DSLR Cinema and Video Journalism

Tools for Cinematic and Documentary Storytelling by Kurt Lancaster

Behind the scenes at Digital Bolex in Toronto, Canada

Digital-Bolex-cameraThe d16 Digital Bolex. Image courtesy of Digital Bolex.

I want one
When I first heard about the Digital Bolex camera last year, and its capability to shoot raw video (using Adobe’s open source CinemaDNG format), on a blog post by Philip Bloom, I went to Kickstarter to back the $2500 camera, but they were sold out. I waited until the last day of the campaign, hoping someone would back out at the last minute. They did. I was all in.

And as I started to do more research, I decided to pitch a proposal to Focal Press for a new book. They had published the first and second editions of my DSLR Cinema book, and this new one would cover the latest in video cameras that shoot cinema raw, tentatively titled, Cinematic Storytelling with 16mm Raw: Shooting with the Ikonoskop, Digital Bolex, and the Blackmagic Cinema Cameras. It should be out late fall or early winter. This blog is a work-in-progress excerpt. 

I flew to Toronto last week to see what Joe Rubinstein, Elle Schneider, and the Ienso team were up to with the Digital Bolex. They’re nearing completion. The suspense of waiting nearing its end. And to go behind the scenes and watch the team work on sensor boards and menu designs was a thrill. I shot interviews and some b-roll for this behind the scenes look at one of the most innovative cameras to come out in the past decade.

A short documentary on the Digital Bolex at Ienso in Toronto
(Feb. 26-27, 2013) by Kurt Lancaster:

A cinema camera for posers or the real deal?
But some people may have had the same initial reaction that Neil mentions in a user comment on the digital bolex site: “When I first saw this camera on Kickstarter I must be honest, I didn’t see any true use out of it except as a niche camera that hipsters would use just to look cool.”

Joe-RubensteinJoe Rubinstein, founder and visionary, of the Digital Bolex. 
(Kurt Lancaster)

But there was something different about how Joe Rubinstein – founder and visionary for the Digital Bolex – interfaced with his potential customers, offering not only a peak behind the curtain, but allowing customers to provide feedback before the camera was built. In some ways, they helped design the camera. Because of this many began to realize that this was not going to be just a slapped-together or copycat camera with a cool name, but the real deal. Neil’s sentiments as he continues his above-mentioned post best describes how Rubinstein’s open approach pays off. Shifting from thinking that at first it’s a camera for posers, Neil changes his mind:

However, I’ve been following the project for some time and I’m amazed at how much thought, time and energy is being put into the camera to not only make the camera useful, but exceedingly useful.

You could have just jammed a sensor into a Bolex-shaped box and I think most people that invested would have been satisfied as long as it worked. But you have gone above and beyond to an entirely higher level of goodness with the camera and have become the perfect model of a kickstarter generated product.
<http://www.digitalbolex.com/kish-prototype-lenses/>

The d16 Digital Bolex is not just a video camera or a wannabe cinema camera. Rubinstein dislikes video so much he stopped making films during the HD video revolution of the 2000s. The Canon 5D Mark II with its full frame sensor and interchangeable lenses may have blown the doors off other prosumer digital video cameras, but Rubinstein was never convinced by the limitations of an 8-bit compression scheme.

From film stock to 16mm digital negative
The differences may be subtle—and even undetectable by many non-cinematographers—but you must remember Rubinstein isn’t trying to create a digital camera by comparing it to other HD video cameras. His baseline is 16mm film. “The ethos behind the d16 Bolex is to look at what made 16mm film format in the 60s appealing,” he says. Then, he explains, you could buy 16mm film,

the same film stock as the professionals. It’s just a smaller format than 35mm film. But you’re shooting the same thing. And the camera is just the carrier for the film stock. It doesn’t really affect the image quality. Maybe you could argue the angle of the shutter or something like that.

It’s really about creating an image that a professional film camera could create. Amateur filmmakers, students, and independent filmmakers all had access to the same film stocks as professional filmmakers. Rubinstein wants to create the same thing for the digital cinema world. For example, “if you’re making a drama,” Rubinstein argues, “there’s no reason why you can’t make a film that looks just as good as a feature you’d see in the theater on the same camera that you’re shooting your family vacation on.” But video cameras changed all that. He tells me that there was a

split between amateur or home recording mediums and professional mediums. It became this video ghetto, where unless you can afford a professional quality camera, your film is never going to get shown anywhere. You can’t get it into a festival, and it’s not going to be taken seriously.

