Softly Does It

Well, I went and bought a “misty” filter.

My criteria was pretty tight. Tight to the point I doubted I could get anything worth while.

Softness can come in many forms. I used to hate the sharp/soft look of earlier Canon cameras, but in hind sight, maybe they were after something more than just……. more.

I wanted the most invisible look I could find. One that did just enough to make the exercise relevant.

There are some good filters out there seemingly designed for my needs exactly. The Tiffen Black Glimmerglass 1/8 and Black Satin 1/8, manage to retain contrast and sharpness, while adding glow and very mild softening, just enough for the infamous “cinematic” look to start to show (aka softened enough to not look digitally sharp).

Scratch these as they are hard to get in Australia for a reasonable price ($130+ for a 62mm).

K & F has a 1/8 strength Black Mist that is noticeably weaker/more natural looking than the industry standard Tiffen Black ProMist 1/8, but after a deeper dive, it is still a little strong for my tastes.

Just before I pushed the button on one as the “least worst” option, I remembered a review from a week or two ago, that I watched just before I grew tired of the whole process. The Kenko Black Mist 0.5, which seems to be a fringe runner, limited to Japanese reviews or maybe it’s just a new contender. It seems to be obviously less “Netflix”* than the Tiffen, and even noticeably weaker/smoother than the K & F Concepts. It does however still add blooming to highlights and just takes the edge off digitally oversharp footage.

A reviewer compared it to the K & F 1/8 which he personally prefferred, as he felt the Kenko was “too clean” for his needs.

Music to my ears, Kenko it is. It also comes from a company I have delt with previously who are red hot on service (expect it tomorrow, with free freight).

Shooting 1080p in Natural, with sharpness at -5 and contrast at -3, I have a strong base for cinema friendly capture. With light, lens and aperture selection and other factors to draw from, the Kenko will just give me that extra emphasis on film-like gentleness and allow me to handle light sources with more controlled creativity. It looks like it blooms lights well, but is otherwise pretty controlled.

I honestly do not see myself using it for many shoots, but when I do, I want to have a little something to rely on.

*I rate these filters as NCIS (waaaay too strong), Netflix (a look that is what it is), Cinematic (which is nearly invisible, but you notice it when its not there) and Hard Documentary (none).

Changing Priorities Of The Exposure Triangle

The exposure triangle is the corner stone of still photography and differently, but no less importantly in videography.

If you get this knocked, then all the other stuff comes as needed, but if you cannot control these three in tandem, then the rest falls apart really quickly.

The basic concepts for those still learning are;

The three settings, Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO all have dual roles.

They work together (or against each other) to get exposure right for the shooters needs, and contribute something creative into the mix, more or less. We will look at these with two criteria in mind. The first is creative control and creative potential, the second is damage mitigation or in other words, how the setting impacts quality if mis-used or improves it if used correctly.

Aperture gets a 5 for creative control and a 1 for damage mitigation.

Controlling the Aperture controls depth of field, which is for most photographers their first creative consideration. The landscape specialist uses deep depth, the portraitist shallow, but regardless, an uncontrolled aperture setting can force seemingly random and contrary results in your imaging. As for damage mitigation, if one of the other two settings is needed more for creative control, then the Aperture may be used for exposure balance.

Shallow depth of field, the main tool of the portraitist. Really brings out the character of the subject!.

Shutter Speed gets a 3 for creatively and 3 for damage mitigation.

Controlling the shutter usually takes the form of making sure it is fast enough to avoid motion blur, or conversely, to convey blurring deliberately in an often exaggerated form. In the past, film choices with fixed ISO’s and limited in workable range, forced an acceptance of some blurring in images, but as ISO tolerances become higher, perfectly still in almost any light is becoming more achievable.

ISO gets a 1 for creativity, and a 5 for damage mitigation.

ISO is the safety valve of the three. It determines the potential technical quality of an image and the sensitivity of the film or sensor to light, with the two extremes being directly opposed. If Aperture or Shutter speed are the primary creative controls, then ISO is often left holding the bag. ISO has always tended to be the limiting factor in the math that is photography. If you are using film, then the ISO is set, so film choice is a really big one to make, but in digital, ISO is flexible making life a lot easier. Very occassionally, a shooter will allow film grain or digital noise to become part of their creative process, more so with film or even video, but with so many processing options available now, noise is a poor substitute for a true film grain look.

*

My standard working technique from the dawn of time (seems like) is to use Aperture Priority, or Manual with Aperture as the primary setting. This is because more often than not, I am using depth of field as my main consideration, or even if Shutter Speed is more important in a perticular image, the Aperture setting is still controlled to some extent.

With Micro Four Thirds, ISO is the enemy, much as it has always been in photography, but many larger sensor cameras are starting to make it effectively an irrelevance. This means that using Aperture priority usually results in just settting the Aperture wide open as f2.8 on MFT which is f5.6 (at the same effective lens length) on a full frame. A good, safe working aperture with decent light gathering power.

Sometimes the balance between ISO, Shutter speed and Aperture can be vexing, but mastering it allows you full creative control.

I also tend to control the ISO, by either limiting its range in auto ISO or set it speficically to what works in a specific situation.

Very occasionally, I get caught with a slower shutter speed than I would like as I have allowed the camera to use it as its safety valve.

The solution, is to set the Shutter to what ever I feel is the minimum a lens would need, usually doubling the lens focal length at least (in MFT), or 1/250th is a good all rounder.

If the Aperture is effectively irrelevant, as wide open will never cause undue harm, and ISO is less of a problem now with better processing options, with the Shutter is locked in, I will never have a blurry image at least. This may not work with fast primes as f1.8, even in MFT format may be too shallow in focus depth to work, but with an f2.8 zoom, I think it would work well.

Of course the biggest issue is getting into habits that are contrary to my SOP for the last two decades or more.

Lines In The Sand

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.

Approximately a 12mp crop off an M43 sensor. Its all relative, oh and the shot of the shot was taken with a cheap phone at night.

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.

