Versatile setup?

[djembeplay]

Hey guys... whaaatts goooiiin oooon.

I have been researching quite a bit lately about what accessories I would like to get with an HVX.

My style of shooting is varied... but a large portion of it is in nature videography. This means... long hikes, mountains, snow, mud, cramped spaces for transport, etc.

So... I would like to hear your opinions on what you think would be some necessary accessories. I mean, I have pretty much ruled out any sort of lens adapter, since they are huge and impractical for my needs (correct me if you think otherwise). I also dont care for the idea of a follow focus or an external monitor... These things would be more harmful that helpful for me. I like the viewfinder, personally, and dont mind if it will take a few more seconds and a little more eye strain to focus.

Uhhh... let me think... one thing that comes to mind is a Matte Box. I wouldn't use it for anything but the extra shade. How good is the stock lens shade at blocking light compared to a bigger shade? Is there a noticeable difference in contrast / image quality?

I am very concerned about image quality and 'crispness' as the type of shooting I do is largely aesthetic and not as character / plot motivated as a narrative. So, with an eye on staying versatile, I am also lenient towards including anything that may be essential to my video quality... A balance tailored to my needs if you will.

Also, what about a base plate like that zacuto, or however you spell it (heh, theres so much equipment, it is very overwhelming for a relatively new guy). Would this be beneficial or is it only for holding heavy loads?

Tripods I have researched quite a bit now. The Miller Solo legs sound light and quick. I am still not sure on the head. There are so many opinions flying everywhere is amazing. People are really into their sticks I guess... thats cool. Bogen 503, 516, 519, Sachler DV4, cartoni focus, or vinten vision 3 is what I gather to be good choices in my price range. Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any help guys.

 

[microbob]

First, you'll need to properly break in the HVX. Send it to me and I'll take care of that for you. It ain't easy, but I'm here to help :>)

Seriously, just go start shooting. You'll quickly figure out what all "extras" you'll need.

- decent bag to project the camera
- decent tripod
- extra battery or two

 

[ozduc]

I have spent a bit of time in the last 2 months in some pretty remote country. About a week or so of that was each day on a raft in white water rapids. Some of the time I was hiking over river rocks, up and down slippery banks and through forests.
In my Kata 207 back pack I carried, the HVX, the century optics .6 wide angel lens and 1.6 telephoto lens. A petrol rain cover or the HVX, 3 camera batteries, 8 x 8gb P2 cards, a vidled cool light and battery, polarizing filter and lens cleaners and cloths. I did not carry a tripod in this situation, however I would suggest the miller solo legs and the head of your choice. In my jacket pockets I carried a couple of Lectrosonics wireless receivers that I had plugged directly to the camera, via a custom made cable for the 2 people on camera, which I monitored with a set of sony headphones. Fortunately most of the days were sunny however there were a few days of snow, rain and mud. Temps ranged from 20-45 degrees. Most days were dawn to dusk and at the end of the day I would download the footage to a hard drives back at the cabin we stayed in.
For hiking, cramped space, mountains etc. you need to forget about Follow focus, mattebox, rails, external monitor, lens adapters, etc. Just get used to shooting with the camera as it is. I found it helpful to turn the color off on the view finder, turn the EVF detail on and use the view finder in B&W to focus, along with the focus assist. Then I would just open the LCD to check on the color temp occasionally. It is also helpful to get used to judging distance and set the focus measurement to feet.

 

[mikkowilson]

Make sure you have a "UV Protector" filter on your lens at ALL TIMES to protect your lens.
Buy the filter, put it on, and forget about it. You will remember it when it takes that scratch that would have otherwise cost you an expensive lens repair!

- Mikko

 

[djembeplay]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Ya, I was very careful to stick a UV on my DVX from day one. I tried to screw a polarizing filter in on top of that once... it didn't work out too well. Is daisy-chaining more that one filter at a time not something that is supposed to be done?

Ozduc - sounds like a crazy adventure you are on. Where are you?