So he was driven to make a digital cinema camera that’s not only relatively affordable ($3300 for the d16 is about the same price as a Canon 5D Mark III), but he wants the final digital project to look like 16mm film.

“I started researching what it would take to make it,” Rubinstein explains,

and I realized, if I make this thing, I’m not going to be the only person that wants one. There are going to be other people that are interested in it. So I started researching what it would take to make a retail version. And when I was explaining to people what I wanted to do, I was always calling it a digital Bolex. I kept saying, ‘It’s just like the idea of a Bolex, but digital.’

At his point, he spent nine months putting together a market research paper and a business plan before approaching Bolex. And this was before Kickstarter.

Finding a camera manufacturer
But he couldn’t go it alone—not even with creative partner Elle Schneider. They can come up with concepts and schematics, but the actual manufacturing obviously had to be farmed out. They still needed to build a camera. It requires molding, circuit board design, getting the right sensor—all of the elements to get the camera made and working.

Elle-SchneiderElle Schneider, creative director at Digital Bolex. (Kurt Lancaster)
 Responsible for envisioning the user interface and how the 
camera operates.

Even at this level he didn’t approach the work conventionally. Rubinstein researched electronic companies and ended up talking to representatives from a “lot of different electronic design firms and companies that work with sensors,” he explains. And many of their responses went something like this, Rubinstein says: “‘When you’re ready to make a million units, call us back.’ That’s kind of the attitude I got from easily half of them. And I said, ‘Okay, but I don’t want to make a million units.’”

Others suggested that he contact venture capitalists to fund the manufacturing of the camera. “‘You need x number of dollars to get off the ground,’” they told him, and “‘when you have that amount of money come talk to us and we’ll help you make a camera.’” But this went against Rubinstein’s previous business venture experiences and philosophy. “That is not the way that I do things or want to do things.” He’d been burned in the past by venture capitalists not understanding his product, and they ended up “making really bad decisions because of it,” he says. He only wanted to make a few hundred cameras at first.

Toronto partners
Rubinstein came across a small electronics company, Ienso, a contract design service firm outside of Toronto, Canada and shared his vision with the owners of the company.

Mike-LiwakMike Liwak, VP of product development at Ienso. (Kurt Lancaster)
 Leads the team that executes Joe's and Elle's vision for 
the Digital Bolex.

Mike Liwak, a partner at Ienso and VP of product development talks about how when Rubinstein first approached him, it was to create the camera for his Polite in Public photobooth:

he had an idea for a particular camera that fit the application he was working with and so I started off conversations back and forth which started to evolve. And in parallel with that he was looking for other solutions, or to see what other technologies are out there and he started to gradually realize that there was a lot of potential for the Digital Bolex camera. At that time of course we didn’t have the Bolex name trademark. We were looking to have a raw cinema-type camera that was shooting raw. But not super expensive, not super high-end, but still good quality and robust, and so forth.

But Rubinstein didn’t want to give them money to build the camera. He wanted a partnership. Both sides would kick in money to make it happen.

Worth the risk
Joe Bornbaum, the VP of finance at Ienso was open to the idea. He knows their company can build and design cameras, “But we’re not the guys who are in touch with the market. And here came Joe with his vision. And as I probed him and as I pushed him, he had the answers. There was a logic to it. And I thought, you know what, we are going to take a gamble here and bet on this.”

Joe-BornbaumJoe Bornbaum, VP of Fianance at Ienso. (Kurt Lancaster)
 Willing to take the risk to design and build the Digital Bolex 
at Ienso.

Liwak tells me that they get requests to partner with other companies a lot:

we’ve had offers for partnership before with other companies or technologies and after running our own business and doing some things on our own we have a bit of a feel of what makes sense and what doesn’t, and what’s viable and what’s not viable. So what Joe described to us as the potential market and how we could fit in — and combined with the technology which we thought we could develop — all of the pieces of the puzzle went together. So we thought it was worth the risk.

This meant investing money, manpower, and technology to make it happen. As Bornbaum says, Rubinstein’s offer was an opportunity. “I use this analogy,” he adds:

You’re running towards a cliff and you hope that you can build a bridge by the time you get there. And that’s literally what we’ve committed to doing here. We’re betting the company on making this work. Just as Joe has bet everything he has on this.

The d16 Digital Bolex is just the beginning. Rubinstein and Schneider, as well as their partners at Ienso are not only planning accessories, they’re looking down the road at more Bolex cameras. Perhaps a 4K Bolex is on the horizon?