An older shot showing the Ulanzi triple plate. I will take another when the whole thing is together, using the cage and with the handle to right way around.

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.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Still photography, how I have neglected you!

Be careful in the woods, you might get tagged.

My wife and I went for a little walk the other day and I cursed my new found habit of thinking about video, but not stills. No camera! Today, given similar glorious light, we retraced our steps.

The local skate park is quite a thing. The council, deciding not to fight the taggers, but rather give them a place of their own, has allocated a 500 meter long flood wall for their use and included the skate park attached. Quite the palette.

Generally respected by low brow taggers, most of the art stays intact for a decent period of time. The layering is intense.

The little 14-42 EZ lens is sharp, but with some curvature or de-centering. Funny how that does not matter in the field.

$2 Filter Solution

So, not letting this diffusion thing go, even though I am reconciled with a life without it, I made an impulse purchase at the local K-mart today.

After parting with a massive $2, I can make a few attempts at making my own black net cover (filter).

The purchase was; 1 mesh food cover, black.

A strong effect, but repeatable and easy to use. The “glass” could not be clearer, being absent, and the mesh is tight, even and clean.

Aperture choice does not seem to effect it greatly, except for slightly more specular out of focus highlights.

Below; f2 and f8 respectively.

A very 1980’s softness.

Sharpness is still good, but contrast drops dramatically.

Below; unfiltered left, then filtered right. Detail is high.

Can it be recovered f too much or not wanted later?

Mostly. The character of the image has changed, but most of the “snap” can be put back in.

Below; Filtered, de-hazed (+30) and unfiltered. Oddly, when de-hazed, saturation seems to increase, but I have been suspicious of this in the past.

How do I intend to make it (picture coming)?

I think a well sized piece of mesh, cut out and pulled over the lens front, then held in place by an elastic hair band that I already use for flash flagging. Hi tech huh.

For stronger effects, I could add more layers. If rushed, I can just hold it across the lens front.

If this works, I will also look out for the same stuff in a wider gauge for a more subtle effect.

The mesh has the benefit of being non stretch, so I can rely on its consistency. Actual fish net stockings do allow for more or less diffusion by tension, but repeatability is tougher.

Where does it fit in the world of filter diffusion?

It looks to me more like an old school, true black net filter, less “misty”, more “glowy”. The contrast is higher than say a K & F 1/8 Black Mist, so maybe a 1/16 equivalent, the more subtle look I was after. Of course it is hard to be sure without direct comparison, but trust me, I have looked at a lot of footage and dozens of stills taken with these, so I am getting an educated eye.

I particularly like the kitchen utensil shot above. The crisp glow and brilliant smoothness, but not crazily blown out highlights are right where I wanted it to be if this is the look I am after. To be honest, for something that has few measurable controls, it is as good as any other option.

There is a down side and one that popped up just once. The net can be visible in small aperture, wide angle shots. This can be avoided too some extent if the net is hard against the lens glass, but if placed over a filter, the problem appears consistently in those circumstances.

Time to cut up some mesh!

Long Day For No Result (Which Is Fine)

So lots of research, lots of examples and opinions and you know what?

I think I will give this diffusion thing a miss.

Several reasons have surfaced, so I will tackle each in turn.

Availability.

The ones I really want to try are the Tiffen Black Glimmmmerglass and Black Satin in the weaker 1/8 or 1/4 strengths. The problem is high price and patchy availability in Australia making it a risky investment sight unseen.

Camera sharpening.

For my needs, I have reduced sharpening to -5 and contrast of my 1080 to -3, my 4k to -5 for both. The lower res of 1080 and its unprocessed use (immediate social media) means that dropping it a little looks smoother, but without post, dropping it all the way down is a little much. I also have to consider the B-roll camera, the OSMO, that does not give me the same controls (although Freewell does make mist filters for it!).

The look.

Photographically, I was a child of the ‘80’s and back then you had to chose a side, misty of not. I went not. The work of Greg Gorman appealed for a while, but it was glamour, well executed, black and white and very on-trend. When that faded over time, so did my interest. After a day of comparisons, I can honestly say, I did not like most of what I was shown as opposed to a week researching cinema colour, that was transformative.

Tools at hand.

I have already had some mild success making my own filters and there have been some really good ideas on line to try. Add this to the antique 25mm’s “Hazy” wide open performance and the as yet untried Helios 44-2 I found down stairs and you have the makings of a workable “Hollywood” look if requested.

If I were to go for a filter and that would be a big “if” at this point, it would likely be the K&F Black mist 1/8 strength, because it looks to be the most invisible and gentlest of the lot, but if they made a 1/16….. . Second would be the Kenko 0.5 for the same reasons, but smoother (ed. I went for the Kenko).

The wide open madness that is the ancient 25mm. At F4 the thing really cleans up its act, but at 2.8 it is “special”.

Me (and my needs).

My tastes and needs are found far from here. Do I need to go all “Netflix” to get the job done? I feel not. My favourite films are generally hard-real, suitably lit, using colour for mood*. If softening is needed beyond what I have managed with lighting etc, then a little post maybe. I need to remind myself where my needs lie. For now that is small time video and the occassional TV grade shoot.

Interestingly, one reviewer who clearly knew his stuff, tried a genuine fish-net stocking and that came close to the money. That is actually what the old shooters mean by “black net,”, not a sheer silk number. I was always led to believe in the early days that black nets were used to soften, but keep contrast up, while white based filters softened and reduced contrast. The Gorman work bares this out.

Softness can take many forms.

Smoke and mirrors.

There are other tools. Smoke or haze (actual mist), or reducing sharpness further in camera, looking into the character of lenses new and old, softening in post, soft lighting (always), exposure and depth of field all have a role to play. The filter is the most obvious and I feel the least natural looking. It is a look, not a natural effect.

The look is described as “cinematic” and it is I guess, but it also depends on what cinema you watch.

*

One thing I was reminded of here is the rabbit hole that online research can be.

Most reviewers, depending on the question you ask, are advocates of these filters generally or one type over others, so a day of saturation can lead to a “must have” mindset.

