SEARCH  WEBSITE

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: As I was working on creating Microphone-Specific EQs I realized I needed to keep track of the "proximity" of each microphone I was testing, because it affected not only the level but also the tone as well (it adds more BASS). So, I started using the term "proximity" to simply refer to the distance from the microphone to the sound source. Most audio people use this word in the term "proximity effect" to refer to added BASS and other distortions that occur when a person is too close to a microphone. Whichever way it's used, what I did was create a list of standard proximities, so I could systematically test each microphone & audio recorder combination I have (and come up with custom audio settings for each). ABOVE:  I use the term "proximity" to refer to the distance between the sound source and the microphone. I then use this to figure out my custom (mic-specific) audio settings . To me, this makes setting up microphones & audio recorders super easy. ABOVE:  Here are the "proximities" I use. The quality of the microphone and audio recorder do matter, but proximity might just be the most important factor when it comes to capturing good audio. WHY IS "PROXIMITY" SO IMPORTANT? Microphone proximity is not only an important consideration in regard to how realistic you want your sound to be (too close and it adds more BASS) but it's also important in regard to how "clean" your audio signal will be. You probably know that at close proximity, even inexpensive microphones sound good. Historically, the main reason proximity is important has been that it allows you to keep the record level of the audio recorder low (and therefore to avoid the added "noise" of the recorder preamp). However, when I started testing 32-bit float recorders, I realized I couldn't use a low gain setting to keep the "noise floor" low (because there is no "gain" on 32-bit float recorders!) I then realized microphone proximity is the now only way to keep the noise floor down (with a 32-bit float recorder). And yes, there can still be an issue with a high noise floor when using some microphones on the Zoom F2 #ad (I'm not just using lavalier mics). So, to figure out what custom audio settings to use (on each microphone and audio recorder combination) I had to establish the following standards. My Custom Settings Method (For AUDIO): "CLOSE" (3.5 inches / 8.89 cm) "LAV" (7 inches / 17.78 cm) "VLOG" (22 inches / 55.5 cm) "BOOM" (35 inches / 88.88 cm) "AFAR" (16.4 feet / 5 m) USE FOR NARRATION, VOICEOVERS, PODCASTS I use this proximity for recording podcasts, voiceovers and narration. This places the microphone about 3.5 inches away or 8.89 cm. The trick to quickly approximate this distance is to make your hand into a fist, and then don't get closer to the microphone than that . The neat thing about this proximity is that a lot of these budget filmmaking microphones (mostly mini shotguns) sound pretty good at this proximity (check out my custom [mic-specific] audio settings to see the ones I've tested.) These mini mics (3.5mm plug, short interference tube) are also very affordable, and they're super small, and therefore super portable. What's also great about mini shotgun mics, is they almost all have a shock mount, and that most of those I've tested don't need an additional pop filter (to protect from plosives) which is normally needed when recording at this "CLOSE" proximity! USE FOR CLIP-ON (LAV.) MIC PLACEMENT This proximity is pretty self-explanatory, as it applies to using lavalier (or clip-on) mics. It's really easy to measure this distance by simply using the "hang loose" hand sign (for the distance between the mic and your mouth). This distance is approximately 7 inches/17.78 cm and can also be applied when hiding the mic in a person's clothing, or even in their hair. USE FOR VLOGGING (AT ARM'S LENGTH) The main attribute of the "VLOG" proximity is that it's typically used for placing a microphone on the camera's hot shoe (with the camera pointed towards yourself). Therefore, the easy way to remember this proximity is the mic should be no further away than arm's length . I know, some people (such as basketball players) have longer arms, but the idea is to place the mic no further away from the sound source than approx. 