INTRO: I'd like to talk about the food photography shoot I did for a restaurant a few years ago. The reason is, I used a camera that I would have never guessed could do the job, a Panasonic FZ1000    #ad AND I used an "advanced" food photography technique (that's actually quite easy) that used a constant light source (no flash). As a former still photographer, this went against everything I had believed and done before. I was using one of the smaller-sensor BRIDGE CAMERAS (with a non-interchangeable lens) and NO STROBE OR FLASH! All of these factors would normally result in grainy and blurred images. However, this all worked out because I was using a (40") slider  #ad for stabilization (and to recomposed each shot quickly, repeatedly). Then, what made it even easier (and actually pretty fun) was to add a remote control (using the Panasonic Image app). UPDATE: After using the Panasonic Image App recently (on a couple of different phones, in a number of different RF environments) it isn't working too well UNLESS YOU ARE CLOSE TO THE CAMERA! ABOVE: Doing a food photo shoot with the Panasonic Image App in conjunction with a Panasonic FZ1000 camera (and a 40" slider on 2 sturdy tripods) is a super-efficient food photography workflow that allows clients to see the images on screen (and even take them). WHY USE A SLIDER (FOR FOOD PHOTOGRAPHY)? The first question that may come to a photographer's mind is regarding the slider. Why use one for food photography? Aren't sliders designed for capturing motion (video) and not stills? Well, the main reason I use the slider is for stability and not for motion. I mount it on 2 sturdy tripods. I use a couple of medium weight Manfrotto tripods  #ad (the old 3011 is good) purchased used through OfferUp. (I do not recommend using light stands to hold the slider, or even 1 tripod, as this is usually not sturdy enough.) So, when the slider is mounted on 2 sturdy tripods, it eliminates camera shake. The next part is the most exciting, however; I use the slider function to quickly reposition the camera (in proximity to the food being photographed on the table below) to quickly grab shots from different angles. One from the left, one from center and one from the right, or whatever sequence of shots you'd like to take. This makes taking several photos quickly (from different angles) a breeze, because you never have to rotate the plate of food. WHY USE THE PANASONIC FZ1000? The question as to why I used the Panasonic FZ1000  #ad (for food photography) should come up in most photographer's minds. "Isn't that a (despised) bridge camera, with a small sensor, poor low-light capabilities and a lack of macro?" Yes, yes, yes and yes. However, it worked great, amidst all these limitations. The small sensor was overcome by using a low ISO and enough light (an LED with a minimum of 600 LEDs if non-bi-color, 1200 if bi-color). Then, the slider (and sturdy tripods) kept any camera shake in check. Then, finally, the lack of a macro never really came into play, as I stayed about 6 feet away from the food plate and zoomed in to the telephoto part of the lens. USING THE PANASONIC APP IS AWESOME (IF CLOSE)! There is something even more interesting about using the FZ1000  #ad for food photography though; the ability to control the focus AND ZOOM from an Android (or iOS?) tablet (from a distance). If you've never used a tablet to control the focus AND ZOOM of a camera, you're in for a treat. I use a 7 or 8-inch Samsung (Android) tablet  #ad with a protective case  #ad and it looks super professional because it allows me to show the client the images on a larger screen, AND they can even be the one taking the pictures if they want to: I compose (by moving the slider) they focus and shoot (by simply tapping on the tablet screen where they want it to be in focus). The whole setup isn't very expensive, but clients have been very happy about it because it shows them exactly what they're getting, and that is what can speed up production dramatically (if the client isn't too picky, but if they are, it's on them). CONCLUSION: So, as far as productivity, this setup allowed me to shoot the entire menu in 1 day (2 sessions of 1/2 day each). While I was prepared with a shot list (created from a printed menu they supplied) the team (including the owner and cooks) made it very easy by quickly cooking and styling each dish. It was a fast-paced and invigorating experience, but using the FZ1000, on a slider and with a tablet powered by the Panasonic Image App, it was easy! The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

First, a word from our sponsor (or maybe somebody else) So, here's the actual start  of this blog post:  INTRODUCTION: While learning to promote my own business, I've been thinking a lot about advertising... but anyone in the advertising business knows that simply THINKING about it doesn't do anything. In fact, it sort of contradicts the primary meaning of the word "advertising" ("the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements"). So, what does not advertising have to do with the famous quote about mousetraps? ABOVE:  According to Wikipedia, the form of the quote we've probably all heard was a "misquotation" of Ralph Waldo Emerson's original statement. DID HE REALLY SAY "MOUSETRAP"? The quote we all have heard is "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." According to Wikipedia however (I know, not always a perfect source) Ralph Waldo Emerson never said anything about mousetraps . He did say something similar to the part about the world beating a path to your door, but the products and services he mentioned did not include a mousetrap. Even so, I think this saying can be misunderstood, and it "does not mean what you think it means" (to quote another, slightly less reliable, source ). IS ADVERTISING NOT NECESSARY AFTER ALL? So then, for those of us who often emphasize the importance of advertising, this phrase seems to say that if we invent something special, new and great, we don't really need to advertise, because the automatic result is "...the world will beat a path to your door". This is almost completely opposite of what I've been learning about advertising, because if no one KNOWS about a product or service you have created or provide, then how can it sell? WHAT'S THE REAL QUOTE (WHAT DID HE MEAN?) Regarding this super popular quote, this Wikipedia article states what Ralph Waldo Emerson really said, compared to the quote that we all have heard: " Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door " is a phrase attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson in the late nineteenth century. [1] [2] The phrase is actually a misquotation of the statement: "If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods." — Ralph Waldo Emerson [2] WHY DO I THINK THIS QUOTE CAN BE MISLEADING? We know there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of ideas that have been submitted to the Patent Office but haven't been acted on. We haven't heard of most of these ideas, and that proves just having a good idea doesn't make it sell. Good ideas, like laws in science, can't be proven to be good without real-world testing. WAS WORD OF MOUTH IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL? I believe the second (and now, the most popular) version of the quote fails to emphasize one important (implied?) aspect of Ralph Waldo Emerson's original words: word of mouth advertising . When Mr. Emerson said "If a man has good corn or wood, or boards..." I think it would have been an assumption (in those days) that the audience would know that word of mouth advertising would be a part of the story. It was in the days before radio and television, and was certainly before social media was a part of our daily lives! The main point is that for a product or service to become popular, first people would have to experience that product or service, like it, and then would certainly tell others as a result. So, my guess is was what CAUSED the increase of traffic to the home of the inventor (the "broad hard-beaten road to his house...") would have been word of mouth...which, being a form of advertising, shows how important advertising is. Good ideas don't sell themselves. You have to put them out there. CONCLUSION: So what do we take from all of this? I believe both versions of the quote can serve a similar purpose and together they emphasize two (2) things: The necessity for your product or service to be "better" (though I think a non-saturated market provides sufficient demand for (or at least can tolerate) inferior products or services. The necessity for people (at least a few, who can start the "gossip chain") to KNOW about your product or service. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: I took only one video production class from producer, director and camera operator Keven Strehle, but it was one of the most enjoyable classes I ever took. During the class, Keven taught what he called his "mantra"; a short list of video production tips that covered what I would call the "essential quality factors" of storytelling, camera stabilization, audio and more. Unfortunately, due to my "focus" on shooting footage during the class (and not taking notes) I wasn't able to remember Keven's mantra. I've thought about this several times over the years, and when I learned of Keven's unexpected and tragic death in 2013 (of a motorcycle accident) I started to regret not memorizing it even more. This concept of focusing on key things that affect video production quality, inspired me to create this list of "factors". These are what I consider the most important factors for creating authentic, reality-based films. ABOVE:  I was inspired by Northwest Backroads producer, director, and camera operator Keven Strehle to create a short list of the factors that affect video production quality. Keven was one of my favorite teachers at Highline College. Unfortunately, I didn't take enough notes during his class, so I've struggled remembering his "mantra". What Makes a Quality Video Production? REAL, GOOD CONTENT (STORYTELLING) REAL, GOOD IMAGES (ORGANIC, NOT "DIGITAL") REAL, GOOD AUDIO (SYNCHRONOUS?) REAL, GOOD ACTING (OR NOT ACTING?) REAL, GOOD COMPOSITION (NO FISHEYES) REAL, GOOD DEPTH OF FIELD (DOF) ACCURATE FOCUS (EASIER W/MORE DOF) REAL, GOOD STABILIZATION (NOT SHAKY) REAL, GOOD EDITING (NO SPECIAL FX) REAL, GOOD DISTRIBUTION (NOT VERTICAL) FACTOR 1 REAL, GOOD CONTENT (STORYTELLING) Keven had a passion for telling true stories, especially those set in the outdoors, and these are the stories for which he became famous (won several awards) for. Every good filmmaker talks about story. It's important, because without it viewers are left with nothing (and can feel like they've wasted their time). So "content is king" (and is listed first for this reason) but I don't agree with the "equipment doesn't matter" idea, and I'd prefer to say "equipment is MUCH LESS important than story". FACTOR 2 REAL, GOOD IMAGES (ORGANIC, NOT "DIGITAL") Again, if you're your goal is a less-than-realistic final image you may not think this is important, but in my opinion, even if you're going for changing the overall mood of a scene to a more dramatic color grade, you still should learn to make all the shots match. Patrick, a really good color grading artist from mixinglight.com emphasized the importance of making your cameras match, and said: "Shot matching is a key skill for anyone doing color correction. Well matched shots add tremendous production value to a project and enhance the effectiveness of the narrative by not forcing the audience to expend effort to maintain their suspension of disbelief." It is also important that the two (or more) cameras have the same contrast (and other image-related properties) but that's a topic for another post. MORE INFO: BLOG How I Set Camera Settings (Like the Zone System) PODCAST How I Improve Lens-Sensor Relationships Using Camera Settings FACTOR 3 REAL, GOOD AUDIO (SYNCHRONOUS?) Pretty much everyone agrees that if the audio is bad, nobody will like the video (no matter how good the video itself is.) This is actually one of the things I DO remember from Keven Strehle's mantra: "...compelling audio". When you're first learning video production, this can be quite a challenge, but it's one I believe you start to enjoy when you begin capturing good enough audio to feel the overall impact it has on your films. Audio recording may be one of the most underrated (and underappreciated) arts in the world because it's kind of "invisible" in that when the audio is GOOD, no one seems to notice, but when it's bad, you'll get lots of feedback (pun not intended, but it fits here). ABOVE:  Getting good audio was one thing Keven emphasized in his mantra ("compelling audio"). Here, he helps a student figure out how to dial in his audio settings. FACTOR 4 REAL, GOOD ACTING (OR NOT ACTING?) I always say that good actors don't appear like they're acting. Sometimes they're so good you may find yourself saying that you do or don't like a certain actor based on a certain movie they are in (but then you see them in a different movie and you "can't stand em"). Bad acting stands out, but good acting, like some of the technical factors that we'll be considering, become "invisible" and seem to be part of the story. They are so good you find yourself believing it's real (or, have to expend less effort to do so). My personal approach to acting is to try to stay as close to my true personality as possible in a role, and this makes it easier to improvise and yet be consistent and true to your character (two skills that are sought after in actors). FACTOR 5 REAL, GOOD COMPOSITION (NO FISHEYES) This factor is very important and the most powerful evidence for this is how much many filmmakers rely on storyboards to set up their shots. There are many different "takes" on this subject, some recommending the strict use of storyboards (and some saying they can cramp your creativity) but my point is not to demand or require STORYBOARDS, but simply to emphasize the importance of composition. I " always shoot with 2 cameras " and I think this approach is the easiest way to speed up compositional decisions (i.e. don't try to decide if it should be a wide or tight shot, JUST GO AHEAD AND SHOOT BOTH). ABOVE:  I loved Keven's style of teaching; he encouraged us to start by using the gear we had, and he was always there to make sure we got it right. FACTOR 6 REAL, GOOD DEPTH OF FIELD (DOF) You may have heard about the meme that grew out of a Camera Conspiracies video on YouTube that jokingly refers to bokeh (the properties of an out of focus background) as "toneh". If you haven't (and can stand some humor) check out the back story here . If you have, you know that having too little of the background in focus can be a bit distracting. To quote the video "Why did you bring us to a lake and hide it?...I want to see the lake..!" My take on achieving realistic depth of field is to ask "what does the human eye normally see?" The general rules I follow are: #1 Our eyes create less depth of field the closer an object is (maybe this helps us focus on the detail?) and #2 The darker it is outside or inside, the less depth of field there will be (and it's pretty neat this works the same with low-light lenses)! FACTOR 7 ACCURATE FOCUS (EASIER W/MORE DOF) Accurate focus is important (mostly) because it affects image sharpness. It is closely tied to depth of field, but depth of field can either make focusing more difficult (and make bad focus stand out due to the contrast of the blurry background) or it can make it easier (by making most of the picture in focus). The point is, either way, if your focus is off, it can be distracting, and unless that is what you want, it can detract from the story (again, the most important thing). The technical way to achieve good focus is changing due to autofocus technology improving, but I find the most accurate way right now is to use manual focus, and there's a bit of a learning curve involved here (practice, practice). FACTOR 8 REAL, GOOD STABILIZATION (NOT SHAKY) This may be the biggest thing that kept me, a former photographer, from quickly becoming a videographer. I had a lot of experience in still photography, but I had relied on either using a high shutter speed or flash to keep my images sharp, and so I HARDLY EVER USED A TRIPOD! This made the transition to video production and filmmaking a challenge. I had to learn to use a tripod, but I did learn and I carry one almost everywhere, yet the need for a tripod lessened when good quality IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) was introduced on lower-cost cameras (such as the Panasonic GX85  #ad ). (BTW, I think that's the camera that gives you the most for the money, currently). FACTOR 9 REAL, GOOD EDITING (NO SPECIAL FX) Well again, if your intention is not to mirror reality, then this tip may not be up your alley, but if it is, let's define the term "realistic edit". I consider a realistic edit to be an edit with few special effects that utilizes and 2 or more cameras (because our eyes and brain rarely stay focused on just one "view" of a scene, so I think you need to "cut" to different camera angles somewhat often). So, what about "timing"? Well, my opinion is that timing can be either realistic, unrealistic or downright bad (bad timing would be when the edits are not done with rhythm, etc.) To me, realistic timing causes the edit to switch cameras or angles at or near the same rate that a person's attention would shift from one thing to another in a scene. If it's too fast, the viewer feels like "Wait, I wasn't done looking at that!" but if it's too slow, the person may feel like they want to look around the scene, but the camera isn't letting them (i.e. they are getting bored). Unrealistic timing then, is when the director or the editor (whoever is making the decisions) is either trying to speed up/rush the scene (to shorten the movie, for example) or just doesn't have a sense of timing (maybe no musical talent?) So, the effect timing has on telling the story is probably the most important consideration. FACTOR 10 REAL, GOOD