New Sony PXW-FS5

[Josh Bass]

I think this was mentioned in another thread, but again, that's a marketing problem, not a camera issue. As a terrible networker myself, I sympathize. NONE of my gigs are from "networking" (don't really even understand what it means. . .conjures up visions of me going to industry mixers and other places and desperately handing business cards to everyone while saying "Hi. Josh Bass. Cameraographer. Please for the love of Jesus hire me."). Nope. Can't do it. All my work is from either other work (get hired one gig, different people on the crew remember you and hire you for something else), my ads on websites (many many sites out there to put up a FREE profile on with a link to your reel), or applying to (GASP) Craigslist and Mandy ads, and similar sites. Not many of those, but a few.

If the only clients you have don't pay well AND demand things you can't deliver without paying MORE? Those are bad clients for you, I would say useful only to get material for a reel to show better prospective clients, and once you have that, move on. I'm sorry that's your only work. It's better than nothing, I guess, but if you have to keep spending more and more money to get better gear to keep getting the same low-paying gigs, IS IT really better? That makes no business sense. I would think the idea is to make back the money you spend on gear as quickly as possible and then be making profit. That doesn't sound like what's happening for you.

I don't know your market or how to help but I would say that you can't continue down this road (low paying clients, buying more gear to keep working for them--paying to work, in essence) for too long before it all collapses in on itself.

[Walter Brokx]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

Walter, so you're basically telling a fresh graduate that I have to be a dick in order to get the gigs I'm supposed to get? I work with conventions that run entirely on volunteer staff, so to ask money of them is like being the biggest asshole to them and meaning I would instantly be shunned.

No, I'm telling you you need to manage their expectations and be honest about possibilities. And guard your bounderies. You are not a dick if you say that you can't afford to do that gig, because it will cost you too much. If you say 'no' to a gig you don't want or can't do, you're not a dick, you are honest.
I saw you mention your clients always low ball you. Say no for a change and tell them why that is not reasonable. Some will go search somewhere else (and most won't make a video at all, because they want too cheap), others will respect you more and learn to understand why you are worth your price.
Doing business should be about mutual respect.

(I've said no to gigs more than once. Often they tried "but they only charge this" and my reply was "if you don't see the difference in quality you should hire them, but I can't deliver my quality and concept at their rate." Or I had to explain to them that working for 2 days and to travel abroad to shoot with multiple cameras can't be done within their budget if I only make €10,- after I pay all my gig related expences.)

If they say : "we want 60p" (I wonder where they got that idea from?) you have to explain that that is only possible if they would have the budget for it, but since they apparently don't have it, you will have to tell them what IS possible instead and that 30p (and 25p) is fine. It's being used by even the largest multinationals in the world. Companies that can easily afford 60p, but to them 30p is good enough.

Let go of that idea of subconscience temporal movement... it is at it is right now. The future will come soon enough.

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

I tried that, I tried to swap a unnecessary VideoHub with a ATEM 1 M/E 4K by telling someone to purchase the equipment I actually need, and you know what the rest of my convention staff did? They shunned me. They're like "What a dick for trying to say what equipment someone else should buy..."

Never tell someone to buy anything, just point out the options and give advice. "If you want this result, you'll need this..."
My question to you is: do they really want 60p? and do they really need what they want?
and do you really need 60p?
Why would you need an ATEM 1 M/E 4K if you use 1 EX1R?

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

and my relationship with these conventions needs to be kept cause that's my only unpaid work at the moment.

Those that can deal without networking to get gigs can find it so much easier, but ALL of my gigs are through networking. I ruin those, I have zero gigs and all the effort I took to get at least SOME work would be for not.

I HAVE NO OTHER WORK.

This is a marketing problem, not a 60fps problem or a broadcast standard problem.
Yes, you should always cherish good relationships with (potential) clients.
But since this way of networking seems to only slowly get you work, you need to change something. Network in other places and/or change the way you do the networking.
You are fresh graduate. I was once too. I graduated as an audioviual designer, learnt a lot about writing, filming, directing and editing. But then I had to learn to network and be an entrepeneur.

Let me tell you a secret:

EVERYONE gets their gigs through networking in one way or another.