22 inches (or 55.5 cm) . Some YouTubers also use this proximity for booming the mic (out of the shot) and the reason this works is because they're often really close to the camera. One last thing to remember about this "VLOG" proximity, is that it's important to use a "furry" windscreen when you're shooting outdoors (it helps protect the microphone from wind noise). Sometimes I even use a furry windscreen INDOORS, but it's specific to how each microphone-audio recorder combo sounds. USE FOR BOOMING FROM ABOVE (OR BELOW) This proximity is the traditional (Hollywood) boom distance, which is no more than 3 feet . I used to say my "maximum" boom distance was about 4 feet (and there are some mics you can push that far) but most brands are saying it's best to boom at 3 feet or less, so I changed this to conform to what everybody else is saying (though I've tested a number of mics that work well at around 4 feet). The reason I used to push my boom mic distance to 4 feet, was that I was trying to make it work for both WIDE AND TIGHT shots. A lot of filmmakers are able place the mic closer (while keeping it out of the shot) because they only use a single camera when recording. On the contrary, I prefer to " always shoot with 2 cameras (WIDE & TIGHT) " at the same time, so the mic needs a bit more distance to clear both the TIGHT & WIDE shots. Also, another thing about boom placement that's worth mentioning, is that the microphone can sometimes be placed BELOW the sound source (and not just ABOVE). The reason I sometimes prefer to place a boom BELOW is in situations where the ceiling is low and there is echo; if there's a carpeted floor, having the mic placed LOW will then reflect less (less echo). If the floor covering is tile or some other "reflective" material (even finished wood) it may be too reflective, but if it's covered with carpet (or a rug) it can work pretty well. USE FOR (DISTANT) NAT. SOUND CAPTURE This recording distance works quite well in situations where a bit of ambient background noise is good (such as outdoor "nat. sound" capture) because this proximity WILL increase the amount of background noise present in the recording. The reason is that it places the mic quite far from the sound source which means you have to increase the recording level for non-32-bit-float recorders or increase if you're using a 32-bit float recorder. It really depends on which microphone you're using though, because some can be better than others at long-range recording (see my AUDIO SETTINGS database for details). The easy way to visualize this distance (and the way I came up with it) is to become aware of how close you can get to subjects out in the "wild" (such as birds, etc.) NOTE: I used to call this my "ZOOM" proximity, but I changed it because it was too easy to confuse this with the brand name Zoom (or even with zoom lenses). CONCLUSION: In an ideal world, we'd only use microphones at close proximity to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low (and to reduce the background noise). However, in many situations we can't get the mic that close, so we have to boost either the mic level (if it has power options) or the record level on the audio recorder (unless it's a 32-bit float recorder). So, what I'm doing is testing my favorite (budget) filmmaking microphones so I can test them at each proximity, and then provide settings recommendations specific to each combination (then posting them on the AUDIO section of my website). I know these settings won't be perfect, but my goal is to provide a good starting point (so you don't have to be stressed when recording). Next, we'll cover my favorite budget filmmaking AUDIO gear in PART 2: Kit Plans 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?

INTRO: "T-Lighting" is a simple, 2-light method that's faster and easier to set up than 3-point lighting but is less expensive (yet produces similar results). 3-point lighting is one of the staples of conventional filmmaking, and T-lighting is one of the best parts of my " Fake Filmmaking " method. If you haven't heard of it, I've been developing this method (of budget filmmaking) that's much easier than conventional filmmaking. This article introduces the first part of my "Fake" method: LIGHTS. We cover a few reasons why I think T-lighting is better than traditional 3-point lighting, but my plan is to create a more detailed "HOW-TO" guide in the future (if there's enough interest). ABOVE:  The video above is pretty old (it was the 2nd video I uploaded to YouTube) but it still serves as a brief overview of T-Lighting. WHAT IS "T-LIGHTING"? T-Lighting is a simple, 2-light setup which uses the #2 light as both the 3/4 backlight AND as a background light (and the main light is used the same way as it would be in 3-point lighting). The Reasons I Use "T-Lighting" "T-LIGHTING" IS FASTER (& EASIER) (Than 3-Point) "T-LIGHTING" IS LESS EXPENSIVE (Than 3-Point) "T-LIGHTING" WORKS IN SMALL SPACES (With Low Ceilings) NOTE 1 "T-LIGHTING" IS FASTER (& EASIER) It's "faster" because you're only setting up a total of 2 lights (and no boom for the "hair light"). It's "easier" for a number of reasons, including the first point, but also because there are ONLY 2 STEPS TO SET IT UP ! STEP 1 : Set up the "MAIN