DISTRIBUTION (NOT VERTICAL) I'm adding this "factor" kind of as a joke, but in some ways, I take this very seriously. When real, historical events are captured using vertical composition, I think it's a waste because it automatically removes the possibility of having the footage featured in a documentary, and when it's displayed with black bars on each side (or even worse, over top a blurred image of the same video) it makes my heart sad. However, not only does shooting vertical video lock you in to just certain cell phone markets on platforms that are the furthest thing from "REAL" (i.e. TikTok, YouTube Shorts) but it also gives it the feel of a Mr. Bean production (from the movie " Mr. Bean's Holiday "  #ad ). There's too much panning (moving the camera left and right to follow things around) and unreal wide-angle distortion, etc. CONCLUSION: Well, this turned out to be a lot less technical and more philosophical, so If you would like a more nitty-gritty list of technical tips, check out my Top 10 Tips For Easy Video Production . The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: Throughout history, actors have had to be a robot and repeat their performances as directors reshoot over and over again. I thought this was a waste of time (and effort) so I built a multi-camera rig to help solve this "problem". I figured "Why not reduce the number of takes and the strain on the actors by increasing the number of cameras (vs. the number of takes) while you change lenses or camera angles"? However, I've been finding the technique of always shooting with 2 cameras transcends "real" filmmaking, and is even useful for covering subjects of everyday life, including cats, kids and etc. It's almost EVERY TIME I forget to add a second camera (and yes, it can be pretty easy with my "Minimal Kit" method) I tend to regret it...or should I be a bit more emphatic and say: I regret it every time. So, while this article covers the main reasons "WHY" I prefer to always shoot with 2 cameras, I do have another article that introduces the idea of HOW TO: Always Shoot With 2 Cameras . ABOVE:  The first video I uploaded to YouTube (above) was a somewhat dramatic talk about why I think it's easier to "always shoot with two cameras". Why I Always Shoot With 2 Cameras: IT'S EASIER, FASTER TO SHOOT IT MAKES EDITING EASIER TOO IT RETAINS A "SENSE OF REALITY" REASON 1 IT'S EASIER, FASTER TO SHOOT While the tradition of shooting a scene multiple times (due to changing lenses or changing camera angles) has been fading away due to camera prices going down (productions can afford to have several cameras on a shoot) the habits learned from those days have lingered. Using a multi-camera rig can speed up the process of shooting by allowing each photographer to capture BOTH a WIDE and a TIGHT shot at the same time! This speeds up movie production and makes reality content much easier to capture (sports events, weddings, etc.) REASON 2 IT MAKES EDITING EASIER TOO One of the powerful things about always shooting with two cameras is (if both shots are good) the director will always have at least two shots to choose from while editing. I always cringed when I heard that certain directors would "shoot wide" (wider than the final shot) so they could have flexibility in post-production. As a photographer, this is really difficult to do, as there is there is such an OPTICAL difference between wide and tight shots that it's hard to separate that from your thinking while shooting (and "just shoot a bit wider" etc.) My approach is to always give the director those two shots they want, but shoot them with the appropriate optics, a wide lens and a tight lens! REASON 3 IT RETAINS A "SENSE OF REALITY" This point is important for movie production, but essential for news, documentary or other reality content. Imagine trying to get all of your shots for a wedding (or other live event) but missing a shot because you had the wrong lens on (too wide or tight). You can't just ask the person to "do it again" (laugh, smile, etc.) because then it wouldn't be real! However, if you always shoot with two cameras (wide & tight) you'll never have to choose which lens to use, so your reaction time can be quicker, and you'll be less likely to miss important moments due to changing cameras or lenses (unless you aren't in the right place at the right time). HOW DO I DO THIS? (USING A MULTI-CAMERA RIG) You can check out my updated post about HOW TO: Always Shoot With 2 Cameras for more details, but you can also watch the brief video below of my rig in action here . I'm also working on KIT PLANS to show exactly what items I use and how I build my 2-camera rigs. ABOVE:  Here's a quick video  showing my 2-camera rig in action, but for more details of how I always shoot with two cameras (especially as a solo shooter) check out this other article HOW TO: Always Shoot With Two Cameras .  CONCLUSION: Tradition dies hard, and every new idea gathers both positive and negative attention, so if you do this some people may think you are strange. The editors will certainly love you though, as you'll be providing simultaneous wide and tight shots for every take, and maybe people will think you're a genius after they see how much faster you're working (and how much easier it is for the actors.) The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: For years, I searched for the perfect lens-sensor combination; a lens and camera duo that would produce a beautiful image with few adjustments and little post-production. It would be everything I needed, and wanted, in a camera system. However, as I tested each pair, each told a different story. I soon realized that CAMERA SETTINGS needed to be lens-sensor specific... ABOVE: I've been working on testing each of the cameras and lenses I have to come up with CAMERA SETTINGS recommendations that improve the output from each combo. MY GOAL: A REAL-LOOKING IMAGE My #1 goal for these LUTs & camera settings is to capture the most "REAL" image possible. When I think about my motivation for choosing camera settings, I often think of Ansel Adam's "Zone System" . His system focused on capturing detail in all but 2 of the 11 "zones" of a picture. These "zones" were light or dark areas that corresponded to an 11-step grayscale chart. The grayscale steps were marked by numbers ranging from "0" (the darkest area of the image) to "10" (the lightest area of the image) with "5" being "middle gray". (Zones "0" and "10" had no detail because they were either 100% black or 100% white, respectively, but every other zone would contain detail.) To me, this approach preserves what I call the "sense of reality" which, in my opinion, can help keep viewers from being distracted by technical problems (such as unrealistic contrast, sharpness, or inaccurate color). To work toward this, goal, I've been creating custom CAMERA SETTINGS for every lens I own (and sometimes custom, lens-sensor LUTs to finish the image). NOTE: This process will not apply to RAW video/photo workflows. PROCESS OVERVIEW To go toward this goal, I test and tweak the 4 basic camera settings of CONTRAST , SHARPNESS , NOISE REDUCTION and COLOR (and sometimes "Highlight Shadow" settings). While adjusting these settings, the standard and baseline I keep in mind is "reality" (what the eye sees). Another plus of this process is, because I'm attempting to get everything as close to a realistic-looking image SOOC (straight out of camera) while shooting, I seldom have to worry about matching cameras during post-production. Sometimes (less and less) I apply a LUT in post-production, but this is not always necessary because the in-camera settings do most of the work. This is a very time-intensive process to apply to every lens-sensor combination I've used, so I don't expect this is going to be easy the first time you try it, but I'm going to give a quick overview of the process I use when doing my "lens-sensor calibrations". My Custom Settings Method (For CAMERAS): CONTROL THE CONTRAST TAME THE SHARPNESS USE NOISE REDUCTION (DIFFERENTLY) CALM THE COLOR MAKE SURE THINGS WORK (TEST LOTS) ABOVE: I've got a very unconventional way for improving what I call the "perceptive dynamic range" when you're NOT shooting RAW. The over-simplified version is, I use CAMERA SETTINGS  to reduce the contrast (and sharpness, etc.) and a custom tonal curve (with in-camera settings) which lets you to lower your exposure...which then captures high contrast situations better. STEP 1 CONTROL THE CONTRAST When I was growing up, I used to read a lot of photography books and magazines, and when the term "contrasty" was used, it has always been a good thing when referring to lenses. However, after testing several digital cameras over the years, I've learned that when trying to optimize the sensor output (to capture a realistic, high-dynamic range image) contrast can actually be a negative thing (no pun about "negatives" intended here). Therefore, to control the contrast I do two things (one is obvious, and the other maybe not so obvious): First, turn down the CONTRAST Then, apply a little NOISE REDUCTION (more