LensMeAHand

Most are owned by the studio I work with. The owner brags how he's never gotten rid of a camera—hence the abundance of old tech.

This past week, we were planning to shoot with two Venices, each equipped with an E-mount lens. I thought, "No problem, I'll just remove the Venice's PL-mount, exposing the E-mount, and we'll be ready to go." However, it becomes tricky when you need to adjust the aperture. The lenses we were using did not have a physical aperture adjustment, and could only be adjusted through a camera. I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out how to do this, and nothing came up when I searched Google, so I thought I'd post here for future Googlers. The only way to adjust aperture on an E-mount lens is to set assignable buttons for the adjustment. It's in the Project section of the full menu (which can be accessed by either holding down the menu button, or by pressing the menu button and the selection dial simultaneously). Anyways, hope this helps someone out in the future!

I agree—totally outdated. It would be a huuuge pain to work with on a real production for all the reasons I listed in my post. But also, I can't deny it's fun to play around with 🙂

Read on to see how you can ensure you retain the quality of your clips when using Catalyst Browse. For years, I’ve been stabilizing footage in Catalyst Browse the wrong way and just realized it. And with the way the settings are presented, I’m sure I’m not the only one making this mistake. Transcode settings in Catalyst Browse Here’s the thing—you glance over the transcode settings, see they’re all set to “Same as source”, and reasonably assume that your footage is going to come out the same as the source. But no. Read carefully On the Format drop-down, "Same as source" shows XAVC S, even though I shot the clip in XAVC S-I. This is misleading. You press export, and when you load the clip into your editing software, you can see that the bit depth has devolved to 8-bit, from the original 10-bit. The only reason I realized this is because I noticed some banding in a gray sky on one of my clips. So what’s the solution? Well, if you don’t want to pay for Catalyst Prepare, the only option that retains both your resolution and bit depth is to export the video as a series of DPX stills, which becomes a pain if you have audio baked into the footage because then you’ll have to relink the audio track when you bring the DPX sequence into your editing software, making for extra post production work. Showing ‘Same as source’ when it’s actually not the same as source is just like showing 24fps when the camera is really recording 23.98 fps. Come on Sony, don’t deceive us!

Recently, I was given a Sony FDR-X3000 Action Cam, and with a ski trip planned for the weekend, I thought, “what a great opportunity to test this little guy out.” The 4K pocket camera was released in 2016, but I sought to find out if it had any relevance today. The Sony FDR-X3000 Action Cam My initial impression was favorable. The camera boots up instantly, and there are REC lights on the top, front, and side of the camera, so there are no doubts when you’re recording. It’s light, portable, and the design is aesthetic. Since I didn't have the optional add-on monitor, I couldn’t see what I was shooting the whole day. But when I offloaded the footage that night, I was a bit disappointed. Ungraded footage with the Action Cam mounted to my snowboard via a suction cup I'm guessing the shaking of the snowboard brought out the worst of the Action Cam's rolling shutter, which is quite bad. The footage with the camera mounted to the snowboard was unusable. Fortunately, the handheld stuff came out better. Handheld Action Cam footage with a quick color grade And with a little stabilization in post, some of the handheld shots came out super smooth. Action Cam footage with a quick color grade and post stabilization in DaVinci Resolve Most handheld shots were unrecoverably rough. However, I only realized after the trip that I had the Action Cam set to Standard stabilization, when there was an Active Stabilization mode. Perhaps this would have resulted in even smoother footage. Regardless of its stabilization, the Action Cam was disappointing for other reasons as well—like how grainy and noisy the footage got when you weren't shooting in bright daylight. Looking back, I think my expectations for this tiny $400 camera were simply too high. Out of curiosity, I wanted to see how the same type of shot would look with my a7sIII, so I took it instead on the second ski day. Putting the a7sIII’s weather resistance to the test Without any gimbal or even handles on my cage, the internal gyroscope made all the difference in the world. Even the shakiest shots were recoverable in Catalyst Browse. Unstabilized a7sIII footage with color grade (50mm lens @ 1/200 shutter speed) The same shot stabilized in Catalyst Browse After this comparison, I saw no real use for the Action Cam for myself personally. The alpha cameras are small and light enough to fit in a backpack and hold with one hand, yet they give you more color depth, more dynamic range, more room to stabilize in post, etc etc. I'll concede that it’s not exactly a fair comparison, pitting an a7sIII + lens that will set you back a couple grand, versus an Action Cam that cost only $400 when it was new. In fact, the Action Cam was not designed to compete with DSLRs—its main foe was GoPro. And I have to say, watching side-by-side videos on YouTube of the Sony vs the top GoPro in 2016, the Action Cam looks better. Better stabilization, better colors, better exposure. But I feel like the consumer market would opt for a GoPro, simply because of their adhesive mounts that allow you to easily stick them to anything. To mount the Action Cam to my snowboard, I had to bring a Wood's Power Grip suction cup, which kept coming off because the scratches on my snowboard didn't make for a smooth enough surface. Plus, when you have to carry around a big suction cup (and if you want to adjust your angle, a tripod head as well), the camera isn't exactly a pocket cam anymore. So here's to you Action Cam. A beautifully executed, well-designed piece of technology that unfortunately doesn't have much use in 2023.

