sanveer

Three interesting features on the G7: 1. Mic in, placed where it doesn't hinder with the articulated screen's movement. 2. 8-Bit 4-2-2- out, via HDMI. 3. Base ISO being jacked up suggests that the low light capability has been improved. I am guessing 3200 ISO is pretty usable, and 6400 also with a little cleaning. niiiiiiiiiiiiiice

​ Hahaha !!! Good one. More often members are posting grouses than information. Looks like it's true about men having their PMSes too ...

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Come to Think of it, WHAT was Panasonic thinking when it made such an excellent video shooter, without a mic in? No ND Filter, fine; no articulated screen, hmmm .... ok, fine; no touch screen (despite so many Panasonic Cams having them now) hmmm ... that too fine; no HDMI Out, well ... maybe they're saving their GH4 line, otherwise people may migrate away; but, No Mic In .... why???

Mercer, very spot on. I am a little disappointed that Panasonic and Sony don't have a very good supply chain in India, for the Prosumer range. Also, the LX100 is for $750 or something in Amazon and a few other places in the US. Here it is still largely unavailable. Most people have friends and family pick it up from abroad. Though that poses an issue with warranty. I am looking at the LX100. I like the FZ100 too, but it's too chunky and the lens is not fast enough. Also the LX100 has extremely shallow depth of field just like the 5Ds. That is interesting. In the US it is retailing for $750 at places right now.

I hope this is true. I love the LX100 and most people who complain about the lack of GH4 kind of Cinema Settings are not honest enough to admit that the GH4 cinema profiles made the codec fall apart. Also pushing the Highlights and Shadows curves too much also can be bad for post. I am hoping the LX100 gets a Higher Bitrate Firmware (with 4-2-2). Even at 200Mbpa it would be a treat. The FZ1000 and the LX100 are as food for low light, except that the LX100 adds about 1.5 stops due to its faster lens.

I am curious as to how this compares with the LX100 and the FZ1000, for video. They all shoot 4k, and have very similar features as well.

​ You're welcome. I guess the idea of a group is to be able to help each other. Glad to be of help. I find the whole idea of doing sound myself (or relying on someone else), tedious too. And, most often sound quality is not as pleasing to the ears, as one would have hoped. Sound guys this side of the globe aren't very good (unfortunately). I still have to do an extensive test myself (because there are hardly any good videos of the VP83F online, and since I have used it, I Kow its potential). Just not had the time. Plus am outta camera right now. So waiting.

I was thinking of a Sennheiser too at some point of time. Now, I have a Zoom H1 equivalent, AND an on-camera mic (Dual Sound). I have the NTG2 btw, as well. About the sound setting, I used similar settings, but this guy is into wedding videos. I use it more for shorts and some channel work.

​ This in No Way suggests that I won't be posting test of the dual sound quality. As a matter of fact, I maybtest this for clipping as well, since it highlights an interesting features. Check this video till I am able to post my own test.

​ Mercer (for Andrew Reid), first I could have bet, that I posted a reply successfully from my phablet, which doesn't seem to be in this thread, so, I am posting it again. I have used the Shure LensHopperVP83F as a sound recorder, and the sound quality is absolutely stellar. I haven't really used it much as a DSLR mic, and I am also very curious to compare the two sounds samples. The mic gain is in 1 dB increments on the flash recorder (Micro SD), and it sounds very sensitive. As a matter of fact, at 20dB, it seems more than sufficient enough to pick up most sounds. Also, the Headphone monitoring seems to apply for the Micro SD and not for the DSLR mic in (I didn't use the DSLR Mic in, so I cannot say with absolute certainty). I will check both of them extensively, and their levels, with the various settings, and post a video. Gimme a day or two.

​Make me an Admin and I shall discipline the b#tches. They had it comin. They seriously had it comin ...

​ I haven't used the Panasonic Official Mic for the GH4, but, it has some great sound by itself (the Shure LensHopper, i.e.). Also, since the LensHopper VP83F records Dual Sound, one of which is recorded in Wav Format on a flash card, it is far superior to onboard mics, especially those on DSLRs. Dave Dugdale at Learning DSLR spoke about the GH4 dropping quite a few frames, and that sound and video are not running from the same frame. Maybe someone had a similar experience regarding this?

Why are posts like these, and discussions like this even allowed on this Forum Andrew. I thought Admins had been appointed to helping sort things out. Could you please remove all the PMSing people and people suffering from ED here? We could do with some constructive discussions, rather allowing for whining and negativity. Thank you.

