|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 10, 2020 13:23:01 GMT -6
Man there is a ton of stuff to wrap my head around. I wish there were more hours in the day. I've been doing 40 hours of my day job, ~35 tracking, and mixing in my "free time". Dying. Thanks to everyone who has chimed in so far. All super helpful. Got a few thoughts/questions for everyone. Blackmagic ATEMThe ATEM Mini Pro Iso seems to be the ticket. This one can capture the full video stream from all inputs, which would allow me to fully edit in post, rather than being stuck with my live switching right? I feel like this kind of flexibility would be a huge feature to have. One thing with these ATEM switchers is that they all use HDMI, not SDI. I read that SDI can do 300 feet, while HDMI maxes out at 50 feet. My live room is 30 feet long and I'll have to get from the cameras, around them room, through the wall, and into my control room. I don't think 50 feet will cut it. It looks blackmagic has some format converters, so I could convert from HDMI to SDI at the camera, then back to HDMI at the switcher. Would that work? I can't imagine all these venues are doing double format conversions everywhere, right? Are HDMI boosters a better way to go? Lighting (video example below)I've got a bunch of Slimpar style LED lights. Uplights around the room. 3x 4bar units (4 lights on each bar), and another 6 loose slimpar lights that I can move as needed. I feel like these should be more than enough to pull off what I need to for lighting, but I'm not really sure. I'd like to be able to have some vibe color lighting happening, without saturating the performers in tons of blue or red or whatever. I'd like to get a real stage performance vibe, while also having the performers properly lit. Also, the white lights look really cool (temperature, not vibe). Is it silly to clamp gels to my LED lights to warm them up? Do I need to be bouncing the light or something? Does anyone know of cool resources for proper lighting technique for video recording a lit stage? I see plenty of 3 point tutorials etc, which will capture nice video, but lack vibe. It seems like the video below has all the wash color coming in from behind and probably a bunch of white coming from the front to get the clarity on the performers while still retaining vibe? Cameras sopwith mentioned "Get yourself 2 Sony APS-C mirrorless cameras - whatever fits your budget in the A6000 range (6100, 6400, etc). They have beautiful 1080 HD output via HDMI for you to feed into the Atem Mini." 6000 model only does 3:2 aspect, no 16:9, so that's junk right? 5100 model has 16:9, lacks 4k. Autofocus (phase detection 179, contrast detection 25) 6100 and 6400 both do 16:9, and both have much higher autofocus numbers (Phase 425, contrast 425). It seems like the 6400 just has a much better viewfinder than the 6100. Based on this bit of research, it seems like the 6100 is probably the way to go? I imagine the better autofocus of the 6100 vs. 5100 is MAJOR? I would guess a pair of 6100s with one 16-50mm and one 55-210 lens would do the trick? Can anyone make a case for difference cameras / lenses? Anything cheaper that will look great? the other mark williams , you said you're a Canon guy... Any Canons comparable to this setup? Movement
For all of this, it seems like I need to have the cameras connected to the system with HDMI. Obviously, I can't be walking all around the shoot with a wired camera in hand trying to capture cool angles and being in the way of the wide shots. I assume that any tight shots need to be captured with the long lens from the back of the room? Do I need something more than a good (Bogen) tripod to get decent shots? Any other things I should be thinking about?I'd love to capture vibe like this...
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 10, 2020 13:37:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by donr on Sept 10, 2020 13:57:27 GMT -6
Your studio looks good so far Jesse. If you want to expand your video palette, get some green screen capability somewhere on your premises.
Our videos so far have all been green screen, even the band shots were composited from individual green screen performances. Lots of post production tho, and many hours of render time to deliver finished product. Labor and skill intensive.
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Sept 10, 2020 14:16:09 GMT -6
I run HDMI to SDI converter boxes for most of my fixed cameras, but the handheld cam outputs SDI native and yes, I’m running off battery with a 50’ SDI tether for the follow shots.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Sept 10, 2020 14:35:05 GMT -6
I can't speak to some of your questions but can to a few.