LIGHT" Parallel to the lens, 4 feet / 1.22 meters directly to one side of camera (at approx. arm's length) STEP 2 : Set up the "T-LIGHT" Perpendicular to main light, straight across the "clock dial" (at 10 or 2 o' clock, whichever's opposite of the main light) ABOVE:  The main reason why "T-lighting" is so much faster than 3-point lighting, is that it's less gear to set up (2 lights instead of 3+) and doesn't require a boom (for the hair light). NOTE 2 "T-LIGHTING" IS LESS EXPENSIVE ABOVE:  The truth is, when background lights are added you actually need more than 3 lights for 3-point lighting...so the cost is even GREATER than you may think (not to mention the cost of extra light stand and the boom for a "hair light"). WHY "T-LIGHTING" IS LESS EXPENSIVE This reason T-lighting is going to be less expensive, is that it requires only 2 lights, and 3-point lighting requires 3 (or more)! For T-lighting, the main light is about the same as it would be in 3-point lighting (a large, diffused light source) and it's probably the most expensive light in the kit. The second "T-light" isn't very expensive though, and the general rule I use is that it should be about half as powerful as the main light. This second light should also be "open" without a diffuser or barn doors (so the light spills to the sides). The light stand for the main light needs to be a good, heavy-duty one, but the light stand for the T-light doesn't need to be very big. I've even used a selfie stand, or a really cheap video tripod to mount the second light. The point is, when you compare this to the (long) list of items needed for 3-point lighting, the list of items needed to make T-lighting work, is going to be a lot shorter. NOTE 3 "T-LIGHTING" WORKS IN SMALL SPACES ABOVE:  I started my YouTube channel by filming myself in a small space (my bedroom) in which there was "no room for a boom". T-LIGHTING WORKS WITH LOW CEILINGS! Another reason I like the idea of T-lighting (more than 3-point lighting) is that it works when there's low ceilings. Ever tried setting up 3-point lighting while shooting in a small room? You know you really need to add light, but there's no room for a boom! So, the neat thing about T-lighting is you get the 3/4 backlight effect, but you don't need to set up a boom arm to make it happen. It just takes 2 small light stands and one of them can even be a little, tiny tripod (because it doesn't need to be as strong of a light source as the main light, and needs to be close to the ground, to hide it, anyway).  SUMMARY: I think T-lighting can produce a look similar to 3-point lighting, but it's so much quicker and easier to set up that I generally prefer it for a number of reasons. The T-lighting layout removes the hassle of having to find set up a boom for a hair light (because a 3/4 backlight is supplied by the "T" light) and that T-light also (side) lights the background, so you don't really need to add extra lights for that. Good news is you're done  bad news is: here's an ad (yet it does pay for THE BLOG )  If you liked the first ad  (Here's another one) But if you didn't  sorry...  (you'll get a chance to see more, in the future)

INTRO: My #1 budget filmmaking tip is "Always Shoot With Two Cameras" because this and my " 3 Simple Shots " make budget filmmaking super easy. It's also part of my " Fake Filmmaking " method, where I'm figuring out ways to make everything a lot more affordable (and easier) than it has been in the past. Still, some may wonder how this stuff is possible, either technically or financially. The good news is, I've come up with my 3 kit plans that not only make this technically easy, but are also budget friendly. My three kit plans are the Minimal Kit the Basic Kit and Advanced Kit . ABOVE:  My #1 tip (to make BUDGET filmmaking easier) is to "Always Shoot with Two Cameras". Above: Here's a video of my "dual-camera cage" in use. For more information about the shot composition, see my blog post about "3 Simple Shots"  I use for "Fake Filmmaking" . How To "Always Shoot With 2 Cameras" KIT PLAN #1: MINIMAL KIT PLAN #2: BASIC KIT PLAN #3: ADVANCED KIT PLAN 1 " MINIMAL " ABOVE:  It can't get any easier than the Minimal Kit . Mount a GoPro ( HERO4 Silver  or newer) on top of a "real" camera and you're done! MY MINIMAL KIT: EASY AND INEXPENSIVE To use this method, I simply mount a GoPro HERO4 Silver (or newer) on top of a "real" (interchangeable-lens) camera. Then, I compose the "TIGHT" shot (on the "real" camera) and then compose the "WIDE" shot (by simply angling the GoPro forward or back). This method is super easy to learn and do, and it's pretty inexpensive as well. It can even work using an older GoPro without image stabilization (such as the HERO4 Silver ) because stabilization isn't always necessary if mounted to a camera's hot shoe(dampens it). Getting a HERO7 (or newer) is better though, if you need stabilization. As a side note, I would NOT recommend the HERO4 Black, because it doesn't have a viewfinder or screen...but any GoPro model after the 4 has a screen (either Black or Silver).  