Jump to content

Tom Visser

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tom Visser last won the day on June 17

Tom Visser had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I wonder if anyone has any comments on the CN-E 15.5-47 versus the LWZ.2 15.5-45? As someone who owns Zeiss primes, the coating / color matching of the LWZ.2 is enticing. With respect to the full frame comment, I guess I've justified it in my mind that S35 makes the most sense since many of the cameras that are using these lenses are S35 - there's an obvious industry shift to move us to FF35 cameras. My primary camera is FF, but when using a zoom, I'm happy to crop down to S35 and save FF for the primes in more optically critical setups and just enjoy the convenience of S35 and embrace that as an advantage rather than a limitation. I would think that expanders would have negative side effects and expanding to FF is done out of necessity when you can't crop your sensor versus achieving any optical superiority in that approach?
  2. well, they sort of did "us" a favor by just making it a generic and standard DC connector... lots of 3rd party options so a Canon branded one may not be necessary.... e.g. B&H "XLR 12VDC power supply" https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=XLR 12VDC power supply&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma
  3. There's also more S35 global shutter options coming, was one of the "tricks" that the F55 had, given so few options for GS cameras. Perhaps a S35 GS Venice or FX9, maybe branded separately? Venice is mature enough that they can probably start dropping prices on it pretty soon, and right, the space between Venice and FX9 is pretty slim for a whole other camera line to fit into.
  4. oh boy, brings back bad memories from my days when I consulted for Mark Levinson who was a proponent for the Sony / DSD technologies. Yes it sounded great, but way too esoteric for regular consumer use. Layman's terms, a super high clock cycle that modulated a 1-bit signal, basically a differential to rise / fall, in the end emulating an analog sine wave.
  5. I much agree here, IBIS doesn't always work like its supposed to, or works but with visual compromises. I'd rather rely on IS lenses and even then, would mostly have non-IS lenses for most work. My personal choice at the budget you're likely talking about is the GH5S... low light is good enough and in this case the m43 mount will be an advantage as your lenses and other accessories will be smaller and cheaper. It also has the XLR module and audio is very important for solo shooters. I personally am on the Z-Cam E2 series of cameras, but have many similarities to the BMPCC mentioned, however, probably breaks the bank.
  6. every mic is analogue, unless it is a laser microphone that is sampling the diffraction of the beam or something. For example the Neumann Solution D microphones are analogue microphones, but marketed as digital. There are a few companies that offer AES 42 digital mics - the AES specification that has been embraced as the physical transport of digital signaling for microphones - such as Sennheiser and Schoeps. The mics that are marketed as digital have a minimal matching preamp or no preamp that exists between the capsule and the ADC and output an AES42 signal to a recorder - but the sound capture is all done in the analog domain with a mechanical membrane like it has been done since the dawn of microphones. now the Question of 32 bit audio... the purpose of 32 bit audio wasn't really to improve sound quality per se... but to make it sound better in wider ranges of situations. Back in the day when we had 16bit CDs, it was sort of acknowledged that 16 bit was more than enough for the average listener to hear "perfect" sound reproduction. As technology progressed, some emerging formats tried to increase the bit depth in order to improve 16 bit "redbook" digital audio. So for example, 20 bit HDCD allowed for greater than 16 bit reproduction, where the average person probably wouldn't really notice the difference, but for audiophiles who had good rooms and great equipment, and had a personality disorder to spend a lot of time A/B comparing their music over and over again, it was possible to detect a difference. So for the average population, our ears' resolving power probably lies somewhere in the 14 to 18 bit range. When recording studios moved away from tape and into digital recording formats, we didn't want a format that was equal to CD, wanted something with greater dynamic range so that raw sounds could be recorded, but then manipulated in post (much like recording in 12-15 stop log so that we can deliver a 7 stop consumer render)... so 24 bit was selected as the bit depth that would give more than enough audio quality. The other problem is that electronics are not completely quiet, so even though a 24 bit file is recorded, maybe 18 to 20 bits of that is actually useful information. Here is one area where AES42 digital mics help, by putting the ADC converter right at the capsule, it gives the mic the best possible outcome in signal to noise ratio. It's certainly not 24 bits of resolution, but better than cabling to a preamp and adding noise from gain and subsequent interconnects and line stages. So when we record 32 bit audio, we aren't departing into some new realm where we've invented a better way for audio engineers to hear, what it does allow us to do, though, is to unpack a wider dynamic range back into a 24bit workflow. In the most simplistic terms, it allows the gain pot to be removed from the equation, so that instead of matching the gain to an appropriate level, the sound is simply recorded at a very low level and then when working in a 24 bit workflow, the signal can be digitally gained back up without dangerously pushing against the noise floor. (technically not true, but close enough for illustration). Now theoretically, if a signal was recorded in plain old 16 bit audio, more or less the resolution of the ear, but at perfect levels, for all intents and purposes it is just