I have been obsessing about Leica r glass and the "Leica look" for a while now. There are a few reasons for this, firstly, as far as stills camera lenses go, Leicas are built very well. You have a large focus throw, the iris is controllable from the lens, which you can always have declicked for smooth iris changes mid shot. There are lots of old "vintage" lenses that have these features though, so why Leica? I was looking for top notch optics, something that would compete in sharpness and definition with modern lenses such as Canon's L series lenses, but that were in solid metal housings with large focus throws and iris control. After looking at loads of photos (I am not that interested in looking at video demos and find photos a bit more interesting to analyze) I narrowed it down to two that I really liked Zeiss and Leica.
In the end I decided to go with the Leica. There was something slightly different about a lot of the Leica photos, a soft creaminess to the background that I really liked. Reading on forums it can get a bit agressive, people are so into a certain type of lens, but I guess in the end it comes down to a personal preference. So many people are out there shooting away on big chip cameras C300s DSLRs etc with modern canon lenses and I am hoping to get a slightly different look from the leicas, so we'll see how it goes. Matthew Dulcos at Dulcos lenses has a lot of good things to say about Leica, as does Shane Hurlbut and these are two guys who know a hell of a lot about glass, so I don't feel like I am going out on a limb here. There is a comparison between Ziess Canon and Leica on Shane Hurlbut's blog that is worth taking a look at.
There were a few photos that really stood out to me as having a fantastic look to them. I found these photos on camera forums and the photographers have kindly allowed me to publish them here.
Photographer: Sebboh, San Francisco flickr
Photographer: Tri Tran
Photographer: Tri Tran
It is hard to say why I like these shots, but I think part of it has something to do with the other worldly quality to the out of focus bokeh. Talking about the number of aperture blades and the effect this has on the shape out of focus part of an image, is probably a step to far in lens tech for me, so I'll just stop there, it is enough for me just to say I like it.
So anyway, after much geeky obsessing, I bought my first Leica the Summicron 35mm R f2. I love the field of vision of a 35mm lens on a super 35mm chip, so I thought I'd see how I get on with the Leica, and if I like it, I may well buy a set.
The Leica R lenses can easily be adapted to work on Canon EOS cameras like my C300, so I bought a Leitax adapter. You can pick up adapters for next to nothing on Ebay, often shipped in from China, but I figured there is no point spending out on a decent lens to put on a decent camera, only for a cheap adapter to mess up your focus. Leitax are generally recommended by anyone interested in Leica lenses, they are not the cheapest, in fact they are probably the most expensive, but you are paying for quality from a highly regarded and very knowledgeable manufacturer. The service is great, and I would thoroughly recommend them.
As soon as I got the adapter I was keen to try out my lens, firstly on my stills camera, just taking a few snaps. My first impression, I love it. The lens has a decent heft to it, in its all metal housing. I reckon you could probably drop it and little would happen to the lens. The focus throw is very large, if you are used to modern stills lenses, and also very smooth. There is lots I love about the lens, the in-built metal hood means no more messing about screwing plastic lens hoods on when it is sunny. Unlike all my other lenses, this hard stops at infinity, at last, no more missing infinity on a pull focus and then having to back track and re take the shot. Another great feature is the close focusing distance of 30cm or 11.8 inches.
I had a quick play around taking some pictures on the Leica and then switching over to a modern Canon lens. I am not going to put the photos up here, as it was an incredibly unscientific test, but maybe I'll do something at a later date. There was discernable difference between the lenses. The canon was slightly more vivid, the reds particularly popped out. The Leica had a slightly muted look, less glossy almost. Strangely the Leica seemed to handle the highlights in the skintones slightly better too, but that is probably a bit too much to comment on for such an unscientific test. I am looking forward to playing around with the lens a bit more, so I can test out the bokeh, particularly on the highlights, as this is what got me interested in the first place.
Since my primary interest here is video and not photography, I'll finish with just one bit of video I found using the Leica Noctilux f0.95 50mm lens on a RED Epic. This was made by Tom Lowe (of Timescape fame)
There are an absolutely huge number of companies supplying 1ft x 1ft LED light panels for video, so which one is best?
Firstly, light panels can be daylight only, tungsten only, or bi-colour (which allows switching between the two). These all vary in price, but since we need to compaire apples with apples I'll only look at the more expensive bi-colour variety. Also, LED panels often come with different power options, so in each case I have picked the more expensive, more powerful option to keep things even.
Before we get started here, the cheapest option is not always the best as the colour quality varies massively. The reason for this is the way the LED are actually made (if you want to know more about this and how LEDs effect skin tone etc this is an article I wrote based on Arri's findings). Some of the cheaper LED panels have such low quality LEDs that whatever your filming or photographing can take on a green tinge. To my mind there is not much point paying out for a good camera and lens, only for the quality of the light to bring down your images. I have heard of people using minus green gels to get around this issue, or just hoping to save the picture in the grade, however, you can't just grade or gel out a colour if the colour quality isn't there in the first place. A decent quality light source fires the entire colour spectrum at an object, whereas a low quality light source has a very limited spectrum. Again you can read more about how light source quality effects video cameras here.
For an LED panel to work well it needs to be able to put out a decent light source and a reasonable amount of brightness. The quality of light can be measured by CRI the colour rendering index. This runs from 0 to 100, with 100 being the best (the sun is one example that would read as 100). Here is a table where I have compared the CRI and price of various top LED brands. I have used all of these brands (with the exception of F&V who I have only recently heard of). However, these CRI rating are from the manufacturers and not from tests I have done.
|model name||CRI||US price||UK price|
|Dedo Tecpro Felloni||84||1648.95||
|F&V ultra colour||95||?||1027.29 (euro)|
Despite what these numbers suggest I also think it is worth trying out these lights for yourself before buying if you can. A couple of observations from me are that 1) I used the Gekko Karesslite and despite it having a good CRI, I thought it was a touch heavy to cart around and despite that extra weight, wasn't particularly bright. 2) I have used the Dedo Felloni many times, I have always like the pictures I got with this, despite the relatively low CRI when compared to the top end of the market. I must admit I put a bit of trust in Felloni as they are made my Dedolight and the BBC owns a tonne of them, and the engineers there do put the kit through some pretty serious testing before making an investment.
There are huge numbers of LED 1 x 1 light manufacturers missing from this list, their prices are well below those on the above table, however, I would imagine the same would be true of the CRI ratings. Only manufacturers with high CRI ratings tend to publish them.