HDMI to SDI converts are readily available, but I think may induce some latency. Not 100% sure about that. All my cameras do SDI. Sure seems like a major hassle to be HDMI only though.
The video you posted has a LOT of lights going on, much more so that what you've listed, I don't think you can ever have too much light(okay, yes you can) but to get good lighting and vibe will take just more fixtures.
And yes, longer len's to get in tight is always best. People often feel weird with cameras right in their faces. But tripod heads are what makes for smooth operation vs shakey. The longer your lens the more movements will show and the smoother you want.
Don't cheap out too much on your ball head basically. But you probably don't need a $5000 ball head either haha
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 10, 2020 15:06:48 GMT -6
I can't speak to some of your questions but can to a few. HDMI to SDI converts are readily available, but I think may induce some latency. Not 100% sure about that. All my cameras do SDI. Sure seems like a major hassle to be HDMI only though. The video you posted has a LOT of lights going on, much more so that what you've listed, I don't think you can ever have too much light(okay, yes you can) but to get good lighting and vibe will take just more fixtures. And yes, longer len's to get in tight is always best. People often feel weird with cameras right in their faces. But tripod heads are what makes for smooth operation vs shakey. The longer your lens the more movements will show and the smoother you want. Don't cheap out too much on your ball head basically. But you probably don't need a $5000 ball head either haha I don't expect anything near the KEXP caliber, but would like to try to be in that vein of shoot.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Sept 10, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -6
I can't speak to some of your questions but can to a few. HDMI to SDI converts are readily available, but I think may induce some latency. Not 100% sure about that. All my cameras do SDI. Sure seems like a major hassle to be HDMI only though. The video you posted has a LOT of lights going on, much more so that what you've listed, I don't think you can ever have too much light(okay, yes you can) but to get good lighting and vibe will take just more fixtures. And yes, longer len's to get in tight is always best. People often feel weird with cameras right in their faces. But tripod heads are what makes for smooth operation vs shakey. The longer your lens the more movements will show and the smoother you want. Don't cheap out too much on your ball head basically. But you probably don't need a $5000 ball head either haha I don't expect anything near the KEXP caliber, but would like to try to be in that vein of shoot. OK remember a couple of basics of video because I don’t know the Cameras your looking at. 1 smaller the chip in the camera the more light you need. 2 as a general rule as lenses get longer the maximum light or f-stop is going to get smaller ( bigger number) 3 less expensive zoom lens are sometimes going to vary the maximum f stop by focal length. 4 while less versatile fixed focal length lenses are usually a better lens. Getting one of the small steadi cam like devices can go a long way to making a so-so camera operator look better than they are.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 10, 2020 17:19:51 GMT -6
I don't expect anything near the KEXP caliber, but would like to try to be in that vein of shoot. OK remember a couple of basics of video because I don’t know the Cameras your looking at. 1 smaller the chip in the camera the more light you need. 2 as a general rule as lenses get longer the maximum light or f-stop is going to get smaller ( bigger number) 3 less expensive zoom lens are sometimes going to vary the maximum f stop by focal length. 4 while less versatile fixed focal length lenses are usually a better lens. Getting one of the small steadi cam like devices can go a long way to making a so-so camera operator look better than they are. I didn't realize you're fluent in Portuguese. 😂😂
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Sept 10, 2020 18:34:59 GMT -6
OK remember a couple of basics of video because I don’t know the Cameras your looking at. 1 smaller the chip in the camera the more light you need. 2 as a general rule as lenses get longer the maximum light or f-stop is going to get smaller ( bigger number) 3 less expensive zoom lens are sometimes going to vary the maximum f stop by focal length. 4 while less versatile fixed focal length lenses are usually a better lens. Getting one of the small steadi cam like devices can go a long way to making a so-so camera operator look better than they are. I didn't realize you're fluent in Portuguese. 😂😂 Keep tryin for English but who knew it was a right thumb that made all the difference ( there is no stub thumbs up emoji damn it!)
