First up, I need to share with you where I am.

Today is a perfect Tasmanian day. I am currently sitting on my front steps in dappled sun light, with a pleasant temperature of about 22 decrees C. The day will get up to about 30 degrees, but Tasmanian summers can bless you with cool nights and warm days, which is just about perfect for comfortable living.

The cafe next door is a-buzz, people making the most of the last days before school goes back (our summer holidays are over Christmas). Even my boistrous dogs (a pair of three year old hunting/cattle dogs) are content to just sit in the sun and watch.

Sorry to all you northern hemisphere readers, but I am going to soak this up today and count my blessing, as the looming flip side is, although mild by the standards of some temperate climates, still cold and dark.

Anyway, lets look at some slight changes to my video shooting processes and thinking.

Camera Settings

I have been looking into the real benefits of 4k for my work shooting and have to admit, I see little or no reason to bother. There are a lot of things at work here, many hard to pin down without the years of experience shooting video I would love to have, but at the end of the day, the only times I can see myself using 4k are;

• Shooting for maximum post-processing potential (Log styles and 4k).

• Shooting for maximum play back resolution on UHD screens.

Otherwise, I see no benefit in 2.7 or 4k over 1080p for general use. I do understand that the resolution is measurably higher, but actually seeig that is dependent on a lot of other factors. Playback format, screen, viewer pay in, expectations and education, size of screen to viewing distance, along with other factors all play a part. Just like stills resolution, you need the benefit of direct and close comparison to actually see any differnece and even then it is relative and not the determining factor for “quality” of the image or footage.

I have a theory also that 1080, with sharpness reduced may also reduce the need for diffusion filters.

If there is a perceived resolution difference between UHD and FHD, then it is only going to make the footage more digitally “perfect,” something that, ironically, needs to be softened out with filtering to look more natural.

My custom settings now reflect this;

• C-0 or creative movie is left open to play with.

The next three are for use as is no post, but with room forpost as an option.

• C-1 1080, Natural -3/-5/-0/-1, 10 bit 422, 150mbs, 25 frames as my standard.

• C-2 1080, Natural -3/-5/-0/-1, 8 bit 420, 100 mbs, VFR, 50/150 (33%) for out of the camera slo-mo.

• C-3/1 1080, Natural -3/-5/-0/-1, 10 bit 422, 150mbs, 50 frames for movement andthe option of post slo-mo with sound.

My OSMO footage is still sharper looking, but I can fix that.

These two settings are a concession to post for projects and personal work.

• C-3/2 4K, Cine-V -5/-5/-2/-2, 10 bit 422, 25 frames for grading, but a soft touch.

• C-3/3 4k, Cine-D -5/-5/-2/-2, 10 bit 422, 25 frames for deeper grading (probably supplied unprocessed to an outside source).

There is a possibility aso that these may end up 1080, set for portait or low light etc.

The more important specs here are bit rates and colour depth (mostly 10 bit, 422 and 100-150mbs). This means more information, even in 1080, so better actual quality in real terms, not just more res. This also explains why cameras that only just enter the 4k world, usually by being stretched, often shoot way better 1080 than higher. The EM1’s are an anomaly here. They shoot very nice Cine 4k, but quite poor 1080, something that helped me decide to switch to Panas for video.

A final element to my thinking is apparently, exporting 1080 to 4k still shows some benefit for U-tube etc., but to be confirmed.

*

Camera Rig

Secondly, and it is still glorious here by the way, I have relented and switched back to the less sexy but more practical 2094c handle.

With the arrival of the secure cold shoe adapter, I tried it and found it just made more sense for a variety of reasons;

1. The handle sits higher and (for balance) off to the right of the top cheese plate (Niceyrig model for all Panas), allowing me to mount a variety of other attachments to the camera top. There are six top holes left (and four across the front), on which I intend to mount a forward mounted cold shoe extension arm. This will allow me to mount the H5 well centred and forward enough so there is nothing hanging out the back (its shock mount will be about where the 12-40’s zoom ring is). The H5 can still be easily read and reached for levels and even the long shotgun capsule only protrudes a little past the lens (I may get a base plate and rails, or just a rail to protect it). This is the only option I like for an on-the-go rig with the H5, but also gives me options with the H1 and mini shotguns. The weight of the H5 is not an issue, but bulk and length are. The 1446 really stifles mic options, blocking low mounting options and providing none of its own.

2. The whole thing is better balanced with a variety of lenses, allowing me to ditch my weights. The 1446 is really front heavy with the 12-40, but well balanced with light primes. I have used weights to fix this but they get in the way of tripod mounting, sometimes need to be added to the back handle and the added weight (which can be good), is also provided by other things.

3. It can be removed or reversed quickly if desired for packing down and added versatility. The locking pinon the new cold shoe adapter just adds peace of mind. The 1446 is a screw mount, which is secure, but not easily removed.

4. It has three monitor mounting options, front, front top and rear top. If the rear shoe is used when on a tripod for example, then I can mount a mic or light up front. The 1446 only has one real option, low front.

5. The front shoe is lockable, so I can confidently mount my Ulanzi triple cold shoe plate on it and attach my monitor off centre with the H5 opposite, or a set of mics and a light etc. The single front top cold shoe on the 1446b is terrible. It’s not even full depth, which means you have to mount a cold shoe on the front as option…..only.

6. I can hold the camera up to my eye, without taking the handle off. This gives me the option of using the camera without a monitor if needed. The 1446b forces me to use the monitor or rear screen only as it sticks out a couple of inches above the eye piece, basically mid forehead.

7. The handle comes with an allen key also, so I can lock/unlock most fittings without reaching for my tool case. This is especially handy for adjusting the monitor tilt head tension.

I still prefer the 1446b for low angle hand held when more stability or a lower profile are preferred, but at the expense of the Zoom and some other mics, so nothing wasted.

*

Diffusion just got complicated (or easier?).

Tiffen it seems makes a whole variety of Pearl, Satin, Glimmer, Mist, Net and Fog filters with and without a black base and each has at least 5 levels. They have an excellent, but confusing (way too many options) video on the subject and after watching it twice I am leaning towards weak end of Black Satin or Glimmerglass, but still too many. To be honest there are also so many variables involved it is hard to find concrete impressions (impressions in concrete?). One reviewer managed to make a 1/2 strength filter look stronger than a #2, just by having their model a few inches to the left, revealing more light.

The good news is, they are not all mist filters, the bad news is they are sometimes hard to split and expensive if you do not like what you get.

Sticking to 1080, using my known lens characteristics, lighting and my optional real-net filtering, I am still not convinced I need one.