How do you network on these conventions?
Show up, film, go home, edit and deliver?
Or do you actually talk to people, listen to what they do and love, exchange business cards, stay connected through Linkedin, ask if you can add them to your newsletter (which you send only a few times a year to keep it fun and interesting), etcetera? If you have connections you know pretty well, you can ask them to introduce you to people you'd like to have as a client.
Do you have a website with a portfolio?
Do you use social media to share what you are doing?
Do you have a blog to share your experiences? (You don't have to, but it is a way to showcase you are an expert. Just don't write like a dick who knows it all ;-) )

To get the work you want, it can help to create something to reflect what you want and/or can do.
It's almost christmas, so you could make a cool and funny christmas video to send to your family, friends and network. This will stand out, will show them what you can do and might trigger actual inquiries.
I made such videos for years, because it is fun to make something creative and because it put me in people's minds as the creative filmmaker to go to.
Last year and this year I don't have the time for it: paid work takes all my time now.

And there is another secret: if you go to a business network, everybody is there to meet new and known connections. This means it is not strange to talk to strangers. It's like going to the pub without the risk of a broken heart ;-)
Go there with no expections, but to meet people.
Try to connect with the people you meet, stay in touch, turn them into fans of your work and they might recommend you to others. This can take some time, because it is like farming: you'll have to plant seeds first, before you can get the fruits of your networking.

One last question:
what kind of gigs would you like to do?

[Walter Brokx]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

I think this was mentioned in another thread, but again, that's a marketing problem, not a camera issue. As a terrible networker myself, I sympathize. NONE of my gigs are from "networking" (don't really even understand what it means. . .conjures up visions of me going to industry mixers and other places and desperately handing business cards to everyone while saying "Hi. Josh Bass. Cameraographer. Please for the love of Jesus hire me."). Nope. Can't do it. All my work is from either other work (get hired one gig, different people on the crew remember you and hire you for something else), my ads on websites (many many sites out there to put up a FREE profile on with a link to your reel), or applying to (GASP) Craigslist and Mandy ads, and similar sites. Not many of those, but a few.
.................

Except for the advertising, all the other things are networking: you are connecting to people in a way they remember you.
Just handing out business cards is not really networking: that is more like spamming.
The business card is only a small part of 'the dance' of face to face networking.

:-p

[Andy Wilkinson]

Just to try and get this thread back to focussing on the new FS5...

So far, all I can find is likely "early Dec" shipping date mentioned on some websites - I was hoping for mid-November ;-)

Anyone got any more concrete info than that?

[Walter Brokx]

On B&H I saw 4 december as expected shipping date.

[Jeremy Cole]

It is not the gear, it is the creativity and the craftsmanship that is important. If a client wants specific gear then I rent it and they pay for it. If they don't have the budget, then we use something else and I have never have had a client say they won't use me because I don't have a particular camera. I am still using an EX1r and an AF100 and making very nice programs that clients like. Both cameras are not IN anymore, but still produce nice images if you use them as they were intended and understand their strengths.

The FS5 intrigues me, because I have a lot of Nikon glass I can use with it and I love how small and lightweight it is.

As for networking, that is simply enlarging your network of people who can help you get known. You don't need a lot of clients. You need a couple of good ones who will keep coming back to you. You can use them as a base and build clients slowly and methodically, making sure that you produce good work that meets your clients needs. Listen carefully to what they want and work well with them. People like to work with people they get along with, so you need to cultivate your social skills as much as you camera skills.

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

Walter, so you're basically telling a fresh graduate that I have to be a dick in order to get the gigs I'm supposed to get? I work with conventions that run entirely on volunteer staff, so to ask money of them is like being the biggest asshole to them and meaning I would instantly be shunned.

I tried that, I tried to swap a unnecessary VideoHub with a ATEM 1 M/E 4K by telling someone to purchase the equipment I actually need, and you know what the rest of my convention staff did? They shunned me. They're like "What a dick for trying to say what equipment someone else should buy..." and my relationship with these conventions needs to be kept cause that's my only unpaid work at the moment.