The reality is, most major productions do use filtering, but they also use multi thousand dollar lenses and cameras, sometimes film, sometimes massive amounts of post, light rigs etc., so filters are just a small part of a very large whole (hole!). Apparently, there are whole rafts of people out there who do not use them. Go figure ;).

Monitors, filters, lighting, cages and rigs, sliders etc all have their role to play, but let the need determine the purchase, not internet fuelled impulse.

I need to constantly remind myself to drop out of this cycle mid stream and look at the overall picture before committing.

Obsessive much?

Yes, but aware of it.

*Putting this to the test, Meg and I recently watched the 11th series of Vera and straight away noticed the heavy “glow” added. Apparently they had a lot of issues with COVID, so maybe it was a technical necessity, but both my wife and I find the look less appealing.

More Experiments In Softness

Following on from the recent post, I tried some thicker and tighter black lines on an old polariser filter.

Filtered on the right. All taken with my 75mm at f1.8, my sharpest lens and shallowest depth (short of macro). The bigger files seemed to be obviously different, but at this size, it is hard to be sure. If anything, the Bokeh drop-off seems more aggressive and smoother, but the unfiltered images have more "brilliance..

Filtered images right side and this time more obvious. Again, softer, lower contrast, less brilliant. There is a slight exposure difference that I did not properly balance out.

First image above is filtered, the second is filtered, but de-hazed, the third un-filtered.

Maybe something half way.

Searching For Soft

Video has rekindled some old techniques, both generally and with me specifically.

One that I feel is important, but not one I want to necessarily follow the current trends with, is diffusion or softening at capture using filters.

In the early days of film, a wide mesh black stocking was often stretched across a lens to create a sharp/soft, semi glow. This was called a “black net” filter and became the standard for film and stills portraiture for half a century.

Black was chosen for its slightly stronger and more precise nature, white generally avoided as being too “glowy” until the ‘60’s and 70’s when it became the filter “dreams” were made of.

With video, specifically digital video, one of the worst kept secrets is the use of filtering to de-sharpen, reduce contrast and create gentle (or not so gentle) blooming in highlights. Bad is good all of a sudden. The all too perfect didgital look is going so far the other way, it is touching on what we would have once called rubbish (technical term there).

Video is good, but has its weaknesses and dynamic range is one of them. Under exposure, exposing for the highlights and generally avoiding too wide a range of lighting are all modern realities, and filtering it seems is one of them.

My issue is the over use or use of over strength filters on trend at the moment. If you look at the portraiture of the masters over the last 50 odd years, you will see (if you look) a gentleness and slight glow to their work. A favourite is a portrait of Michelle Pfeiffer taken by Joe McNally in 1995 among many, but generally, going against the trend in almost any other style of photography, soft was worshipped. Good soft that is.

Having pretty much turned my back on the idea of buying an expensive Pro-Mist filter or similar, as nothing I have seen has been anything other than heavy handed, I have turned to DIY.

Trials 1 through - well, lots came up empty with mesh bags, half my wife’s stocking drawer and a few other, often goofy ideas tried. One of my favourites was a dense mesh bag from my Lowe Pro backpack, but it was soo thick you could “feel” the lines in the image.

Below are a set using a white fine mesh fruit and veg shopping bag. Far too obvious, but the best so far. Maybe something black and 2/3rds the gauge would be fine.

Next I went back to an old (old) friend, the 25mm antique Pen 25mm at f2.8. This lens is pleasantly sharp at all apertures, but suffers from very strong veiling flare wide open. Below; a comparison at f4 then 2.8 then 2.8 slightly de-hazed. A great tool and probably the only soft filter I have seen that is actually reversible (the veiling haze cleans up well), so this very easy and natural technique will be included in my tool kit.

My next idea was to make my own black net, not with hair spray or paint etc, but an actual black grid drawn on a filter! Note; draw on the back so it does not smear.

The ink did not take, but for experimental purposes, it will do (maybe two filters with the ink between?). This looks like a few older black net filters we used to sell back in the day and I can add more lines if needed. Cokin did a nice set of very mild to quite strong ones (and could stack) and I remember at the time, against all my usual habits, quite liking the generous and subtle effect of the milder ones. To me the look of medium format was soft/smooth but clear and relatively grainless. These filters added that to 35mm.

First look and subtle (good), but there, as is maybe a little extra CA.

It really is subtle (un-filtered on the left), but I am after a filter that does a little when conditions suit and is otherwise effectively invisible. Really just something that changes lens character to gentler, more film like, not forces a specific “Netflix” look on the footage. The Bokeh and slight drop in contrast (right) are signs maybe something is happening, but hardly scientific processes.

I may go looking for the old Cokin style filters or make something more permanent (maybe some reinforced dooor mesh?). Maybe even a pen that writes on anything.

The other option is to go lens hunting. There are lots out there old and new, even ancient Helios 58mm’s found in the basement, just the other day!

Sound Choices

So far, and I am a long way from being an expert, I am happy with my sound choices.

Starting with the little Zoom H1n and Neewer and Boya mini shotgun mics, I found three, mighty for the money performers (the mistakenly purchased Rode Videomic micro helped bare this out, so I guess not all perfect choices).

I guess I could have stopped there with decent options for candid interviews and general shooting. Directionality is covered, as is wide area coverage and as these little dynamos have shown, they can within reason, get the job done.

The Zoom H5 lifted my interfacing options and added a bit of grunt, but as was, the H1n probably was enough.

The true strength of the H5 was opened with the purchase of the SSH-6 mid/side shotgun capsule, which, as long as you own an H5/6/8 is a great value, mid-pro shotgun with controllable left/right pickup.

So far each purchase, researched as they were, have been based only on reviews and heresay, but have been good choices and are relevant to my needs. A few top end sound techs recommend lower noise amps for genuine field recording (Zoom F6), but there are plenty of serious pros from many fields, who are more than happy with the H5 or similar, especially with the XY5 and SSH-6 capsules.

