User

Thanks Kye... as always, I appreciate the response. The trick will be to get a reply to a question on audio (@IronFilm?) when there are so many exciting camera threads running I did a little reading and it seams that PluralEyes can't handle clips that are very long. However, even though I did a test and tried to sync a short file to a longer one, neither PluralEyes or PPro's native Synchronize could handle the task. Something just doesn't line up... and I'm starting to think it's more than just the audio tracks "I'd suggest that using the in-built features might be useful because either they will get it right and you're done, or if they get it wrong they might get it almost right, then you can zoom in and just fine-tune it by lining it up by eye." - Well said. Most of the 100s of files are already reasonably well synced, but it would be best to have a quick fix to get the the selects 100% in sync. Anyone?

Thanks @ghostwind. And a big hats off to you for climbing through this process and taking the time to intelligently articulate your process as it very much informs my decisions in going forward with Canon. Yes many are pissed at Canon, but for me, despite their shenanigans, their (C)inema line continues to deliver in a way that the others just can't. This is exactly where I am at as well... and that old 5DM2 still gets me paid work once in a while ? Best wishes in going forward... and feel free to drop by EOSHD from time to time if'n you have any questions or feel like a laugh... a good handful of talented folks in the mix here.

I'm having trouble synchronizing audio in PPro 13.1.0 (Mac). The two audio tracks are from the camera (wireless mic) and a Sennheiser 416 into a Zoom H4N. In the past, on an older version of PPro, I would lay both audio tracks down on a timeline, click 'Show Audio Time Units', and line up the waveforms up by eye until they blended perfectly and sounded great. Now when I sync the two tracks by eye, they seem to blend in a way that makes them sound hollow... something is definitely wrong. I have used PluralEyes several times years ago, but didn't really like it and prefer to do things by eye. Does anyone know what is causing the audio to now sound hollow when the two tracks are synched? Is this some kind of phase cancelation thing? Something else? *Edit Actually, I was now able to sync two track together by zooming way into the waveform and lining the two tracks up. But I just tried PluralEyes again and it could not handle things. And when I try PPro Synchronize feature it actually moved them out of the great sounding sync that I had done. What is the best way to sync separate audio tracks???

Tell that to the Germans who recently bailed the Greeks out of a catastrophic financial crisis stemming from massive corruption and inept policy. I'd be careful with that logic, it implies that everyone has to have all their bases constantly covered before saying anything to anyone for fear of being ridiculed - which is what you've done with ghostwind. I certainly don't want or expect that in an online filmmaking forum. Maybe have a look in the mirror and ask yourself, 'Do I seek my 'self worth' at the expense of others?' Now please... back to point.

'Better?' More features doesn't always equate to better. Remember in the early years of Red Giants's Magic Bullet? All those heavy 'Blockbuster' colour grades? I see slo-mo a bit like that. But hey... to each their own.

Right. And what caused the fall of those societies? It seems all is not as it used to be, and resting on the laurels of one's ancient culture while treating others in a condescending manner (and seeking to validate your ego) hardly seems the way... but we've gone over this before my friend.

Now now Kishsha... is that what your cultured Roman forefathers would have said? We all know there are many reasons for shots with deep depth of field... ghostwind was just keeping us on our toes. Breath... or you might find yourself transforming into a Shell65 Are you talking about the C100? Because the C100Mk2 has a different and very good evf and viewfinder.

I had concerns about opening this thread, fortunately this comment surmounted those concerns ?

@ghostwind On the possibility of an upcoming (though I doubt see it for another at least another 2 years) C300 with full frame (which will never happen)... it sounds like your needs may be different, but I'll never buy another full frame sensor for video, especially run and gun docs. It's just too much work to keep everything in focus. And if you stop down, you certainly need a higher ISO - which can be it's own problem. 35mm is really quite perfect. Anyway... great thread. Big thanks to both of you for you insights, digging and contributions.

When then I'm sure there is a 'safe space' out there somewhere for you to hunker down and have a good cry in.

'slightly' better adjusted member of society Drinks on me...