details below) Turning down the "contrast" works as you would expect, but also using Noise Reduction is a really interesting (and neat) way to "fine tune" the contrast a little more, especially in the highlights (more details coming on that in step #3). ABOVE: A lot of the great lenses such as this Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART deliver a lot more color, sharpness and contrast info than needed to the sensor. My "custom settings" are simply an attempt to balance these out, in an attempt to capture a more "REAL" image. STEP 2 TAME THE SHARPNESS The primary reason why I try to "tame the sharpness" is because it is the main thing that makes an image look like it's digital (instead of being organic). An easy way to tell if an image is being negatively affected by too much sharpness is to look at the diagonal lines. If the lines look like stair steps (when you zoom in) then it may be too sharp, and I think this causes the image to scream "I'm digital! I'm fake!" This is when I turn the sharpness down. STEP 3 USE NOISE REDUCTION (DIFFERENTLY) Using noise reduction to further fine tune the image is my "secret sauce". Most times when I read about NR, people say "If it needs NR, I will fix it in post". Well, if we were talking about using noise reduction in the NORMAL way, I may agree, but we're talking about using NR in a much funner way...to make the image look better (not worse). Here's how: When you apply noise reduction, it attacks (or does the opposite of) what "sharpening" does: It REDUCES edge contrast (and does do other things too). This actually reduces both the contrast and the sharpness as well, but it does so in a very gentle, smooth way. The hidden benefit to this is that it ends up smoothing the highlight rolloff (a major challenge in some cases). The other thing noise reduction obviously does is reduce digital artifacts, which therefore makes it look more "real" (which I would take over sharpness any day). ABOVE: Even lenses of the same brand as the camera (i.e. "native" lenses) aren't always optimized for each camera that brand is selling. In this case, the Panasonic 45-150 F/4-5.6 telephoto lens was included in the kit with my Panasonic GX85, but before I used my "corrected" settings, the color was oversaturated, the contrast too strong, etc. STEP 4 CALM THE COLOR The most important note about adjusting the "Color" setting is that this is not where I am trying to correct color temperature. That's a task better handled with 24-color charts and proper white balance. Rather, my target is to tone down the colors to a realistic level. I'm not trying to capture a gray, flat-looking image (that only looks good after post-production color grading) but rather an image that looks like what our eyes naturally see. I will say though, that if I err on one side of color (saturation) or the other, it would be to err on the side less color, because as we all know, saturation can easily be added in post-production, but removing excess saturation is sometimes impossible. STEP 5 MAKE SURE THINGS WORK After selecting the settings (which are also based on a bit of experience and intuition) I test the lens-sensor combination in as many environments as I can, low-light to lots of light, from day to night and from indoors to out. The goal is for these settings to work in any lighting condition (indoors, outdoors, etc.) I should mention that I usually like to perform the tests in bright sunlight (the most extreme condition for most lens-sensor combinations) to see if it can accurately render the different light levels, from highlight to shadow. CONCLUSION: After testing (and approving) the camera settings for each lens-sensor combination, I sometimes create a LUT to make the image appear closer to reality (to what our eye sees) as possible. This process takes quite a bit of time, but I really enjoy doing it and posting my custom camera settings on this website. So, stay tuned and check back for new lens tests. To learn more, check out the following podcast episodes: MORE INFO: Lens-Sensor LUTS: Every Lens Has It's Own Story Why and How I Shot Match (Using Lens-Sensor LUTs) Why LUTs Should Be Lens-Sensor Specific When I Use Camera Color Settings vs. LUTs Using Camera Color Settings In Addition to LUTs The Easy Way to Use LUTs (Introducing Base LUTs) The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: I recently watched a VIDEO from filmmaker Joe for Video where he talked about a Micro Four Thirds lens that can almost turn your camera into a "camcorder". His article triggered memories of my search for a camcorder-style video camera that could produce both a quality image, and one that was AFFORDABLE. Sad to say, I never found one, but I DID find the Panasonic FZ1000  #ad . The FZ1000 is a $300 (used) 1-inch sensor bridge camera that I'm almost ready to recommend...as a legit filmmaking tool (with a few exceptions, which I will cover first). ABOVE:  I'm pretty close to being convinced that the FZ1000 is a truly professional filmmaking tool. After 2+ years of testing, I figured out how to make it produce a "non-digital" image using custom camera settings  (which you can find on that link  on my website). UPDATE: IT ISN'T THAT BAD IN LOW LIGHT (WITH MY SETTINGS) Okay, first let me give an important UPDATE to my former concern about the FZ1000 not being very good in low light: I've updated my lens-sensor specific custom settings (and the " Real LUT ") and I now think they look pretty good in low light...up to ISO 800. You need to be careful to not go above 800 though, or you'll have the problems a small sensor produces (increased grain, noise and/or the look of too much noise reduction). The custom settings I'm using are doing a really good job though, and they include a Highlight Shadow curve and tweaks to the Natural "Photo Style". Here's the updated LUT ABOVE:  The video above covers my current CUSTOM SETTINGS, plus a "Color Bump" and "Shadow Dip" settings I use for uploading to YouTube (it changes the color science when you upload files to YouTube, and these settings help fix it). Remember to start by using the custom lens-sensor settings . THIS SMALL (1-INCH) SENSOR IS PRETTY GOOD... So now let's talk about that "small" 1-inch sensor. I know there are many professional (and more expensive) camcorders that have a 1-inch sensor too, and a lot of those are considered professional tools. However, the reason I didn't go that way was those camcorders are so expensive. The important thing to me was to find an AFFORDABLE option, and the FZ1000 might actually be that alternative I was looking for! After testing the FZ1000 (for over 2 years) I'm excited to say that I've found its lens, sensor and processing team to be quite capable. So now, let's talk about a few tweaks that can turn the FZ1000 into a professional tool . About the Panasonic FZ1000: CUSTOM SETTINGS MAKE IT BETTER IT LIKES AN ND8 FILTER OUTDOORS (NOT VND) STABILIZATION IS GOOD, WITH A CAMERA CAGE YOU CAN USE A (HEAVY) MONOPOD TO "FLY" THE PANASONIC APP IS FUN (AT CLOSE RANGE) THE BUILT-IN LENS IS GREAT (25-400 LEICA!) IT'S NOT GOOD FOR MACRO (WITHOUT A RAYNOX) TIP 1 CUSTOM SETTINGS MAKE IT BETTER So, the #1 thing I do (and this is the "secret sauce") to turn the FZ1000 into a camera capable of producing a professional image (that is realistic, easy to work with in post, and that doesn't look fake) is to use the custom settings that I figured out (after lots and lots, and lots of testing). The reason is the FZ1000 can look too digital and not "real" good when using its default (0-0-0-0) settings. Using my custom settings removes the "digital look". These settings were selected using my lens-sensor specific testing method which seeks to match the CONTRAST, SHARPNESS and COLOR of every lens, to the sensor it's being used on. In the case of the FZ1000, there's only one lens so that makes it easier (though you do need different settings if you add an ND filter ...or any optical add-ons). These custom settings change the FZ1000 into a camera that I feel confident using, that I know I can rely on (especially OUTDOORS) to produce a high-quality image (one with natural, accurate color and that creates a perception of good dynamic range). One setting that you have to be careful to not forget, is to set the "Luminance Level" to 0-255 (not the default setting of 16-255). The easy way to set it to 0-255, is simply to switch to 4K PHOTO mode (which will default to 0-255). You can set it without doing that, but it's a lot more difficult (and I don't remember the exact sequence). Also, I MIGHT have to add a LUT to bring back a little of the color to the image, and I do show my sharpness settings for post-production on the same custom settings page, but I've been amazed how good the images look WITHOUT doing any work in post (yet they're still VERY EASY to adjust in post, if you need to). ABOVE:  (Update) I've been tweaking my "Custom Settings" for the Panasonic FZ1000, and I've been able to get the image to a good "starting point" that has made it easy to work with the files even when I ACCIDENTALLY OVEREXPOSED THE