Oh okay, I live in Canada, but I thought you could have 24 fps and 60 hz, at least in Premiere Pro's export settings you can. I can do 30 then. What can I do to record animal sounds, since they don't seem to want to get within 80 or more feet of me it seems? Even if I put them in with Foley or sound effects separately, I still have to record their sounds of their voices originally, if I they want voice sounds, so how do I get close enough to do it then, if they keep moving away?

Ryan - you just don't. the problem is that to get the closeup audio everyone hears on TV, you need to be close enough to frighten them off, or potentially get eaten. Real shots of Eagles tearing am mouse apart and crunching it down don't sound remotely like that. I had to produce the sound of a huge eagle taking off, opening it's wings and launching. In reality, this makes so little noise that the shot sounds weak with the real sound - so my favourite was a pair of old fashioned leather motorcycle gauntlet style gloves which I flapped together. This was what the audience expected. If you hear a deer eating it eats practically silent. They make odd noises when they rut, but mostly they are quite silent, so for video you want to be over the top. Give them what they expect. The really good wildlife people spend an entire career learning the tricks - best you can do is get a very long lens and some camo to wear.

Again - you are believing what people ask you as 'the norm'. If your job is to get images and sound, then it's hard work and will take ages. However, there are loads and loads of official SFX, and of course youtube clips you can study and, er, adapt maybe? Your camera audio, as I already said is the wild track, and you add the manufactured sounds over the top - AND DO NOT TELL THEM.

Again, most of the answers are available online, one example:

BBC - Earth - Sounds of nature: Making a soundtrack for wildlife films (http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160314-sounds-of-nature-for-wildlife-films)

You can research the project basics without asking in a forum all the time. It's so easy to this, since there are so many resources now available for free.

But I have 4 lenses where I should have two, because I just can't lose the f2.8 constant aperture pair when I want better low light or shallower DoF.

Thanks for that excellent info, Seth. And I know what you mean about the f2.8!

I've started a new thread over in the BM forum for anyone who wants to continue this discussion about EF and EF-S lenses:

https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/blackmagic-cinema-camera/536947-lens-choices-bmpcc-6k.html#post1952360

I use freesound.org for audio that I can't get myself.

Moving this thread from Open DV to Under Water, Over Land with 1-month redirect.

Oh ok I've tried using freesound before but it was difficult to get the sound to match with others projects cause the room tone and background sound was always different. Is there anything i csn do about that?

I can do Foley, its just the animals voices are hard to mimic of course.

the magic of mixing is how you blend those freesound sounds in. reverb, eq, etc. Good luck. Are you want to/are able to take this project on? sounds like a miserable amount of work for a freebie.

Bird calls you can record, but you need specialized microphones and requires spending time in the field with the knowledge to get geod results. You have to be correct with these calls because it's a specialist audience, the rustles and eating sounds etc you can use Foley.

Usually with sound effect recordings you can just use the effect itself, cut the unwanted room tone etc and use your own room tone as a background. It really depends on the effect recording, again you have to spend time going through the different sound effect libraries until you get what you want. if it's not there, you have to record it yourself.

With a clean, closely miked, spot effect you can do a lot during the mixing stage, if you've got reverb already on the effect etc you're limited.

If you want to record realistic wildlife tracks and you are doing it anywhere other than treated, dead studio, then why not record them outside? no reverb, occasional birds and crickets or whatever, but animal sounds can be really fun. There are loads of effects pre done out there. Tell you what, send me your cut video and I'll sort the audio for it at cost. It would be rather nostalgic doing it all again.

Have you made any progress with the camera, lens and tripod/head?

I used to record them outside at night, when there was less extraneous background sounds.

Okay thanks. Actually the client wants music over all the footage pretty much, so maybe a lot of the sound can be buried in the music to a degree therefore.

I know it's a freebie but I thought I would do it for my own experience, and maybe something of my own to put in my portfolio. We'll see how it turns out. Unless maybe I shouldn't be taking freebies...?

I just mean make sure you're up to whatever it is they're expecting include the sound mix so you don't get yourself into troubles. I don't know how long the final product is supposed to be but you could spend eons messing with just the sound.