Couldn't agree more. The design struck me as something conceived in 2000—I was shocked to discover it was made as recently as it was.

I’m working on a low-budget project next week that's slated to use one RED camera. For dialogue scenes, they want medium and medium closeup shots for each actor, along with a wide. I offered to bring my Sony a7sIII because I knew having another camera would save time, but the producer is worried about colors not matching. So I did some tests to see just how well the Sony and RED color sciences could match up. Here are two stills, both using the same lens, with the subject the same distance away from the camera. White balance and exposure were kept consistent between both cameras. Red Helium 8K on the left / Sony a1 on the right With only a color space transform to Rec 709, the two shots look wildly different. The Sony footage is darker, and the reds are more saturated. However, by using a color chart to color match in DaVinci Resolve, we can get a lot closer. Nearly identical The color chart helped to get these shots looking almost exactly alike. The RED footage has slightly more saturation in the reds, but with a slight adjustment, you can get them even closer. Desaturated reds and slight S-curve on the RED footage. Increased contrast on both shots. After two quick adjustments, they look pretty darn close. When you're cutting between shots and not viewing them side-by-side like this, they will appear exactly the same. I assume the colors in the RED footage look slightly more vibrant because it was shot RAW, versus the a1 that was shot in 4:2:2 XAVC. If I had an Atomos Ninja V to record RAW from the Sony a1, the comparison might be a lot closer. In an ideal world, we would always be able to shoot with matching cameras, but it doesn't always work out that way. Having a color chart on hand can save a lot of time matching shots in post. However, there are some things to watch out for... The color chart can present a challenge when you’re shooting a backlit subject—if there’s not enough light on the chart, the camera won't record enough detail on it, and DaVinci won’t be able to match with it. Also, if you're working with miniatures or macro shots, you'll need a compact color chart, but that won't always fit in the shot either. Sometimes you can get away with copying the grades from similar shots you've corrected with the color chart, but if not, you're stuck tediously matching by hand.

The Sony F35 Last weekend, I had an opportunity to spend some time with a rare gem from Sony's hall of fame. Released in 2008 with a sticker price of $250,000, the Sony F35 was the first CineAlta camera to come with a PL mount, meaning it was a serious contender for cinema primetime. It featured a 5.8K sensor, but unfortunately the output was downsampled to HD. I spent a few hours playing around with it, and found that while it had its upsides, it was not without its flaws. The Good: Battery Life: a 155Wh battery will last for hours. No need to lug around a block battery or stress about constant battery swaps. The Look: I love the look of this camera! More on that later... In-Camera Speed Ramping: This is a pretty neat feature—you can setup the camera to change framerate mid-take. So for example, if you started a shot at 4 fps, you'd have a timelapse full of motion blur, but then you could transition to 24 fps and be back to real time speed in the same shot. The Bad: HD footage: You have no room to digitally zoom in post, and unless you're cropping to 4:3 or 2.39:1, you have no room to shift your framing in post either. It's not all bad though—HD files consume much less hard drive space than 8K footage. White Balance: There are only two settings for the white balance: Daylight and Tungsten. Just like shooting on film! No built-in ND: We are spoiled with today's cinema cameras that let you effortlessly flip through ND filters with the push of a button. Not so with the F35. You have limited control of the exposure with a gain setting, but that won't save you from an obligatory mattebox and filter set. No internal recording: The F35 was designed to be accompanied by an SRW-1 recording unit, which mounts to either the top or rear of the camera. But this recording unit was the same size as the camera! The F35 is huge and weighs as much as a sack of bricks—I can't imagine doubling its size (and probably weight too). However, in 2023, I was able to use an Atomos monitor to record 4:2:2 footage. If you want to record 4:4:4, you'll need an Odyssey or possibly one of the new Atomos monitors. The Ugly: Size & Weight: It's exhausting just to carry this camera—I can't imagine shoulder mounting it for more than a minute. It's larger than today's cinema cameras as well, meaning you'll have a harder time getting it on a gimbal or into small spaces. Frame Rate: Again, we are spoiled by today's cinema cameras that can shoot 120 fps and beyond. The maximum frame rate on the F35 is only 60 fps. Menu: I think this camera gave Sony its reputation for bad menus that it can't seem to shake (even though the current Sony menus are great). These are the buttons you'll be pressing to navigate the horrible menus Not only is the F35 menu system slow to navigate through, it's also unintuitive. You'd think you'd be able to quickly scroll through the different menus with the dial to the right of the screen. Nope. You have to press the Page and Set buttons to go back and forth between menu pages. Then to actually change a setting, you have to hold the Set button for three seconds—then you can turn the dial to cycle through options for that setting. On a film set where things need to move as quickly as possible, this camera would not be advantageous. Now, it may seem like there's a lot more cons than pros, but I want to talk in-depth about the biggest pro of them all. I found the look of this camera to be unique and wonderful. Here are a few stills from the footage I shot: Ungraded still converted to Rec. 709, shot outside on a semi-cloudy day Graded and color-corrected still, shot through a window on a cloudy day When the S-LOG footage is converted to Rec. 709, the reds are way too saturated. Adjusting the reds before the color space conversion leads to a normal looking image, which becomes quite pleasing after a slight color grade. This shot was originally underexposed. After brightening it up and adding some contrast, it looks really grainy, but in a cool way. Almost like film! I was shocked at how much I liked the look of this nearly 15-year-old camera. Maybe I'll use it for a project in the near future. Hopefully my back won't give out while carrying it. Has anyone else used the F35 (recently or back-in-the-day)? What were your experiences with it?