Despite using lots of LED panels, and lots of internet research, the only brand that had a very high CRI with a suprising low price was F&V. I have not used (or even seen) their kit, but am very keen too.
A cool little add on for LED panels I used the other day was a soft box made by Chimera. The great thing about this as it defuses the light really well and is very small and light weight, so packs down easily. I find LEDs to be a little harsh, compared to something like a kino that wraps light around the face really well without shadows.
Jibs come in a range of sizes from massive beasts that swing over thousands of heads at a concert to four foot mini jibs that one person can walk around with. There are people that own Jimmy jibs with hot-heads and use them everyday at work, and can pull of amazing shots with them, however, this article is aimed at people using the kind of jib that is small enough to check in on a plane or put in the back of a car. NB Some people refer to jibs as "cranes" to my mind, a crane is something on a building site, or maybe a massive techno crane if you are on a big budget movie set, so for the purpose of this article we are talking about jibs.
Typically, I'll only occasionally need to do a jib shot on a shoot, however, this summer I spent 6 weeks where I used a jib most days, so thought I'd write up a few tips on getting decent shots.
1) Recce your spot. Jibs are massively time consuming compared to tripod shots, so choose your location carefully, you don't want to waste time setting up a shot only to decide it doesn't really work. If you are unsure, take your camera over to the spot and just try out the move you want, so you at least get an idea of how it might work.
2) Set up your jib correctly. You'll be looking at 2 bubbles here, one on top of the tripod and one on the end of the jib arm at the head. Make sure the bubble on the head is still in the centre wherever you swing the jib arm, if your tripod bubble is off, the head bubble will change as the jib arm moves. The next thing to check here is that everything is secured. Since the camera is on the end of a long arm, any movement will be magnified, if the weights aren't tight and wobble slightly the camera will wobble a lot. Next, the obvious bit, make sure the jib is perfectly balanced, the weight arm needs to be pulled out so it balances with the camera. Once I have balanced a jib perfectly I tend to mark the jib with tape or something so I know exactly where the balance point is, that way, next time I set the jib up I can go straight to that marked point.
3) Work with 2 people. There is a lot to concertrate on with a jib shot, you might be looking down at a monitor and not at the actual camera. Having another person there will insure you don't swing the jib into that priceless chandelier or the clients head.
4) Start simply. The shot you saw in that film that started in a room, went out the window and decended to ground level was done with a remotely operated hot head. Chances are, if you are on a documentary shoot you won't have this. If you haven't used jibs a lot, start by just locking of the head, no pans, not tilts and just use the jib arm to move up and down.
5) Try more complex moves. Still keeping the head locked off, it is good to try swinging the jib arm whilst raising or lowering the boom at the same time. This takes a little bit of practice, as it doesn't look good if one movement finishes before the other, i.e. if the camera has finished rising or lowering, but is still swinging left or right. To get this right you need to make a diagonal movement and mark out a start and end point in your head. For this kind of shot I find it works better if one person just looks at the monitor and the other concertrate purely on the swing, so he or she can concerntrate on that start and end position.
6) Try even more complex moves. Moving the head, tilting or paning, whilst simultaniously operating the jib arm is really tricky to get right, but can be worth while. The jib will float around fairly effortlessly as it is balanced, whereas tripod heads tend to use lots of friction. I find the best thing to do is to slacken the tension right down on the head, so if feels similar to the resistance from swinging the weight of the jib arm. It is worth practicing the move a few times to make sure you can nail it. This works particularly well if the shot is going to be ramped in post (as the speed will gloss over any mistakes in the middle of the move)
7) Shoot wide. Anything other than a fairly wide shot will wobble. Also, wider jib shots tend to look more dramatic.
8) Find some foreground. If you jib up 10 ft with nothing in the foreground the move will be almost imperceptible, however, if a tree of a plant or a textured wall or whatever is just in front of the camera the move will appear huge.
9) Reveal things. Starting with your end shot totally obscured by an interesting object, or even just a wall or a plant, will make your shot more dramatic. If I am just revealing something over the top of a wall, I like to get the camera so close to the wall that you can only really see black and then this gradually moves away as the jib moves up.
10) Solar flares. Playing around with solar flare will often get interesting results with a jib as the flare will change as the shot moves. I often like to move towards or away from solar flare, that way the shot can start or end of total sunlight, which makes a good cutting point for the editor.
11) Use a bit of height. With the tripod fully extended, and then the jib arm at full height on top of that, you can get some real height on a jib. Sometimes this can be interesting in itself and you may not need to move at all.
12) Pace. Moving the jib slowly from start to finish is going to be easier in terms of giving you a stable start and end shop without any abrupt wobbles, however, a slow shot isn't always what the editor wants. In many cases they can just ramp the shot in post, however, this won't always work, for example if you have a flowing river, or people walking in shot then you need to get the pace right. You'll probably have a fairly good idea about whether the show your working on use fast or slow moves, but I typically offer the editor several different speed variations if I know it is a shot that cannot be ramped.
13) Trajectory. This is a tricky one to explain. If the tripod is at 90 degrees to where the camera is pointing, and you jib up, the movement is going to be something of a semi circle, if the tripod is directly behind where the camera is pointing the movement will be straight up and down. This is something you can use to your advantage, for example you can track up the side of a tree and towards the end of the move the camera will move away from the tree to reveal a clean shot.
14) Monitor and check the take. Sometimes I use a monitor when I shoot with the jib and sometimes I don't, it really depends on how difficult the shot is, however, I always check the move back after each jib shot. It takes so much time and effort to lug a heavy jib about, spending a few seconds to re check the move is definitely worth it. You are concentrating on lots of different things with a jib, so it is easy to miss something in the monitor (like at the end of the move you just caught your own reflection, or that bit of kit on the floor in the distance).
15) 2 for 1. Since jib shots take a while to set up, I usually have a look around and see if I can get a 2nd or 3rd shot from the same position, it isn't always possible, but it is a good idea if you are short on time.
Tom from Longhaul gear recently contacted me about a baseplate he made with funding help through the Kickstarter community, it is called the Multiplate. I was immediately interested as Tom himself is a cameraman, so I knew the product would be designed with the DSLR shooter in mind.
The Multiplate screws to the bottom of the camera and has a large number of holes, allowing you to fix any kind of gadget you want to the baseplate. When I used to shoot a lot of footage on the Canon 7d, I always viewed the image on a TV longic monitor, and invariably this would need to be mounted on the hot-shoe on top of the camera. The problem is, the hot-shoe is useful for mounting other items, such as an LED top light or a radio mic receiver. The Mulitplate helps you get around this problem.