SHOT! TIP 2 IT LIKES AN ND8 FILTER OUTDOORS (NOT VARIABLE ND) In the area of filtration, I think the Panasonic FZ2500  #ad is a better camera (based on my workflow) because it has built-in ND filters (a must-have for these bridge cameras OUTDOORS). The reason filters are a must outdoors, is the FZ1000 has a minimum aperture of f/8 and unless you break the 180-degree shutter rule (which I've done quite a few times) you cannot get proper exposure outdoors (even at the lowest ISO, which is 125). Therefore, after a bit of testing to find an easy solution, I now recommend using a good ND8 filter  #ad (instead of buying a cheap variable ND). The reason I don't recommend a cheap VARIABLE ND filter, is that the image quality suffers dramatically towards the long end of the telephoto when using those. So, I'd recommend buying the Gobe ND8 I mentioned above, which is pretty affordable, and it won't ruin the image. If you use that filter outdoors (or whenever there's tons of light) the Panasonic FZ1000  #ad becomes a really good tool. TIP 3 STABILIZATION IS GOOD, WITH A CAMERA CAGE UPDATE: The cage I have been using and recommending is now out of stock (discontinued?) but the same company, Neewer, now sells this camera cage  #ad and a newer one  #ad that is a bit different but might be better. Using a cage makes the FZ1000 so much easier to use, and without it the lens-stabilization isn't good enough (and requires a gimbal or tripod). With this cage, however, you can pretty easily hand hold it in most situations, EVEN AT MAX. TELEPHOTO ! ABOVE: I use the above camera cage with the FZ1000 whenever possible. It makes the (lens) stabilization SO much better, and with the addition of a monopod, the FZ1000 is a REALLY great tool. TIP 4 YOU CAN USE A (HEAVY) MONOPOD TO "FLY" For less careful, faster movements (like you would do on a Steadicam, i.e. "flying") I add a heavy monopod  #ad (don't get carbon fiber, it's too light) to the base of the camera cage, and it works really well. I even used the FZ1000 with a monopod before I added a cage (and that worked pretty well) but having both the monopod AND a cage is really great! A monopod is also very helpful when you want to shoot a more fixed (non-moving) shot that lasts a bit longer. TIP 5 THE PANASONIC APP IS FUN (AT CLOSE RANGE) Earlier, I wrote a BLOG post about how fun it was to use this camera with the Panasonic Image App on a STILL photography shoot. Then, after getting into video I wondered if the remote-control app would still come in handy. What I discovered was both exciting and discouraging (depending on how close the camera was to the control device, meaning the phone or tablet). When I tried the app INDOORS (in a conference room meeting situation) the results were excellent; I was able to control the camera using an Android tablet (zoom AND focus!) and it was very convenient. Then I tried it OUTDOORS...and that's where the fun stopped. I couldn't move more than a couple of feet away before both my phone and the camera seemed to freeze up when trying to connect. The camera kept recording, but the image on my iPhone 13 Pro Max  #ad would lag, then freeze up (trying to connect to the FZ1000). My guess is that INDOORS the signal bounces around (off the ceiling, etc.) which actually makes it work...but OUTDOORS the signal just goes up, up and away! ABOVE:  Both focus AND zoom can be controlled with the app, making this camera (and the FZ1000 ii, FZ2500) a really great tool (indoors). It doesn't work too well OUTDOORS though. TIP 6 THE BUILT-IN LENS IS GREAT (A 25-400 LEICA!) The lens on the FZ1000 is really good at all focal lengths, even though it isn't an interchangeable lens (and even though it doesn't have that constant f/2.8 aperture of its smaller-sensor sibling, the Panasonic FZ300). I used to believe that having a non-interchangeable lens was a bad idea, but after doing hundreds of lens-sensor tests (and changing lenses more times than I felt was safe) I'm starting to appreciate the value of having a camera with a good lens, that DOESN'T come off. Sure, you don't have as many lens choices (though you can get TELE  #ad and MACRO  #ad attachments) but not taking the lens off is a good way to survive the ever-present threats to the integrity of the sensor that dust and dander create (and even the dangers of glitter during holidays). I must say I still like having a camera with an interchangeable lens (especially for adapting old lenses to Micro Four Thirds ) but when productivity is priority, it really helps to not have to worry about sensor damage. TIP 7 IT'S NOT GOOD FOR MACRO (WITHOUT A RAYNOX) So, let's talk about the last concern I have about the FZ1000 in terms of being a full-featured, useful camera: It's not good for macro. The solution, I've been told (haven't tested this yet) is the Raynox DCR-150 Snap-On Macro Lens  #ad . I've seen great pictures made with this combo, and the close-up attachment is less than $100 US (sometimes a lot less). To me, macro is an essential part of photo & video, so I'm glad this solution exists, but I haven't tried it yet because I'm still experimenting with my vintage macro on Micro Four Thirds (see that YouTube video link for a teaser). WHAT ABOUT THE PANASONIC FZ2500? When I was considering if the FZ1000 was a good budget filmmaking tool, I was trying to find other cameras (or camera systems) that could do everything this camera can do...for the same price, but I haven't found anything else yet. The Panasonic FZ2500  #ad is a better camera in a number of ways (especially because of the built-in NDs) and if you can afford it, I would recommend that over the FZ1000 (or FZ1000 ii) but only if you have the money! What makes it difficult is the FZ2500 is not only more expensive when NEW, but it's SUPER tough to find a used one. SO, IS THE FZ1000 GOOD ENOUGH TO BE YOUR "A-CAM"? No, I wouldn't say the FZ1000 is good as a main (A-camera) but when I ask if it would be a good as a B or C camera, I start to see how valuable it is. I think the FZ1000 is a powerful tool as a #3 or C-cam especially when used OUTDOORS. The reason is that it's small but has a wide zoom range (from WIDE to TELE) and you can use it to quickly set up a #3 shot, without a fuss. Doing this saves a lot of time, money and space, compared to buying, carrying and setting up a larger-sensor camera with a big telephoto lens (I call those a LOUS: a Lense of Unusual Size). So, I do feel comfortable recommending the FZ1000 as a C camera (and that's how I use it myself) but there are lots of other cameras (in the same price range) that would be a better A or B camera (the Panasonic G85 is a good budget A-cam, and the Panasonic GX85 works great as a B-cam). For more details, see my article " 3 Budget Filmmaking Cameras ($300-$600) ". CONCLUSION: It has been exciting to find a BUDGET camera that can do so much, and I hope I've made a good case for the FZ1000  #ad yet even if you don't appreciate that pun (or perhaps the FZ1000 itself) I hope you have the opportunity to give it a try and see what you think. I did have a difficult time downplaying how much I like the Panasonic FZ1000  #ad in beginning of this article but did it to try to be as realistic as possible about what it's capable of. For me it's difficult to compare the FZ1000 to an interchangeable-lens camera, and I would never recommend it to replace that. However, if you need a lens like that one Joe for Video mentioned in his YouTube VIDEO I feel great recommending this little, 1-inch sensor camera. It's a super good tool, one that I wouldn't be without. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: After testing another affordable ("cheap") wireless mic system (and after reviewing the first one with a YouTube video ) I started wondering if there was a way to make them work better...without spending much money. I think I found an easy fix: boost the audio with a mini headphone amplifier, before (or after) sending the signal to the capture device (be it the camera or an external audio recorder). ABOVE:  There are many affordable wireless mic systems out there, but they often produce too much (unwanted) noise...yet I think I've figured out a workaround! WHY BOTHER WITH CHEAP WIRELESS SYSTEMS? Well, because I'm cheap, but most importantly, because there are so many of these cheap wireless mic systems around, you'll probably run into one at some point, so it's good to know how to make them tolerable. WHAT'S THE "REAL" PROBLEM? Most times the problem is that a cheap (inexpensive) wireless mic system produces too much (unwanted) "noise". This means the signal-to-noise ratio is bad, and that means the recording will contain "hiss" or other non-signal noise which could ruin your recording. The source of this problem is often a low-quality pre-amplifier and/or a low quality radio (i.e. the transmitter and receiver). NOTE:  Sometimes you can even leave the gain on the wireless unit high (knowing that it will capture some RF noise) but then turn down the record level of the audio capture device to "hide" the noise floor. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION (SHORT VERSION)? The short version is, buy a mini plug (headphone) amplifier like this one  #ad pass the audio through it, and experiment with turning the gain of the wireless transmitter(s) down until you hear the signal improve (make sure to listen with a pair of accurate headphones, and an audio interface with an accurate DAC). STEP 1 TEST THE WIRELESS SYSTEM (AS-IS) This step may seem useless if you already know the wireless mic system (or 3.5mm mic) is bad (i.e. has a poor signal-to-noise ratio). However, SOME inexpensive microphone/receiver combinations sound pretty clean right out of the box, so it's worth a try. If you try the mic system as-is and it works good, then stop here. This isn't very common for lower cost wireless systems however, so you'll most likely you'll have to move on to STEP 2 . ABOVE:  The kit I used to "fix" my inexpensive wireless microphone system included a mini jack (3.5mm) headphone amplifier ( this one    #ad  was $30 US) a cell phone mount    #ad   and 3.5mm aux cables    #ad   . STEP 2 PICK THE RIGHT "PROXIMITY" Before we talk about the "secret sauce" I should mention one other thing to keep in mind, that often solves most of the problem; make sure the mic is close enough to the sound source (i.e. the "proximity".) When the mic is not close enough, you're usually forced to turn the gain up, and that reveals the self-noise of the mic, the radio (transmitter/receiver) and/or the audio recorder itself. To learn more about what distance I prefer to use mics at check out my blog post on my " 5 Proximities for Mics ". STEP 3 ADD A MINI JACK (HEADPHONE) AMPLIFIER This is the fun part and the "secret sauce" to this budget filmmaking audio hack: buy a mini (3.5mm) headphone amplifier (I used this one  #ad ) and attach it to your rig (I use a cell phone mount  #ad ) . There are a number of decent mini jack (3.5mm) headphone adapters on Amazon (ranging from inexpensive to VERY expensive) but the one I used was only $30 US (at the time of publishing) and it worked quite well! Adding this little headphone amplifier provides the option of boosting your level either before, or after, sending the signal through the wireless system. The advantage is that it's multi-stage amplification, which doesn't push a single amplifier beyond its range of clean sound. As I mentioned, this method is a cheap and hacky one, but the test results have been great. STEP 4 TURN ON THE MIC'S BOOST (IF NEEDED) Some microphones (such as the Rode VideoMic Pro  #ad and the Shure VP83  #ad ) have a +20 gain boost switch (and some just have a +10, like the old Rode VideoMic non-pro). Sometimes using this boost in combination with both the lower gain setting (from STEP 2) and the 3.5mm headphone amplifier (from STEP 3) can result in even cleaner-sounding audio (i.e. less hiss, lower "noise floor", etc.) STEP 5 TURN DOWN THE GAIN ON YOUR CAMERA You may already do this, and this should have been STEP 1 but I'm leaving it as the last step because it does require performing the other steps for this approach to work. If you haven't tried turning your camera's preamp down yet, give it a try now, and you should notice that it really does improve the quality of the audio. CONCLUSION: So don't give up on that cheap wireless system you bought for less than $100 US yet, but if the audio DOESN'T improve after doing all of this (which it should) then first try upgrading the lavalier (clip-on) microphone and then if that's not good enough, you could go for a more expensive wireless audio system (which I hope to be testing in the future). The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: If you're a low to no-budget filmmaker, I think 70-300 f/4-5.6 lenses are a MUCH better tool for the money than 80-200 f/4 or 70-200 f/2.8 lenses (because of the greater reach and lower cost) especially compared to the f/2.8 versions. Having a 5.6 maximum aperture (at full TELE) works just fine outdoors, and when used with a focal reducer/speedbooster (on micro four thirds or Super 35/APS-C cameras) they can even be used INDOORS (at around ISO 800 or more). I like vintage 70-300 f/4-5.6 lenses so much they're in my Top 3 (Budget) Lenses for Filmmaking recommendations list, and that's after testing quite a few for my lens-sensor LUT database . ABOVE:  It's been tricky figuring out how to maintain all of the vintage 70-300 lenses I've picked up, yet the reason I've done so is to make more "REAL" LUTs  (and because I consider the 70-300 a great tool for filmmaking). REASON 1 MORE TELE IS BETTER (300 vs. 200) I'm using the 70-300 lenses with Micro Four Thirds cameras (such as the GH4, G7, GX85 and G85) which render an image with a crop similar to a 600mm on full frame. My experience with this lens has been I've (almost) never wished for a longer lens, except for maybe the moon, or distant wildlife. I've used them for youth sports (mostly little league) and have been able to cover the entire field. When compared to using a 70 or 80-200, I always find myself needing to move closer, and have even resorted to adding a 1.4x teleconverter. REASON 2 THEY'RE AFFORDABLE (vs. 2.8 TELES) Just look at the prices of 70-300 lenses vs. 70-200 2.8 versions (new OR used!) In my recent comparisons, the average price of a used (vintage) 70-300 was around $100 US, while the 70-200 2.8 optics were well over $500! REASON 3 SMALLER & LIGHTER (vs. 2.8 TELES) This point is a biggie, and to imagine how big, just take a look at the weight and average filter size of a 70-300 f/4-5.6 vs. 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. This point is really big for me because it's not just a matter of a heavier backpack, but the inability to mount it on top of my 2-camera rigs (see a quick demo here in this VIDEO ). Larger sensors mean larger lenses...especially when it come to a telephoto lens. This lens is a full-frame 2.8 zoom lens that costs around $15,000 (This falls into the LoUSE category: Lenses of Unusual Size). REASON 4 5.6 MAX. APERTURE'S OK (OUTDOORS) Let's go into a bit more detail about why I don't (usually) try to get f/2.8 telephoto lenses...besides the cost. My logic is that since the most common scenario to use such a telephoto is OUTDOORS, having a mere f/5.6 is almost always sufficient. The exception is when you're in a large indoor space and the light is low. In this case, I'm often using a focal reducer/speedbooster anyway, so my max. aperture ends up around f/4, and that works (even on a small Micro Four Thirds sensor). REASON 5 THEY OFTEN HAVE A MACRO SETTING While some VINTAGE 80-200 optics have macro capability, most newer 70-200 lenses don't, and I can only guess as to why; perhaps they figure "true professionals" will have the extra money to buy a dedicated "macro" lens. In practice, I use the macro on my 70-300 lenses almost every time I go outdoors, and I cannot imagine being without one as a filmmaker. ABOVE:  If you'd like to learn more about more BUDGET filmmaking lenses that I recommend, check out this YouTube video  (above). CONCLUSION: There's one last reason that I'll add to this conclusion, that pretty much sealed the deal for me: Most vintage 70-210/80-200 lenses have fungus (or some other issue). After purchasing several of those (and being let down half of the time) and after striking it rich with so many of the vintage 70-300 lenses from the 90s, I decided to write this article. If you haven't tried finding a good 70-300, I highly recommend checking out shopgoodwill.com (if you're in the US) or another used outlet, as I've found the price to performance ratio is excellent. Thanks for reading, and see you in another blog post (or on YouTube , Facebook or on my podcast ). The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: First of all, if you're wondering why I call my system "Fake Filmmaking" I can explain: My goal is to create a system that's different than conventional filmmaking, and that's why I figure it'll be called "fake". However, I think times really are changing, and some of the methods (and accompanying equipment) used by past professionals are out of date. Not only has IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) liberated many from the shackles of Steadicam vests (and large tripods) but decent on-camera monitors and other features are available on some very low-cost cameras (like the Panasonic GX85 and G85) which makes them legit budget filmmaking tools, in my opinion. Therefore, I've been working on some really easy methods for getting good quality from budget filmmaking LIGHTS, CAMERAS and AUDIO. This includes my " T-Lighting " method (which only uses 2 lights instead of the 3 of conventional filmmaking) to " Always Shoot with Two Cameras " (vs. shooting with 1 camera, over and over) and also how to record "synchronous sound" (to capture "REAL" audio on location, vs. foley). These methods, and CUSTOM SETTINGS, are my attempt to boil down the complex subject of filmmaking into something that's easier to learn, and do...and by all means, that's affordable. ABOVE: I've been working on a budget filmmaking method that I call "Fake Filmmaking" . It's