mercer

Sorry, I misspoke, or mis... Wrote... The fact that I knew the short was shot only in moonlights made me marvel at the tech, as opposed to being immersed in the story. 

Yeah. It looks very cool. The story was good enough and the acting was decent. If I had to give a criticism, the tech of shooting in only moonlight outshines and overshadows the dramatic integrity of the short. 

There are some decent small rigs, even a gorilla pod can be used effectively as a stabilizer. Or you can try an L-Bracket, they've helped me in a pinch, they even have a couple cold shoes for accessories. 

It looks great, very organic, filmic. 

I've been looking for some 16mm, c mount versions in case I ever get the bmpcc. Do you still have your pocket cam? If so, would you mind doing a test with the kerns on it?

That's them. I think it's called visifocus and they are amazing. There's also something very nice about the aperture clicks. Sure, a smooth aperture would be better but the way the blades click into place is subtle. Great lenses!!!

Is that the visifocus? My d mounts have them and they are pretty ingenious. 

Just picked up a Canon FD 17mm f4. Anybody have one?

I like Kodachrome 40. 

As much as love those tevidon lenses. I think these kerns may have 'em beat? How do you like them. Maybe later in the week, I'll get out my d mount kerns. 

I think it is the pairing of cameras and lenses that change the palette. For instance, when I shoot with my NEX paired with Minolta MD lenses, the images have an inherent 70's horror movie look... Something akin to Let's Scare Jessica to Death. Very little post coloring is needed. So for a quick look in a pinch, that is an option. Believe it or not, even my Pentax Q7, paired with vintage Cosmicar TV lenses gives me a very specific look, right out of camera. It's not for everything, but if I want to get to a quick 16mm analog look, I'll put my little Q7 on my rig. 

Or should I say cheap options. 

I don't mind crops, I mind the lack of options for wide vintage glass. 

Yeah they look great, are you going to make an offer?

Those Kerns are excellent. They may be the ultimate lenses for the bolex or bmpcc. 

This is the one I was looking at for background actors. In the shot I will be following and/or they will be pushing the cam, on a steady cam, through a party. The conversation the main two actors wil be having will be commentated by the other background actor's, but in a comical way... Meaning they may say something about liking a guy and as they pass a group of people, a background actor, having a totally different conversation will be heard saying, "not a chance." I don't have access to a boom operator skilled enough to follow the flow and move the mic back and forth, so I want to do the old recorder in pocket and lav trick. I could need anywhere between 6 to 10 actors for these background characters... That's a lot of money for quality recorders, so I was hoping something like this might work and not sound too horrible...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1004584-REG/philips_dvt_1100_digital_voice_tracer_recorder.html

Okay, that makes sense. So, is there any truth to what I read that 96 kHz can actually cause distorted sounds? If recording 96 kHz, do I still want to keep my dialogue peaking at -12, or does that change?

Next question, I am using an older model Olympus field recorder. I just finished editing a short and I was pleased with the sound quality. I recorded it at 96/24. After reading that sometimes recording too high can be detrimental, I looked at my recorder and found my options to be

1. 96/24 

2. 88.2/24

3. 48/16

4. 44.1/16

5. 44.1/mono

Since I do not have a 48/24 option, should I just stick with the 96/24?

Also, I wrote in a previous comment that I have an upcoming shoot that requires a lot of movement and a lot of audio. I was going to set up my main two actors with the Olympus recorders I have, but I also was thinking of getting inexpensive voice recorders for the background players. To keep the cost down, I have found an inexpensive recorder that records wav files but the specs are only slightly higher than the highest MP3 recording settings. I think it's 24/396. Will this audio be usable because it is a wav file or is it basically like using an uncompressed equivalent to MP3 quality?

Again sorry about all the questions and I really appreciate any info. 

Sorry for all the questions, I get that 24 bit 48khz is ideal. But I have an upcoming shoot that takes place at a dinner party. The camera is going to float through the room with my two main characters, but I want to hear snippets of background conversation. It's important to the scene. My plan is to have as many as a dozen audio recorders in the actor's pockets. There are some inexpensive voice recorders that record wav files with the bitrate numbers slightly higher than what an MP3 would record at it's highest settings. 

Okay, what does the 24 bit number pertain to? And also the 48khz number. What about a lower wav recording... 16bit 44.1 or even lower wav recording? Is the bit number similar to the dynamic range number in video?

From my understanding, you do want to have tiers to promote, upsell, some donations. 

Yeah but the special edition movie soundtrack version with cover art is a new ballgame. 

I'd make it 20 or 25 bucks though. Watch pbs during their telethons, the point is why should I donate 10 bucks when for 10 bucks more I get this great tote bag. Apple is the king of that as well for their upgrades. 

The next question then becomes... Are you gaining anything by recording in wav, when it will be compressed later for delivery anyway? Why not just record at a high bitrate MP3?

Ok thanks, I am a little ignorant when it comes to audio... What does the kHz and the bit number represent... Or measure?

A free soundtrack?