The next step, possibly one too far, but I am sure I will use them, are a pair of Lewitt 040 Match pencil condenser mics, which again, seem to be class leaders. Budget but well liked XLR cables have not let them down and the H5 offers good control for them from up to 20 metres away, so balance and relevance are well intact.

I have options, probably too many, but options.

Some repetition, but also depth, several problem solving paths and apart from XLR cables, it all fits in two small cases, brackets and all.

To fix possible issues I have not covered yet, I grabbed an excellent Boya LAV. These are good, cheap and reliable, but 20mtr cable connected. The H1n can be used as a separate recorder, making it effectively cordless.

So, what could be around the corner that may trip up a new recordist, especially when they are also trying to get the video side right?

Big choirs, bands, school concerts can hopefully all be handled by the H5 with SSH-6 and the condensers placed to suit. There is also the possibilty of interfacing with the schools sound gear. This is all a bit speculative, but I have no bar to reach, just turn up and don’t mess up. I am aiming to surprise, but should probably just be aiming to succeed, so having several otions and backups gives me confidence.

Group discussions, debates and team talks will be either handled by the H5 X/Y or the condensers used as left right side overheads/desk tops. I guess a pro outfit would run a mass of LAV’s, but that is above my pay grade and for my level of output, totally over the top (we have people).

Musical recitals, are surely the province of the condensers and SSH-6 or X/Y alone depending on instrument or ensemble. The Lewitts rate very highly for drum overhead and acoustic guitar mics, so why fight it.

Running around stuff will be either the H1n for area sound or as pre-amp for a mini shotgun. I have toyed with a better shotgun, but the SSH-6 is that unless size is an issue, then the minis are prefferred anyway. The reality is, distance to subject is the main quality consideration and plenty of good reviews have the little Neewer and the Boya/Movo neck and neck with many dearer mics if used well. It seems to be more of a matter of taste than of sheer quality.

The Boya and its dead kitten are great in the wind, the Neewer not as much, but the Neewer has argue-ably nicer, more open sound and better range for booming.

If I need better reach, I have options.

Whats In The Bag (Video)

Starting a new year, I am going to look at and share my kits (various), just to “think out loud”, but also to help others with ideas etc. When I was younger I used to love these, feverishly buying magazines or books just to get a glimpse, not only of someone else’s gear, but a little look into their life as a pro shooter.

Video first, just because it is the new shiny.

My video kit goes into a back pack so I can take a stills shoulder or heavy kit bag as well.

The big Neewer backpack I bought for sports has turned out to be oversized, so it has become my video kit bag and in a way my kit limiter. If it does not fit in here (unless lighting or stands etc), then it is not needed. It only just fits!

In the bag above are the 4 semi hard XCD brand cases, which have been invaluable. The camera fits minus monitor, but with all other rig attachments on. There are 3 prime lenses (17, 25 old, 45) and 3/5/7/10 stop ND filters for my 12-40 only (the primes are for low light or alternative looks).

The 2 smaller cases on the right go in the large outside pocket along with any other bits that fit.

Each case serves a task, so I can grab just what I need.

Clockwise from top left;

The Zoom H1n, Boya LAV and shotgun, Neewer shotgun, 10/3/1’ cables, shock mounts, mini phones, dead animals (various) and batteries etc.

Zoom H5 with XY and SSH-6 mics, dead cat, XLR to H1n cable, mounts batteries etc.

The Feelworld 759 7” monitor and mounts, hood, cables, batteries and counter weight.

The OSMO Pocket, various brackets, waterproof cover and 10’ phone connection cable. There is more to come here including a full body go-pro mount case.

The back pocket bags and XLR cables.

The top 2 small cases (originally for a game console), seen in the first image, hold my 2 Lewitt 040 match condenser mics and 176 LED light. Both are optional as one is my pointy end for sound solutions, the other a nice background light (or desperation measure). These fit with a third full case of tools etc in the back pocket of the backpack. A laptop and hard drive can also fit there, but will rarely be taken.

The cables go in my kit bag with light panels, stands etc, but are relevant to the Lewitts so I added them here. The cables are only needed with the H5 and Lewitts or other mics, so full on stuff.

The phones fit in as needed. I am happy I have good “cans”, but to be honest, the little sound blocking corded ones I started with are pretty good, so I will likely leave these for H5 and Lewitt use.

Not shown, because it varies and is a bit boring to shoot are the two LED panels (Neewer 660 bi-colour and 480 rgb), the stands I may need, tripod, slider and the boom pole and bracket.

Miracle Find

Scrounging around down in the basement, I came across something that made my day.

Lamenting selling off all my old glass before discovering the joys of video, including a mint Zenit with Helios 58mm f2, I consoled myself with a new found usefulness for my 1960’s 25mm half frame Pen lens.

In an old box of bits, not sure where or when I got it, I found among other things a nice condition Praktica camera with a screw mount Helios 58 f2. It is very old, like first series, but the aperture works, both with the clicky ring and the handy step-less one and it looks quite clear of haze.

$8.00 adapter ordered and away I go. Of course it is quite a long lens on M43 (120mm), but I have the shorter 25 and the character filled Oly 17 for wider again.

Bit of fun.

Final Control Layout For G9 Video

This is the final layout for the G9 for video (he says).

I am not going to go into the exhaustive touch screen or quality setting, just the “working” buttons that will be used always and during shooting.

Starting with the front buttons.

The top one is Peaking, the bottom switches Stabiliser mode from moving to lock.

The top panel.

The shutter button is the master Record.

The main wheel does Shutter (rarely touched).

The three buttons behind it, which cannot be changed, are as marked, but will rarely be used.

The record button is nearly impossible to reach which is good as it stops accidental recording.

The all important rear panel.

The top thumb dial is Aperture, which will be used regularly. I like how the cage covers it to reduce bumping.

AF/AE lock button is set to fast C-AF acquire when in MF on camera (not lens) for rare occasions I will use AF.

The nubbin below is for activating and controlling manual White Balance. This is one of the two key exposure controls and my favourite use for it.

