Glenn Thomas

Thanks for the kind words Andrew. And yes, It seems I have done a lot, with at least another 15 that have either never been released (nearly all because the artist didn't like how they looked), taken down some time after they were posted, or never paid for in one or two cases. I don't really charge a lot though, which forces me to work quickly. Normally these days I'll have the edit done in around 4 hours, or more for the more complex videos. And I'm pretty lazy with colour grading. I'll match up the levels of all the clips, and then find preset colour look in any of the plugins I use, and modify that.

I think it's good to stick with just one camera too. And even just one lens. The less decisions you have to make about what gear to use, the easier everything becomes.

It's funny, the other day while I was tidying up and sorting through an old hard drive, I found some of Kendy's videos I'd downloaded years ago, from when he was shooting pigeons around Paris on a little Canon Ixus 110. Inspired me to go out and get the same camera, which I ended up shooting 4 or 5 music videos with.

Found a video with amazing autofocus, really useful in documentary shoot, for example.

I think the A6000 is more than perfect for what I will use it for,1 to 2 minute properly lit scenes. I personally haven't seen the codec break down to a unusable degree yet,mainly because I keep in mind the weak areas of the camera. I have a GH2 and I enjoy the images out the A6000 just as much,it's not that it resolves better but its images have a certain texture and feel to them. At this point I'm just trying to figure out the best combination of settings to get a desired result. On this specific footage I shot for almost 2 hours nonstop,1 to 2 minute clips every couple of seconds with no overheating. I like this camera a lot.
 

 
Random photos taken during photo shoot..35mm 1.8 OSS.

 
 

Thanks for all the insights here.

After shooting more than 50 music videos with my NEX5N, some idiot broke into our house yesterday while I was having a shower and stole it, along with my iPad 2. Thankfully the camera only had my old Nikon f2.8 28mm lens on it. They left behind the charger with spare battery, Lens Turbo and other lenses.

So I've just decided to get this A6000. To be honest, I never really had a problem with the image quality I was getting from the NEX5N. A bit of aliasing here and there, some loss of detail if I used noise reduction on low light shots, etc. But I never had an EVF, the thing always overheated, the LCD had a big splotch mark in the centre as I'd never bought a screen protector for it, it didn't have zebras, and I never had a kit lens which would have been good for travelling. So the A6000 with a kit lens seems like the perfect replacement. And affordable too, as money I've made from a couple of videos this past week will easily cover the cost.

From reading this thread though, I'll agree some of the Panasonics may have better image quality. The Nikon 5300 too. Although I've never owned a DSLR, and never will. I really need that focus peaking. With the NEX5N, as long as I could see a red spot in someone's eyes, I knew my focus was good. And with the Lens Turbo, I can get that full frame look if I need it. Which wouldn't be possible with any m43 camera, or even the 5300.

One other thing I do is always shoot in 50P, normally with a 1/100 shutter. Unless it's something on green screen. For music videos, being able to slow down a clip really easily I find to be a lot more important than a few possible artifacts the intended audience will never see. That slow mo can add emotion to a clip that you wouldn't get at normal speed. And for that reason, none of the affordable Blackmagic cameras are an option for me either. Or any affordable 4K camera. Better to wait until they can all do 4K 50P and without the rolling shutter. And to improve image quality, I use Neat Video followed by Boris BCC film grain.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, but I guess my point here is to not be too concerned about image quality, artifacts and all that, but to go for whatever camera has the most features that are important to you. In my case those are compatibility with existing lenses (including my Lens Turbo), portability, focus peaking, a file format that's simple to edit (AVCHD files work great in Sony Vegas!), good low light performance, and 50P. In which case, this A6000 appears to be my best option. I'm hoping to pick one up later today. After I enquire about getting some security screens for our windows :)

yes I was in the sun but only ran like 2 to 3 minute clips for over a hour period doing some testing. I'm no colorist or anything but here is a example of images straight out the camera and another version I graded. I feel with this camera if limitations are kept in mind you can capture some great images.
 
frame rate 24P
creative style portrait  -3,-3,-3,
shutter 50
iso 100
post-curves,color corrector
filter-neewer variable nd
glass-sony 35mm 1.8 OSS
editor-Vegas Pro 12
 

 

Thanks Carlo! I actually have another 4 to post on my blog there.

