captou

21 hours ago, Brian Caldwell said:

As long as you use a fullframe (24x36mm format) master lens, then both the 0.71x ULTRA and 0.64x XL will work fine.  The ULTRA is a little better corrected in the outer part of the image, but this is mainly important if you want critically sharp results at f/1.0 with a Sigma ART or Zeiss Otus, and would not be noticeable with a slow lens like the Canon 24-105.  If you plan to use an APS-C lens such as the Canon 17-55/2.8, then you should be aware that you may encounter slight vignetting when shooting HD (not 4k) with the 0.64x XL.  The reason for this is that even though the XL itself covers the entire m43 image just fine, the image circle of the lens is too small to cover after it is multiplied by 0.64.

Thanks, that's all making sense now.

I'd actually like something like the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 as it would cover quite a good range for interviews with the 0.64x Speed Booster in HD mode (around 21-89 as crop is around 1.28) - except that there might be vignetting as you say, which isn't so good.

The Canon 24-105 might be a bit tight if I was trying to do a two-person interview in 4k (as it would be around 36 on the short end).

So I'm just researching alternative zoom lenses in the 17-70 range. Any tips would be appreciated!

What I'm trying to decide is whether I should just go for the Panasonic 12-35 or if a Speed Booster combo makes more sense if I want a good focal length range and shallow depth of field. I can't have it all of course but finding a good middle ground would be great...

Hi,

Please bear with me - I'm trying to make sense of all of this.

I'd like to get a GH4 for interviews (main competitor is the 5D M3).

Now the way I see it, the main PRO of the 5D is that it's full frame (makes it easier to get shallow depth of field, which is nice for interviews).

The 0.71x and 0.64x Speed Booster's are recommended according to the Metabones website: http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=micro-43-system-2

I'm looking at EF lenses because the adapter is active.

I would like an all purpose lens for filming interviews, something in the range of the Canon 24-105 f4 on the 5D.

• Which Speed Boster is better, x0.64 or x0.71 in terms of reliability and results?
• I mainly want to use the GH4 in FHD, not 4K (don't need it all the time) - will that be an issue? It seems to me that the focal lengths will vary quite a lot depending on the mode (FHD or 4K).
• What lenses should I be looking at?

Thanks!

Edit: Otherwise I'm thinking of getting the Panasonic 12-35mm but getting that lens and an EF lens + adapter will be too pricey, so I need to choose.

I just bought a camera (Nikon D5300) from the cheapest legitimate shop I could find - no problems, but it's also a UK based shops which means the camera has already gone through customs. And still, it was almost half price compared to the high street retailers. Like Cinegain said, if you do your research, you'll probably be fine. If you're not sure about a shop and can't find any reviews on it, perhaps it's best to leave it. Some shops from Hong Kong also offer to pay back any tax in case your item gets held at customs.

I've definitely had the "going cheap is expensive" experience but that was more to do with buying things like camera bags from no name brands - turns out, buying from the trusted brand, even if it's expensive, is just easier sometimes.

There are some techniques but they have never worked for me - see here: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/986373

Basically, try to avoid it either by getting another camera or working out how to avoid it with the camera you have.

Also, I find that a lot of people don't actually notice moire at all on videos/TV! So it might not be as distracting to the average viewer as you think it is - depends on the case I guess.

Hi, 

I did some preliminary testing on this on my Canon 600D and it does seem to make a difference. I used the ML RGB histogram, Cinestyle picture style, Highlight Tone Priority On, Zebras (Luma) at 100%. The image is very flat but does get muddy a bit with higher ISO values (>3200) but 1600 seems ok. 

Could you just explain your steps a bit more in camera and in post? Why do recommend zebras at 100% and how about when you film a person, what zebra setting do you use for this? I read some keep it around 70-80 for Caucasian faces to expose correctly. But then I guess the whole point is to not expose correctly but overdue it a bit and then recover in post and that's only possible if you don't clip highlights in the face - so what would you recommend in an interview setup? 

Cheers!

