Benjamin Hilton

Hi all, I'm needing some expert audio advice.

Just for reference, I've been doing documentary and reality shoots for over 10 years now, so am fairly familiar with wireless mics and such. Although I'd have to say, in all my years of work in this industry, I've never run into a problem like this and it's baffling me.

I recently had to put together some new kit for a doc shoot, but was on a bit of a tight budget. I picked up a Tentacle Track E since I could record internally and monitor via bluetooth on my phone. I was hoping to test it for larger film workflows on reality shoots where we run into RF interference all the time. When testing, I ran into this crazy electrical interference noise that seemed to be coming from the mic port. I figured it was a faulty unit and returned it. I ended up picking up a Rode wireless go kit, since I was just doing close interviews and had had good success with it in the past. Again, I had this similar electrical interference kind of sound in the background, although it was quite a bit quieter. I figured it was something weird with the Rodes, so I returned it and picked up a set of Deity BP-TRXs. I was really excited to try these, as you can record to and SD card internally while monitoring through the 2.4ghz connection to the receiver. You can even start and stop recording from the receiver, and change settings on the transmitter from the receiver. Well after using it in a couple of shoots, I really love the workflow! The problem is, I'm still getting that same electrical interference kind of sound. 

I can't figure out what's going on. I have tested it in a variety of conditions, States, phones turned off etc and can't figure it out. I've never come across a sound like this before other than maybe a loose wire or something. Although I don't have a lot of experience with 2.4ghz systems. It's just really weird that I've had similar issues with several different units recently. 

Any ideas? I'm attaching a sample file for reference.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6lu5bgm11y9tq5/Deity Sample.m4a?dl=0

Oh and also, if I turn off the receiver and record internally on the transmitter, the sound goes away. But if I keep the receiver on and record internally on the transmitter, the sound is still there. 

9 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

What about BRAW? 12:1 is pretty light. 

I haven't tried it yet, really want to though. I almost used a pocket 6k last year for a project, but didn't end up getting it to fit on my steady cam rig, had to bail and use a gh5 at the last minute. Really want to test b-raw though at some point, although I've heard it's really not the same as raw

I feel like for most projects the 150mb/sec on the S1 is about the biggest I'd comfortably go. I never feel like I don't have enough data to work with in that codec outside of raw, but it is big enough to really eat through some hard drives. I'm still editing off of small SSDs, doing all our long term storage on cheap 8 or 12tb HDDs. I really don't find myself needing more data compression wise on most cameras, but I do always use an external monitor with my color science LUT on it, so I'm getting pretty close to the final image in camera exposure and WB wise. I would love to shoot raw just from my experience with photography, but the file sizes make it not an option outside of Red r3d. 

I'd have to say, I've been shooting with a lot of cameras over the years on a verity of projects including a lot of high end cinema cameras. I am really really impressed with the image out of the S1 and the a7Siii. I've been shooting with them both recently and they are really gold mojo wise. Couldn't ask for much more unless I'm going for the specific Red or Arri look. Which overall doesn't matter too much because few people even know what that means outside of a small niche of cinematographers. 

Yeah totally. It's just a tool, and like any tool, you have to learn how to use it, what it does, and more importantly what it doesn't do. 

18 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

LOG

For me there is no substitute to What You See Is What You Get. Whenever I shoot LOG I tend to forget to look at tonality and contrast. Sometimes even a limit on dynamic range is useful because it forces you to prioritise which part of the frame to expose for. Whenever I shoot LOG I tend to get lazy and forget this. I do use a view assist when available or load a LUT onto the camera, but then you are postponing the judgement of what works for a scene to post. And what a fucking nightmare it is choosing LUTs and grading every shot differently in post, when you could have got it all right in camera, in the moment of the shoot! So LOG is overrated and a hinderance. RAW on the other hand, that's much nicer. You don't even need to grade RAW, you can just let the meta data handle it. If there is a white balance change that needs doing, you can do it without weird results. RAW is all about ultimate image quality so give me that over LOG any day.

IBIS

IBIS is king of ALL the lazy unmotivated camera movement we see today. It's a huge convenience doing away with a tripod, as well as the biggest single loss of the last 10 years! There is simply no substitute. Floaty, warpy, too smooth, too robotic, IBIS has it all in equal measure. The least cinematic camera feature you can choose beyond shooting it all in 30fps! Also when you are sticking something on a tripod that doesn't have IBIS like the Sigma Fp you are actually locked down into one frame. That really makes you think about the composition and refine it, because you're stuck with it! All my early stuff was shot on a tripod. I never recaptured that shooting style with IBIS. Even the slightest small movement detracts from the calmness of a locked down shot. With IBIS you can only fake a locked down shot and everyone knows you couldn't really be arsed to do it properly!

10bit

It is hailed as the biggest new feature of modern times and everybody shits on 8bit, but whenever I put the final images side by side from a decent 8bit codec and a modern 10bit one, why do they always look the fucking same?

