tupp

@Michael Coffee Can't read that file. I even tried to play it without the ".txt" extension. ~60 Mbps seems too low for that bitrate and all-I, if you are shooting a complex subject. Something might be wrong. Focus the camera on TV static and let it roll for at least 3 minutes. If the bitrate is set too high, the recording will shut off and/or will drop frames and/or show image tearing. In addition, if your camera is getting hot and/or using up the battery faster than normal, don't use the ML shooting screen -- use one of the Canon shooting screens (or turn off "global draw" in ML). By the way, did you install ML first -- before TL, or did you just install TL?

It is amazing that the camera doesn't shut down at that bitrate with all-I. Have you tried to test its stability by shooting a complex, moving subject (such as static on an old TV set)?

This is the best advice yet, in regards to the camera aspect of product photography. If you are seriously doing a lot of tabletop shooting, you really should have some Scheimpflug ability. A shallow-mount APS-C camera with a tilt-shift (or tilt-swing) adapter and full frame lenses works perfectly in this regard. As @Nikkor mentioned, an inexpensive/used NEX camera with a Kipon tilt-* adapter would cost around US$300-US$500. You could also get a Canon EOSM with a Kipon Tilt-* adapter for Nikkor lenses, and that combo would cost around US$250-US$450. You might also consider getting a few primes (for APS-C shooting): 20mm; 28mm; and 35mm.

Wow! Didn't know that it was possible to have audio with all-I/boosted-bitrate! It might be a good idea to carefully scan the footage for image tearing and/or dropped frames.

On Ebay, EOSM bodies are selling for as low as US$135. That's a nice little inexpensive backup camera! In addition, it is very versatile in regards to lenses and adapters. I have a focal reducer, a tilt-swing adapter and a couple of adapters (one dummy Nikkor and one smart Canon EF). The ability to do tilt-swing on APS-C with full frame lenses in amazing, and the focal reducer effectively makes the APS-C a full frame sensor! If you just want to boost the h264 bitrate, you are probably better off going with ML, rather than TL. TL is older and probably less stable (although it seems that the most recent ML builds write odd colors to the Canon menus on the EOSM). Consider using TL for getting all-I frames in h264 (along with boosted bitrate), but you can compile ML to offer all-I frames on the EOSM.

There are plenty more than just two ways to make egg crates. For instance, my Light Tools egg crates are made with mating side slits with no sewing except for that on the outer perimeter. I've also see slats with alternating glue points, which gives cells of a sort of diamond shape. Plume used to offer louvres which were one ribbon threaded around posts on the edge of a rectangular aluminum frame. Don't remember how the egg crates from the Cinegear rag houses were made, but they seemed rugged. Then, of course, there are the metal, plastic and rubber egg crates, which can additionally be made by extrusion, welding, stretching, casting, injection molding, 3D printing, etc. By the way, Chimera uses Light Tools egg crates.

Light Tools is the most expensive fabric egg crates. There are others. The Rag Place sells and rents egg crates in standard sizes, and will also custom design. There was another fabric manufacturer at at the recent Cinegear show that also had egg crates. Both manufacturers offered "pop-out" frames for their smaller sizes. For awhile, there were a couple of grip manufacturers who had egg crates for their standard frames. Also, there were companies in the late 1970s and 1980s selling large sheets of black aluminum honey-comb egg crates. Don't know what happened to all of those items. Can't help you with availability in Europe, but most of the egg crate manufacturing techniques are simple (yet labor intensive). You could probably make your own, if you had the gumption.

Ouch! Doesn't look like a genuine Steadicam model.

I did a quick web search, and it appears that now there are a few theatrical/DJ LED strobes that have adjustable flash duration and which are DMX controllable. The "Elation" brand looks interesting, but there have to be others. Not sure exactly what you want, but it sounds like a flash unit with adjustable duration and DMX control should work for you, provided that there is no premature/uneven output peaking over the duration of the flash. You can double-up heads if you need more output.

The lighting angle in the original shot is is higher, and there is (consequently) a little more contrast in the original. Also, it looks like the original might have a tad bit more fall-off.

Single-use flashbulbs are still used for their longer flash duration, and DIY flashgun/trigger-boards can be built/rigged cheaply. Also, I think that there is a flicker box that approximates the effect. Additionally, one can use spinning mirrors when shooting a small area with a tight lens. Combine any of these techniques with NLE strobe plug-ins and the effect should be fakeable. A single-head effects unit might not make a convincing paparazzi flash barrage, because the flash only comes from one angle. If you don't need any readable detail between the flashes (as is apparently the case in your example), you can just use a cold, undiffused and overexposed constant light source, and merely replace the in-between frames with black slugs.

