Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream2 Member(s) liked this post
Thanks, Godfrey. I hope I won´t get warned for thread jacking
While post is important for still, a video project really is nothing until you do post. And it is way more complicated. As mentioned, audio is key and that is an art form in and of itself.
For doing podium speeches, just like with still photography, you can grab a shot or you can make it right. I'm somewhere in the middle, but have producers I work with to do the higher quality cuts. Be prepared to learn and love wireless lavaliere mics, booms and blimps, and the NLE of your choice (I use Final Cut Pro X). Getting the shot is just the beginning...
This is some of the work of a drummer I play with - his day job is high-end video: David Robin Films | David Robin's experience and activity in the Wedding & Event Videography industry.
This is THE key advantage of the Panasonic range: it works, and it's an 'eased' movement of the focus point, too (starts slow, speeds, then slows as it find it; looks very natural).Regarding video it would have been a smart move from Sony to have chosen a touch screen LCD that allowed you to choose focus by tapping
My approach to video is completely different to Rawfa's; a bit of background. The way Rawfa shot that lovely video (recording live sound via the Røde and only having one camera) makes a lot of work in post. One-camera shoots are traditional Hollywood, but are much more work than the method I use. As well, Hollywood records second system sound (sound is recorded separately, depending on the setup, then synced in post production).
As well, it's clear that R. was 1–3m away from the voice and the drum—and you can capture decent audio at those distances (but the on-camera mic means the perspective of the sound changes as the camera position changes). Humans are very sensitive to this; we will tolerate pretty much any visual chopping and changing (think any MTV clip) but are disturbed by sound track changes.
As he said:
That’s one way.But in this particular case the guy called me for a photo shoot and I ended up making him a music video with LIVE sound...which was kind of hell, as each time I shot a different angle the music had a different duration (from 3 to 5 minutes). Editing was much harder then with the artist playing with a master track playing in the background.
What I do is record sound in the actual take I am recording vision for as well—on a separate recorder (I use a number of small, broadcast-standard recorders) and get the sound into the recorder via lavaliere mics (those small ones you see newsreaders use, pinned on to lapels) or use the recorders’ mics (one of my recorders, the $179 Zoom H2n, records variable-width mid-side recording; others use a conventional x-y pattern; more on this later). Because sound and vision is already in sync, and the sound is the actual sound, I have no problems in post.
As an aside, in Guy’s runway case, I would be taking a feed from the emcee’s audio, or record the live audio from the audience’s perspective (assuming the live audio is good; often it’s not); you can always get a feed from whoever doing the sound for the show. I would record this audio with a recorder plugged in to the desk itself; this is what the audience is hearing, after all.
Back to my approach: unlike Rawfa, I shoot multicam and use an old fashioned slate (clapper board) at the beginning of the recording—this has many advantages. Assuming I am recording “live” (actual sound and vision being recorded simultaneously) I have no post problems at all: I bring sound and all camera’s vision into FCPX, and sync on the slate, then simply (while watching all cameras’ angles simultaneously, I decide which angle I want the audience to “see” at any time. All this is non-destructive, and all can be changed.
If you are recording at an event, and cannot use a slate, there will always be sound and vision that can be manually synced (the sound of a drum beat, and its vision, for example). I prefer the slate simply for speed in post.
This is the merest intro to shooting video. The biggest learning curve for the stills pro learning video is not the angles, or the lighting; you have all that. It’s what does the audience need to see, to tell the story you want to tell, and how to get the best realistic sound (sound that is perceived as real in relation to the vision you are showing). Sound is completely different to images in a fundamental way: it follows the inverse square law: double the distance from the source and the audio is one quarter the intensity at the mic—and we are very sensitive to the stereo ‘image’ we are hearing. Getting the sound ‘right’ is the key to good video, yet almost without exception, beginning directors focus on image.
The learning curve for video is in the post productions editing programs; FCPX is an amazing program (I have been using FCP since FCP2) but there was a big learning curve mowing from FCP studio (FCP7) to FCPX. Learning how to edit convincingly is the hardest part of the additional skill set for stills photographers moving to video, IMHO.
Briefly: I use Panasonic GX-1, G6, GX-7, and an Oly EM-5 (the latter is my ‘steadycam’: I attach a monopod, and hold loosely, use a relatively wide angle lens (usu. 34mm EFOV) and move like a ninja—and the footage is excellent and cuts perfectly with the rest). I use the other cameras (usually two others, sometime three) on fixed tripods.
If I had shot Rawfa's video, one camera would be the front angle 'wide' shot (musician in context), another on the closeup, one over the shoulder on hands (high angle, longer lens), one side angle (standard height, the "viewer's" perspective) and the moving ninja one. Notice that's five angles—but only four cameras? I would have started all cameras and the audio recording, clapped the slate, and signalled to the musician to play, from the beginning of the piece to the end. I would repeat as necessary, with the reverse angle and other angles Rawfa shot on a second or third take—because these angles do not require strict sync (so the altered duration of each piece he mentioned above would not be a problem).
