SEARCH  WEBSITE

OVERVIEW: 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I think times really are changing, and some of the methods (and accompanying equipment) used by past professionals are out of date.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 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. 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 log mode that Zeno has created LUTs for, etc.) 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)! 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.

OVERVIEW: "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) IDEA 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). IDEA 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. IDEA 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

OVERVIEW: 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 DO YOU RATE? 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. "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. "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. "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.

OVERVIEW: This article will cover the KIT PLANS I use for budget filmmaking AUDIO . I'll go over what I use for each of my kit levels (Minimal, Basic, Advanced). The short version is, if I only need to record audio of one person, I use my Minimal Kit (a Zoom F2 32-bit float recorder #ad + LAV mic + Comica CVM-MF1 #ad (furry windscreen). If I need to capture audio from 2 sources, I use my Basic Kit and if I need to capture audio from 3, 4 or more sources, it's my Advanced Kit . Each kit uses a simple system I call the "Proximity" method, which uses custom (mic-specific) settings that are based on the distance from the sound source, to choose my settings. So, in this article I'll go over my KIT PLANS and then I plan to cover my METHODS in the future. ABOVE: The Zoom F2 32-bit float recorder is at the center of my kit for dialog recording. Not only can it be used with LAV mics, but it can also be used with mini (3.5mm) shotgun mics. IS BUDGET FILMMAKING AUDIO GEAR ANY GOOD? There are some budget microphones and audio recorders that are good. Some have limitations though, and that's why I created an AUDIO SETTINGS database (to save my custom settings after finding the "sweet spot" of each microphone/audio recorder combo). Budget was the first consideration, but getting good quality from the budget gear has always been my main objective. At the same time, I always try to make everything as easy as possible, so I can maintain the quality, even when I'm stressed or running low on energy. My AUDIO Kit: MINIMAL KIT: 1 LAV BASIC KIT: LAV, SHOTGUN ADVANCED KIT: LAVS, SHOTGUNS, X/Y RECORDER MINIMAL KIT 1 LAV I think the easiest way to get good audio for just one person, is to just use a Zoom F2 32-bit float recorder #ad + LAV mic + Comica CVM-MF1 #ad furry windscreen. Using this 32-bit float recorder means you don't have to set your levels. Then, adding that FURRY windscreen (otherwise known as a "deadcat") you can record either INDOORS or OUTDOORS with no worries about wind. The only thing you'll need to do is make sure you place the microphone at the correct recording distance (or proximity ) from the person's mouth. (To do this, I simply use the "hang loose" hand sign to measure the distance from the mic to the persons mouth, which is about 7 inches or 17.78 cm.) MINIMAL KIT: LAV Zoom F2 #ad (or F2-BT Bluetooth) Zoom LMF-2 Lavalier (included) Comica CVM-MF1 (Furry) #ad Eneloop Pro (AAA ) #ad SanDisk Extreme PRO® #ad BASIC KIT LAV, SHOTGUN Then, for my Basic Kit I add a mini (3.5mm) shotgun mic, and another Zoom F2, but this time the Bluetooth version. This gives me the option of using either a LAV or a mini shotgun with the Zoom F2 32-bit float recorder (which works really well in my tests). It can be used on top of the camera, but I don't generally recommend doing that (even when vlogging) as using the LAV in that scenario is much more predictable. I use the shotgun mic (at my "CLOSE" proximity) for podcasting, as well as using it in the standard "BOOM" position (and sometimes even for recording ambient audio from "AFAR"). BASIC KIT: LAV Zoom F2    #ad   (w/LMF-2 Lavalier) Zoom F2-BT    #ad   (w/LMF-2) Comica CVM-MF1 (Furry) #ad (x2) Eneloop Pro (AAA ) #ad (x2) SanDisk Extreme PRO®  #ad BASIC KIT: SHOTGUN Comica VM20 #ad (Shotgun Mic) ADVANCED KIT LAVS, SHOTGUNS, X/Y RECORDER So, this is where the kit gets a little bit more complicated (though some items are just duplicated) yet when we talk about the METHOD, that's where there's going to be a lot more information to cover. I add another shotgun mic, but this time I go for the wireless version of the Comica (the VM30). I don't usually NEED the wireless option for the second shotgun mic, and I'd actually prefer to use it wired (plugged into a 32-bit float Zoom F2) but I'm open to testing the wireless version (especially since it can be a good tool for INDOOR shoots, etc.). When it comes to my "Advanced" recording method, I also like to add an X/Y (2-channel stereo or 4-channel surround) recorder to the mix, and that's why I've tested a number of budget X/Y audio recorder options as well. This allows me to add another layer of real, ambient audio to the scene. ADVANCED KIT: LAVS Zoom F2 #ad (w/LMF-2 Lavalier) Zoom F2-BT #ad (w/LMF-2) Comica CVM-MF1 #ad (Furry) (x3) Eneloop Pro (AAA ) #ad (x3) SanDisk Extreme PRO® #ad ADVANCED KIT: SHOTGUNS Comica CVM-20 #ad Comica CVM-30    #ad   (Wireless) ADVANCED KIT: X/Y RECORDER Zoom H1essential #ad ChromLives (Windscreens)  #ad   Movo SMM2 (Shock Mount) #ad CONCLUSION: So, we will get into each METHOD with additional articles (one for each kit level, etc.) but the audio KIT isn't too complicated in a lot of ways. It starts super simple, with a single 32-bit float LAV (for the Minimal Kit ) and then adds a mini shotgun mic (and additional audio recorder) in the Basic Kit and then for the Advanced Kit you simply add another shotgun mic, then a stereo (X/Y) recorder.