 

Kurt_LancasterKurt Lancaster, PhD, is the author of 
DSLR Cinema (Focal Press, 2013) and 
Video Journalism for the Web 
(Routledge, 2013). He teaches digital 
filmmaking and multimedia journalism 
at Northern Arizona University.

 

Interview with Ikonoskop — shooting 16mm RAW with the A-Cam dII in Stockholm

Kurt Lancaster is working on a new book for Focal Press dealing with the new 16mm RAW cinema cameras coming out.

Cinema RAW is the holy grail of low-budget filmmakers. With the popular release of Black Magic Design’s Cinema Camera, along with Philip Bloom’s review of it rising to the all-time number one post of his blogging career, it is easy to forget that the Swedish company, Ikonoskop got there first. Indeed, Joe Rosenstein of Digital Bolex, was inspired by the Ikonoskop due it’s use of a Kodak CCD. And don’t forget, Philip Bloom at NAB 2012, tweeted “My favourite image from a camera at the show? Probably the Ikonoskop (@ikonoskop). Lovely! [H]ope to shoot with it soon!”

Due to its sleek Swedish design, along with an engine that puts out cinematic-looking shots, The A-Cam dII, simply cannot be ignored. At this date, it’s one of the best designed “video” cameras on the market.

DSLRs are great cameras for their price point and can put out cinematic quality images if you get the look you want in-camera — there’s very little latitude for error, due to it’s heavy processing as images get compressed to 8-bit in the H.264 format.

See Focal Press’s MasteringFilm.com site for the rest of the complete article:
http://www.masteringfilm.com/interview-with-ikonoskop-%E2%80%94-shooting-16mm-raw-with-the-a-cam-dii-in-stockholm/

 

—————–

Kurt Lancaster, PhD, is the author of DSLR Cinema: Crafting the Film Look with Large Sensor Video, 2nd edition, Focal Press, 2013 and Video Journalism for the Web: A Practical Introduction to Documentary Storytelling, Routledge, 2013. He teaches digital filmmaking and multimedia journalism at Northern Arizona University’s School of Communication.

 

Lara Logan’s 60 Minutes news style vs Tyler Stableford’s poetic style: What journalists can learn from a mountain climbing case-study in editing

There’s no denying the success of CBS’s 60 Minutes. It’s the quintessential news magazine show that many of us aspire to attain in our own video journalism work.

And when I first saw Lara Logan’s “The ascent of Alex Honnold” (13:19), a story about Alex’s insane free solo climbs, I was captivated. In Logan’s words: “He scales walls higher than the Empire State building, and he does it without any ropes or protection” (2 Oct. 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/02/60minutes/main20114487.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaInfo)

Watch it here:

60 Minutes “The ascent of Alex Honnold” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR1jwwagtaQ)

However, when I saw Tyler Stableford’s “Shattered” (5:29), a story about Steve House who looks like he is climbing ice with no rope, I feel more connected to the work than with Logan’s 60 Minutes piece — despite the fact that Stableford’s piece is a “poetic” documentary. Video journalists can learn techniques from filmmakers in order to make their work more compelling. This post explains some of these techniques.

Yes, Stableford’s is poetic — the words are from Steve’s heart, but the filmmaking is staged and sponsored by Canon — but the nonfiction feel of it, the cinematic elements Stableford utilizes offers lessons of how video journalists can shoot more cinematically and engage a strong editing style.

The difference revolves around what makes film cinematic and what makes TV news style journalism what it is. Just watching the two we can see and feel the differences right away.

Watch Stableford’s work, here:

Stableford’s utilizes cinematic elements — visuals tell the story, we hear the subject’s voice as he wrestles with his inner purpose (Steve feels a sense of emptiness from his aspirations). Stableford maintains an intimate shooting style with Canon’s high end DSLR, the 1D-X, and other than his camera and his team’s cameras, we don’t see or the storyteller onscreen.