Holes are tapped all over the place on the Multiplate, I have screwed in a Noga arm with a monitor on the side here, but you can mount it anywhere you like.
The Multiplate also has 15mm rods that can be screwed into the plate. This is useful for a matte box or follow focus, I also found it useful to add redrock bars to. I wouldn't want to shoot handheld all day with the bars mounted like this, but for a short period of time it is pretty good, and alot better that holding the camera body.
If you need a simple, practicle way to add accessories on to your DSLR camera, this could be a good solution. Further info and sales can be found at Longhaulgear
If you have been keeping an eye on Twitter you will have seen an amazing amount of interest in the new camera stabilisation system MoVI from Freefly systems. If you have no idea what I am on about, watch the video below.
When I first heard about the MoVi people were talking about payloads of around 5lbs, this was on the MoVi M5, perfect for cameras such as DSLRs or the Blackmagic pocket camera, but the big question for me was: Can I put a C300 on this thing? Since then Freefly have released the M10, which allows for weights of up to 5.4kg or 12lbs. This is where things get really interesting as the M10 will hold the RED Epic the Scarlet, all the Canon C100, C300 and C500, Sony FS100 and FS700.
According to the Freefly forum, the viewfinder does need to come off in order to pan fully up, but other than that the system seems to work fine.
Kevin Ritchie posted this clip on Twitter the other day of a C500 mounted to a Movi system, which is good to see proof, that it definitely works.
Price wise the MoVI M10 is selling for 15,000 USD. Needless to say, I want one.
So first of all, why two tripods?
I knew the series was going to involve heavy grip equipment, jib shots were essential, as were tracking shots with a dolly , and I also wanted to take a slider in case there wasn't enough time to set up track. For this kind of weight I needed the sturdy legs of the Miller Arrow.
The jib alone weighed 10kg, by the time the C300 camera and 15kg extra of weights were added to balance the camera, the total load would have been around 30kg. In addition to this we were filming "extreme" houses these were often on unusual landscapes, and in one case on the side of a mountain in the Alps. Setting a jib up on sloping ground to get beautiful smooth shots, I needed legs that were absolutely rock solid, yet still light enough to carry around with a small crew of just three. The Miller Arrow legs were great, they are lightweight carbon fiber and the lock offs are strong enough to hold the weight of the jib.
The head of the arrow is really smooth and has several resistance settings. This was really good for the jib and dolly work, as I often wanted the tension of the head to match the light resistance felt through tracking or moving the jib.
The 2nd tripod I took was the Miller DS20
I took the DS20 as a 2nd tripod as I needed a tripod for the Assistant Producer to use with a my Canon 7d as a 2nd camera. The tripod is light enough that it works well with a DSLR. I also used the DS20 with the larger Canon C300 when I need to walk around getting GVs and didn't want lots of heavy equipment.
I am a huge fan of the DS20 for a few reasons:
1) It is incredibly light weight with a small head and carbon legs. It is great to just throw over your shoulder and walk around hunting for GVs.
2) The head is smooth for panning and tilting, unlike most lightweight tripods on the market
3) The head tilts up at an incredible angle meaning you can get up really close to something and shoot up almost vertically into the sky. For an architecture programme this is great, as it allows you to get some really unusal angels, doing things like shooting directly up spiral staircases.
4) The legs work without a spreader and have three settings one of them is so wide that it lowers the tripod to the hight of a hi-hat or baby legs. This is invaluble as it is like having a set of baby legs with you at all times, without having to carry around extra kit.
This shows why the Miller DS20 is so useful. At normal height this shot of the Eiffel Tower was pretty boring, but getting down inches from the ground allowed me to get the cobbled streets into the shot. With this shot set up, I just rolled for a while until the street was filled with the odd couple walking down the street with the Tower in the background and it ended up being a decent shot.
In this shot the building I was filming had three levels of glass floor. This was an unusual feature, but tricky to film, with most tripod you would end up shooting down and filming the tripod legs. With the DS20 I could shoot directly down, and even pan up to each floor with no problem.
People obsess about camera gear, the latest cameras, lenses and LED light panels so I thought I'd write an blog entry on a very simple, very cheap bit of kit that I love, the reflector.
Here is a common situation: you are shooting an interview outside in bright sunlight and the options are
1) The subject looks into the sun, their face is nicely lit but they can't see a thing, as they are nearly blinded by the sun and are squinting.
2) The subject looks slightly off from the sun, they can now look at the camera without squinting but half of their face is in extreme shaddow.
3) The subject looks in the oposite direction to the sun, their face is all in even shaddow, so you can expose for that, and that background is totally over exposed.
None of these situations are ideal, so what you need to even things up is light. There are all sorts of issues using lighting outdoors, such as getting power to the light, if it is battery run how much power does it have, what is the quality of the light actually like etc. There is one very quick, very cheap and efficient way of solving that problem and it is simply to bounce the sunlight. There are all sorts of ways to bounce light, if you need a large area of light then a polyboard is ideal, if it is just a small amount of light for something like an interview then a reflector will do. Reflectors are great, I pretty much always have one with me on a shoot, they are lightweight and pack down really well.
How to solve the three situations above:
In situation 1, you just have to have the subject wear sun glasses, this generally isn't great for TV, particularly if you can see the crews reflection in them.
For situation 2 you can even up that shaddowed side of the face by bouncing some light. The closer the reflector is to the subject the more powerful the light. Reflectors tend to come in white, silver or gold. White is easiest to use as it is fairly subtle, gold on the other hand really only works in the evening light and not with people with very pale skin as it is fairly dramatic.
Situation 3, is to my mind one of the best way to set up an interview in hard evening light when the sun is low in the sky. I filmed this interview on a boat recently. The sun is directly behind the interviewee casting extremely bright highlights all over the boat. The interviewees face is in full shade, which is obviously several stops darker, and so to even this up a lot of light was bounced back using a gold reflector. This meant I could close down a few stops, which was enough to keep most of the background highlights.
Lastolite make good quality reflectors, usually with different colours on each side. They pack down to three times there normal size so you can afford to get a decent sized one.
Almost two years ago now, Canon brought the C300 to the market and totally dominated. In 2013 the most rented camera according to a Televisual survey was the C300 (Incidentally the Arri Alexa was second on that list.) Since then Sony has launched the F5, and now Arri are launching the Amira. All of these major companies are clearly aiming at the same place: a mid range camera, cheaper than the Alexa, but more usable than the black magic camera , C100, or Sony's FS700.