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 10, 2020 18:47:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Sept 10, 2020 19:07:37 GMT -6
So the more you stop down the smaller your depth of field gets as well and you can actually loose sharpness by being at the edge of what a lens can do.
at f1.8 you will really need to be able to nail the focus or stuff is going to be out of focus all the time and your depth of field is only going to be about 1.5feet. Lower means you have even less wiggle room.
Both those lenses in that kit though only do a variable low f stop of 3.5-5.6 for 16-50 and 4.5-6.3 for the zoom. this means at its lowest focal lenth(16mm for instance) it can only stop down to f3.5, but if you zoom in to 50mm then it can only stop down to f5.6. This will be variable that will be directly proportional with the focal length, so like 35mm will only be able to do f4.8 maybe.
For video you can get away with a wide open aperture more assuming your manually doing focus operation of the camera has killer auto focus. This allows you to increase the shutter speed and decrease the iso for less noise.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 10, 2020 20:35:19 GMT -6
So the more you stop down the smaller your depth of field gets as well and you can actually loose sharpness by being at the edge of what a lens can do. at f1.8 you will really need to be able to nail the focus or stuff is going to be out of focus all the time and your depth of field is only going to be about 1.5feet. Lower means you have even less wiggle room. Both those lenses in that kit though only do a variable low f stop of 3.5-5.6 for 16-50 and 4.5-6.3 for the zoom. this means at its lowest focal lenth(16mm for instance) it can only stop down to f3.5, but if you zoom in to 50mm then it can only stop down to f5.6. This will be variable that will be directly proportional with the focal length, so like 35mm will only be able to do f4.8 maybe. For video you can get away with a wide open aperture more assuming your manually doing focus operation of the camera has killer auto focus. This allows you to increase the shutter speed and decrease the iso for less noise. So depth of field... With the 1.8, I would have a 1.5ft depth of field (as you mentioned above). So my focus point plus a foot in front and 6 inches behind (or similar) will be in focus, everything else will be blurred out (like portrait mode on my cell photos)? I guess that would probably be horrible for wide shots, but could be cool on tight shots? I assume to start, I'd be best off with 1 cam for wide and one for tight? Man this stuff is deep...
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Sept 10, 2020 21:49:39 GMT -6
So the more you stop down the smaller your depth of field gets as well and you can actually loose sharpness by being at the edge of what a lens can do. at f1.8 you will really need to be able to nail the focus or stuff is going to be out of focus all the time and your depth of field is only going to be about 1.5feet. Lower means you have even less wiggle room. Both those lenses in that kit though only do a variable low f stop of 3.5-5.6 for 16-50 and 4.5-6.3 for the zoom. this means at its lowest focal lenth(16mm for instance) it can only stop down to f3.5, but if you zoom in to 50mm then it can only stop down to f5.6. This will be variable that will be directly proportional with the focal length, so like 35mm will only be able to do f4.8 maybe. For video you can get away with a wide open aperture more assuming your manually doing focus operation of the camera has killer auto focus. This allows you to increase the shutter speed and decrease the iso for less noise. So depth of field... With the 1.8, I would have a 1.5ft depth of field (as you mentioned above). So my focus point plus a foot in front and 6 inches behind (or similar) will be in focus, everything else will be blurred out (like portrait mode on my cell photos)? I guess that would probably be horrible for wide shots, but could be cool on tight shots? I assume to start, I'd be best off with 1 cam for wide and one for tight? Man this stuff is deep... Basically yes. However, again, with video you can get away with wider aperture than you would say a photo. You'll want to play with it a bit yourself. But yes a wide and a moving tight is always good. Grab a few cheap gopros and add those in the mix and there you go.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Sept 10, 2020 22:38:28 GMT -6
