Benjamin Hilton

The first Cine Like D profile should work great, good all arounder. The only adjustment I would say is to maybe bring the saturation down to -2, helps prevent color clipping, especially in the red channel. Another good profile for day usage is: Natural, contrast -2, sharpness -5, NR -5, Saturation -1, and a +1 on the shadow curve. It is pretty much the same dynamic range as Cine like D, but with better color and highlight roll off. Just DON'T use it in low light, Natural applies some kind of weird noise reduction even with NR all the way down.

Great options, I'll check them out. Money to burn is relative to the project you are working on😉 . Not for hobby work.

Hey all, I DP a lot of shorts and documentary work and mainly use LEDs and old tungsten lights for most of what I do. I own an assortment of LED lights including the Aperture Light Storm and some custom built rigs that I use quite a bit on films. My main problem is the lack of brightness punch that these lights give. I understand they are not really meant to replace HMIs, but my problem is that I work overseas a lot in places that I can't rent HMIs very often. My main question. Are there LEDs on the market that pack enough punch to take the lead role in lighting short films? Something that could replace, (or get close to replacing), a 1200W HMI? Even a 650W? I understand I'm not going to find an LED 18K equivalent yet...maybe one day🙂 Just something bright enough for indoor daylight keys, bounced off of muslin or something. Or, any other ideas as to high-output lighting without HMIs?

Brilliant!

Agreed! Although we did have a sound professional on set... just didn't have cameras that supported timecode in. The joys of DSLRs

Finding the first word will help you. After that, learn the keyboard shortcut for nudging clips to the right and left. (on my machine in Premiere Pro its Command+arrow left or right) Then, play back the audio nudging your sync clip to the right or left one frame at a time until the sync feels right; premiere can normally do this in real time. I've had to do this for several TV shows, hours of pre-content, hundreds of clips to sync, and the major wind they were shooting in on some mountain tops totally messed up the scratch mics...pretty much had to do it totally by hand. Just be grateful you only have to do two interviews. 😉

I think we need to stop looking at numbers so much and start focusing on results. The effectiveness of codecs and bit depth totally depend on the sensor and processing. My old Sony FS100 shot 1080P at 24mb/sec 8 bit and looked fantastic! The GH5 on the other hand, looks terrible at 24mb/sec 8 bit. The Sony Alpha cameras can look great at 100mb/sec 8 bit with S-log 2 and such, but the GH4/GH5 V-log 8 bit does not. The GH5 was really built to shoot V-log at 10 bit, end of story. It also does Cinelike D and Natural profiles great in 8 bit if you want, just depends on the look you are going for. Try the internal codecs, if you aren't getting the results you want, try a recorder. Rent a camera and do some tests. Know the look you are going for, and find a camera, lens, and color profile, that can effectively capture that look. Here are some screenshots from a short film I just directed. GH5s, Leica R primes, and the lowly internal 10 bit codec of course...😉

I have shot extensively with the GH5 cameras over this last year and I can confirm that there is a night and day difference between the internal 8bit 100mb/sec and 10bit 150mb/sec in V-Log. Even using Cine-Like D is a big difference. If you are shooting natural or rec 709 though, the 8bit 100mb/sec holds up great. It just depends on what you are shooting. S-log 2 is made to hold up with Sony's 8bit codecs, V-log is not.

I guess the beauty of the FS100 sensor was really pulled out with the Glencairn G Log Profile, totally different camera almost than using stock profiles. More cinematic out of the box than anything I have been able to pull from any camera since, and I've shot with quite a few cameras. I've never used a C100 though, but I would imagine the ergonomics are quite a bit better. That is why I had to give up the FS100, just too big and awkward for the kind of doc work we do, wouldn't be bad for cinema shoots though.

No specifically. But, the F3 has the same sensor, so I assume the FS100 settings would carry over the same; that's what I was wondering...if the same settings would create a similar image on the F3.

Whoops, meant a6300 This is the link for the profile: https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/g-log-ultimate-1-0-picture-profile-for-the-sony-fs100/

I believe also that the FS100 had about 11.5 stops of dynamic range; about what the GH5 and similar cameras have. I wonder if it's possible for some really talented person to take the sensor and processing power of the FS100 and mod it into a smaller body. Even just a box with an HDMI port on it would be amazing...could build out a nice package that is still small and compact.

I tried working his profile into an a6400, but couldn't get anything to feel right. Something really special about that sensor. I have never used an F3 before, would love to try it though. Anyone had any experience using Glen's profile with the F3?

Agreed. NDs and a smaller body would be amazing!

I haven't tried the FS5, but have spent some time with the fs7. They are nice cameras for sure, just don't seem that came out of the camera special touch that the FS100 did. Maybe the 1080P helped with it to a certain extent, 4k can be a bit harder to get right without feeling like plastic.