This week I was on a shoot where we used a Rialto 2 for some handheld shots because of its relatively light weight compared to the Venice 2. However, we ran into a problem mounting a follow focus and monitor on the Rialto 2. Here's the issue—there's a 24V output on the front of the Rialto 2, but our monitor and follow focus ran on 12V, and we didn't have a step down converter. If you haven't used the Rialto 2, you might be confused when nothing comes out of the 24V output on the front of the Rialto 2. Looping power and video to make use of the Rialto 2's outputs You have to loop power and video ouputs on the Venice 2 in order to get anything out of the front outputs on the Rialto 2. And with that in mind, we realized you don't actually need to send 24V through the 24V connection. So we built our own cabling to run 12V into the Rialto 2. The 2-pin Lemo connected to the Venice 2's 12V power, and the 3-pin connected to the 24V input that ran to the Rialto 2 The 3-pin Lemo carried the 12V from the Venice, and the D-Tap split off to the monitor & follow focus There are three things to keep in mind about this setup: (1) a 24V to 12V step down converter would be a much better solution, as you would have twice as much amperage, allowing you to power more accessories. (2) if you also find yourself in this pinch and decide to go the custom-cabling route, make sure you connect ground to ground on the 3-pin lemo or else you run the risk of shorting out the camera. Pinout for the 3-pin Lemo on the Venice 2 And (3), these are dangerous cables to have. So if you build them, you should mark them as such, so that someone doesn't unknowingly fry an expensive piece of camera gear down the road.

Earlier this week, I was using a Venice 2 to shoot on a stage, and of course, when you know the camera won’t move more than 10ft in the course of a day, it’s much more convenient to use a power supply than to constantly swap batteries. Unfortunately, the company that rented us the Venice 2 forgot to include an AC adapter to power the camera from the wall. So I grabbed the power supply from a Blackmagic 12K, thinking it would work. It did not. Here’s the interesting part: The Venice 2 manual gives three different power ratings for the 8K camera: Unit nominal power consumption: 76W Nominal meaning the smallest amount it could possibly consume, which is irrelevant for our purposes Unit maximum power consumption: 100W The maximum power the camera body alone could consume Total maximum power consumption: 220W The total consumption of the camera body plus all the accessories and gadgets that could be drawing power from it The Blackmagic 12K power supply outputs 12 V at 8.33 A. Using Ohm’s law (Watts = Volts * Amps), we can determine that the Blackmagic power supply delivers 100 W of power. However, this was not enough for our Venice 2 with only a viewfinder attached. We weren’t even recording. We simply powered the camera on (with batteries and power supply connected) and watched the voltage drain as the power supply got really hot. The moral of this story is that you should make sure that your Venice 2 power supply can deliver at least 220 W, or else you risk losing power during your shoot.

I’m glad I could provide some nostalgia. When others operate the camera, they instinctively treat it like a modern cinema camera and point it at the sun, and it causes me a great deal of stress!

