fuzzynormal

Okay, this is what I do to get decent audio on substandard pre's. Any legit audio guy is going to read this and get cold sweats, but here it goes regarding my use of Sen.G3 and a Gh5, with the Gh5 set at -12db for recording: I just run my levels "hot." You can go into the red and it'll stay clean...for the most part. It gives the quieter voice parts a nice thickness and gets the levels as far off the floor as possible. --To the point where if the interview subject explodes with a big loud laugh or yell it actually clips the signal a little. Knowing how far into the top you think you need to go is the tricky part. Setting levels in the "risk" zone is okay by me. iZotope's audio Rx can compensate somewhat for clipping in post. (post?!?) (yes, post) Then, when editing, a modest application of compression helps smooth stuff out. Sometimes I'll even add a limiter if I'm in a hurry. When I'm more pedantic I'll ride the audio levels manually in the edit. Bumping -2 or +2 on a voice to keep the levels consistent. These are the trade offs I need to make in order to work with a small simple setup for run/gun. It breaks the rules for sure... and, yeah, nothing is going to sound better than great pre's on a great mic. But I'm working without that luxury, so I made up a different recipe to cope. There you have it. One anecdotal bit of nonsense from me. tl/dr answer: what IronFilm said. "make sure your signal coming in is strong enough you don't need to lean heavily on...pre amps at all."

I use the Sennheiser ew 100-ENG G3-A Wireless Mic System plugged right into the Gh5; mostly with the supplied lav mic, but occasionally with a shotgun mic overhead. The overhead mic is nothing special. Just an Azden SGM 2x. Sounds decent for talking vocals. None of that gear is great or terrible, but I find it does the job. I do apply a bit of compression and limiting on the audio track in post.

Or an Olympus. FWIW, when I was shooting with my trusty old EM5II I would often think, "How in the hell did I ever shoot stuff before this!?" ;-)

It's been awhile since I shot video on cassette tape:

When I first read the post title I figured it was a zombie thread from 2009. The demise of Apple for professionals has been happening for 25 years now. I guess sooner or later they may get around to it.

White bean soup anyone? Gotta do something with these Easter ham leftovers.

As a doc director/producer/shooter I can agree with this...and also disagree with this. A good shooter can and will find the best angle for light even in bad lighting situations. Changing the perspective of a shot for better light is always an option. It's not always easy, but that's part of the craft. Making good cinematic decisions under the gun is doable. So, you don't control the light, but you do control how the camera sees it.

Regardless, your video has a timelessness to it. 1965 or 2015, who knows or cares? (and Ornette Coleman? cool) Looks awesome as it really doesn't feel like video or film, but something in between.

Szczęśliwy smaczne jajko wielkanocne! (is that close?)

Something to be said about projects where one's making the most with the least. There ends up being a certain mojo to it and we remember that stuff. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse! But those films got a energy to 'em. For me, my thought process was always, "well, it's only going to look half way decent no matter what we do, so let's not worry too much about the camera and just have fun getting the shots as best we can." It was sort of liberating in a way. I've shown this before here, but it's a good example of just saying, "screw it, let's just make the damn movie." Shot in 2008 on an XH-A1; not that it matters as we abused and tortured all the shots in post: Was anyone here shooting stuff with a DOF adapter and a cheap video camera around this time? I find films with those adapters intriguing.

As some of us are want to do, we wax poetic about older technology, (I guess we're entering the phase wherein old gear gets us misty eyed) I submit a quick video I shot 9 years ago on a XH-A1. Anyone else have stuff from a decade past that you still like to watch and like to share?

Local multi-plex for me with the StarWars, but I did watch "Corvette Summer" a year later at the Twilight Drive in. Annie Potts in scuba flippers, yeah. A double feature with "The Return of the Pink Panther"

The novelty of getting farmer to let you do it in his cornfield or next to his cornfield would be pretty great. Gonzo the thing and make the craptacular-ness of it all part of the fun. Accept film only under 5 minutes so you can watch a bunch of 'em in 4 hours. Suggest charging 5 bucks a submission if only to offset the costs of throwing a halfway decent party with snacks and beers for one night. I'd imagine you might get around 200 or so submissions on FilmFreeway. Maybe at that low price a few more. Maybe give a 50% discount to regional filmmakers. The film festival I'm part of runs a 25% discount during the 1st week of "early bird" submissions. Basically, it's a $15 submission fee 'til Monday. Pretty cheap. If any of you want to submit, it's a great festival simply because the location is awesome. Here's the festival: https://filmfreeway.com/BorregoSpringsFilmFestival And here's the code: "25WORMS" Any festival, especially a small one, takes a bunch of work though to make it special for the filmmakers. If you're wanting to make it nice for those accepted in the fest and those attending, pretty much assume you'll be working a full time gig for a few months before the event. Just wait 'til you're on the other side of the curtain and you'll get wise to why festival do things a certain way. Don't feel like you can't break the mold though!

