"Looking" professional and how important is it?

[MrSMW]

I’m in agreement with anybody who agrees that you shouldn’t do anything or use anything just because it’s the latest thing to do.

In fact, quite recently I had a word with myself to ignore even more what others are doing or what I am ‘supposed’ to be doing.

I’ve tried the gimbal 3 times now and it’s just not for me.

I’ve tried the action cam 4 times and again, no. I am done with that completely now.

Even shooting log. Nope, it’s not for me. I won’t say never on that one and still may shoot my season finale on it, but to date, I have not found a single valid reason why I would need to do so.

Certain cameras, particular lenses and current conventional ‘wisdom’ how to do (or not do) things… I’ll look or listen and then make my own mind up.

And increasingly so. Most of it is just noise and distraction.

Camcorders probably are unsexy these days, but if it does the job and perhaps even a better job, then why wouldn’t you?

The bottom line is these are just tools and the artist is the person behind them.

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

Not everything needs to be CLEAN and PERFECT.

My favorite doc I’ve ever made was on handheld LUMIX cams without stabilization. 

[webrunner5]

Where I live here in Ohio all the big city TV stations use small camcorders, mostly Sony ones, and some of the reporters are using a smartphone for quick updates. So the higher end 4 to 7 thousand dollar camcorders are no slouch these days.

[kye]

16 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well, I will concede that a person that is 7 foot tall probably should NOT use a shoulder mounted camcorder!

If they lift the camera above their heads then boom...  drone shot!  

Let's put those 7' tall people to work!!

3 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'm in agreement with @webrunner5, I have come to dislike the overuse of gimbals. I think that kind of smooth movement should be used to convey part of the story you're trying to tell, as opposed to being the default camera movement you use. It is part of the sterile, for lack of a better word, direction filmmaking/videography has taken that I just don't like. Not everything needs to be CLEAN and PERFECT. And not everything needs to be in slow motion!

There are a lot of negatives to moving away from the camcorder style of camera, and there are things I miss a lot about them, but it's also hard not to appreciate what these smaller cameras have allowed us to do. There is something truly liberating about being able to pick up my tiny GX85, throw on the 35-100mm lens, and get that kind of quality footage while being able to blend in and film in places I normally wouldn't be able to. I've also found, even with the larger mirrorless cameras, people are generally a lot more comfortable being filmed than they were when I used those larger cameras. Still, I do miss the ergonomics, the button lay out, the legendary battery life, and all the other perks that came with those big boys. I also never ran into the problem of not looking professional when carrying one of those hulking beasts with me!

People have been saying this about every latest thing when it gets overused.

I am against not using the tools and techniques that are creatively relevant to the project.  Gimbals create a certain type of motion that is appropriate for a certain aesthetic, but inappropriate for all others.  Same with literally every other camera support and technique for holding a camera in 3-dimensional space.

There's a reason that Hollywood still uses hand-held, sliders, cranes, dollies, and static locked-off shots - they all work.  Same with focal lengths, degrees of background defocus, shutter angles, frame-rates, etc.  It's all aesthetics.

Learning how to use each technique turns you into a camera operator, learning when to use each one is a fundamental requirement to being more than a technician.  Sadly, most people don't progress beyond this.  Most won't be able to articulate why they are doing what they're doing beyond basic technical concerns (cameras shake, etc).

[IronFilm]

On 5/13/2022 at 3:39 PM, newfoundmass said:

When I got home I did this. 

Get an external monitor and a V Lock battery and then you're sorted! 😉

Seriously, it is a good thing for you too. 

As a monitor helps with shooting the scene (noticing small details you might have missed before you hit the edit afterwards), and a V Mount battery means you never need to worry for a second about battery usage all day long. 

[IronFilm]

On 5/13/2022 at 10:07 PM, MrSMW said:

Never had a client give my kit even a second glance. The only people who ever look and talk are camera nerds.

But then I really only shoot weddings so maybe they have lower standards 😜

I once shot an entire wedding season on a single original Fuji X100 and no one batted an eye.

Yeah wedding guests have totally different standards/expectations than what even a random small business owner for a small corporate video will have in mind. 

On 5/14/2022 at 12:42 AM, TomTheDP said:

You could also just educate the client

There is a saying in politics:

"explaining is losing"

Is true in a lot of other areas of life too. 

  

12 hours ago, kye said:

If they lift the camera above their heads then boom...  drone shot!  

Let's put those 7' tall people to work!!

Finally, a job for me!

[newfoundmass]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Get an external monitor and a V Lock battery and then you're sorted! 😉

Seriously, it is a good thing for you too. 

As a monitor helps with shooting the scene (noticing small details you might have missed before you hit the edit afterwards), and a V Mount battery means you never need to worry for a second about battery usage all day long. 

I use a monitor sometimes but the mini HDMI port makes me nervous. I need to get an HDMI clamp for the cage. 

I get 2 1/2 hours or so with the battery, and the takes weren't that long that I needed to worry about it. I did but a USB battery with PD though that I'm going to try out. 

