DougJensen

Thanks for the trip down memory lane. My very first professional camera was a M3A with a VO-4800 U-matic recorder attached via a multi-pin umbilical that I got in 1984. It put me on the map and I don't know if I'd be where I am today if it hadn't been for that camera. I traveled with it all over the country and world. Like you say, it doesn't meet today's specifications, but it was a very reliable camera that looked very good for its day. In fact, I still recall how disappointed I was when I sold my M3A and moved "up" to a Hitachi CCD camera. The aliasing on that first generation CCD was awful but it was too late to go back to the Sony. It's cool to hear you like the look of it, and I'm looking forward to seeing the short film you make. Good luck. PS. Don't ever point those tubes at the sun!!

Jason, welcome to the the Sony forum. I don't know anything about the C300, but I know the FX6 inside and out. It does not have a genlock connector, so you will not be able to sync the cameras in the way you describe. Fortunately, it makes no difference anyway. There is no reason to sync the shutters on the cameras. Outside of a "live" switching environment or a two-camera 3D rig, there will be no benefit to that kind of synchronization. Nor would you ever be able to detect any difference during your edit if you could jump through those hoops. So take that part of the plan off the table and you just made your job easier right there. If the C300 has either timecode IN or OUT (which I assume it does) you will have no trouble syncing the timecode. I suggest using the FX6 as the master and the C300 as the slave. If you need more details on how to do that, let me know. But it is easy and takes just a few seconds. You should also leave the cameras connected during the shoot to prevent them from drifting a frame or two over the course of the shoot. But eEven if you didn't use timecode at all, syncing a two camera interview is super easy these days in the major NLEs if both cameras are being fed the same audio. Putting extra effort into the lighting, composition, makeup, audio, having matched lenses, etc. will ultimately pay much bigger dividends on screen than sync. If this is a super important interview, it might be worth it to rent a 2nd FX6 and have perfectly matching cameras. Could save a lot of time in Resolve. That's my 2-bits, I hope it helps.

Good question. Whether I'm shooting a launch with four cameras or all eight (Z750, F55 w/R7, FS7 w/R5, FX6, Alpha1, Z280, S1H, Z90, every camera is set for full manual focus and full manual exposure. Since I only have two hands, most of the cameras are on locked-down shots either aimed at the launch pad, or at some point in the sky where I know the rocket will pass through. All of those cameras are pre-focused using peaking to judge the focus. During the launch, I will operate one camera the entire time, or sometimes switch from one camera to another in mid-stream. Each camera/lens combo has it's own unique advantages so sometimes it is necessary to jump over from camera to another in mid-flight. But I know in advance that I'm going to do that, so everything is pre-set on the 2nd camra. On either of the two cameras that I'm operating (with a high-power telephoto lens) to track the flight, I am just focusing manually using peaking as my guide. Usually the two cameras I operate manually are the Z750 with it's excellent Sony EL30 viewfinder or the FX6 with a really nice Zacuto Gratical EVF mounted. Both of those viewfinders offer edge-enhance peaking, so I am not stuck using inferior colored peaking. On some of the launches, the booster(s) return to land back at Cape Canaveral, and that is really stressful to pick them up in the sky and track them back down. Also very hard not to bobble with when the sonic boom hits. I know it is coming but it still just about knocks you off your feet. But a lot of fun.

Thank you very much Steven for the kind comments. I'm really happy to hear that it helped get you on track and give you a push in the right direction. For anyone who really enjoys shooting video (not just looking at what we do as a job) stock footage is a no-brainer. I hope you have great success with it.

Yes, please do let us know. I am very interested in seeing the full show, just not enough to sign up for Disney streaming. 🙂

Hey Danny, it looks absolutely fantastic. Some amazing shots of critters in that trailer that I know are very hard to find. Nice work. Unfortunately, I don't have Disney+, so please let us know if it is ever available on a different platform.

