Patrick Cooper

Thanks for the recommendation for the Rode Smartlav+. Judging from a youtube video I watched, it looks like it performs well outdoors amidst background noise. So should be even better in a parabolic dish. Ive also seen some other attractive options that are cheaper than the Rode. Yea I know a tablet is going to be awkward at times. Though it will be used for fairly basic stuff (mostly nature sounds.) Though with regards to bird calls, I'm just hoping that the feathered animal would remain singing for a decent duration. I could visualise that a fair amount of time would be spent fiddling with the recording app (adjusting levels etc) before I actually start recording.

By the way, Ive also been intrigued with the idea of using a microphone with XLR attachment and connecting it to a tablet or similar device with an XLR to 3.5mm adapter. Though do some of these kinds of mics have additional power requirements or something like that? I thought I recall reading about that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Great suggestion. I didn't consider that. I think it's something like a micro usb or something like that - I wonder how common omni mics are with that kind of usb. I guess usb adapters are available but they don't always seem to work for me.

I'm considering using a Samsung Tab 3 for recording audio of bird calls out in the wilderness. I just hope I can get hold of a good app that allows manual adjustment of levels and recording to formats like Flac or WAV etc. I plan to make a parabolic dish (or adapt something already existing that has the basic shape and size) and use an omni-directional microphone with it. I would also like to use headphones to help monitor the sound. Though here's my dilemma. There is only one 3.5mm jack on this tablet. Is there some way that I could connect headphones and microphone simultaneously? I admit I don't know much about audio and what kind of options are available. I don't suppose there would be something like a splitter cable that would allow two different devices to be connected?

Oh yea I realise I'm overdue for a new computer. When the budget allows, I would like to get a new and reasonably powerful pc one day.

And Ive just hit a hurdle with Davinci Resolve. Apparently, the version I downloaded is 64bit and my computer uses a 32bit system so they're incompatible. I could only see one version for Windows so I guess that's all there is. Don't ask me why I'm using an ancient 32bit system. Someone who claims to be a computer expert installed it on my pc (even though I told him beforehand that I was planning to edit HD video.) At the time, I didn't realise that 32bit systems are limited to 4GB of RAM. Another family member has a laptop which uses 64bit. I could ask her if it's okay to install Resolve on her machine.

Actually, I do have another query about Davinci Resolve's export options. From what Ive noticed in tutorial videos, I can't see any way of selecting progressive or interlaced. I would prefer progressive video with my exports. How would you know for sure that the video is being exported as progressive?

Ah good to know and that makes things convenient. I thought I recall someone mentioning on another forum about manually selecting a high bitrate when using ProRes (unless I'm mistaken.)

Thank you for that linked article. I note that the bitrate for 4096 x 1260 at 24p for ProRes 422 is 503 mb/s. If I was exporting Panasonic G7 4096 x 1260 24p footage with the ProRes 422 codec in Resolve, would I set the bitrate to 503 mb/s or some other amount?

Tyler yes, good points. Jordan, I have a Pansonic G7 rather than a GH7. I'm not even aware that they came out with a GH7 in the GH line. Though yes, it has a bitrate of 100mbps. All stock videos submitted to the online agencies are trimmed and exported with NLE software and many of the clips have some colour grading applied. I will likely be using Davinci Resolve to export my next bunch of clips. I haven't used this particular software before (I'm currently going through tutorial videos) so I'm not 100% sure on what choices of codecs it has. Though from memory, I think it may offer PhotoJpeg. I don't know if ProRes has been added or not. Though I'm still not sure how much I should increase the bitrate with ProRes or PhotoJpeg when exporting my videos. Would it be recommended to double or triple the bitrate in my source footage or use some other formula for working it out?

The reason why I'm attracted to using codecs like Prores and PhotoJpeg is because I shoot stock footage. And some people reckon that using such codecs as these can increase the chances of sales on a clip. Supposedly, with h264, editors are very limited with the grading that they can apply to a clip whereas with codecs like Prores and PhotoJpeg, they have a lot more flexibility in what they can do without worrying as much about the quality dropping off or artifacts emerging. Well that's what I keep hearing from the stock footage community. Stock videos with Prores and PhotoJpeg are apparently more attractive to buyers. Though I admit Ive had some decent sales with clips that used h264. So regarding the bitrate that you would use with Prores and PhotoJpeg, you're confirming that this should be set higher than that of the source footage? Yea it would be good to know if there was some simple formula for working out how much to increase it by. For the people who do use these kinds of codecs, I wonder how they calculate this.

