he's leaving, you can see that the kids are lit as if the sun is right outside the window and yet, the buildings behind them have a soft almost blue light from an overcast sky outside. I get the impression that it's supposed to look fake but that's part of this look. There's also other shots where the lighting looks like it's just huge defused overhead work lights with smaller "specials" around the room to highlight things in the scene. For that look, place the lights high up and again, use a large defuser in front of them. It's actually pretty simple. Although you might need to fill in the darkness that pools around your subject's feet with yet another soft defused light. Sometimes two set at either side of the set almost perpendicular to the camera. Diffusers will help eliminate the harsh shadows you get without them. And even more shots too that seem to use only daylight from a window and maybe an opposing fill to equalize the exposure of the room. Again, pretty simple stuff. Just watch his movies (of better yet, movies from the 70's) and try and figure out where this lighting is coming from. Expect that you are going to be doing the wrong thing at fist but keep at it. A last bit of advice: 3 point lighting is a nice little trick to get things to look like a hollywood movie but it isn't right for everything and never treat it like it was some kind of rule that you always need to follow. This may seem obvious but I can't tell you how many people I've run into who actually keep that as an unbreakable rule. I've often heard directors or DP's say, "You always need to have some kind of rim light" even when the scene looked fine without it. I would especially avoid it if you are trying to achieve a natural look. 3 point lighting rarely happens in real life. However, that being said, it is a good trick to get your subject to pop out of the scene... if that's your intent. I prefer subtlety.

Well ah... Yes I guess they would. You're talking about the halogen ones right? I mean, HMI's are basically very similar but purpose built for film work. I have to admit that I used those before but that was a really long time ago (on 16mm) and I didn't really know what I was doing back then. Depending on the look you are trying to get, I would probably not use these naked. Meaning, either bounce them off a white card or put them through a defuser of some sort. But, It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. What kind of look are you going for? Do you have any examples of lighting in movies that you like? Like Axle pointed out above, do you want a natural look or are you wanting a more polished/produced studio look? Because these two categories are going to require fairly different lighting setups.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1349981045' post='19628'] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]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.[/font][/color] [/quote] I think if you are working on the set of a movie or even a commercial then yes, you had better show up with a capable tripod. However, Craig is just starting and still needs to learn the basics of Photography. I don't think the $500 tripod is going to make or break his filmmaking career. Later on when his skill finally exceeds the capabilities of his equipment he can step up to a $500... hell, a $1,000 tripod. That's really my only point. I also think we all need to start out making some truly bad movies before we can even get to the truly amazing visions we have. God knows I've already made some crapy videos recently but It's part of growing right?

[quote name='hmcindie' timestamp='1349958534' post='19604'] One really good thing about the All-i codec on mark III (and now on the GH3 as well) is that we don't get stuff like this: [url="http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?294411-Strange-quot-blocks-quot-in-the-image-from-the-FS700"]http://www.dvxuser.c...-from-the-FS700[/url] [/quote] Are you sure about that? I thought the main advantage to All-i is that you don't have pixel interpolation between frames? Each frame is encoded as a single, isolated frame. If your bitrate is to low, you are still going to get chunks of pixels grouped together regardless if it's happening on a frame by frame basis or interpolating over a group of frames. Is that not correct? As far as I was aware, The main artifacts that GOP produces are slight periodic shifts in areas of the frame where little change occurring over time. The codec then directs it's attention to things that are changing the most between frames. Although again, if the bitrate is to low, the motion will still seem chunky and smeared... I don't understand how this would reduce macro-blocking and chunky movement if the bitrate was still to low?

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1349720689' post='19491'] 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! [/quote] At first I saw this and thought, "Yeah! Stupid plugin!" In general, I hate those heavy over-graded drop in looks that come from red giant and crumplepop. to me, they just look like every other low budget movie trying to look like a Hollywood block buster. But then upon further inspection I discovered this is not some silly levels and noise adjustment. They have actually painstakingly tried to replicate the look of actual film. If this is what you need then this is a really great way to get that look. It really does seem to add some nice beautiful sweetening to your final image. Also, the grain can be used to help hide banding if your camera has an issue with it and it's distracting. ;-) I do agree with Axil in principal though. We need to develop our own look instead of trying to cop some look just because it's fashionable right now or it's what people are used to. Video cameras and DSLR's are what we have to tell stories with. There's no reason to be ashamed of that.