So the more you stop down the smaller your depth of field gets as well and you can actually loose sharpness by being at the edge of what a lens can do. at f1.8 you will really need to be able to nail the focus or stuff is going to be out of focus all the time and your depth of field is only going to be about 1.5feet. Lower means you have even less wiggle room. Both those lenses in that kit though only do a variable low f stop of 3.5-5.6 for 16-50 and 4.5-6.3 for the zoom. this means at its lowest focal lenth(16mm for instance) it can only stop down to f3.5, but if you zoom in to 50mm then it can only stop down to f5.6. This will be variable that will be directly proportional with the focal length, so like 35mm will only be able to do f4.8 maybe. For video you can get away with a wide open aperture more assuming your manually doing focus operation of the camera has killer auto focus. This allows you to increase the shutter speed and decrease the iso for less noise. So depth of field... With the 1.8, I would have a 1.5ft depth of field (as you mentioned above). So my focus point plus a foot in front and 6 inches behind (or similar) will be in focus, everything else will be blurred out (like portrait mode on my cell photos)? I guess that would probably be horrible for wide shots, but could be cool on tight shots? I assume to start, I'd be best off with 1 cam for wide and one for tight? Man this stuff is deep... Not enough time tonight to share too many thoughts, but here are a few... (This is based on several things you brought up in above posts, jcoutu1 , not just what I quoted.) You're right in commenting that this stuff is deep. It's pretty much as deep as audio (if not deeper), and it takes quite awhile to become proficient. I mean, you can still have an entire career in filmmaking where your only job is lighting. (Haha - I say "only": it's seriously an advanced artform unto itself.) OK, a couple quick things: You asked about light. The basic rule as far as I'm concerned is that you will always need more light than you think you will. At least until you get used to how the camera sees light vs. how your eye sees light. (This is akin to how a microphone hears a sound source vs. how your ear hears it.) I remember how the first time I used a condenser mic I was surprised at how much more it "heard" than my ear did. It seemed like it picked up on the air molecules entering my nose, which my ear could never hear. Stunning. Well, with a camera and light, it's kind of the opposite: the camera "sees" less than the eye does. In general, it needs more light hitting the sensor to process information than my retinas do. There are several ways to get more light onto a sensor. One is to add more light. Another is to increase the aperture width, which will allow more light to pass through to the sensor. (This is the f-stop number you referred to above.) But other things affect this, too: A larger sensor (full-frame) will (generally) soak in more light than a smaller sensor (cropped). The sensor size will also hugely impact depth of field (DOF). A 50mm f/1.8 lens will look entirely different on a cropped sensor than it will on a full frame camera, for instance. I mean, entirely different. These things are hugely, hugely, hugely interactive. You can make fantastic films on sensors of almost any size, though. You just have to know what you're doing. I do shoot with Canon, personally, but I'd be thrilled to shoot with either Canon or Sony. The Fujis also produce wonderful images. So do the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Cameras. And many people love their Panasonics. There are so many good options these days. I mostly went with Canon because my wife shoots Canon for stills, and she already had some good glass. I knew if I added a few more lenses, we could amass a nice collection to meet many needs fairly quickly. Lenses are to filmmaking as microphones are to music recording. But also, I do prefer the Canon colors to the Sony colors straight out of camera in general. When I see ungraded footage side-by-side, I almost always prefer the look of the Canon footage. Especially skin tones. But that's me. I also personally prefer shooting full frame. More light (in general) and easier to manipulate DOF. If you use an ATEM (and yes, the Pro ISO is badass and works just how you said with the ability to edit the shoot in post) you'll be broadcasting in 1080, so a 4k camera isn't even particularly needed. Full HD is enough. Though of course all new cameras will have 4k (and higher) ability. But for instance, I primarily shoot with a Canon EOS-R these days, which can shoot 4k, though with several features disabled in 4k mode, so I never really shoot 4k with it. I would look at how many camera angles you want, and then think about what lenses you'll need to get those shots based upon where things will be set up in your studio. The HDMI distance limit may not affect you at all, depending on what lens you use on the camera capturing the farthest-away-thing. And use your sensor size to your advantage: a crop sensor is going to have an inherently more difficult time getting shallow DOF, but it's also going to get you more reach on those long focal length shots. So maybe you use a crop sensor camera with a longer focal length for capturing the instruments at the far wall, and a full frame camera for the closer stuff. But of course all of that could be wrong depending on your physical space and how you have musicians set up. You can find great lenses affordably on Craigslist and used at local camera shops. There will be a ton in Boston. There are more great Canon lenses (EF mount, at least) available than anything else just because of Canon's longtime prominence (dominance?) in the photography world (vs. Sony). But again, either system can be fantastic. Continuous eye autofocus is a game changer if you don't have someone manning the cameras all night. Sony and Canon have the best continuous eye AF in the business (though occasionally you'll run into a Panasonic man looking to pick a fight over phase-detect AF vs. Canon's DPAF). The two most recent generations of both are very, very nice. Excellent video tripods can be had for very cheap. I like the Cayer brand on Amazon. Very nice fluid video heads for the money. I've spent more on other brands and gotten less. And then returned the more expensive brands. Would I prefer a Manfrotto? Of course I would. But there are too many other things to buy at the beginning. Or at least for me there have been. It's a big world. And it's hard to do it well. But it's not crazy hard to do it well-enough, if you know what I mean. And it is a rapidly growing segment of the music business. That's all I got for tonight. Keep asking questions. I'm excited for you!