Thanks Julien. No, I'm not selling stock footage direct except in a few rare instances for some big budget documentaries that need help curating what they need. 95% of my stock footage income comes from the big three agencies: Shutterstock, Adobe, and Pond5. In my opinion, those are the only three that are worth submitting to. The little boutique agencies will never bring in enough revenue to make it worth your time contributing to them. And if you tried to sell direct, you'd get eaten alive in fees and marketing costs. It's just not feasible. If you want some insight into how I run my stock footage business, I produced a 5-hour master class that details every step of my workflow. Some of the information is a little out of date now because Shutterstock has changed their royalty structure and pricing, but the overall information is still valid. I share everything from what to shoot, where to contribute, how to create excellent metadata (more important than the footage itself), how to edit and grade the clips in Resolve, submitting the clips, maintaining a portfolio, etc. https://vimeo.com/ondemand/sellingstockfootage Here's a free 18-minute video that addresses your questions and provides a good overview of how to run a stock footage business.

Hi Steven, I'm glad to hear you like my launch videos. They are certainly fun to shoot. All my cameras have excellent electronic viewfinders, so external monitors are not needed . . . or wanted. I've never used monitors on any camera I've ever shot with and never will! 🙂 There is no substitute for a good EVF.

Beautiful footage. I'm surprised by how high above the horizon the lights extend, and the foreground trees and cabin really add a sense of perspective.

Good question about timecode sync. No, it isn't necessary and wouldn't provide any benefit in post. And because the cameras are shooting a mix of 24p and 30p at 60 to 120 fps, the numbers would never sync up. In fact, in the video above, some of the shots are not even in true chronological order. Also, another thing to realize that some of the clips are 5x longer than real time. I start the cameras rolling one minute before launch, and most of the action is over 4 minutes after launch (unless there is a booster landing). In that amount of time, a camera like the FX6 rolling at 120 fps has created a 25 minute long clip! That's where Catalyst Browse really helps reduce the amount of footage that must be offloaded and backed up.

A few years ago, I relocated from New England to Florida’s space coast so I could better service my clients in the aerospace industry. No matter how many rocket launches I cover at Cape Canaveral, it never gets old. Due to the weather, time of day, time of year, type of rocket, the particular launch pad used, and other factors, no two launches are ever the same. That means some launches are more photogenic than others, but they are always fun and challenging to shoot. Sometimes I will have as many as eight cameras shooting 4K (usually in slow-motion), and other times less than half that number. It depends on many factors, including the needs of the client. Having multiple cameras allows me to get wide, medium, and tight coverage. The cameras I use most for launches are my FX6, Z750, Z280, F55/R7, FS7/R5, a1, a6300, and S1H. Eight cameras can get a little hectic to manage, especially if the launch is at dusk or dawn with constantly changing light. I shot this launch of a SpaceX Falcon Heavy last Sunday as it put a couple of satellites for the US Space Force in orbit. Sunday’s launch was a Falcon Heavy rocket which is basically three regular Falcon 9 rockets strapped together in order to get a super heavy payload into orbit. For most SpaceX launches, the booster will land on a special barge hundreds of miles at sea, but occasionally the payload will be light enough that the booster(s) can come all the way back to the Cape. For this launch, the center booster was allowed to splash down into the ocean, and eight minutes after launch, the rocket's two side boosters successfully landed at Cape Canaveral's Landing Zones 1 and 2. Seeing the rockets return to the Cape is just as cool as the launch itself. Amazing technology at work. I decided to shoot this launch with four cameras: FX6 with 200-600mm lens (4K @ 120 fps) Z750 with Fujinon 24x7.8 lens (4K @ 60 fps) Z280 (4K @ 60 fps). The fourth camera was my a1 shooting in 8K @ 30 fps, but I didn’t include that footage in this YouTube video. On this launch, I started out operating the FX6 until the rocket had reached about 15 miles in altitude and then I jumped over to the Z750 (24x7.8 Fujinon lens + 2x extender) to track the rocket as it got higher and farther away. Resetting all four cameras for the landing caused me to miss part of boosters returning in the dark sky, but that is a risk I take with managing multiple cameras. Sometimes I nail it, and sometimes I don’t. This one was kind of in the middle, as far as success is concerned.

Going "cool" was the right creative choice. When I capture video or stills, that is just the first step in a workflow where I want to make the images look better (usually more dramatic) than they looked in real life. Real life is boring. 🙂

What happens when you click on that link in my previous post? Do you see a page that says Your Public Profile is live!With a dialog box to set/change your avatar? That's what I see.