The Arri Alexa is obviously a fantastic camera when it comes to picture quality, but it has loads of issues with usability when it comes to documentaries or any run and gun work. The first of these is weight, it is a heavy lump off a camera to lug around without a large crew to help. The second issue is power, the Arri Alexa sucks through batteries which can be a pain when you are out and about. In order for the Arri Amira to be a contender in that mid range arena for the owner operator, it needs to look at both of these issues.
There is certainly a lot of excitement about the Amira, so what is all the fuss about. Firstly, Arri know what they are doing when it comes to making cameras, they have one of the most reputable names in the industry, and they promise a massive 14 stops of dynamic range with the new Amira. The idea seems to be the quality of the Alexa in a rugged ENG body.
Secondly, they are deliberately aiming at the owner operator, ergonomically the camera looks like it makes a lot of sense. Canon tried this too with the C300, but the body shape is still a bit odd, it is quite top heavy and once the camera is off the tripod, put it on the floor and it easily topels over. The Arri website shows a much more balanced camera with a dove tail shoulder mount, sitting happily on an operator's shoulder and on a dusty road, clearly Arri have thought about who they are marketing to. Sony also went a long way to solve the ergonomic issue with the f5, but Arri appear to be going one step further with the Amira.
What about lenses? According to Arri the Amira will have three different mounts the B-4, EOS or PL.
And the best bit? The chip of the Amira is going to give the same picture quality as the Alexa, essentially a cinema camera. If a client is unsure about your camera, you just tell them Roger Deakins shot Skyfall on it, and that should be enough. Additionally the Arri Amira will shoot 200 frames per second at full 1080 or 2k, far better than the c300 with 60 frames at 720.
Some people may be concerned about 4k and about future of a 2k camera, but realistically how many people do you know with a 4k TV and how many channels do you know that broadcast in 4k? Another point about this is many films are shot on the Alexa, and then blown up in 4k cinemas, and so far I haven't heard of many people asking for their money back.
So the big question, how much? As yet this hasn't been announced, although CVP in England are guessing at 25K. Since the c500 sells for 17k I would guess that somewhere between 17 and 25k would makes sense.
Everyone has done it, you search for the camera or lens you want, and you see a company selling the same product for less, but it is from Hong Kong or some other country that you don't live in, and the big question is: should you buy it?
Buying a product like this from the "grey market" is always a little bit risky, but that savings can be quite big, so it is worth weighing these things up.
Here is an example:
The Tokina 11-16mm ATX Pro has an RRP in the UK of 630 UKP, most UK based online retailers actually sell this for around 500 UKP but you can get this lens from Hong Kong from Digital Rev for 350 UKP. Saving a few hundred pounds on a lens is obviously a big deal.
Firstly there is the risk of buying the goods abroad, is the company reputable, will you actually get the lens, is the lens genuine. I think with big players such as Digital Rev in Hong Kong, you don't need to worry about receiving the lens, they are a decent company and stock genuine products. With any other supplier it is worth doing a bit of reseach on line to make sure.
The next big issue with the grey market is the waranty and returns policy. The product will have a serial number that indicates where it was bought, a Hong Kong serial number will usually mean that the distributor in your country will not repair or replace this lens for you if there are any issues (unless you happen to live in Hong Kong). So, what happens when you buy a product from Hong Kong and it breaks under waranty? There are a couple of options 1) You send it back to Hong Kong for repair, 2) You send the product in for a quote in your own country, send the quote to Hong Kong and get them to cover the costs. The major factor with both of these options is time. In both cases, you are looking at weeks to get the problem sorted, if you are an amature film maker or photographer a few weeks might not be an issue, if you make your living by using this product, you probably need a third option (by far the quickest) 3) pay for it yourself.
I recently had a lens repaired at PJ Camera Repairs Direct http://pjcrdirect.co.uk They are based in the midlands in the UK and provide a fantastic service.
So to answer the original question about buying products off the grey market, if you are buying a product that is reasonably cheap it could be worth the gamble, if it breaks in warranty and you get it repaired, you probably still won't be out of pocket as the savings are pretty big. That said, I defintitely wouldn't consider buying more expensive items such as a camera body as I would prefer to get these serviced locally.
I urgently needed my Tokina repaired so I had it fixed by PJC direct in the UK, after a few emails with Digital Rev they agreed to pay the costs in full.
There are two things without which all TV and film production would cease: gaffer tape and Peli cases.
Checking into a hotel in the Carribean. Still plenty of room on that cart.
In the airline industry I have honestly heard baggage handlers reffered to as "throwers", this is not without good reason. I once sat on a plane that had just landed and watched a man literally hurl our entire TV kit onto the truck below. There were thousands of pounds of equipment (both in weight and money) but none of it suffered as it was all tightly packed away in trusted peli cases.
Most of the reviews on my site are accompanied with a comparison to other similar products, here this isn't necessary as you don't need to look much further if you want your kit well protected. Peli cases are rock solid and they are the kind of things that you buy and then keep for a lifetime. I worked for a company sometime back that had an ancient lens in a very old peli case that had travelled the world many times over and had an extremely tough life. One of the catches had been damaged and so the company wrote to Peli to ask for a replacement catch. Peli said the catches should never break and sent a brand new Peli case for free ... not just the catch an entire case! Seriously, this case was old and had been hammered on many hundreds of flights, but no questions were asked, and the thing was replaced, THAT is customer service.
This is my personal collection and I'll admit it is probably getting a bit out of hand.
Peli cases come with 3 options for inner linings: laser cut foam, pick and pluck foam or velcro padded dividers. I always go with the padded dividers, as that way I can adjust the various compartments when I buy new cameras and kit, or even when I am packing for certain jobs that require a certain amount of gear.
This is the IM2700 packed with my Redrock rig, a monitor a follow focus, batteries, chargers and other odds and ends.
The IM2700 is a good sized box, as fully loaded it is still manageable to carry around without wheels.
The locks on these cases are great, you need to push the button to open them, that way they are not going to accidentally pop open on a flight.
This is the largest Peli case I use. By carefully packing this thing, I can get the Canon C300, several lenses, batteries, a shoulder rig, audio kit and a monitor, to give me a really mobile kit.