budget-friendly, and easy enough for almost anyone to learn (either entry-level or advanced). How To Be a "Fake Filmmaker": DON'T BUY EXPENSIVE CAMERAS ONLY BUY CAMERAS WITH IBIS ALWAYS SHOOT WITH 2 CAMERAS DON'T BUY EXPENSIVE LENSES USE MY "3 SIMPLE SHOTS" DON'T SHOOT "FLAT" (OR IN LOG) DON'T (ALWAYS) USE THE 180 RULE DON'T USE 3-POINT LIGHTING DON'T ADD LIGHT (OUTDOORS) DON'T BUY EXPENSIVE AUDIO GEAR FAKE TIP 1 DON'T BUY EXPENSIVE CAMERAS I originally built my entire website based on the idea of creating a lens-sensor settings database , so I could look up the camera settings I used FOR EACH LENS. The reason I did this was because I found out that a lot of budget filmmaking cameras could produce good results, just by tweaking the camera settings! So, I really do care about quality, but I don't agree that the cameras have to be expensive for them to produce quality. FAKE TIP 2 ONLY BUY CAMERAS WITH IBIS I've also got a PODCAST about this topic, but the short version is that having IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) makes filmmaking easier in many ways: It lets me to shoot with 2 cameras on 1 cage ( see video ) It means I can use a less expensive and lighter-weight (portable) tripod #ad I means I can even go handheld (without a gimbal) at times One of the least expensive ways to start out is to add a GoPro (I used a $40 HERO4 Silver) to the top of a "real" camera...the Panasonic G85 is a really good one to start with for around $300-$400 on the used market. FAKE TIP 3 ALWAYS SHOOT WITH 2 CAMERAS This tip is one of the main things I emphasize, and before you worry about money, check out my affordable "Kit Plans" (3 kit levels to fit any budget or skill level). MINIMAL KIT BASIC KIT ADVANCED KIT The main objection "real" filmmakers have with this is not the cost, it's just tradition...and they like to do things the hard way (and shoot 1 scene over and over again for each camera angle). Even though this is a very popular view not all filmmakers insist on it. I think it's a waste of time, wearies the actors and makes the editor's job frustrating. Watch the first YouTube video I ever published that "covers" this topic. As I mentioned, this was the first video I uploaded to YouTube...the audio is out of sync, and I'm overly dramatic, but at least the idea gets across: mount two cameras on one cage! Here's a BTS video showing the dual camera cage in use (I was using it with the Panasonic FZ1000 and a Panasonic G85 at the time. Now I'm testing it with a GH5 on top...the G85 was smaller and easier to mount). FAKE TIP 4 DON'T BUY EXPENSIVE LENSES If you believe in the idea "You get what you pay for" you might be offended with this next point. However, if you believe good deals happen (and aren't often planned) then you might like this idea. I uploaded a short YouTube VIDEO that covers my Top 3 (Budget) Lenses for Filmmaking ($100 or Less) but the general idea is there are a lot of good lenses out there...for not much money. Also, if you use my " Lens-Sensor LUTs & Camera Settings " you can make these lenses look even better. Staying within the budget space also means probably NOT using anamorphic lenses (even if they're called "budget") because they often cost nearly $1000 US! FAKE TIP 5 USE MY "3 SIMPLE SHOTS" Conventional filmmaking uses a long list of shot types, sometimes requiring storyboards for each one. My "3 Simple Shots" system covers those shots, but in a more flexible way. You simply always shoot 3 shots (or at least 2) of everything, so you don't really need storyboards. FAKE TIP 6 DON'T SHOOT "FLAT" (OR IN LOG) This is one of the reasons that people have called me a fake; I don't shoot "flat". There are lots of reasons why I do this, but keep in mind that MY GOAL is to create a system that is easy for entry-level filmmakers to use right away; mastering the art and science of both shooting flat (or in log) and then color grading (in post-production) is certainly NOT an entry-level skill. Here's the reasons why I don't think we fake filmmakers should shoot "flat": Not all budget cameras have log (though the Panasonic G85 has a hidden mode Zeno has created LUTs for) It's more difficult to judge exposure (on a flat, gray image) It's more difficult to judge composition (when colors and tones don't look real) It's much more difficult to grade in post (unless you're really good at color grading) It makes the autofocus system work harder (if it's Panasonic's contrast-detect AF) FAKE TIP 7 DON'T (ALWAYS) USE THE 180 RULE This is a bit controversial, but if your goal is to make your footage look good, you may find that higher shutter speeds can make your footage look better on certain PLATFORMS (such as YouTube vs. in a movie theater) Therefore, do a lot of testing and don't worry too much about what "real" filmmakers tell you about 24 fps (frames per second). To explore this topic more, you can start with Tom Streller's YouTube video . FAKE TIP 8 DON'T USE 3-POINT LIGHTING Instead of 3-point lighting, I use what I call "T-Lighting". If you're not familiar with "T-Lighting" check out my video on YouTube that explains what "T-Lighting" is . Most people are told "if you're going to be a real filmmaker, you're going to have to learn to use 3-point lighting". Well, this may be true, but if you don't mind being called a "fake" check out my video about T-Lighting, and you can see how much EASIER it is (yet it produces similar results and requires fewer lights...and no boom)! Three-point lighting isn't the only way, nor the easiest way to light people. FAKE TIP 9 DON'T ADD LIGHT (OUTDOORS) Outdoor lighting can be awesome, and so why mess with it? Not adding lights outdoors will not only make it easier, it will make things look more natural. I think it can be a waste of time, money and electricity to add light outdoors. INDOOR lighting scenes may need a little more help however, and that's where T-Lighting comes in (I think most indoor scenes have been polluted with light from non-artistic light from fixtures that were designed by engineers, not artists). FAKE TIP 10 DON'T BUY EXPENSIVE AUDIO GEAR Even though I agree with the advice that "Good audio is just as important as good video" I certainly don't agree that this always has to cost you a lot of money. After testing a lot of budget filmmaking audio gear , I've discovered that price isn't the #1 factor in audio quality; some of the less expensive mics (and audio recorders) can produce excellent results. I figured out some tricks that can help make these budget (3.5mm) mics and audio recorders sound a lot better. One is to use an inexpensive headphone amplifier to boost the signal (to reduce the self-noise of low-quality pre-amps found on most inexpensive wireless systems, etc). Also, there are a number of things you can do with 3.5mm (mini plug) audio that you can't do with XLR systems, and I even made a PODCAST about why 3.5mm mini plug audio is important (for budget filmmaking). CONCLUSION: When new ideas are introduced (or people try to do something a different way) they often draw criticism and get called a fake. I think however, that something good can come from this if we leverage the word "fake" to apply it to the new category of filmmakers; those of us on low budgets, who want to be filmmakers (but don't have a lot of money). Therefore, if you run into someone who asks you if you're a "real" filmmaker while you're still learning, I think it's okay to admit you're a "fake" and they might just be fine with that. (If they ask what that means, just send them to this blog post on my website.) Either way, I think we should just keep learning and realize that the quickest path to becoming a "master" is to get out there and practice, practice, practice. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: Okay, let's agree first that using a filter doesn't actually change the dynamic range specifications of your camera's sensor. It is however, an optic that will affect the way light will hit the sensor, and THIS is what can change what I'll call the "perceptive dynamic range". So, I do agree that filters affect the image, but what if I told you there are times when using filters can sort of improve the dynamic range? So, before anybody gets too upset, let me emphasize that I think it works well with SOME lenses, but not with others. I explain a bit more, below. ABOVE:  A "filter purist" will say "The best filter is no filter" (as I used to) but can filters actually improve the "perceptive dynamic range"? HOW CAN A FILTER "IMPROVE" DYNAMIC RANGE? So, what's really happening is that we're controlling how the light strikes the sensor, by modifying the light first. We're kind of making the light jump through hoops as it were, by forcing it to travel through the piece of glass (and layers of coatings) known as a filter. It's kind of like making the light "run the gauntlet" or sending it through one of those fun houses at the fair, with all those mirrors. Whatever you call it, we're kind of pre-treating the light before it hits the sensor, reducing the contrast, sharpness and color...to constrain it into the limited