as good as 32 bit audio. Maybe not for the "air" around cymbal brushes or delicate nuance of the wood mallet hit on a bell, etc... but for good old human dialogue, which is a relatively low-fi sound source of limited dynamic range. In other words in-camera audio can be just fine, even for critical professional work, but just don't mess up the gain levels (and use a professional camera with good audio circuits - talking about ENG style broadcast cameras, not DSLRs or prosumer cams). When you hire a sound recordist on set, he's recording 24 bit audio. So he can intentionally record at 10 to 20 dB lower than he knows the material will be final mixed at and still not have an issue with. Now 10-20dB is a pretty huge range. I can have someone whispering, peaking at -40dBfs and then have that person scream at the top of their lungs and unless a drill sergeant or opera singer, probably not going to clip. More percussive things like gunfire can certainly clip, but quite frankly modestly clipped gunfire sounds just fine and there are post tools that can technically declip the audio. Now you may get the feeling I'm about to poo poo 32 bit audio and your mostly correct. What 32 bit audio does allow you tot do is have no idea what you are doing and not care enough to even check your modulation levels, as you can just hit record and as long as you are on board with the idea of the point of 32 bit audio and didn't crank the gain up, you'll be fine. Now as far as this NUX company, I don't know them at all, know nothing about their product. It could be great stuff. My intuition is that it is crap and just happened to build their gear on a 32 bit platform. I could be wrong, and its not appropriate for me to make guesses about how good it is or isn't. My intuition is based on conceit and arrogance having the luxury of working with proven gear from Lectrosonics and Zaxcom on an average day. We are talking about a lavaliere mic transmitter / receiver, which are quite frankly crappy mics when compared to big expensive condensers (shotguns and studio mics). Rode does make a couple of good mics, NTG4+ is probably one of them.... haven't used one, but NTG3 was great other than durability. Zoom F6 is actually a great recorder too, they have a history of making hissy prosumer stuff, like H4/H6, but F6 is solid. As great as your stuff is, there's probably room for improvement, like maybe upgrading to a better mic or making sure you have good shockmounts, stands, holders, and extra cable for interviews to get the mic just right, wind protection and secret sauce accessories for handling finicky situations or wardrobe. These are the things that I'd be looking at first over picking gear which most of us have never heard of and selecting based exclusively on the 32 bit concept somehow presuming it sounds best because of it.
  7. sorry, no first hand experience comparing that - but my gut tells me that all should be relatively on par with each other... pixel peeping - perhaps you could see the downsampled 6K S6 have some tweaky advantage under scrutiny, but I think in overall footage, the F6 gives you too many other advantages
  8. F6 is a better camera all around. It does have a 4K or 4KDCI S35 crop mode, which is superior to the S6 in that the F6 sensor has much lower rolling shutter skew when so cropped. I personally don't see a camera having a 6K codec an advantage, so resolution advantage of S6 in S35 is not a factor for me, but maybe for someone else it is. Buy the F6 unless you really can't afford the price differential, which sort of doesn't make sense to me since the difference is not that much, especially now with the price drops. In fact, I'd almost say that for many people the newly announced E2-M4 paired with a speed booster or Z-cam's announced turbo EF mount makes more sense than an S6. E2-M4 offers higher frame rates, and rolling shutter is much better. In fact, if you crop down the 4/3 sensor down further to S16 mode, it is as close to global shutter like performance I've ever seen from any rolling shutter camera. I did a rolling shutter comparison with the E2G (global shutter) and original E2 and when cropped, the difference is present, but you really have to push hard to see the difference.
  9. I ended up going with the Duclos full cinemod and other than the reverse focus direction on the ZF.2 all is great and even the focus thing hasn’t turned out to be as big of a deal as I thought as my brain easily made the switch once I racked a few times.
  10. The Sachtler FSB plates are mostly 501 compatible and have a "side load" feature that doesn't require being slid in from the end, like some earlier Manfrotto and 3rd party systems. That being said, the rigs I'm seeing here are much smaller and probably fine on Arca. I've also mostly gone away from Manfrotto / Sachtler as my primary QR but can't completely get away from it, as some items I use have it, like Glidecam head, Sachtler FSB head, etc... but what I've been using is the Wooden Camera Dovetails which is Arca on the bottom and Arri Dovetail on top. The Arri shoulder / baseplate system I'm using has a proprietary dovetail slide which is almost like Arca, but frustratingly a little bit smaller, however after getting the necessary dovetails my complete system is all working in harmony. Just as an example here is a ridiculously small / light tripod with Arca (new Peak Design) mated to full Arri Dovetail.
  11. For narrative specifically? My boom ops regularly grab my Ambient QS which extends out to 17’, and all that length gets used regularly. Very rarely do they grab the mini one, maybe the occasional bathroom scene and sometimes but also rare the jumbo one, like maybe wide beach exteriors - so I’d say that the 17’ covers 95% of the time but at a minimum at some point you’ll want all 3 because when you need the alternate size you really need it.
  12. As an Otus user and fan, it was sort of a head scratcher that the 100mm was not a macro. I’m desperately desiring a 40mm Distagon which would be a nice middle point between 28 and 55.
  • Create New...