Seeing Sense, Hearing The Call

My mic journey was fun.

It did not cost a packet, I learned a lot and have certainly upped my game sound wise.

A year after the big buy and several years after getting into video, I am facing the reality that I will not be using it all.

A couple of factors.

The two schools I deal with are well equipped and I do not deal with anyone else really at the band or orchestra level.

My end product is video, so I appreciate good sound, but only need so much.

The three SeV dynamic mics and the Prodipe Pro-Lanen are going I think (might keep the Pro-Lanen). I have not used one of them, cannot see a time I will and the Lewitt sextet cover all I would need.

Even when I did some audio recordings recently, I ended up using a shotgun.

This is where they need to be.

The Lewitts are a matched pair of 040 Match short/small condensers, a pair of LCT 240 medium condensers and a pair of 440 dynamic instrument mics. I can do either a single person or duo/trio with any conceivable instrument combination, in an intimate recording (could still happen), but for anything else I would go room wide, so an RCA tree, A/B, X/Y, figure of 8, with maybe a high/low pairing would be used from a central location, but any more is too much.

The Zoom H8 can handle 6 lines as is, and I will have 6 lines. The only thing I could see them being used for is for a panel podcast and that is still possible, but unlikely and if so, I could simply buy some more $15 Boya LAV’s or do the room.

So, my sound recording levels are;

  • On camera shotgun, usually the MKE-400 for its handiness.

  • LAV to camera, either wireless Lark M1’s or wired to camera or recorder.

  • Placed shotgun (wireless or not) which includes mid-side Zoom, MKE 600.

This is normal, now for what I offer above this;

  • Room cover several ways with the Lewitts.

  • Podcast or audio recording.

  • Instrument/vocalist proximity close mics again with the Lewitts, but matched to the job.

Hoping to gift the Se’s to a charity or burgeoning musician.

Because Nobody Else Has To Like It

Why do something one way, when the general consensus is to do it another?

People who would change the world tend to do things at odds with the norm, otherwise they would, well…. be the norm and nothing would change.

If you want to do something and feel it is right, but have doubts, then you should face the doubts and doubters head on. Want to give something away when others tell you never give anything away that can be sold? Want to do something better, longer or deeper than the minimum required?

Your choice, your path, your reasons.

If you want to do something not to the mainstream way of thinking, but you came to that thinking after experimentation, used your own eyes and followed your gut, then keep following that gut feeling, let it rule. It is meant to win sometimes.

Trends tend to be powerful things, it’s what they do, just ask any marketing guru.

Following trends has it’s perils.

If you do, you may become blind to other options, options that may have been trends themselves if they were first or better driven.

Life can be confusing and everyone has an opinion.

If you reject them, then you fall out of step and have to hope that over time, your purer pathway will stand up as well or better than the oft forgotten fashion blip.

There are people out there doing their work regardless of, even in spite of, the latest hot thing. They are the people revealed when a trend re-visits their space. They are there, quietly doing their trade and when that fad dies again, as it always will, they will continue.

It is easy to accuse some people committed to thier chosen task of being unable to change or “go with the times”, but sometimes, a thing or idea is in need of a champion, it needs to exist.

What tends to make them stick to their guns is substance.

Substance always trumps gimmicks, genuine people overcome poor idols, reality and truth defeats the best fabrication, it just sometimes needs a special type of person to see that and hold their course.

Hold your course.

Time will come.


Video Work Flow Realities.

There are a lot of influencers out there, many of them know what they are talking about, some not, but unfortunately think they do which is made even more unfortunate as the video industry in particular is full of variables and opinions, each with their own raft of technical needs, creative constraints, fans and detractors.

As a stills shooter over many years I am starting to see the cracks as a new video generation, as they are often learning from each other, copying, making the same mistakes over and over (applying LUT’s to stills, using incorrect terminology etc), but it took me a while to be confident enough with video to start recognising these as mistakes.

What profile do you use, Log/HLG/Cine-D, colour depth, do you grade with or without LUT’s and when in the process, do you match cameras, filtering, lighting, camera technique? These all have their space, but what if you just want to get good footage out quickly and consistently with enough room to fix those things that will inevitably bite you?

Considering the end point, which is likely Youtube or a web site, the time it takes to consistently process the mix of elements involved, sometimes just getting the front end right fixes a lot of later steps.

I recently put together a video from several parts made with three brands of camera and graphic elements. What made it easy for me and something I learned from this was the Canon footage was processed either in camera of after, but either way, it was nice and easy to work with, bright, natural and colourful, finished basically. My own footage shot on Flat profile was less beautiful OOC, so I had to match what I was given.

Heresy I know, but what if the nay-sayers like Markuspix are right and the end is the only justification of the means. Maybe good work can be had without employing a LOG profile.

My issues with V-log are many.

It is a pain to expose for, needs special treatment in camera and/or after and at the end of the day, tends to be noisier due to it’s highlight tuning, it usually looks to me like a faux filmic, murky, overly warm-toned facsimile of genuine professional cine-video, but that may be processing.

We see a lot of it, we accept it, it is what it is, but I feel that either we don’t know how to get it to where it needs, have become normalised to it’s look, or by it’s very nature cannot get it there at all. Why is it a camera on Standard mode with no changes looks right to me, when graded LOG footage often looks stylistic and odd?

What you gain in the case of the S5’s is 14 stops of dynamic range, which is better measurably than say the 10-12 stops in other profiles, but not nearly enough to fix the unfixable. There are at least 5 more stops that have to be either avoided, mitigated in some way with lighting or angle or just lived with.

A bit like how sound makes or breaks a video, blown highlights can kill one to, so basically concentrate on what highlight detail you need or want, then let the rest fall where it may. This may mean almost black shadows, but they are way more acceptable than blown highlights, just look at some of the latest movies, which are full of bottomless black.

HLG, Flat and Cine-D are “lite” versions of LOG, giving you a small boost in DR, with a much smaller work load after, but still need processing.

After a lot of research over several years and my own meagre experiences, it seems that Standard or Natural profiles on a Panasonic camera, even an old G9 mk1 can give me all the quality that I or my clients need, but there are other considerations.

The file below was one of the first I shot on Standard profile. I was using modified Natural on a G9.1 (-5 Contrast/sharpness/colour), but was struggling with highlight muddiness I have been seeing from a lot of graded LOG footage. I realised afterwards that the same people recommending this came from the LOG camp.

Out of desperation I switched to Standard, no other changes and lo-and-behold, clean, crisp, neutral and punchy files were produced, good enough to lift straight off as stills (without the running bar). Shadows may be lost, but if you expose for them, highlights are retained, just don’t go looking for hellish scenarios.

The very cool thing about the G9 is the 10bit/422 colour depth out of camera, something other makers reserve for several levels up. This was even available in 4k/60 for ten minute clips.

My videos matched my stills (from RAW), my stills matched my video and my videos, as long as I got white balance roughly right, matched each other. I could turn around a 2 minute video with several elements in one hour from shoot to upload and do my stills processing while it uploaded.

The trick was simply to make sure the histogram (no wave form on the old G9.1 without the paid upgrade), was just within the highlight range and I could often eye-ball that. If that meant deep blacks, then so be it.

I will use everything I can to make sure the footage is otherwise the best quality it can be, so I always use 10 bit/422 colour, something Panasonic pioneered in hybrid cameras and still offers at the lowest price point, my best sound possible and my best technique.

Other tricks.

Panasonic offers i-dynamic range and separate shadow/highlight control that can be combined. These are designed for standard profiles and can be used for stills or video. They can significantly increase DR as long as don’t over stress them to avoid that HDR look.

This is not HDR, it is DR expansion. This is one of the advantages of over three decades of engineers trying to get jpegs right, which by its very nature has spilled over to the video equivalent.

This also looks cleaner and more natural than doing it in post (not to mention easier) and all the other benefits of base profiles are retained like improved noise control, colour and contrast.

Filtering.

A soft focus filter like a Black Mist takes the edge off of strong highlights. The look and stronger is very in at the moment, but it will pass, so keep your footage timeless, but avoiding overdoing it.

Lighting.

If you want nice videos in controlled or semi controlled situations, you will likely use lighting, so many problems are solved. Even a simple reflector makes a huge difference. Often when looking at video comparisons of different video profiles, the subject is put into a horror situation like backlit against a washed out sky.