Fn1 is the lossless digital Tele Converter.

The big master wheel around the menu button changes ISO, the other master exposure control.

Fn2 turns the Histogram on/off, something I like more with the big screen as it takes up so little space.

Display is left as that.

The Fn3 button assigned as a second Record button has been a revelation. With four contact points for the camera, being able to use either hand for recording is a real plus.

The main control dial is left on creative movie. I like to call that Custom-0. This is Natural colour, 1080p 25 frames 1/50th for my basic dump and run work needs. My standard Natural settings are -2 contrast, -5 sharpness, +0 NR and -2 colour.

C1 is Variable Frame Rate 160/50 frame for 33% slow-mo out of camera, again for work.

C2 is the same as C-0, but 4k. In 4k I shift my Natural settings to NR -2 and contrast -5 for grading.

C-3/1 is 4k 60/120 for slo-mo and movement.

C-3/2 is a slightly different set of 4k night shooting settings (more NR, less contrast)

C-3/3 is Cine-V 4k for creative projects and always subject to change.

It is important tome to get the important controls close to hand, single action and tactile. The touch screen is too small and poorly placed on my rig for fast use, so it’s a button or nothing. I reserve the touch screen for pre-shoot set-up controls, not on-the-go’s.

More Thoughts On Movement In Video

Looking at good film footage, I am more convinced than ever, that good still image framing is the best way to start a video clip. If you could honestly take a good still from your footage, then it will lift your videos a step above the average.

So framing and other basics like lighting make good practice.

Does this mean movements are irrelevant?

No, movement, when used well is a powerful tool. When over used or used badly or inappropriately, it reduces the strength of footage.

Movement in video, is generally best used when the subject is static. If the subject is moving, a static angle of view or at least one that is moving sympathetically with the subject if often best. Too much movement is on trend, but when you look at the best work out there, the really moving stuff, movement is balanced and restrained. It is invisible allowing the more important elements, light, subject, framing and atmosphere to shine through.

Which movements would I use and why?

The Pan (limited)

Panning is often over used and is also often too long and/or too fast. Technically, judder and flickering are often the result of overly fast panning (7 second for an object to travel from frame edge to frame edge is apparently the standard), so technically it is limiting. Going slow can also mean it goes too long. The other reality is, unless used as an establishing shot, it is often boring.

Panning from frame left to this would make a good entry shot, with the subject then entering from the tunnel.

Pans generally should be short, motivated* and interesting. They should be a seamless part of a sequence, not the hero shot and are often best used as an introduction to a subject. Following someone or something moving through the scene is often their best use, but remember, a still camera can serve a moving subject just as well.

This is a scene that could support panning, but I would prefer a still shot with the subject moving through or from back to front.

Pushing In (some)

A well respected way of increasing intimacy and character relevance, or cutting through the setting to the most important element, pushing in is a good movement, used sparingly. Even slight spiralling or angle changes work here and are for the most part invisible** to the viewer if done slowly enough.

Pulling Out (some)

The same as pushing in, but pulling out reduces character importance, introduces the environment as an equal or senior partner in the scene, so it can be used to change the mood of a scene. It is a good end scene tool. Again, if used sparingly and technically well, pulling out has its uses and feels natural.

If you push in on this man, tension is heightened, intimacy is increased and a feeling of entering his story, his current state comes through. If you pull back, it is a leaving statement, placing the man back into his environment, increasing the feeling of loneliness and detachment.

Arching Around (often)

This is where the main subject stays relatively central, but the camera moves around them. I like arching. It can be pushed pretty hard, sometimes completely circling the subject(s) changing their perspective, but generally is best used for changing the background relative to the subject or following them through the scene. This seems to be used commonly with modern sliders to create more dynamic B-roll at interviews, but too much can be irritating.

Remember with all movements, the stopping point is short of audience over-awareness.

I can see myself being drawn to scenes like this with arching or dolly moves (OSMO hand held).

Slider Move (some)

This is when the camera moves across the frame, generally without the subject moving with it. This is a great move for school or work environments along with pushing/pulling. The OSMO or my simple mechanical slider will get a bit of work here.

Trucking (some)

Trucking is the same as above, but moving paralell to the subject. Trucking is a very natural looking movement and powerful, but hard to pull off. Gimbals can be used, but top notch results usually involve a rail or wheeled camera rig. My OSMO will be the one option here unless the obvious hand held look is wanted.

Who to follow? This would have been a dynamic scene following one person as others move through the frame.

Tracking or Following (some)

Tracking follows the subject as they move through their environment. It should therefore always be motivated*. Again, like trucking, it is a good solid movement and a good balance between creativity and process invisibility. This and Trucking are movements that lend themselves to extended scenes. OSMO time again for me.

Tracking/trucking/arching subject nirvana.

Focus Shifts (regularly)

Focus shifts are good for natural establishing shots or drifting through a scene. When used as part of a more aggressive movement, they add an element of uncontrolled immersion, chaos even. This is a decent way to start or finish a story.

Hand Held Random (some)

The currently well established trend of semi-gimballed movement is fine for what it is and can be the only real way of capturing the right mood and feel of a story, but personally I see far too much “loose” movement as an ends in itself. Documentary style or high action are ideal here, but too much can be gimmicky. I doubt I can avoid it, but intend to keep it controlled and limited.

If done well, hand holding gives the viewer a feeling of being there in person, but if not controlled, it is distracting..

Zooming (never)

Noooooo! Ok, too much, but no movement telegraphs “process” more than zooming. Zooming is not something a human eye can do, so it never looks natural. Few can pull it off, and often only after establishing a “breaking the fourth wall” vibe in their films, but unless you are a Tarantino or Wes Anderson aspirant, probably best avoid this one. Moving in/out and zooming can be really effective, but beoyond my skill set.

Dolly Move (very rarely)

The true Dolly move is a move and zoom going in opposite directions to keep the subject the same size. It looks cool and for some reason is more acceptable than just zooming, but it is tricky and needs the right gear so probably out of my league at the moment.

