HockeyFan12

I guess I agree with you then!

A sitting talking head is just about the easiest thing there is to shoot. No need for camera movement, no need for a follow focus, you can stop and reset and change batteries and media without interrupting the flow of things completely, and insanely easy to light. If your work is limited to talking heads with no camera movement, I suppose the size of the camera doesn't matter that much. He's still got two other crew members, though. My bad for not caveating that, but that's an extreme example of the easiest possible shoot. And it's still not a one man band. If I did have the crew, I would take the cinema camera, of course. Not saying I wouldn't. I have shot with both the Epic and Alexa a few times and lacked the experience (and/or crew and support gear) to manage those sets as well as smaller ones, so I'm biased, to be fair.

I don't have that lens, but it's known for weird bokeh: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1 If you don't like it, return it. I really like nisen bokeh when it's int he right context. The cooke S2/S3 panchros are a mess but I LOVE the look.

I think it depends more on your skill at swapping batteries and setting up a matte box than anything. Setting the exposure and focus and composition right is the same on any camera. I've been a single operator Red user in the past and gotten decent results, technically superior results to cheaper cameras, even. But I found the experience exhausting and constrictive. To be fair, this was with a Panavised Red MX and a set of Panavision Primos. That rig was huge, a monster, and took 90 seconds to boot up. (Those are the best lenses I've ever used, though.) When I switched to an Epic with Lomos, it was a lot easier. Still a pain to carry around and set up. Would have loved internal NDs and longer battery life. Also, where? For nature videos I absolutely agree with you, but on a fast-moving set (wedding or ENG or even doc and low budget indie narrative) I can't see it. Are you saying Vice shooters are using FS7s because they lack the technical or artistic talent to operate a Red? I've seen a lot of nice looking footage on Vice, nicer than most Red footage under similar conditions; Vice's cameramen seem capable to me, but they're on super fast moving documentary sets and need to move fast so they have different priorities. I do agree fully with the "what you're shooting" part, but it's a small range of content that has a crew of one but also demands exceptional technical image quality. Mostly stock footage. An appeal to content is so facile, though. Even though I just made one... For me I think I have a low bar for what constitutes acceptable image quality (needing 4k makes sense for stills, but doesn't for me), maybe I just have poor eyesight or something, maybe the stories I want to tell aren't that visual. I think most people here need exceptional technical image quality, but are trying to get it affordably. Jon, for instance, is doing HDR, which does require technical excellence. So for me to say "just focus on the lighting" or just "focus on the story" is beyond the point, because most people here are looking for acceptable image quality as a precursor to telling their story or lighting their scene in the first place. I'm not doing that–I couldn't deal with the 5D Mark III's softness, but these days I'm happy with whatever. Most of my questions are just with workflows and stuff now. To that extent I should get off my ass and actually focus on lighting and storytelling... I might even discover I'm wrong about IQ... haven't been shooting much, might be imagining a lot of this in my own head while I'm between projects. Might be time to write less here and more on in Final Draft... So I apologize to anyone I insulted. Maybe I just feel insecure that my needs don't require the high end stuff yours do, but that doesn't make them worse, just different.

Heh, yeah it really does. I know that a lot of members of this board will only shoot 4k 10 bit, and I get it, that's the same as Netflix wants, so there must have been some subjective research done to show that it's substantively a lot better. Maybe everyone else here has better eyesight than me and I'm on the wrong board. (Likely.) (Fwiw, I do think for HDR the 15 stop 4k 10 bit spec is spot on. But I'm not shooting HDR...) But I go on Vimeo and watch amateur videos and there isn't this sudden night and day difference once the GH5 or C200 hit. Even on Netflix (I don't have the 4k option on my account), I can't always tell what was acquired and finished at 2k and what's an original and finished at 4k 10 bit. Everything looks about the same to my untrained eye past a certain point. When it was the GH2 vs the 7D I saw a huge difference. The Alexa made a huge difference over the Red MX. And I've always loved the look of film and can spot it every time, but technically it's softer than most 1080p video, so that's just taste there, nothing to do with image quality but rather aesthetics. So maybe it's not that I don't care that much about image quality, I'm just blind to it. Time to get glasses maybe, or maybe brush up on technical comparisons, I guess. When I zoom in or pixel peep of course I can see the differences, but those seem to pale in comparison to aesthetic differences or just a good story. Probably just me.