Here is the thing, and this goes for all such tests, any decent cinematographer will avoid that automatically, because it looks like s%#t, so basically they are measuring what will happen when you stuff up to see if the camera will save you.

Like a lot of things in life, don’t do it badly and the bad bit goes away.

Sound.

Poor sound has killed a lot of decent footage, but superior sound gives it a boost.

*

The advantages of this process are speed and consistency, the only down side is are all the attention needs to be paid at the business end. The reality is, even if I was using LOG, I would be manually setting white balance, exposure and having to allow for the needs of the profile all while attending to light, camera angle, sound etc.

I would also be working in an unfamiliar space, something that flies in the face of 30+ years of stills experience and for what?

If I need a get-out-of jail card, I have likely stuffed up more than the extra 1-2 stops Log can save and still struggle with the end results anyway.

My growth path is now re-aligned mostly to the capture end, where I want to be anyway, less to processing.

The huge advantage of this is the availability of 5 matched cameras*.

The only variation on my mind is the possible use of Flat profile for trickier situations, but I will look at the DR thing first.

I am a stills shooter with a passion for producing decent commercial video on the occasions it is needed. If that changes, I will change as needed.

*2x G9.1, G9.2, S5.1, S5.2

The Future Is Now

Nothing is ever certain, a good thing to remember.

Even better is the reality you make your own future through the choices you take, the preparations you make.

I have been in a photographic funk lately. Little work from the schools (holidays), little else, with winter and the usual mid-year lull, no personal goals to reach and a little scar tissue still from my time at the paper.

All journeys have a habit of ending up where they began.

The longer I am away from the paper the happier I am I have removed myself from that basic and slanted dynamic, but of course it is human nature to dwell on the good now the bad is gone (we never remember the annoying summer heat, flies and mosquitoes in winter’s cold, that’s human).

My forced break of three weeks has refreshed me, maybe even woken me up a little.

Two brothers with hopefully long futures ahead. Who will they be in twenty, forty or sixty years?

This year has been one of questioning myself, my methods, my ideals. Last year I gave as much as I could, this year I have felt more reserved, maybe a little generosity shy. That needs to change, but I am a great believer that things will come if you are open to them and don’t push too hard against the flow.

It could be the people I have been hanging around, some of whom have a very different life view, or it maybe just a phase, but my “play it by ear and see what comes” attitude of recent years has become more “why?”. I need to open that mind back up, be more me, more generous of spirit. Let the naivety back in and drop the question on the end of every sentence, for my own good as much as for others.

Life is good for me, but not for everyone and I need to remember that.

Be yourself, but think of others, always.



Some Light

Sometimes you do something contrary to the usual.

To be honest street photography is that thing for me at the moment, odd to say but true. Street is the only genre I do for me and the thought of moving from it means in many ways, moving on from photography as anything but a job.

Is it still then a job?

A single trip to Japan last year probably the confirmation, that my street shooting days seemed over.

More specifically though, my street shooting when I do it is usually on the move.

The other style, that of letting the subjects come to a space, a little like a patient spider on a suitably photogenic web, is more likely to get you something predictable but a luxury that is so alien to me, I can literally count my opportunities on the fingers of both hands.

Waiting for Meg at the Eastern end of the Mall in Melbourne, I was attracted to a strong point of reflected light (my favourite light) coming from a building at the opposite end.

The building is the top of the one at the end of the street.

A flat moment looking away from it, but one of only few.

The newer traffic was interesting in its normality, but just my type of thing. The two poles were used to split the frame.

Now from the same spot, looking back into the light.

Light is all. The images are just what they are, regular people being themselves, the light provides the brilliance, drama and clarity.

Some Street Therapy

Street photography has been something I felt was on the wane, realistically a dead duck actually.

The balancing act that is exciting exploration vs intrusion and a feeling of stepping over the line of decency has been leaning heavily on the cautious end for me. Street photography has become more “random scenes maybe with people in them”.

A short hop to Melbourne though may have shifted that feeling.

In Japan I felt very much like I was crossing a line, something that on one hand surprised me, but also, maybe not so much. My tastes have been changing, the people of Japan rediscovering their love of respect and privacy.

Light it seems is the key.

Gorgeous, intriguing, generous light.


And This While We Are At It.

Tin House Studio again with this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5eB-Xwmik

and this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDV-i7l0M-c

Don’t like surfing off another’s wave, but I totally agree and admit to being guilty, guilty, guilty!

I am probably mid-youtuber influenced with video, but also find (as has been written before), that the use of misinformation is rife and a danger in real terms. If misconceptions are accepted, they are only relevant within the circle of acceptance.

Terminology, trends, actual technical information are all tainted by poor understanding by a presenter. I have been doing this (stills) for a long time and the bulk of my information came from trusted and accurate sources*, so I am happy to share my thoughts and skills, confident I will “do no harm”.

Video opened up my eyes to the reality that, thanks to the old school cameramen being few and far between and probably out of the loop anyway, a raft of learn-as-you-go, think you know enough to share, then share, then realise you were off track, so do a follow up video, not admitting fault, just sharing “new learnings”, while sticking to the same bad terminology and ideas people, are running things.

Grains of salt.

Why is it, I listen to what they say and often dislike what I see and worse than that, it contradicts what I do see on TV and in the movies? Dull, wishy-washy muted tones, odd colours, an unrealistic vibe, too much “mist”. Cinematic or just a reaction to trends based on not knowing any better?

It is a worry when you want to learn something, but don’t trust the majority of the sources you are encountering. I would go to university if I needed to, but I live in hope there are other routes.

Traditional wisdom when using the G9 Mk1 was Natural profile at -5 everything. I tried it and had mixed success, so in frustration I switched to Standard, no changes and lo-and-behold, my footage just looked how I wanted, basically like a still image. Dynamic range may be down, so I simply avoided unwanted highlight blowout (not afraid of inky blacks) and situations that would bite me (just like the top cinematographers do every day).

I have found that YouTube info is good, but it must only ever be a start to your own thought processes, not the beginning, middle and end without question.

I shoot Panasonic, not Sony, in Flat or Standard, with camera to eye, without a gimbal, usually without even a screen, which all flies in the face of most common wisdom, but it works for me.

My Voice From Me, Your Voice From You And Other Stuff From Someone Else

Finding your voice.

Tin House Studios videos are a favourite. I like the guy (Scott), like his honesty and tone. Some really hit home more than others.

This one on finding your voice;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrtVV7gX0sQ

and this one about being you, really you;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczXJBSBP4Y

Answers to questions posed are tough, tougher than they should be seeing as the answers are known only to you.

The first one, which is to identify who you really are, what are your influences and what created the shape of your imaging “brain”, seems like many other “find yourself” vlogs, but it is deeper.

My influences are from mid to later twentieth century photographers, most American, although most of those were European refugees and immigrants, fleeing World War 2 or later.

My love is for the lyrical and simple landscape, especially details (Adams, Sexton, John Shaw), for emotive and interesting light, the sort most early colour shooters used (Haas, Leiter) were forced to use, or later period National Geographic style shooters (Sam Abell etc) chose to.

This ties into where I live, a place of surpassing beauty, cold temperate light and clarity, but I also dreamed of other places.

Quiet images, clean, powerful, stereotype resistant (usually by preceding the stereotype), mono or colour, any format but generally subdued, gentle.

For video, I was an early sucker for Ken Burns documentaries and epic movies, but I guess that is anyone over 40.

The second one is easier.

Things that make me unhappy and force me into stress cycles before (more controlled anxiety these days) and recovery mode after completion are:

  • Controlling adults for environmental posed portraits, especially if the end result is not to my liking (the paper) and under pressure. This includes weddings, non studio portrait sittings, environmental portraits with limited scope. The other togs at the paper did this zombie-like, but I just could not, not care. I thought having help would help, but it does not.

  • Still life, which ironically is the happy place for the inspiration of this post above. No time for this. I cannot even get a consistent lens or camera test setup. My subject needs action, movement and above all it’s own free will or I am bored, frustrated and pretty ordinary overall.

  • Old fashioned landscapes, astro etc even though I started there and know it like the back of my hand. If I am going to do landscapes etc, they are “on the fly”, which modern cameras empower or possibly extreme long exposures in mono and concentrate on details, not “big sky” shots.