Overhead and Booming (often)

Overheads are more an angle than a movement, but are part of the booming move. Basically booming is arching or tracking/trucking using an up/down move rather than side to side. The OSMO was bought with this in mind and I will use it as able. One of the great strengths of the OSMO is its ability to be a Dolly, Boom or Gimbal rig all on its own, something that often costs thousands and looks very pro when done well.

Of course the best of creativity often comes from the breaking rules, but be careful. Rule breaking can go both ways.

*

The importance of slo-motion cannot be overstated when it comes to movements. Apart from making movements smoother, slo-mo can also help justify a movement. The slower delivery helps the viewer take in the changing scene and somehow makes the movement seem more natural*** and poignant. You do lose sound, but this is a perfect time to add a fitting sound track, narration or simply silence.

*

*Motivated (I like to call it “Justified”) movement is the same as motivated lighting or sound. It literally means making the move/light/sound a natural, logical part of the scene. People should move from somewhere, to somewhere, just as light and sound should come from a natural source (even if given a little help).

**One of the most important things a film maker must decide on is the balance they want to strike for their techniques being visible or invisible to their audience. Breaking “the fourth wall” is a big choice and can define the films mood and story relevance. If you want to keep the process invisible, generally aggressive, unnatural or ungainly movements should be avoided.

***Slo-motion is the one exception where process helps to make movements look more natural without breaking the illusion of viewer detachment.

Thoughts On Movements In Cinematography And Style

I started my video journey to a better kit, unhappy with my results from one of my very first shoots last year, with a strong emphasis on controlling movement. I was obsessed with panning, dolly moves, spirals to Dutch angles, Atlanta moves, steady cam look, indeed anything that allowed for a move to add structure to my movie making.

The push to perfect movement came from several directions.

We have traditionally used a lot movement for the schools in-house video in an attempt to………..follow the leader maybe?

When researching gimbals etc, you are saturated with tons of smooth glides and in-out transitions, so it becomes normalised.

So I thought I needed to as well.

Really, I am not sure which was the strongest push, but pushed I was.

My instinct when asked in my pre-video awareness period, was to advise people to keep things simple. If asked at the camera shop (rare as most of the other staff were videographers) my idvice was to stick to one thing at a time. Zoom, focus shift, move, pan? Sure, why not, but surely one only at a time. Anything more is trite, difficult to pull off and heroes the process over the subject. How quickly I forgot my own advice, naive as it was.

I have switched from videos on gimbal technique and slider use to studying the work of many of the top film makers of the past and present. I have watched countless videos on their techniques with examples of the best cinema has to offer and I have discovered that less is most definitely more when it comes to movement both in frame and of the frame.

“And…action”. Isn’t all still imaging simply a single frame of a story? The drama and tension of a still image is directly related to its place in the moving world and a single frames interpretation of it, played against your awareness of the time just before and just after.

The most moving and dramatic scenes in movie history, rarely come down to cinematography tricks, just good technique. They are almost always the very best processes wedded to strong vision, then executed with restraint and skill.

“Reservoir Dogs” Osaka style. Movement is strongly inferred, so adding it would be seamless. The main effect would be to lose this frozen moment in time, but each version has its merits.

Steve McQueen (not the actor) is one example of a film maker who can hold you spellbound for over three minutes with nothing but a struggling, hanging man.

As a still this could be used for a title sequence. As moving stock, it can hold tension and allow a voice-over to be emphasised or with a subtle movement, transition into another scene.

The thing that has hit home like a big nerf bat of happiness, is that the best of still imaging and the best of cinematography, have a lot in common.

It occurs to me that I would likely frame this identically as part of a film (just in 16:9).

Mise en scene or the art of “setting the scene” is in effect the same as composition of a still image, but with the anticipation of movement within its boundaries. For me personally, this realisation has flipped video from a monster so different to the comfort zone of my years of stills experience, to an old friend wearing different clothes.

I need to start thinking like a stills shooter more. If an image makes a compelling still, it is surely also the foundation of a decent moving scene.

Everyone, when starting a new creative endeavour, needs to find their voice. I hope that mine when it comes to video, grows from my long love of still photography, laying a strong base for my new found love.

So, revisiting the pre-amble, I for one see no need to add extra movement into a scene when it is not needed. One thing that movement does, that can be subtle or not, is make the viewer aware of the process. When done well, this can be brilliant (Tarantino, Wes Anderson). When done poorly, it rarely adds anything good to the experience. A bit like super wide angle or telephoto lenses in photography, over using extreme processes can be obvious, tedious, even damaging to your end result.

More Evolutions (Revolutions !?)

So, I think I prefer the 1446b handle on the cage.

My main issue with it was simply a practical one. I could not fit it in my bag without dis-assembly and that was difficult with a screw mounted one. The 2094c could simple unscrew and slide off the cold-shoe mount, the 1446b needed a key and more fiddling time, but when on it is better balanced with the monitor*, lower in profile (due in part to the cold shoe adapter the 2094 needs) and more comfortable.

Turns out I can actually fit it in the big backpack I have assigned to video duties. Its extra height is impact protected by the small, semi-rigid cases I use for my mics etc (big post coming about all my current kit(s) when I have everything sorted out).

This handle has the best dynamic with a monitor.

The 2905 basic tilt head slips into the same cold shoe adapter the 2094c would have used, but is mounted on the front of the 1446b handle and low. This puts the monitor itself low and forward, where I prefer it (picture coming when I have everything together). On the 2094 it was angled, higher and closer to the hand.

My main issue with the 2094 as bought was the weight it was expected to take through the hot-shoe of the G9 camera with zoom lens on etc. I got the serious jitters with 1kg+ being taken through that mount.

The cage that solved that issue then opened the door to monitors, big mics etc, so all good, but the 2094c was a bit off for that rig. The 1446b fits it more securely and without any a-into-b-into-c shenanigans and has better balance. The main benefit was quick removal.

So, what do I do with the second most expensive single item I have for my video cage setup?

