Lintelfilm

Bluetooth headphones for monitoring audio while shooting. Why aren't they more of a thing? Or are they, and I just haven't noticed? They do exist of course and I have seen filmmakers using them (mostly DIY jobbies) but there's nothing sold specifically for video purposes AFAIK and I don't see very many filmmakers using them. I'm about to buy a Bluetooth 4.0 receiver and transmitter set to plug into my earbuds and GH4. It'll be invaluable - being able to walk freely "on set" while also continuously monitoring audio. Indeed if you could swap channels you could even monitor multiple audio sources from the same spot. I usually work alone with two cameras, so I assume the £30 I'm about to spend will make my life a lot easier. Also, if I'm out shooting handheld, not having to worry about a cable will be huge. Why doesn't everyone do this?

I'm going to take my time with this. I'm on the same page as you Ebrahim - I love the C100 Mark II image and usability. But right now it doesn't make financial sense for me. I'm going to wait until later in the year to see if business keeps coming in and it drops in price a little. I'm going to get myself a couple of M43 IS zooms in the meantime and see how I get on. While we're on the subject I wonder can anyone help me - I'm confused about working out depth-of-field equivalence for different sized sensors (i.e. calculating the equivalent f-stop). Say I buy the 12-35mm f/2.8 for my GH4 - in UHD that's a 2.4X crop. Do I use the same formula for focal-length equivalence to calculate the full-frame depth of field equivalence? E.g. f/2.8 X 2.4 = f/6.7? How do you work out S35 equivalent DoF? Because I've always used speed boosters on my BMPCC (0.58x) and GH4 (0.71x) and both result in roughly the same (and quite close to S35) 1.7X crop, I've been lazy about understanding this. If I'm going to use MFT glass I need a formula, because without speed boosters the BMPCC and GH4 have less similar (and quite significant) crop factors. Thanks guys.

Lets not forget he was also a very gifted film actor. His most compelling roles in films by auteurs such as Roeg and Lynch. His unnerving cameo in the Twin Peaks feature film is at the centre of one of the most quintessentially brilliant Lynchian scenes ever: And of course there's the less high-brow but equally brilliant Labyrinth, for which Bowie chooses to play the role of 'Jared the Goblin King' as a deathly pale and emaciated Tina Turner tribute act: Yesterday I put together a Youtube playlist of some of my old Bowie favourites (for a year or two in the late 90's I literally listened to nothing but Bowie and Dylan): RIP Bowie. Thanks for falling to earth ...

OK sorry, but your examples are pretty high end. As you say there's no harm in asking. But I'll believe it when I see it (or hear it).

LOL dude those are professional voice overs by professional actors or voice over artists. Recorded professionally. People aren't just born with a "nice voice" able to do that kind of thing, it takes a lot of training and practice, and then there's learning the script so it sounds natural and the emphasis is all in the right place. Sorry if this sounds harsh but if you want it to sound like one of those you need to hire a pro.

I'd just go with whatever your preference for the Ultra contrast is. But I'd stay away from the 4 and 5 as they do start to lower resolution a little I think. I have a number 2, which I like a lot.

It's entirely subjective which is the right strength of filter for you personally, but I think unless you want your final footage to look pretty washed-out the 5 is far too much. I really recommend staying away from it. As with V-Log on the GH4 and CineStyle on the Canon's, it's too flat for the 8bit codec so you see macroblocking, banding and compression in the flattest areas. I'd go for a 2 if you want a noticeable 'organic' effect that can be brought back to contrasty in post, and a 3 at maximum if you want a strong effect. The "No More False Alarms" video above looks good with the 5 filter, but was shot in extremely bright sunlight. The other thing to consider is getting a Tiffen HDTVFX filter instead. It's basically a combination of their Ultra Contrast filter with their Digital Diffusion filter - so as well as lowering contrast it takes the edge of digital sharpness (without really loosing detail). It's basically a way of turning a sharp modern lens into an old vintage lens (in a good way).

Why not just change the Luminance Level to 16-255 in the menu?!

#2 is interesting. I hadn't thought of it like that before. I've always pretty much stayed away from the MP.

Gah wrote a big post and lost it. The jist of it was : This Kowa 8.5mm looks nice: And Tiffen Ultra Contrast and HD/TVFX filters do a lot to attenuate the clinical/digital look of Panasonic lenses: Ultra Contrast on a 25mm 0.95:

What do you use at the wide end when shooting 4K?

I agree. The high-street prices certainly are anyway. However you can almost always get them brand-new with a huge saving from an independent shop on eBay - often half the RRP.

Don't want to hijack this thread but I'm wondering if experienced MFT users could recommend the best native MFT lenses? Like Nick above, I shoot on a GH4 and BMPCC - each with their respective speed booster (Nikon mount in my case) and have only one MFT lens (the 25mm f/1.4 Leica) for stills and small form factor. Because I invested in Nikon mount lenses (prior to the EF Speed Boosters being released), I can't get image stabilisation without using MFT glass. I also quite like the idea of having a "small" lens kit. At the moment I'm thinking: 12-35mm f/2.8 Panny35-100mm f/2.8 Panny25mm f/1.4 Leica (already own)45mm f/1.8 OlympusAs far as I can tell this list is my best option for: 1 all-rounder zoom, 1 long zoom, 1 fast normal prime and one fast portrait prime. I know ideally I'd have wider options for the BMPCC and GH4 in 4K mode, but for that I'll just use my Tokina 11-16mm with Speed Booster. I don't want to pay out my nose for the Leica 45mm 1.2 or 15mm 1.4, and I don't think I'd use the Olympus 75mm that often. Am I missing anything?