The Peli case 1650 has wheels and an extendable handle so it is easy to move about with. The one issue with a case as large as this is the weight. When the case is fully loaded up it weighs nearly 30kg or 66lbs, most airlines will have a problem with this. British Airways have an extra charge on bags over 23kg or 51lbs and most airlines have some kind of restriction on bags over 20-23kg. This case is fantastic for holding large amounts of gear, just pack carefully before flying.
It is rare that I shoot on a full size broadcast camera these days, and am much more likely to be shooting something mid size like the Canon C300 or Sony F5. As the kits get smaller I decided it was time to look at getting a smaller tripod.
I have owned a Miller Arrow 50 for years and bought it as an alternative to the Sachler V20. The head is somewhere between that on the Sachtler V20 and V18 in terms of size and pay load. I mainly used this for full size broadcast cameras. This is a great tripod and I have had a lot of good use out of it, although recently I started to wonder whether I could get away with using a smaller tripod for my Canon C300.
One of the problems with lighter weight tripods is the tend to be fairly low quality so I looked around for a while before deciding on trying out the Miller DS20
The Miller DS20 is a great little tripod. It cost around 1000 UKP or 1500 USD. The payload is 10 kg which will accomodate my Canon C300 even when it is loaded up with the Redrock shoulder rig. The head is great, really smooth and has the kind of quality that you would expect for a tripod of this price. The base plate is longer than the head, which gives you plenty of forward and backwards travel so you can balance out the camera and change it quickly when the weights change from different lenses or monitors. One of the good aspects about this tripod is the legs, they are carbon fiber, so light weight but well protected as they are telescopic and covered by a layer of foam. The best thing is about the tripod is the range in height you can get with. Fully extended it reaches well over head height and it can get down really low by splaying the legs far apart. With a full size tripod you would need a high hat or set of baby legs to get down this low. Another little addition is the spikes on the feet which are revealed by a twist of the feet. All in all this is a fantastic tripod for anyone using camaras in the 5 to 10kg range.
Around this time every year, Televisual do a survery to work out what salaries and day rates people get working in the television industry in the UK. Here are the results for this year's survery for camera operators:
Indie TV production, camera operator: £29,250
Broadcaster, camera operator: £31,125
Facilities (OB, studio etc) camera operator: £39,250
Corporate production, camera operator £38,006
These salaries strike me as pretty low, so it is worth considering the same Televisual survey from the previous year. This year's survey only had the one job title of "camera operator", whereas last year's survey had camera operator and DOP, however, they didn't split the industry into fields (such as indie/broadcaster/corporate etc). The results for these in 2012 were as follows:
Camera operator: £36,113
Looking at earnings as averages is obviously tricky for a career like that of a camera operator or DOP as there are huge variables, as proof of this, in the Televisual video from 2012 they also mention a DOP from their survey with a salary of £200,000. The main variables are the kind of work you do, and the kit you own. A busy DOP working on commercials is obviously going to earn a lot more than a cameraman just starting out, shooting small corporate jobs.
Working as an owner operator with kit, is more like running a small business, with larger risks and more variable earnings. If you make the right decisions and buy the right kit, you are likely to make far more than the average OB or studio cameraman whose day rate can only go so high. Equally, make the wrong decisions and buy kit that you can't get on jobs and you could even make a loss.
To read the full 2013 earnings report go here.
It seems there are more and more cameras on the market these days. If you are booked in for a job on a camera you haven't used much, using a menu simulator can help you familiarise yourself with the layout of the menu systems before you get to the job. The last thing you want is to be fidling around scroling through menu pages when you should be shooting.
Sony F-65 simulator
Canon C300 Simulator
Below is a list of camera simulators, some can be used as ipad apps, others can only be used online.
Arri Alexa (available as an ipad app)
Sony F65 (this one is from the app store)
On the surface filming packshots is a very simple thing to do, but it is worth putting some effort and creativity into it as this is what sells the product.
Pack shots are shots of a product, usually for commercials, branded web content or as product placement for tv shows. A common approach with this is to film the products in a white studio or infinity wall. An infinity wall has a smooth transition from floor to wall, allowing you to shoot objects on the ground that appear to hang in space with nothing surrounding them - think of any Apple advert and you get the idea.
To get a really clean bright white, you want to over expose your background a touch. Typically white studios aren't perfectly white and can be scuffed up and may be a very light grey colour, over exposing evens this out for a really clean white. It is best not to go nuts here as lighting the background too heavily will mean you bounce a load of light back onto your product. Zebras or a histogram are useful here, but is relatively simple to do and you can see what is going on just using a good monitor and your eye. The next thing to consider is lighting your product. For the most part you want simple three point lighting to give the product its correct look and proportions. I often find there is some scope for creativity here though and like to try adding some accent lights to bring out certain details. Dedo's are great for this as you can pinpoint a small area of interest and give it an extra sparkle or glow. Finally, ignoring all this and breaking the rules. Sometimes you don't just want a product to hang in the air. I was asked to film these pack shots of piano designed by Peugeot and Playal. The bottom part or the piano was white, so over exposing for a really clean white would mean part of the product would actually be a bit lost in the background. Here I decided to light the piano from a few different angels, putting an 850 watt light low down at the base of piano made some interesting shadows on the studio walls. I used a kino as a key light and then a few dedos at a low hights to accent features and cast light and shadow over the inside of the piano. All the shots here were filmed on a Glidetrack Hybrid slider to give the shots a bit of movement.
Every cameraman will have to light for green screen at some point, as keying software improves everyone is using it, even those on a low budget. Lighting for green screen is relatively straight forward, but it worth watching out for a few factors, as getting the lighting wrong on this can obviously cause serious problems in the edit. I'll go through the type of lights that are best for green screen shoots, but first a few basic principals.
There are loads of different ways and different lighting set ups to effectively shoot green screen, but the principals are the same.
1) Set up you green screen so it is as smooth as possible, stretch it out if need be to get rid of wrinkles, or hang it up high so the weight of the cloth pulls out wrinkles. If you are in a green screen studio, look out for any big scuffs or marks on the floor or walls. (most studios will have paint or green tape to patch up little problems)
2) Create a soft even light over the green screen (no hot spots, no shadows).
3) Light the green screen a couple of stops below your subject. Blasting the green screen with loads of light isn't a good idea, as you can bounce green light off the screen onto your subject. Lighting the screen too dark will mean that it is easier to cast shadows on the screen. The best situation is a green screen just slightly darker than the light on your subject.
4) Treat your green screen and your subject separately. Once you are happy that you have an evenly lit green screen, light your subject in the same way you normally would. Here you should be using different lights from those used to light the screen.