  • Street shooting. This one is tough, because I thought I loved this, but I miss-identified it. I love randomly found compositions of things natural and man made with extraordinary light (see above), not human-centric confrontational street shooting in the original sense.

  • Distractions, which apply to all these above and below. I hate working with the knowledge I need to caption (take names) which always breaks my engagement, or to be under the purview of a “creative director” which is more often than not just a person with an opinion, their own stresses and a need to control, be they educated or not.

Things that make me happy, excited even;

  • People and animals in their natural space, or to be more precise ignoring me and just being themselves. This includes environmental portraits that allow me enough time to get the job done properly, to lose myself in the process and forget other pressures. The schools like my “fly on the wall” approach and I repay them with bucket loads of natural, genuine images.

  • Studio portraits, which for some reason take away all the angst of the other types of portrait sittings. I guess it is the application of control, real control, not just trouble shooting that makes the difference as I can then let them be themselves in that space. This is a contradiction I know and I cannot explain it, but it is a thing. This also goes for video interviews. Again, not sure why*.

  • Found things. This is actually what I identified as street photography. It may include people, but not as the primary subjects, more as a part of the overall picture.

  • Action and drama. Sport, stage, parades, concerts, you name it. If it people doing something dramatic, count me in. The capturing of these comes as second nature and plays into my love of people being themselves, but it must be from an observers perspective, not a choreographers’s.

  • Video. Generally video appeals because it falls into these categories. Movement in video is natural by default, static is studio like, but all good in that space. Not a huge fan of over stylising video, the subject should sell it or go home now.

Probably for me at the moment, I need to look less at my photographic likes and dislikes and more at my career path overall. The welfare of people and animals are where it is at, maybe the imaging is a revealing of that, not an end point.



*At the paper, I used to shoot my interview video over the shoulder of the journalist, then some B-roll, while also getting my natural stills the same way. The posed shots, something both the journalist and subject expected were taken, but rarely used.

Much better a genuine interaction than a posed shot.


The (Real) Full Frame Difference

Full frame is in my kit now and my kit feels better for it.

Feels better, but is it actually?

I have covered this before, differently. The reality of the full frame difference is becoming more clearly defined for me, the more I use the format.

The good?

There is a difference in how I perceive ISO, happily going into 6400+ territory with my “high quality” hat still donned.

But,

this has to be in conjunction with faster glass. Something odd happens in low light. I find that without fast glass, usually using the 20-60 kit lens, the settings seem less user friendly than my usual M43 cameras produce. At f1.8 with a Pana S-prime, I do get an advantage in clarity and clean imaging at very high ISO’s.

Without a like for like matching of glass, I see little real value, much preferring a M43 lens wide open to a slower full frame lens.

This brings up the differences in format.

M43 gives you a lens with matching full frame magnification that provides you with a little more than two stops more depth of field. The format allows a 75mm f1.8 (my old “Bokeh king”), to act like a 150mm f2.8 full frame lens in full frame terms.

The 85mm f1.8, my current Bokeh king is a powerful lens, but as I found previously with full frame, using it wide open is often too much for anything but artistic works or beauty portraits and the reach is pedestrian in comparison to a M43 equivalent (170mm).

The ability to pick out this leaf is great, but rarely of actual use to a working pro. An even faster or longer lens would be even more specialised. The M43 version (75mm 1.8) would offer some extra actual reach for the effort. Temperatures here at the moment are chilly (for us). Liawenee on the central plateau recorded the same temp (-13.5 c) as Casey Station our Antarctic base today. It rarely snows where I live, but it does get cold.

The same shot focussed on the (dirty) window. I missed several my mere breaths, but that is the fickleness of full frame.

Some context.

All lenses of the same focal length offer the same depth of field as each other on all formats, all else being equal*. Shorter lenses offer more depth of field at a given aperture because they change perspective to wider (more or longer/tighter (less). What changes with format is magnification. The smaller the format, the greater the magnification.

A 50mm f1.8 on full frame is a standard-semi portrait focal length with very shallow depth of field wide open at f1.8.

In medium format, this lens becomes a wide angle, with surprisingly shallow depth for a wide lens from a full frame shooters perspective. Often the quality advantage of larger film or a bigger sensor was lost to the need to stop down more.

On M43 it is a 100mm equivalent (x2) true portrait lens with the same depth of field characteristics, so less shallow depth, but every aperture is safely usable and the loss ISO benefit of the format above becomes a two stop gain.

Another with the 85mm wide open. Something I am not used to these days, is taking a half dozen only to find most are very slight misses, this one being the only one where the focus hit exactly what I wanted (most hit the right flowers, just forward or backward of what I wanted). Lovely Bokeh, but tighter processes are needed. The IRIX 150 macro is a case in frustration, nothing to do with the lens, just a reality of the physics. If I did this shot with the 45mm wide open, I could trust that the forward flowers would be sharp. I just know it would be, because I am acclimatised to the format and the Book would be perfectly nice, just a little more coherent.

Which is better?

The M43 lens to me has the right balance between magnification and depth of field control in the real world.

A full frame 100 f1.8 wide open would have about two stops less depth of field than the M43 equivalent, which for most uses is an extreme application of Bokeh, would make the lens relatively huge and expensive as well as harder to make.

Full frame users often fall back on f2.8 zooms, both for their versatility and the reality that f2.8 is usually enough and safe.

Wide open on the 85mm is my happy limit and it does look nice. Focussing becomes critical, reducing the number of keepers. Things tend to be in or out, no compromise. I can get the same effect from the M43 45mm f1.8, just by getting closer, which is easier with a tiny little lens, or with my 75mm from further back. All are valid processes.

Simply put, I often, usually even, shoot wide open with M43 zooms and primes with little fear of missing half my subject. This nets me two stops more light, which means faster shutter speeds or lower ISO settings and somehow, the math always seems friendlier until I get to genuinely cave-like conditions.

ISO limits in M43 are 1600 for “A” grade quality, also thought of as “no thought or action required” territory. The workable limit for professional quality work, with more or less effort** is 12,800 which I rarely need, but if I do, that and my clutch of f1.4 to 1.8 primes covers most situations. To be fair, I have rarely if ever had the noise or grain in an image questioned except by another photographer and even then, it is usually a win.

In M43, I can easily carry my f2.8 work horse zooms and a small set of 1.8 primes as well. It is no effort to pack two bodies and lenses covering full frame equivalents of 16-300 f2.8 and 18-150 f1.8 at the same time. Even a 600 f4 is a minor consideration. When I was with the paper, I was almost at the point I could confidently work with the 9, 15 f1.7’s and 45, 75 f1.8’s, for all my editorial work. The cropping power of a 20mp M43 camera off a sharp prime at a lower ISO (thanks to the lens speed/depth of field thing) was phenomenal, especially for web and news print. I had effectively 18-400mm f1.8 at hand. Below is a sample from my 300mm, a lens of equivalent quality.

In full frame, I have not needed to push past these same settings, but would if I used the kit zoom instead of a fast prime (would I?). All ISO settings I have used sit in the “A” grade range, higher than 12,800 is untaped so far, which proves the point to some extent.

Colour and dynamic range are deeper, white balance in particular. I find myself doing a little less work on images taken in crappy light. This may be generational, not format based as most of my M43 cameras are at least four years older and the G9II has not been put directly up against the S5II yet.

Negatives?

The bulk of four relatively modest Panasonic full frame lenses is significant, bag limiting actually, while the coverage is weak (20-85). I have no plans to add long telephoto lenses other than the IRIX 150 cine-macro, nor could I justify the cost as the benefits are few.

So it stands to reason given the above math, that focussing is harder to nail with full frame, even with the S5II being a strong performer. This is why the G9II is more reliable in moving video, simply because at the same magnification and aperture, it is using a wider lens with more native depth of field and the smaller stabiliser also adds stabilising power.

Current fashions of super shallow depth aside, practical depth is easily achieved near wide open with M43 making lenses like the excellent 10-25 f1.7 a very practical consideration, where a f2.8 zoom in full frame shares similar performance, cost and weight, they lose light gathering power.