Read the rest of the Rticle on Focal Press’ Mastering Film blog: http://masteringfilm.com/lara-logan’s-60-minutes-news-style-vs-tyler-stableford’s-documentary-style-a-mountain-climbing-case-study-in-editing-3/

———————-

 

 

 

 

Kurt Lancaster, PhD, is the author of DSLR Cinema: Crafting the Film Look with Video, Focal Press, 2011 and Video Journalism for the Web: A Practical Introduction to Documentary Storytelling, Routledge, 2012. He teaches digital filmmaking and multimedia journalism at Northern Arizona University’s School oSee the rest of the article on Focal Press’ Mastering Film blog: http://masteringfilm.com/lara-logan’s-60-minutes-news-style-vs-tyler-stableford’s-documentary-style-a-mountain-climbing-case-study-in-editing-3/

Read the See the rest of the article on Focal Press’ Mastering Film blog: http://masteringfilm.com/lara-logan’s-60-minutes-news-style-vs-tyler-stableford’s-documentary-style-a-mountain-climbing-case-study-in-editing-3/

Dog Day DSLR Afternoon

Thierry Dauga‘s dog, Poupou, steals the show in this charming DSLR short covering the life in the day of a Canadian dog.

Thierry mentions how his eight year old dog is becoming more calm as he gets older, but he didn’t slow down for his new acting career.  Poupou is a runner, but some shots required him “to stop and stay still,” Thierry says in an interview. He wasn’t used to being asked to stop for his closeup! So Thierry devised a tried and true plan.

“I started to use little treats to reward him when I was doing what I wanted him to do and he understood very quickly and was rapidly playing the game!” Thierry exclaims.

Many of the shots were “were realized on the spot, at the first try,” Thierry beams proudly. Initially, Thierry wanted to discover if he could shoot a short story using a storyboard with fifty shots. It worked. His storyboard process was so controlled in shaping his composition, Thierry took photos with his zoom lens and reviewed them on his computer. He then “took note of the focal length for each photo test,” placing a “mark on the lens to locate the focal length” he wanted. In this way, Thierry says he was “able to respect the focal planned in the story-board.”

 

One of Thierry Dauga’s storyboards for Belle Journée

.

His shots take advantage of the DSLR’s ability to work with shallow depth of field, while at the same time creating a sense of intimacy difficult to achieve with standard (small chip) prosumer video cameras.

Thierry explained how he had shot video before with the “regular” video cameras, but he feels that three “main advantages of a dslr are in relation to its iso sensitivity, focal length, and depth of field.” In addition, he says he “was able to decrease the ISO noise, to know at all times which focal lenght I was using while shooting, and also to be able to decrease the depth of field (with the dslr features of small aperture and big cmos sensor).”

The control of the image — especially as it related to his vision designed in his storyboards — allowed him to help execute the film he had envisioned.

Using a Canon 7D, Thierry shot with 25, 50, 85, 110, and 400mm (for the sun and moon shots). Although he has since purchased a viewfinder, follow focus, and a matte box, he shot Belle Journée bare bones style. His settings were at ISO 320, 1/40 shutter at 24p, while he kept his iris wide open for his lenses (ranging from f/3.5 to 5.6). He manually white balanced with a grey card. Thierry also used Canon’s Faithful picture style with an S-curve at: 58,60;200,202.

With underexposed shots, Thierry set the shutter to 1/30 of a second and increased his ISO to 640, 800, and 1250. Shots that were over-exposed, he set the shutter to 1/50 and decreased the ISO to 160, then used a variable ND filter to “finalize the exposure,” he explains.

Thierry’s film may have been an experiment in determining if he could pool off a DSLR short, but more than the multitude of so-called wanna-be filmmakers doing their “test” video, he provides a short film that expressed heart and a story-arc.

 

Using CineStyle for “Grand Canyon Winter” with the Canon 5D Mark II

Shooting in the winter with a DSLR can be a bit tricky due to the high chance of getting blow-out in the exposure. DSLRs—although great in low light situations—are notorious for easily blowing out the highlights. Hollywood cinematographer Shane Hurlbut, ASC, says that you need to treat the exposure range as if you were shooting on reversal film stock. Not much room in the exposure range to play with.

When Hurlbut first used the Canon, he said, “I treated the 5D like I was exposing reversal film stock, you had to get it close to what your final product would be.” (http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/03/30/color-correction-put-your-best-foot-forward/).

What was used:
Camera: Canon 5D Mark II
ISO: 160
Shutter: 1/40
Lens: Zeiss Contax 50mm f/1.8
Aperture: f/8
Filter: Tiffen HT Ultra Clear (55mm)
ND filter: Light Craft Workshop ND fader (55mm)
Zacuto Z-Finder Pro
Picture Style: Technicolor’s CineStyle
Editing, color grading, and sound: Final Cut Pro X
Music: http://incompetech.com/

Shooting recently in the Grand Canyon after a snowstorm gave me a chance to find ways in overcoming the limitation of the DSLR exposure range.

