Here's a shocking surprise . . . more bird footage from Doug Jensen!!

I've been working on producing a 4-hour master class training video for the Panasonic S1H since mid-December and I've really enjoyed getting out a couple of times to shoot wildlife footage (mostly birds!) with the camera as I get to know it better and learn it's strengths and weaknesses. This video was shot with a Panasonic Lumix DC-S1H using just the naked camera with no cage, external monitor, or viewfinder. Just the camera, a lens, and a tripod (Sachtler FSB-6 with Flowtech75 legs).

I used three lenses:
Red 300mm f/2.9 (PL lens)
Canon 200mm f/2.8
Canon 200-400 f/4

Focus and exposure were on full manual. The slow-motion footage ranges from 60 fps to 180 fps. The resolution of the footage ranges from 5.9K down to HD. About 25% of the footage was shot with V-LOG and the rest was shot with a Rec709 PhotoStyle I have created called VORTEX-1. Grading was done in DaVinci Resolve Studio 16.

Panasonic Lumix S1H Demo Footage - Florida Birds on Vimeo

Doug actually the shocking surprise is the camera you are using! I'll definitely have to watch this.
Thanks.

Gordon

Doug, as usual beautiful footage. The lighting was perfect and such smooth following. These clips really show why you need a really professional and stable tripod. I love my Sachtler FSB-6 with my Flowtech75 legs. You were so right about using a truly professional tripod and head. Hope to see you again in Florida this year. Bob

Doug, if there were birds like that where I live, I could easily see filming them as much as you do. Also loved how you edited the piece. Curious to know how long the editing took you.

Hi Jase, thank you for the compliment. Most of the footage was shot in about 2 hours on two different days, so about 4 hours of shooting in total. Actually, one of those days I was just killing time waiting to shoot a rocket launch. I have to get to my position about three hours before they start closing roads near the launch pads, so shooting birds is a good way to pass the time.

I'd say it took about two hours to grade all the bird footage in Resolve. The footage in this video represents only about 1/3 of the clips that were good enough to grade and export for stock.

Then it took me about 1.5 hours to edit the video in Premiere. There's really not much to the editing really, just putting the clips in the best order and then dissolving between them. Done.

I hope that answers your question. The most important thing is that I enjoyed the whole process. I love this stuff.

Nice work. Great variety of shots and birds. Your panning and tracking is very smooth. The slow motion from the camera pleasing.

Very nice work as always Doug - how has the reliability been with the S1h? I was about to pull the trigger, but I have seen a few horror stories on the FB group with media corruption, although to be fair, it is sometimes hard to work out if people are talking about the S1 or the S1h.

I'm not on Fecebook so I don't know what their complaints are, but the camera has been nothing but 100% reliable and rock solid for me. I'd chalk up any problems to operator error or using the wrong memory cards, which is still, operator error.

Doug, I'm always circumspect myself, hence my check with a voice I trust.
Thanks for the confirmation!

I fully agree with Doug here, I now own and use the S1H as my A-cam having sold my FS7 MK2. The S1H is a monster in a small package. 100% reliable, and first time I have used a mirrorless, or SLR type body for video. This camera is a game changer!

I'm not on Fecebook so I don't know what their complaints are, but the camera has been nothing but 100% reliable and rock solid for me. I'd chalk up any problems to operator error or using the wrong memory cards, which is still, operator error.

Hi Doug. Very nice footage. The slow motion looks pretty good. I suspect with your skills you could make most cameras look pretty good. One question. What are you using or plan to use for ND filters? Thanks.

Gordon

Thanks for the compliment, Gordon.

The lack of ND filters was one of the most difficult things to get used to with the S1H but so far it hasn't been a problem. I have three solutions:

1) For all my lenses that have threads I already had several 77mm .6 and .9 ND filters laying around and they have been put into service. Some of my lenses are smaller than 77mm so I also have a bunch of step-down rings (or step-up, I can never remember which is which?) so the 77mm filters work on almost anything. I have enough of them that I just let the filters live on a couple of my lenses, such as the 35mm Sigma that is my day-to-day lens on the S1H.

