Nick De Marco
Well-known
Just finished editing this short (under 9 minutes) Thai boxing movie for some friends.
Check my blog to read more and watch video:
http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/super-mauy-thai-boxing-movie.html
I shot it on the Leica M, as with most of the photos also on the video.
Wouldn't have wanted any other camera for this - and I speak as a former professional film and video editor.
[by the way how do I show a photo from flickr here now it's changed?]
The team are blown away with it and it will be shown on a large screen to 1,500 fans at the next big show - which should be fun to experience.
Nick
Check my blog to read more and watch video:
http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/super-mauy-thai-boxing-movie.html
I shot it on the Leica M, as with most of the photos also on the video.
Wouldn't have wanted any other camera for this - and I speak as a former professional film and video editor.
The team are blown away with it and it will be shown on a large screen to 1,500 fans at the next big show - which should be fun to experience.
Nick
Samouraï
Well-known
Curious, what makes the Leica M different than any other DSLR? Did you utilize the optical viewfinder for focusing? What is the codec that the M uses? What was your full setup?
I've been pretty impressed with my BlackMagic cameras and their RAW/ProRes outputs.
But nice work. I'm happy to see M video examples.
I've been pretty impressed with my BlackMagic cameras and their RAW/ProRes outputs.
But nice work. I'm happy to see M video examples.
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Hi
Thanks for the comment
I tried to put on the blog what makes it different - size and speed the two main things
I didn't use live view to focus I used the RF
Full set up was just Leica and 28mm Summicron for 99% of stuff - so simplicity
Thanks for the comment
I tried to put on the blog what makes it different - size and speed the two main things
I didn't use live view to focus I used the RF
Full set up was just Leica and 28mm Summicron for 99% of stuff - so simplicity
bobbyrab
Well-known
It looks good Nick. Do you mind me asking, what's the situation with getting clearance for the music, I ask as my daughter has a film she's making and the music will be important, but getting affordable clearance seems to be difficult.
samfre
Newbie
very impressive video Nick
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Thanks
Getting clearance for music is a nightmare or very expensive. That's why most people who make videos for non commercial purposes these days don't do so. But if you were to put it up on YouTube they would automatically strip the sound.
Getting clearance for music is a nightmare or very expensive. That's why most people who make videos for non commercial purposes these days don't do so. But if you were to put it up on YouTube they would automatically strip the sound.
stevencrichton
Established
Before I begin, I really like the video, the only thing I'd change is that awful out of the box font on the titles, it's really not suited thematically to the rest of the piece.
Ok .. Not to have to open up a whole can of worms here ... but, the m240 video isn't that great... best we don't discuss codecs etc ... but I've come from a now 15 year background in live video performance ( VJ on self written software running 6 heads of live mixed video in realtime with a 20 effect bus) and broadcast etc so I know my way about the creation edits, requirements of codecs et al.
Unless absolutely 100% totally required 720P is all you ever need. Keeping in mind that actual viewer distance vs frame rates etc all effect this in a way that is different to to prints, therefore a good 720P codec will be better than the M240 1080, as per displayed pixel can contain more information in the same data space, which in a final edit will make a massive difference. Also sharpening will also have a more noticeable effect in the long run. To give a true example I used to use a 320x240 codec for mixing, as I could store the full 24 frames rather than 24 theoretical frames. So projected on a 60ft screen it still looked great.
Currently the best bang for buck with M lenses in usable codecs etc ... is on a GF1 body ( all of £60 second hand on ffordes ) with an M adaptor and the now very mature PTool hacks.
The hacks will give 720P true broadcastable data rates, with very low motion effects .. Also the D-Range is significantly increased. The other notable thing would be the pixel binning method to downsample 1 frame for storage is much much more robust on this older m4/3 sensor. Hence why it was rehoused into the panasonic £25000 broadcast cams.
Now onto the key point that makes the M240 video look good and why it's a bad codec.