Apparently they'll also announce a new rebel camera (750D) next week - I wonder if the video specs on that are gonna be harbinger for the specs on the new 5d... it will obviously be lower spec'd but if it's just same old features that might mean the same old features on the 5d (for video). Who knows...

Why is this happening? Surely people working in the vfx industry are on the whole skilled and intelligent - and yet they can be treated like this?

I'm a complete outsider but I have read about this before and I find it really surprising - and scary!

I wonder if it's to do with the nature of the work - it can be done in any country. It's not a mine or something physical you can't move at will. So whenever they see fit, they'll close down and move on and the workers are in no bargaining position because they and the building they're working in can be replaced. If there was some kind of "campaign" against this, it would have to worldwide. 

I don't think every idiot is making technically perfect photos. Look again at those smartphone photos people are making. I see people taking photos with their iPad/smartphone while walking around - they don't even stop to take the picture. The results are okay but not great. But it doesn't matter because they're snapshots and no one involved seems to mind. So yes, everyone can take okay photos and put some quick fix filter on it and a lot of people are doing that. But taking great photos still takes skill. There might be an app one day that replaces that too who knows.

For now, it seems to me, it's the enthusiasts that read up on photography/camera stuff that people with photography businesses are worried about. Because they're taking away their gigs for little or no money. And that's because more or less everyone can afford a nice-ish camera now. And with digital you can take 100s of shots - so it's much more forgiving if you make mistakes.

I think the best way to get started is to simply open PPro and start editing. And if you have a question, google it!

I found these tutorials to be helpful:

https://library.creativecow.net/series/Premiere-Pro-Basics-CS6--above-with-Andrew-Devis

Adobe itself also offers help:

https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/tutorials.html

What I like about Adobe is the integration between all the different softwares (e.g. dynamic link between AE and PPro).

Thanks for all the suggestions! I'll look into all of them.

I don't need any sort of audio capability on the interview camera (as long as it records some for matching up purposes in post). The setup for audio is sorted. So it's really just the camera + lens(es) that I need to think about. And I can't really stretch the budget (it's been set for me).

How much room I have varies and I won't always know beforehand as I interview people in their offices/labs etc. but of course, I'm aiming to flatter them with beautiful images of their faces... so a portrait lens might make more sense!

My worry about the Canon cameras is moire, I've had that problem several times with the 600D with suits and netted tops. I can't always control what someone might be wearing so I'd rather not worry about that. I'd also prefer "real" 1080p if that makes sense. I want the "DSLR look" so I'll avoid the camcorders (I feel silly for saying this but people love it).

I guess the limiting factor will be maximum recording time. The d5300 has a max. of 20-30min. Remember that you can buy a chinese lens turbo and some cheap 35-50mm manual focus lens and put that on any m43 camera which will give you background blur for cheap.

Thanks! I'm not worried about the recording limit because I'm usually in a situation where I can stop and start without losing anything important. It's never been an issue so far.

Can you recommend a particular lens turbo/lens combo with the right camera?

Hi,

I need a camera for pretty much one purpose only: interviews.

Lighting and sound is covered so just need to get a camera.

It shouldn't be more than £800 all things included (lenses, batteries, cards, etc.).

I want to be able to get a nice shallow DOF, have a nice crisp image and I'd like to be able to grade the image (or the best I can get for the money). A reasonable low light performance would be good as well in case I need to wing it (for example, at an event). 

I know that there are some options out there and I'm liking the LX100. I've also looked at the GX7 and the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 combination. People here seem to like the D5300 but I wonder if I'm better off with, for example the LX100 in terms of video performance even if it means having a smaller sensor.

Should I be looking into other options as well or am I good to go with the LX100?

Thanks!

And I know these kind of questions get asked so often, but I thought as I need it for quite a specific purpose, I'll dare and ask :P

I'd like to add my 2 cents here - from a beginners point of view.

I can tell you a simple reason why I'm annoyed or, if I want to be sentimental, disappointed with Canon: I've still got my first camera, a 600D/T3i but I don't see a Canon option that I'd like to upgrade to.

