HF G40 question

[Bryan Worsley]

Originally Posted by Dave Baker

. By the time the fur is cut to avoid intrusion, the thing is much less effective. I guess it's why Rycote didn't go ahead.

That was the reasoning for the draw-string closure, that it could be easily loosened to access the shotgun/stereo switch, in addition to making it easier to fit the fur over the bulky foam sleeve. The greater issue was incomplete coverage of that short rear stub of 'active' microphone tube with the ultra-low density foam foam, and the production costs involved in solving that. They just felt that it wasn't viable economically, given the likely low demand and what people might be prepared to pay for it. In addition, they were embroiled in the launch of the Cyclone range and really didn't have the time to spend on developing it further. Anyhow, my modification - the piece of HVAC foam cut to cover that rear section - works well. Some consideration was given to a more conventional Windjammer with a layer of higher density foam incorporated in the fur lining, as some of their Mini Windjammer's have, but it would likely have been much less effective. Creating adequate dead-air space between the fur and capsules is a major factor.

[Dave Baker]

It really isn't a practical proposition. Beside the practicality of getting adequate cover to effectively cut wind noise, there is also the problem of the different hot shoe positioning on the camera models. From the fur-in-frame problem of the HF S100, shoe well forward, to it hitting my head on the HF G30 which has the shoe near the back (as you well know!), remember I use the EVF almost always, it just doesn't work for me. Maybe if there was a pillar extension.................

[Alan Craven]

I have got round these sort of problems in the past using the relatively cheap Smallrig components. These are available from Amazon in the UK.

Even cheaper can be making a bracket to shift the position of the microphone using aluminium strip off-cuts, with a purchased cold shoe - I am fortunate that I always have a range of these bits available. Otherwise, again ithe UK, B&Q or Screwfix have a range of Al extrusions in stock.

[Dave Baker]

Those sort of DIY things won't work for the DM-100, it's a dedicated hot shoe mike.

[Bryan Worsley]

As I mentioned in the other thread I referred to above, there is now a battery powered, wired 'cold shoe' incarnation of the DM-100 - the DM-E1:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-thin...ml#post1936571

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...icrophone.html

Appears to be aimed at Canon EOS shooters - why does everything have to be DSLR driven these days ? (Yes, I know, it's the future)

Looks to be the same basic tube design as the DM-100 (length 130mm) but with the tube brought further forward on the mount. It also comes with a stock fur windshield. If it's the same one as supplied with the DM-100 I'm wondering now if Canon did make some modifications to the design for better compatibility with both models. Is that maybe why Steve finds the fur supplied with his newly purchased DM-100 fits well with no gaps. Pure speculation.

I would also assume that this model functions like any other external microphone and allows the Low Cut filter option to be selected on the HF-G30/40. Again, needs verification.

[Ian Thomas]

Just wondered if anybody else using this camera notice's that on a sunny day it doesn't matter how you set the white balance all the footage seems to be on the reddish side, I tried today lovely sunny day setting it manual with a white paper or using the sunny preset and it still came out reddish yes I can correct it in post but it would be nice not to and shoot it correct out of camera, only had the camera a week so it could be me but just wondering if anybody else has found this .

[Steve Bleasdale]

Anyone got info on the wide dr setting against the normal settings, is cinema mode better than the rest? Tests showing me wide dr cleaner but not used at low light yet. Using it as a safety net wide at weddings and matches the 6d ii and c100 quite well. Any tips on white balance, kelvin 5200 looks the best outside and 2700 indoors.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Three pics which one best?

[Don Palomaki]

On my monitor, the mid image ("standard") is perhaps the poorest.

The main difference I see is in the laundry basket. The other two (cinema and wdr) are better, and close to each other.

[Steve Bleasdale]

cheers don

[Bryan Worsley]

Quite honestly, were it not for the laundry basket, I'd say 'Standard' (Normal) looks the best on balance. Yes, Wide DR gives some extra dynamic range, but it's at the expense of a softer image (lower local contrast) and increased noise levels - look at the black t shirt on the clothes line, and that's in open daylight. Cinema Mode also a bit softer and lacks contrast - needs to be added in post, IMHO.

[Dave Baker]

Cinema Mode also a bit softer and lacks contrast - needs to be added in post, IMHO.

Yes it does. It produces the flattest image, especially when Contrast and Color Depth are set to -2 and is much better for those like me who prefer to tweak in post. The result is more detail at both ends, but especially in the highlights and it does away with burnt out highlights at 100% zebra. Completed, it gives the appearance of a higher dynamic range.The alternative is to shoot Manual Mode and drop the exposure a bit from the zebra point, but even after post that gives an overall flatter look. Earlier in the year I did some side-by-side tests to see for myself what the differences are and which I prefer to use.

Personally I don't like Cinema Mode without work in post, I agree with you Bryan that it is a little too flat. The other thing to note is, CM restricts fps to 25 (presumably 24 your side of the pond), so over and undercrank and 35mbps can't be used.

[Don Palomaki]

It boils down to having a limited number of bits available for the image, and how you want to allocate them to the brightness range of the subject, how much you want to give to shadow and highlight detail.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Used wide dr past two weddings as a safety shot in church and held up nice and coloured well to c100 ii and 6d iis.

[Bryan Worsley]

I'm sure wedding videography does benefit from the extra dynamic range that Wide DR brings - shooting interiors (churches, receptions) and exteriors (under pagodas and the like) where you having to cope with a lot of back-light, with little or no opportunity for staged supplementary lighting. Did you shoot the weddings with Wide DR on the C100 ii also ?

I was just saying that of the three frame shots you posted that were shot in broad daylight I thought, on balance, Standard Mode looked the best - better 'definition' ('clarity', local contrast) and less noise than Wide DR. Examining the histograms it looked to me also that those were not taken from the original clips straight out of the camera and that you had made some levels adjustments in post ? Normally, with 'Standard' mode it's possible to recover more detail from near-blown highlights in the 'super-white' domain using 'pull-down' techniques in post, but in those images the highlights were well and truly 'hard-clipped'. Also were the same camera exposure settings used in all three modes ?