[webrunner5]

I heard that the GH6 is only getting 1 hour or less on a battery. Not good, going the wrong way.

[newfoundmass]

37 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I heard that the GH6 is only getting 1 hour or less on a battery. Not good, going the wrong way.

I've heard similar. I imagine it takes a lot of processing power to do what it can do, but I'm unsure why they didn't use the same battery as the S1H. I guess to keep the size down? But give me a slightly bigger body if it means more battery time.

[kye]

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I've heard similar. I imagine it takes a lot of processing power to do what it can do, but I'm unsure why they didn't use the same battery as the S1H. I guess to keep the size down? But give me a slightly bigger body if it means more battery time.

It's backwards compatible with the GH5.  Plus the camera supports lots of other power options so you can make it bigger if you want to.

[newfoundmass]

57 minutes ago, kye said:

It's backwards compatible with the GH5.  Plus the camera supports lots of other power options so you can make it bigger if you want to.

I don't really care about them being compatible with the GH5. You shouldn't have to use external solutions to get longer than an hour record time, especially when one of the hallmarks of the GH series has been excellent battery life. It's a very legitimate gripe. 

 

[kye]

3 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I don't really care about them being compatible with the GH5. You shouldn't have to use external solutions to get longer than an hour record time, especially when one of the hallmarks of the GH series has been excellent battery life. It's a very legitimate gripe. 

I never said it wasn't legitimate, just that that's what they did.

In terms of it being a gripe, it's still got better battery than P4K and P6K, despite those cameras being enormous in comparison.

I'd prefer it be smaller than it is and be lower-resolution and therefore need less processing and therefore be smaller and still have better battery life.  You'd prefer it to be larger with better battery.  We'd both prefer it had 27 stops of DR.

This is camera-land.....  where no-one gets what they want.

[j_one]

On 5/13/2022 at 12:20 PM, HockeyFan12 said:

I know it's cheap used since I just sold mine but I still feel the EVA1 has possibly the best image under $10k new (Komodo might be better but feels like a lot more work).

It lacks some of the amenities and durability of its competitors and is just a weird product. But the image is amazing. 

It's interesting you guys bring up the EVA1. SDI input at that price range with a mostly foolproof image...I've seen side-by-side comparisons with the C70 (pre RAW update) and they match VERY close. Image isn't as detailed as S1H or BMPCC6k, but I can live with that. I can work around the crappy LCD and menus too. I'd get the FS700R in this range but the size/recorder setup and the Sony color just doesn't match up.

How would you guys compare EVA1 to BMPCC6K for image and usability? That was my next investment for professional work before investing in Komodo/C70/FX9.

C200 is worth a mention in that comparison, I suppose.

[HockeyFan12]

5 minutes ago, j_one said:

It's interesting you guys bring up the EVA1. SDI input at that price range with a mostly foolproof image...I've seen side-by-side comparisons with the C70 (pre RAW update) and they match VERY close. Image isn't as detailed as S1H or BMPCC6k, but I can live with that. I can work around the crappy LCD and menus too. I'd get the FS700R in this range but the size/recorder setup and the Sony color just doesn't match up.

How would you guys compare EVA1 to BMPCC6K for image and usability? That was my next investment for professional work before investing in Komodo/C70/FX9.

C200 is worth a mention in that comparison, I suppose.

I've compared most of those cameras but not side by side (worked with almost all of them either in post or in person).

LOVE the EVA1's image but the LCD and ergonomics are terrible. I put a little loupe on the LCD as I like a minimal set up but it would be a pain to "rig up" traditionally.

I much prefer its image to the S1H actually. The colors are just better. It's not a world apart but it just looks better. Noisier though. C200 has a great image but the noise pattern is ugly and there's CMOS smear. It's just not the image I want.

P6K I've only worked with in post but it's a pain in some ways from what I can see but the image looks great too.

I think it boils down to ergonomics ultimately (and getting the right IRND filters for the P6K – or just getting the pro model) but both the EVA1 and P6K are capable of beautiful images, right on par with (or just a step down from) the Varicam35 and Alexa, which have quite different looking but really beautiful images too.

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

On 5/15/2022 at 9:26 PM, newfoundmass said:

I'm in agreement with @webrunner5, I have come to dislike the overuse of gimbals. I think that kind of smooth movement should be used to convey part of the story you're trying to tell, as opposed to being the default camera movement you use. It is part of the sterile, for lack of a better word, direction filmmaking/videography has taken that I just don't like. Not everything needs to be CLEAN and PERFECT. And not everything needs to be in slow motion!

 

Gimbal + Slow Motion + Background music on post = A way to get bland results with no effort or ideas. I am in a video editing guys group on FB, 90% of the videos they post are random clips with background music. Ten years ago AI can do a better job at editing. 

Unsecure clients are always worried about all of the useless things, how big your camera is, how well you are dressed, how long the video will be. You paid a pro to not have to think about those things, don't you?