Those exterior light sources are ballasted, so their output frequency could anything (not necessarily 60hz in US nor 50hz elsewhere). Don't know what you can do with your existing flickering footage, other than using some deflicker plugin: As others have suggested when shooting again with such lighting, try changing the shutter speed: Also, if possible, try dialing your frame rate incrementally up and or down.

@andy lee The new project looks great, too! Do you think that jelly/rolling-shutter on the G7 will be a problem handheld? Also, why are you recording the G7s internally, instead of using external recorders?

Actually, if the X1D lacks a digital shutter function, it would probably preclude using/adapting many other medium format lenses for still shooting. So, you might be on to something.

Thanks for posting all the photos and all the info! Very enlightening! It is really fascinating to see the different colors used, and I would love to see this film! Comparing the BTS shots of the projector scene with the corresponding screencap, the 4000K color temp setting on the G7 is palpable. I do not see any recorders -- did you jettison them? By the way, nice "greeking" on the dumpy apartment set!

I didn't know that this digital model used leaf shutters (inside the lens), but the film Hasselblads (and some other medium format brands) used leaf shutters. One thing that was cool with some of the lenses for the 500C was that the shutter ring on the lens was adjacent to the aperture ring, so that once you set your exposure, turning both rings together would maintain the same exposure while changing to another desired shutter speed or aperture. Why?

If Willis was the "Prince Of Darkness," you (and your gaffer) are the "Prince Of Party Gel!" Seriously, the stylized color in your narrative project is fascinating. I really want to see this film! Some of the images that you posted are impressive, textbook examples on how to peg the saturation and on the use of glints of complementary hues. Please post the main gels you used (I would guess that you used Lee, being from the UK). For those that missed Andy's earlier posts on the project, here are more screencaps. I am very curious to see how daytime exteriors will be handled.

If you just need to view the frame remotely while the camera is recording, you could use the wifi app.

Here's one. I prefer the type that attaches to one of the shoulder strap anchors, as the 1/4-20 mounting thread is always accessible.

Congratulations! Can you confirm once and for all which actual bit depth and chroma sampling is coming out of the HDMI connector on the G7 and GX80/85? Also, what will you do with all of your camera gear after the feature finishes shooting?

To my eye, the G7's CinelikeD profile looks significantly flatter than its Natural profile: Here is a comparison of a few profiles between the GX80, G7, LX100 and the OMD E-M5II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXsDFfKDxE

Very likely 8 bit coming out of the G7 HDMI, but not so sure as to the chroma sampling. These properties probably could be discovered by someone with a G7 who also has an NLE with a stream capture function

A Panasonic rep at the recent Cinegear insisted to me that the G7 HDMI output was 8 bit, 4:2:0. However, the Ninja Assassin probably records that signal at 10 bit, 4:2:2 Prores.

That's not a problem as there are no filter stages -- you still have to use screw-on filters with this lens shade. So, there is nothing (other than the black doors themselves) that would reflect the "backlight" back into the lens. However, you could use a foam matte box "donut" if you are really concerned about bounce-back from the doors. The doors and eyebrow have saved me on countless occasions from having to set flags.

Nope. I did not say to compare differing formats using identical emulsions. In fact, I specifically stated "when using film stocks that gave comparable resolution (color depth) from each format," which means using a coarser-grained stock on the larger format. Doing so makes larger and smaller formats more similar in color depth (or more similar "in colour and tonal 'sophistication,'" as you put it). If you shot a 35mm image with Kodachrome 25 and compared it to a 6x4.5 image shot with Kodacolor 400, you would probably find that the smaller 35mm format has more color depth. However, you might notice a slight "improvement" in the DOF roll-off and in focal plane solidity on the larger format, given the same quality of optics on both formats and with DOFs of matching mathematical "equivalence," . To me, that optical advantage transcends a difference in color depth, which in a similar digital scenario is also dependent on the resolution (assuming that bit depth and DR is the same on both the larger and smaller sensors). Certainly, everyone has a right to their opinion, but the overriding difference in look between larger and smaller formats seems to be of an optical quality, as exemplified by the Kodachrome/Kodacolor scenario above and as demonstrated in the many eCyclops/MiniCyclops images captured with HD, CMOS cameras.