Whew: too long already, but perhaps you will get a feel for the immense potential complexity of adding video to the repertoire.
One professional video shooter who offers endless inspiration is Philip Bloom. Although he mostly uses very high end gear, he experiments with all kinds of equipment and gives tons of practical advice on his extensive blog:
Philip Bloom - DP, Director, Filmmaker
He's also a videographer who really knows composition and timing. Here are a couple of his recent videos:
And to round it off; his stunt for DigitalRev with a BarbieCam:
Philip Bloom, Barbie Camera Challenge - YouTube
One of the reasons I see the A7s as such a sweet camera (in addition to video work, great high ISO and apparently outstanding DR) is for the use of older lenses; those lenses that weren't really designed for 36 megapixels but still render beautifully at lower resolution. Although one can always downsize to acceptable sharpness, getting it right out of the camera is so much more satisfactory and it saves time as well. I have long since concluded that 12-16MP represents the sweet point for my photography, and this camera hits spot on.
What would I sell to buy this thing? Nothing probably. The Sony is so tiny that it slides in between the D700 and the GH3. So it'll probably be another month of porridge for me
I don't care what gear I have.
Things I sell: http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/413...html?rid=611052 Member(s) liked this post
nice post hot. gh4 and the a7s are $1700 body only.
For me, A7s is a "bad design", I do not need full hd, but I want 4k WITHOUT external recorder for $ 2000. I think I'm waiting for GH4 :-)
Others see it presumably different. That's okay.
2 Member(s) liked this post
It's great that you posted this Kit!
Motion work is a whole other world that bears only a few basic similarities to still shooting. I spent most of my life involved with motion work but not actually doing any of it. I created ideas, did story boards, selected production houses and directors (who hired all crew and secured locations etc.), did set and prop approvals, talent selection, approved shooting boards, attended days of actual shoots to approve takes while collaborating with the director and DP … in other words the prep/shoot is exhaustive … then the real work begins. I cannot begin to say how important the post portion of almost any motion piece is. I've spent endless hours in editing bays with geniuses who played the controls like a concert pianist.
I have the utmost respect and admiration for the motion professionals I had the pleasure to have worked with.
It's an exciting world, but a demanding one.
Here are some good points here from Andrew Reid:
Panasonic GH4 vs Sony A7S compared – who wins the 4K battle on paper? | EOSHD.com
He sees it mostly from a video point of view, but interestingly, he reaches the same conclusion as myself: The A7s and the GH4. Totally different creatures that complement each other very well.
Edit: When evaluating the A7s as a video camera, it's important to be aware that shooting video of moving subject at shallow DOF is a big challenge. In the real world, most will stop down to f/5.6 or 8 to get enough working room. There goes much of the high ISO advantage over a camera like the GH4, which obviously offers much more DOF at wider apertures. As nice as 35mm is, m4/3 seems to become the standard for semiprofessional video work. JVC has now joined the standard as well, and Black Magic has launched a studio camera with a "live" m4/3 mount.
But if you have a use for a smaller mpx sensor and as a backup to the A7r plus video as well than the hand tips back in favor of the existing Sony user. Me. Lol
Kind of what I'm thinking. It actually has some advantages over the A7 given I have the A7r. It's certainly a viable option for me. I do wish it had the A6000 focusing though.
NAB 2014: Atomos Shogun 4K recorder for Sony a7S - YouTube
It's an interview with the maker of the 4k monitor and he talks about how they worked closely with Sony to develop the monitor. At around 4 minutes you'll hear them say that the package for to the two should be around $5k. If that's the case and the monitor is supposed to be around $2k, then the a7s will be around $3k. My guess? It'll retail at $2,798 like the RX1 did and like the other a7 siblings be charged the high early adopter tax with price cuts around 20% in under 6 months of release. I highly doubt they'll be able to release it for $1,699 and make a profit.
Wonderful. All we need now is a Sony A7N. N for Normal, No video, Nikon D700 weight substitute ... and Not a high price for those who just want a camera without movie capabilities. D'ya hear me Sony? Oh, and by the way give me a silent shutter option à la RX10, please. Low light capability just begs for quiet indoor opportunities.
If it was around the same price as the A7 when that launched then I could see me being interested in the A7s. I'm definitely more of a stills shooter myself, but the video features would be a bonus, but if its going to be $3000, then that is completely out of my price range, as a hobbyist, unfortunately. In fact, I'm still waiting for a decent price drop on the A7 in the UK!
All this talk of chunky discounts and rebates I keep hearing about, but to my eyes, the A7 is still at or near RRP in the UK. I'd probably pay RRP for the A7s though, if it was below $2000 as I'm ready to make the jump now after what feels like months of research.
the fat pixels probably will make the A7s a much better body to take Leica lenses. the corner smears will be gone! mark my words!