I'm up my own ass here to some extent. I was in a weird mood. This quote says it better: But I'd add–don't use equipment you don't have the crew to support. I haven’t used the Amira personally. It looks appropriate for a smaller crew, but not dSLR level by any means. I've never seen one used for a documentary, but I know they're popular with "indie" crews, particularly on smaller professional sets like Twin Peaks: The Return that a more "guerrilla" approach. I bet Kubrick would use one with a skeleton crew. I find the Alexa Mini and Red to be inappropriate for a one man band, despite the small size. Too much to rig and maintain. The C300 and C100 (popular with Vice shooters) and even the FS7 are borderline. I could see them being used by wedding shooters or news journalists. But if your aim is to get gimbal/steadicam-type shots, as it seems the goal is here, then certainly an FS7 rig requires a bigger crew than you'd need for a GH5: ideally a steadicam op to fly the bigger camera all day and a wireless FF system for focus, and a monitor for you, the DP. And then you have enough batteries involved you want a second AC. So I stand by that. But you'd also get way better results with that crew than with a gimbal. Of course, if the client didn't ask for gimbal shots, then why are you seeking to deliver them? If all they want is tripod shots, then yeah.... no need. Gimbal shots are not inherently better, and if they aren't asked for, they're almost certainly less desirable. I have not seen much, if any, really good gimbal footage. I'd prefer sticks almost every time, but that's just my opinion. Where I do disagree with you is that some producers will push a certain camera like they have more faith in it than they do in the DP. So that is annoying... I've been working with more F55 footage lately because streaming services are demanding 4k deliverables and it's dumb. 3.2k Alexa footage looks better. But the F55 looks really good, too, so whatever. For me personally, I just don't care that much about image quality, but I care a bit about how you can move the camera and a LOT about how fast you can move. I feel I can appreciate the Alexa when I watch the Revenant in theaters. I can appreciate the ease of use of a C100 or 5D when I have one on set. I guess? So for me I agree with the original poster's comments on my own sets, but my own sets are just YouTube videos and fun stuff. But for a professional client, if they didn't ask for gimbal shots, then why does it matter if you can get them or not?

I don't think a big camera is a problem if you have a big crew. With a second AC to carry everything and swap batteries, set up monitor, etc. and a first to pull focus and hit record and set up camera settings, and a DIT to handle cards, all you have to do is operate, or not even that if you have an operator, especially for steadicam shots, jib shots, etc. where you'd traditionally have even more crew and definitely get a better result than from the gimbal you're using yourself (no offense). Under those circumstances, why not go for the FS7 or something? The image quality will be better. I suppose you need to plan a bit more to manage crew efficiently, but that's in the job description: "director" of photography. With a crew that size, you can manage a bigger camera better than as a lone gun with a dSLR, at least if you're a good DP, and get the benefits of a better image, too. But without the crew, I'd take whatever the cheapest option was that delivers adequate image quality, probably a dSLR or mirrorless camera, maybe even using autofocus or image stabilization at times. But that's because I'm not a real DP. A bad carpenter blames his tools. I wouldn't blame the camera for being big, it just needs more people to operate it. But in this case a good carpenter might be five people each getting paid $500-$1000/day. So I hear your point, but it all depends what you're working on and what the budget is. Fwiw, I shoot with a medium/small mirrorless camera and get better results with it than when I operated or DPed on shoots with an Alexa. But I didn't do a great job on those shoots (nor have the resources I needed) and I'd just like to hope that with experience and access to a full crew that would change. But it probably won't for me since I'm a hobbyist. This doesn't reflect poorly on you or on me, I don't think, at least not necessarily. (It reflects poorly on me that I can't operate an Alexa well, but I never said you couldn't.) I've seen some extremely high end content (award winning major national campaigns) shot by lone wolf directors and DPs on 5Ds. And that stuff is breathtaking. They were working under circumstances where they didn't have access to a full crew, but rather wanted more time to wait on the right light etc. or in remote locations, and they made the right compromise.

This is great! MiniDV I think is the perfect example of "Classic Digital."

I think what makes film and retro games popular are specifically the flaws and artifacts. To that extent, I think it's more likely that old point and shoots, cell phone cameras, vapor wave, Simpson wave, anything really really technically bad but with its charms will become associated more with a classic digital look. A band I knew in college used to be into the idea of how heavy generation mp3 compression was the millennial's equivalent to vinyl hiss (though it looks like millennials gravitated to vinyl hiss, so maybe it's the next generation that will gravitate to low quality mp3s). I agree still cameras haven't progressed that much since Nikon introduced the D90, and even video is leveling off now. But I think the "classic" look will be associated with the bad, not the good.