5) Avoid all shadows. The easiest way to do this is to create some distance between the green screen and the subject. In some cases this may be difficult, for example if you have a small room or a small green screen and the Director needs a full body shot, you will obviously be forced to have the subject near to the screen. In this case you can cut down on shadows by raising your lights and moving them out to the sides, therefore throwing the shadows down at the ground and away to the edges. Remember, all the editor needs is enough distance around the subject to cut him, her or it, out from the background.
6) Shoot at a wide aperture when possible. Having the screen out of focus helps even out any inconsistencies from wrinkles etc.
7) Use a backlight to sharpen the edges between the subject and the green screen. This should be a relatively soft light. You can use minus green gels (magenta) for this if you have them, which will cut down any green light which may have bounced onto the subject.
8) Lastly, an obvious one, make sure your talent isn't wearing any green. This also applies to reflective material, a watch or piece of jewellery, glasses etc. These could all reflect a small amount of green from the floor or walls, which will give the editor a long and boring job fixing up this issue.
There is another really important consideration with green screen: think about the finished product when lighting your scene. Normally, what you see through the lens is the finished product, but with green screen this obviously isn't the case. There is no point in creating perfect three point lighting, if the green screen setting is outside, or a night scene or a cartoon sequence etc, it will just look odd - in a real life outdoor situation where would that perfect hair light be coming from? The best way to approach this is to get as much information about the finished scene as possible. You may be given a photo or video of the plate, if not, ask questions. Will it be indoor, outdoor, sunset, night time, etc.
Types of lights for a green screen shoot.
For the green screen itself you want a soft even light. I often go with two kino flos at either side for this. It depends on how big your screen is, but 2 x 4ft 4 bank kino flos will be easily enough to cover a 12ft by 10ft screen, giving you a screen big enough for a head to toe shot of you subject. If your screen isn't as big as this, kino flo do a smaller 2ft version.
You can also use something smaller like a kino flo diva light, or you can use LED panels. I have used the Kino Celeb which is an LED panel (similar in size to the kino Diva light), and it worked well. The main thing is for the light to be soft. If you tried to light this screen with Red heads or similar you would have to move the light along way from the screen to give you a soft even light, and therefore you will end up with shadows from you subject.
I have also used space lights in studios. These lights work really well for larger spaces, they create an even light over the screen and floor and can be dimmed to work in with your subject's lighting.
This is a low quality photo from my phone, but you get the idea. This is a rehearsal and the full green screen is still being constructed. Above there are three space lights that given an even light down walls, there are a couple of defused 650s for back lights and a couple of 1ks behind large diffusion screens. The 1ks would normally create very hard shadows but bringing them far back and shining them through a large screen makes a softer light.
When you are working in a more confined space than a studio, you are going to need a smaller soft light for the subject. I find the Diva 400 is a great light for this, it has an egg create over the bulbs that helps direct the light and avoids spill on to the background. I usually use this as a key and then fill with another kino or LED panel. For the back light a 650, or a dedo light will do, I use loads of diffusion on these to soften it up as much as possible. If you are working in a studio kinos will often be mounted on the ceiling allowing you to use them as a back and others that can be used to light the screen from above.
If you are using traditional tungsten lights: fresnals, redheads or whatever, just soften them up as much as possible. Chimeras, softboxes and diffusion will all help cut down shadows. Larger diffused light sources from further away will generally create softer shadows.
Another awful photo from my phone, and the house lights are on to further confuse things, however, it shows the basic set up. The 4ft 4 bank kinos are either side of the screen there is a back light from a red head high up at the corner of the green screen, and a couple of LED panels for the subject.
Finally, if you haven't already seen them, here are two videos showing the use of green screen in multitude of films.
Much as I'd like to shoot with prime lenses all of the time, it just isn't practicle for what I do, for most of the programmes I work on I need a zoom.
Whether you are shooting on a super 35 sensor camera such as the Canon C300, Sony F3, F5 etc or a DSLR, at some point you are likely to need a decent mid range zoom. In an ideal world I would like something that is around 20 - 80 mm, that is rugged and well built, that has a good image quality (decent contrast, little distortion etc) that is as fast as possible (somewhere around 2.8) which is the same aperture throughout the range, that ideally has manual aperture and has a common size barrel, so I can easily screw on a protective uv filter. This sounds like a lot of demands, but having a good mid range zoom means that you will use it alot, maybe as much as 80 percent of your shooting time on a documentary, and therefore it must be as decent quality as possible.
There are several lenses which provide all of requirements above, but they are mostly very expensive. Here is a brief run down of them, with aproximate costs. (These cost are a guide only, as prices tend to vary when you are spending this kind of money on a lens)
|Zoom Lens||Length mm||Max aperture||Manual iris||UK Price||US Price|
|Angenieux optimo dp||30-80||2.8||yes||14k||20,499|
|Ziess compact zoom||28-80||2.8||yes||
At the top end Angeieux, Canon and Fujnon are all making great lenses around the 30k mark, for my budget this is too high, especially to go on my Canon C300, which itself only cost 12k. I have used the Fujinon Cabrio and the Angenieux optimo and thought they were great to work with in terms of ease. At the lower end of the scale here the Alura and Red Zoom could well be worth a look. The Red zoom weighs over 4kg though, so it may be a touch on the heavy side for most small cameras. Most of these lenses are PL mount, but would easily work on an EOS mount with an adapter.
The next option, and a much cheaper one, is too look at stills lenses. Stills lenses are obviously not designed for video and therefore have lots of flaws: iris are often not constant through the range, there is often no manual control for the iris, the focus throw can be very small, the general build quality is no where near as solid as the zooms above. The focus often doesn't have hard stops so spins round indefinitely, making repeat focus marks dificult.
Many of these issues are not there when it comes to older stills lenses. As a general rule, these tend to be built with more solid metal housings, they have larger focus throws as many of them are purely designed for manual focus, they have manual aperture rings (which can be declicked to give you a smooth iris control). The focus ring usually has a hard stop, meaning it doesn't spin around indefinitely and therefore lose any focus marks you may have.
Before going out and buying an old stills lens and modifying it for video use, it is worth noting that some of these lenses have been produced over several decades. An earlier version of a lens might be built in a certain country with certain materials, but both of these things might change over time, which can cause a shift in the quality of the lens. An early version of a lens that might be great for cine modification and a later version of the same model might not be as good, or may not even work at all on modern cameras. Another issue with older lenses is that they tend to be less fast and have less zoom range than their modern equivalents. So using a stills lens is going to be about compromise.