2 Member(s) liked this post
Am I the only one that is curious what the A7s IQ will be like at LOW ISO compared to the A7/r and RX1/r ?
I am interested to see samples of how low ISO images from those big pixels look, or does logic follow that they will be no better than say an A7 image?
I've seen the Nikon D4s images up to ISO 25600, and it looks great! Better than a lot of modern full frame at ISO 1600 and above!
I am hoping that the A7s will at least get it one more stop better. I think this is one of the most exciting news since sliced bread, and I like slice bread
Why do we think the a7S has better high ISO vs. the a7 and a7R?
If you believe DXO sensor scores (maybe we don't ) the 36 MP a7R has a high ISO score of 2746 and the 24 MP a7 has a score of 2248 (iso with a S/N ratio of of 30 dB while maintaining 9 EV dynamic range and 18 bits colour depth). So if the trend continues we could see worse high ISO performance of the a7S vs. the two older siblings.
Not trying to be difficult, just would like to understand it better.
It's a good question. I don't think we'll know until results are available. The reason we think it will be better is because Sony has designed it for high ISO (the range goes up to ~400,000). As far as the link to megapixels on the sensor, there is no specific correlation. The Nikon D3S is only 12 mp but is close to the all time champ on high ISO score at DXO (recently bested by Df and D4S). Higher pixel density actually contributes to some kinds of noise but allows for downsampling gains in apparent image quality.
I'm going to guess that A7S will be better than A7R and in line with the D4S (and possibly even better). Part of that is wishful thinking on my part. The part that I'm not so sure about is that the AF will be capable enough in low light to take advantage of that high ISO capability in other than a manual focus mode. After all this camera is really a video camera (based on the videographers' comments I've seen) and may not have the stills shooter's requirements (like good AF).
It is one amazing video camera first and foremost, but it is also a formidable low light stills camera for folks like myself. I will have one of the first ones released for sure. This camera is perfect for me.
I'm on it too. The A7 will be sold for it. The A7s just fits the A7r combo better.
Your news about the autofocus is very encouraging. Maybe the A7S is the Sony I've been waiting 5 years for. I know it's hard to be specific about performance without being able to download the files to LR or other platforms but do you have a point of comparison for the ISO 6400 files? That tends to be where my indoor shots gravitate because of available light. If 6400 is the new 1600 (compared to the A7R) then I could safely say Sony has solved the remaining problems for my kinds of photography.
Ouch! If this is true I´m out for sure: Sony A7 gets a provisory price in UK: 2500 pounds! | sonyalpharumors
For us$3,450 I´ll keep my A7 and get a GH4 for video.
wex photographic website in the U.K. has it listed for pre-order at £2,500.
Update. Rawfa, I just clicked on the link you provided and I see that wex U.K. is the source of the rumour there too.
Bit of a downer, huh?
Last edited by Steve P.; 10th April 2014 at 11:01.
That is a truly terrible price
I wanted A7 price, not a lot more.
I'll go 2800 USD. This is not just about video I want a clean ISO 3200. Im only looking for 2 stops. Video is certainly the bonus. Now I am hoping it pays for itself in 2 gigs.
You´re a lucky guy, Guy
When photography or video become my bread and butter I´ll justify to my self spending so much money on gear. At the moment I guess I suffer from unnecessarily expensive gear guilt hehehe
Now if I analyze the whole three days I shot about 100 images that needed the high Mpx on tripod kind of shooting. Okay I got that in the A7r but the A7 really did not buy me more High ISO or better video either, just more like a second body that did most of the workload. The A7s could have done a far better job both on video and the high ISO stills. So just this one gig proved my thoughts and more important justified a purchase. Having both the A7r and A7s is a far better 2 cam setup than the A7 and A7r. Now if you reread what I just wrote I summed up 500 million comments up in one paragraph and proved the need more than the want. I have to go by real life usage and real needs. I see the A7s as a need and the A7 as really just a backup. Rather have a camera serve both uses.
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
www.guymancusophotography.com3 Member(s) liked this post
Sony are floating pre-release price levels, and what it settles at on broad release might be very different, in fact I would expect so given the economics of the camera, most of which they already have settled.
It's become a regular challenge for them as they keep making cameras no one ever made before. To put a figure on it, around $2400 into the US marketplace is my guess, with more deals after 3-4 months. Let's hope for bad reviews from the usual suspects - that will help!
It will be fascinating to see what the DR is and colour along with it, just as much as the low light performance. For sure it will kick along the FE system some. New a7s buyers will have one eye on what is already there in FE and what is around the corner. That is also five very different Sony full frame cameras now.
Reading your post Guy, this camera might give pro users an advantage over other brands for client files. What would compare?
That's the key as I have one eye squarely on the next SLT body as well. We really have to watch what's going on and try to predict what's next. Here's the good news and bad news the bad news it maybe hard to do is keep up with Sonys fast output the good news is they actually HAVE output everyone else is taking a freaking nap. Go Sony, confuse the crap out of me. Lol