I do like a good TV series; anthology series especially. More like a novel whereas a movie is like a short story. I'm with you there. Mother was wonderfully bonkers and metaphorically crazy. More of that ambitious stuff for me.

I'd also suggest considering the later. Appreciating another's opinion, if not their actual taste in a film, is a way to get turned onto cinema you might never otherwise see.

If you're making an honest documentary, a director lets the events go where they go and then you build a narrative out of what happened. A good director can anticipate the shots needed and collect moments that will ultimately make sense. Still, salvage ethnography is always a challenge because so many biases of an outsider director will move the story in ways of which they're probably not even aware. Aside from that, however, the whole process is affected by the process of assertively observing, (which is what you have to do to get shots with a camera) but that doesn't mean valid compelling truths will not exist in the footage and eventual narrative. So it's been since the dawn of the genre. I mean, "Nanook of the North" is almost a complete fiction, but there's still something legitimate about it.

In defense of critics: Real ones don't really exist much anymore, so let's not throw the whole profession under the bus because the internet content machine has diluted the craft. A good critic is always going to be subjective, of course, but they do offer legitimate wisdom and insight regardless of their personal preferences. For instance, I loved reading Roger Ebert's criticisms about film, but thought his taste about certain filmmaking was way too generous.

FWIW, I like suspension of disbelief in da movies...until I don't.

If it's on Netflix in Europe, I'll just VPN that and give it a look-see. (Sorry Paramount)

Just confirm so I'm not misunderstanding: ...it's on Netflix in Europe right now but in theaters in the US?

Is that right? I've not noticed a more discernible shallow DOF simply because I'm using a speedbooster. COC looks the same to me with or without a speedbooster...just adds more exposure and FOV. Which is certainly great... wait, are we agreeing on the same thing? Ah, who cares. I just want a FF cam with an 50 or 55mm fast lens for interviews.

All true, and I've done it all... but with the way I'll have to do things on my upcoming project and in the places that I'll be forced to do 'em, wide open(ish) lenses on full frame is the extreme shallow DOF solution I'm aiming for. Speed boosters are good for bumping exposure, but don't do much for the "circle of confusion," which is an important aesthetic consideration a lot of folks using SB's tend to ignore --which is fine to ignore until you don't want to ignore it. I'd like 4k for the added benefit of cropping for a tighter frame as an alternate shot. And, FWIW, following focus manually on someone shifting around is not impossible. I'd suggest that if one has even a little bit of skill it's pretty simple to do. Mark the focus ring based on an interviewees lean tendencies, and manually float back and forth between those limits as the person moves. A cheap grease pencil can be your bestest buddy. Hard stop the limits if you have to. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, any analog organic motion (even when focusing) looks better than a robot algorithm doing it.

Alright. What's the best value/option for a 4K camera that shoots full frame. Would use it for interview set-ups...and that's about it.

I got one. Indy film festivals are a dime a dozen. There's thousands of 'em. There's not all that many that are hardwired directly to Hollywoo. You know how it is, big name festivals earn the luxury of advanced screening of studio films. It happens when the brand and event goes corporate. SXSW is now an industry event. You ever been? I was there once 10 years ago and it was already pretty much big biz'ness. Actually, I should give all y'all here a submission code discount for the festival I'm a part of. What do you think? You want an indy fest, let me tell you, we're definitely an indy fest.

I too get excellent results from using a bulky Glidecam. (a poor man's steadycam knockoff) So much so I've never seriously considered getting a gimbal. I like gimbals and have used them, just never utilize those sorts of shots enough to justify a purchase. Old Glidecam rigs are cheap and big. Both of those facts actually make it a great high-value tool. More mass=smoother shots. What shooter in their right mind dislikes long lens shots?