Anyway, I did manage to pick up an A6000 yesterday. So far though I've just been taking a few photos with it and seeing how good the higher ISO settings are. Not too bad actually.

Compared to the NEX5N, and I presume some of the other older NEX range, the A6000 is a lot bulkier and not as comfortable to hold. Although I'm guessing that extra bulk may accommodate whatever cooling system they've implemented, so it doesn't overheat like the 5N did, along with the pop up flash, larger hot shoe etc. I'm sure I'll get used to the size though.

It's good to have extra function switches and that dial on the top. I just need to figure out how to best customise those. The default settings actually work well, except for white balance which appears in a multi menu thing.

A couple of quick questions though. Firstly, can anybody recommend a good screen protector? I saw this two pack on ebay for around $25 which includes a glare reduction protector and a normal one. The glare reduction one sounds decent, but apparently reduces the brightness of the LCD to around 92%.

Also, what colour and profile settings are optimal for a really flat image? With my NEX5N I always used the sunset profile Andrew had recommended way back, with saturation, contrast and sharpness normally each set to -3. Which I always found to work well, although I sometimes bumped up the saturation a bit. I'm tempted to use the same settings, although I remember reading that the NEX7 had some kind of film look option. I'm not sure if that exists in the A6000 though? Of course I'm still yet to RTFM, so might check that sometime when I get a chance as there's a bunch of new options I'm not familiar with in the menus.

Overall though, it seems to be a solid little camera with good image quality.

Hey Glenn,
 
Your videos are great! Good luck with the A6000 and let us know how you get on:)

Thanks for all the insights here.

After shooting more than 50 music videos with my NEX5N, some idiot broke into our house yesterday while I was having a shower and stole it, along with my iPad 2. Thankfully the camera only had my old Nikon f2.8 28mm lens on it. They left behind the charger with spare battery, Lens Turbo and other lenses.

So I've just decided to get this A6000. To be honest, I never really had a problem with the image quality I was getting from the NEX5N. A bit of aliasing here and there, some loss of detail if I used noise reduction on low light shots, etc. But I never had an EVF, the thing always overheated, the LCD had a big splotch mark in the centre as I'd never bought a screen protector for it, it didn't have zebras, and I never had a kit lens which would have been good for travelling. So the A6000 with a kit lens seems like the perfect replacement. And affordable too, as money I've made from a couple of videos this past week will easily cover the cost.

From reading this thread though, I'll agree some of the Panasonics may have better image quality. The Nikon 5300 too. Although I've never owned a DSLR, and never will. I really need that focus peaking. With the NEX5N, as long as I could see a red spot in someone's eyes, I knew my focus was good. And with the Lens Turbo, I can get that full frame look if I need it. Which wouldn't be possible with any m43 camera, or even the 5300.

One other thing I do is always shoot in 50P, normally with a 1/100 shutter. Unless it's something on green screen. For music videos, being able to slow down a clip really easily I find to be a lot more important than a few possible artifacts the intended audience will never see. That slow mo can add emotion to a clip that you wouldn't get at normal speed. And for that reason, none of the affordable Blackmagic cameras are an option for me either. Or any affordable 4K camera. Better to wait until they can all do 4K 50P and without the rolling shutter. And to improve image quality, I use Neat Video followed by Boris BCC film grain.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, but I guess my point here is to not be too concerned about image quality, artifacts and all that, but to go for whatever camera has the most features that are important to you. In my case those are compatibility with existing lenses (including my Lens Turbo), portability, focus peaking, a file format that's simple to edit (AVCHD files work great in Sony Vegas!), good low light performance, and 50P. In which case, this A6000 appears to be my best option. I'm hoping to pick one up later today. After I enquire about getting some security screens for our windows :)

Thanks for all the insights here.

After shooting more than 50 music videos with my NEX5N, some idiot broke into our house yesterday while I was having a shower and stole it, along with my iPad 2. Thankfully the camera only had my old Nikon f2.8 28mm lens on it. They left behind the charger with spare battery, Lens Turbo and other lenses.

So I've just decided to get this A6000. To be honest, I never really had a problem with the image quality I was getting from the NEX5N. A bit of aliasing here and there, some loss of detail if I used noise reduction on low light shots, etc. But I never had an EVF, the thing always overheated, the LCD had a big splotch mark in the centre as I'd never bought a screen protector for it, it didn't have zebras, and I never had a kit lens which would have been good for travelling. So the A6000 with a kit lens seems like the perfect replacement. And affordable too, as money I've made from a couple of videos this past week will easily cover the cost.