With my DVX, I have a similar set-up as you described. I like it.

I dont have the telephoto or wide angle adapters though. They look a nice option, how do you like the quality? I think I am a bit confused as to why people don't just use these instead of those huge 35mm adaptors. What is the difference? Also, how would the stock lens-shade compare to an add-on? Will there be any noticeable difference in image quality (say, maybe increased contrast)?

Also, I was wondering what you thought of camera-mounted mics. Everyone always says that is going to be terrible sound, but I can't think of anything else practical. I mean, I am not going to bring a boom everywhere I go and set that up for every shot I want. I don't get it... I get great sound with my octava mounted with the stock DVX mic-holder. Plus, I will usually be just as close to the subject with it on my camera (if not closer) than if I had it on a separate boom and was trying to avoid getting it in my shot. I don't know, I just don't get a lot of things that are said here. Maybe you guys can enlighten me.

This is a bit off-topic, but why does it seem like so many people buy all those add-ons, when the camera has great quality as-is... and seems to be natively designed as a complete, high quality, professional camera that is also versatile and relatively small. I mean, it seems like with the add-ons it is strictly limited to very controlled studio work. I mean, am I missing something? For example, it seems like the only time you will need a follow focus is when you need to anticipate a set walking path of an actor in a studio. And it seems like the purpose of a 35mm adaptor is to have a little more DOF up close. But to do this you need an external monitor, and so it follows an external power source... And you are again limited to studio work. It seems like a huge sacrifice... from my subjective style of shooting that is. But the DOF of the stock lens is great when zoomed in... so you have the best of both worlds... a wide and a telephoto with the stock lens. All I can think is that people who do studio narrative work are in close-quarters a lot, so they can't get back far enough to zoom in for a shallow DOF while keeping in the frame a certain desired portion of the actor / subject with the stock lens... This, again, seems like only an issue for that particular type of shooting, but not for the shooting I would like to do.

Sorry, I am going on, I know. I am just trying to get ahold of the practicality of all of this equipment. It seems like there are a ton of 'gadget' terms thrown around rarely with a connection to their actual practical purpose. That seems much more... 'between the fine print'. I almost feel like I am in a Dr. Suess book... "I need a thneed! I need a thneed!"

Anyways, am I at least somewhat on target with what I was just talking about?

 

[hotchkiss]

I tried to screw a polarizing filter in on top of that once... it didn't work out too well. Is daisy-chaining more that one filter at a time not something that is supposed to be done?

No. Use one or the other.

I dont have the telephoto or wide angle adapters though. They look a nice option, how do you like the quality? I think I am a bit confused as to why people don't just use these instead of those huge 35mm adaptors.

Different animals all together. See below

What is the difference? Also, how would the stock lens-shade compare to an add-on? Will there be any noticeable difference in image quality (say, maybe increased contrast)?

Yes. The stock shade offers minimal shading compared to after market possibilities.

Also, I was wondering what you thought of camera-mounted mics. Everyone always says that is going to be terrible sound, but I can't think of anything else practical. I mean, I am not going to bring a boom everywhere I go and set that up for every shot I want. I don't get it... I get great sound with my octava mounted with the stock DVX mic-holder. Plus, I will usually be just as close to the subject with it on my camera (if not closer) than if I had it on a separate boom and was trying to avoid getting it in my shot.

While the Oktava is a great mic, it doesn't have much range. You may want to consider something with more throw. Also, make sure you have a super-duper windscreen given it's vulnerabilities to wind noise.

This is a bit off-topic, but why does it seem like so many people buy all those add-ons, when the camera has great quality as-is... and seems to be natively designed as a complete, high quality, professional camera that is also versatile and relatively small.

It's actually a prosumer camera with the corresponding liabilites and limitations. Many of these accessories are very purposeful and useful for more critical use of the camera. Use a truly professional camera and you'll understand the difference.

I mean, it seems like with the add-ons it is strictly limited to very controlled studio work. I mean, am I missing something? For example, it seems like the only time you will need a follow focus is when you need to anticipate a set walking path of an actor in a studio.