Below is a list comparing a range of modern and old vintage zoom stills lenses.
|Zoom Lens||Length||Max Aperture||Manual Iris||Solid build||Price|
|Leica R||28-70||3.5-4.5||Yes||Yes||450 aprox|
There are obviously plenty of other vintage lenses that could be used here, but I have only listed lenses that come fairly close to reaching my requirements above. Many old lenses are simply too slow to be considered in my opinion. If you are going to the trouble of shooting on a large frame camera, you are obviously looking for a decent shallow depth of field, and if you can only open up your lens to 5.6f, it sort of defeats the point.
The Canon L series 24-70, is an absolute work horse for any jobing photographer so there are huge numbers of these lenses about. They are obviously sharp and have decent optics. The only issue with these is they are not image stabilized as some modern lenses are, and the focus throw is very small (as on most modern lenses). The Canon EFS 17-55 has these same issues, and it feels slightly cheap and plasticy, that said I have been using one for 3 years in all conditions and mine is still working well. If your main requirement is range, then the Canon L series 24-105 has to be looked at. It is image stabilized, which is useful for video, and as with a L series lenses from Canon it is rugged and weather sealed. The only issue I have with this lens is the speed 4f. It just doesn't feel that exciting to me when I use it. The Leica R 35-70 is also only 4f, but there is something a bit more interesting about the look a feel of this older lens. I was using the Canon 24-105 only a few days ago, yes it did a good job, but I just can't bring myself to buy one.
Leica R lenses are well respected by many photographers and even some cinamatographers. These things are built to last and feel solid - all metal housings unlike today's lenses. The focus throw is much larger, making pulling focus easier. These lenses can be de-clicked to give you a smooth iris change. There are also several brands making adapters out there (leitax is usually recommended). the same can be said for Angenieux who produce great lenses for film and digital video. There 28-70 feels pretty solid, but I have heard that it is not a good idea to use it in the rain (unlike Canon's 28-70, which seems capable of taking a battering). One thing to look out for with Angenieux and Tokina is that they made lenses with a variety of cameras in mind. The versions designed for Nikon cameras will obviously focus in the same direction as Nikon lenses. This is a pretty big issue for me, as I am so used to rotating in a certain direction to find focus and I would prefer to always use lenses that focus in the traditional way.
As you can see, whatever you choose (unless you have 30k to spend on an Angenieux optimo) there is always going to be a compromise. You can have fast 2.8 lenses that have a decent range, or you can opt for a slower lens that has iris control and possibly a more interesting look. The slightly softer creamier look of a Leica could be a bit more apealing that the Canon glass that everyone else is using, however, you won't have the small depth of field of the modern lens and you won't have the range. The best thing here is to decide which factors are most important to you and most useful for the work you do. The one factor that makes the decision easier is that lenses hold their value incredibly well. You can always buy somthing, use it on a few jobs, and if you feel it isn't what you want, put it back on ebay and you'll probably get what you paid for it.
I often find new features on the Canon C300 to help me work more efficiently. The magnify button is an essential tool, especially when shooting with a shallow depth of field. In default mode this has a small yellow sign notifying you that you are in magnification mode. I still find that I can forget I am in magnify mode for a second, particularly if I am using a zoom lens. There is a great feature that turns the magnified screen black and white. This is great for focus as the sharp section really pings into vision and it means you'll always know you are in magnification mode.
The feature itself is burried away in the menu, so there is a very brief video below to show where it is located. Essentially it is MENU>SETTINGS>CUSTOM FUNCTION>F.Assist. BandW>MAGNIFY
LED technology has come along way in the past few years and LED lights are becoming increasingly common in the film and TV industry. At the top end of the price scale there are brands like Litepanel that sell 1x1 variable light panels for 2,700 USD or 2,300 UKP. This is for a panel that can be easily dimmed, runs off mains or V lock battery and has a variable colour from tungsten to daylight. Dedolight who are a very reliable brand, make a similar panel: the Tecpro Feloni, but almost three times less expensive (810 UKP) and when you include Chinese manufacturers these prices drop even further...a lot further. So the question is: how low should you go? Can you buy cheap LED panels and still get high quality colour for TV and video work?
I have used panels from both Litepanel and Dedolight - Tecpro. They were both light weight, emit very little heat and they also have a very low power draw, which means you can run them off a V lock battery for hours. When you are out in the field along way from power they make a very useful light source. When looking at the way the light falls over the face, and the skin tones that they give, I felt they were both doing a good job and was pretty happy with them, HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the way a cameras senor interprets that light is different from the way your eye interprets it.
This can better explained with the images below. On the left you can see the colour spectrum produced by various sources. The scale represent the full colour spectrum that we are able to see.
The sun obviously has the most clean source of light, where the full spectrum of colour is visible.
Tungsten is still the most reliable source of artificial light in terms of its colour rendition. As we know, tungstent heavily favours the more reddy orange tones to the right of the spectrum, ending up with a light of around 3200 kelvin.
Other artificial light sources rely on a mixture of a few different seperate colours to create a kind of white. As you can see from these spikes, this light is likely to emit a light that slightly favours blue. Most importantly however, there is lots of detail in between these spikes that is missing.
LEDs are essentially doing what the energy saving bulb is doing, they take a number of different colours and mix them together to something that aproximates white. To the naked eye the colour may look correct, but a certain amount of the colour spectrum will be missing, and the amount that is missing will differ, depeding on the quality of the LED light product.
So how does this effect us when lighting for a film or TV camera? This is something that Ryan Fletcher from ARRI explained brilliantly at BVE in London this week. In a demonstration Ryan showed a white screen lit with various different quaility LED lights. Each light source was aiming to be a neutral white light, as you would expect to use in lighting for video. As he flicked through the various LED lights they all looked pretty similar when lighting a white background, some were slightly cooler or more blue that others, but nothing too dramatic. Next, he used those same LEDs to light a colourful peice of material and the difference was absolutely HUGE - and this is just to the naked eye.
This issue of accurate colour rendition is made more complex when we consider the camera's sensor. Camera sensors are devided up, so one sensor deals with one type of colour. This means that when lighting with a source that doesn't have a wide colour spectrum the camera won't be able to out put what the eye sees. The video below, made by ARRI, shows the same scene, shot by the same camera under different light qualities. The ARRI fresnal differs massively from the LED brands.
