All Activity

Ouch. I love the cameras that I have from them, but they're going to need to clean up this shady garbage if they want my continued business. It's not that hard to spot the shills, regardless of sponsorship disclosures, but I still don't want to patronize somebody who is trying to hide it... partly because it's insulting to the intelligence to think that somebody with a day 1 video doesn't have a relationship with the company. I'll also note that iphonedo is hardly innocent in this regard as well. While his agreements with companies like DJI don't specifically remove his editorial independence, he also knows that if he's too critical of their products, the sponsor dollars will dry up. One can definitely see that he tries harder to be positive in his reviews of their gear than he tried, for instance, with the Karma drone that he mentioned. It's not a bad quality, necessarily, but just another data point to keep in mind when watching any of the reviews on his channel.

There's a lot more to the question than just which lights to use. If you're indoors and feel like you're fighting the sun and if the windows will be mostly out of focus in the background, you can just put ND gel over them - it's fairly cheap and fast. If they'll be in focus, IMO ND gels look a little bit like shit so that might not be your best option. If you're outdoors and fighting the sun, especially for close-ups, a collapsible reflector or two (or three if you have one which can give some negative fill) is often a lot better than trying to compete with the sun with your light. You can get a pretty big reflector for about $30 from almost any photo store in the world. Otherwise, short of going with really big lights, if you're trying to blast a light through a window and have it compete with the sun, it's going to have to be a pretty big light. In those cases, I'd probably try to find a way to shoot the scene differently. 😄 These days my main kit consists of 1xAputure 600X, 1xAputure P300C, 1xAmaran 300C, 2xAmaran 150C - as well as the B7C lunchbox, MC4 mini-lunchbox, and a few scattered MX's. It's more than enough for almost anything that I shoot. I'll probably continue adding some stuff here and there when Aputure have huge sales (their Black Friday sale is legit - I got a huge discount on the 600X plus a couple of bonus things). If I need to go bigger than that, I'm more likely to rent it or to just hire a gaffer to roll up with a box truck full of stuff. For shooting on the go, I just also put together a kit with 3xStellaPro's with their Bowen mount - they're tiny and run off of USB-C so I can plug 'em into a V mount plate or even a battery bank. Only disadvantage? Above 30% or so, the fan runs constantly. I'm excited to actually do a shoot with 'em. I also picked up a Molus X100 for the cases where I want somebody to hand hold a light. It's alright, but the reflector in the Bowens mount seems to do some funky things with my softboxes.

this guy is amazing. Love his process and personality. He also shot a full feature film.

great rant. Loved every second of this.

A very good strategy for getting the best out of older 8-bit cameras - I think Kye does the same (with a GX85). At the end of the day, unless you tell them, anyone who watches the final movie won't know (or care for the most part) what was used to make it - they'll judge it primarily on the story it tells, be it fictional or documentary, and whether it it's enjoyable/interesting/absorbing. If an old camera does the job and is enjoyable to work with, why not use it? Inanimate tools like cameras, lights and filters can help or hinder the art, but they can't create it...that needs imagination.

Well kinda disagree on this one. For me its about the look I can create with the lights, and during daytime I am allways fighting the sun. And 300w led lights for example dont allow much creative looks. Were playing with iso's you are just lowering or increasing exposure as is and not affecting the look in a dramatic way. Like popping the subject from the background. Not sure if you ever do flash photography, but I absolutely love the fact I can completely change the look of an image in bright sun with an flash. But yeah I dont like to deal with huge ass lights either an an one man band.

4k acquisition, 1080 delivery. Save for a few slowmo 240fps shots that require 1080 resolution, it's all 4k 24p. BTW, I had the GX85 for a stretch. Liked it okay. However, my favorite LUMIX camera is/was the GX7.

Capturing in 4k or 1080? I still have and occasionally use a GX80. I recently had a serious clear-out of my most of my older cameras - G6, GX800, E-M1 ii, LX7, LX100 - but did hesitate over the LX7, to the point where I did some video test shots. In the end the amount of jaggies/aliasing and no 4k weighed more heavily than the small size and reasonably 'premium' feel, so it went...