OVERVIEW: When the plastic battery door latch on my Zoom F1 broke, I was almost ready to stop recommending this budget field recorder on my website (where I have a database of CUSTOM SETTINGS for budget filmmaking AUDIO gear). My first response was to grab a strip of my trusty Gaffer Power #ad gaff tape to get it working (it won't power on if the door is open). I put off dealing with it for a bit (as all good creative procrastinators do) until I remembered I had purchased the Zoom F1 at Sweetwater.com and their service department is pretty good. So, I gave them a call, they called Zoom (directly, I guess) and within the week, a little padded envelope arrived. When I looked inside, I was stoked. Inside the envelope was 2 new battery doors (yes, 2) with re-designed METAL LATCHES! I was impressed that Zoom actually recognized the weakness of the product, and re-manufactured the battery doors. My faith in Zoom was restored...and then I tried to install the new battery door, myself. ABOVE: Zoom fixed the battery cover issue of the Zoom F1 #ad ! They actually changed the design from being a plastic battery latch TO A METAL ONE (see picture above)! I called Sweetwater.com (where I bought it) after my original plastic battery door latch broke (after very little use) and they contacted Zoom, who mailed a replacement part in a few days! IS A BROKEN BATTERY COVER A BIG DEAL? If the battery cover on your Zoom F1 breaks you're out of luck, because it won't power on without the door closing. I do recommend doing a quick fix with black Gaffer Power gaff tape but this isn't a very convenient long-term solution. The good news is, Zoom has re-designed the battery door with a metal latch , and they will send you a new one for free. Even better, if you bought it through Sweetwater they'll contact Zoom for you, and you'll get a replacement part in a few days (depending on where you live). However, before you decide to install this yourself, let me just say that my first recommendation is you send the unit in to Zoom (so they can do it). It's not easy, and I am quite surprised I was able to do it (I'm not very good with things like this). If you want to give it a try, expect it to take 2 or 3 hours...and then get ready to get something wrong, and have to do it all over (several times). How To Replace the Battery Cover: CONTACT ZOOM (OR SWEETWATER*) ZOOM WILL MAIL YOU THE PART(S) REMOVE THE OLD DOOR (TWO SCREWS) TAKE APART THE NEW ONE (EASY) PUT IT BACK TOGETHER (NOT EASY) STEP 1 CONTACT ZOOM (OR SWEETWATER*) If you purchased your Zoom F1 at Sweetwater.com the first step would be to call their customer service line at (800) 222-4700 or you can contact Zoom directly, either using their " Contact " page (depending where you live) or by emailing them at: info@zoom-na.com ABOVE: Go to zoomcorp.com/en/us/contact/ to contact Zoom directly, or you could contact Sweetwater if you purchased it there (but I'm not sure if they can help if you didn't, etc.) STEP 2 ZOOM WILL MAIL YOU THE PART(S) The great thing about buying this through Sweetwater was that when I called them about the problem, they contacted Zoom, explained the problem, gave them my mailing address, had the part shipped to me within the week. I can't say how fast you'll get a response if you contact Zoom directly, but either way I think the best way to fix this issue is by getting the new (metal latch) version of the battery cover from Zoom. ABOVE: Zoom Corp. sent me the new (metal latch) battery door cover for free (actually two) which I received in a matter of days after talking to Sweetwater's service department. STEP 3 REMOVE THE OLD DOOR (TWO SCREWS) This is the easiest part of the whole process (of course) and as soon as you see all the pieces inside the battery door, you know how difficult the rest of the process is going to be. ABOVE: You can see where the old (plastic version) of the battery door latch broke off and is missing (to right of screwdriver head). This first step was easy (getting the old