Was intrigued by the idea of transitional lighting between outdoors and indoors. That was new to me.
Also liked that he lit the telephone. From what I understand, he was worried about the telephone being lost in the dark, but it's also a "look at me", right? And I think that's also an idea that a lot of noobs, like me, aren't necessarily conscious of. I mean, the main things I've worried about in the past are simply lighting for exposure and lighting for mood -- not subtly highlighting things so that the audience's attention is drawn to them or so that the image sticks in the mind. The temptation is just to rely on close-ups and framing and focus for drawing attention to this or that.
The method of lighting the telephone was also good to see -- bounced off furniture. I think it added something you wouldn't have got from lighting the telephone directly.
Thanks for posting, V.
"How exactly they're pulling off this bit of engineering magic, I have no clue, but I assume that the change from 4000 to 5000 ISO triggers a dramatic shift in the way the raw sensor data is being processed, and there's likely some kind of intensive noise reduction involved."
If anyone's interested, Matt Allard has an explanation at News Shooter (http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/11/28/panasonic-varicam-native-iso-of-80...): "How can a camera have two base ISO ratings you ask? Basically there are two analog circuits right after each pixel before the gain amp, one each dedicated to 800 and 5000 ISO. This allows for two “native”, very clean settings. In one mode it has a native ISO of 800 and when you switch to another setting the camera clicks over to its other native ISO of 5000. This keeps the signal to noise ratio the same and allows for you to shoot remarkable clean images in low light conditions. The noise present at 5000 ISO is nearly identical to that at 800. It’s coming directly from the sensor, so it’s not simply a case of boosting the gain and erasing the noise. One of the reasons Panasonic has done this is to allow for high frame rate capture in lower ambient light."
Well, I do feel dismayed when comments that I self-assess as worth making are heavily downvoted; it does feel like someone's slapped me for saying something dumb, and does make me want to refrain from commenting. After all, I don't privilege my own opinion: I'm open to being told that what I thought was valuable actually isn't; and the votes of others are some sort of indication that self-assessments are wrong.
I'm conscious that maybe downvotes are just malice, but maybe they're also a fair indication of how worthwhile a comment is. How is it possible to tell?
Similar experience. To cut a boring story short, dropped 5D3 + 35L. It also had a speedlite on top. I thought there was a crack on the lens and a dent in the filter thread, but it turned out to be just the UV filter. It protected the lens completely.
I've seen lots of used lenses that have a dent in the thread, making it impossible to attach a filter.
So I'm a big fan of UV or clear filters now... quite apart from the fact that lenses where I haven't used them have sustained all sorts of micro damage over time, but the lenses with filters are still pristine.
One more thought... This is pure common sense, but I'm going to write it anyway. Depending on the environment you're facing, the following might be useful:
Shooting at night-time: flashlights to distribute amongst crew, though at a pinch you can use smartphones.
Shooting along a road: safety cones, and fluoro vests for crew members.
Shooting outdoors in daytime in Australia: sunscreen, hats, umbrellas to create shade.
Shooting in rain: rain jackets for crew and maybe appropriate footwear; plastic bags for the cameras or specialised camera jackets; tarpaulins to put gear on or to cover gear; lots of umbrellas -- to put over lights, cameras, crew and talent; enough lens tissues and cloths to keep wiping water and fog from lenses and camera bodies; and cable protectors (eg, if you're putting a generator 100m away for sound reasons, and you therefore need to connect two 50m cables, you might need something to protect the point at which they connect).
Snow and desert: never shot in those conditions, but would be interested to hear from people who have!
I was camera operator for a no-budget feature five years back, and someone was making a behind-the-scenes. I've never seen it, but apparently there's a montage of me turning to the camera, with a shot from every location we went to, saying, "I hate bugs." "I hate bugs." "I hate bugs." I hate bugs."
I'm never going to work for National Geographic. I'm professional enough to go into a zen place and not let it distract me during a take. But after a take it's like, "F!@#$ Get these off me."
Day-time with flies buzzing around you is bad enough. But this is a night-time problem especially. If you're in the middle of a forest and turn on an HMI, what happens next? Every freaking moth, mosquito, beetle, and flying ant in the world is coming straight for you. And I had it easy compared to the guy next to me -- the poor gaffer operating as a human light stand.
Moral of the story: night-time = bug repellant, lots of bug repellant.