2) A couple of my bigger telephoto lenses, such as my Canon 200-400 and Red 300 have filter holders in the rear. So those smaller ND filters are even cheaper and faster to swap out.

3) Most of my PL lenses require the use of a matte box to mount ND filters. So I have pulled by 21 year-old 4x4 Chroziel mattebox out of retirement and use a clamping device on those lenses. I could use rods but then I have to put a baseplace on the camera and I'm trying to keep it simple.

I hopp that answers your question. BTW, I'm against the use of variable ND filters because they have artifacts. Real ND filters are just fine.

Hi Doug, I was just suggesting to photographic vlogger has she ever tried any of those gradient landscape filters on her video logging camera. I think they might be good for a landscape shot.

ND grads are an excellent tool for darkening skies and they give you power for controlling exposure and dynamic range that goes well beyond what can be done in post -- even with LOG or RAW. I have several different grades of grad filters plus a blue tinted and amber tinted gradients. Combine them with a polarizer and then you've got some great control over the image.

But you need to tell her she must use a matte box, Cokin filter holder, or some other device that allows the filter to be raised or lowered in front of the lens in order to get the split in the right place. Those screw-in grad filters I see advertised that don't offer any adjustment except rotation are a waste of money and prey on the uneducated. Who puts the horizon line right in the middle of the frame? Dumb.

Thanks Doug it does. Yes I've read that a lot of people do not like VND because of those issues.
Thanks again.

Gordon

Just to be clear, I never mentioned Variable ND (VND). I was talking about graduated ND filters that start out clear on one edge and gradually fade to a darker density on the opposite edge of the filter. There are different options for how dark they fade to, the smoothness of the gradation, and even color tinting. But you have to have a filter holder that can slide vertically in order to place the gradient where you want it -- which a screw-in filter cannot do.

BTW, the windshields on most cars are basically ND grads.

First, those “artifacts” are color shifting (usually a green cast), a dark X-shaped shade across the image, and polarization effects. High quality (expensive) variable ND filters, such as the Polar Pro or the B+W XS-Pro are very resistant to the first two issues and are excellent options. As for the third, these filters are made from stacking polarizers so you will get those effects (such as reduced reflections) and that may be or not be to your liking. It’s really something you’d have to play with a judge for yourself. There’s no question a good Variable ND filter is really convenient.

Thanks Gary. I'll have to take a look as those filters.

Gordon

There’s no question a good Variable ND filter is really convenient.

Convenient, yes, but at the cost of image quality. You won't find any high-end productions using variable NDs. They are the lazy way of controlling exposure. What does it take, 15 seconds to swap one ND filter for another when lighting changes? If it is worth shooting, it is worth shooting right.

"The advantage of this approach (variable ND) is reduced bulk and expenses, but one drawback is a loss of image quality caused by both using two elements together and by combining two polarizing filters. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral-density_filter#Variable_neutral-density_filter

https://jonasraskphotography.com/2014/05/12/nd-filter-dont-go-variable/

https://www.diyphotography.net/problem-variable-nds-fixed-nds-still-relevant/

Or just just do your own testing if you want to see for yourself that VND is not the way to go if you care about image quality.

Convenient, yes, but at the cost of image quality.

There is no "cost" of image quality with high end filters, such as those I mentioned. No need to spread FUD here.

You won't find any high-end productions using variable NDs.

You don't work on "high-end productions", Doug, nor is anyone else viewing this. These "high end productions" also don't use an S1H either.

They are the lazy way of controlling exposure.

As "lazy" as when you used the built NDs on your FS7? Seems hypocritical to me, Doug.

If it is worth shooting, it is worth shooting right.

And using a high-end variable ND doesn't mean you're not shooting it right. That you have no experience or knowledge with using a high-end VND like a Polar Pro or a B+W doesn't make them bad or worthless.