door off) but the next number of steps almost made me send it in to Zoom (which is what I recommend). STEP 4 TAKE APART THE NEW ONE (EASY) Before we take this next step, let me repeat that my first recommendation is that you send the unit in to Zoom so they can do the service on it. Like I said before, it's not easy, and I am quite surprised I was able to do it. However, if you still want to give it a try, I would budget about 2 or 3 hours for the process...and prepare to get things wrong and have to do the whole thing over, about 2 or 3 times. This first step is the easiest, but there's no going back after you start (unless you send it to Zoom after you get tired of working on it). ABOVE: Here are all of the included parts, and the new metal latch is shown at right. STEP 5 PUT IT BACK TOGETHER (NOT EASY) So, here's where the REAL fun begins. I warn you that these pictures make it look easier than it actually is, so don't expect to be able to get this right the first time (it took me about 3 times, with 30-minute breaks in-between...to keep from getting discouraged). ABOVE: The first step is to set up that little springy thingy exactly as you see it here (the left arm of the spring goes in a slot between some plastic tabs, and the right side of the spring needs to be partially tensioned (cocked) as it sits against a slot on the right. ABOVE: This next step is very tricky (not that the last one wasn't). You have to pull that metal tether thing out of the battery bay, over the metal bar (the belt slot of the recorder) and onto a little tab inside the door (it's very difficult)! It takes a very delicate touch, and multiple tries. ABOVE: Now comes the part that you won't get right the first time, and will realize that you have to do it all over again. Without moving that delicate metal tether thing off the little slot, take the black plastic plate, and place it on top of the whole thing (the trick is, you have to maintain pressure on it the whole time [with a tool or your finger] or the metal tether will move off the slot). Okay, once you've got it, don't move. ABOVE: This is the last difficult step (and maybe the most important). It's where you insert the new metal latch (shown by red arrow) into a slot, and make sure it pushes against that little springy thing we set up at the beginning. This step is very difficult to explain...what you're doing is making one side of the latch push against that spring, so it becomes "spring loaded". Again, you probably won't get this right the first time you try, and you'll find out if it worked after you finish the next step. ABOVE: Once the new metal latch has been added, you can put the two screws back in (but make sure to KEEP APPLYING PRESSURE to the top of it, until the screws are back in...or that springy thing inside (and/or the metal tether) may move...and you'll have to start all over. ABOVE: Here is what it looks like when you're all done! Make sure the metal latch works (and can be pushed either right or left to lock or unlock the battery door). Again, don't get discouraged if you don't get this right the first time. I had to completely start over (at least) three times before it worked. CONCLUSION: I must say that dealing with this battery door was quite a ride. First, there was the disappointment of the (original plastic) latch breaking and me wondering if Zoom would even have a fix for it. Then, there was the joy of remembering that I had purchased it from Sweetwater (who has a 2-year guarantee) and the interesting feelings I had when they told me Zoom was sending me replacement parts (I had anticipated a full replacement but didn't know what to expect with replacement parts). Then the exhilaration of seeing that they had re-designed the door with A METAL LATCH...but then the pain of installing it myself. If you're still reading this...I should say again: just send it in to Zoom if you can...it is not any fun to install it yourself.

OVERVIEW: 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.