As cameramen we all obssess about cameras and lenses. We buy the best camera kit we can afford, to give us the best image, but, in my opinion, this is money wasted if we then go and light with poor quality kit. I am a big fan of the kino flo Diva light, it is my standard bit of kit for a key light and has been for years. What this talk by ARRI convinced me of, is to stick with this light. There are situations where you can't feasibly do this, if you are away from a power source, and for that there is LED, but even then, it is essential to buy a product with a high CRI (colour rendering index). I would only buy LED panels from a high quality provider (lite panel, Dedolight, ARRI) and would check video reviews on line to make sure their colour rendition is acurate, as compared to a tungsten light (which is still the most accurate form of artificial light).
I recently thought it would be a good idea to start writing the odd article about inspiration for cameramen. I often think about what makes the difference between cameramen - from a basic operator, up to a top cinematographer. I was watching Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train the other day and a couple of shots stood out to me as having an amazing emotional effect. In case you haven't seen it, or can't remember the plot fully, here is a basic outline of what happens: Two strangers meet on a train, and one of them brings up the idea of "the perfect murder." This man, Bruno, suggests that they swap problems, so that Bruno would kill Guy's wife (who he is trying to divorce), and Guy would return the favour by killing Bruno's father. As neither would have a motive, it would be impossible for police to solve. Bruno seems friendly enough, and Guy dismisses the conversation, thinking it is just idol chat from an unusual stranger. However, Bruno immediately murders Guy's wife and follows Guy around trying to get him to complete his side of the "bargain" and kill Bruno's father.
Bruno is a total psychopath, but he is always smiling and has a false friendliness to his character, so it is left to the camera work and music to convey a sense of menace. Hitchcock's cinematographer Robert Burks pulls this off brilliantly. The first shot is filmed from Guy's perspective, when he discovers that Bruno is watching him from a far.
In this shot Guy is pulling up in a car, he looks out of the window to see the menacing figure of Bruno looking down at him from the steps of the Jefferson Memorial. Bruno is so small is screen you can't even see his face, but you know it is him.
It is hard to say why this shot works so well, it just does. There is the contrast between Bruno's dark suit and the bright pillar behind, the fact that Bruno doesn't move but his gaze is trained on Guy, but most of all it is the imposing nature of the building itself, the giant pillars and the raised aspect that give the feeling that Bruno is a sinister character.
This next shot is even more dramatic than the previous one. This time Guy is playing in a tennis tournament. The camera starts on a wide shot of the audience, all of their heads are moving from side to side, following the ball, except one. In the middle of the screen you can see one head that isn't moving, but staring straight ahead, immobile.
The camera gradually pushes in to reveal Bruno who is sitting with an odd grin on his face, he has come to watch Guy, not the tennis match.
Of course there are plenty of other great shots in this film, notably when Bruno commits his murder we view it from a reflection in the murdered woman's glasses. All of this didn't go unnoticed and the film was nominated for an Academy Award for best black and white cinematography.
Every now and again somebody hits the nail on the head, somehow they manage to explain an idea, that would take me ages to explain, in one pithy little line. This is from Twitter:
vince gaffney ?@gaffneyfilm
Hey, you, bokeh guy. Instead of worrying about how pretty the out of focus crap is, worry about what the in focus parts are saying. Thx.
I thought this was hilarious, but also sums up a lot about current trends in the world of film and TV.
Sometimes we can get a bit obsessed with camera gear and techy stuff, maybe everyone is guilty of this from time to time. Vimeo is clogged full of people obsessing over whether this lens performs better than that lens, but I wonder how many people outside the film and tv world actually notice or care about these things. When DSLRs first arrived on the scene I just couldn't believe how something so small and cheap could create such images. I remember filming my niece playing in the snow with my new camera and a 50mm prime. There were shots filmed in slow motion of the warm air drifting from her mouth, shots where her eyes were pin sharp, but depth of field was so shallow that even her hair had a lovely softness to it. I remember plugging my new camera into a large HD screen to see the results. My family stood around to watch, did they gasp in amazement at this small camera that could shoot crystal clear HD images, were they stunned by the shallow depth of field like I was? Of course not, they saw a little girl playing in the snow.
The internet is awash with people (mainly men I imagine) chatting about the minutiae of cameras, lenses and gear in general, and I am one of them. It is good to know about the gear that you are using, and what is out there that can help you to work better. An almost obsessive attention to detail is something common to most cameramen I think, and this can be very useful at times, especially when you are always pushing to get a better shot, or make a scene more visually interesting. However, what the tweet above is getting at is that this almost fetishisation of camera gear shouldn't come at the expense of the bit that matters, the bit that is "in focus", the bigger picture.
As I look through my blog post, I realise they are all incredibly techy, talking about every detail of camera kit. As an antidote to this, I have decided to write a few pieces about inspiration, odds and ends from films, books, photography anything that inspires the cameraman.
- why you need a sound recordist
- How to become a Cameraman
- How to update Canon C300 with new firmware
- Manual Iris Lenses
- Camera Slider Review
- Which Tripod to buy for video
- Canon C300 Rigs
- vignette on EFS 17-55mm lens on Canon C300
- Which DSLR lens to buy if only buying one
- PL Zoom Lenses Fujinon and angenieux optimo
- Kate Middleton Portrait artist Paul Emsley for National Portrait Gallery
- Sony PMW F5 vs Canon C300 vs RED
- Upgrading from DSLR 7d or 5d is it worth it?
- Canon C300 Custom profiles and gamma curves
- Lens comparison and crop factors
- Can you use the Canon C300 for reality/entertainment shows
- Should I buy the new Canon C300?
- super slow motion
- Used camera equipment
- How to get perfect skin tones on a DSLR 7d or 5d
- audio recording with 7d and 5d
- Using a 7d for broadcast actuality scenes
- Some thoughts on the new Canon C300 compared to the RED scarlet and the Sony F3
- Screen Protector for TV logic Monitor
- Using a DSLR for Broadcast work
- What to look for when buying a DSLR lens for video
- Which DSLR rig to buy
- Which lens to Buy for a Canon 7d when shooting video
- DSLR toplight LED light panel
- where to buy DSLR video gear in London
- Calibrating a DSLR monitor
- Cheap monitor sun hood for dslr
- DSLR monitor and EVF review
- Which HD Video Camera to buy for professional corporate or broadcast work
- Building a DIY slider UK
- CF card reader speed
- Filming a football promo with a 7d
- Shooting with the new Sony F3
- BBC Horizon Shoot
Page 1 of 3