Those that can deal without networking to get gigs can find it so much easier, but ALL of my gigs are through networking. I ruin those, I have zero gigs and all the effort I took to get at least SOME work would be for not.

I HAVE NO OTHER WORK.

[Tom Gresham]

Through the years I have made a lot of money by saying "no."

I have made even more money by quoting a price that was above what I thought they would pay.

When someone says, "We don't have much money now, but if you work for us for free/cheap, we'll remember you when we have bigger budgets," they really mean, "When we have more money, we'll remember that you work for peanuts, and we'll go find someone who is actually good."

BTDT, too. ;)

At its core, it's a business. Making videos is but a part of the business.

Always be selling. Sell yourself. Market yourself. Promote yourself. Rinse, lather, repeat.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

Just chatted about how to process the temporal motion of 1080i into high quality 1080p 60fps for YouTube audiences and the discussion immediately went to how "Why are professionals still recording interlaced?" and "Not a single modern camera should record interlaced."

And they were absolutely right!! Interlaced is a tool of the devil and needs to be exercised from this world. :-)

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

And they were absolutely right!! Interlaced is a tool of the devil and needs to be exercised from this world. :-)

But to support Jack if one wants the smooth motion of 60 ( 59.94 ) exposures a second then that is 60 ( 59.94 ) P. Full circle !! The equivalent of 60i in todays world is 60P not 30P. Don't get confused thinking 29.97 frames a second interlace is the same as 30P. They unfortunately have the same timecode. 60i shoots 59.94 exposures a second just like 60P they are just half the vertical resolution. Interlace sync pulse and timecode increment every 2 fields to let the CRT TV's etc now when the field sequence starts hence the timecode for 60i is 29.97 frames a second.

To support Jack 1920x1080P60 is not supported on Bluray or much else. For me too the progression to 4K or UHD should also be 60P ( 59.94 for the purists ) 30P has been adopted for much the same reason interlace was adopted. Money and technology. Needs lots of compute power to process 60p compared to 30P so the cameras etc are a lot lower cost for 30P than 60P and they don't get too hot !!! Also gives the companies differentiation opportunities even if the technology can do 60P or faster. In Sony's case they do have the technology ( FDR-AX1, PXW-Z100, FS7 etc, etc ) and it may well be in the FS5 already !!! Future firmware update or new version to sell !!

Ron Evans

[Doug Jensen]

All of that technical information is true, but it makes no difference in the end. Interlaced at any frame rate is outdated technology and I don't care for the look of, or see the need for, 60P.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

All of that technical information is true, but it makes no difference in the end. Interlaced at any frame rate is outdated technology and I don't care for the look of, or see the need for, 60P.

I agree that interlace is out of date technology but for me frame rate is important to indicate content. Lots of early work identified that frame rates less than 48fps gave the impression of fiction hence fine for shooting stories etc. In part used to justify 24fps for film. Frame rates above 48 fps were perceived as indicating something real. An attempt to record the real thing as if the viewer were there. So one could say that documentaries and events should be shot at frames rates above 48 fps since they intend to portray what is real. So you can see my concern when commercials are shot at 24fps !! Is the content real or are we being deceived. Psychologically we are perceiving the slower frame rate as fiction !! One size does not fit all. Frame rate is part of the project. Personally I do not like slow frame rates they upset my old eyes with the judder and motion artifacts. Have my Sony 240hz TV set to smooth things out as much as possible. I shoot everything 60i or 60P and finish in 60i for DVD and Bluray. I would like it to stay 60P and look forward to the day when that is possible.

Ron Evans

[Doug Jensen]

Ron,

Everyone is welcome to have their own personal preferences, but let me point out that you're telling us what YOU like as a consumer. Isn't this forum really geared to professional discussions about producing and delivering content? What you personally like as a consumer should take a backseat to what the client and/or audiences prefer. And clearly your personal preferences put you in the minority. Ever see reviews of the Hobbit in 48 fps? The fact is, clients and audiences prefer the look of progressive 24P and 30P over faster frame rates. That may change someday, but not anytime soon. Whether you like it or not, high frame rates and/or interlaced video have the stigma of local news, home movies, soap operas, cheap productions, and stuff of that ilk. So as a consumer you are welcome to have whatever preferences you want, but as a professional creators of content we have to think about what will be most acceptable and financially rewarding to produce and display. I stand by my assertion that that is 24P or 30P and nothing else (right now) for all types of content -- including documentaries. Not to mention all the technical issues that come with recording 60P and editing interlaced. Life is so easy @ 24P and 30P.