M43 lens sharpness and speed is also easier to achieve as is close focus. My tiny little Leica 9mm f1.7 is relatively cheap, weather sealed, optically strong and focusses to a few centimetres. There is no full frame equivalent, just like my 75 (150) f1.8, the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7’s, tiny and sharp 45 f1.8 or 15 f1.7 and many others.

The image quality of M43 to full frame should only be measured in pixel density to real numerical values and practical ISO performance, which in most cases, is no different like for like. The pixel density of the EM1x is about the same as Z9, so a cropped Z9 file is basically the same, except that you paid for more and are using less***.

We passed the time of good enough or not cameras. All modern mirrorless or DSLR cameras have good enough image quality for most professional uses, so good, better and best are like the 8, 9 and 10 scales on a graph.

Ironically, the M43 camera can likely exceed maximum pixel count of a full frame with advanced sensor shift high res, so it goes both ways, just differently.

Super sharp down to eyelash level, a friend and dedicated full frame sport shooter was impressed by the sheer clarity of this and my other sport images, format not mentioned. There is no doubt in my mind that my keeper rate, something that allows me to shoot single frames these days, comes down to mirrorless camera reactivity and the M43 depth of field advantage. My friend uses a Canon 500 F4 DSLR lens (5D4’s) and finds the depth of field often too shallow, but her backgrounds are softer. She does suffer from back issues, which she refuses to confirm are kit based.

Lens design.

I cannot remember the last time a soft edge bothered me, even wide open, something that reared it’s head again with my full frame cinema glass and my otherwise excellent 20-60 kit lens. Even the S-primes are a little soft wide out, wide open (but the depth of field is so shallow it hardly matters).

*

So, when do I think to myself “oh good, I can now use the frame”?

  • When I am going into a very dark artificial light situation with no hope of flash being used and the distances are not too great. I will still use M43 for the bulk, but might add the S5II with the 50 or 85mm lens. This is as much down to lens choice as any other factor. My 9 and 75mm cannot be matched, but my 15/17, 25, 30 and 45 basically can, so I have a choice to make.

  • When I have the luxury of time, control and want less processing to do. I know my maximum available objective quality is in full frame, but this needs balancing with the ease of getting that quality. I am also aware that any extra quality is minor, usually irrelevant at the end of the chain. I am doing a portrait shoot this weekend and will take both formats for their relative benefits****.

  • When shooting cinematic video in low light, where the noise fixes are harder to apply and less effective and depth of field control is more of a creative imperative. I like f4 on full frame, f2.8 on APS-C, f2 on m43 for the same feel, so at depth matching apertures in this space, cleaner high ISO performance does matter. The original deal breaker of the S5 was dual ISO at the price.

I bought full frame for video and to be honest, this is my main use case, but even then, for moving video I will go to the G9II always, even the G9 Mk1 feels as confident as my full frames.

The G9II has fewer limits in video formats and crops than the S5II (or X), which is a specific comparison I know, but could hardly be more relevant in this case.

I sometimes regret adding the mess that is a little full frame to my kit as most issues could have been solved by lenses.

The S5, S5.II, 35, 50, 85 S-prime and 35, 50, 150 cine lens kit could as easily have been a GH5.II, later a G9.II, 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7’s and a set of Sirui Nightwalker (16, 24, 55) and/or anamorphic lenses (24, 35, 50). The cost would have been similar, but my M43 dynamic would have been intact, my choices cleaner and my bags and filters smaller.

I don’t regret it though as full frame adds a few (few) benefits, some depth and new ways of seeing and capturing the world.

*Same aperture, distance to subject, subject distance to background etc.

**This is using Capture 1, which has proven time and again to provide better sharpness to noise performance than Lightroom and ON1 No Noise fixes what it cannot.

***When the Nikon rep came to the paper last year trying to sell their new $25,000au 300mm f2.8 (and add a $9k Z9), her big push was to “crop those pixels for effectively a 2x teleconverter”. I could not help but think that would then basically equal my EM1x and 300mm, which I could buy six times over!

****EM1x with 40-150, 75 and 45 Old, Sigma 30, S5II with 35, 50 and 85. The 35 will give me shallow depth at a wide angle, the 85 maximum cut out, the 75 more reach, the EM1x is better for movement and the S5 can handle possible dappled or bland light better.

Perfection

If I were asked what makes a perfect short film or an example of the best of two realms of creation, because any small part can be lifted and delivered as an example or an exemplar in short film making, the first episode of “The Bear” series three “Tomorrow” would be a good place to start.

Any two or three minute part would do, the whole thing was jaw dropping.

A perfect crafting of perfection in crafting.

Few words, no context, unless you know the previous two seasons intimately and even then, none needed to enjoy it.

So many answers, so many questions, it is yet another masterwork from a series of masterworks.

Never fails to surprise.

Dedicated people can do amazing things and the one thing they all have in common is unwavering focus and hard, hard work.

Because All Roads Seem To Lead There.

I believe fixed focal length lenses are the best option for video, as long as the video being produced does not need instant focal length changes, like covering a live sporting event.

The reasons for this are many and many others have looked at this in detail, but basically my reasoning is;

  • It makes more sense to the viewer to have the lens/camera move, than for it to zoom. In real life, things move, we do not zoom our eyes in and out. Video as opposed to stills mimics a shared real life experience rather than a captured frozen moment of it, so the process itself becomes obvious.

  • Cinema zooms are heavy, generally slower and more expensive as well as limited in options. Simply not gonna happen in my world. If they are not cinema grade, then they do not zoom smoothly and without breathing.

  • They are faster, or if nit they are a hell of a lot cheaper for the speed.

  • They make things clean and remove unnecessary mental clutter. I shoot better with primes, always have, always will and video has really bought this home to me yet again. The rule of making the most of the focal length you have* is so much more relevant in this space.

Which focal length would I call my go-to?

It seems 50mm (full frame equivalent) is the one, because I keep buying them. In a lot of respects it matters little. You use what you have, it moulds your thinking and becomes comfortable.

  • 7Artisans 50mm T2 Spectrum on a full frame. My favourite Spectrum lens.

  • Lumix-S 50mm f1.8 on a full frame. A very solid base.

  • 7Artisans 35mm T2 Spectrum, 52.5 on APS-C crop.

  • Lumix-S 35 f1.8 52.5 on APS-C crop. Near perfect with this crop.

  • TTArtisans 35mm f1.4, 52.5 on APS-C crop (needs to be cropped). Imperfect but tons of character.

  • Olympus 25mm f1.8 on M43. This one is closer to a 22 = 45mm in reality.

  • Legacy 25mm f2.8 on M43. Old and nice to use with character.

  • Sirui 24mm Nightwalker on M43. A 48mm and very natural feeling.

I have left the Helios 58 and Pentax 50 f1.4 SMC out of this.

The reality is, I like a slightly wider lens, something around a 40mm, but these are thin on the ground, so I am adapting. The Olympus 25mm comes closest, being closer to a 45mm equivalent, but is probably the least “cinematic” of the bunch.

My full range for video is 16mm (M43, no crop), to 150mm full frame/225mm APS-C or 1000mm (ish) in M43 with crops etc.

This space has been visited before, but I now have matched cameras (G9II and S5), so I can compare apples to relative apples.

Now there are other motivations here also.

Top end cinema lenses are nearly perfect or they are very specifically imperfect as desired by the cinematography world. My “budget” cinema lenses are imperfect, but not character specifically by design, just acceptably imperfect, sort of a “take what you get and justify it as cinematic” thing that is common at the moment.

Inconsistency in colour is the big issue.

What I need to know is, are they actually good at my intended working apertures (F2.8 to 4 full frame, 2 to 2.8 APS-C or 1.8 to 2 M43) or if not are they bad in a good way? Can my stable of 50mm lenses be used for a variety of looks, or are they too far apart to be used this way?

Do any stand out one way or the other?

Consistent testing practices included a tripod, manual focus confirmation, controlled light, timer release and the same default processing. I used the G9.II and S5.1 as their sensors match best. The S5.II is warmer than either.

Inconsistencies included not always using F/T4 for full frame and 2.8 for APC crops and f2.8 was used for two of the M43 lenses instead of f2, one because I had to and for some reason, the Spectrum 35mm is out of focus, which based on previous experience, is down to me not the lens.