Haha it’s pretty awful really—50 ft of wires and boxes dragging behind the camera. I’m trying to consolidate the setup, but the DXC-M3A will always be dragging around some form of ball and chain

Agreed. Lens choice is an important consideration in color matching. One of the reasons cinema lenses are so expensive is because they’re color matched to a set. Even with the same lenses, matching Canon and Sony will be easier if you shoot a color chart after every slate

This is my Sony DXC-M3A, a broadcast camera from the mid-1980s. You might wonder why anyone would own such a dinosaur in an age of 8k resolution and 15-stops of dynamic range. But I think it has a certain aesthetic quality that's lost to today's lifeless digital sensors. The DXC-M3A doesn't have an image sensor; instead it has 3 pickup tubes that work like a CRT television to turn light into an analog signal. The beauty of these tubes is what drew me to this camera. The colors, the light trails, the chromatic aberration. It gives a look that lies somewhere in between film and digital, and is unlike anything else. After months of trial-and-error trying to get the RGB signal out of the camera (sourcing three different converter boxes and making my own wiring looms to connect it all), I finally have a usable camera that records straight to my laptop without having to degrade the quality by recording to tape (as was done in the day). My friend and I are planning to shoot a short film with this camera. I will post more as our progress unfolds.

As a camera person, the last thing I want to do is to fuss with sound. Unfortunately, we’re sometimes stuck doing it alongside our camera duties on really low-budget interviews. However, Sony makes a sound kit that integrates with Sony cameras, making our lives a little easier. Since the receiver connects via the hotshoe mount, you have one less cable getting in your way. The Sony UWP-D11 package (URX-P03 receiver and UTX-B03 transmitter) on a Sony a1 The audio quality is great, and setup is fairly simple (see last paragraph). There’s a newer model (The URX-P40 receiver and UTX-B40 transmitter) that I haven’t used, but you should be aware that the new and old models are compatible with slightly different lists of cameras. New model compatibility (scroll to Overview section) Old model compatibility (scroll to Overview section) The biggest downside of the old model (I’m not sure if this is an issue on the new one) is the fact that the audio level can only be adjusted from the transmitter, which means you need to pull it off the talent’s waistband to make adjustments. Other than that, it's a great little kit which I highly recommend! I thought I'd also include some helpful hints for the old model (URX-P03 & URX-T03): To set the audio levels on the transmitter, you'll need to navigate through the menu by pressing the +/- buttons until you reach the ATT option. This is the attenuator setting and will allow you to adjust the level. To scan frequencies and sync receiver to transmitter, you'll need to navigate through the receiver's menu by pressing the +/- buttons until you reach the AUTO SET screen. Hold the SET button until the screen says YES. Then press the SET button again. The receiver will scan through all available channels and find the one with the least interference. When it finishes, the screen will display SYNC with a moving arrow. At this point, you’ll need to turn the transmitter on and place the receiver and transmitter next to each other, with their infrared ports facing each other. Select YES on the transmitter and they'll be synced and ready to go!

On car shoots, being able to remotely control your camera is almost a necessity. Whether you’re hanging the camera off an arm car or whether you’re simply mounting to a car and shooting actors inside, the ability to change camera settings without having to get out of the car saves you an extraordinary amount of time. While the Venice 2 is unfortunately not compatible with the Sony SDK (which would allow for control of multiple cameras simultaneously), the camera features a built-in remote control interface accessible through a network connection. I should mention that it’s best to use this remote control interface with either a tablet or a laptop, as the webpage was not created with mobile in mind, meaning you can’t zoom out to see the entire page at once. The remote control interface, as viewed on an iPhone 12 mini Wireless: The Venice 2 does not have wireless networking capabilities out of the box, but with the Sony CBK-WA02 Wireless LAN Adapter, you can connect to the camera wirelessly. The Sony CBK-WA02 Wireless LAN Adapter in use To setup the connection, open the full menu (by either holding the menu button or by pressing the menu button and the selection knob simultaneously), and navigate to Techincal > Authentication > Password. Set the username and password and write them down. Then navigate to Technical > Network > Wireless. From your computer, connect to the network name shown on the Venice 2 and enter the WiFi password shown in the camera menu. Once you’ve connected to the WiFi network, you should also see an IP address in the camera menu. Enter that IP address into your web browser on your computer, and then, when prompted, enter the username and password you wrote down earlier. Now you are connected! I was hopeful for the wireless connection because, while prepping at the rental house, I could control the camera from 70 feet away. However, when using the wireless connection with the Venice 2 mounted to a Russian arm on a camera car, it was not stable—when the arm whipped around, we were immediately disconnected. Therefore, I would recommend using a wired connection. Arm car + wireless connection = disappointment Wired: If you prefer the stability and persistence of a hardwired connection, then the only piece of kit you need is an ethernet cable. After you connect the cable from your computer to your Venice 2, you’ll need to configure the network settings. On the Venice 2, open the full menu (by either holding the menu button or by pressing the menu button and the selection knob simultaneously), navigate to Technical > Network > LAN, and then on your computer, enter the Venice 2’s IP address into your web browser. If it doesn’t connect, make sure you’re connecting over normal HTTP and not HTTPS. If that still doesn’t fix it, change your computer‘s subnet mask and first three numbers of the IP address to match those of the Venice 2. Then navigate to Techincal > Authentication > Password. Set the username and password and enter them into your computer’s web browser. You should then be connected and ready to go!