Yeah for sure, thanks :).

Next is some interviews with people standing in the forest talking about it. However, for interviews, what's a good lense choice for a wildlife documentary style, just for the MCU's of the people talking? I was thinking an 85mm but is that too compressed looking perhaps?

A 85mm will be fine, as would a 50mm or other lenses, depending on how much background you want. This will depend on the location and personal taste.

This is an extremely basic question that wouldn't expect from someone proposing to direct a feature film.

As you already have a zoom, which isn't quite long enough this is a very silly question. you're switching to primes? Why?

It's something you can't decide until you are there - as there could be a tree in your back and you need to use a wider lens and go closer, or go narrower and further away to alter what's in the background. Ryan - you know all this Brian is right here - we've gone back to ultra basics again. You really must develop the ability to think for yourself.

I assume you have the sound for a two shot in the forest covered? Short shotgun and furry cover, or will we be back to strange noises again?

PS This Youtube video sorts your sound effects for deer. https://youtu.be/dnJV9tUYupQ

Yeah you're right, I guess I'm just nervous about it, I will use the 85 most likely then. I could use the zoom for the entire thing, but is it bad to use two lenses for different shots in a production? What do you mean by 'two shot'?

Yeah I have a furry cover.

A two shot usually refers to a shot that has the two participants in it, this can be any size, although commonly it's likely to to a mid shot or wider.

You can use two lenses, as long as they match in colour, contrast etc. That's why cine lenses usually come as a set.

Oh okay cool. So in that video with the deer sound effects, are those just people doing the sounds with their voices?

It's from a sound effects library, so unlikely to be someone doing the sounds. There are sound recordists who specialize in recording animal calls.

https://www.asoundeffect.com/african-wildlife-sound-effects-library/

Amazing! Bird Sounds From The Lyre Bird - David Attenborough - BBC Wildlife - YouTube

The thing Ryan is that a perfect success, means you didn't know. Google Percy Edwards. For years animals, especially birds, in TV, radio and movie productions were him making them with his mouth. So many programmes had his impressions in them that they fooled the experts and he became a minor celebrity.

The important thing is that the sounds are realistic and supportive of the video. If you are making a world class documentary and fronting it with Sir David Attenborough, then having the lesser spotted deer in vision have the correct 'dialect' of grunt is perhaps more important than simply having a fallow deer's grunt from a pre-recorded track? Who would know in your production? I don't quite get why you don't just do it, and not mention these things. I get the impression you go to the producer and say "I can't get a lesser spotted deer grunt, so will it be OK to use a fallow deer?" and of course they will say no - being competent natural history experts. Show them a deer, any deer and have it make a noise.

I spent a week once creating the sound of a frog. An expert friend laughed his socks off. the huge noise I'd used on the huge frog was the sound a tiny little tree frog makes - he was the only one who noticed. everyone else heard what they expected to hear, and that's the real success - audiences not even noticing.

Out of the world of wildlife documentary animal calls, sound effects are often not the real sound, but a composite of sounds or faked using various household objects and food.

Okay thanks. It's just the clients who want the video done, are animal experts it seems in their field and may not like it if it's not the real sounds, compared to the average person I thought, but I can try the library and see. Thanks :)

Sadly, they're not expert at how difficult the job they've set is!

They've got a free/cut price job, so it's a bit of a cheek to expect something not remotely being paid for. I'd probably also be wondering how expert they are, because most wildlife 'experts' would know far more than they do about the issues surrounding wildlife video. Most 'experts' would be asking questions about this video - setting lists of what exactly is wanted, how long, time of day, what breeds, etc etc. the chances of going into the area on a Tuesday morning at 9.30am might mean you shoot nothing at all. What research have you done on the animals they want? Do they forage all day, at dawn, dusk, or night time. Is this season where they herd together, or will they be solitary older animals and groups of younger ones with females etc etc.

Do they always feed in the same place, so you could record real audio by hiding some mics? Could you even try some of the cheap wildlife recorders being sold? My sister has two in the wood next to her garden and every day gets some great shots of creatures!