I really am crap at this these days, but it does the job.

50mm T2 Spectrum

This one has a cooler, more Magenta look than the 35mm below, with lighter focussing and aperture rings. I like it more overall. Nicer to focus, Bokeh is nicely separated, if a little “interesting” and the centre is sharp. It is a cropped 75mm, an interview lens also. On the S5 Mk1 test camera, it is cooler than on the S5II.

T4 was chosen as the ideal working aperture for a full frame lens.

35mm T2 Spectrum as APS-C

Obviously warmer, mechanically tighter and physically slightly shorter than the 50mm, this one is less liked for hand held work, but with a follow focus applied it is much the same. I can normalise these two, but find the 50mm is actually closer to the big IRIX in reality. The big advantage of this one is it is a 35 and a cropped 50mm, so one lens for two focal lengths like above, but possibly more useful.

T4 was a mistake, clearly rendering more depth than the crop frame T2.8 would. I like the warmth, but it is different enough from the 50 to be an issue. Also focus may be a little backward, my bad. Even so, the Bokeh is maybe a little smoother and the lens more organic looking. I like it more optically, but less mechanically.

35 TTArt f1.4 as APS-C

Horrible to use manually with its tiny little focus ring, the results are interesting, even exciting. I like this heavily letter-boxed as a faux anamorphic lens, warts (distortion, obvious vignetting, funky Bokeh, C.A, flare) and all.

TTArtisan 35 F4. Again should have been f2.8. This needs cropping on a full frame, so technically it is at its best/only effective focal length although it can be used as a 35mm with a wide crop. Stopped down, it is hard to beat for under $100au.

Panasonic S-prime 35mm f1.8 as APSC

Interestingly, the Pana 35 and 50mm lenses also have colour consistency issues, just not as bad as the Spectrums. I have felt this before and this test bares this out. The 35mm on the warmer S5.II and the 50mm on the S5.1 would maybe even things out much like the Spectrums, but closer and reversed. Maybe the Spectrum 35 above is close to right as the Bokeh looks similar.

The 35mm cropped at F4 has a more modern, flatter rendering with fast transition Bokeh. No explanation for the added glow and brightness as nothing changed.

Panasonic S-prime 50mm f1.8

This is a solid and handy lens, one that can be cheap enough to get multiples for consistency. I feel it is close to the most neutral in every way, the “bar” to be set.

F4 on the 50mm (actually the right setting for once). Nice Bokeh, nice colour, but the 35mm seems a little “snappier”.

Sirui 24mm T1.2 on M43.

This is a full frame 48mm equivalent, so slightly wider and closer to my ideal. Like the 50mm Spectrum, it is light and pleasant to use hand held. Bokeh is nice, sharpness also. Colour is warm, like the Spectrum 35 and Pana 50mm.

T2 on M43 is slightly more depth of field than F4 on full frame, but close enough. This lens has T1.2 up it’s sleeve also.

Olympus 25mm f1.8 on M43

A modern lens in every way, I use it too little, especially for video. It has a nice balance of contrast and clarity for a modern lens, but focus by wire is an issue.

F2.8 on the Olympus 25mm f1.8, also a little wider in angle of view, which is known. When the 25 f1.2 came out, inevitable comparisons were made (and this lens held it’s own), but it was also revealed as being slightly the wider of the two.

Legacy 25mm Oly F series Half Frame on M43

Straight from the half-frame range of the 60’s via the throw out box at the shop I used to work at.

F2.8 on this lens is a thing. It is quite gently hazy wide open, a little like Flat profile compared to Standard. Stop it down one stop and it is clearly crisper and richer, but it is effectively shooting at F8 in full frame, out of my ideal range. There is something about this lens.

Some thoughts.

The M43 lenses are close in colour, even though they are split by type, brand and in one case over 50 years! I actually had to check I had not exported the same shot three times.

I like the slightly wider coverage and the Sirui is capable of matching the clear cut-out of F4 on the full frame lenses with two extra stops of light.

Colour consistency is disappointing and something testing helps sort out. I have colour matched sets, just not in the same sets, nor on the sensors in the cameras. If I treat each lens as it’s own creature, then I guess no problem, but quick switches of “matching” sets, is not a thing.

Colour groups (roughly).

Cool Blue-Magenta: Panasonic 35, Spectrum 50, Artisan 35.

Neutral: Panasonic 50.

Warm Yellow-Green: Spectrum 35, all the M43 lenses.

My preferences, on these cameras, are:

The 35mm Spectrum for its warmth, versatility, close focus and overall rendering, but on the S5II the warmth is maybe a little too much and the 50mm handles better. I will make this the S5.1’s standard lens, the S5.II and 50mm the “B” cam.

The 50mm Panasonic for its neutrality and overall stability. This is the safe go-to for commercial interviews etc with the added benefit of being a cropped 75mm portrait lens. This and the Sirui below share similar Bokeh rendering.

The Sirui 24mm is probably the best cine lens overall except for heft, which can help. The G9II has the best stabiliser, but the lens is lighter. It all equals out I guess. The rendering, Bokeh, extra speed (my fastest lens), handling and slightly wider coverage, 67mm filters, all add up to a compelling choice. If the 16mm matches it’s colour, I may get that to. The Sirui and Spectrum 35 are close in rendering, so I can match the G9.II to the S5.1.

I bought the Spectrums on special and they make the S5.I more relevant, but the Sirui is probably a better “one lens” solution and the new 16mm makes it even more compelling.

The Olympus legacy 25mm is a sleeper. Nice to use, unique look, added character and nice focus throw.

The new Oly is also under used.

An odd thought comes to mind.

It seems most of my 50mm lenses are under used for stills, the last lenses to take usually, the opposite is true for video, where I find them the “one lens that does all”, even if a slightly contradictory “normal” focal length**. Handy and natural to use.

Other considerations are of course zooms. The Olympus 12-40 and Leica 12-60 are work horse lenses with added benefits, but that’s another story. The limit of f2.8 is also actually ideal for video.

My ideal set is a matched set of 35/50, 50/75 full frame/crop, but it seems getting true matching lenses is tough short of the sort of money I am not spending. The reality that some sensors also do not match (S5 vs S5II) may help ironically, but still, consistency across the range would be good.

  • S5 (cool) likes the Spectrum 35 and the 50 Lumix (warm)

  • S5II (warm) likes the Spectrum 50 and Lumix 35 (cool)

  • G9II (cool) seems to treat all of it’s tested lenses equally (neutral/warm).

Now all I have to do is find matching LUT’s!

Ed. This of course does not cover flare, contrast, etc, but it is a start.

*Probably the opposite rule of “don’t make everything look the same by zooming” is closer.

**Not long, not wide, but not as neutral as the 40mm “true” standard.

But First You Need A Decent Photo

The more I work on my B-roll and video overall, the more I am struck by the reality that if you make a good photo to start with, then a good bit of video should result.

As a starting frame, this holds up.

This is one of the potential advantages of being a stills photographer turning to video*.

The starting point should be a second in so the viewer can absorb the whole idea.

The stills shooter knows that their image is a single moment of time that has to stand up to extended viewing. This makes them more aware of the whole image, especially when extended depth of field is employed.

Directors like Wes Anderson go to excruciating lengths to create stunning and detailed frames with not a lick out of place. They use deep depth of field (sometimes faked with layered models), employ the whole width of the frame and shoot true wide or anamorphic wide.

Most of us would not see these painstakingly perfect little elements of their frame unless we freeze them and study the still, but if we do, the elements are there. So if they are making a movie frame and most of the small details would only be noticed on repeated viewings and many would be lost without the ability to freeze the frame, why do it?

It still matters. A perfect frame is seemingly invisible but it matters.

I remember many years ago an example in I think Camera and Darkroom magazine of an image that had far too much information for the print medium (news paper) compared to another with exactly the right amount.

You could see the difference. I remember then having a revelation that what we do does matter, even if it feels like it is lost in the end result.

*Another is composing and stabilising with the camera to the eye, which is different and often better.

This Old Pearl Again

I have struggled through my entire photographic life with this, knowingly or (mostly) unknowingly.

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/06/11/take-or-make-by-david-lykes-keenan/

The divide between photographic maker or taker is not always simply one of process, nor client desire, it is sometimes one of life philosophy. A photo maker and photo taker may be as different as a plumber is to an electrician or possibly more accurately an architect to a builder.