Whilst doing a lot of work for a client I found that the R summicrons I was using vs Nikon AIS primes (all matched for colour correction
) Give about 2-3 stops more in workable colour and exposure compensation for an edit. (if using a broadcastable data wrapper)
So from a professional point of view. Save the money on the M240's battery requirements for video, the viewfinder requirements and all the rest.. grab a GF1 with an M mount adapter and probably 3 batteries for just the cost of one additional genuine battery for M240, not much space in a bag either and if needed a perfectly usable M240 backup for still when pushed.
The M240 is a stunning rangefinder ... alas it's a poor video maker and realistically a £60 camera would get you a lot closer to the action too as you would need to wreck 79 GF1 bodies before the expense repaid itself so why risk it?
On a side note with music clearance, if this is non-commerical and properly explained in writing to a record label, it's not hard to get clearance at all.
We used quite a lot of Sony artists, Willie Nelson for one, back in the days of submitting non-commerical work for the Scottish Baftas, not once did they decline as long as use was within the discussed bounds.
I think the detail in the explanation is the key part, also patience on the response. So it could be wise to pre-empt the track rather than a "do it in a day" affair.
Anyways ... Keep on going with these vids, but I'd really recommend that a M240 both quality wise and financially ain't a great thing for close combat ring situations being filmed.
Steven
Ok .. Not to have to open up a whole can of worms here ... but, the m240 video isn't that great... best we don't discuss codecs etc ... but I've come from a now 15 year background in live video performance ( VJ on self written software running 6 heads of live mixed video in realtime with a 20 effect bus) and broadcast etc so I know my way about the creation edits, requirements of codecs et al.
Unless absolutely 100% totally required 720P is all you ever need. Keeping in mind that actual viewer distance vs frame rates etc all effect this in a way that is different to to prints, therefore a good 720P codec will be better than the M240 1080, as per displayed pixel can contain more information in the same data space, which in a final edit will make a massive difference. Also sharpening will also have a more noticeable effect in the long run. To give a true example I used to use a 320x240 codec for mixing, as I could store the full 24 frames rather than 24 theoretical frames. So projected on a 60ft screen it still looked great.
Currently the best bang for buck with M lenses in usable codecs etc ... is on a GF1 body ( all of £60 second hand on ffordes ) with an M adaptor and the now very mature PTool hacks.
The hacks will give 720P true broadcastable data rates, with very low motion effects .. Also the D-Range is significantly increased. The other notable thing would be the pixel binning method to downsample 1 frame for storage is much much more robust on this older m4/3 sensor. Hence why it was rehoused into the panasonic £25000 broadcast cams.
Now onto the key point that makes the M240 video look good and why it's a bad codec.
Whilst doing a lot of work for a client I found that the R summicrons I was using vs Nikon AIS primes (all matched for colour correction
) Give about 2-3 stops more in workable colour and exposure compensation for an edit. (if using a broadcastable data wrapper)So from a professional point of view. Save the money on the M240's battery requirements for video, the viewfinder requirements and all the rest.. grab a GF1 with an M mount adapter and probably 3 batteries for just the cost of one additional genuine battery for M240, not much space in a bag either and if needed a perfectly usable M240 backup for still when pushed.
The M240 is a stunning rangefinder ... alas it's a poor video maker and realistically a £60 camera would get you a lot closer to the action too as you would need to wreck 79 GF1 bodies before the expense repaid itself so why risk it?
On a side note with music clearance, if this is non-commerical and properly explained in writing to a record label, it's not hard to get clearance at all.
We used quite a lot of Sony artists, Willie Nelson for one, back in the days of submitting non-commerical work for the Scottish Baftas, not once did they decline as long as use was within the discussed bounds.
I think the detail in the explanation is the key part, also patience on the response. So it could be wise to pre-empt the track rather than a "do it in a day" affair.
Anyways ... Keep on going with these vids, but I'd really recommend that a M240 both quality wise and financially ain't a great thing for close combat ring situations being filmed.
Steven
stevencrichton
Established
here's an example of the GF1 with M glass I was involved in.
Imagine strapping a M240 to the handle bars of a bike on an ARRI clamp and not wincing
http://youtu.be/3cL1mI7iKEU
Steven
Imagine strapping a M240 to the handle bars of a bike on an ARRI clamp and not wincing
http://youtu.be/3cL1mI7iKEU
Steven