Nice work. I love the wide shot, expecially the overall color tone. It's a great example of how zooming in closer isn't always better. It's good to see the environment sometimes. Don't drop your camera in the woods, you may never find it again with all that camo.

A fellow contributor sent me a PM this evening asking how i setup my avatar. I honestly can't remember how I did it a few months ago, but I was looking around tonight and this might be the link to use after you have signed into your alphauniverse account. Let me know if anyone has success. https://alphauniverse.com/account/#/publicprofile

1/1000th shutter for 120 fps? That's about 3-4x faster than is standard practice. Do you have any examples to show what that looks like in practice? What kind of wildlife do use those speeds for? Do you ever shoot 24 fps @ 1/200, since that would be the equivalent?

I just coated my 200-600 and 70-200 in black over the holidays. I sure am liking having most of that ugly beige covered up. BTW, the A1 is a great camera, but for wildlife video, it is definitely a big step down from the FX6. Every time I take my A1 out so I am lighter and more nimble, I end up regretting some missed opportunities that the FX6 absolutely would have gotten. No ND, no picture cache, non-movable EVF, are major shortcomings. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

Well, that is a lot of stuff to respond to, but I will try to make myself understood. First of all, the title of this thread (that you started) specifically says “CINE EI”, which basically means S-LOG3 on the newest cameras, such as the FX6 and FX9. I never said anything about LUTs or REC709, so I don’t know why you would think that my comments or advice regarding zebras would apply to anything other than S-LOG3. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I agree that 72% would not work for a REC709 gamma. Gammas, other than LOG, do require a different Zebra2 level, which will vary depending on the chosen gamma and the DP’s exposure target – which is ultimately a creative decision. One DP may choose to expose a certain gamma at 80%, while someone else may choose 85%. Neither is right or wrong. But both of them can use my method to determine EXACTLY when they have hit their intended threshold, whatever that is. 72% won’t be appropriate for most monitor LUTs, either, but, then again, I never claimed it would be. I never said anything about LUTs in my earlier post. But for more than 10 years, in my books and videos, I have been providing recommended offset zebra values for many of the most popular monitor LUTs. My method of exposing with Zebra2 works just as easily with a monitor LUT, you just have to know what Zebra level to use that will put the underlying S-LOG recording at the proper level. Very simple. In your hypothetical scene with a bright sky, you are correct that Zebra2 will show on everything above the threshold where it has been set, and that may very well include the bright sky and specular highlights from glass and chrome. No big deal. That is EXACLTY what makes Zebra2 superior to Zebra1. If I set Zebra2 for 72%, then no zebras will be shown on anything that is under 72%. Zebras will not appear until the exposure reaches exactly 72%. And then they will continue to be visible on anything that is above 72%. That is exactly how I want zebras to function. What I am looking for is just a touch of Zebra2 on bright reflected whites that are in the SAME lighting as the subject. For example, if I’m shooting an interview, I will have the subject hold a white card directly in front of their face after all the lighting has been setup. I will adjust the exposure so there is just a hint of Zebra2 showing on the card, and then they can drop the card and we can roll. Not only does that method guarantee a perfect exposure, it also eliminates all guessing because the exposure is based on a (white) target of known reflectance, rather than someone’s face. ZEBRA2 + WHITE CARD = INCIDENT LIGHT METER By contrast, Zebra1, uses an aperture window. That means Zebra1 will start to appear earlier than the actual level that has been set, and then disappear again if the exposure rises beyond that window. For example, if I set Zebra1 for 72%, with the factory-default 10% aperture, Zebras will start to appear at 67% and then disappear again at 77%. Sloppy. There’s no precision with Zebra1, and it is too easy to overexpose without realizing it because Zebras are only going to show within that very narrow window. Changing the aperture to a narrower or wider window will just make the problems worse. In your hypothetical situation with the bright sky, I agree that there may very well be zebras in the sky and on any specular hightlights from chrome, glass, etc. So what? If those things are not the subject of the scene, what difference does it make? Every camera has a limited dynamic range, so occasionally something has to be sacrificed when we have no control over the lighting. It is impossible sometimes, even for a Venice, to have everything in an outdoor, uncontrolled, shot exposed correctly. So, if we have a shot where the main subject is a human being standing on the street, then it is that person who needs to be exposed correctly. And allowing for a little bit of Zebra2 on the person’s white clothing, or a nearby object in the same light, or even holding up a white card for a few seconds, is the perfect way to do it. This is especially true for documentaries, news, reality TV, etc. where the exposure must be set quickly and accurately. In your hypothetical situation, the sky and specular highlights are secondary and do not matter. Why would I care if they have zebras on them? And why would that be “confusing” to you? BTW, the sky would be just as blown out with Zebra1. The difference would be that you won’t have any Zebras to tell you that it is blown out. My choice of 72% for Zebra2 on the FX6 was not chosen at random. I arrived at that number after doing a lot of side-by-side testing with my Leader LV5330 waveform monitor, chip charts, real-world scenes, and Resolve Studio. Plus, that number has proven itself over and over again in two years of shooting with the FX6. If you think 72% is too high, that is certainly your right, and you are welcome to expose however you want to. But I’ve done my own tests from 60% up to 85%, and I’ve determined that 72% consistently gives me the best results after grading in Resolve. I stand by the number. You had me laughing out loud with your comments about you having issues with slight variations in bright white. Really? You think the slight differences between two different bright whites is important? It’s a fraction of a stop, at most, and easily compensated for in post. I can’t believe that someone who consistently tells people to expose for human faces (despite huge variations in skintone from race to race, and even between individuals within the same race) is suddenly concerned that the difference between something like a white shirt collar and a white piece of copy paper is just too much to deal with. Bright white is bright white. Slight differences, of only than a few IRE between different materials, won’t matter at all in post after grading. You once wrote in another thread, “there isn't as much brightness variation between different skin tones as one might expect.” You have to be kidding, right? Think about two individuals, such as Jim Gaffigan and Chris Rock, and then tell me there isn’t much variation in skintone. Do you honestly think there is more variation between a standard white card and a sheet of white copy paper than what we see in those two faces? That’s absurd. All things considered, Zebra2+White is a fast, easy, accurate, and nearly foolproof way to set exposure on the fly. It also easily understood and mastered by beginners who need some rules and guidelines to follow. I hope that addresses your concerns about my methods.