I know plenty of shooters who need to exert control, even if their desire is the capture reality. I saw a lot of it at the paper, people doing the same thing the same way for many years, decades even, means they have a self expectation, a deliberately limited process, something I pushed hard against adopting.

I struggle to “make” a photo. I am trying to reason why, so maybe I can do something about it, but the reality is, watching, not telling is too deeply ingrained in me and not just in my use of this medium.

I have always disliked fakery.

Ironically, the taker is more generous, not wanting to assert their opinion on the subject, just their interpretation of them.

The maker takes control.

In photography, the reality is, some of the process is always manufactured, whether it be a choice of film, developer, camera brand in digital, shooting mode, or processing, something is always made up, controlled, but it is where and when the choices are made that makes the difference.

Pre-visualising a loose concept, a desire for the shape and capture of a hunt is very different to making a fully formed concept from scratch.

Walking out the door to take street images with a selected camera and lenses, a choice between zooms or primes, RAW or jpeg, film of digital, night or day, colour or mono, all must be made or you cannot function and they will effect the end result, but they are selected tools, not selected props in a stage play of your making. The subject, sought after with the above gear, still has to decide for itself, what you will get to compose you image.

The road is a mystery, it rambles, the terrain shifts, the subjects have no controllable time table.

This may not be acceptable for a client or creative director, working to a time frame and the expectations of another. If they allow the process to bloom, it may transcend their expectations, but it is risky, inefficient.

The commercial photographer must make an image. Tools are as important, even more so possibly, because compromise cannot be put down to the whims of the world, but lead back to the maker only.

Concept to realisation is a straight and unforgiving road, a highway made for speed to the destination.

Art is the grey area. Making is part of the process more or less, but making to a non-conformist concept is the difference. Even the established “old school” landscape shooters (and street shooters) are working within strict parameters, even if they do not know or realise it.

I still struggle to manufacture images, which is a problem in my new role, just not as common as before. The paper demanded a manufactured image, but would accept a naturalistic version if it fit the rather limited criteria. If you were cover sport, a street parade, a concert or even conflict, then “what you see is what it is” can work, should really, but for most front page fodder, making the “shape” is all important.

Dated, small minded, artistically loathsome come to mind, but it is what it is.

Pushing back against that is tough and ill-advised. I know that sometimes you win, but you always need the fall-back of “that” image, the one that often even the subject resists.

My track record of landscape shooting has generally been poor, something I put down to patience, but the reality to me is, it feels manufactured.

Sport, something that works within limited constraints feels relatively free, which is an illusion I know, but the feeling is one of capture, not placement, asserting limited control, not exerting full control and the creative responsibilities that come with that.

This is primal drama manufactured by sport. Not natural, but emotive none the less, because it is a real response to an artificial environment.

Even stage drama, make to measure, is still a hunt to the shooter, just a hunt within a cage. It is the people, the, dare I say it, human drama that makes it real even if it is no more than superficial. Composing low with backlighting adds drama for example, so it is taking some control, but there is no two way communication.

This performer is offering drama, the photographer capturing that intent using everything at hand.

Skill Level Vs Gear Level

What is your skill level?

Does your skill level match or exceed you gear or is your gear waiting around for you to catch up?

For me, it goes something like this;

For sport, with the EM1x’s and a variety of Olympus and Panasonic lenses, I am nearly a match for my gear or if I am not, I am not aware of the short fall.

I get what I see, when I see it, I just sometimes don’t react as quickly as my gear can. When I am “in the zone” it feels amazing*, but if I have failed to practice, had a recent coffee or sugar hit, maybe just not trying that hard (or maybe too hard), then the gear patiently waits for me to catch up.

Netball is an ideal example.of a “zone” sport. The less I think about it, the “luckier” I get.

In the studio, I have too many modifiers, lights, backgrounds etc, but my skill level, probably my experience level actually, is a little behind. More time, more experimentation, equals better results. This is really a case of understanding the gear and it is what you need it to be when you need it, rather than it being technically ahead of you.

My early G9 video was a good match for my skill level, especially processing. The camera set to Standard/422/10 bit/1080p, graded with little effort. The camera became second nature to shoot with and still is, the Sennheiser MKE-400 generally producing quality balanced sound as did the Zoom F1/SSH-6 kit for the sport podcast and my turn around was super quick.

My upgraded video and audio kit** is above my pay grade at this point, but I am working on it. Grading V-LOG (or not), using nodes (or not), applying LUT’s (or not), even being generally consistent, shooting quickly and confidently, using my best-for the job-sound and lighting gear, are not yet native to me in this space, far from it, but that is all about application and practice. I probably have too many options in balance for my needs.

Sometimes you can apply one skill and gear set (sport) to another field (birding) with hauntingly familiar results.

The “gear does not matter” thing is a myth in reality. It does, but not as much as the user.

The gear should not hold you back, but if you over invest in hardware and under invest in knowledge and experience, then you have wasted money.

*The “zone” is found with practice and then not chasing it. It is all muscle memory and being in the moment. You know you are there when the process seems seamless and you find your self anticipating things faster than mere thought would allow, a bit like falling asleep.

**S5, S5II, G9II, lots of mics, The Zoom H8 etc.

Too Far?

I just watched a short report on BBC News at Six about the state of Grimsby, the poorest town in the UK pre-election.

Super shallow depth if field, jagged cuts (one sentence deserved three drop-back cuts apparently), soft focus (where there was any), booming, intimate sound.

Process over content, when content should have been all.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6p24ene5peo

I hope someone has a word with the team, because I have rarely seen a more creator-centric hard news story.

There is a lot of shallow depth, “cinematic” footage on their site and many others are following suit, but this was distracting, not ground breaking and the people who mattered, got shafted by a need to impress.

Video Ratios And Formats, Some Temptations, Some Traps

My video work flow fits in with client needs.

1080p/16:9, enabled with 422/10bit/50p capture in Flat profile, basic grading. Flat is easier and more neutral to work with than Cine-D, well for me anyway.

I am exploring V-Log, but to be honest, I will likely just stick to Flat for most jobs unless dynamic range is a real issue, when V-Log may give me a stop or two more.

I use either Panasonic S or G series lenses or various cinema lenses, depending on what I nee to get the job done or sometimes a specific look.

DaVinci is my ride, even with the steep learning curve, mainly because it is free, but also because it is an industry standard, lack of ProRes conversion not withstanding.

Formats?

Anamorphic keeps raising its head, appealing more to the frustrated cinematographer in me than anything because the reality is, if I shoot in anamorphic for me, I may well create useless footage for most others.

Open gate or 4:3 ratio, handily the native format for M43 cameras.

Another option would be to shoot C4k or Open Gate, then crop as needed, still exceeding my 1080 standard. This looses the streaks (I have filters and don’t always love the look personally), the odd Bokeh balls (same, not a thing for me) and the standard-that-is-wide perspective anomaly*.

16:9 standard video format, minimum hassles, handy height for moving subjects.

C4k is a slightly wider format, hardly anything, but by maximising my capture, I can then crop slightly and get a genuinely wide 2:1 or wider aspect ratio.

Cinema 4k. Hardly noticeable, but still adds some problems, one of which is cropping back in to 16:9 to match other footage.

Cinemascope 2.35:1, or about what the 24mm Sirui anamorphic would render, except that the magnification to perspective ratio would change. Too wide for most uses?

Advantages are being able to crop as I want as with stills, sometimes finding looks that surprise, having the “normal” aspect to fall back on or even other ratios not previuosly used.

The “reel” roughly.

Other stuff.

The 24mm Sirui anamorphic is on paper the perfect lens. It gives me my staple focal length (50mm) on a M43 camera as well as my other main squeeze, (35mm) in width.

Streaks are well controlled, minimum focus is excellent by anamorphic standards (but still average) and the oddly shaped Bokeh balls are fairly tame thanks to the wider focal length. It has effectively no focus breathing, is sharp and reasonably priced at $799au (on sale). As I said, nearly perfect on paper.

Detractors and I am going with actual users here, not theorists, usually site a lack of anamorphic tricks, saying it is too tame, a lens you need to feed correctly for some stronger effects (good thing) and a few have said it is tricky to focus accurately. Peaking on some cameras (Fuji mentioned as well as a Sony) can be misleading.