I've just done a few tests to compare the different stabilization options of the A1 (this applies to other Sony cameras as well), and I figured I'd share my results here, so others don't have to do the same tests to determine what's best. Obviously additional hardware (e.g. dollies, gimbals, steadicams) can help, but I'll only be focusing on in-camera stabilization. In essence, there are four different stabilization scenarios you can choose from: No stabilizationStandard stabilizationActive stabilizationStabilization in post processingNo stabilization is self-explanatory. Turn in-camera stabilization off (Menu > Shooting > Image Stabilization > SteadyShot > Off), and what you see is what you get. Standard stabilization (Menu > Shooting > Image Stabilization > SteadyShot > Standard) uses in-camera mechanical stabilization to stabilize your footage. In other words, your footage is not cropped in this mode. Take a look at the example below: I mounted two A1's side-by-side on a cheese plate and tried to hold it steady while walking. The left frame has stabilization turned off. The right is set to Standard. Standard stabilization smooths out jerky movement and yields a slightly better result than no stabilization, but if the camera movement is shaky to begin with, this isn’t a cure-all. The next option is Active stabilization. In this mode, the camera processes movement in real time and modifies the footage before saving the video file. This results in a slight cropping of the video: Footage taken with the same cheese plate setup. No stabilization on the left. Active stabilization on the right. In this example, active stabilization yielded a more stable result than no stabilization. However, this is not always the case. For example, if you hard mount the camera to a car, Active stabilization is shakier than no stabilization at all. When set to Active stabilization, the camera has to estimate in real time where, when, and how quickly it's going to move, and obviously it cannot predict the future. On top of that, the fact that the original video data is lost means you're stuck with what it gives you. Personally, I would never use this mode. The last option is using software to stabilize the footage after you've shot it. The great thing about current Sony cameras is that they record gyroscopic metadata into each video file (Or at least the A1, A7sIII, and FX-9 do. I haven't tested others). Turn stabilization off, shoot, and then bring the footage into Sony's Catalyst Browse software, where it can use the gyroscope data to stabilize the image. This produces the best result. You probably figured this out already, but no stabilization is on the left, while the footage processed in Catalyst Browse is on the right. Hard to believe it's the same video file! The downside with this method is the additional post processing involved in your production pipeline. Additionally, the stabilization algorithm in Catalyst Browse is extremely inefficient and takes an inordinate amount of time to render stabilized clips. I found another piece of software, Gyroflow, that has the same functionality and only takes 2 minutes to render a clip that takes Catalyst Browse an hour (Not exaggerating. Catalyst Browse is terribly slow). The downside of Gyroflow is that it's much more complicated to use than Catalyst Browse and requires a lot of time and patience to fine tune the settings. If you have any in-camera stabilization tricks of your own, please share them in the comments!

ProGrade card readers seem to be a popular choice for cost-conscious filmmakers, but are they worthy of their ProGrade moniker? Or is “ConsumerGrade” a more appropriate title? Recently a colleague of mine recounted a story about his ProGrade card reader taking an unreasonably long time to transfer data once it got hot, so I thought I’d put together a little test to ascertain the validity of his claims. The ProGrade reader at my disposal. This particular model (PGRWCFXTASDANA) can read both CFexpress Type A and SD cards. My initial predictions were that the Sony card reader would outperform the ProGrade one. After all, if you’re paying twice as much for something, it better be worth the extra cost! The Sony MRW-G2, also capable of reading CFexpress Type A and SD cards. Simply holding the two card readers in your hand, you get the sense that the Sony card reader is solidly built. On the other hand, the ProGrade reader is made of flimsy plastic that creaks when you squeeze it. I did 3 back-to-back transfers with each card reader using the same 160GB Sony CFexpress Type A card (holding 154 GB of video files) and the same USB-C to USB-C cable on the same MacBook Pro. Between the two sets of tests, I waited 15 minutes to let the CFexpress card cool down. Here are the test results: Test 1 2 3 Sony 3:12 3:15 3:42 Prograde 2:57 4:01 5:46 I was initially shocked that the ProGrade was quicker on the first pass-through. However, the Sony was more consistent on subsequent transfers, whereas the ProGrade transfer times increased substantially as it got hotter. So perhaps if you’re on a tight budget and you know your card reader will be used sparingly, the ProGrade could be a better option. But I think it’s also relevant to recount my most notable experience with a ProGrade card reader: This past year, I was working as a DIT on a television pilot in a remote area. The FX-9 kit we rented came with a ProGrade card reader that died halfway through the second day. Needless to say, it was extremely stressful—the camera crew had to ration cards while continuing to shoot as the producers scrambled to find a replacement card reader with no stores anywhere close to us. And while every manufacturer occasionally produces a lemon, I think my anecdote combined with the above test data clearly demonstrates the difference in quality. With something as important as your data, your footage, basically the end product of all the money spent on the project you’re working on, is saving $60 on a card reader worth the risk?