​ Watched the film (quite a bit of it) Things I noticed about the film: 1. The sound doesn’t assist the film at all. It does not sound too professional. Also, it’s very blaring in a lot of places, where I had to really turn the volume down, and the gadget with which you recorded the dialogues, has some serious humming sound (very high noise floor). 2. The video is obviously handheld, and I am guessing you used a 50mm lens, because it is reasonably shaky too. Maybe you should have used a tripod. Also, there isn’t any movement like a dolly or something. 3. The lighting isn’t helping, especially in the dark scenes, and the night shots (outside the house etc). I was barely able to make out that someone was in the frame. I am guessing you had a slow lens and no onboard light. Also, the indoor lighting only uses practicals in many frames, which makes the contrast very sharp. Maybe too sharp. 4. There is a strange kind of lack of energy in the film. It seems like a very lazy film. It’s like the cast and crew were made to run 10kms before each day’s shoot began. They seem tired, throughout, till the last 20-30 mins of the film. 5. You need to assist someone on a shoot. It doesn’t have to be a feature, it could be an AD, a wedding video, or even a short film. Something that has good production value. It will help you get better perspective. 6. I think the premise of the story is interesting. It just lacks a little pace. 7. The best critic is yourself. Watch this film again, and then, after a week, try shooting any single scene from it, with a look that exhibits much higher production value, much better sound, better video and more pace. And try using a tripod or a dolly. Add a few good laughs/ jokes. Don’t do the Sound and Camera yourself. Get someone to do it. You concentrate only on the direction. And add some energy to it. My two cents. Best of Luck

​ Well, there are many aspects to your post, and I can confidently say, that everybody here, at some point of time, has been in your spot. Even if it is for a day or a week. I will explain my perspective in point: 1. I am sure you have read a book called, "what they don't teach you at harvard business school"? Well, filmmaking instructions and manuals (and film schoold) only teach you certain aspects of filmmaking. People who are super successful would never want to discuss their 'dirty little secrets', like the fact that some of the biggest film stars slept their way to the top, because talent itself is not enough, for many people. Especially for people who don't wanna go back home, and who will not give up, more because that hunger can make them commit many crimes, only one of which is sleeping around. It's like that Ashton Kutcher film "Spread" (1999). I am not suggesting you do any of that, all I am saying is that making a film is only one of the Many things a successful filmmaker needs to do. A lot of directors start getting things right early. Like Nolan found his wife whose produced most (all) of his films, and Wally Pfister after shooting following (and who has moved to direction himself). 2. Most filmmakers would hate to admit it, but most of them are far better as directors than as screenwriters. That is one off the reasons for all the plagiarism. And the films that cannot be watched. IMHO Manoj Night Shamalam and the Wachowski duo come within this definition. The warchowski's have some superb perspective with direction. I think of them as the forerunners to great concept films, of the last decade or so. Also, unfortunately, like Night Shamalam, I think they started superbly, and then their films have not really been nailing it. Maybe, they need to admit to themselves, that they just need a good screenwriter. 3. You said you already made a Feature. I guess everybody around here is curious to see it, and if you could post a url to the same, it would be great. A lot of filmmakers, take very long to make a first feature. Most never really make one. You have been LUCKY to have found a cast and crew, the resources and everything else to make a feature. 4. To run out of ideas, usually means that you have burnt out, because you got too excited and too impatient somewhere on the journey. There is nothing wrong in making short films. As a matter of fact, they help hone your talent, in ways that you most often over-look. 5. You basically need a break from everything for 2 weeks. Tell everyone around to as not to scare them, and then Switch off your phone, stop checking mails, stop communicating with the world. When your back, think of the perspective you missed. 6. If your girlfriend/ fiance respects your space, you couldn't ask for anything else. You need to count your blessings. Like Seriously. 7. A lot of filmmakers want to start big, not realising, that the small films that make it Huge, were never made with the intention of being huge (ala Paranormal Activities). As a matter of fact, after Oren Peli struggled for people to watch his film, for the longest. If Spielberg was not sent a copy of the film, and if he did not happen to watch it, Peli would be in exactly the same boat as you. 8. This is the other part of the point above. MARKET. That is Far more important than just making a film. People need to see it, to appreciate it. Making a film for yourself is like a s#x tape. Hollywood stars make those for others too. So, you have to make sure as many people watch the film as possible. Send it to as many film festivals as possible, and then try and sell it. 9. Keep yourself open to the idea of making wedding videos, advertisements and documentaries and things like that. They make you money, and they are creative expressions as well. As a matter of fact making a great wedding video may be many times more difficult than making a film. You get a single take, and you have to get too many things right, at the right time. But, first start with your 2 week vacation, where you just go enjoy yourself. You don't have to spend thousands of dollars for it, and you don't need to go alone. What is important, though, is that you leave all your baggage at home. Best of Luck !!!

​ If I use any of the great tracks for a film, I shall credit you, where you cannot be paid, and pay you, where you can be. I have been a little off actual film production for a little while now. Should be back soon, though. Thanks again.

Eric Matyas, very vast and interesting collection. Great work !!!