Thanks man, this is really great info. What you say all adds up based on what I've seen of the C100. I think you're right about the MkII "splitting the difference" too. It's definitely better in low light - in terms of DR and colour. I'm wanting it mostly for documentary style stuff - so although good photography is very important to me, it's not the end of the world if skies clip etc. 12 stops is fine. I get frustrated with my GH4's under-12 stops of dynamic range (I don't use V-Log) next to my BMPCC. But With BMPCC footage I always crush it down to what is probably about 12 stops anyway because I like inky blacks and bold colours. As you say as long as I expose properly with the C100 I should be OK. The C100 stuff I'm grading at the moment has a noticeably more useable detail in the shadows than the GH4 (though I don't know what profiles the shooters used). The C100 MkII by the way has had it's colour tweaked a little - the red/orange, blue/teal thing I'm familiar with from MkI footage is definitely less pronounced. I prefer the MkII colours a fair bit. They also stay intact into higher ISO's I think ...

Wow, OK. Good to know. Thanks. Maybe I'll wait (and save up) for the Mark III. What I wish I'd done from the start is bought Canon Speed Boosters, then I could be buying Nikon (using EF-NF adapter) and investing in Canon lenses. As it is I'm stuck with MFT zooms if I want IS. As great as the 12-35mm 2.8 is, it makes the GH4 even less usable in low light. Perhaps the GH5 will have IBIS and improved low light ability. I can only dream ... Or maybe my business will take off this year and I'll just buy every video camera I can find!

I haven't seen a lot of C300 Mk II footage but what I have looks pretty different to the other Cinema EOS cameras to me. Certainly it doesn't appear to be as good in low light. Is that right? What ISO's are you happy using it up to?

Well said! I think this sums up my entire attitude really. I just think I may really miss a robust codec. I need to get hold of some C100 ProRes footage to play around with. I'm actually currently editing/grading someone else's C100 AVCHD footage for a job I'm doing at the moment (alongside yet another person's GH4 footage - they are really quite comparable). The C100 is, as we all know, massively superior in low light. And the colours are very nice. And the grain structure is very nice (much nicer than GH4). But in daylight, there's not a lot to tell them apart. Very helpful, thanks. Do you use a wider lens than the 16-35mm f4? Interesting that you have the 18-35mm and the 16-35mm (for the IS I presume?). How limiting do you find the f4.0 aperture on the two Canon zooms? As I say I'd imagined going for the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, which seems like a popular choice (though not an "L" lens, if that really means anything ...)

Cheers Zach. Yeah it's a great image considering it's only 8bit 422. That's the camera in a nutshell I think - it's no more and no less than you need. It's not valued enough, the way Canon do modest specs very well. I just wish they didn't charge so much! I'll look forward to seeing those. I'd love to hear from someone who has shot and graded externally-captured ProRes on a C100 extensively. I'll do a bit of Google digging ...

I'm a great fan of hybrid cameras and their uses for the kind of work I do. But I'm at a point where if my business is going to grow I need to be able to turn jobs around quickly and painlessly. That means as few worries as possible, as few extra steps as possible with reliably good, professional results. Things like Low light performance, ND filters, XLR jacks, AF, two SDs, native mount, etc etc ... It all adds up and has a knock-on effect for the success of the shoot. I really like my GH4 and as hybrids go it's the most video friendly I've ever used, but I,m screwing bits to it left, right and centre.

Not anywhere nearby. There's a place that has a C300 so I could try that I guess. Did you buy your C100 after your GH4? Do you think it's worth the price difference?

Yeah I think you're right I'd probably made my mind up before I even posted this thread! I just don't know if it's worth shelling out all that dough for a slightly easier life. Yeah that's what got me interested I think. Unfortunately it's not such a big saving here in the UK because of tax. What do you think Aaron? Is it worth the upgrade from the GH4? I have a Speed Booster and fast glass so sensor size isn't a huge issue for me. The GH4's a good camera. There are just times on jobs when I feel I should be focusing on other things and not worrying about the camera ...

Thanks. I suspected this - though I'm not sure what it's like recorded to a Ninja etc. I use my GH4 & BMPCC much as you suggest - the problem being that the GH4 is poor in low light, doesn't have ND's and is restricted to slow MFT glass for IS. Not deal breakers, but I long for something that I can rely on to perform in all situations. It's a shame Canon charge a premium for it. Perhaps I'll just add a used C100 Mark One to my kit and see how I like it. I think Aaron's right that I can't really justify the Ursa 4K for the work I do. Maybe I'll pick up a BMPC4K (same sensor) when they drop in price just to play with myself...

And the image is really nice. How do you like it compared to the GH4 image? Low light is obviously worse on the GH4, but dynamic range, colour, codec, resolution (I downsample 4K in post on the GH4, which I'd guess is very similar to what the C100 does in camera)? Thanks again Aaron. I've liked your GH4 stuff - it's good to hear your thoughts.

Thanks Aaron. You have a C100 I think? Is it the MKII? Can I ask which lenses you use and how you find the DAF?

I'm not a big fan of the images I'm seeing from the Ursa 4.6K. I'm sure it will have superior low light (being global/rolling shutter switchable & with high dynamic range) but I'm just not feeling it. I just love the images from the 4K, even though on paper it's the "worse" camera. Same with the FS7. It's for sure the compromise camera between the Ursa and C100, but it just doesn't excite me. Sony cameras never do TBH - I'm very focused on colour and Sony colours always look like an afterthought to me. The FS7 is a great pro camera, but I don't think I'd ever love it. It's C100II or UrsaM4K for me.