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 11, 2020 13:38:05 GMT -6
Anyone offer deals on camera gear? Anywhere I can grab a deal on the ATEM PRO ISO?
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 11, 2020 14:47:35 GMT -6
Also, on the ATEM, it seems like the advantage is being able to record the individual streams, but I'll be capturing the streams on cards from the cameras anyway right? I could save myself 4 bones and skip upgrading to the iso right?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Sept 11, 2020 15:39:57 GMT -6
That's what I was thinking, jesse. ISO's already on the cameras themselves. Unless ATEM does something to the picture? I've never used one.
Maybe a little convenience of everything being synced up right from the go? I use Plural Eyes app for that, works fine. Either that or the ATEM, I'm guessing you could possibly not have to worry about time code and sync. Just guessing.
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Sept 11, 2020 16:35:24 GMT -6
Cameras
Can anyone make a case for difference cameras / lenses? Anything cheaper that will look great? the other mark williams , you said you're a Canon guy... Any Canons comparable to this setup? I'm trying to learn all of this same stuff you are, but I can provide a little bit of help on the Canon cameras, as I've owned several of the DSLR models for hobbyist photography and video. The current Canon model that would be the direct competitor to the Sony A6100 is the t8i, but for livestreaming I think the SL3 would be a better choice, as it has the same exact video specs as the t8i but is significantly cheaper. I have a Canon 90D and an SL3 and I like the SL3 better for most everything, even though the 90D is supposed to be a much better model. The 90D has slow motion but I barely use it, and you wouldn't be using slow motion for livestreaming. Arguing camera brands can be as contentious as Mac vs PC, but the consensus seems to be that Canon is known for their great autofocus and superb color straight out of the camera with no processing--two things that would very helpful for livestreaming. A negative thing Canon is known for is having less features than similarly priced competitors. Some of the best looking YouTube videos I've seen were filmed with the Panasonic GH5, but word is that the autofocus sucks. If you have a singer jumping all around the autofocus would be super important, if it's a camera pointed at the drummer you wouldn't even need autofocus. When pricing out cameras you want to look at lens options and price them with that as well. The Canon new and used market does have a ton of great lens options at all prices. One thing I'm trying to figure out is how long these different cameras can film before overheating. A friend's band was livestreaming with a Sony DSLR, not sure which model, and it overheated and shutdown in the middle of their performance. Obviously that would suck to happen when you have a bunch of people watching a livestream. I think shooting in 4k will make them overheat faster. If anyone can chime in with more info on overheating I'd be interested.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Sept 11, 2020 20:19:47 GMT -6
Anyone offer deals on camera gear? Anywhere I can grab a deal on the ATEM PRO ISO? I can't imagine you'd be able to find a deal on the ATEM Mini Pro ISO. Too new and too much demand. Always worth looking around, though. I don't even generally see deals on the other ATEM Minis. Also, on the ATEM, it seems like the advantage is being able to record the individual streams, but I'll be capturing the streams on cards from the cameras anyway right? I could save myself 4 bones and skip upgrading to the iso right? That's what I was thinking, jesse. ISO's already on the cameras themselves. Unless ATEM does something to the picture? I've never used one. Maybe a little convenience of everything being synced up right from the go? I use Plural Eyes app for that, works fine. Either that or the ATEM, I'm guessing you could possibly not have to worry about time code and sync. Just guessing. This is a good question, Jesse. Personally, I would prefer to not record internally to cards for this kind of thing, and just use the Mini Pro ISO to handle that. A couple of reasons: - Syncing this stuff up off of cards will take a little bit of time. Maybe not too much trouble, but you would definitely have to make sure everything is in sync, which is another thing to learn. If you were to use the ISO, everything would already be in sync.