The 300w leds are great to have, of which I've used only the Aperture fixtures though. The 600D has a big footprint. Rather use a 2.5K HMI instead. But of course the Aperture is much lighter to rig and much less power draw and easily powered by regular circuits. Anyhow, 300w spot leds would be it on the top spots of the list. I also like the 100w amarans. Lightmats and tubes are super neat and easy to use. The amarans come in stronger versions now too. Havent tested them but seem to be great bang for the buck regarding light quality and usuability.

Disclaimer: I'm an old. Also, this rant is completely contextual to two concurrent projects I'm doing. I'm gonna blow some steam here. So, been making a no-budget passion project documentary with my wife and have found myself grabbing my (2017) EM10iii more than half the time to capture our 24p footage. We have a FUJI XT5 --as well as our (also long in the tooth) GH5 that specs wise does a lot better, but here we are running around with a device that is technically inferior. The issue is that it's not technically inferior by much when you get right down to it. For what we're doing, the divide between 8bit video and 10bit video isn't such a big deal. We're on manual lenses, and, honestly, the image from the EM10iii+our lenses is dang good. Paid $300 for this camera. Seems hard to imagine a cheap cam would be what's used over more advanced gear, but we are certainly doing so. Funny thing is, I can't rely on the XT5 (and it's admittedly gorgeous colors) because it overheats(!), and while I like the GH5 results, I don't like using the camera as much as I like handling the Oly. Perhaps it's a mix of things. Size, ergos, what we DON'T need from the feature set, knowing what'll ultimately work for our particular production, and a weird little feature of the Oly has (2x punch in) that the GH5 does not. Anyone else holding onto (and often using) old inferior gear because it's good enough and not really chasing new tech anymore? I'll testify without irony that we've achieved better footage with this little camera than another million dollar + doc film I'm working on which used an ARRI. Why? Because subjects in a doc don't really give a shit when it's a single unassuming shmo running around with a small modest camera like the EM10. People DO give a shit when they're in front of a giant rigged out ARRI and a crew of 9 self-important shmos flitting around with their serious demeanors and a gaggle of mobile video-village gear in tow. And people in a doc behave correspondingly: Not naturally. They're performative. I'm left editing a bunch of dry useless footage from the ARRI shoot. Additionally not much actual quantity of footage because they were so damn immobile. Lame. That's a hill I'll die on regarding doc film making. When filmmakers put their gear fetish above good content acquisition. Sometimes that requires big sophisticated gear, sometimes not. Gotta be honest with yourself about that. Anyway... Finally, the doc we're working on will be mastered in 1080. If anyone can successfully convince me that's not good enough for a doc screener, I'll entertain the argument, but 1080 24p is fine to my eyes. /rant.

like i sad. i got one zoom h1n, so... For me guys this is the best sound (until today) from exhaust in Tenere 700. A sunny and quick ride out to one of the beaches in my area. Kavala Greece. Turns, narrow roads, bridges and a crazy provincial straight that I reach top speed somewhere in the 8th minute. There is also an unexpected confusion from 2nd to 3rd gear in the speeds, a small thing. Here's the video

My big light is the Smallrig 450D. I love it. It's well-built and super bright when I need it. That said, most of the time the brightest lights I need are 300w.

With reflectors on it's definitely around 2-3 stops brighter than my Godox SL200.

I'll do a yt search. In theory 600w led would be at a stop or two higher than I have now, which might be ok.

I just saw these on AliExpress. The specs sound like they're similar output to my 150s. Hard to tell though because some specs are given with reflector some without. Seem like good value hey

I've seen quite a few 1200 and 2400 fixtures in use on various DP YT channels, but really only when the spaces that need to be lit are on the bigger side. And they're pretty big old units, needing heavier duty stands etc and in a lot of cases no longer having Bowens mounts. You're really getting into van territory so I'd expect these bigger LEDs to be much more of a hire item than something you'd carry around in your daily kit as an owner-op.