[aaa123jc]

Unfortunately, looking professional does matter to some clients. They have to look for something to justify hiring an "expensive" videographer. 

But I also believe it is more important to have a camera set up that works for you. Rigging up the camera to impress at the cost of usability is stupid, IMO.

I don't really have this problem because I usually bring my FS7, but I've seen people rig up their mirrorless camera to a point where it is absurdly big and heavy to use properly. The client may be impressed by his look. I highly doubted the client will be impressed by the video he made though. 

[TomTheDP]

On 5/29/2022 at 2:40 PM, aaa123jc said:

Unfortunately, looking professional does matter to some clients. They have to look for something to justify hiring an "expensive" videographer. 

But I also believe it is more important to have a camera set up that works for you. Rigging up the camera to impress at the cost of usability is stupid, IMO.

I don't really have this problem because I usually bring my FS7, but I've seen people rig up their mirrorless camera to a point where it is absurdly big and heavy to use properly. The client may be impressed by his look. I highly doubted the client will be impressed by the video he made though. 

It is an odd world we live in. Originally cameras were made a certain way to serve a purpose. It's definitely got to a point where you question the necessity of much of what you see in the video world today.

[Django]

Kinda late to this but its a subject I can definitely relate to and comment on. Clients are more and more educated/savyy about gear. Not only do they know most mirrorless models, they even know about lenses, audio, rigs, gimbals etc. Especially the younger ones, i.e. juniors, interns, assistants in their 20s/30s. I think it's mostly thanks to Youtube. Not always a bad thing, especially if you've got nice gear. Nice glass often gets the most respect, justifiably so. So I won't front, we do tend to overdo it a bit, especially with new clients: cine cams, big lenses, cages, rigs, gimbals, lights, tripods in fancy pelican cases. It's part of the show, even if sometimes less than half actually gets used. It can sometimes backfire though, because more equipment means more setup time etc. And clients aren't stupid, if all that gear isn't backed up with adequate footage, or you're inconsistent with what you're bringing, they'll see right through you and you're just an overpaid clown eating up their time. I've never actually experienced that but it's always on my mind.

There are so many more elements to get right on a paid shoot. More gear also means more things to manage and higher risks/mistakes. I've done some dumb shit by overdoing it. Sometimes less is more.  I won't hesitate to go monopod, handheld over tripod or gimbal, or even whip out an action cam if timing, shot or location constraints demand it. 

Same thing with bringing a ton of people on set of a bigger budget crew type project. Rookie mistake. More people, more problems. Keep it down to the essential.

In the end only, only respecting the time frame + footage results really matters. Show some creativity and confidence with your shots, composition, direction, decision-making, time management and human skills and even the toughest client will respect you no matter the gear..

[kye]

23 minutes ago, Django said:

Kinda late to this but its a subject I can definitely relate to and comment on. Clients are more and more educated/savyy about gear. Not only do they know most mirrorless models, they even know about lenses, audio, rigs, gimbals etc. Especially the younger ones, i.e. juniors, interns, assistants in their 20s/30s. I think it's mostly thanks to Youtube. Not always a bad thing, especially if you've got nice gear. Nice glass often gets the most respect, justifiably so. So I won't front, we do tend to overdo it a bit, especially with new clients: cine cams, big lenses, cages, rigs, gimbals, lights, tripods in fancy pelican cases. It's part of the show, even if sometimes less than half actually gets used. It can sometimes backfire though, because more equipment means more setup time etc. And clients aren't stupid, if all that gear isn't backed up with adequate footage, or you're inconsistent with what you're bringing, they'll see right through you and you're just an overpaid clown eating up their time. I've never actually experienced that but it's always on my mind.

There are so many more elements to get right on a paid shoot. More gear also means more things to manage and higher risks/mistakes. I've done some dumb shit by overdoing it. Sometimes less is more.  I won't hesitate to go monopod, handheld over tripod or gimbal, or even whip out an action cam if timing, shot or location constraints demand it. 

Same thing with bringing a ton of people on set of a bigger budget crew type project. Rookie mistake. More people, more problems. Keep it down to the essential.

In the end only, only respecting the time frame + footage results really matters. Show some creativity and confidence with your shots, composition, direction, decision-making, time management and human skills and even the toughest client will respect you no matter the gear..

...and more chance of extra equipment getting stolen from set while everyone is busy doing things.  

I see posts on FB groups every so often listing serial numbers of items that got stolen so the group members can keep an eye out if they pop up for sale.  Mostly someone asks how they got stolen and it's mostly out of the boot/trunk of locked cars, but the odd one disappears from set, unfortunately.

[webrunner5]

Pro trip, if you are fucking good enough you hardly ever have time for new clients, and even if one leaves plenty standing by to have you. If you can't get to that point in a few years find a different way to make a buck.  You sleep a lot better when you are good at something. You can charge more and not have to kiss ass to get it.

I suggest changing professions every once in a while anyway. Life gets boring as shit doing the same stuff over and over. Not really a challenge after awhile either.