- DSLRs and mirrorless cameras can only record for 30 mins, and then you have to hit stop and then start again (or it just stops recording at 29:59-ish and you have to go hit record again). If you just record the HDMI stream off of the cameras, you don't have to monkey around with that bullshit. Cinema cameras (Canon C300/200/100, Sony FS7, Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera) don't have that limitation.
Cameras
Can anyone make a case for difference cameras / lenses? Anything cheaper that will look great? the other mark williams , you said you're a Canon guy... Any Canons comparable to this setup? I'm trying to learn all of this same stuff you are, but I can provide a little bit of help on the Canon cameras, as I've owned several of the DSLR models for hobbyist photography and video. The current Canon model that would be the direct competitor to the Sony A6100 is the t8i, but for livestreaming I think the SL3 would be a better choice, as it has the same exact video specs as the t8i but is significantly cheaper. I have a Canon 90D and an SL3 and I like the SL3 better for most everything, even though the 90D is supposed to be a much better model. The 90D has slow motion but I barely use it, and you wouldn't be using slow motion for livestreaming. Arguing camera brands can be as contentious as Mac vs PC, but the consensus seems to be that Canon is known for their great autofocus and superb color straight out of the camera with no processing--two things that would very helpful for livestreaming. A negative thing Canon is known for is having less features than similarly priced competitors. Some of the best looking YouTube videos I've seen were filmed with the Panasonic GH5, but word is that the autofocus sucks. If you have a singer jumping all around the autofocus would be super important, if it's a camera pointed at the drummer you wouldn't even need autofocus. When pricing out cameras you want to look at lens options and price them with that as well. The Canon new and used market does have a ton of great lens options at all prices. One thing I'm trying to figure out is how long these different cameras can film before overheating. A friend's band was livestreaming with a Sony DSLR, not sure which model, and it overheated and shutdown in the middle of their performance. Obviously that would suck to happen when you have a bunch of people watching a livestream. I think shooting in 4k will make them overheat faster. If anyone can chime in with more info on overheating I'd be interested. On Canons, NOTHING before the two new mirrorless cameras (R5 and R6) will overheat. The R5 won't overheat if you shoot 4k normal mode. 4k HQ and 8k will overheat like crazy. There are some instances where Sonys will overheat in 4k. Usually this is when the ambient temp is high or it's in direct sunlight. I don't recall any stories of Sonys from the past 3 yrs or so overheating when shooting in 1080, but I would check with Sony guys before committing to that workflow. If you're not recording to a card internally, you won't be generating nearly as much heat, so you may be fine at 4k on a Sony. It's true that Sony vs. Canon has become like the "PC vs. Mac" debate in the camera world in terms of evangelists for the different platforms. For the past 5-7 years, Sony has offered more features for the price, albeit with side effects like overheating. And the menus are harder to work through and navigate. The Canons have generally offered slightly lower specs, but the Canon engineers (mysteriously) seem to utilize their tech in a way that produces an image of equal (or better) quality with the lower specs, with fewer side effects like overheating (again, excluding the two new models R5 and R6, where Canon just shot the moon and went high spec and have had some overheating