I tried it on the EM1 mk2 as a possible B or C camera when the 26mm on the OSMO is not ideal or it is already being used.

The EM1, especially with a small prime, is light as a feather compared to the G9. I have no fear of using this kit like this and the handle adds cold shoe options for rigging it up. Taking into account the much lower work load this camera will have for video, I am happy with the combo.

The EM1 has great 4k, the better stabiliser and different contrast and colour, but is limited to 4k for best quality (even if down sampled to 1080) and not ideally set up for video shooting. There is always a call for more options and angles on a big job. Matched to the ancient 25mm Pen lens, it has genuinely antique looking colour.

Having said that though, just a short play with it reminded me why I bought the G9. Apart from better OOC 1080p and more 4k options, the G9 has quickly become second nature to me for video. The ability to set any feature to any button (well 95%), then assign them to 5 custom settings, makes the G9 ideal.

*Balance is not something many talk about when rigging up their cameras, but I feel it is important. I have several weights left over from my Gimbal, so I have screwed one into the base of the cage (left side), which balances out the camera left/right and can add one to the rear of the 1446b handle helping front/back. The handle is long enough to take it without it getting in the way and the slight back heavy balance then evens up the monitor at the other end. I can rest the whole rig on my pointer finger with near perfect balance. It is heavy, but that is desirable with hand holding (and nothing like the weight of many pro cameras). If I switch to any of the primes, the weight comes off and things stay centred.

Some More Evolutions.

My handle of choice for my rig is the 2094c, because I need to be able to remove it quickly for transporting.The 1446b is comfortable and neat, but a little long and being a screw-in model, too hard to remove. The 2094c also has an angled Arri connection point for a cold shoe mount (ordered) or a safety cold shoe foot itself, which will in turn take my 2905 tilt monitor head (ordered).

The cold shoe mount is also being upgraded to a two screw safety lock model, just for the added sense of security (ordered). I had already ordered the two screw basic version, which I will find a use somewhere I am sure.

The mini magic arms and ball heads will be reserved for other uses. The 2905 tilt head has been ordered to do the job right (mainly it allows for one handed operation).

The other change is a proper re-assigning of the White Balance function to the toggle switch on the G9 (it was originally assigned to switching the top dial functions to WB, but that was double handling).

I cannot explain why I made this so hard, but on revisiting my settings with some more focussed purpose, I have assigned WB to the toggle as the push-in function (you need to assign Fn to the toggle first), then it instantly allows you the maximum range of WB controls.

This means;

• WB is on the toggle (WB is critical to image look),

• ISO is on the main rear dial (main exposure control),

• Aperture is on the rear top dial (secondary exposure and main depth of field control),

• Shutter is on the front top dial (rarely used, but cannot be turned off)*,

• Peaking is on the upper front function button (set to blue and on most of the time-looks good own the bigger screen)*,

• Stabiliser lock is on the lower front function button (toggling between active and locked is often necessary)*,

• Tele-converter is on the upper rear Fn1 button (free zoom),

• Record is on the main shutter button and the Fn3 button, top left rear (for left/right handed actuation),

• Histogram is on Fn2 (my main exposure control and so much more useful on the bigger, less crowded screen).

These are all the important “on the go” settings, with all others like Zebras etc, on the less easily reached buttons or touch screen.

I used my Olympus stills cameras for a job the other day and any fears or forgetting how to use them after a longish period immersed in G9 video settings were unfounded. After a few minutes shedding my “rust”, old habits kicked in. Hopefully this will extend back again to the G9, with a “different hat” dynamic taking over when I switch.

*The cage actually makes these and the three buttons on the top harder to bump which helps a lot.

Attitudes Change With Circumstances

I am a RAW shooter. For stills shooting I have often longed for the neat simplicity of a jpeg work flow and nearly achieved one with Fuji cameras, but at the end of the day, the latitude, creative freedom and safety of RAW has always won out.

My images are processed to have a distinctive (and evolving) look, as any long term photographer will develop and that look is based on my processing work flow more than any other factor.

It is absolutely possible to get the image you want in jpeg mode, but when the subject is tricky and the end result requires some caressing, then RAW is the logical starting point and it is easily available to all of us. This image is influenced as much by Lightroom, my programme of choice at the time, as any other factor.

In video though, I intend to be the equivalent of a jpeg shooter, predominantly using the Natural colour profile, with modified settings* on my G9.

There are several reasons for this;.

Video requires more attention pre-shoot. This must be done, so control at capture becomes the mantra and is the main reason I have a dedicated video camera rig. My needs for video are so very different to my stills processes. Consistency is key, not image by image manipulation. This means that with only a little extra effort, most things can be signed off on, then processing is a matter of story creation, not applying needed fixes or aggressive creative changes.

The RAW-like options in most pro-sumer video cameras are only a shadow of the capabilities of true RAW for stills. The best I can potentially do is V-LOG-L which is still not RAW and requires a paid firmware update, otherwise I have the relatively new Cinelike-D, or twitchy and needy HLG, which are only semi Log styles. V-LOG, like many other LOG or semi Log formats is a saturation/contrast reduced look that can take aggressive processing, but also needs consideration at capture and has restrictive software needs, but it is still not RAW. It does however have RAW’s reality of needing to be processed, so shooting V-LOG, Cine-D or any other LOG like format is a liability if you are not skilled in processing them.

With RAW I predominantly fix straightening, cropping, exposure, contrast and colour in my stills, but these should all be already fairly controlled in video, so the effort required to process LOG files is mostly unwarranted for me (at this point).

I am a content creator for my employer not a movie maker. My workflow is not going to allow extended processing times. I may sometimes have to shoot and drop the SD card directly to my boss for immediate use. I need to give them something that is close to done, to reduce the need for on the go fixes while they are making the footage into something useful, often same day. I need to be consistent and predictable.

Natural or the punchier and more distinctive Cine-V on the Panas are pretty much where I want to get and they still provide a little processing room for my own projects. When researching the G9 (or any Panasonic), I was amazed how many serious shooters are more than happy with these “baked in” colour styles for their client, or even their own work. Olympus on the other hand has less of a following for anything pre-set, with only a FLAT profile to extract better results.