HOW TO:  USING THE MINIMAL KIT TO RECORD "WIDE & TIGHT" SHOTS For using the Minimal Kit , the method (for composing my WIDE & TIGHT shots) is pretty easy. First, I compose the TIGHT shot (the camera on the bottom with the prime lens) and then I adjust the GoPro (or other action camera) on the top. The reason I do it in this order, is that the TIGHT shot needs to be more or less pointed right at the subject you are filming, whereas the WIDE shot is easier to just point in the approximate direction of the scene. ABOVE:  (OUTDATED) I used to recommend using a cell phone as the second camera (for the Minimal Kit ) but after testing a GoPro HERO4 Silver ...and comparing the price (on the used market) to a good iPhone, I changed my (budget) recommendation. KIT PLAN 2 " BASIC " ABOVE:  The key to always shooting with 2 cameras, is to be able to control both cameras at the same time. This need led me to creating this "dual-camera cage" I use for my Basic Kit . ABOVE:  A home-made dual-camera cage in use. To make one, all you have to do is get a well-built cage, make sure it has mounting points on top, and add an extra ball head. THE BASIC KIT: TWO "REAL" CAMERAS The first thing I do is find a cage (there are a lot of them out there, but I like this one #ad ) that is sturdy enough to hold 2 cameras. The WIDE shot camera will go on the bottom (normally) and the TIGHT shot will go on the top. All I do to mount the cameras is add a small, but strong ball head (or monopod head*) to the top level of the cage. I prefer a monopod head if I need to handhold the entire cage, but if it's mounted on a tripod (static) I prefer to use a ball head (as it's easier to compose a 2nd shot using a ball head). To mount the camera to the bottom, most cages include a standard 1/4-20 mount on the bottom/inside of the cage. All I do is mount a quick-release plate for the camera, there. That's pretty much all I do to create a "dual-camera cage" for the Basic Kit (except for maybe mounting an audio recorder and/or wireless receiver) but when we move to discussing the "Advanced Kit" things are going to get more interesting (HINT: I mount an Atomos HDMI recorder/monitor PLUS an HDMI switcher to the rig, and sometimes add another camera). NOTE: To mount the camera on the top of the cage, most cages have a bunch of reverse 1/4-20 mounting holes all over, so it's easy to attach a camera mount.  HOW TO:  USING THE BASIC KIT TO CAPTURE "WIDE & TIGHT" SHOTS Using the Basic Kit is sort of the opposite of using the Minimal Kit . First, I compose the WIDE shot (usually the camera on the bottom) and then I lock the tripod in that position. Then, I compose the TIGHT shot (usually the camera on the top) using the ball head (or monopod head). For this "BASIC" method I don't talk about hand holding this whole rig (I do in the Advanced Kit ) but I'll just say that it takes a bit of practice to get coordinated enough to handle both cameras at the same time. One thing I do recommend to make it easier, is make sure one of the two cameras is using autofocus (and if you're on a Panasonic camera, make sure you're using "Single Shot" AF and NOT "Continuous"...and use "back button" or touch to focus using the touch screen). The reason having one camera use AF, is that it's not easy to focus pull (i.e. manually focus) two cameras at a time, but I find I can handle it, if one of them is using AF. KIT PLAN 3 " ADVANCED " ABOVE:  My " Advanced Kit " gets a bit crazy: I mount an (Atomos) HDMI recorder/monitor (plus an HDMI switcher) on the cage, then add a 3rd camera. THE ADVANCED KIT: ADD AN HDMI RECORDER (& ANOTHER CAMERA) The Advanced Kit plan adds to the dual-camera cage of the Basic Kit with an HDMI switcher and recorder, plus a 3rd (or 4th) camera on a second tripod (or gimbal). This kit plan really speeds up both in-studio and on-location shoots and is capable of covering most scenarios, with a single camera operator (you read that right). I use an HDMI recorder such as an Atomos recorder #ad or Blackmagic Video Assist #ad with an HDMI switcher #ad to not only capture a backup of whichever camera is being used, but to provide a sort of pre-cut copy (on the external hard drive) that is quicker to edit. Recording to the external recorder (in the uncompressed ProRes format) captures better color as well as making motion (non-static) shots look better due to the lack of compression artifacts. Also, I add a 3rd camera (with a telephoto lens) because it helps when capturing detail shots and "cutaways" which tell the story in a more complete way (in my opinion) and it also makes the editing process more enjoyable. I may go into more detail (about how a single user can operate this 3rd camera) but I might make a mini course about it (and charge a little money?) 