Well they already have wildlife recorders out there, but they keep on being stolen they said, so I don't want that to happen to mine, if I were to get some. But I'm doing this as a freebie and don't want to buy anything that they don't give me the budget for.

As for studying the animals, they are supplying me with the information actually so far, so I'm going by that.

However, I am not satisfied with my lens so far, cause when I zoom in to 300mm the footage gets too soft perhaps. Not sure if they notice so far, but maybe there is a better DSLR that can fit on my camera that will be sharper at 300mm or more?

My experience is that photographic designed lenses often show their weaknesses at the extremes. A friend of mine has the same camera I have, and bought an adaptor to use a longer lens. Physically, it fitted but the results were very disappointing very soft images. Using adaptors and trying to squeeze extra focal length effectively lowers the resolution by quite a bit. Using SD lenses, even expensive ones on an HD camera shows them up. I'm left wondering if instead of adaptors that are mismatched to the optics, a 4K camera with permanent lens, purpose designed for the sensor would produce better images by cropping than an hD camera with magnification. Not tried it yet. With DSLRs, of course, the choice is usually what glass you can bolt on the front that you can afford.

The lenses needed for tight shots on birds are going to longer than the run of the mill lenses most people purchase, so they're going to be expensive. Your current focal length would be coming into the equation if you were shooting 16mm film or on a 2/3" camera for this job and you'd still need to be close.

Oh okay thanks, I'll see what I can do...

If you see the artifacts on North American television they are wrong, you don't get them on European TV, which uses 25fps.

Use the 30 fps setting, it's the standard for broadcast HD..

I am uncomfortable with this 30 fps, as it looks like a home video camcorder at that framerate. Why is 30 fps the best just because it's standard?

Ryan, have you ever watched tv wildlife? Blue planet, and anything by sir david attenburgh? Tv format and looks amazing. Friends is also tv format and there is no comparison between this in quality terms! You say the most crazy things sometimes. 1080, in 16:9, distributed on 25 or 30 frame systems can look stunning. If you cannot see this and understand why, give up and take up flower arranging.

I know what Ryan means here. 30 fps INTERLACED (60i) does look like the news/a soap opera. 30p (progressive) is sort of a halfway point between the soap opera look and the “cinematic” 24p. I dont really watch or shoot wildlife so I have idea what the norm is. Maybe its supposed to look like the news.

However, the answer, as always, is doing what your (reportedly awful) client wants. If they dont know what the hell youre talking about when you ask them things about framerates etc. then follow what the last shooter did.

uk delivery formats to the broadcasters in SD and HD are all interlaced, with progressive only for UHD/4K - so people watching quality produced sport, current affairs and documentary programmes need to select one of these formats for it to be accepted into the transmission chain.

UHD
• 3840 x 2160 pixels in an aspect ratio of 16:92;
• 50 or 25 frames per second progressive - known as 2160p/50 or 2160p/25;

HD
• 1920 x 1080 pixels in an aspect ratio of 16:9
• 25 frames per second (50 fields) interlaced – known as 1080i/25, top field first;

SD
• 702 x 576 pixels in an aspect ratio of 16:9;
• 25 frames per second (50 fields) interlaced - known as 576i/25, top field first;

So people watching on basic TVs are watching interlaced quite happily and seeing excellent pictures.

The slightly tongue-in-cheek comment about Friends (very popular here) is a good point though. It looks far worse in quality - so as it has to be delivered in the spec above, the picture mangling has been done elsewhere. The stunning Blue Planet stuff was delivered in exactly the same format to the soft and very old fashioned US NTsC looking Friends.

Why this is I really don't know, but we do see this quality still - quite often, yet it's all good in other US shows?

Not quite sure I understand you...

Friends, as far as I know, was shot on film, presumably at 24 fps. Even if broadcast here (US) at 29.97, it still originated at 24 and retains the look during broadcast, which is different than what you guys are telling Ryan to do which is ACQUIRE at 30 fps interlaced/60i unless I’m misunderstanding something.