In my casual YT DOP channel viewing I rarely see anyone with anything larger than a 600W, even for blasting through windows to simulate daylight. I guess a lot of people have access to cameras that have good ISO performance above base and also shoot with fast lenses too, and aren't trying to light Hollywood-sized sets, so maybe 600W is enough? Mostly the discussion seems to be about placement and modifiers, not the overall power levels. But, this is just what I've seen, maybe the algorithm is hiding things from me 🙂

That all makes sense, and like most things, it might be a while before all the tech is handled correctly so it just works and you don't need to troubleshoot the process at each stage. I think that 180 VR video is likely to be a winning format. In 360 video people don't really know where to look, and some of the experiments I've seen with it were really hit and miss if there was a narrative arc that you were meant to be experiencing. Also, all these discussions were had when surround sound first came out and people didn't know what to do with it. People were genuinely talking about mixing live concerts in such a way that put the listener in the middle of the band on the stage, or floating above the band looking down on them like you were in a box seat, only it was a live outdoor concert and there was no seating, etc. Eventually people settled down and realised that for the most part people don't really want those things, but they do want a "if I had been there" sort of experience. So surround audio is mixed like you've got a great seat in the concert, and if there's picture too then the audio is mostly oriented around the point-of-view of that. So, if it's a choice between supplying 180 video and a stereo mix, or 360 video and full ambisonic mix, just to be able to look behind you at nothing of any significance whatsoever, I think many will opt for the first one! Having a wider spread seems sensible - if someone else hasn't done a bunch of tests then it would be relatively easy to do once you have the equipment.

I recently bought one of these (the daylight version) and am soon to get the bi-colour. I don't have the tools to test the metrics, but they're extremely bright and reasonably quiet. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/385671087101?itmmeta=01HWMW3M2R3J7XYR6MXF4WNV52&hash=item59cbc9c3fd:g:GeQAAOSw4f5kgv5S&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwFc8zK2w7uAzhpc1h248S6jNA5Gw%2FYnu0N1Oh9zktYieBDQ0XN3Y2S1YLVVfrVCJwMOe%2FWIN8QX%2F1Y6qh%2BuG964LZb8IkftuUcmkq%2Bxo6n1YRp%2BuqoPgcv84%2BMzIWIWVd3SNpq4mnPPPWRlsiCOiPNsl84vGLEZ4S51kzT17vRYoFI5EpvbRtTDEWvTvpSYVdxv4DenaLzgf0W37yPC5B%2FiZ3bP6%2BKW2Dm6iDH7x2H7AFj9ubifexmkIp5%2B%2FQ8Cxxg%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR7rBjpzlYw This is a UK link, but I think they're available in most markets.

Take a look at Amaran and Smallrig

Never done any VR stuff, but a few thoughts/ideas: You could try a using stereo mic with a 120 degree (instead of the more usual 90 degree) angle between the capsules. That will give you a wider, more diffuse soundfield. Some stereo mics that use mid plus side capsules internally have a switchable 90/120 option (and/or an option to output the raw mid and side signals instead of L and R, enabling you to choose the virtual capsule angle in post using a mid-side to stereo conversion plugin). Stereo field manipulation/enhancement plug-ins might also be useful to widen the soundfield and create a more spacious effect e.g. I've used iZotope Ozone Imager (free), Nugen Stereoizer (in full and cut-down 'elements' versions), various Melda Production plugins to do this and/or create pseudo-stereo from mono sources.

Back in the day I did a few shoots with 5 and 10k hmi's that you could blast through a window and would compete with daylight. I don't really use lighting much anymore and I'm very out of the loop. I have a couple of cheap and cheerful godox 150w leds. Is there anything current that has higher output that is $1000 USD and below? I've seen a few diy things that look absurdly bright but no idea what the output actually is. They don't need to run for hours on end either.

And not only RAW, Quick Sync (hardware decoding of H.264/HEVC media) supplied by Intel takes a lead AFAIK :- )

I'm really a nob in this. But for VR 360 you are right, you need ambisonics, as your head may turn 180° the audio would come from the opposite side confusing you a lot, many VR players support some sort of ambisonics audio so they can move the audio following your head. From my limited research and understanding there are multiple standards so you may end up doing different edit+metadata for Youtube VR than for local players Meta Quest TV , Skybox etc.... Apple Vision Pro? Also I think Resolve 19 now support ambisonics but not sure if you can do all in there, for sure not metadata injection. Now for VR180° your head my turn max 45° as more than that half of your video will be black so it seems that you can get away with binaural or even stereo. I would prefer a stereo mic like the Sennheiser 440 or Rode Stereo Mic as they are not as tall as the H3 so I can use it on a gimbal.

My guess is that the difference in actual user experience of a system receiving a 923 and one receiving 893 will be negligible. Between the two, I'd choose the one where I get a better deal.