AF

A bit like IBIS autofocus is a great shot getter when you're rushing and making a hack of it. I used to use a single S-AF to grab focus before locking it on the GH2 and recording the unfolding scene with the focus not moving. Short of hiring a professional Hollywood focus puller that is the best any of us can do, because as soon as you hand things over to the camera you may as well call it a home movie and be done with it. Oops it's shifted to the background. Oops it's wobbling. Oops the subject has moved but the focus hasn't. Ooops that's not what I meant. Autofocus is an affront to filmmaking. The best AF is too perfect. Nails the subject in focus with no human intention behind the focus pull. If I see another gimbal shot with autofocus I will kill myself.

So just to sum up...

Maybe we could have an EOSHD challenge...

No LOG, no 10bit, no IBIS, no AF, just a tripod, you, a manual focus lens and a camera like the Sigma Fp or Samsung NX1?

Let's see how the results look compared to the next day when we all go back to the usual modern style of shooting!

And pick the best!

Andrew I think some of this is right, but it really depends on what kind of films you are doing and what kind of workflow you use. I shoot documentary films and for me most of these features if used properly are a Godsend. You are right though, the way most people use them they might as well be a potato. For me, I have a magic color science LUT I use for most of my projects. I load it up in my monitor and shoot 10 bit log on my S1. When I get to post, I drop the same LUT on and do some minor adjustments, pretty easy. This is a look I couldn't get in camera no matter how hard I tried. Again, 10 bit is necessary for this workflow as 8 bit falls apart in log on the s1. But if you are shooting casual films with a baked in profile, then 8 bit should work fine. Just depends on what look you prefer. 

I do a lot of tripod and steady cam work where IBIS isn't' necessary. But for handheld work, I just can't get over how useful it is sometimes. I can be in the middle of a 10 minute take where my arms are giving out. In the old days my footage would start to get really shaky, but these days I can depend on the IBIS to cover for me. For me it isn't that IBIS is a bad tool, it's just been a problem of people trying to replace traditional tools with it. IF instead of replacing traditional tools, people use it alongside traditional tools, then it becomes magical. 

Auto focus is another tool that all depends on how you use it. If you take the time to learn it properly and use it correctly, it is immensely useful. Knowing how to setup smooth subject tracking, manually stop it when needed, and tell it how hard to stick to a subject can produce amazing results. But same as the IBIS thing, it has to be used properly along side of traditional tools, knowing when to use it and when to let it rest, and putting the time into learning how to use it properly. 

I guess all that to say that all of of these tools are amazing in and of themselves if used at their full potential. But you are right, most people don't use them properly and they just become an excuse for laziness. 

I went to an S1 from my GH5s, actually I still use both. The S1 has been amazing image and low light wise, although the slow motion is a bit aggravating. The GH5 could do really good down sampled HD, meaning the 1080p60 was really good. The S1 doesn't do HD very well, so you are kind of stuck with the cropped 4k60, which isn't as bad as I thought it would be, just have to be selective with what lenses I use. Other than that I don't have any complaints, the image is a huge step up from the GH5 for sure!

Yeah, totally agree with this. It seems to me that about 12 or so stops of dynamic range is needed if you want a high end look in bright environments. More is always nice, but not really necessary. Like you said, there isn't much of a point always being able to see out of the window. Less than 12 stops can definitely be doable, but seems to always be kind of frustrating, always just clipping out something I wanted to see. That was one of the huge things I noticed in the S1 coming from a GH5. I suddenly realized all most all of my documentary scenes weren't clipping any information I actually wanted. Anytime it clipped it was something I'd expect to be clipped, the sun etc. Pretty crazy stuff!

I played around with it a bit on some S1 and GH5 footage, liking the colors a whole lot so far. I think the contrast could use some more work though, to take advantage of the dynamic range a bit more. Tends to clip pretty fast

Both of those are great options, or the SmallHD Focus. Been using that one for quite a while and really like it.

What is your budget and prefered size?

So I get the whole bit depth argument, but have some questions for you Sony users on the practical side. I come from Panasonic cameras where there is a massive difference visually from 8bit to 10bit when shooting log. The 8-bit has splotchy blocks of magenta in places, and just seems way less clean.

Do the 8-10bit comparisons on the a7siii mean that:

A) The a7siii 10bit codec isn't a big improvement over let's say the a7iii's 8bit codec in log?

B) The 8 and 10bit codecs on the a7siii are both improved quite a bit compared to the a7iii and such? 

Any suggestions as to what would help?

Hey there,

I am running a small home studio with several different weekly shows using Rode Procaster mics. For one of the shows we just started (two person conversation), aesthetically it would look better to use lavs instead of the Procasters. I tried setting up with my Countryman b3s, but because of the room acoustics and phasing of two mics it's sounding pretty bad. The room is fairly decent acoustically, decent enough to sound great with the Procasters. Other than completely sound proofing the room, is there anything I can do to get better audio with lavs? Wondering if a cardioid lav or something would work better. It should be possible since they use lavs in news rooms conversations and it sounds pretty good, couldn't imagine their studios are super acoustically dead either.