From reading this thread though, I'll agree some of the Panasonics may have better image quality. The Nikon 5300 too. Although I've never owned a DSLR, and never will. I really need that focus peaking. With the NEX5N, as long as I could see a red spot in someone's eyes, I knew my focus was good. And with the Lens Turbo, I can get that full frame look if I need it. Which wouldn't be possible with any m43 camera, or even the 5300.

One other thing I do is always shoot in 50P, normally with a 1/100 shutter. Unless it's something on green screen. For music videos, being able to slow down a clip really easily I find to be a lot more important than a few possible artifacts the intended audience will never see. That slow mo can add emotion to a clip that you wouldn't get at normal speed. And for that reason, none of the affordable Blackmagic cameras are an option for me either. Or any affordable 4K camera. Better to wait until they can all do 4K 50P and without the rolling shutter. And to improve image quality, I use Neat Video followed by Boris BCC film grain.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, but I guess my point here is to not be too concerned about image quality, artifacts and all that, but to go for whatever camera has the most features that are important to you. In my case those are compatibility with existing lenses (including my Lens Turbo), portability, focus peaking, a file format that's simple to edit (AVCHD files work great in Sony Vegas!), good low light performance, and 50P. In which case, this A6000 appears to be my best option. I'm hoping to pick one up later today. After I enquire about getting some security screens for our windows :)

Thanks for all the insights here.

After shooting more than 50 music videos with my NEX5N, some idiot broke into our house yesterday while I was having a shower and stole it, along with my iPad 2. Thankfully the camera only had my old Nikon f2.8 28mm lens on it. They left behind the charger with spare battery, Lens Turbo and other lenses.

So I've just decided to get this A6000. To be honest, I never really had a problem with the image quality I was getting from the NEX5N. A bit of aliasing here and there, some loss of detail if I used noise reduction on low light shots, etc. But I never had an EVF, the thing always overheated, the LCD had a big splotch mark in the centre as I'd never bought a screen protector for it, it didn't have zebras, and I never had a kit lens which would have been good for travelling. So the A6000 with a kit lens seems like the perfect replacement. And affordable too, as money I've made from a couple of videos this past week will easily cover the cost.

From reading this thread though, I'll agree some of the Panasonics may have better image quality. The Nikon 5300 too. Although I've never owned a DSLR, and never will. I really need that focus peaking. With the NEX5N, as long as I could see a red spot in someone's eyes, I knew my focus was good. And with the Lens Turbo, I can get that full frame look if I need it. Which wouldn't be possible with any m43 camera, or even the 5300.

One other thing I do is always shoot in 50P, normally with a 1/100 shutter. Unless it's something on green screen. For music videos, being able to slow down a clip really easily I find to be a lot more important than a few possible artifacts the intended audience will never see. That slow mo can add emotion to a clip that you wouldn't get at normal speed. And for that reason, none of the affordable Blackmagic cameras are an option for me either. Or any affordable 4K camera. Better to wait until they can all do 4K 50P and without the rolling shutter. And to improve image quality, I use Neat Video followed by Boris BCC film grain.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, but I guess my point here is to not be too concerned about image quality, artifacts and all that, but to go for whatever camera has the most features that are important to you. In my case those are compatibility with existing lenses (including my Lens Turbo), portability, focus peaking, a file format that's simple to edit (AVCHD files work great in Sony Vegas!), good low light performance, and 50P. In which case, this A6000 appears to be my best option. I'm hoping to pick one up later today. After I enquire about getting some security screens for our windows :)

Thanks for all the insights here.

After shooting more than 50 music videos with my NEX5N, some idiot broke into our house yesterday while I was having a shower and stole it, along with my iPad 2. Thankfully the camera only had my old Nikon f2.8 28mm lens on it. They left behind the charger with spare battery, Lens Turbo and other lenses.

So I've just decided to get this A6000. To be honest, I never really had a problem with the image quality I was getting from the NEX5N. A bit of aliasing here and there, some loss of detail if I used noise reduction on low light shots, etc. But I never had an EVF, the thing always overheated, the LCD had a big splotch mark in the centre as I'd never bought a screen protector for it, it didn't have zebras, and I never had a kit lens which would have been good for travelling. So the A6000 with a kit lens seems like the perfect replacement. And affordable too, as money I've made from a couple of videos this past week will easily cover the cost.