This is a great tip. Thanks Doug!

AirTags are great way to keep you from losing your own things, but I'm not sure how well they'd work as a theft deterrent. Apple notifies you via a pop up on your iPhone whenever there's an AirTag nearby. So therefore, if I stole something and I kept getting an AirTag pop up, I would know that there is an AirTag on the stolen goods and that I'd have to find it and remove it in order to keep from getting caught.

Every once in a while, while scrolling through Reddit, I come across some filmmaking-related post that reads something like "what's a good cinema camera I can get for less than $300?" The people posting these could not be more distant from reality, but I feel like there are beginners, maybe in their first year of film school, who need a good, inexpensive first camera. And that's where I wonder if the original a7s could still be relevant in today’s world. A quick search on eBay returned no shortage of a7s' for sale, with the average asking price being around $800. It's a far cry from a couple hundred bucks, but it's less than the $1,000+ asking price of the ancient Sony XDCAM PDW-F350 I wrote about two weeks ago, and it produces much superior images. I took some shots with a color chart to compare the a7s vs the newer a7sIII, and I must say, there's little difference between them, even as you get up in the higher ISO range. Image quality is great, considering it’s a 10 year old camera. Noise comparison test Really, the three biggest things holding the a7s back are (1) its resolution, (2) its ISO range limitations, and (3) its battery. The a7s can only record HD footage internally. In a world where people talk of 12K, HD is obsolete. But let’s be honest, your first few films aren’t going to win you any Oscars. HD will be fine while you learn. And if you’re really itching for more pixels, you can record 4K video with an external recorder. At a glance, it seems the a7s offers you a wide range of ISO values to choose from, but when you switch the color profile to SLog2, you’re suddenly unable to go below ISO 3200. And while the a7s isn’t that noisy at ISO 3200, you will need to compensate for the boost in exposure: on a sunny day, you will either need a lot of ND, or if you’re a broke film student and can’t afford an ND filter, you will have to significantly up your shutter speed or close down your aperture, both of which will make your footage look less cinematic. Lastly, the a7s has a tiny battery compared to the NP-FZ100 batteries in Sony’s current mirrorless lineup. With the a7s powered up (not doing playback, not recording, just turned on), the battery lasts for only about an hour. For comparison, the a7sIII battery lasts about 3.5 hours with the camera sitting idle. And when you’re actually shooting video, the batteries will burn up much more quickly. Fortunately however, because the a7s NP-FW50 batteries are now old, you can pick them up used for almost nothing. So just get a bunch. All in all, I think the a7s is a great piece of kit to make your first few films on. I'll say it before @DougJensen does: if you can afford a real cinema camera, then by all means buy one. But when you can't afford one and you need the best quality at the lowest price, it’s certainly not a bad choice.

Yesterday I prepped two Venice 2's for an upcoming shoot. We needed to record proxy footage, but to my knowledge, the Venice 2 does not have that capability internally. We decided to use Atomos monitors, as they double as a video recorder that could give us our proxy. The problem was that we needed not only video, but video with timecode, and we only wanted to record when the camera was recording. Our model of Atomos only had an HDMI input. And as I found by digging through the Venice 2 user manual, there is no way to send timecode through the HDMI out. But as it turns out, not all the SDI ports do either. So it became a game of trial and error, testing each SDI port to see which would give us what we wanted. Turns out, you can only get timecode and rec trigger from SDI out 1&2. Anyways, this may all seem obvious, but when you're trying to figure it out under time pressure, it's not super clear. At the time I couldn't find anything on Google, so I wanted to make this post for others who are facing the same issue. TL;DR the Venice 2 cannot simultaneously record proxies, and if you need to output a video signal from the Venice 2 with both timecode and rec trigger, you must use SDI outputs 1&2.