I have the old Glidecam HD2000, not recommended with a smaller camera setup. Something more like this would probably work fairly well though:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1398457-REG/glidecam_glhdpro_hd_pro_hand_held_stabilizer.html

Both gimbals and steadicams have their place for sure, very different purposes and looks with some crossover. I directed a TV show were we had to follow around hosts and guests doing things for hours at a time, never would have worked with a steadicam, but was great with a gimbal setup on a backpack arm system. But on the other side, steadicams and get a specific look that gimbals really can't...just depends if you want hyper smooth planned shots (steadicam) or more reliability for longer periods (good gimbal setup) 

If you are going for a Glidecam or something for your xt3 though, make sure you get one that will work with a smaller camera. A lot of the older ones are intended for heavier setups and won't really work for what you want. 

I'm pretty sure the setup from Sony's video is just that, the initial setup for choosing framerate. (the same thing you have to do on a mirrorless camera) Once you have that loaded all you have to do is push the S&Q mode then the record button to be shooting your high frame rate. I don't see the clunkiness here but maybe I'm missing something. Seems to be about the same as most mirrorless cameras, maybe faster since they actually have a dedicated S&Q mode. To do that on my GH5 would take a dive into the menus to select basically those same options as on the FX6, only I have slow motion assigned to a custom function, basically like the S&Q mode.

I do really really wish manufacturers would start giving us built in NDs on mirrorless cameras though, seems to simple to do comparatively and so incredibly helpful.

Have you given the GH5 or 5S a try? I think it would fit into your workflow very well personally, it has for mine for the last several years. Usability is very very nice with minimal rigging or accessories needed. The battery life is very good as well. 

4 hours ago, kye said:

Ultimately, the best thing to apply for this look would be one of these:

 

Yeah, totally😂 I also wonder if using a polarizing filter to take the reflections out of the skintone and such would help with the look, I know Shane Hurlbut did that for one of his period movies, gave a similar kind of look

On 8/24/2020 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Hilton said:

So I've been watching this TV show recently, and I would love to figure out how to replicate this specific look. Kind of a muted, but still saturated look, with soft highlights and really rich creamy shadows, and the skin has kind of a brown cast but still looks natural. I've been trying and trying and still can't get anywhere close. Are any of you able to do it? I know it's partially lighting, lensing and such, but I feel like I should be able to get at least close.

These three screenshots are from the show:

 

And here's a sample frame I have been working on, just Panasonic V-log converted to C-log with the WB balanced:

 

And this is the closest I have been able to get to that look, which still isn't very close...

I actually think this is pretty close, would you mind sharing your grading process for this?

So I've been watching this TV show recently, and I would love to figure out how to replicate this specific look. Kind of a muted, but still saturated look, with soft highlights and really rich creamy shadows, and the skin has kind of a brown cast but still looks natural. I've been trying and trying and still can't get anywhere close. Are any of you able to do it? I know it's partially lighting, lensing and such, but I feel like I should be able to get at least close.

These three screenshots are from the show:

And here's a sample frame I have been working on, just Panasonic V-log converted to C-log with the WB balanced:

And this is the closest I have been able to get to that look, which still isn't very close...

20 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Looks really solid. What lens did you use?

I think projects like yours are an excellent example of a use case for a future GH6.

If the GH6 offered a solid 4K up to 120p unlimited recording. Vastly improved autofocus. A bright and accurate Flip LCD and one of the newer EVFs. They already have the excellent and much loved XLR hot shot adapter. Add in some kind of useable internal RAW recording. Full Vlog and 1 stop extra DR from GH5S (12.5-13).

They would have an excellent and light camera that would punch above its weight. Without the need for an external recorder and with excellent add-on audio interface when the job requires it.

It’s pretty clear that FF isn’t quite there yet sub cinema camera costs. RS issues. Overheating issues. Crop modes to fix those issues or low MP stacked sensors that remove the “hybrid” from the mirrorless camera that everybody wants.

I hope Panasonic is taking notes.

I used the Canon L 24-105 with a speedboster

These are some stills from a recent GH5 doc project

On 7/10/2020 at 10:13 AM, PannySVHS said:

An update for internal 10bit 4k60p for the S1 in S35 or FF mode would bring me close enough @Benjamin Hilton

Me too, honestly the S1 is really tempting at this point, although I can get really close to what I want with the GH5

Honestly if Panasonic created a camera with the following I would be completely sold, all I need for quite some time to come:

• 4k60p 10 bit
• S1H dynamic range and color
• Native duel ISO
• Super 35 or full frame sensor
• Built in NDs
• h.265 and prores codecs
• IBIS
• Duel pixal autofocus

I could honestly care less about 6k or 8k, raw and the like unless it was a good compressed raw like r3d.  A rich cinematic image, built in NDs and a reliable body would be top of my list.

I currently shoot with GH5s and speedboosters and they are the closest things I have ever gotten to that list, really just add NDs, good auto focus, nail down the color science and low light a bit more like the GH5s but with IBIS and they would have the "perfect" camera in my book. 

When are ND filters coming to their smaller camera bodies, this seems like an essential but is strangely being overlooked by all camera manufacturers.  Variable NDs are a pain, period