I can certainly see the potential here. Not sure if my copy of CS4 would be recent enough to do this (I'll have to check.) To apply the changes to all the individual frames, I guess I'd have to do batch processing? I find batch processing pretty awkward to do in Photoshop and it doesn't always apply the changes to all the files (despite following the instructions.)

So far, with most of my HD and 4k video editing, I have used the h264 codec. Regarding bitrate settings, I usually set the same bitrate as the original source footage. I am now considering using codecs that use very little compression like prores and photojpeg. Some individuals recommend using a significantly higher bitrate when exporting with these kinds of codecs. Though doesn't that contradict the general advice that you should never use a higher bitrate than your source footage and that there would be no quality benefits in doing so? Actually, I believe there was one individual who reckoned that using a higher bitrate than your source footage could lead to issues with the video quality but I'm not sure if there is any truth to that. What would be the advice here on this matter? Also bare in mind that I'm not recording on high end pro equipment in an uncompressed format. My source footage (shot with Panasonic G6 and G7 M4/3 cameras) would likely have a fair amount of compression with a low bitrate to begin with. The same with my GoPro footage.

By the way, Ive mounted long lenses from 35mm SLRs on my K3 (which has since died.) A Takumar 200mm and Tamron 400mm. They were used exclusively for filming wildlife. Results were quite respectable though I was expecting more from the Takumar with regards to sharpness. I haven't seen any of this equipment in years and Ive only just come across them again recently in storage. I might possibly sell the K3 for spare parts.

Theoretically yes. Wide angle lenses designed for 35mm SLR still cameras are generally retrofocus - otherwise known as the reverse telephoto lens design. Indeed a compromise in optical design. However, having said that, Ive seen some impressive looking footage shot with a Bolex H16 with a 20mm lens from a 35mm SLR (mounted with an adapter.) Imagery was crisp with nice detail. Long shots looked good in terms of sharpness (as did the mid shots and close ups.) So despite the design of the lens, it performed well on a 16mm movie camera. Then again, I suspect the operator may not have infinity focus so that's one drawback.

Alas Ive only got 4GB of RAM. Unfortunately, I can't add any more because my pc has a 32 bit system (not my choice - someone else installed that.) Though as someone pointed out on another forum, 4GB might be sufficient for the stock footage that I edit. The clips are very short (usually under a minute and some are less than 15 seconds in length.) So yea I'll definitely give Resolve a try.

I know Resolve is extremely popular but unfortunately, my pc wouldn't be powerful enough to run it. Not enough RAM. Out of curiosity, how effective is Resolve at removing dust spots? I hadn't heard of Fusion before - I guess that could come in handy for such a task.

I'm not an After Effects user so I'm not familiar with that software. I was under the impression that I could export single frames from Premiere Elements but so far, I haven't been able to work out how to do that with my copy (version 13.) If it is indeed possible, I wouldn't be surprised if jpeg is the only option since Elements is a pretty basic program. With the fully featured pro version of Premiere, I have heard people creating a duplicate video track on the timeline, cropping and shifting it sideways to hide dust spots. Though I doubt that's possible with Elements. I guess I could download a trial of the pro version and play around with that.

One thing I could try differently is use the photo capture option in Adobe Premiere Elements to grab a still image. What I used before was one of those freeware programs that converts video to jpegs. I actually wonder if such a program changes the colours somehow. Though when I opened up one of the jpegs in Photoshop, the colours looked pretty much the same as what I saw in Premiere. Though as I noted in my previous post, the colour of the filled in areas was significantly lighter than the background when the saved image was dropped into the timeline. Really stuck out like a sore thumb. I guess some of you are wondering why I didn't use the photo capture option in Premiere in the first place. It's an old habit of mine that's carried over from when I was using Sony Movie Studio on a regular basis. Sony Movie Studio's own photo capture tool could only grab an ultra low resolution image from the timeline so I had to explore other options if I wanted a full resolution still. I'm a fairly new user to Premiere and Ive just found out that it is indeed possible to export a full resolution jpeg directly from the timeline. I'll try that and see if that makes a difference to the masking of the dust spots.