Not trying to argue with you, just having a discussion. :-)

[Josh Bass]

agree! so weird when people are trying to shoot in 60p for anything but that which really benefits from super smooth motion (fast moving sports?). When I see people saying they shoot all their interviews etc. in 60p, I ask (generally not out loud) WHY????

[Ron Evans]

Doug, I am not wanting to alter you view which is pretty fixed !! My comments only apply to science. You need high frame rates for fast motion so all sports on TV are 60P. Because of the specs that is 720P60 in the main. Same is true for news events as camera movements cannot be controlled like a film set and rapid camera movement would lead to the audience getting sick !!! I am not arguing at all of using slow frame rates for fiction if you read my previous posts. Not something I really like as a lot of the time these days it is produced badly with video camera motion rather than film motion leading to excessive judder etc. All in the name of shooting at 24P. Pointing to the inexperience of the crew involved. As to 30P that is also not fully supported by disc specs so has to be embedded into 60i most of the time for distribution in all but internet media .

All my projects are events so in my mind dictate a fast frame rate for realism. My aim is to make it look as if the viewer is looking through a window or is sat in the audience. If your projects are shooting fiction then use whatever frame rate you want to that conveys the mood of the film. All I am wanting to point out is that there is no such thing as THE frame rate. Just depends on what you are shooting and the emotion you want to convey in the finished product. Do you want it to look "real" or "fiction". As to the Hobbit I seem to think that it was shot at 48fps so that in 3D each eye could see a 24P image. Not sure I read many viewers comments most seem to be from the industry itself. Friends who saw it thought it was great. But as to my earlier post 48 would be right on the limit of "real" so not exactly a frame rate to create the impression of fiction.

I also repeat that if you want to convince someone that what you are telling them is real then use a high frame to do it. Before you tell me most commercials are shot at 24P-----do you believe them !!


Ron Evans

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

........ for me frame rate is important to indicate content. Lots of early work identified that frame rates less than 48fps gave the impression of fiction hence fine for shooting stories etc. In part used to justify 24fps for film. Frame rates above 48 fps were perceived as indicating something real.

Yes, 24/25 fps has a different "look" to 50/60 fps, but I think it's a leap to then say the higher frame rates inherently indicate something is "real".

I think a lot may depend of experience (as viewer, not producer) and I'm old enough to have grown up when all the location news reports on TV were film (and 25fps). Not for a moment would I have said that didn't make them seem real. And in the UK in a similar period (70's, 80's) TV drama was as likely to be electronic (50fps) as film (so 25fps), so to me I don't have a problem with high frame rate for story telling. I appreciate it may have been different in such as the States where drama was most likely to mean film, and ENG was used for news much earlier than in the UK. What I'm saying is that it comes down to past experience - not that any particular framerate has any "magical" appeal.

As for the days even before I was born (let alone watching TV! :-) ) then in the 1930's all cinema was 24fps - stories, documentaries and newsreels - I strongly suspect audiences weren't confused by the 24 fps nature when watching newsreels to think they were fiction.

In the very early days of cinema, I believe around 40fps was considered the minimum desired initially. But film cost, wear and tear of celluloid if ran too fast ,and such factors were incentives to try to run the film as slow as possible - and the invention of the three bladed shutter meant that rates of around 16-20fps could be seen as OK for motion with the flicker problem solved. 24fps only came about with sound - the speed HAD to be standardised to avoid wow and flutter, and had to be increased to get a usable frequency response with the optical tracks of the day. The film makers would have much preferred a higher speed from day one of the talkies - 24fps was the choice of the people paying for film stock! (And with 60Hz synchronous motors, it made engineering sense to make it a simple mathematical relationship, let alone that 24 frames was exactly 1 1/2 feet of 35mm film.)