nightmares as a result). A Sony fan may offer a different perspective on this stuff, so get more opinions than just mine for sure. And if the various camera lines all used the same lens mount natively, I imagine you'd see a lot more switching between brands with each new camera release. The difficulty and expense in changing systems is a major deterrent. Imagine if all your mics only worked with RME converters, and if you wanted to change to Lynx Aurora you had to sell all your mics and buy all new mics. Yes, there are lens mount converters, but there are always some questions about how those conversions affect autofocus, with some people saying it's flawless and others saying there's a difference. (Except in the case of a converter made by the same camera brand, for example the Canon EF to RF mount converters. Those really are flawless and act 100% as a native mount would.) In terms of specific Canon models... The Canon 80D and 90D are both nice, affordable crop sensor DSLR cameras with good autofocus. I can't remember offhand, though, if they have a clean HDMI out or not ("clean" just means whether or not all the little markings like aperture, ISO, framerate, etc. are present on the HDMI out feed). The 6D or 6D mkII are also both nice, and are full frame equivalents. Those are all DSLRs, meaning they have a mirror. The Canon EOS-RP is a nice mirrorless choice. I have one of those as a B-cam. Clean HDMI out, full frame. Can shoot 24fps. Quite affordable. Especially these days, as Canon just released the R5 and R6. And I personally really like the EOS-R, which is a step up from the RP. I have one of those and my wife has one, too. I use it most days of the week. The Sony nomenclature always gets a little confusing to me - they're all a7ii, a7iii, a7siii, a7riii, etc. I once knew all the differences. I've forgotten them now... I would love to shoot with a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6k (BMPCC6k), but it just doesn't suit my workflow at present. Those are very, very cool cameras. But no autofocus. And of course another question is: How long do you think you'll keep the cameras?? Camera technology is moving fast these days...
|
|
|
Post by nnajar on Sept 11, 2020 21:38:19 GMT -6
The cameras all have an in camera time recording limit of around 30 min. The only one I know of that don’t are the new A6600 for APS-C and the new but not yet available A7s iii for full frame. I have 2 A7s ii's and one original A7s and a little rx100vii. We use blackmagic video assist recorders and only use the cameras for the sensor. The little rx100 goes on the gimbal and it has excellent continuous auto focus. But sort of crappy low light performance because of the baby sensor and slow glass. But for moving shots it is less noticeable and the great AF is nice for the gimbal.
For the A7’s, I use old Canon FD s.s.c. lenses. They’re a fabulous value. I like shooting manually and it isn’t a problem for a fixed camera location to have manual focus. Just setup everyone and everything and focus so it looks good where and how it’s pointed and move on with your life.... focus peaking in camera and on the BM monitors is super convenient and quick when you get used to it. Since there’s no electrical connection, adapting FD lenses is easy and cheap because it’s just a mechanical connection. Did I mention it’s really nice looking, fast glass and it’s cheap? I’ve got a whole kit of various focal lengths.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 12, 2020 5:55:41 GMT -6
Having everything synced does seem like a great perk and time saver in the end, and time is money.
It only records compressed streams though (is this a problem?)...
Video Recording 4 x HDMI ISO inputs as H.264 .mp4 files at up to 70Mb/s quality at the ATEM video standard with AAC audio.