​ Absolutely. I also feel, that if the Shure VP82 (the Short but impressive Shotgun Mic) had internal batteries, and was $50 cheaper, it would have done extremely well, with Indie Filmmakers. ​ ​I guess, what almost all LX100 agree upon, is that the LX100 would be Perfect, if it had (1) an articulated screen; (2) this was a touch screen; and (3) it had a mic in. I guess Panasonic might consider them for Version 2.0, IF it feels they do not make the LX100 infringe upon GH4 territory. Right now, though, I wish they would bring out a firmware for slightly better autofocus (since that's a grouse with some users), and better Video Profile (preferably with, perhaps, a slightly higher bitrate).

Though I had a strange bias against fixed lens cameras and onboard mics previously, I suddenly have thus new found fondness for two products which are precisely these. 1. Panasonic LX100: I guess it's one of the most underrated cameras around with its impressive Low Light, Lovely Dreamy Bokehs, Impressive Pics (especially considering its low total resolution) which IMHO appear better than those from many other similar MP sized sensors (including Pics from the Sony A7S), good dynamic range in video and stills, and nice colour overall. I initially didn't like the fact that it has a fixed lens, but considering that its pretty wide and pretty bright I think its a nice range. I didn't like the idea of not having a Mic In, but I guess it's not such a big issue either, especially considering that a recorder or mic can be fixed into its hot shoe mount for recording external sound. I wish Panasonic would jack up the bitrate for better grading and have a Flatter Video Setting. It seems like the perfect Gorilla Filmmakers Camera. It seems expensive for a Point and Shoot, but in my opinion it's Lot more than that. 2. Shure LensHopper VP83F: Another great product, especially considering how few video and other reviews there really are of this one. Super sound quality, built well, Dual Sound, and nice size. This is something that Rode wanted to make but didn't. Plus it can be used as a Field Sound Recorder which has almost No Self Noise (common to Most Field Recorders). The mic is extremely sensitive and for Flash Recording you can easily pick up good sound under 50% (under 30dB). The initial price of this one was ludicrous, but now one can get it on deals for a little over $200. What do you guys think.

I guess what will decide the Success of the A200 or whatever else it will be called will mostly be the form factor and how ready it is to use put of the box, like a C300. That is what it needs to compete against. IMHO

While I do like/ love Top Gear, I have also noticed that Jeremy Clarson Really doesn't know where to Draw the Line. The Argentinean episode with those SCANDALOUS number places, and hundreds of thousands of comments outrightly racist or politically incorrect to the point of being both insanely juvenile and terribly spiteful should have ensured that Clarkson was thrown out a Long Time ago. Next he will probably start using the 'N' word or talk shit about the Jews and the Holocaust, IF he hasn't already.

​I agree. get a decent camera (Panasonic LX100), with some good sound equipment, some portable lights, a tripod/ cheap stabilizer. The BlackMagic Cameras require a lot of workload and equipment to be able to work with them (very fast lenses, very good separate sound recorders, stabilizers etc etc).

Oh ok. I did some reading up on codecs after you posted your reply. And, I realised, that the end user doesn't specifically pay for them, and that is the reason that the codec market isn't growing as big as it should, and why the profit margins can be more democratic. I am sure for a few dollars (well under $10), consortiums who own these codecs could sell them to consumers, and make a reasonable amount of profits, on them. Not to mention, make consumers move to higher bit rates, selling accessories to be able to edit, grade, and view the same. Also, if they were more easily available, people could test all sorts of codecs to see, which they are most comfortable with, rather than just live with the ones that come on their cameras. There are open source codecs, but they aren't free. They mostly have 1-time payments. Also, some of them are in dispute with the more popular ones.

Watching all the new launches of New Cameras, and the issue with video, and understanding the whole thing from the perspective of RAW on the Canon Cameras (ala MagicLantern), I realise, that the main issue with vieo in cameras, is 1. The Codec; and 2. Features in cameras (a lot of cameras disable 24p or 60p or something else). This is my suggestion: 1. Codecs should be available to be bought and installed (or installed by retailers), over the shelf. 2. Sony has a superb new codec, the XAVC, wherein they have a 4-2-2- codec at 50Mbps. Maybe they should allow anyone and everyone to install it on their cameras. I am guessing that most new cameras would have the processing power to run the codec. 3. Democracy should be the new feature. While it is superb to have a hundred new cameras every year, the Manufacturers actually completely miss Introducing new cameras, from the Perspective of the Needs of a Customer. Like the Sony A5100 has a touch screen, but most features on the screen except focus have been Disabled. Apart from the fact that the menu is pretty lousy, too, and the Picture Profile is Not FLAT. 4. The whole External Recorder bit is also bullshit IMHO. When the SanDisk Extreme PRO Card can do 280 MBps, I am quite certain that most cameras can record the video internal AND keep the quality as good as an external recorder (especially when the Canon's do 14 Bit Raw with MagicLantern). What do you guys think? Should there be democratisation of Codecs (and features)?

​thanks Zack. I guess you're right. As long as the final product looks good, it doesn't matter what it's shot on.