The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
A7s!
- Thread starter Rawfa
- Start date
nostatic
New member
Welcome to the borg - you will be assimilated.
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.
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
Rawfa wrote:
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:
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.
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).
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.
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.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
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:
https://vimeo.com/89759162
https://vimeo.com/78864945
And to round it off; his stunt for DigitalRev with a BarbieCam:
Philip Bloom, Barbie Camera Challenge - YouTube
Philip Bloom - DP, Director, Filmmaker
He's also a videographer who really knows composition and timing. Here are a couple of his recent videos:
https://vimeo.com/89759162
https://vimeo.com/78864945
And to round it off; his stunt for DigitalRev with a BarbieCam:
Philip Bloom, Barbie Camera Challenge - YouTube
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
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 :ROTFL:
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 :ROTFL:
ken_vs_ryu
Member
nice post hot. gh4 and the a7s are $1700 body only.
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.
- Marc
Hulyss Bowman
Active member
Well, I'm going to sell all my nikon stuff appart the 50f1.2 to get this one. It feet perfectly my need pro and personal.
Nice one Sony.
Nice one Sony.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
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.
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.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
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
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
A7r plus A7s looks to me like the sweetest combo. Maximum resolution + Maximum high ISO + Maximum video + fits any lens = Maximum satisfaction in two small, inexpensive packages
If I didn't have m4/3 already, ....
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
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.
And a 24 mp A7 converted to Infrared. Wow! All 3 cameras for $6k including conversion. Eduardo.
A7r plus A7s looks to me like the sweetest combo. Maximum resolution + Maximum high ISO + Maximum video + fits any lens = Maximum satisfaction in two small, inexpensive packages
If I didn't have m4/3 already, ....
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I don't think that the price Ina's been released yet. The price that's rumored varies greatly. If you watch this
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.
Annna T
Active member
From what I have read, you can't record 4k at the max IQ internally on the SD card. You need an external recorder for that. This may be included in the $5k you are quoting for the full outfit ?
Stop the temptation..... as I thought I was settled with the A7 and had planned to sell the A7r. A7r & A7s sounds interesting..........A7r plus A7s looks to me like the sweetest combo. Maximum resolution + Maximum high ISO + Maximum video + fits any lens = Maximum satisfaction in two small, inexpensive packages
If I didn't have m4/3 already, ....