You always have to make everything personal, don't you. I won't take your bait.
Have a nice day.

No need to spread FUD here.

No need to build a strawman, either.

You went fishing for something specifically out of context and used it as an excuse for confrontation.

Not only does that particular type of logical fallacy go against the general spirit of the proceedings here, but it's also a very poor way to argue.

It's as if you don't really care what your argument is even about... just as long as you get to argue.



You don't work on "high-end productions", Doug.

You don't know that.

I will point out here that Doug's work is seen from time to time by a nation-wide audience on broadcast television; that program is CBS Sunday Morning. It's most definitely a high-end production and it currently averages close to six million viewers (https://pressexpress.sho.com/cbs-news/shows/cbs-news-sunday-morning/releases/view?id=52243).



nor is anyone else viewing this.

Ha!

*snort*

You don't know that, either.



As "lazy" as when you used the built NDs on your FS7? Seems hypocritical to me, Doug.

Strawman. Not the same thing or even the same context, and that you do know.

This ain't Kansas. Go build your scarecrows somewhere else.



you have no experience or knowledge with using a high-end VND.

And you don't know that.

Please try to show a little restraint and stick to topics you know.

You went fishing for something specifically out of context and used it as an excuse for confrontation.

It was neither out of context nor used as an excuse.


I will point out here that Doug's work is seen from time to time by a nation-wide audience on broadcast television; that program is CBS Sunday Morning.

That CBS Sunday Morning may have purchased a piece of stock footage that he shot to use in a project is not the same thing as being hired by CBS Sunday Morning to provide an entire segment. And you know that. Also, having had experience in the news, I would not consider even that to be a "high-end production." And you know that.

Please try to show a little restraint and stick to topics you know.

I'll let you get back to being the "Ryan Elder Board".

It was neither out of context nor used as an excuse.

It was out of context. In the referred post he was talking about graduated NDs, not variable -- two different things.


... CBS Sunday Morning may have purchased a piece of stock footage...

I talked to Doug about this at NAB last year and that's *not* how it works.


I'll let you get back to being the "Ryan Elder Board".

That's funny, but not in the way you intended. The difference between his posts and yours is actually far greater than you realize.

I have learned a lot from Doug's posts over the years. Gary's posts just make me cringe.

Gentlemen I have to step in here.
My post #15
"Thanks Doug it does. Yes I've read that a lot of people do not like VND because of those issues."
was in response to Doug's reply to me in post #12
I hope that answers your question. BTW, I'm against the use of variable ND filters because they have artifacts. Real ND filters are just fine.

I have no idea how anything I said it my post even relates to post 14 but some how Doug seems to think it did so make the comment.

"Just to be clear, I never mentioned Variable ND (VND). I was talking about graduated ND filters"
which I was not and then this whole mess started.

Gordon

Gordon, you said the following in your post #15 immediately after I had ONLY been talking about graduated ND filters in my post #14:

"Thanks Doug it does. Yes I've read that a lot of people do not like VND because of those issues.
Thanks again. Gordon "


Why would you bring up the topic of VND in your post if you say now that you knew I wasn't talking about VND? It makes no sense. So my post #16 was just to clarify to make sure we weren't talking about two different things. I make no apologies. It is a common courtesy when someone posts a non sequitur for one person to make sure the the other person understands what was being said.

Gentlemen I have to step in here.
My post #15
"Thanks Doug it does. Yes I've read that a lot of people do not like VND because of those issues."
was in response to Doug's reply to me in post #12

Then why didn't you quote my post #12 if that's what you were replying to???
When you post a new comment immediately below someone else's most recent post (my #14), without quoting anything at all, it is understood that you are replying to the message immediately above it and not some other previous comment. That is Forum 101 protocol. I was trying to clarify for YOUR benefit. Instead, I get dumped on.

Sorry I asked now about the filter.

You shouldn't be.