Why is this a problem for me? I've got a bunch of lenses. And also, I'm just ready to upgrade because I'm tired of the low quality I get compared to what I could have for the same or not much more money.* So if Canon were to offer me a reasonable upgrade option, I would totally go for that because of the lenses. But at this point I would feel cheated for my money (say, if I were to get a 7DmII or 5DmII/III for video work and can't go through the RAW process). I'm one of those people who don't have a lot of money to spend because I'm still just dipping my toes into the world of video production but I also read and watch a lot of stuff online. So I'm not going to upgrade to another Canon camera and I'm gonna lose some lenses. That's ok, they're not super expensive compared to what's out there, but actually, for someone just starting out, it's still a freaking pain! 

I realize that I'm operating at a low level especially compared to some people here on the forum, but the point is, Canon is definitely losing me because they can't offer me an upgrade option that I'll buy into. They can probably live with that. But as people have said here, if there are lots of people like me, who knows, they might have a problem one day.

* Note: yes yes "it's just the person behind the camera not the tool" - yes no one doubts that, but there are undeniable issues with certain cameras (e.g. 600D) that I understand now that I've been doing this for a bit and didn't understand before. It's a good learning experience but I don't want to look at my image anymore and think: the resolution is poor, the image is falling apart when I want to grade it and there is moire where I never expected it. I think the tool does matter - if it's not up to the task, it's just not a good tool. Looking back, and if I could choose again, I wouldn't have gone for a 600D but for a GH2 or something like that.

Any thoughts on how this camera will perform when you do green screen work? Given that the lighting is ok and the subject in front of the green screen isn't really moving.

I'll do a test when I have the camera but was wondering if anyone has an opinion (perhaps even from experience)? 

I've had really bad experiences with green screens using a XF100 and my dear 600D and don't want to go through this again if the camera is definitely not capable of it. In that case, I was talked into using the green screen and didn't have any prior experience with setting it up. The hours and hours I spent in AE trying to pull a good key made me hate the green screen and I've banned it from being used for any other projects for that company. My hands are tied in terms of lighting and camera to a large extent due to budget (I know, ideal context for green screen work). 

Thanks everyone!

I worry if that means lots of people see footage like that though. I suppose it's their own fault if they do - as long as it doesn't put them off from watching...

Hi,

I was just looking at sample videos from the FZ1000 and noticed a weird aliasing effect when viewing the videos in a small window (not full screen) in HD. Either it's me and I'm going crazy or you can see it too.

This is a random sample video I found - watch in HD and look at the cables and especially the trees!:

Or here - play in this window and change to HD or 4K:

While it might be somewhat nonsensical to play a video in HD in a tiny window, the effect still struck me as pretty weird! I noticed because I changed the videos to HD before going full screen. Especially for the vimeo video, the effect is very visible and I imagine a lot of people don't go fullscreen on every single video they watch.

I haven't tried for footage from other cameras and perhaps this is a well-known effect and I just haven't noticed so far?? I do know a little about aliasing/moire and how some cameras are worse than others. But this isn't to do with the camera, right (as the effect goes away when you adjust the size of the window). Is this to do with the compression? 

Cheers

Hey I absolutely love the XF100! :D

It's not to be compared to a 600D, they are different tools fro different genres of video shooting, just because your kind of shooting is not suited for a small-sensor camcorder doesn't mean it's bad or unfit in the market.

Compared to the 600D the XF100 is far far sharper and shows signifcantly more detail and colour information, the image has no aliasing or moire or non of these issues, it has a broadcast approved 50mbps 4:2:2 codec MPEG which is loved by broadcasters. The 600D is better for shallow depth of field and for lowlight (though the XF100 is no slough in lowlight).