dynamic range of whatever sensor you're using. If your camera has a highly capable sensor, it might be able to handle the extreme contrast of newer lenses, but if it's not (like most of the cameras I can afford) it might just prefer the lesser amount of contrast that's delivered through a filter...or perhaps a vintage lens (more on that, later). ABOVE:  For the longest time, I put off testing the Tiffen Black Pro Mist    #ad  filters, but after working with this one for a while (the 1/8 strength) my take is certain lenses like it. AM I SAYING FILTERS ARE GOOD? So, when people ask me this question, I answer "It depends on the lens". As I mentioned, with sharp and contrasty lenses, filters can sometimes improve the image (because they result in less "contrasty" or "sharp" light being sent to the image sensor). A lot of sensors can't handle the high contrast of "modern" lenses. An example of using filter on a newer lens to reduce contrast and improve the image, is the video above (and other videos on my YouTube channel). The video shows the use of a diffusion filter (the Tiffen Black Pro Mist  #ad or others) which can lift the shadows and smooth the gradations between the "zones" (like the Ansel Adams Zone System). I use them to "protect" the details in the shadows and highlights, even though it's at the cost of reducing contrast and sharpness (things that were historically referred to as positive attributes of lenses). I do agree that some older lenses can have low contrast and sharpness that DOESN'T look good, while others have a "vintage look" that many seek. Diffusion filters can also create effects such as sunbursts and lens flare, which some people like and others don't. ABOVE:  Here's a comparison of this lens-sensor combination WITHOUT a filter, and while I think these CUSTOM SETTINGS help to make it look more realistic, it didn't come as close to a "REAL" look as the version WITH the Tiffen Black Pro Mist    #ad   filter did. WHAT ABOUT "UV" FILTERS (FOR "PROTECTION") "You need protection" said the thug...a high-pressure sales technique of "FOMO" (Fear of Missing Out) that has been used for thousands of years to influence people's decisions. Am I saying this is the reason camera salespeople always try to sell you a UV filter? No, part of the reason they do it is for the commission, but many of them really do care about protecting your lens. But do our lenses really need protection, or does this just degrade the image quality without reason? I think there can be good reasons for using filters (for protection) at times, but you might be surprised to discover that sometimes they can also keep the highlights from blowing out...which helps shadows retain their detail. So, it's not always a bad thing to use certain filters. Now, depending on the quality and/or type of filter, you're probably going to lose some SHARPNESS (and CONTRAST and COLOR) but what I've found (after hundreds of lens tests) is there are times where it's actually a good thing (as the lens had been sending TOO MUCH of those things to the sensor). ABOVE:  Should we be using filters? We've always been told by camera salespeople that we need to "protect" our lens, but do filters degrade image quality...or can they improve it? I ACTUALLY USED A CLEAR PLASTIC CD CASE... Here's an extreme example (when I tell people this part, they usually have some sort of a reaction sometimes good, sometimes bad). When I had my first DSLR (a Nikon D70) the dynamic range was SO BAD I actually used a plastic CD case over the lens TO REDUCE THE CONTRAST. Yep...that lens-sensor combination couldn't handle contrast, and it was so bad I couldn't shoot outdoors in sunlight. I could shoot in a studio with controlled lighting ratios, but that sort of thing isn't always possible on-location. The result was a lower contrast image that truly was less sharp, but it actually made the image look better. So, how does this translate to using filters? Well, to be sure, what we're talking about is using filters as a gate to control how light strikes the sensor, and this comes down to what I call the " lens-sensor relationship " (that was a PODCAST link). CONCLUSION: So, to answer the main question of "can filters improve image quality?" I think it comes down to the concept of lens-sensor relationships, as I think it really depends on the combination. What I tell people when they ask "What are the best settings to create cinematic-looking footage?" I always say that it depends on which lens-sensor combination you're using (and then figuring out the best settings for each combination) which was the reason I created this website . The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: Greetings! If you're not familiar with my budget filmmaking system I call " Fake Filmmaking " it's a method I've been developing that's much easier than conventional filmmaking. The system covers the 3 main components of filmmaking: LIGHTS, CAMERAS & AUDIO, and every bit of it is super easy (in a technical sense). This article is an introduction to the CAMERAS part of the system, and it covers what I call my 3 Simple Shots . ABOVE:  I think I've figured out HOW TO: Always Shoot With 2 Cameras  but can my "Fake Filmmaking"  method truly cover all conventional filmmaking shots, with only 3 shots? HOW DOES THIS ALL WORK? Well, conventional filmmaking uses a long list of shot types that need to be memorized, sometimes requiring storyboards for each one. My "Fake Filmmaking" system only uses 3 SHOTS to capture everything, but in a more flexible (and realistic) way. I Always Shoot with 2 Cameras so I'm always capturing at least 2 shots of everything (WIDE & TIGHT). Then, my third shot (TELE) adds flavor to the sequence using close-ups and/or macro. It saves you from having to shoot things over and over (like you must do when only using a single camera). This method shifts your focus from just thinking about a single shot, to being in the right place, at the right time as the story unfolds. The 3 Simple Shots WIDE (~17/~24/~35)* TIGHT (~35/~50/~70)* TELE (70+/100+/135+)* *The three numbers in each shot represent the lens focal length for each sensor size . The 3 sensor sizes I cover within my system include: Micro Four Thirds (2x crop) Super 35/APS-C (1.5x/1.6x Crop) and full frame (1x full-frame, no crop). Each lens focal length is shown in millimeters. SHOT 1 WIDE FOR "ESTABLISHING", "EXTREME LONG", "LONG", "FULL" SHOTS The WIDE shot is usually the establishing shot used for almost every scene. I always like to have at least 2 cameras rolling to avoid jump cuts while editing, and the WIDE shot is often the #1 shot I compose while using this method. It's also one of the two classic shots in talking head interviews. ABOVE:  Wide establishing shots are an essential part of REAL storytelling, so I think it's worth having a dedicated camera (to make capturing these a lot quicker...no lens changes). SHOT 2 TIGHT (ALSO CALLED "MEDIUM") USE THIS FOR "MEDIUM", "CLOSE-UP" SHOTS While the WIDE shot provides a sense of place, the TIGHT shot emphasizes details of a scene, especially the expressions of a subject's face. This is not only often used as the #2 shot of the classic 2-shot interview/talking head scene, but it is also one of the most basic filmmaking shots in general. It uses a standard focal length lens (of ~25 to 35mm on 2x, ~35 to 50mm on 1.5/1.6x, and 70 or 85mm on full frame) and is very familiar to most audiences, and it does not optically distort the image. ABOVE:  I like using a lens slightly over the standard focal length (based on the sensor size) for scenic shots sometimes, as it renders things more accurately (no wide angle distortion). SHOT 3 TELE FOR "MEDIUM", "CLOSE-UP", "EXTREME CLOSE-UP" SHOTS First of all, this requires a 2nd tripod, whereas the 1st two shots utilize one of my dual-camera rigs. I call this a TELE shot because (when used at a normal 6.6 feet / 2 meter camera-to-subject distance of a "talking head" scene) it can be used to capture "extreme close up" shots of a person's face or eyes. However, this only applies if the telephoto lens has macro capabilities (such as with many 1990s vintage 70/75-300 lenses). I also list this extra shot as an option, because you can tell the story without it, but these shots can really help add interest. ABOVE:  Extreme close-up shots can also be taken with a medium focal length lens (85mm or so) if the close focusing is good enough (usually you'll need a real macro lens). CONCLUSION: While I do plan on going into more detail regarding these 3 shots in the future (beyond the application of talking head scenes) I've been pretty happy with how these 3 shots have gotten me through most scenes. Keep in mind that my method isn't meant to limit your options but is rather a way for entry-level filmmakers to start creating as quickly as possible. They may want to progress to the more complicated and conventional filmmaking methods as they expand their skills, but my goal for this system is make it really, really easy and that's why I call it Fake Filmmaking . The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?