I have one and used it recently on a corporate gig. It allows focus adjustments to be made much more smoothly and easily. It improves the stock function of the camera substantially. I wouldn't use it every time, but it's a nice option.

And it seems like the purpose of a 35mm adaptor is to have a little more DOF up close.

No actually the opposite- it's for reducing DOF.

But to do this you need an external monitor, and so it follows an external power source... And you are again limited to studio work.

They are for shooting on location as well, maybe not the kind of shooting your'e doing however. While certainly more unwieldly than not using one, they are not limited to studio work only.

It seems like a huge sacrifice... from my subjective style of shooting that is. But the DOF of the stock lens is great when zoomed in... so you have the best of both worlds... a wide and a telephoto with the stock lens.

The telephoto on this lens is pretty limited, even compared to it's competitors in the same price range. That being said, I've tried the 1.6 telephoto extender and have found the marginal extended range not to be worth the aditional weight and hassle. YMMV

This, again, seems like only an issue for that particular type of shooting, but not for the shooting I would like to do.

That's the key, your setup has to work for you.

For your stated purposes, I'd suggest the following items:

•Polarizer
•Or, Aftermarket lens shade/mattebox. Much greater filtration flexibility.
•zoom controller
•Rain jacket

•Mic mount that removes the mic from the camera a bit. Or, fabricate a bracket from aluminum stock that places the stock holder away from the camera. It's a great way to customize mic placement.

Good luck

 

[ozduc]

Ozduc - sounds like a crazy adventure you are on. Where are you?

I am now back in Los Angeles but I was up in Northern California on the Smith River which is the last wild river in California.

I dont have the telephoto or wide angle adapters though. They look a nice option, how do you like the quality? I think I am a bit confused as to why people don't just use these instead of those huge 35mm adaptors. What is the difference? Also, how would the stock lens-shade compare to an add-on? Will there be any noticeable difference in image quality (say, maybe increased contrast)?

The .6 does tend to distort a little at full wide (fisheye effect). The 1.6 was great for a couple of long distance shots I needed to get from atop a gorge. It is not easy to use without a tripod when you are at full zoom though. As pointed out already, these are a completetely different animal to a 35mm adapter and lenses. Stock lens shade can not be used with either of these lenses. I think the only difference this would cause in picture quality is that without a shade you are more susceptible to lens flare. Nothing a piece of black foil wrap can't handle.

Also, I was wondering what you thought of camera-mounted mics. Everyone always says that is going to be terrible sound, but I can't think of anything else practical. I mean, I am not going to bring a boom everywhere I go and set that up for every shot I want. I don't get it... I get great sound with my octava mounted with the stock DVX mic-holder. Plus, I will usually be just as close to the subject with it on my camera (if not closer) than if I had it on a separate boom and was trying to avoid getting it in my shot. I don't know, I just don't get a lot of things that are said here. Maybe you guys can enlighten me.

I guess it depends on the situation. Having done sound for many years, I am always reluctant to mount a mic on top of a camera. You are limited to picking up sound ONLY from the direction the camera is pointed. On my river shoot I had to mic 2 people in the raft so I went with Lectrosonic MM400b transmiters which are water resistant. I got very clean, loud dialog on Ch's 1 & 2 and then from the stock on camera mic on Ch's 3 & 4, the sounds of the rapids can be dialed up and down in post to suit the mood. In this situation a shotgun mic would not have worked.

This is a bit off-topic, but why does it seem like so many people buy all those add-ons, when the camera has great quality as-is... and seems to be natively designed as a complete, high quality, professional camera that is also versatile and relatively small. I mean, it seems like with the add-ons it is strictly limited to very controlled studio work. I mean, am I missing something?

No you are not missing anything, that is the precise environment that all the add on will come in useful.

For example, it seems like the only time you will need a follow focus is when you need to anticipate a set walking path of an actor in a studio. But to do this you need an external monitor, and so it follows an external power source... And you are again limited to studio work. It seems like a huge sacrifice... from my subjective style of shooting that is.