Compared to the 600D it has XLRs with proper audio controls, NDs, external buttons for gain, shutter, iris, WB, and various cuatomizable ones, it has an EVF, has a better screen with peaking/zebras/waveform/histogram and all the video camera functions ones needs. It has an enormous zoom range to cover all shooting situation with smooth transition, and a great AF system that works, dual CF slots, batteries run for hours, etc

If you're shooting for broadcast work or events or any type od shooting that doesn't require shallow depth of field / beauty shots (as in shorts, feature, dramas, music videos) this kind of camera is far more suitable for you than any DSLR or stills camera with a large sensor, you want a big zoom range with zoom servo control, internal great audio, instant Autofocus, long recordin times to dual media, etc. Try covering an event with a 5D and good luck!

It's just different cameras for different jobs. The XF100/300 are the number 1 in the broadcast field in the third world, everyone is using them for a reason, they're great to use and deliver good images.

I've always said that if Canon put a large sensor inside an XF series camera it will create the perfect camera, the C line comes close to that but far too highly priced.

I agree with all of that - I can definitely see how it's super useful in these situation. It's a complete little package. But if you're looking for the 'beauty shot', it's tough. And that's what I battle with. But that's the camera I've got (it belongs  to the company I work for). I'd have spent that money differently. I also battle with the terrible moire issues on the 600D and it's poor sharpness though (or rather, I despair at times). Magic Lantern adds a lot of nice features to it and if it wasn't for the moire and sharpness, I'd be really quite happy with it for my current purposes. I'm just a moaner! 

And apologies for hijacking the original topic!

That's why most people started using DSLR's in the first place. When the 5d came around it was a revelation because people were used to an even shittier image than the XF100. And you know how long people defended those shitty 1/3" professional cameras? A long time, until companies started releasing s35mm cameras.

That puts things into perspective. I couldn't recommend this camera less, can't believe someone would spend $2000+ on this. 

If it's the same LCD (and I guess it is) as in the Canon XF100 it really is unusable.

The XF100, now that's a terrible camera! Handy yes but I've used it side by side with a 600D in the exact same situation, and the image is really not very nice compared to the DSLR. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the C100, just wanted to get that out there....

Hi,

Could someone tell me if the Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.7 T* (C/Y mount) is worth around £120-130 if it's in good condition? I was also wondering if the Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 T* is good too or better? I see that one on ebay a lot as well.

How many of the quibbles might be resolved with a firmware update? Things like the record button, assigning buttons in general, internal 4k (probably not I'm guessing)... 

@captou that card will work fine,I have the exact same one. Actually I have the regular Transcend SDXC class 10 64gb card, not the ultimate.I really didn't expect the card to work so I brought the Sony card just in case. The Sony card works well also.

http://www.amazon.com/TS64GSDXC10-SECURE-DIGITAL-Transcend-Digital/dp/B00J79OOW0/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1412097108&sr=8-13&keywords=transcend+64gb+sdxc


http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Class-Memory-SF64UY-TQMN/dp/B00B7ID9CU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412097728&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+64gb+sdxc

Thanks!

Could someone confirm for me which card will do for recording in XAVC-S?

I'm thinking of the Transcend 64GB Ultimate SDXC Class 10 UHS-I 600x Memory Card.

Thanks

the lx100 has audio, just internal only i guess..

Ok that makes sense haha, I was thrown by the B&H comparison where it says audio recording n/a

I'm in a similar position - deciding on a camera for a company I work for and I'm also really liking the LX100 and FZ1000. In my case, the camera will also be used to take photos at events by people with little knowledge of cameras/photography and the video feature is a great add-on because it means I can use it as my second camera. 

Here is what I'm wondering: how will the low light performance of the two cameras compare?

The FZ1000 has a smaller sensor and the lens isn't quite as fast and for me that might be decisive because of the photography at events (i.e. potentially low light situations). 

I think the FZ1000 might be a more competent all-round camera than the LX100 - this comparison might help: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Panasonic_DMC-LX100_vs_Panasonic_DMC-FZ1000/BHitems/1082158-REG_1057135-REG

At the moment, they're also at similar prize points so that's interesting but I guess the LX100 prize might drop after a while

Also, with no audio recording abilities on the LX100 - how do you sync the video and audio? I might be missing something here but I do it manually when it's required and that requires sound on all clips....