FS7: So what IS the OMB ENG solution..

(Hotel room)

Recent example. My cohort did a 30 odd hotel night job last quarter and a second body would have ramped the end cost to client considerably.
 
icarusfilm said:
actually it goes down like this:
you arrive at the location. You start looking at the space thinking about lighting, the Soundguy comes in takes one of your stands (they can't actually get their own) sets up the boom grabs a chair then gets on Facebook, while you are trying to light around the sitting soundman his boom and your stand the producer comes in "where do I sit?" pulls up the chair you set up for the interviewee starts looking at Linkedin.

Yes a good AC is what you want.


nj
Click to expand...

God... Maybe my sound guys are actually gaffers and AC's in disguise! My #1 audio guy, his "audio value" to me is really #2 or #3 on the list(even lower if you put great friend at #1). He's honestly a gaffer and cameraman above all else. Probably one of the most valuable talents at the level/market we play in our market. We're very lucky in my circle that we have several "audio guys" that are great at lighting. We have some that are what you'd consider "dedicated" audio guys: you'll never or rarely see them lifting a light; and we have some that are happier lighting.
 
I have 2 great soundmen I've shot around the globe with in the most adverse conditions and they are amazing. But if I can't get them I'd rather have a good PA.
 
This thread has utterly deteriorated and should be laid to rest but I can't let my friends be smeared like this. You guys should move to the Bay Area . I don't know a single sound guy who doesn't bring his own stand for the boom and most can't wait to help you light. Some will even bring a couple of lights if you ask and most can jump n and shoot a second camera if needed. My favorite guy used to be a key grip and a prop master in former lives and he can do anything. Once when I was gaffing he rigged 4 chicken coops for me before getting around 8 radio mics on a set.
Actually once I met a guy who didn't want to set up my monitor because he was "sound" only. Never saw that fool again .
 
Any thoughts on the concept of an assistant is better than a $20k zoom?

Seriously I think it is worth a think, as maybe this is how the newbs do it, 2 cams, second run by a cheap assistant.

16-35 70-200 no problem
 
Working completely by yourself is extremely draining and stressful. Its alway frustrating because have to schlepp things around and constantly compromise.
I travel a lot for doc work and sometimes there isn't a budget to fly a sound-guy or an AC. I always get a local PA with a car, they are very hardworking people who are starting out know their way around the area you are shooting in they can pull that extra bag and tripod hold that reflector figure out a good place to shoot that sunset.
Usually they are found smart and interested in getting experience and I prefer to work with them than the soundie who commandeers my stands. I have been working all over the US and around the world in that fashion for over 15 years ( I don't drive) and I have never had a negative experience.

I usually find them on productionhub.com

morgan_moore said:
Any thoughts on the concept of an assistant is better than a $20k zoom?

Seriously I think it is worth a think, as maybe this is how the newbs do it, 2 cams, second run by a cheap assistant.

16-35 70-200 no problem
Click to expand...
 
morgan_moore said:
Any thoughts on the concept of an assistant is better than a $20k zoom?

Seriously I think it is worth a think, as maybe this is how the newbs do it, 2 cams, second run by a cheap assistant.

16-35 70-200 no problem
Click to expand...

Depends on your work. I trained my nephew and he was my assistant and did 2nd cam role. I preferred having second angle over one really good angle. I also have a knackered back which also meant 4 arms were better than 2.

At the beginning he wasn't thinking for himself or thinking what I needed and required telling what to do which doubled the mental effort for me. But an assistant is also an investment like a lens and the more you teach the more you eventually get back. So in the end two heads became better than one and we'd rip through jobs together or alternatively, I could then have confidence to send him out alone while I did the post production on a previous job.
 
Just had literally 2 mins to do a 'side to side' of my nikkor 28-85 and booster vs the cheapo sony 18-105

slog3, lenses wide open, lut applied

the wide.. litereally looks like it was on sticks on the IS lens!

the nikkor has more feel, and at least a stop more Tstop (it should it is 3.5boosted)

 
Last edited:
Morgen, the video description shows Sony 18-110, Vimeo heading shows Sony 18-105.
Whats right ?

klfi
 
update, you can only see it when you refresh chrome on you post #295. When you start the video, it disappears
 
So a mini review of the sony 18-105 vis nikkor 28-85 with booster. The nikkor is very well bashed about and is probably 25 years old.