The two things I did:

  • Advice 1:  Use a neutral density filter. I chose Light Craft Workshop’s nd variable fader, mounted on my Zeiss Contax 50mm f/1.4 lens. When you want shallow depth of field and want to maintain an open aperture, then the ND filter is the way to go. Otherwise, you can use a high shutter speed, but when working with a film-like look for video, then keeping the shutter speed at 1/40 or 1/50 is preferred.

Working in collaboration with Canon, Technicolor scientists spent twelve months developing a picture style designed for filmmakers planning to engage in postproduction color grading—the process of not only of fixing color in post—but for digging out the widest range of exposure possible in Canon EOS cameras.

According to Technicolor, CineStyle “… optimizes the dynamic range in the image by leveraging the capabilities of the Canon imaging chipset” (http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/cinema/filmmaking/digital-printer-lights/cinestyle). It does this by using a log color space rather than linear. Linear provides for an equal distribution of data bit information; logarithmic information allows for bits to be distributed into the darks and highlights in order to provide more detail in these areas. Qvo-Labs claims that the log 8-bit color space (found in Canon DSLR’s video mode) can reach a “close equivalent” of 12 bits! (See Qvo-Labs detailed explanation:
http://www.qvolabs.com/Digital_Images_ColorSpace_Log_vs_Linear.html)

Shane Hurlbut agrees. With the new “color science behind” the CineStyle, Hurlbut says he is “finding much cleaner results in the post color correction process.” (http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/05/08/technicolors-new-picture-style-cine-style/)

For this project, I also wanted to bring motion to the shots. Cinematic motion is like poetry in the film world, so I used my Kessler Crane Pocket Dolly Traveler mounted to a Manfrotto 501HDV head (and Cullman carbon fiber sticks). See Figure 1.

Figure 4.10_Grand Canyon setup

Fig. 1. Setting up a push-in shot at the Grand Canyon with the Canon 5D Mark II and the Kessler Crane Pocket Dolly, Manfrotto 501HDV head, and Cullman tripod. (Photo by Stephanie Petrie.)

The wind was strong shooting the windchill down to the low teens. Dressing warmly is key. Several shots I had to get down on my knees, which got my legs wet. Should have brought ski pants.

Once the footage was shot, with a side stop at El Tovar to eat lunch, I dumped the footage onto my MacBook Pro (quad core with 8GB of RAM) and external G-Tech mini hard drive (FireWire 800, 7200 rpm, 750 GB).

However, unlike shooting with one of Canon’s Picture Styles, where you do not need to do any work in post, the CineStylerequires you to do postproduction work, otherwise the image looks washed out and flat. It holds extra data in the bit-space, but you won’t see it until you go into postproduction. See Figure 1 below for the flat look of CineStyle.

Figure-4.11_Grand-Canyon-Uncorrected Fig. 2. This original image comes across flat in the raw CineStyle picture style.

The next image, Figure 3, reveals the color and contrast range after applying color grading techniques in Final Cut X.

Figure-4.12_Grand-Canyon-Corrected Fig. 3. This screen grab reveals the depth of the range of color and exposure after color correction was applied.

I attained this look by adjusting the highlights, midtones, and shadow levels. Above the line increases the value, while moving the circle below the line decreases values. I adjust the midtones down to help remove the wash in the CineStyle image, making the overall image darker, and increased the highlights to make the image brighter.

Figure-4.14_Grand-Canyon-plugin Fig. 4. The adjustment tools in Final Cut X, providing the tools needed to remove the wash of the CineStyle, digging out the data for the high dynamic range of the image.

Pomfort (http://pomfort.com/plugins/dslrlog2video-tryandbuy.html) sells an S-curve look up table (LUT) that automatically makes these adjustments for you, but at $179 it’s a bit pricey, so I adjusted by eye. It looks like the price is now $29, it may be worth investing!

This blog was originally posted:  http://masteringphoto.com/shooting-%E2%80%9Cgrand-canyon-winter%E2%80%9D-with-the-canon-5d-mark-ii-and-editing-with-final-cut-x-2/

————————————————————————————

Kurt Lancaster, PhD, is the author of DSLR Cinema: Crafting the Film Look with Video, Focal Press, 2011 andVideo Journalism for the Web: A Practical Introduction to Multimedia Storytelling, Routledge, 2012. He teaches digital filmmaking and multimedia journalism at Northern Arizona University’s School of Communication.