If it was shot on film, then what we see here is severely mangled = extremely soft and washed out.

No I think (or at least I was) referring the end product. Shooting of course depends on the content. The series I keep mentioning was shot on a range of cameras, including Red Dragons with broadcast Zooms and extenders at a range of frame rates, but then squashed down to the ones I mentioned for submission. I just felt that interlaced was being rejected in favour of 'progressive is best', but with 25p/50i discussions I'm not even really sure how the difference works in practice any longer?

This is the statement that got me.....30 fps, as it looks like a home video camcorder

That’s what I mean, Ryan’s saying the look of interlaced 30fps as an acquisition framerate is “home video-like”. It sounded like people were telling him to shoot that way (maybe they were) rather than output his final piece that way regardless of what framerate he shot at.

As a guy who used to work master control and tape op at tv stations, I can tell you there are any number of ways a 22-year old making $15 can hour can screw up a transfer to get the results youre seeing with Friends. Or maybe they werent even given a high quality master to begin with.

Oh, should the final output be a different framerate then? And yeah I guess I don't watch enough wildlife on TV maybe. Is it maybe because wildlife on TV is shot with fuller frame cameras, and that is why it doesn't look as 'home video-ish', compared to my APS-C sensor?

If you want a more film look, shoot progressive frames, but not at that 50 or 60 type frame rates, these will look more like video in their motion..

23.976p 25p and 29.97p are used to shoot dramas and high end documentaries that wish to look less like video. They shoot wildlife programmes,,es on 2/3" cameras and/or Super 35 cameras like the RED. They also go through serious colour correction in post using higher quality codecs than you're using on the DSLR.

"Friends" was shot on 35mm film, so 24fps would've been used, The degraded quality would be due to the transfer to NTSC, then another change to PAL in the UK.

I gather there is remastered 16:9 HD version. One of the advantages of shooting on film is that as the transfer technology improves, the more you can get out of the negative.

I got a new lens adaptor today, something I meant to do before, but Ryan's post kind of gave me a kick. A B4 ⅔" lens adaptor to it fits on my ⅓" JVC. I expected the results to be poor. I'd been told to expect a very soft image with my old Canon lens, and all kinds of nasty coloured fringing and odd artefacts. I'd also been told that the 2X lens extender wouldn't work.

I tried the beach, but heat haze - 31.5 degrees C here today - made this location not too good, so I went to the local broads and no haze.

I also took some photos with my iPhone to show you what it could see, as most people are familiar with the field of view of phone cameras.

The collection of clips from the better location shows how sharp an SD B4 lens can be on a small sensor camera. I'm struggling with the maths a bit to calculate the equivalent focal length compared to 35mm, but once you zoom out even a little, the image quality is not anywhere near the issue I thought it would be, and for wildlife stuff - it would be rather useful, but even my Vinten 5LF head is not stable enough for lurch free pans and tilts, unless I wind in some friction and then pan by turning the head, rather than the pan bar - using the pan bar is very 'touchy'.
The collection of clips is here - using the 1x and 2 x converter
https://youtu.be/Ehst0k16ZNw

You can also fit these lenses on large sensor cameras using a suitable adapter. Obviously it would be the HD or 4k ENG/EFP lenses that you would use for higher end work, these lenses are used by wildlife camera people.

In a way - I've done a Ryan. A friend of mine with the same camera tried one of these adaptors and bought a second hand B4 lens on Ebay. He told me the results were disappointing, and I took his experience as typical of ALL B4 ⅔" lenses, when clearly, this one is quite usable.

I have no idea what's inside, but in the store are two more large Sony flight cases - I think one is empty having scrapped the other Betacam a couple of years ago, but the other is heavy - and clearly has something in it. I will drag these out and have a look inside. It could give me another lens to try?

All I can do is encourage Ryan to not give up and try something a bit different. Try alternatives, and don't believe everything people tell you. I'm already thinking of things I can do with this. I also know that I like to thin k that I'm pretty good with normal lenses, but this afternoon showed me that working with long lenses is a totally different technique when you don't have the mass of a box lens on a Vector head!