If I got it, I would basically be buying a hobby lens. The real world uses would be limited and for clients, I have tended to use Panasonic lenses (S primes, S Kit and G/Leica) as much for consistency as the now handy auto-focussing. I have “hobby” lenses, the 7Artisans, Sirui Nightwalker etc, some legacy and the IRIX macro, that sits between these two camps.

If the lens was used for a whole project, or maybe as the primary lens with something like the Sirui Nightwalker 24 used as a cropped portrait lens, then it could work, but again, the format does not suit all (many) projects.

Rodger Deakins is a well awarded cinematographer and an example of someone who does not play here. He shoots spherical lenses and crops. Sure he is using Arri cameras and top end lenses, but cropping actually helps here. Less than perfect corners are hidden, distortions also.

The “cinematic look” when it is relevant, comes down to many, many factors, few of which are down to a simple format or lens choice. Format in particular probably comes down to client driven practicalities as much as anything.

If you subscribe to the 28mm on S35 (roughly a 40mm on a full frame) being the “perfect” focal length for video and stills;

https://noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/

then the Sirui is technically straddling both sides of that at once (48 < 40 > 36). More width, more magnification = perfect middle ground, but is regular spherical lens, a 40mm (20mm in M43) actually better?

I am drawn mostly to anamorphic lenses for their contradictory width to height rendering, not much else, so I need to think on this for a while. Does it matter, is the lack of consistency more of a hindrance than a help, is a $800au lens worth it just for mucking around with or would it actually give me something powerful and interesting. The Sirui 16mm tempt, but again, I am tending to use my modern stills lenses more.

*Assuming the 24mm on M43 which is a 48mm full frame equivalnet in image height, but a 36mm in width. Is this the perfect lens?

Money To Mouth Time

I did a little follow-me shoot yesterday, mostly a stills day, but some video with the old G9.

The G9 was my main video camera, but now it sites at the bottom of the pile;

  • G9II: Highest bit rates, Best AF, Best Stabe, a few time but no crop or format limits.

  • S5II: Second best AF and Stabe, few time limits, some crops, no format limits.

  • S5: Probably even stabe to G9, ok AF, no format limits, but more time and crop limits than the S5II.

  • G9: Decent stabe (see sample), no crops, time limits applied to limited formats and ok AF with selected lenses. It can still offer 4k/60p/10 bit/422 for short clips and RAW out, so better than many.

So, basically the G9, a solid video option, has lots of in-house competition. The Stabe Boost mode (tripod-like lock) is good on all of them, hard to split, but movement stabe is a clear 1-4 ranking.

Having said that, this footage was a spontaneous grab with the old G9, 10 bit/422/1080 in Standard, with high movement (E-stabe), the 8-18 in MF, shot at 50p so I could slow it by 50%, “optical flow” and mild post processing stabe added. No rig, no handles, just a stills cam pushed into video role.

The footage has suffered at some point, likely upload compression or similar or maybe the applied processing (me) and there are two clear shift points, also down to me.

I guess the big question is, if I had taken the G9II and a gimbal, would I get noticeably better results for this, a very normal situation and would that extra gear and set-up possibly loose me more in stills missed, or changed my video/stills thinking? Would just the G9II or S5II with a stabilised lens be noticeably better?

For these jobs, I carry two cameras, one (G9) with the 8-18 in a small shoulder bag, one (EM1.2) with the 40-150 f4 and shoulder strap. Adding a gimbal and another camera would be quite a different proposition.

EM1x Fun

I remember reading a four year review of the EM1x recently while reinforcing my own feelings on the camera, but also looking for alternatives, other perspectives and learnings.

The user had bought his EM1x off a friend who had not meshed with it. They bought it for a song (about $800au the year it came out). The problem was “the camera had a mind of it’s own”.

On further investigation, the happy, but cautious new owner checked the function buttons and discovered two rarely used ones had strange settings assigned, the very same strange settings that kept activating “without me doing anything”.

My second EM1x (the first second hand one), was also a little twitchy. I remember it seeming being re-set when I got it, everything on base or auto settings, so I assumed that I could set the buttons and dials I use and it would be the same as the first one.

Every now and then, usually when shooting field sports, the shutter speed would lock out at about 1/8th, the view finder get oddly blurry with lag-ghosting and I would discover after some frustration, that it was in ND mode (blocks light to the sensor for long exposures in good light, usually done with a filter and tripod).

These shots. The 300mm (600mm ff) is too long even on this ground to get all of tall subjects in centre field, so I use vertical orientation.

I would dive into the menu, fix it and forget it.

The first time I was at a ground with an LED running board around the ground’s fence line that was making everyone’s viewfinders play up (Z9’s the worst, EM1x’s slightly), so I put it down to a quirk of electronic view finders and shutters tricking the cam into an odd mode.

Recently it did it twice in a day and no running board, so I checked the settings and sure enough, the bottom-front button was set to live ND. I don’t use that button on the EM1x’s because basically I don’t need to, but it seems, when shooting rare verticals*, I have a habit of pushing it.

This has settled me in a couple of ways.

That EM1x felt a little problematic with this happening (just this, nothing else) and it made buying the next one a little risky. One button fixed and my mind is settled on two cams.


*Most clients prefer horizontals with the option of cropping verticals themselves.

Stabilising, What Do I (We) Really Need.

I did a proper video shoot recently, just video, not video on top of stills.

I felt confident, equipped, capable, except for the gimbal moves needed to match some footage taken in the past that needed to be replaced. The OSMO was used, but it suffered from lens flare (can’t move the sun in relation to a building) and not looking the same as the other footage. The OSMO is a powerful tool, but has limits, like no hood option and the Mk1 has strong magenta flare if pushed.

I also had the benefit of using some previously taken footage from a Sony mirrorless on a gimbal, a Canon C70 used on a tripod etc and a drone. This was interesting to see how the pro’s do it. Something I noticed before I even looked close, was none of the footage matched.

My most stable options are the G9.II, the S5.II, the older OSMO Pocket 1 and the three EM1x cams, that I don’t use as video cameras, but they do handle AF and stabe well. Along with these I have several rigging options, poles, a cheap mechanical gimbal, which produces decent results and a set of wheels for my tripod, although these need a very smooth surface as the wheels are small and hard.

It is also easy to forget how good some older cameras are;

https://youtu.be/BFpVG_7qfC8

Recently, I realised my most comfortable and stable shooting experience was to the eye, a subsequent search for a decent eye level finder resulted in a bigger rubber cup for the S5. This does not help with movement, but it makes most other shooting forms better as well as accurate manual focussing.

On top of this are the usual tricks of using slo-mo and digital stabe in post.

Plenty of options I guess, or am I fooling myself?

The G9.II and to a lesser extent the S5.II get top marks for in-camera stabilising, some call them “Go-pro level”*, but I feel the best use for them is as a strong foundation of another system, like a mechanical gimbal or some kind of rig.

The big question is can I justify or do I really want/need a Ronin S3 mini or similar or maybe the OSMO Pocket 3 with the O-1 as a backup? It seems I would be buying the Ronin for that last 10-20% of perfect smoothness, that is not always wanted anyway.

To be honest I am bit sick of buying things that won’t get used, especially when they seem trend driven, but by the same token, drones and gimbals tend to be front of mind for most clients.

I guess we need to rewind and think about what my or anyone’s real world needs are when it comes to camera movements.

I will go, and have gone on record as saying I think gimbals are over used. The ability to move with some your footage is cool and as valid an option as any, but how often is too much? I know shooters who use them almost always, some don’t even own a tripod or other option.

Your subject moves, so do you need to all the time? There have been films made recently with almost entirely gimbal stabiliser rigs (1918, The Creator), but they are exceptions and the need to be portable and mobile was part of their story to tell, not the gimick they used to tell it.

More importantly how much becomes about the movement, not the subject. A still camera heroes the subject, a movement, any movement can also, but it can also easily become the hero element at the expense of story depth and subject connection.

Panning is an old favourite, but it is really the role of a tripod and technically challenging or simply a decent brace and hip pivot. The G9.II etc can handle it with a little practice, the OSMO with a simple setting, the old G9 even works.