In a studio or dramatic location shoot it would be a huge sacrifice NOT to have these add ons.

Sorry, I am going on, I know. I am just trying to get ahold of the practicality of all of this equipment. It seems like there are a ton of 'gadget' terms thrown around rarely with a connection to their actual practical purpose. That seems much more... 'between the fine print'. I almost feel like I am in a Dr. Suess book... "I need a thneed! I need a thneed!"

Anyways, am I at least somewhat on target with what I was just talking about?

Well I think the people throwing around these terms usually know what the item is used and needed for. I dont think there are too many people just going out and buying gear because it sounded like a cool item to have, then again I could be wrong.

 

[djembeplay]

Heh, I often accidentally say "more DOF" when referring to a shallower DOF... probably because a shallow DOF seems to be preferred (generally)... that and common language associating 'more' with 'better' I guess... (better in that a shallow DOF is a priority for a lot of shooters...).


So... what exactly are the pros / cons of a 35m adaptor? I actually dont exactly know how they work. I know that they are big, heavy, need rails, and can give a shallower DOF with the right lenses. You need to pick up separate lenses with the adaptors as well, right? Can you still use the stock lens' variable zoom?


Are there any other advantages to a 35mm adapter besides just shallow DOF?

Also, how comparable is the DOF on the stock lens when fully zoomed compared to what can be achieved with a 35mm equipped with a narrow angle of view / shallow DOF lens (I am assuming that a shallow DOF correlates directly with narrow angle of view... which means a long zoom, right?)


I am pretty satisfied with the DOF on the DVX as shooting in full telephoto is hardly ever a problem for me.


As for mics, I would like to keep it simple. With a camera-mounted mic, I can set up to shoot something that much quicker. Also, a lot of the sound I like to record is sourced far, far away from the camera... which, in this case, it would not matter if the mic is camera-mounted or boom-mounted, right?

On occasion I also record speech, but even this is usually just one person or one source I am trying to capture. Any suggestions for a mic that has great range as well as great 'up-close' recording? I am so new, I don't understand how a mic could be sensitive to range... all I can think is that far away sounds are more dispersed, and thus quieter... Which would mean the mics that dont have good range are just plain not as sensitive as those that do.

I have an octava, and as hotchkiss mentioned. I dont find it has great range. My audio is usually really quiet... So quiet that when I normalize in post I get a ton of noise (hiss) that comes along with it. I do want great ambient sound recording... That is important for me.

Heh, and last one for today... The HVX is considered a prosumer camera? That is so disappointing to hear. I mean, just the fact that this is a ton of money for me that I am investing in my art and my business... and it still isn't considered pro level? The money that flies around is mind-boggling. What are the differences between this and a 'professional' camera? I mean, I ask that generally... I am sure to some degree a whole book could be written on that question. For me, I dont even know what possibilities there are beyond the features of the HVX like manual focus / zoom lens, manual iris, P2 recording, etc... I mean, I know of internal differences like 1/3" vs. 2/3" ccd chips, but function-wise... I am not even aware of what those huge cameras I see in magazines have beyond the HVX.

Well, these are questions that have been brewing around for quite a while that I wasn't finding answers easily through research. Again, a lot of them seem simple, but things that are not talked about often. This is probably because anyone who DOES talk about these already have a grasp on the things I have questions for. So, now I am opening the floodgates and letting the questions out in search for some answers.

Thanks a ton for helping me out with this green thing protruding from my forehead...


[SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]

 

[hotchkiss]

Heh, and last one for today... The HVX is considered a prosumer camera? That is so disappointing to hear. I mean, just the fact that this is a ton of money for me that I am investing in my art and my business... and it still isn't considered pro level? The money that flies around is mind-boggling. What are the differences between this and a 'professional' camera? I mean, I ask that generally... I am sure to some degree a whole book could be written on that question. For me, I dont even know what possibilities there are beyond the features of the HVX like manual focus / zoom lens, manual iris, P2 recording, etc... I mean, I know of internal differences like 1/3" vs. 2/3" ccd chips, but function-wise... I am not even aware of what those huge cameras I see in magazines have beyond the HVX.