The Sony XDCAM PDW-F350 I found this camera in a dusty old bag, buried under the bottom shelf of a camera room in the studio I work at. "Wow look at this relic!" I thought. "It would be fun to break it out and see what it can do." And that’s exactly what I did. But before exhuming it from its dusty tomb, I was eager to dig up some history on this vestigial video veteran. Delving into the depths of the web, I found that the Sony XDCAM PDW-F350 was released in 2006 under Sony's top-of-the-line CineAlta brand. It was a 3-CCD camcorder that could record MPEG HD video at 35 Mbps with 4 audio channels. It featured 3 built-in ND filters and the ability to record in slow- and quick-motion. Sony also released the HDCAM HDW-F900R around the same time, also under the CineAlta moniker—the main difference between these two cameras being the recording medium—the HDCAM used digital tape while the XDCAM used optical discs. Shockingly, you can still buy these new! The XDCAM disc is essentially a professional-grade version of the consumer-oriented Blu-ray Disc—both use a blue laser, but the XDCAM discs have higher data transfer rates, at a higher monetary cost. Being able to record on a rewritable disc is pretty neat! It's also much more efficient than digital tape—if you shoot an hour's worth of video on tape, you'd have to play it back in real-time and thus spend an hour transferring the footage. Also, to watch playback after a shot, you have to rewind the tape, which eats up precious time. But despite tape's inferiority, I found multiple films that were shot with the tape-laden HDCAM, but couldn't find any that used the forward-thinking XDCAM. I'm not sure whether that's due to Hollywood being stuck in its ways or if the HDCAM actually produced a superior image (or had some other tangible advantage). Despite the disc system being better than tape, it isn't perfect: the eject button only works when the camera is on. And you might say, "Who cares? The XDCAM only takes three seconds to boot up!" Yes, that's true, but if you run out of batteries, it might present a problem. Only ejects when powered on Another issue with this camera is the menu operation—I could not, to save my own life, figure out how to access it. Fortunately, the multitude of buttons and switches on the camera body allow you to make most adjustments without having to open the menu. But my curiousity was piqued, so I dove into the user manual in search of the secret method to unlock the menu. Turns out it's a three-step process: First, you must press the display button on the monitor until it shows the “char display” (whatever that means), then hold down the menu knob on the front of the camera, and finally flip a switch on the side of the camera to open the menu. Jeez! I'm surprised they didn't make you enter a secret code as well. Anyways, despite reading and rereading the steps in the instruction booklet, I still couldn’t get the menu to open. Maybe one of the buttons is broken. Who knows? Menu or no menu, I was determined to record some test footage, but I couldn't find any XDCAM discs at our studio. My workaround solution was to run the SDI out through an SDI-to-HDMI converter and into an HDMI capture card on my computer. Lots of dead pixels Recording media wasn't the only thing I couldn't locate—the XDCAM’s lens was nowhere to be found. The camera uses a ½" bayonet-type mount, which is seemingly uncommon. From what I gather, most of Sony’s professional camcorders used a ⅔” bayonet-type mount, which is incompatible with this camera. The other downside with this ½" bayonet mount is that there are no adapters (or at least I couldn't find any) that would allow you to use a PL-mount lens on this camera (a hindrance for cinema work). I was able to capture some hazy images by holding a 20mm EF-mount lens in front of the sensor, but since the lens and camera weren’t designed for each other, it ended up looking like blurry old Super8 footage. All in all, a fairly unscientific test. Dreamy Feeling unsatisfied with this result, I harnessed the power of Google to find some proper test footage of this camera. Keep in mind that these stills have been compressed twice—once by YouTube and then again by this website on upload. Aesthetic imagery or digital misery? The image on the left looks great, even by today's standards. The image on the right, however, blows out the highlights in a style instantly recognizable as early 00's digital video. (Although, that could be the look you're going for. After all, early 00's fashion seems to be "in" right now). I wish I had the right lens to experiment more with this camera. Weighing in at 8 lbs 7 oz (body only), it's lighter than even the original Venice (which is lighter than the current Venice 2). And with its integrated shoulder mount, it would be super portable for documentary/run-and-gun shoots. Unfortunately however, if you felt the calling to add this camera to your collection, you'd have to put down a hefty $1,500 (not including shipping) to purchase one of these puppies on eBay. And at that point, you're entering treacherous territory, as most sellers don't test vintage cameras, but instead mark them as "not working", regardless of their condition, to avoid any kind of disputes from disgruntled buyers. Purchasing one of these is placing a $1500 bet that your new camera isn't actually a Sony-branded paperweight. Part of the appeal of older cameras is their low-entry cost, and while $1500 is much lower than the MSRP on a new Venice 2, I'd like to limit my spending to a few hundred dollars on something that has little-to-no practical use today. The XDCAM PDW-F350 was a unique stepping stone in Sony's cinema history, but it lost the popularity contest to its HDCAM brother, and so it remains an obscure piece of technology from the dawn of the digital age. Did anyone use one of these in its heyday? If so, what was your experience like?

