Mark Romero 2

Well... that is kind of what I thought at first, too. I thought they had to be either bouncing light off the ceiling or bounce off a wall or through a scrim. But looking at it closely I don't see ANY reflections for either bounced light or shoot through light. I can see reflections or practical lighting in the ample glass and chrome, but I don't see any telltale signs of bounced / shoot through lighting. There is a ton of glass in the shots (windows, shower doors, mirrors, pictures in glass) and using bounced or scrimmed lighting you would expect to see either direct reflections of the light itself, or reflections of the wall, or the shadow of the camera person. Yeah, that is basically my fate. Had to photograph a house once where they gave me 20 minutes and I had to shoot while the owner / wife was having a mental breakdown (she was being forced to sell the house due to a divorce settlement) AND they had five maids (cleaning crew, technically) cleaning the house while I was in there trying to shoot. So ideally I would like to keep lighting to a minimum.

LOL! Yes, if you DON'T look like a complete derp, then you are doing it wrong. On the other hand, just because one normally looks like a derp doesn't mean one will be naturally good at using a gimbal

@Matthew Hartman Thanks for chiming in. Usually, for probably MOST real estate videos, they don't take the time (and effort) to light them. I have shot some homes that go for a couple or three million dollars, and the agents want you in and out quickly. Now the house they shot in LA is probably several million, so maybe they allowed them to take more time and set up some lights. Usually you are right, the interior is what matters, but a lot of times it is balancing the actual interior "flow" (how the rooms connect to one another) and also just trying to sell the feel of the place, which would mean the views. You know how they say "sell the sizzle not the steak? Well, in real estate you kind of have to sell both the sizzle and the steak. (Although I know one company in LA that basically sell just the lifestyle aspect. They will have a couple of actors who are acting like they live there. Snuggling on the couch, drinking merlot, having a mini food fight, it looks more like a bad viagra commercial than a real estate video. But, who am I to judge??? Thank you for being polite when you say I "need to work on my gimbal skills a little." That's a little bit of an understatement Yeah, i am still trying to get it down. I think it is a combination of pilot error and having to calibrate the gimbal. Also maybe shoot at 30fps and then slow down to 24fps to smooth things out a little. I always seem to pan a bit too fast. I do try to keep the knees bent and walk heel to toe. Now that the weather is a bit nicer, going to have to practice some more. Thanks again.

Thanks for the note, Mattias. I Always appreciate your input. So you would guess that in the top video I linked to, the dynamic range is close to 13 stops? (I assume this because I am familiar with your video comparing the dynamic range of the D750 to the BMPCC shot in prores and RAW). THINKING OUT LOUD TO MYSELF: If it is about 13 stops, then I would have to shoot in Slog 2 on my a6500 to get that range

Thanks for the reply, Don. I appreciate it. Does they sky look like S Log 2 in the shots where the interior and exterior looks pretty well exposed? I have only briefly used S Log 2 and it hasn't been good for me, so I am not sure what to expect using it out. Thanks very much for the suggestions. I definitely see what you are saying where the views of the buildings outside the window are very hot. Yeah, time of day is important. Thanks again.

Firstly, sorry if this belongs in Shooting sub-forum instead of the main forum. I am wondering if anyone has an idea / suggestions for getting as much dynamic range as this video has (comparing the scenes where the interior of the house and the exterior sky can both be seen). I shoot real estate videos as well with my a6500, and I am not able to get that kind of DR. I either have blown out highlights or need to bring the shadows up so much that the image really falls apart. If I were to guess, it looks to me like the tonal range of the sky is quite compressed. Is it something like Cine 1 ??? or S LOG??? Or something else??? Here's a sample of a recent video I shot for comparison (I shot using Version 2 of EOSHD Pro Color for Sony Cameras), which if your familiar with for the a6500, is MAYBE not optimized for highlight compression??? (My understanding is it might be geared more toward preserving shadows instead of highlights, but I have been wrong many times in the past. Apologies in advance if this is incorrect) Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this. (or general feedback / critiques / suggestions on my video are all appreciated as well).

Nice. I like it. No more parties in Saskatchewan???

Yes, thank you. They aren't exactly what I had in mind, but they might work if I have to scratch the first choices off of my list and got to a plan B. Thanks again.

Well... my search for a good, cheap, and quiet bowens-mount LED here in the states has turned out to be kind of a bust. hard to find PixaPros here, and the Godox appear to be too loud (and have too inconsistent color). So I am looking for ideas for practical lights to join my two yongnuo led panels (YN600L) Anyone have some suggestions for any DIY or inexpensive lights with LED bulbs and good CRI? Mostly would be doing waist-up interviews with people in their homes. Thanks in advance.

Oh... what I meant was, how many Mbs is the codec? Is the external 8-bit 422 ProRes? Also, was hoping someone could point out the OPTICAL differences in those two tiff files. I downloaded them and looked at them and couldn't really see a difference. Maybe someone can help me look at what part of the photos that the optical differences are most apparent.