Clearly the nikkor is at least a stop brighter this could be important if filming in unlit environments.

The Sony offers minimal extra width and quite significant extra length. Appealing.

This IS on the sony is useful for holding a lockoff at the wide end but quite disconcerting at the long end, as small framing readjustments have huge drag then jump feel to them robbing the shot of any humanity.

The zoom on the sony goes on for ever, the nikkor has a hard stop.

The focus on the nikon is clear and positive, due to the floppy focus on the sony and underexposed image I actually had no clue if I had aquired focus.

The Nikkor is clearly a bit soft or abberated at the long end, possibly the unshimmed booster makes it focus past infinity. The sony is sharp at the wide end.

Adjusting the iris on the side of the camera (sony lens) is a torrid activity. And most unresponsive.

--

Conclusion. It would be interesting to see the sony 110 vs the sony 105, and see if the T(ransmission value) is the same, the little sony felt quite dark.

The extra reach of 100mm over 50 (odd) is appealing.

The slushy ergonomics of this lens make it most unpleasant.

I would therefore suggest that the appeal of extra reach, better focus, on lens iris, that it is worth me test driving the sony 110 lens, I will not buy this 105 version as it is not a significant upgrade to my 28
 
To be a legit zoom for ENG a zoom must be par-focal and, most importantly, be a servo zoom, imo. That puts the Nikkor out of the running. An ENG zoom also needs to be 20mm or wider. That knocks out the Sony 28-125mm. ( no tears shed there. )


There are the five main contenders for s35 ENG zoom. ( arguably the only contenders ) In order of cost from low to high:

* Sony 18-110mm

* Canon 18-80mm

* Fuji 20-120mm

* Canon 17-120mm

* Fuji Cabrio 19-90mm


___________

The zooms above can be grouped into low budget, medium budget, and high budget. The Canon 18-80mm is lacking for reach at only 80mm, so for me that leaves only the Sony 18-110mm in the budget category. If one requires or merely wants a zoom faster than f/4, both budget lenses are out of the running. But speed is less of a necessity in ENG than in other areas of production such as doc work, narrative, or commercial.

At roughly $13k the Fuji 20-120mm is the lone medium budget ENG zoom. Its only significant shortcoming is that it isn't short enough. That is, 20mm on the short end of the range is a bit narrow for an ENG zoom. One could quibble about the T3.5 top speed, but we are talking ENG work. Cranking the ISO is more tolerable in ENG and "scenes" in ENG are likely to naturally well-lit or lit by the Cam Op. The more shallow DoF of faster glass isn't a priority for ENG.

In the high budget category are the Canon 17-120mm and the Fuji Cab 19-90mm. A long end of only 90mm is a bit lacking but that deficit is offset a bit by the fact that the Fuji is physically shorter than the Canon 17-120mm and thus not as unwieldy.


________

If we put aside cost, the winner for Best ENG Zoom for s35 Cameras is....<drumroll>....the Canon 17-120mm.

Inarguably the winner. Yes, it is comparatively heavy and front heavy at that. Yes, it is big. But ENG camera / lens combos were always heavy-ish and biggish. That's kinda the nature of ENG. It's a big-boy game, ENG.

Any further ruminating is under the umbrella of "what if I can't afford the best zoom that there is for ENG?". And that is where I am at. Stuck between the more affordable Sony 18-110mm that doesn't thrill me in any way and the more desirable Fuji 20-120mm that is also roughly 4x the cost of the Sony 18-110mm. But the Fuji is more of a "real" ENG lens.


fyi- as of yesterday there was a Canon 17-120mm for sale for $19k on RedUser. With time ( and age ) these Canons are coming down in pre-owned price. When the price of a pre-owned Canon 17-120mm moves closer to the cost of a new Fuji 20-120mm, the decision as to which to buy becomes more brain-racking. The price difference is reduced to around a $5k difference. Which is only like half a good tripod cost. :smile:

With the Canon 17-120mm one could conceivably do every type of video production. ENG, Reality TV, documentary, Sports, Live event, Commercials, & Narrative. Even Nature / Wildlife shooting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top