 

Run and Gun DSLR Work at Occupy Wall Street

When shooting on the run, it’s important to travel light. Spending a weekend in New York City to see Robert Wilson’s production of Brecht’s The Threepenny Opera at the Brooklyn Academy of Music and Danfung Dennis’s 5D Mark II documentary, Hell and Back Again at the Film Forum, I squeezed in some time to shoot the Occupy Wall Street protest in Zuccotti Park.

I had easy access to many different subjects and I handheld all of the shots (with no rig attached to the camera). I kept the camera close to the subjects so as to get their audio clear on my mic (see details below).

Not planning to do any heavy production, I only packed the Canon 5D Mark II body with two Zeiss Contax lenses (purchased used at KEH.com) — 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 2.8 — as well as my Sennheiser ME62/K6  (great for dialogue), as well as one battery and charger. Outdoors, I wish I had brought along my ME66 shotgun mic, but I couldn’t find my good windscreen, so I utilized my low profile ME62.

Light run and gun setup: Sennheiser with Lightwave windscreen and ETS stepdown XLR to minijack cable. Magic Lantern was used to monitor and adjust levels. Zeiss Contax 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 2.8 lenses were used with a Lightcraft ND fader.

I attached it to the hot shoe mount using a shockmount, and plugged it directly into the mic input of the 5D using the new XLR to minijack camera balun, the ETS PA910 series, providing a low to high impedance connection to the camera. In other words, in a pinch, it’ll provide decent audio when you don’t have a separate digital audio recorder on hand (such as the Zoom H4n or a Tascam DR100). (For sale at Markertek for about $62.)

Most importantly, I  utilized the Magic Lantern, so I could see audio meters while recording and monitor the audio by plugging into the AV port of the 5D.

I shot the project handheld with no strap, no DSLR rig. The omnidirectional aspect of the ME62 picked up a lot of side and background noise, but it ended up adding to the atmosphere of the piece. Furthermore, I stood close to the subject, so the microphone was less then three feet away. I shift my head to the left, while hand-holding the camera, so the subject being interviewed would look at me and not the camera.

My friend, Stacey Sotosky, edited using Final Cut X.

A good shock mount can be purchased here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554681-REG/Pearstone_DUSM_1_DUSM_1_Universal_Shockmount_for.html

—————————

Kurt Lancaster, PhD, is the author of DSLR Cinema: Crafting the Film Look with Video, Focal Press, 2011 and Video Journalism for the Web: A Practical Introduction to Multimedia Storytelling, Routledge, 2012. He teaches digital filmmaking and multimedia journalism at Northern Arizona University’s School of Communication.

How to overcome audio weaknesses of DSLRs by Wes Pope

There are three major weaknesses to recording audio directly into any Canon or Nikon DSLR camera: there is no way to see levels while recording, you cannot listen on headphones, and there is no good pre-amp or phantom power (to power a microphone) built into the camera. It is my guess that all of these issues will be addressed in some way by the manufacturers in the near future, but in the mean-time, here is my solution:

 

I use an external audio recorder such as the Zoom H4n or the Tascam DR-100. I then use a step-down cord (from Sescom), to run a signal out of the recorder into the camera’s mic jack. This solution allows me to put the best possible audio into the camera and also creates an external audio recording in case anything goes wrong, like a cord connection coming loose. Otherwise, without visible recording levels or headphone jacks, there is no way to know for sure if you are getting anything in the camera. I find that more than 90% of the time the audio I send into the camera works fine and I can avoid having to sync the external audio recordings.

 

Let’s talk about the Sescom step-down cords for a moment. In general, line level is an amplified signal and mic-level is an un-amplified signal, meaning much less power is running through the line. If we run a line-level into the mic jack on the camera, the sound level will be way too hot to record. Headphone level is not quite as hot as true line level, but still too hot to run into mic level. Therefore, Sescom makes cords appropriate to the individual device. The Zoom H4n does not have a line-out jack, so we are trying to take a signal from the headphone line down to the camera and also use a splitter so that we can still listen on headphones. They make this cord that is set to the right level and has a built-in splitter for headphones (note that -25dB is the amount that headphone level gets stepped down to get to mic level):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750963-REG/Sescom_LN2MIC_ZMH4_MON_3_5mm_Line_to_Mic.html

 

In the case of my Tascam DR-100 (and many other recorders), there is a line-out jack in addition to a headphone jack. In that case, Sescom makes this cord (not splitter necessary and -35dB is the amount the signal gets stepped down):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/746643-REG/Sescom_LN2MIC_TASDR100_LN2MIC_TASDR100_Line_Out_to.html

 

In the case of using a Zoom H4n and a shotgun mic, running audio into a Canon 5D Mark II, 60D, Rebel T3i (600D)—where you have manual control of audio—and using the Sescom patch cord (providing a -25dB step down), follow these steps:

 

1) Set an input level to achieve a proper level where your peaks are maxing between -12 dB and -6 dB (and never hitting 0 dB).