Solid suggestion, I regularly employ methods like this. Also, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission... and if one of your venues is a church, and something goes wrong, they'll get the 'forgiveness' part

- What's the dish... distilled water? I guess it's all about the project and the way slo-mo is being the used and what's motivating it... but I do see that in some cultures and genres of media (ie. fashion industry/ music videos) it's almost expected. I guess I just find myself at odds with it when it is used as a stylized gimmick for no other reason than to bring some kind to drama to an otherwise boring shot/ project. - Anyway, thank you to everyone for their insights... I'll now pick myself up from the EOSHD sofa recliner, take a deep breath (in slo-mo), and gently leave this discussion as a slightly better(?) adjusted member of society Onward!

"...creates the feeling." - Yes but what is this feeling? Some kind of heightened drama that isn't really there in the first place? I appreciate slo-mo when used in a original and motivated way, but my concern is that it has become ubiquitous to the point that it feels cheap and I wouldn't feel comfortable using it on personal projects where I'd want to maintain some level of self respect in front of my contemporaries in doc film. This isn't really my thing, but here is something I remember seeing a few years ago: Does anyone have an example of slo-mo they like used in an original way?

It certainly sounds like you've considered all the options. In that case, as I'm no sound expert, I'll leave it to the others. Great profile pic btw

Is the school and church using a mic that is running through an audio board? The reason why I'm asking is that, if they are, you could probably plug into the audio board and get better sound.

What was all the talk months earlier about converting 4k 8 bit down to 1080 and the extra colour space that arrives as a result. Can any of the tech heads here comment?

Right, and that's usually when it's ovulating.

I get it that there are all kinds looks and styles, but considering how slo-mo tends to make many things look juicy, when is it just a just lazy artifice? When I look around, it's being done to death, thankfully it hasn't really invaded long form quite yet where it would most probably be a distraction from the narrative. How many of you use slo-mo in your personal projects as a creative decision?

There are two ball parks: 1) What do you need for your personal projects? 2) What do you need for outside projects? For me, it's all about story. And on personal verite doc projects in difficult conditions, I need a camera that helps me capture good audio easily... laying in music under video afterwards only takes me so far. The C100MkII ticks all boxes in a nice small and cheap package with long takes. Under good light, if exposed correctly, the 24mb codec holds up very well. But in the night, under less than idea lighting conditions, I wish it fatter so I could reef on it more... this is where the C300MkII (or Amira) would help, but at a much higher price. But for now, when the audience lights come up, and the snarky highlight roll-off/ buzzing shadows hipster takes the mic, I'll cram the entire camera package up his ass.

Good. I absolutely love this camera. It's the real deal. Here is a great doc film shot (by one person) on it: https://www.indiewire.com/2017/01/fire-at-sea-gianfranco-rosi-cinematography-best-documentary-oscar-1201773480/

- They sure did... It's easy to understand why so many people are frustrated with them. Arri Amira? https://www.abelcine.com/buy/cameras-accessories/digital-cinema-cameras/arri-amira-advanced-camera-set

Behold Sony Xperia 1 https://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/phones/xperia-1/features/#gref Anyone still left holding out for 4:2:2 10 bit in their A7(x) lineup? "The Xperia 1 has a 10 bit equivalent display (8 bit with 2 bit smoothing) that can display a myriad of colours without banding." - Mmmm... smoothening. CineAlta branded. No audio port in or out

- Though I haven't compared them, I'd say so. - Yep. 2K/HD 10/12-bit 4:4:4 up to 60fps is all I'd ever want for what I do. 4k for hire. If you have the cash, just buy the C300MkII and you're good for the next 3 years.

My two cents... I shoot verite docs, so for me the C200's raw feature will pretty much never get used. Aside from raw, Canon's ability to pack a decent amount of info into a lightweight file is exceptional. For sure 4k is great for cropping, but who sees that extra resolution 6-10 feet back from the screen? I can easily push 125% into a C100MkII file with no major quality loss. Someone recently posted on a C100 to 4k up res that seemed decent enough. For fun, though it could be true, I often think that the C100 MkII is the last camera I need to own as it ticks so many boxes. I'd consider a C300MkII, but will wait for the prices to drop and then take a look.