As long as your creating "pro" results, don't let the prosumer label bug ya. It's a great camera, with many a pro making money and art with it. The delination between pro and prosumer is getting more and more muddied by cameras such as the HVX-200. Stronger build, weather sealing, better viewfinders, and more durable tape transport mechanisms and interchangable lenses are just some of the features found in "pro" cameras.

At a certain point, the terminology used to categorize these cameras is an abstraction. If your making money with the camera, it's a "pro" camera- ;-).

As for the money to be spent on these tools, it only gets worse... :-O

Enjoy it !

 

[ozduc]

As for mics, I would like to keep it simple. With a camera-mounted mic, I can set up to shoot something that much quicker. Also, a lot of the sound I like to record is sourced far, far away from the camera... which, in this case, it would not matter if the mic is camera-mounted or boom-mounted, right?

WRONG! If you are trying to record a source that is far away from the camera, having a mic on a boom pole or mic stand placed closer to the source is going to result in a cleaner recording. Let's say you are recording a person standing 20 feet from the camera while zoomed in. A mic mounted on the camera will barely pick up their voice and the surrounding noise level will probably be almost as loud if not louder. Now place that same mic on a stand or boompole 2 feet from the person and you will pick up their voice quite well even though the surrounding noise level hasn't changed their voice will be much louder than the noise.

I have an octava, and as hotchkiss mentioned. I dont find it has great range. My audio is usually really quiet... So quiet that when I normalize in post I get a ton of noise (hiss) that comes along with it. I do want great ambient sound recording... That is important for me.

The further away a mic gets from the source, the lower the signal to noise ratio becomes. Think of the microphone in terms of listening with your ears. Lets say you are standing on a sidewalk with traffic going by. If someone is standing 20 feet away and talking in a normal voice you probably wouldn't hear them too well over the sound of traffic. So the ratio off the signal (their voice) to the level of noise (the traffic) is low. So even if you bring up the level in post to raise the dialog, the level of noise is going to raise as well. So in this case there are a couple of things you can change to make the signal to noise ratio higher. You can:
A) Have the person talk louder or shout. (Not always practical)
B) Move the mic closer to the source.

As for "long reach" mics, that could be a whole new thread. A Sennheiser MKH816 or MKH70 will have a lot longer reach than your Octava but they are around $1500-$2000 each. Learn to get the best out of what you have first without spending more money.

 

[mainstreetprod]

What he said. And by a "lot longer reach" - we are still only talking about a few extra feet. Shotgun mics can help but they are not miracle workers.
Get that mic closer in and you will have great sound. My solution when using a camera mounted mic for interviews is to get the camera really close, only 3 or 4 feet away. With a shotgun I get great sound and do not need a lav or a boom pole operator.

 

[Capt Quirk]

Don't forget a dust jacket/rain slicker for the body, to protect agains rain, mist, dust.

 

[djembeplay]

Wow, good info coming in here.

The dust jacket is a good idea... That is something I will definitely invest in.

The mics... I am not sure what I need actually. I seldom care about recording people's voices. What I really want to record is high-quality ambience. So... if I am in a train station or by the ocean or in a forest I can record a high quality capture.

Now, I have been looking at hyper and super-cardioids because, even though I do want ambient recordings, I also want it to be fairly selective to what I am 'pointing at'. For example, I might want to record ducks on a pond 100 feet away. If I am shooting by a street and a car drives by, I would prefer that sound to me minimal.