Odd question, but has anyone compared the HDMI port on a Mac laptop to the HDMI output on a Black Magic interface for grading? Whatever the new OS is doesn't work with my Intensity Pro (only works on my PC now) so I'm considering just going straight to the tv like this. Doesn't have to be perfect. Also getting rid of my grading monitor. Just want something "good enough" to idiot check against a UI display.

Wasn't my department, but... if I remember correctly, Alexa, 7XX or 6XX sound devices recorder, Denecke slate. This was usually pretty reliable, a bit of drift and occasional problems where it would just go totally out of sync. Where we had a lot of problems was with the Sony F5 until we added lock it boxes, and then performance closer to the Alexa. We should email Red Giant, then! Or doesn't Premiere have a similar feature to Plural eyes but also include transcription? Maybe it's something Adobe would be better-suited to address... Another interesting option would be timecode sync over wifi or bluetooth.... sync whenever it's in range and then run on the internal clock when it's not.

Not even. Just these: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1136079-REG/sennheiser_clip_mic_clip_mic_digital.html?ap=y&c3api=1876%2C92051678762%2C%2C&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_4aLj6DE2gIVBwdpCh1DiwM-EAQYASABEgLmMfD_BwE And iPhones... the sound quality is surprisingly very good, everything else about the user experience is not. Then again, I guess Apogee makes nice gear that works well with Sennheiser gear? I used to listen to one of their DACs and HD650s at work and they paired well. Definitely a real nightmare to sync three or more separate sources, but it's not like timecode sync is perfectly reliable (had lots of issues with drift, things coming undone, etc.). I'm used to syncing sound manually from my 16mm days, but I never shot a feature on 16mm and then we were only syncing one recorder, not three or more... and we shot very minimal coverage due to the cost of film. What about running sound straight to the camera (using the Tascam as a Mixer, not a recorder) for anything other than Ronin shots? (Which would be synced via dumb slate.) The C100's preamps sound... about as good as the Tascam's... Does PluralEyes even work reliably for Lavs? Isn't the placement so different that it would have trouble syncing? Someone at PluralEyes should include optional transcription software in their next release so whatever the second AC says (Scene 1, Take 1, etc.) gets labeled as such in the file name (with each recorder somehow differentiated) and the in point for each clip is set to the slate hitting shortly after.

Thanks! You saved me a lot of money. I spent some of it it already on a backpack for the sound gear, but I needed that already. I'm using wired lavs (to separate recorders) so no wireless and no Timecode. Unfortunately for me lol. I'd better not shoot too many takes because syncing will not be fun.

That's fair. While I have worked on a few films that may have been "guaranteed" entry into fests due to networking, for me I couldn't say! It's whomever accepts it, if anyone. But there are still baseline standards at worthwhile festivals and it's much easier to miss those due to bad sound than do to image quality imo. Same for YouTube, bad sound will be a problem. An 80D might have aliasing, but it won't be! But the flip side is also exactly my point, I won't be making money directly on any of this, so paying for a proper crew isn't on the table either. :/ Anyhow, I'll save the money on renting a MixPre3 if the right project demands it.

Aren't all festivals amateur by definition? I guess that answers my question, though. Thanks!

The viola is cool! It's not super bright, but for its size it's quite good and useful even for non-special purpose work as an on-camera LED or fill light. Its LEDs seem weirdly harsher than usual but not a big problem. The strobes show some rolling shutter, I only see it on the attack and not the decay which is weird but probably just chance and they sustain for a while, so it's nice. Don't use this if you have epilepsy... very crazy light.

I do own one! The problem is... I don't own an H4N so I haven't had the chance to compare. To my ear, the preamps on the DR60D sound similar to my C100's. Which I remember being better than the H4N's (by a lot) but worse than the 702. I guess you answered my question... But I am curious: Do you think the pots (or volume knobs or whatever they're called) on the Tascam are usable for mixing dialogue? And do you think the difference between the DR60D and F4 etc. is small enough that most consumers (web video, festival-oriented films) wouldn't care?