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: You may have read my post What Camera Settings Are Best? (Differs For Each Lens?) where I cover how I think every lens deserves its own settings (because each lens sends light to the sensor differently). If not, check out that post, but the idea is that I test every lens I get to figure out what I call lens-sensor specific camera settings (and LUTs) to make the footage look more "cinematic". I call them "REAL" settings because my goal is to not just to make each lens-sensor combo look as "cinematic" as possible, but to make it look REAL enough that it's not a distraction to the viewer. To do this, I bring each lens-sensor combination to what I call a "base" where the image looks realistic (like what your eye sees). ABOVE: While testing a Canon FD 50 1.4 (on my Panasonic G7) I came to the conclusion that while good, there are some lenses that can't render a realistic look, no matter how hard you try. What that means for me, is they won't match other lenses. So, I decided to create a rating system that shows how close each lens-sensor combo can get to being "REAL". WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL (ABOUT BEING "REAL")? Well, the main reason I like to keep the footage "REAL" is because I don't like the technical aspects of filmmaking to overwhelm the artistic and/or storytelling aspects. I also don't like spending lots and lots of time shooting, only to discover some of my footage isn't going to be able to match other cameras. So, now let's talk about WHY I think my system can help make that process of shot matching (and other things) so much easier. We'll start with what type of rating/grading system I use (hint: it's letters) and then we'll go into more detail about how I use it to rate lenses. WHAT RATING SYSTEM DO YOU USE? The standard I use to express the ratings is simply the A, B, C, D, F letter grading system which all young Americans have grown to love (or hate) from years of formal education. It's not an exact science (like, where did the letter "E" go?) but I use the system because most people can relate to it. ABOVE:  There are a number of things that can either make and image look "REAL" or fake, including the contrast, sharpness, noise reduction, color and sometimes hue settings. It's important to note that these are lens-sensor specific settings. WHAT ATTRIBUTES AM I RATING? I know there are more complex systems out there to rate the "IQ" of lenses (and other systems to rate the digital resolving power of sensors, etc.) but with my system, I'll try to keep it simple: CONTRAST (Too much can kill image details by blowing out the highlights and crushing the shadows.) SHARPNESS (Excessive sharpness can reveal the pixel structure of a sensor which can make it look too "digital".) NOISE (Too much "noise" is distracting, unless it looks like film grain?) COLOR (Oversaturated color is another thing I consider to be distracting, and it can also emphasize colored artifacts in digital noise, which is even more of a distraction.) RATING 1 CONTRAST To me, if you get the contrast of a shot to look "REAL" (on all cameras) you're getting pretty close to matching all shots. I think varying degrees of sharpness (between cameras/lenses) can be acceptable, if the contrast of the two shots, matches. So, CONTRAST might just be the most important lens attribute (when it comes to not only "shot matching" but also to rendering what I call a "REAL" looking image). Yannick Khong has a really good article on " micro contrast " and I really love how he puts the emphasis on his goal of creating "more realistic images"! However, I have a slightly different opinion when it comes to which lenses are considered "good" and which are "bad" because I think it can depend on which SENSOR/CAMERA the lens is sending the light to, but this points back to my central theme that "It's all about (lens-sensor) relationships". Ansel Adams (the famous photographer who created the Zone System ) was also well-known for being a master of controlling contrast. Getting the REAL look isn't the only reason I give my shots a "Reality Rating". It's also because my goal is to get more dynamic range out of each sensor, based on how light is passed through the lens, etc. "REAL" RATINGS FOR CONTRAST: A = The contrast looks REAL. B = The contrast looks ALMOST REAL (is not distracting). C = The contrast looks HALF REAL, HALF FAKE (halfway distracting). D = The contrast looks MOSTLY FAKE (is distracting). F = The contrast looks FAKE. RATING 2 SHARPNESS