From reading this thread though, I'll agree some of the Panasonics may have better image quality. The Nikon 5300 too. Although I've never owned a DSLR, and never will. I really need that focus peaking. With the NEX5N, as long as I could see a red spot in someone's eyes, I knew my focus was good. And with the Lens Turbo, I can get that full frame look if I need it. Which wouldn't be possible with any m43 camera, or even the 5300.

One other thing I do is always shoot in 50P, normally with a 1/100 shutter. Unless it's something on green screen. For music videos, being able to slow down a clip really easily I find to be a lot more important than a few possible artifacts the intended audience will never see. That slow mo can add emotion to a clip that you wouldn't get at normal speed. And for that reason, none of the affordable Blackmagic cameras are an option for me either. Or any affordable 4K camera. Better to wait until they can all do 4K 50P and without the rolling shutter. And to improve image quality, I use Neat Video followed by Boris BCC film grain.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, but I guess my point here is to not be too concerned about image quality, artifacts and all that, but to go for whatever camera has the most features that are important to you. In my case those are compatibility with existing lenses (including my Lens Turbo), portability, focus peaking, a file format that's simple to edit (AVCHD files work great in Sony Vegas!), good low light performance, and 50P. In which case, this A6000 appears to be my best option. I'm hoping to pick one up later today. After I enquire about getting some security screens for our windows :)

I remember Stargate Universe was shot on a Genesis, and that was a nice looking show. You'd see the occasional vertical flare from the CCD sensor, but it still looked good.

Anyway, I agree with ScreensPro above, that hopefully all this technology will tail off like what has happened with audio. In the audio world, the digital gear now is about as good as it will get. For anybody wanting to spend big money on gear for an improvement in sound quality, the only real options are expensive outboard gear. Old compressors, preamps and valve gear. Technology that's been around for 50 years or more. Even analog synthesizers have made a come back, and with cv gate sockets too that previously died off back in the early 80s.

So for cameras, once they peak, I imagine the only real investment to be made will be in lenses. Cameras that can shoot RAW may become more popular, but in the same way as people have been able to record audio at 24/32 bit 192khz for many years now, most will probably not bother with it.

I remember Stargate Universe was shot on a Genesis, and that was a nice looking show. You'd see the occasional vertical flare from the CCD sensor, but it still looked good.

Anyway, I agree with ScreensPro above, that hopefully all this technology will tail off like what has happened with audio. In the audio world, the digital gear now is about as good as it will get. For anybody wanting to spend big money on gear for an improvement in sound quality, the only real options are expensive outboard gear. Old compressors, preamps and valve gear. Technology that's been around for 50 years or more. Even analog synthesizers have made a come back, and with cv gate sockets too that previously died off back in the early 80s.

So for cameras, once they peak, I imagine the only real investment to be made will be in lenses. Cameras that can shoot RAW may become more popular, but in the same way as people have been able to record audio at 24/32 bit 192khz for many years now, most will probably not bother with it.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346509724' post='17095']


I'm trying out a Windows beta version of CineForm Studio Premium which supports CinemaDNG from the Blackmagic thanks to David Newman.

Did you convert CinemaDNG to CineForm in that too Glenn, or in another program using the CineForm codec for Premiere?
[/quote]

I haven't actually tried the footage yet. Busy with 12 or so projects to finish right now. There's an article here about it - http://eyepatchfilms.com/?p=903

Low Light, ok, that's a good reason. I'm yet to find any decent low light footage shot with the LX7, so it's hard to know. The only clip I've been able to find is this

Pretty badly shot, but doesn't look too bad. Dynamic range would probably be better with the RX100 too. I'm still undecided, but that 120fps option would be nice. If it were just used for a few random shots here and there, could easily be uprezzed to 1080P.

Your "what do I want to use it for, and how" makes perfect sense. Although to be honest, my only real requirement is a camera that can shoot video at 1080 50P minimum, with either manual control or some kind of exposure lock. Anything else would a bonus, so I thought it would be nice to get a few opinions here on what additional features others find most appealing. Which I appreciate, thanks!

In fact, if Nokia announce a Pure View Windows Phone 8 device at the Microsoft conference next week, I might even consider that.