I can't speak to your exact camera, but I know on my a7sIII it is best to turn in-camera stabilization off. The camera records gyroscopic information during the take, and you can fine tune the stabilization afterwards in Sony's Catalyst Browse software. Otherwise, if the camera is stabilizing during recording, it's processing the video, and therefore, you are losing information that you can't get back. As for the shakiness, if playing with the stabilization doesn't fix it, it's really a game of trial and error. Try finding out which element is causing the most shake and adjust accordingly. One thing that sticks out to me is that you have a really tall setup sitting underneath a single suction cup. That seems pretty unstable. I would suggest 4 suction cups, one at each corner of the vibration isolator.

As someone who's passionate about vintage cameras and has always been seeking the “analog look“, I find it unfortunate that there’s so little information online about cameras made before the era of YouTube and message boards. So I thought I’d make a few posts over the coming weeks about some older Sony cameras I have access to, to help spread the knowledge for other vintage camera aficionados. The Handycam brand refers to Sony's line of small, handheld consumer camcorders. The first Handycam (the CCD-M8E) debuted in 1985, and the first of the TR series (the CCD-TR55) came in 1989. The particular Handycam I'm writing about fell on the lower end of the 1995 Handycam range, which starts with the TR44, increases by increments of 10, and ends with the TR94. The desirable features exclusive to the higher-end models were a color viewfinder (versus B&W) and a SteadyShot function. But otherwise, they're all fairly similar and simple. So regardless of which model you chose, it was extremely easy to operate. Even your 90-year old grandmother could pick one up and use it without reading the instructions. Simply turn it on, press record, and you're off to the races! The record button is big, red, and hard to miss! It's right next to your thumb for easy access, and you can lock it to prevent an accidental press. There are a few settings you can change, but I'm guessing most people never touched them. There's a "BACK LIGHT" button that bumps up the exposure. This is useful for when you're taking the typical tourist photo with the sun in the background and you don't want the faces of your family to be underexposed. There's no manual exposure—just four AE (auto exposure) modes. The Program AE dial has four modes: AUTO, Sports, High-speed shutter, and Twilight These change the shutter speed to compensate for motion, or in the case of Twilight mode, low light. You still have no control over the overall exposure, so again, most users probably just left it on AUTO mode. Anyways, who really cares about all the settings on a 27 year old consumer camcorder? I know the burning question on everyone's mind is "what does the footage look like?!" Left: Sony a1 with a $40,000 cinema lens / Right: Sony Handycam Video8 CCD-TR54 Here you go. As you can see, the dynamic range is quite limited (as is the case with all consumer camcorders of this vintage). The purple diamond lens flare is pretty cool though! For both of these shots, it would have been nice if there was a "darken" button to drop the exposure. I mean, they gave us a "BACK LIGHT" button to brighten the shot, I feel like it wouldn't have been difficult to add a second button that did the opposite. Another consideration: the above Handycam stills were taken straight from the camera's video out via a capture card. However, if you record to 8mm tape like you're supposed to, the image quality differs. Left: taken from 8mm tape playback / Right: taken from live camera feed You'll notice in the top two photos that the transfer to tape degraded the image slightly. If you look at the softbox in the top right corner, you can see the edge isn't as sharp on the left photo. Also, if you look at the left edge of the car, you'll see some color bleed in the left photo. Shockingly, the 8mm tape seems to have retained more dynamic range in the bottom photos of the trees. So besides making another Blair Witch Project, what would this camera be useful for nowadays? I've mostly used it to make cool analog visuals. I created the above with a feedback loop: I ran the Handycam video out through a circuit-bent video processor and into the TV, which was facing the Handycam. Stills from other videos I've taken with this camcorder It's also great for shooting stuff I would've otherwise taken with my iPhone. The iPhone camera is terrible. The colors are awful and Apple puts a sharpening filter on every photo you take, and you can't turn it off. Since I appreciate the vintage look, I think this camcorder looks better. It's just fun to use a camcorder. This Handycam was my family's home movie camera when I was growing up, and I have such fond memories of the countless hours my brother and I spent making our own silly movies with it. When my mom passed away, I was so thankful to have our family tape collection where we could watch her and remember what she was like. People don't record 30 minute videos on their phone cameras. By using a camcorder at a family event, you're creating a slice of life archive that you can look back at 10, 20, 30 years down the road. Call me old-fashioned, call me crazy, but I love this little camera, and I believe there's still a place for camcorders in the modern world.