Ha, ha. Yeah, I agree with you that an old a7s would be a good little entry-level camera for a student or hobbyist to get started with. But for a professional, not so much.

What are my Zebras Measuring in CineEI?The answer is bright, reflected whites. Nothing else matters. Skintones vary too much from person to person, and race to race. 18% gray is too dark and never found naturally. But white is all around us on white cards, chip charts, paper, clothing, clouds, cars, etc. It is always easy to find a white target. I set Zebra2 (never Zebra1) for 72% and allow just a touch of zebras to appear in bright reflected whites. Done. Couldn't be easier. And it works with all cameras.

Hi Jiri, I agree completely with your comments. I have made this suggestion to the Sony product managers several times, but it is unclear whether we will ever get our wish or not. But you never know.

When you’re shooting with an ENG camera, or a cinema camera, that has its viewfinder mounted on the left side, up near the front of the camera, ergonomically it makes sense to use a tripod pan handle that is roughly 16” long. A long handle works best for those kinds of cameras because the operator is basically standing on the left-side of the camera and a long handle is needed to get leverage for smooth panning and tilting. When you buy a tripod head from any of the major brands, it will generally come equipped with a 16” pan handle. But many of today’s smaller cameras have their viewfinder located at the rear of the camera, such as the Z280, Z90, and almost all mirrorless cameras. And some cameras, such as the FX6 and FX30 don’t have a viewfinder at all. For these types of cameras, where the operator is standing behind the camera, rather than to the side, a 16” pan handle is way too long. Not only does a long handle tend to jab you in the chest when you try to look through the viewfinder, it also puts your right hand at an uncomfortable distance behind your shoulder when you’re trying to execute smooth movement. Years ago, I recognized the need for shorter pan handles so I suggested to various manufacturers that they give their customers the option of a shorter handle that would be more appropriate for today’s smaller cameras. Well, as time went on, none of them acted on my suggestion, so a few years ago I decided to devise my own DIY solution. I removed the rosette from one of my Sachlter tripod heads and took it to the local Lowes hardware store and went from tool to tool until I found one that had the right diameter to replace the stock handle. What I ended up choosing was a 6-in-1 Nut Driver, made by a company called Irwin. The price was $17. https://www.irwin.com/tools/screwdrivers/irwin-6-in-1-nut-driver When mounted on the tripod head, it’s only 7” long and has a nice fat rubberized grip that feels great in the hand during all kinds of weather. Note: It does require the rosette from the original pan handle, so it is not a totally stand-alone solution, but for $17 it is a bargain. Not only does the shorter length make it easier to get in close to the viewfinder at the rear of small cameras, surprisingly, it actually makes panning and tilting smoother. And when it comes time to pack up the tripod, there is no need to fold the handle down. I just transport it with the handle in the position where I like it for operation. I now have custom Irwin handles on three of my six tripods, and I love them. So, if you’re bothered, as I was, by having a long handle on your tripod, here is one way of swapping it out without breaking the bank.

I actually get that question all the time, so I'll start a new thread in a few minutes that I can just point people to in the future. Stand by.

It’s funny to picture you unearthing the PDW-F350 out of the desert sand as if it was an ancient artifact. It also makes me feel really old because I owned an F350, and I’d already been in the business for more than 30 years at the time I bought it in 2006. For its time, it was a good camera and I enjoyed using it for a couple of years. It was smaller, lighter, and much more reliable than the Betacams that were still the camera-of-choice at the time for sports, news, corporate video, etc. I loved the XDCAM optical media and still have a ton of archived disks. I even produced a 4-hour training DVD for the F350/F330/F355 series. Of course, by today’s standards the camera was very primitive. The ½” sensors meant that it was a step down from Betacams with 2/3” sensors. Also, it didn’t record full HD. It was only 1440x1080, which is sort of an anamorphic version of HD. Also, it was only 8-bit 4:2:0 @ 35 Mbps and didn’t have great picture quality. It looked good enough compared to Betacam, but I felt it was always a little muddy looking and lacking some spark. Never made "stunning" images. You were wondering why high-end productions continued to use the F900 after the F350 was released, and the lower specifications was the reason. The F900 was a far superior camera. Yes, it just wasn’t tapeless, but not being tapeless was not a big deal to people back in that era. In fact, a lot of people didn’t feel comfortable NOT shooting on tape. For me, the F350 was a good investment and gave me and my clients an affordable entry into HD production. I retired both of my Ikegami Betacams in 2006 after the F350 arrived and I never shot another frame of SD video ever again -- while even big-budget shows like 60 Minutes and Survivor continued on with Betacam for several more years. I sold my F350 in 2009 when I upgraded to the far more capable F800. The F800 basically replaced both the F900 and F350 and brought the best of both cameras together into one package. The F800 was a fantastic camera and many are still in use around the world, especially with reality shows that don’t need 4K yet. I wrote a 300 page book on the F800, and it is still one of my favorite cameras of all time. But today, my 4K, 3-chip, 2/3” 10-bit 4:2:2 PXW-Z750 blows all the predecessors out of the water. The Z750 is a great camera to shoot with, and of course, I also wrote a 400 page book on the Z750. Here’s something cool: Even though I sold my F350 14 years ago, it continues to earn money for me. There isn’t a week that goes by that I don’t sell stock footage that I shot with the F350. Now that is great ROI. I know it is interesting to discover an old camera like that laying around, and I congratulate you on your curiosity about it. But in the long run, I wouldn’t waste too much time with it. Even today’s least expensive consumer cameras are for more capable than the old F350. Thanks for the blast from the past. If you have some lingering questions about any of the XDCAM optical cameras, go ahead and ask. I don’t remember everything about them but I might be able to fill in some gaps. The ergonomics and other advantages of a should-mount 2/3” 3-chip ENG camera cannot be matched by any other form-factor.

Hi Paul. Wow, what a nice setup. I'd be tempted to do some moonlighting on sports or concerts if I could operate that baby. Will this be on display at NAB?