I'm sure it's there, but I have a hard time seeing the differences exactly. Maybe someone could point them out to me? Also, what is the bit rates of the C100 when recording internally 420 and recording externally 422? Guess I could look them up but too lazy

@hempo22 Thanks for the smiles!!! The 1:28 mark is a classic!!! Yup, good story, good acting, and good audio (despite the lack of talking, I thought the audio was really nice. Great ticking clock in the background) trump camera resolution and VFX.

When you say that you usually shoot a good rec709 image, do you literally mean you are using the 709 gamma? Or do you mean more like you try to get a shot where all the dynamic range is going to fit into rec709 easily? Or something else that I am missing entirely?

All the videos posted look really good, but can someone post something a little bit more... uplifting??? I have become a total cream puff since my son was born (12 years ago now).

Yeah, i guess he kind of equivocated there. He DID mention (and show) a BIG difference in the noise levels, but then went on to imply that noise "is not that big of a big deal. BTW: Hope you have some lenses for your a7S. Those Sony lenses ain't cheap. Heck, even the aps-c lenses for my crop-sensor a6500 are pricey Be sure to buy an extra lotto ticket for me

Hmmm... Wolfcrow seems to imply that there isn't much of a difference 150Mbs 10-bit and 150Mbs 8 bit. He said he expected a bigger difference between 8 and 10-bit footage after upgrading to the 400Mbs codec (although it doesn't look like he actually made a video comparing the differences between 8-bit and 10-bit at 400Mbs).

Thanks for the tips on dealing with it. Thanks for the clarification and thanks for the thoughts on how to deal with banding. Hopefully debanding is in the free version of resolve.

Thanks for sharing your insights and for the advice. A few follow up questions if I may; Could you better define "thin footage" for me? I hear lots of people says this (in particular about 8-bit footage), but I never seem to get a clear idea of what specifically they mean. Does the footage lack saturation? Vibrancy? Accutance? DR? A combination of missing a little bit of a LOT of things? (meaning, a combination of lacking a bit of contrast, a bit of vibrancy, a bit of saturation, a bit of DR?) Also, regarding ways to clean up banding in post. Besides the aforementioned noise reduction in post, what other ways are there to deal with it? And finally, you mentioned "shoot to mitigate it." Any tips on how to shoot to mitigate it? Thanks in advance. Can you sahre any of your secret sauce for taking care of it in post??? Thanks in advance. Thanks for the tip. Thanks for the insights. I am surprised about the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0

Indeed! What season / episode have you made it up to in The Wire??? Far and away one of the best television series ever made. I remember in the book about the series, the dp was asked about how he made the dreary settings in the wire so authentic, and he replied, "I'm an expert in ugly."

Unless, of course, the NX2 comes out soon...

At what point does one really NEED 10-Bit 4K? How serious does your grading have to be for 8-bit to not work well? Is Sony's 8-bit slog 4:2:0 really that prone to banding? (I read through the recent thread about "converting" 8-bit to 10-bt using noise removal software, and thought it has some potential for Sony cameras, although not technically converting to 10-bit.) Thanks in advance.

a7 III

Ahh... thanks for the clarification.

So, according to the press release, 30fps @ 4K appears to have a 1.6X crop (don't know if that is standard with ALL sony full frame cameras, so that might not be a surprise to others). Good to see a BSI sensor in a camera for $2,000 Did they say what the readout time of the sensor is? The a6300 / a6500 oversample from 6K and they have pretty heinous rolling shutter. I just don't see Nikon being able to top this with a full frame mirrorless at this price point any time soon (if that is even in the cards now). Maybe if they somehow get AWESOME autofocus using all their AF-S and AF-D lenses (of which there are many), then it might. But who knows. Not a hater. Hoping Nikon competes. Hmmm... the press release they linked to says this: Here is the press release: https://***URL removed***/news/8128895545/sony-launches-a7-iii-sub-2000-24mp-full-frame-mirrorless-with-a7r-iii-s-advances#_edn6 A 1.6X crop would make it super 35, wouldn't it? (Sorry if I am wrong; my maths is horrible.)

Thank you for posting this. I remember seeing it a while back but it was SO MUCH info to digest (especially to someone who was newish to video and had only shot footage on a D7000... yuck). So I appreciate you looking for it and bringing it out of the catacombs. Makes a lot more sens now to me. When he said best HD image = Canon 5D III, I am assuming he meant shooting in RAW, right??? (He mentioned "dealing with the downsides" so I guess that must be dealing with the RAW workflow.) Thanks for posting this. Yeah the D750 isn't particularly sharp and I think the reason that it doesn't have too much noise is because there is a pretty strong noise reduction as you crank up the ISO in video, and it gets even softer. If memory serves, there was a time when I was shooting at about ISO 3200 and I kept checking focus because it so soft - even softer than my a6000 at 3200.