Messages

I'm shooting with a Canon 5D Mark II.  I'm building a little shoulder brace rig so I can mount some stuff and have some stabilization.  I'm considering purchasing a small field monitor.  I had heard something about there being an issue with how the 5D Mark II displays video on a field monitor.  Something about the newer 5D Mark III having resolved this issue.   I don't totally understand what the issue is.  Does it have anything to do with a feature called "DSLR Scaling" that some field monitors seem to have?

Also, if you use a field monitor with Magic Lantern, will it show the same Magic Lantern-related visuals being displayed on the little LCD screen?... such as the focus peaking and histograms, etc? 

Would really appreciate some advice on which field monitor to go with that is best suited for the 5D MArk II and Magic Lantern.  Thanks in advance for any help!

Good to know about the NTG2 - Zoom H4N combo.  Do you personally used a Juicdedlink with your mic then?  Which model do you recommend?

Btw I'm not familiar with the Tascam DR-100mkII... how does it compare to the Zoom H4N?  Does it perform better with the NTG-2?

I think I answered my own question by reading this article:  http://nofilmschool.com/2012/04/audio-recorder-roundup-h4n-zoom-vs-tascam/

They weren't using the Rode, but the same princples apply... I listened to audio from all three tested recorders and they all sound about the same.  The key part of the article was this:

"The biggest difference between the three units was how high I had to set the input level to achieve similar recording levels. I consistently had to set the H4n higher than either of the other two recorders. In the outside test, at the same mic distance, the H4n's input level/record level was set at 83 (of 100), while the the DR-40 was at 70 (of 100), and the DR-100mkII was at a cool 4 (out of 10 scale). In the indoor test, I had to pretty much max out the H4n's input level, while the DR-40 was still in the 90 range, and the DR-100mkII was at a 5."

Good to know.   

I have the Rode NTG-2. To get proper level from that mic, you need a (good) pre-amp. This is the purpose of JuicedLink.

Simply, the on-camera preamp is not powerful enough to bring up decent levels from NTG-2.

BTW, of you mind about external recorder, lot of people report low audio levels with combo NTG2 - ZOOM H4N (i.e. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?223640-H4n-NTG2-Dissappointment-So-Far), probably due the not-so-strong pre-amps of the ZOOM. I planned to skip the H4N and buy a Tascam DR-100mkII instead..
Right now I'm using a mixer, but isn't a comfortable solution..

Cheers

Good to know about the NTG2 - Zoom H4N combo.  Do you personally used a Juicdedlink with your mic then?  Which model do you recommend?

Btw I'm not familiar with the Tascam DR-100mkII... how does it compare to the Zoom H4N?  Does it perform better with the NTG-2?

Not quite familiar with the NTG2, but according to its specs you can power it either through batteries or through phantom power. Are you using batteries?

Yes there's a single AA battery in there. 

So I guess because I like taking shortcuts, I bought a Rode NTG-2 Shotgun mic kit off B&H:  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/747422-REG/Rode_NTG_2_Shotgun_Microphone_HDSLR.html  ... It comes with an XLR to 3.5mm adapter that I'm using to just directly connect the mic into my Mark II's 'Mic" port. 

Crazy, I know.  I had seen some videos mentioning using some kind of "JuicedLink" device, but I wasn't totally catching the purpose of the device.  Additionally, the model that was being recommended (CX231) is apparently discontinued on B&H so I figured I'd just buy that mic kit now and if I had trouble I'd worry about it later.

Yesterday I finally got a chance to test it out.  The first I noticed was that the audio was VERY faint.  I wasn't really sure what settings in Magic Lantern I should try tweaking to resolve this.   

In order to have the audio at an appropriate level on the audio meters, I currently have the following settings:

Analog Gain:  32DB
L-DigitalGain:  12DB
R-DigitalGain:  12DB
Input Source:  Auto INT/ext (sounds identical if I just select "External Stereo" here)
AGC: Off

That allowed me to hear the mic at a proper level, but it definitely seemed to be introducing a lot of audio noise.  Is that the purpose of the JuicedLink?   

Also, I tried connecting a Sennheiser wireless lavalier mic (it naturally has a 3.5mm output), and it was naturally much louder than the Rode shotgun.  In other words, I didn't need to crank the Gain nearly as high in order for it to be registering at a appropriate level on the audio meters. 

So am I missing something in the settings?  Is that just the way it is... and the purpose of the Juicedlink?    If so, what model of the juicedlink do you recommend (since that model I tried to find was discontinued)... or do you just suggest I use a separate recorder like the Zoom H4N and sync the audio later?

Note:  I should also mention that I'm using this little Sescom adapter to plug my headphones directly into the A/V port and I'm having no trouble monitoring audio:  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749719-REG/Sescom_DSLR_5DMKII_HOCF_Canon_5D_MkII_A_V.html

Yeah I think I get what dude is saying to a certain extent.  If I was a cameraman working with a director who wanted a very specific look, I'd probably want to achieve that look first (using one of the contrasty picture styles), expose accordingly, make sure the director was pleased with it... and then switch over to a flat style.

But I think I'm leaning towards what Francis says here.  I'm a one man production team.  Anything I work on will be shot by me and edited by me.  Maybe it's a terrible habit to get use to this process, but I think what I'd probably do is just set to a flat style and expose so that I wasn't losing anything in my whites.   At least personally, I don't mind not seeing the "final result" on the LCD.  I just want to make sure I'm getting as much detail as possible and then I can easily tweak it later.  If I drop the shadows a bit and introduce black additional black, it's not going to hurt the image much... but if I start out with crushed blacks, I'm not getting those back.  It seems I'd want to just make sure my highlights weren't peaking (using the mentioned zebras, histogram and waveform).