Slider moves, best done with, you guessed it, a slider (I have a 120cm one, never used).

Hand held, which is to say, that very common and regularly used non-stabilised brick of a cinema camera creating its own inertia held by a decently strong and practiced user, with just a slight movement to give it away. I can do better with just the G9.I in boost mode, so including the EM1x’s, that makes eight options!

Following or leading. This is the meat of it, the big gimbal move for me (not a vlogger, so that whole headache is removed). I don’t often do these, but they have their place as b-roll or intro footage.

The trick is not so much the stabiliser, but the movement.

The reality is, a gimbal would still need practice, a second person to avoid trips and falls and would it be used simply to justify owning it?

Basically creating a problem to fit a known solution and maybe not for a whole lot better result than I can do now.

The OSMO does this well enough except for limited dynamic range, fiddly sound options, a slightly digital look and poor low light performance, but within limits, it works well and is designed to purpose. Ironically, the big issue with the OSMO is lack of weight.

The G9.II on a mechanical gimbal in slo-mo, maybe some weights and digital stabe could also do this with some practice, for the few times it matters. It could be I do all this research, analysis, some purchasing, then use the damn thing once a year while regularly practicing to make sure I can.

I did several videos for the Migrant Resource Centre recently, none of which required complicated movements, although I did use plenty of basic moves without even stressing over it. I kind of just let instinct take over and it worked fine.

General active shooting, which is a little of all of these on the go and reactive, you know, the little movement, maybe with a focus transition, mini pan, small companion follows, a rise or drop.

The reality is, a gimbal is not something you have on camera all the time. It is a specialist bit of kit with a required skill base and changes the flow of things. The camera as is, basically rigged out, is much more flexible.

Dolly moves. These include up-down, in-out, swinging around etc, usually done with a studio crane, rails etc. Again the OSMO floats to the top as the only realistic option especially for overheads or under water etc. Being able to go on a pole and be run remotely (hard cabled to an old phone) or in an under water housing is the OSMO’s thing.

*

After a lot of research, it seems the one thing gimbals are not perfect at are up-down (walking) movement control. This is the bit you have to work on regardless and some skilled cinematographers can do this without a gimbal, but their cameras tend to be heavier. After several tests, it seems the G9II, rigged several ways, can almost conquer this.

With e-stabe, lens O.I.S, some added weight, judicious handle placement and practice, all shot for slo-mo and generally “keeping it real”, I feel like it may do the job and the OSMO is there when it cannot.

I tried with the with G9.II and 12-60 Leica at 12mm;

  • Top handle only. Pretty good, but lack of weight was ironically an issue. Adding left/right stabilising arms might help.

  • Shoulder rig with weights and front handles. Quite good for walking movement, very good for pans and swing moves and perfect for static.

  • Shoulder rig without handles. Not as good as above, but less bulky.

  • Chest pad into the shoulder. This was decent, smaller and lighter than above.

  • Chest pad into the body. Very good for pans and static, no good for walking.

  • Shoulder pad into the shoulder. This was much the same, not overly comfortable, but the weight helped.

  • Top handle with shoulder pad and weights (I have added some weights from my mechanical gimbal). This created a perfectly balanced ‘follow me” rig, with the minor issues of banging into things (about 40cm long) and being low angle.

  • Mechanical gimbal. Smooth, but hard to control the cameras facing. For simple follow moves, more than adequate and I feel practice will sort most issues.

  • Top handle with left side front handle facing up (from my shoulder rig). This has promise except for walking.

The ideal will be something that combines the above. A bracing handle set-up, a body anchor point with the option of a top handle running rig, some weight, lots of practice.

Some ideas to try;

  • A top handle mounted sideways. I find the front-back orientation less than perfect.

  • A centre handle underneath, with weights. Basically making the camera heavier with down force.

  • Balancing with two under arms. Same as above, but maybe better.

  • Using the eye cup**, chest pad on short rails and (maybe) front arms for the best “SLR” style experience.

It seems to me, the best option may look something like this;

G9II on a set of short rails, with the chest pad close enough so I can use a larger eye-piece**, then either front handles (maybe with weights) and a top handle for follow-me shots. The lens may be the 8-18 or 9mm, so I can use the best stabe, which crops heavily.

The front handle, oddly well balanced with the little weight added, can be used like this, pointing up, across or flat as needed. The tripod head is of course only to help with the image. The top handle also allows for mic attachment or even a monitor. I may add a second handle behind the camera on the right side. You need two contact points, but which two is important.

Below is a rough little clip using this rig at 50% slo-mo. I had to negotiate two stairs and some uneven ground.

So, to sum up.

$400au buys me a logical solution (Ronin RS 3 mini), but one that does not automatically address all my needs, just makes the journey seem easier and may impress-reassure some clients.

$850au gets me an updated OSMO, a camera that has its benefits, but again, is not without exceptions and can be a bit of a one trick pony (a second one trick pony). I guess the price needs to be realistically $1200+ to account for the OSMO 1 and accessories that would likely go to waste.

$0au for a plethora of existing options, all based on the OSMO, the G9.II, G9.I, S5.II and EM1x’s. I bet, with some practice, I will be able to mimic a gimbal in some situations.

The OSMO does some things better than a gimbal, the G9.II gets close and is more flexible, the use of other methods gives me a broader palette.

Is it worth spending real money on ideas that (1) come up rarely and (2) I almost have knocked now?

*Plenty of reviewers are getting close to gimbal results with e-stabe high for quick and dirty walking tests. Basically, if they tried harder, it would be close to as good.

**The one I just got for the S5 is awesome. It came with a screw driver and screws, instructions and fits well. The depth makes a difference.



Make It Like Your First Time, But Also, Like It Is Your Last.

I am revisiting Dan Winter’s biography ”Road To Seeing” and a line from it hit home. He said “I make it a habit to approach every picture as though it were my last”.

This, tipped on it’s head is like a feeling I have, that each image should be a new start, a fresh take, a reinvention, apply “beginner mind” maybe.

Both may be able to live in the same space, or are these one-liners even relevant unless you are in need of telling a story.

The attitude that you should cast aside your past, “kill your babies” as the art world so perilously puts it, is on one hand an empowering of the present-future over the past, assuming only forward growth matters.

Sometimes a moment is fleeting, something that cannot be repeated, or re-done.

So you are, as it were, only as good as your next image, but does this make your past redundant or at least demote it to parts of a journey that needs to be pushed aside for us to go forward. No dwelling in the past. The past is gone.

We are only ever the sum of our past though. It is us up to now and everything we have done.

The past launches us into the future.

The second dictate, that maybe each (serious) image you make needs to be treated as if it is the last you will make, so that you need to give it your all, your magnum opus as it were, is also a powerful termination point for creative excellence.

Powerful stuff.

If you pull it off, how do you know?

Have you reached a point of technical or artistic prowess beyond anything you have done before?

Can you even measure that?

Do you even want to?

Should any image be “the one” or is the effort to make it so powerful a motivator, that repeated defying the reality of failure is needed. In other words, can we get better, without needing to always try to.

Like the oft used trope “the gear does not matter”*, these are both handy catch cries, but possibly as misleading. Users of these terms, people who have come to realise that they are “there” in their journey, feel these thoughts are relevant, but for the rest of us, should we apply these borrowed labels/restrictions/tenets on ourselves, or should we wait until we see retrospectively that we are also “there” and a one-liner may sum up our process and philosophy, but it also may not.

I once knew a man who rolled out a “saying of the day”, likely taken from one of those daily planners that mechanically apply these pearls of wisdom in printing. The effects was not what he desired, the power of each often at odds with the mood and any relevance to time or place.

Often the power of other’s efforts empower our own, but it is easy to take this too far, to forget where we are in the picture.

Using a good catch phrase can be helpful in context, but it is also a good way of creating a false ceiling.

Maybe we should always be open to new ideas that do not need to be “coined” for others ears, just done, understood and allowed to strengthen us as needed, fall away when not.

Life is sometimes not as simple as a beginning a middle and an end, but a constant.

Labels are irrelevant, titles also.

*The gear itself does matter, but in balance with all other factors. “Only the gear mattering is not a thing” is maybe closer, or “the gear, experience, talent, luck, subject and effort all matter”.