I think this also makes the idea of setting up a mic on a separate mic-stand with all that extra XLR cable more of a hassle than it is worth for me. I will go back to the previous example to explain. If I had, say, 10 or 15 feet of extra cable and a mic stand, then I would need to set all that equipment up to get my mic that much closer to the ducks. But, this decrease in distance from the ducks would only be 10 or 15 % closer than if I just had the mic mounted on my camera, ready to go. I don't think that being an extra 10 or 15 percent closer to the subject is going to yield any noticeable increase in recording quality that would warrant how cumbersome it would be for that extra equipment and the set-up time. Also, there is a great chance that, if I was using a mic stand, that by the time I did set it all up the ducks would have flown south anyways.

That is the way I am seeing it. What do you guys think?

I want a mic that has the capability to get nice recordings from a long distance... if that is possible.

 

[ozduc]

That is the way I am seeing it. What do you guys think?

It's nice to have dreams!

 

[djembeplay]

It's nice to have dreams!

Heh, meaning that there are no mics that can do this?

 

[danny]

Ducks noise or other nature sounds are sound effects SFX and should be dealt with separately form the shooting, or in parallel but by another person or a special setup.

All the good but "disappointing" advices you got here, are good for Lip Sync Dialog recording.

 

[djembeplay]

Hey Danny,

By 'dealt with separately, do you mean recorded at another time, then added in to the 'far-away' shot in post?

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "All the good but "disappointing" advices you got here, are good for Lip Sync Dialog recording."

Thanks-

 

[danny]

Hey Danny,

By 'dealt with separately, do you mean recorded at another time, then added in to the 'far-away' shot in post?-

This is best, You can get the best results by creaating the conditions for audio recording and for shooting, they are not always at the same time or even same location. the camera lens is totaly isolating the viewer from what is happening on the sides and back of the camera, same as your eyes. the mics. will hear every thing, same as your ears. so if you have trafic at camera back, or people talking, or other activities out of your frame, they will be in your sound track.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "All the good but "disappointing" advices you got here, are good for Lip Sync Dialog recording."
-

You where disappointed by the poor mics performance. This is life, the lens can zoom, a mic can't. what you hear with your bare ears is what you get in the recording. This is good enough to match sound to a super wide angle shoot. When you need to match a sound to a tele shoot, you also have to "zoom" with the mic by placing it closer to the sound source, This is what boom operators do, they are zooming the "sound lens"

 

[djembeplay]

Cool, I like the way you put that last bit. Very intuitive. So for a solo guy like me, you think a nice camera-mounted shotgun would be the best way to go? I have no interest or money to hire a sound guy. I figure, with a camera-mounted shotgun, I can just take the camera out and shoot easily, quickly, and stay more mobile. I also like editing audio in post and my type of shooting would permit me to be able to take a shot, then go in for more footage just aiming at sound.

In other words, I usually dont do shooting where getting an amazing 'on-the-spot' recording in sync with what I am shooting on screen. Getting a great 'on-the-spot' recording would be essential for someone setting up pre-scripted scenes with actors or interviews... then I can see how non-camera mic and a boom operator / pro sound guy would be essential. But me, I am more of a 'piece together whatever I happen to get' type of person.

But, this doesn't mean I don't want great audio. It just means that I can be looser about maybe not getting great audio on the spot. And again, I enjoy using the camera to shoot footage just for audio too... for playing around with in post. I don't have a big need to shoot linear most of the time. And even on the occasions when I am shooting an interview or something, with a good shotgun mounted, I should be able to just stay close to the subject with the camera and still get good audio, right?

So, does that make sense? I mean, do you see any objections to my logic? Keep in mind I want to stay relatively light and free as well, without having a lot of extra gear to tote around besides the camera and tripod. I mean, I know that almost everyone throws up when they hear someone say they are going 'camera-mounted' with their mic... but that seems like it's just because that wouldn't be the ideal setup for their type of shooting... which seems to usually be more controlled location or studio work (like narrative).

Anyways, sorry... I might have gotten on a bit of a loop there.


I am thinking of mounting a really nice shotgun at this point... like a sennsheiser 416 or a neumann KMR81I.

 

[djembeplay]

Hey mainstreetprod,

Are you saying that you are using a camera-mounted shotgun?