By comparison, Jpegs in still photography are rarely close to my ideal.

Lastly, there is something very cool and satisfying about getting the job done and “in the can” as a single process. It feels very “directory” or something.

*For most jobs, I will used -3 Contrast and Sharpness, -0 Noise Reduction and Saturation, switching to -5/-2 for more hard core work when processing will be assumed.

Rig Assembly Started

Lots of little things to come, but the main cage arrived today and I bought an HDMI cable, allowing me to test my theories.

The Cage fits! This should not be in doubt, but I had read a few reviews on the older Niceyrig GH5 cage, that said you needed to shave a little off or wiggle and force it. The newer cage says clearly G9 as well, so I assumed (hoped) they had slightly modified it and after a little gentle caressing it fits like a real one :).

You have to make sure the camera is pushed fully to the front, or the cage top depresses the WB button, but once you have it properly seated everything feels nice and secure.

Top handle.

I started with the 1446b handle as I only have one cold shoe adapter and I need that at the moment for the monitor (all to be fixed soon). Good fit, well balanced and comfortable. The only issue is it will not fit in my bag, which at the moment just takes the whole kit.

Since the images taken for the side handle examples (see photos below), I have switched to the 2094c, which gives me a quick release option for packing down quickly and centres the handle better. I did mistakenly buy the single screw cold shoe plate, which twists occasionally, but have a double coming.

What about the 1446b? It was super cheap anyway, but may still come in handy when a longer, more securely screw mounted or soft handle is needed for long jobs (or the 2094c is needed for another camera). An alternate use for the 2094c is for accessories, mounted on a side cold shoe plate, so maybe a second handle for monitor mounting in the middle would also help.

The final set-up. A quick twist and the top handle can be removed and packed away.

Side Handle.

My alternative take on side handles (2821 mini top handle) has works with only one small issue. The HDMI cable I have is a straight out one with a thick reinforced cable, so the handle blocks it from going in (without taking the handle off), but again, bits coming to fix that (angled HDMI adapters). Alternately, I could just fix it at right angles, which would likely be fine (is, but not as comfortable). Alternatively the Smallrig ultra thin HDMI cable will fix all these issues. The angled HDMI adapters may also help with fitting the cable, leaving them in as the mounting point and holding back the cantankerous rubber flap and protecting the connections from damage.

Otherwise all is good.

(Thanks to my lovely assistant); The little side handle allows for behind, below or above support while staying small enough to stay out of the way and it allows cables etc to do their thing unobstructed (when they fit that is). It also (not pictured) rests on the forearm when focusing, giving you a support point independent of the lens. This setup is especially comfortable when panning from the waist or if held from above.

Handily it also gives me a handle to grab when getting the rig out of the snug bag compartment.

Other Stuff.

I have added a gimbal weight to the left under side, next to the tripod plate, which balances the kit perfectly and gives just enough extra dead weight to help feel stable. The two also provide a balanced base for the now front heavy rig when I put it down.

There is a soft hand strap coming so the whole thing can rest better on my right hand and the HDMI phone adapter to try, meaning undoubtedly more ideas to come.

The monitor, which sits well enough now, should settle better with the little magic arms and cable adapters.

So a quick summary;

• Monitor; Win

• Cage; Win

• Handles; Win with options

• Cables etc; Work in progress.

More Good Stuff

The Monitor (Feelworld FW 759) arrived today.

Initial impressions (I do not have the right cable for it yet);

Smaller than I had imagined, which is good. In my head it was getting bigger and bigger, in reality it is only slightly bigger than my bigger than average phone.

Mini ipad, Monitor, A12 Samsung phone. It is the lightest of the three, coming in under the iPad with a 550 battery.

It feels fine. I was expecting plastic and I got it, but it is not bad feeling. The buttons are “clicky”, but seem solid enough.

The screen itself is bright and clear. For future reference, no screen shown on another screen is done any justice. On the standard setting it is fine, on vivid it is super crispy and for possibly better reference, the mild setting is semi soft.

It comes with a protector/slim hood (pictured) and a velcro on deep hood, a ball head identical to the Smallrig base model and a HDMI-C to mini HDMI cable, which unfortunately is too small for the Pana and too big for the Olympus cameras, so I am yet to see it in action.

For mounting, I have ordered a couple of the Smallrig 2163 mini magic arms. For less than $10 each, these hold 1kg or more and have good movement options. The ball head thing was ok, but worked best from a cold shoe. I think I would prefer the screen at an angle coming out from the front of my handle(s), not sticking up from the top. We will see.

Enter The Third

I arrived home today to the smallest of Smallrig handles, the 2821 mini top handle.

This one will hopefully be the side handle for my cage. The Niceyrig has a double row of off-set 1/4” holes on the left side of the Pana cage, so my plan is to mount this handle in the normal orientation, but angled slightly down on the back end to make a very handy, but small profile side handle-bar usable from any angle* and rest it on my wrist while focussing. Sans camera, it feels very nice.

I have avoided a standard side handle, because they are really only good for holding to the front, not low or high.

The whole foot is a floating 35mm long screw chamber, so finding suitable holes should not be an issue. if the angle does not work, I will mount it at right angles which will push it forward slightly.

Dwarfed by the current favourite for top handle duties the 1446b, the tiny 2821 seems almost pointless, but it comfortably fits my larger than average hands and is strong enough to take the weight of the whole rig when changing grips etc. The 1446b has one of the better ball heads mounted for screen duties.

The mounting point of this little handle is centred enough so the handle should not interfere with screen operation (ed. It does a little), but I have options on the cage, so I can be flexible here. The rear of the handle is actually closer to the centre than the front.

All just fairly pointless speculation at this point until the cage comes, but feeling good so far :).

*The idea is to have two contact points at all times.

1. Top handle and side from above.

2. Main and side handle/lens from behind or below.

3. Top and main handle from above.