I know that many people use this technique for removing dust spots and other blemishes from footage but tonight was my first attempt at trying it. The workflow is pretty straight forward – 1. Extract a still image from the video 2. import still into Photoshop 3. Create a new layer 4. Paint over the offending dust spot with the background colour 5. Delete the background layer 6. Save as PNG (preserving transparency) 7. Import into the timeline of the NLE software In my case, I used the rubber stamp tool to cover the dust spots instead of the paint brush tool. And when I completed the actions in Photoshop, it looked seamless (before I deleted the background layer.) The filled in areas blended in extremely well with the background colour. However, when I imported the PNG still into Adobe Premiere Elements and placed it on the timeline, it was far from seamless. Quite the opposite. These filled in areas are now significantly lighter than the background colour (when viewing on the preview screen.) They actually stick out more now compared to when the dust spots were visible. A much lighter colour than before. The exported video looks the same. Alternatively, I could use the paint brush tool in Photoshop instead of the rubber stamp but that's not going to work in all situations. I have many videos spoiled by dust spots and with some of them, the spots are partly covering clouds in the sky and sometimes appear on solid objects in the scene. So you would need the rubber stamp tool to restore the detail (and in some cases multiple colours) in that object. It's not always a case of filling in a single solid colour. Any suggestions on how I could get a seamless look on the timeline? I submit videos to stock agencies and currently, there are a fair few videos of mine that I cannot submit because of dust spots. I really need some way of masking them successfully in post.

Ah I found the power cord. It was located in the same room as the box. I thought I'd have to do a massive search for it. Guess I had better order a new lamp for it just in case.

Thankyou for the replies. Uli, yes I used a similar strategy myself. I mainly shot 18fps to get more run time. Though my first super 8 projector (a Eumig 610D) could not run at 24fps and had no sound so that was a bit of a downer when I started collecting commercial films. I remember buying a 400ft condensed version of The Amityville Horror and having to watch it in silence with rapid actions slowed down a little. My current projector (that I haven't used i a while) is an Elmo ST-180. This is the projector that I was planning to screen some cartoons etc with for the family. But it seems my plans have been foiled. Ive just taken it out of the box and I discovered that the power cord is missing which is odd because usually, I keep everything projector-related inside the box like the instruction manual etc. I might have to order a new cord.

At the moment, I have some family members staying over and I thought it would be fun to bring out the super 8 projector and project some commercial films like cartoons and documentaries etc. These are films that I bought years ago and would likely be reduction prints made from larger formats like 16mm. Though the thing is it has been so long since Ive projected such films and I was curious about the correct frame rate for some of them. For the sound films, the correct frame rate would obviously be 24fps. There are also a number of silent films as well that I'm a little unsure about. I'm assuming these would be 24fps as well rather than 18fps? The film speed isn't always printed on the cardboard box that comes with the film.

Nice work. That's certainly an improvement. I do have Adobe Photoshop but I don't have Premier or After Effects (no experience with those programs.) I tried with Shotcut but didn't have any success there (I admit it was my first time trying colour grading and didn't really know what I was doing.)

Recently, I had some super 8 Vision 3 50D super 8 film transferred. I was informed that some colour grading is performed on negative transfers by this business (and that has certainly been the case in the past with my previous negative films that were transferred there.) During shooting, when I was finishing off the film, my Canon 1014E's internal light meter became defective and I was forced to use my Panasonic digital M4/3 camera to take light readings. Though I have not done this before (using a digi cam to meter for super 8 ) so I erred on the side of overexposure to play it safe. To compensate for the light loss to the Canon's beamsplitter, I subtracted half a stop which was probably too much. At a rough guess, the footage in this portion of the film may be overexposed by at least a stop and a half. Actually more likely over two stops of overexposure. Though I was really surprised when I saw the transfer. These particular segments were really washed out. A huge loss of detail and colour information. It was like looking at reversal film that had been overexposed by a significant amount. Surely they could do better than this! I saw no attempts at correction. By the way, a number of years ago, I was photographing some people under artificial lighting at night on 35mm colour negative film with an SLR camera. With the first print from the lab, the subjects were blown out to complete white. Absolutely no detail at all. I managed to get them to do another print where all the colour and detail were restored in the subjects. So considering that, I was under the impression that this super 8 footage could be salvageable. I actually tried to colour grade it myself (my very first time trying this.) I don't have Davinci Resolve as I don't have a powerful enough computer to run it. I had to use the rather crude colour grading tools in Shotcut but I could not get anything usable. I'm guessing that a skilled colourist with lots of experience may be able to salvage it. There’s also some other shots elsewhere on the film with less overexposure (a bit over half a stop.) Among that footage are some white subjects illuminated by late afternoon sunlight that are pretty much blown out. I was hoping for better results than this. Ive contacted the business and I'm waiting for a reply.