In all of the testing I've done so far, I've only come across 3 lenses that could not render acceptable sharpness...and I'm pretty picky. What that means to me is the problem with most lenses is not having too LITTLE sharpness. So, that brings me to one of the worst problems of many modern lenses (besides excessive contrast) too MUCH sharpness. The problem is, when they're paired with the digital sensors of today, the sharpness often reveals the digital nature of the sensor, and this is where any "REAL" organic film look is lost. Some lenses are just too sharp and the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is one of the "biggest offenders". It has a lot of good traits, but when it come to rending a REAL looking image (on certain cameras) it doesn't do well. "REAL" RATINGS FOR SHARPNESS: A = The sharpness looks REAL. B = The sharpness looks ALMOST REAL (is not distracting). C = The sharpness looks HALF REAL, HALF FAKE (halfway distracting). D = The sharpness looks MOSTLY FAKE (is distracting). F = The sharpness looks FAKE. RATING 3 NOISE I'm in the process of doing more testing and research about this lens attribute, as it's something that is difficult to explain and quantify, but the short version of this story is that I think some noise is distracting, while other noise can look like "film grain" which some people really like (if you were born in the era of watching film-based films, I guess). That's why I say this one can be a bit difficult to explain or quantify, yet my overall goal is for the image to look "REAL" so I guess I would say that if the noise looks "organic" (i.e. like film grain) then it is better than if it looks "digital" (more like pixels). "REAL" RATINGS FOR NOISE: A = The noise looks REAL (looks "organic"). B = The noise looks ALMOST REAL (is not distracting). C = The noise looks HALF REAL, HALF FAKE (halfway distracting). D = The noise looks MOSTLY FAKE (is distracting). F = The noise looks FAKE (looks "digital"). RATING 4 COLOR The difficult thing about color, is that fashion trends change, and the appetites for too little or too much color sway back and forth. My solution is to keep it "REAL". Make color look like our eyes see. Not too much, not too little, just enough (to quote a book from my childhood). The result is a standard, one which may seem boring to some, but which is a good starting point for all. If we make "REAL" our base, all shots from all of our cameras should match. Some people don't prefer realistic color, but I think it's one of the things that makes scenes more believable and therefore immersive (if you can picture yourself there, you probably weren't distracted by the COLOR!) "REAL" RATINGS FOR COLOR: A = The color looks REAL. B = The color looks ALMOST REAL (is not distracting). C = The color looks HALF REAL, HALF FAKE (halfway distracting). D = The color looks MOSTLY FAKE (is distracting). F = The color looks FAKE. WHAT'S UP WITH "HUE"? You might wonder why I don't have "HUE" listed, when it is one of the variables that you can adjust on certain cameras (such as the GH4, GH5, etc.) HUE refers to the color accuracy, whereas the "COLOR" setting is focused on just the color SATURATION. I think the color SATURATION can make things look "FAKE" a lot faster than a slight shift in color HUE, but the main reason I don't use the "HUE" setting, is that some cameras don't have this option (especially the cheaper ones I have) so I'm sticking to the controls that exists in all of the budget filmmaking cameras I have (Contrast, Sharpness, Noise, Color). MY SETTINGS DO NOT CORRECT FOR WRONG WHITE BALANCE While both lenses the camera SENSOR can have a color bias, another reason I don't adjust the "hue" with camera settings, is that I think this is the job of proper white balance. Therefore, I think it's important to use a white balance tool #ad (or even a piece of paper) to correctly set your white balance. 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: This article is the antithesis to a video I posted on YouTube about my Top 3 Budget Lenses for Filmmaking . That was focused on my favorite BUDGET options, but NOW we're going to focus on a few "dream" lenses that I still bought for a pretty good price, but which where not a good idea. I wanted these lenses for quite a while (maybe because everyone else seemed to want them). The 3 lenses were a 50mm F/1.2 (I tried the Canon FL 58mm, then found a Porst for a really good deal, made by Fujica) the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8, and a 70/80-200 F/2.8 (I had both a Canon EF, and an older Nikon). ABOVE:  I tried two vintage 50 F/1.2 lenses, the 1st was the Canon FL 58mm, the 2nd a (minty) vintage 50mm Porst made by Fujica, but ended up liking my Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D    #ad    (with a Viltrox NF-M43x speed booster    #ad   ) better. My "Dream" Lenses: THE FAST FIFTY  (I don't usually need F/1.2, even INDOORS) SIGMA 18-35 1.8  (I'd prefer a SHIFT adapter, with an 11-16) 70/80-200 2.8  (too heavy to use on my 2-camera rig) DREAM LENS 1 THE FAST FIFTY It seems like everyone dreams of owning an F/1.2 50mm. They're bigger, cost more, and let in more light (wide open, at least) than less expensive 1.8 versions, so they must be better right? I was convinced in theory, until I tried one, then another. They were both terrible at F/1.2, and though I'd heard people say they would be, somehow I didn't believe it. So, I ended up shooting at 1.8 or even more. It turned out, even with small M43 sensors, that I didn't often need more than F/1.4 (even INDOORS)...and the amount of bokeh (blurred background) was plenty (yes, even with a Micro Four Thirds sensor). I began to think buying an F/1.2 wasn't worth it. I know you can get better results from a $1500-ish Canon L-series 50 1.2, but aside from that, the vintage options I was able to afford were not usable at F/1.2. Also, I came across a strange (but unfortunately common) problem of flicker, which occurred when under certain LED lighting (in a restaurant). I tried fixing it by changing the shutter speed, but letting in more light (even at 1.4) actually made the problem worse. I just couldn't get the right exposure with the given variables. Then, I started testing a Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D #ad with a Viltrox NF-M43x speed booster #ad (which renders something around F/1.2 if needed, wide open). The results were so much better than the 1.2 lenses wide open, I haven't looked back. ABOVE:  The high contrast and sharpness of the Sigma 18-35 1.8 make capturing good dynamic range difficult outdoors (though my custom camera settings  do improve it). DREAM LENS 2 SIGMA 18-35 1.8 This next lens is a favorite of many. My first reason for not liking it may be a personal one, but that's because I like to use a SHIFT adapter (especially for WIDE shots) as often as possible. (I hope to write an article about shift and tilt shift adapters soon, but the bottom line is that it allows you to correct the perspective and not angle the camera upwards.) The problem with using this lens on a shift or tilt/shift adapter though, is it's too heavy, which puts strain on both the lens mount and the adapter (as there can be a some play m budget adapters). Also, because 18mm is not wide enough (at times) for a WIDE shot, and because I can't add a focal reducer/speed booster to the SHIFT adapter to increase the field of view, I don't like it. What I do instead is use a Tokina 11-16 2.8 (on that shift adapter) to get a wide enough angle. Lastly, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 isn't really a good OUTDOOR lens in general, not only because the F1.8 max. aperture isn't needed outdoors, but also because the high contrast and sharpness of this lens isn't a good match for many of the lighting situations we (sometimes) face outdoors. ABOVE:  I rented a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 (used on a Metabones XL 0.64x speed booster) and also purchased an older Nikon AF 80-200 2.8, but both were too heavy, clumsy. DREAM LENS 3 70/80-200 2.8 Now, I'm going to talk about a lens I used to love, as that had served many of us well when film (and sensors) just needed more light; the fast 2.8 tele. I wrote an entire article just about why I think the less-expensive 70-300 lenses are now (often) a better way to spend my money (see the article here ) and if you start by looking at the prices of 70-300 lenses vs. 70-200 2.8 lenses (new or used) you'll see where I'm going. The average price of a (vintage) 70-300 is around $100 US, while a 70-200 2.8 optic is well over $500. To me, this is an important point, but because this article is focused on "dream" lenses, we'll kind of ignore this to start with. However, one point that is REALLY big for me, is that the 2.8 versions are also HEAVIER lenses. Not only does this make your camera backpack heavier, but also makes it difficult for me to use this lens on lighter-weight ball head tripods (it takes several adjustments each time to get the image framed up right). Yet worse, is that to mount it to the top of one of my 2-camera rigs #ad (an important part of my workflow) is impossible, making lighter 70-300 lenses the clear winner.  SUMMARY: So, if money were NOT an issue, would I still avoid these 3 lenses? Yes. I think there are just too many workflow problems they introduce, so I figure why pay more, for more of a headache, just to get an extra stop of light and a non-variable aperture? You wouldn't be zooming while shooting anyway, right? 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?