I appreciate all of the information even if some of the opinions conflict.  I'm getting a better understanding of what I'm doing.

Thanks for the tip about sharpening.  In that test clip I shared, I hadn't sharpened at all.  I use Final Cut X... this is a really stupid question, but since Cinestyle has me drop sharpening -4, does that mean I should add the "Sharpen" effect in Final Cut with an amount of 4.0?  Would that bring back the amount of sharpening I lost or is it a different type of scale? 

So I've been playing a little with FPS override and It's actually pretty darn cool, imo.  It seems like a much easier method of taking timelapse video... the alternative I guess would be to use an intervalometer (or Magic Lantern's onboard option) to take a photo every X seconds, but that would probably wear down the shutter.

I have a couple questions, though.

Theoretically, if I set the FPS to .25 FPS, wouldn't that be the equivalent of taking a photo every 4 seconds? ... .50 FPS being the equivalent of taking a photo every 2 seconds.  1FPS the equivalent of taking a photo every second? 

I noticed that the shutter speed is automatically set based on what Framerate.  I assume this relates to the 180 degree shutter rule... so in other words 1FPS would set the shutter speed to 1/2?  Am I correct in that assumption?

This morning I pointed the camera out my office window (our windows were dirty.. I was just doing a test) and set the FPS Override to 1FPS.  I think because of the shutter it set, it understandably caused everything to be extremely bright.  Even with my aperture closed to f/22 and the ISO set to 100, I was still a bit overexposed and peaking in the clouds.  A FPS slower than that and I probably would have been entirely blown out.   I left it shooting for 16 minutes... which gave me a 40 second clip.  I then sped that clip up 400% (giving me a 10 second clip).  That should be about even to taking a picture every 4 seconds:  http://youtu.be/NlWrC0fCUZc

It doesn't look too bad to me.  I think I should get some creative use out of it for various B-Roll in the corporate videos I'm doing.  Am I right to assume that on a bright day using a very slow framerates (like .20FPS), I'd probably need some kind of ND filter to make up for how bright the low shutter makes everything?  I didn't tweak any of the default settings.  Anyone have any pointers on tweaking those default settings?  Im interesting in doing another test tonight in low light... I imagine it works great in low light, because of the very slow shutters.

Also, I think it had set to "Optimize for:  Exact FPS"... I'm don't know what "high/low Jello" means and which of those settings I should be selecting.  Can anyone clarify?

Last question... I'm next thinking about playing with the Magic Lantern "HDR Video" function... has anyone had success shooting footage using both HDR Video + FPS Override to create an HDR Timelapse?  I"m using Final Cut X, and I believe someone has created a generator plugin for using ML HDR footage that I plan on testing out.  Curious if anyone has tried shooting with both of those options on.

Thank you Francis.  It most certainly is a lot to take in and unfortunately I'm self-taught in everything I do.  Every once in a while I feel like I'm missing details.   I appreciate the information.   

I'm pretty new to a lot of this stuff and unfortunately there are certain things that are still slightly confusing to me.  I'm doing my best to learn this stuff with the available resources, but I could really use some help understanding some concepts.

I'm using a Canon 5D Mark II.  I have ML firmware installed.  I am using the cinestyle picture profile.  I'm editing with Final Cut X.   

#1 - LUT:  I'm still having a little trouble understanding the purpose of a LUT... not to mention, the LUT doesn't seem to be available to download on Technicolor's website anymore and LUT Buddy doesn't seem compatible with Final Cut X.   With Mark II/Cinestyle footage (and all footage, really), I can color correct directly in Final Cut X.  I typically just use the histogram and waveform monitors and then just raise my highlights so they are just below 100 and drop my shadows so they are just above 0.  I increase the saturation a little.    Why would I need to use LUT Buddy and a LUT? What is it doing that my color correction process isn't covering?  Doesn't it just add a curve (which i'm doing manually by modifying highlights/shadows?)

#2 -  I've read some people mention their workflow includes complicated process of converting footage from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 color space.  I'm a novice when it comes to this.  What is that doing and why is it necessary?  At the moment I'm just capturing video with the Mark II, importing the files directly into FInal Cut X, manually color correcting ... and that's it.  What's the purpose of this 4:2:0->4:2:2 conversion process... and if it's necessary how should I go about doing that?

#3 -  When actually capturing footage with Cinestyle, I've read a couple mentions of overexposing/underexposing intentionally specifically in regards to using Magic Lantern.   I couldn't get a firm grasp on what people are talking about.  When I'm capturing footage with Cinestyle/Magic Lantern I'm usually just looking at the ML histogram and waveform.  ON the waveform I make sure I'm just below the top line.  On the histogram, I'm making sure I'm just to the left of the right edge.   Do you mean to say that I should have the waveform peak a bit over the top line and on the histogram I should be slightly to the right?  Why is that?  Does cinestyle mess with the way exposure is read on those meters?   

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.  Apologies in advance for my noobish ignorance.   

I should mention that I'm completely new to DSLR in general.  I barely have any idea what the hell I'm doing.  I took some test clips the other day in a dimly lit birthday party.   I was using the stock 24-105mm lens... I had the cinestyle profile selected (which gave all my clips a very flat grey haze).  Then I just imported those clips directly into Final Cut X, raised the highlights, dropped the shadows, increased the saturation a bit and exported it out.  I'm wondering what steps I'm missing.  Here's the result of that exercise:  https://vimeo.com/55335045