1 x Program out as H.264 .mp4 file at the Streaming quality setting and at the ATEM video standard with AAC audio.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Sept 12, 2020 7:41:18 GMT -6
Having everything synced does seem like a great perk and time saver in the end, and time is money. It only records compressed streams though (is this a problem?)... Video Recording 4 x HDMI ISO inputs as H.264 .mp4 files at up to 70Mb/s quality at the ATEM video standard with AAC audio. 1 x Program out as H.264 .mp4 file at the Streaming quality setting and at the ATEM video standard with AAC audio. Good question. As it's still optimized for streaming, they had to limit it somewhere. Shooting at H.264 is great, no problem there. The 70Mb/s is maybe a little low as compared to recording to an internal card (I think the EOS-R's bitrate is around 90Mbps in 1080 at 24fps or 480Mbps in 4k), but it's definitely good enough - absolutely. It's annoying that it's only AAC audio, but again, it's really designed as a broadcast unit, with the ISO recording being a bonus. One thing I would be curious about is if bands would ask you before booking, "hey, are you going to record this in 4k?" You may never have a single question like that, or you may get a few. No idea. It's like 4k has become a buzzword that some people associate with quality. Which is basically ridiculous. I'd much rather have good looking 1080 than shitty looking 4k. And there is some shitty looking 4k out there. And the Arri Alexa (probably the closest thing to a Hollywood standard when it comes to big digital cinema cameras) doesn't even shoot 4k. And it's been used on hundreds of major big studio releases. Everything is a tradeoff in video, and there are always other contributing factors besides the big numbers people look for. Keep in mind that at streaming quality, you may only be broadcasting at 10Mbps (or possibly even less). This kind of speaks to how you market the service. Is it: - A concert filmmaking event with highest quality video files upon delivery and also includes a free livestream? (If so, prioritize capturing at highest rate possible and deal with the annoyances of having to go out and hit record on the cameras every 2-3 songs -- or record on external recorders like an Atomos Ninja for each camera to avoid this annoyance.)
- A live concert broadcast where you're also happy to deliver the raw video tracks for each camera, which they can then do what they want with after the fact in an NLE? (If so, the Mini Pro ISO does what you want, and you can even provide a DaVinci Resolve file of the actual show as you cut it live which they can then re-edit to their heart's content in post.)
- A live concert broadcast where you're also happy to deliver a recording of the broadcast as it went down in realtime for them to do what they want with after the fact -- but it's not editable in terms of recutting camera angles? (If so, the Mini Pro does everything you need. Heck, you could even get the regular Mini to do this if you use a software program on a computer to do the streaming and recording pieces.)
For my money, the sweet spot would be offering item 2 above. But that's just me! It may well be that all your market wants is item 3! It takes a pretty motivated band to go back after a live concert stream and edit the cuts between different camera angles and maybe color grade the footage before posting it to their website or YouTube page! It's a lot of work to do that. I can see some bands thinking they'll do all that work and like having the option to do so, but then never actually doing it. I could also see them hiring you to do that cleanup work as an upcharge (which you then farm out or do it yourself). Anyways, a lot of different ways to approach this.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Sept 12, 2020 8:27:18 GMT -6
NOTE: I added a bunch of new info to my post 4 up from this one, so check that one out again, jcoutu1. Started out editing the post for clarity, and then got caught up in adding new info to it.
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Sept 12, 2020 9:22:54 GMT -6
Here's a link to the Canon cameras that have a clean HDMI output. I'm sure other brands have a similar list. 1.shortstack.com/r2zfS5
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Sept 12, 2020 10:29:50 GMT -6
Few things... If the format restriction of the ATEM iso isn't a problem, that's probably my best bet. What does mirrorless mean in terms of performance? Is that just that you have a live image on the viewfinder vs having to look through the little eye thing? Or is there more to it? I'm looking at this as dual purpose for me. I want the ability to be able to stream live videos and want to up the quality of my studio "music video" shoots. Having everything synced right out the gate seems super helpful for the "music videos". Here's an example that I shot a couple months ago with my Pixel, a moment Anamorphic lens, and a gimbal. If I could catch multiple angles at once with everything synced, that would be killer. I don't expect to be making anything great, but I want to make decent quality videos that DIY bands on a budget will love. I don't have a lot of money to drop, but would rather buy right for my needs off the bat with the ability to grow. Lenses seem like such a wild ride too. There are sooooo many out there. Also, what's up with actual video cameras? How come nobody is using those? I assume something like this doesn't run into the 30 minute limit? www.sony.com/electronics/handycam-camcorders/fdr-ax100
|
|