Haha yes sound department always gets the short end of the stick. It's the only thing I don't know how to do at all. I'll make my question much more specific: How much better are the pre-amps on the F4 or MixPre3 than on the DR60Dmk2? And does the DR60Dmk2 offer pots that are useful for mixing, or would you need a MixPre-D to make it useful for that? It looks like timecode sync isn't an option for me for reasons this thread makes painfully clear. I was originally going to look into a MixPre3 to get much better sound quality and timecode sync compared with the DR60Dmk2, which I already own but was planning to sell. But if the sound quality isn't hugely different (I consider the difference between the h4n and 702, for instance, to be completely night and day; not only is the sound much fuller on the 702, the noise floor is massively superior, and the h4n has a weird intermittent high frequency hiss–it's just pure garbage) I could just spend the money on a rental. There are VERY few jobs for which I'd need this anyway. I don't consider the h4n to have good enough sound even for a YouTube video. If the 60D Mk 2 does... and you can mix using the pots... well... I'll just do what I should do an call in the pros. But for an indie set, paying $1200/day for sound department and another $1000/day for kit rental is not an option unfortunately. I'm trying to split the difference between dirt cheap and pro. You're so right about the sound revolution going ignored, but part of the reason why is I don't think ease of use has changed much and the main cost will always be labor. An F5 or C300 is stupid easy to use for a lone ranger compared with a 416 or even an F35 or Alexa, which require real crews. I'd argue that the revolution in sound hasn't happened yet where the gear does that much work for you. You still need high end lavs to get anywhere and to worry about phasing etc. and know how to mix, know which mic to use and how to place it, etc. If someone could use the Wifi functionality or blue tooth or something on iPhones, then hook lavs up to those, and sync that automatically with video, then you're getting somewhere... But even with the sound revolution, you still need a crew! There's no DPAF for sound. This might be good for you if you work in sound department, but it's bad for me! That said, I can't find a place that even rents the MixPre3, which is pretty sad... I take it I should just keep the 60D Mk 2 lol. Maybe add a MixPreD to the equation...

Way over my head... but that's an interesting idea. Got word back from Atomos that while the Blade does pass Timecode, for some reason The MixPre3 can't read it. Weird, but plausible given all the propriety stuff everyone seems to be up to. Are the F4 and MixPre3 really in another league from a 60D Mk II from Tascam or something? Does the F4 have analogue limiters?

If the past black magic cameras are any indication, I agree. Even for weddings I think dSLRs with autofocus make more sense unless you can afford a focus puller. But I suppose some people are 95% hobbyists and occasionally want to shoot events.

Corporate events, storage space, etc. Makes sense to know what the smallest/cheapest codec you can get away with for a given client is. For personal work, I understand the impulse to just use what's best, though.

Not my test (what I shot was nowhere near as scientific!), but I agree with your conclusions. I suspect that the Atomos recorders have a poor implementation of ProRes, and that it really matters at lower data rates. PCs that can compress ProRes have a bit of a different look to it than Macs do, a codec can have different implementations. AVCHD is technically better on the C100 than XDCAM on the F3, even though the F3 has the technically better image AND a higher bitrate codec, for instance. (With external recorders, the equation flips.) Still, I've long considered 422 and especially anything below below compromises in quality, just from my experiences with them. This is why we do tests! The softness and DCT noise in the luma information in the grass, for instance, in 422 is immediate apparent to me, but the loss of color information in AVCHD is only visible to me in fast-moving clips (which would be invisible in motion) or in reduced color fringing (visible in motion, but not undesirable). To me the superiority of AVHCD vs 422 in the grass is blatantly obvious. It's not even close, and is only somewhat difficult to see at 100% in that clip because of heavy YouTube compression, hence the need to zoom in. Whereas the reduced fringing artifacts (probably from the offset pixels on the sensor, that camera has a weird sensor design) are the only big difference I see in color, but I think it's clear 422 HQ is best at everything! Everyone's concentration of rods vs cones is different so I suppose we probably see entirely different things, sensitivity to color or to contrast. But the loss of luma information at 422 in the grass would be unacceptable to me in almost any circumstance, whereas the loss of color information in AVCHD would only matter at all if I were doing heavy post work. As I mentioned above, I suspect the Alexa has a better ProRes compressor than Atomos products do, and I would be happier with 422 standard from an Alexa than anything from a a C100's clean HMDI out. I haven't tried flavors of ProRes other than HQ or 444 from Black Magic products, but I suspect their ProRes implementation is better than Atomos.

There very well might be, but with changing product lines and firmware it might be a moving target... and an extra box to put a battery on... and another loose HDMI connection.... I wish more of these cameras had HDSDI.

I agree with your list, but everyone should do their own tests with LT. The image quality there is pretty dreadful even compared with XDCAM and AVCHD, but for some content that's fine and it's much better than standard definition or something. While it's true that transcoding can't improve an image, I was comparing AVCHD vs ProRes variants from a clean (uncompressed) HDMI output. In my experience, AVCHD was still better overall than any ProRes codec below 422 HQ. Except with foliage. Here's a test that closely mirrors my findings, but theirs is much better!

No worries. Those camera threads are always tricky! We want to assure ourselves we have the latest and greatest but we're also legitimately biased because our cameras are what we know how to use best.