Overgaard Posted March 1, 2014 Share #1 Posted March 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Since the Leica M 240 came out I have used it quite a few times and we have a long list of video projects filmed that needs to get edited. So have made this 3rd page on Leica M 240 video dealing with the sound side which is important to both have good sound quality, but also do it without having larger sound equipment than the camera it self! The page also features a number of video samples made by forum members and other M 240 users. Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Page 37 - Leica M Digital Rangefinder Camera Page - Part 3 - Sample Videos and Wireless Sound Equipment Enjoy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 1, 2014 Posted March 1, 2014 Hi Overgaard, Take a look here Third page about M 240 video with samples and sound equipment at overgaard.dk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest redge Posted March 1, 2014 Share #2 Posted March 1, 2014 It is heartening to see that you have had second thoughts about the broadside attack on the camera's video capabilities that you and your colleague Mr. Behiri made last spring. Described as "blistering" on one site, this attack did the camera a good deal of damage among people who didn't know better. I've just read your new page 37. It looks like you've done a good deal of work putting together a video kit that works for you given your objectives, and I think that many people will find your new page 37 helpful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 2, 2014 Share #3 Posted March 2, 2014 Thorsten - thanks. With video being such a small part of my practice, I'm still not sure that I can justify the additional cost of professional off-camera sound, your article confirmed some of the lessons I've been learning and gave me some more ideas. One comment on cabled tie-clip mikes, I've been using a 5 metre cable with mine for occasions when I know my voice will be edited out of the final cut and this has worked really well. I've used either a 50 or 35 lens + Gitzo table top or Traveller tripod and had good results. I'd be interested if you have any advice re flicker under artificial light. This has been my biggest problem as a lot of the interviews I've done have been in badly lit corners of conference venues. While using higher ISO (1600) video + opening up the aperture, seem to have helped. dropping shutter speed to 1/30th is the only way I've found of stopping the flicker problem - have you found any others? Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm sure that there will be full time videographers who will disagree with some of what you say, but it makes sense to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digi2ap Posted March 2, 2014 Share #4 Posted March 2, 2014 I'd echo the request about flicker and add a question about moire too. Early reviews that I read indicated that moire was well controlled by the M240. I'd use the camera for interviews but it wouldn't meet my needs if it isn't possible to avoid video flicker under internal lighting or if there is moire on an interviewee's jumper - for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share #5 Posted March 2, 2014 Chris, Do you shoot at 25 fps or 24 fps? And always at 1/50 exposure? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckel Posted March 2, 2014 Share #6 Posted March 2, 2014 If you are in Europe and using 25 fps and a 50/sec shutter speed you shouldn't get tungsten flicker in your video. In the US use 30 fps and a 60/sec and you'll also avoid tungsten flicker. I assume you can choose 30 fps on the M - I only have an M9 so ready to be corrected on this. Fluorescent flicker can be impossible to avoid in some circumstances. If you edit in Final Cut Pro 1 to 7, once your clip is on the timeline then double-click it in to the viewer, choose the 'motion' tab and set 'motion blur' to 200% at 4 samples. This will really help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 2, 2014 Share #7 Posted March 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I assume you can choose 30 fps on the M Yes, but you are limited to VGA resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share #8 Posted March 2, 2014 Here are some theory behind, as well as a calculator for shutter times related to FPS (Frames Per Second). This guide is for RED Cameras and the M 240 has less possibilities. I haven't had problems with flickering using 25fps and 1/50 sec exposure on the Leica M 240 for video Flicker-Free Video Tutorial Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 3, 2014 Share #9 Posted March 3, 2014 Chris, Do you shoot at 25 fps or 24 fps? And always at 1/50 exposure? Thorsten - so far as I can remember, I've always shot at 25 fps. I've defaulted to 1/50 (1/45 on the shutter dial), but have dropped to 130th when I've noticed problems of flickering. MOST of the time I've had very good results. The problem have arisen when I've been faced (because of client needs) with vile light (the sort you get in basement conference centres in international hotels - neon + low levels) so that I've had to shoot as wide open as possible (rather than f5.6 which I prefer for simple interview frames to keep DoF) and to use 1600 ISO. re the tip someone gave on Final Cut - useful to know, but I'm doing all of this low budget and am using Sony Movie Studio - cheap and compentent for my purposes. Thanks for comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share #10 Posted March 3, 2014 Chris, it is likely that dimmed lights from low energy or fluorescent has different frequency. That could be the problem, actually. As said I have never had the problem. I have seen a lot of flickering in the viewfinder when doing stills, even in light I thought had no frequency (but the EVF was plastered with massive black lines). But the stills came out all right. Though some times, with stills, you see flickering resulting in different exposures and/or the light you thought was strongest from the left of the person, is suddenly gone in some of the frames. I did a two day indoor shooting in Singapore a month ago, all with artificial light and was amazed that the results looked so different from frame to frame in a single burst. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 4, 2014 Share #11 Posted March 4, 2014 MOST of the time I've had very good results. The problem have arisen when I've been faced (because of client needs) with vile light (the sort you get in basement conference centres in international hotels - neon + low levels) so that I've had to shoot as wide open as possible (rather than f5.6 which I prefer for simple interview frames to keep DoF) and to use 1600 ISO. Chris, have you considered lighting your subjects rather than rely on the ambient light? Off camera lighting (like, I guess with sound, though I don't shoot video) makes such a difference and isn't necessarily an expensive proposition. For commercial work, the first thing I always think about is the light and whether I need to supplement or replace it artificially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 4, 2014 Share #12 Posted March 4, 2014 Chris, have you considered lighting your subjects rather than rely on the ambient light? Off camera lighting (like, I guess with sound, though I don't shoot video) makes such a difference and isn't necessarily an expensive proposition. For commercial work, the first thing I always think about is the light and whether I need to supplement or replace it artificially. Ian - I have certainly thought about this, but the last time I had to do a lot of video was on a recent trip to Colombia where I'd been originally commissioned to do 90% still documentary photography, but ended up (because the client insisted they needed it) doing almost 90% interview. It was a frustrating assignment, but I learned a lot. One lesson being to specify very clearly that if they want me to do similar video interviews we hire lights locally + an assistant to operate. If I'd had lights + a reflector, the whole process would have been so much easier! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share #13 Posted March 7, 2014 I would look for available light, and then use a reflector as well. I've traveled with videographers alongside who did only that. Then again, the problem with video is that often the good quiet places for video and sound has bad light, and in that case renting locally could be an idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted March 20, 2014 Author Share #14 Posted March 20, 2014 It is heartening to see that you have had second thoughts about the broadside attack on the camera's video capabilities that you and your colleague Mr. Behiri made last spring. Described as "blistering" on one site, this attack did the camera a good deal of damage among people who didn't know better. I've just read your new page 37. It looks like you've done a good deal of work putting together a video kit that works for you given your objectives, and I think that many people will find your new page 37 helpful. The test of the M 240 for video hen was to let a traditional video producer use the M240 and make up his own opinion. As the article says, I could have had an opinion about light, aperture and all, but the point was to let him do his thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.