 

2) Set the headphone level quite high, between 90-100, then don’t ever adjust it! If you have this level set too low, you can actually end up adding hiss to your in-camera recording. (When using a recorder such as the Tascam that has a line-out jack, you skip this step).

 

3) Use the audio preview levels inside the camera to adjust the levels to exactly match what you are seeing on the recorder. Once this relationship is set, as long as you don’t adjust you headphone out level or the level inside the camera—then the level you are seeing on your external recorder should be approximately accurate. In other DSLRs that do not have a manual level setting you can skip this step (I would recommend running your own tests in the case of the Nikons that have High, Medium, and Low pre-sets).

 

Then when you work with a wireless lav mic, there are two additional places to set a correct audio level:

 

1) Mic sensitivity level on the transmitter.

 

2) AF Out on the receiver.

 

One final tip: when I work in this way, I leave the recorder recording all day long and only stop and start the camera. Audio files are relatively small and I want to keep it simple when it comes time to catch a shot and not accidentally forget to start my recorded.

 

I mount the recorder above the camera using an inexpensive bracket from Custom Brackets (approx. $40). There are dozens of manufactures who make more expensive rigs for DSLRs. I tend to shoot as much as possible on a tripod, so I find my simple bracket works well in most cases. It also gives me a place to mount my shotgun since it frees the hotshoe as a place to mount my wireless receiver.

 

As for solving the pre-amp issue, the Tascam is a tiny bit cleaner than the Zoom (based on reviews at transom.org—I haven’t been able to discern a difference). However, neither is great. My next solution is to look into a pre-amp upgrade to the Tascam from Oade Brothers. Powered mics are another solution (such as the Rode NTG-2—but this is not necessarily the cleanest possible audio).

 


Wes Pope is a Lecturer at Northern Arizona University, where he teaches in the Photojournalism & Documentary Studies program. Formerly, Wes was a photo and video journalist for 15 years and recently earned an MA in Documentary Film and History from Syracuse University. This post is excerpted from Video Journalism for the Web: A Practical Introduction to Documentary Storytelling by Kurt Lancaster (Routledge, 2012).

 

 

Final Cut Pro X Tutorial: Syncing Audio

 

Most DSLR shooters are already aware of PluralEyes and DualEyes. But the new version of Final Cut X will also sync external audio recorders with DSLR audio files. This lesson shows you how. Frankly, I’ve never been able to get my version of PluralEyes to work successfully. As more users try this new feature in Apple, perhaps it’ll be hit or miss — but when I did a test this morning, it worked well.

 

Syncing external audio

I tested with a Rode NTG-2 shotgun microphone hooked up to the left channel of the Tascam DR-100, and just used my Canon 5D Mark II’s built-in mic as a reference.

 

After importing the files, follow these steps:

 

1) Select the video and audio clips to synchronize


Film Post Production

 

This will create a new synchronized compound clip:

 

new final cut pro

 

2) Drag this to the storyline and right click it, selecting “Open in Timeline”

 

This will reveal the compound clip:

 

post on Final Cut X

 

3) Play the clip and make sure that everything is lined up properly. Next we need to replace the original.

 

4) In the Inspector window, click on Audio, and uncheck the original source file, while keep the new file checked:

 

 

5) Make the mono channel stereo


Since the shotgun mic recorded only in one channel (left), you will only hear the audio coming from that one channel. If you want it coming through both left and right, then select the external audio clip and open the Inspector panel (Command-4). Expand the Channel Configuration and select: “Dual Mono.”

 

Final Cut X

 

This will put the one channel of audio into both channels.

 

Steps to fix a synchronized clips issue:

Re: synchronized clips default to 720 not 1080

created by Jarrod1856 in Final Cut Pro X - View the full discussion


Here is an easy work around…

FYI – I shoot video with the Canon 7D and record audio with the Zoom H4n.

  1. Syncronize your clips
  2. Select the new synced clip; then select New Compound Clip in the FILE menu
  3. Select the appropriate settings with the CUSTOM options
  4. The new compound clip is Synced in your desired settings and can be dropped into the timeline

BTW- Be sure to deselect the audio captured by the camera mic in the audio menu for best results, otherwise the synchronization process will defualt to including the audio from the camera and your external mic.

Final Cut X: Preparing files and backing up projects

Preparing files and starting a project

Without any pre-rendering, I can import my DLSR footage and start editing right away. You can edit the raw H.264 files from DSLR fine, without pre-rendering. And: Not more decompressing slowing down my workflow!

 

Reports, however, say that for best — an perhaps quicker — response time, it’s recommended that you convert to Apple ProRes.

 

Here are the steps to make it happen:

 

1) Create a New Project (projects are the movies you create on the timeline from your footage)

Open Final Cut X and select New Project (name the project) — Final Cut will keep (and show) your entire media library for all of your projects, so naming them and keeping your footage in organized folders is essential and wise.

 

Post Production

 
A) You can choose to set the video properties to your first clip or custom set it.

 

B) Set audio and render properties.

 

2) Create a New Event (Events are folding containing all of your project files)

Select File –> Import (or Import From Camera)

 

The Event Library list is on the left and the import choices on the right:

 

Final Cut

 

3) Choose the files you want and take note of the variety of choices you can make on import, such as “Create optimized media” — this is where you can ProRes your files. The software will also analyze video and audio issues, as well as attempt to sort into groups of people onscreen.

 

FCPUG

 

A) Select your clips and tell the computer to either add it to an existing Event or create a new one.

 

B) Under Transcoding, check “Create optimized media” and Final Cut X will render it into an Apple ProRes 422 — and render it in the background as you start examining your clips and even editing them. The original files will get replaced by the ProRes files as it completes the render.

 

C) Also note you can select “Analyze for stabilization and rolling shutter” — allowing Final Cut to tell you what part of the clips contain undo shakiness and/or rolling shutter. You can correct them later. (It’s not doing it for you until you decide you want it to happen.) See, for example, this menu screen after I chose this selection:

 

Final Cut Pro X

 

It not only lists the files with “Excessive Shake,” but it marks it on the clip where the shakiness occurs, so you can fine tune it in the Inspector window, later. In addition, you can select color balance analysis, select shots that contain people (for organization, especially good for documentary interviews). Furthermore, Final Cut will also examine audio issues (and tell you which ones have issue after you select).

 

Backing up projects

You can back up your projects and transfer it to another hard drive by right-clicking on the Project (click on the Project icon, bottom left, then right click on the project.

 

Select Duplicate Project.

 

 

You’re provided with several choices, including where to send the backup. Select the hard drive you want the files sent:

 

 

Select the type of duplication: The first choice is for standard back-ups. The second will copy all the files listed in your project, including unused ones. The third choice will only duplicate what you’ve used and create a new Event for it. Select Include Render Files if you want the backup to include all of the background render files from your project (recommended).

 

 

Final Cut Pro X a dream for DSLR filmmakers

I was at the April 12, 2011 FCPUG meeting in Las Vegas and from what I saw, I couldn’t wait to get Final Cut Pro X. And yesterday morning when I saw a Tweet that Apple had released it on its App store, I purchased it right away, testing it out with Canon 5D Mark II footage shot at 1920×1080 24P on my way to Hawaii.

 

Before proceeding, I highly recommend reading “Final Cut Pro X – A first Look” by Steve Martin, where you can see plenty of screenshots. He provides a quick overview of the big picture of the software with a lot of screenshots — most importantly covering some of the major differences to Final Cut 7.

 

Final Cut X for artists not engineers (some initial thoughts)

The difference between the new software and the old was the lack of an intuitive interface — a design more for engineers than artists. Remember, for those out there screaming that Apple has betrayed them (see USA Today’s “New Final Cut Pro editing software draws mixed reviews”), the original version of Final Cut was a refit of Macromedia’s editing software. Apple — so long known for its intuitive design in their other software (and hardware) — lacked that strong feature in its own pro editing software, until now. By starting over from scratch, they’re going to make many people upset, because everything has to be built back up from an entirely new design.

 

See Focal Press’s Mastering Film site for the full article:

http://masteringfilm.com/final-cut-pro-x-a-dream-for-dslr-filmmakers/