MichaelChang

<p>Sync in post is a 2 minute exercise unless your videos are hours long running without time codes to sync between audio and video, otherwise the drift will be negligible. </p> <p>Plugging the mixer's output into the camera's mic input is not the desired approach if you're after quality - the S/N ratio will suffer if done incorrectly. </p> <p>Either camera will work fine; your choice will tie you into a system from the same brand as you expand on lenses and accessories, so choose accordingly. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks, Darian. :-) </p> <p>I shot that restaurant photo back in 2002, and if memory serves, I only layered the two shots (as described) and tweaked a bit of contrast and saturation. The technique is described in this older tutorial and you'll be able to find similar how-to's on the net:<br> <a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/digital-blending/">https://luminous-landscape.com/digital-blending/</a></p> <p>Shooting technique and editing are both very useful skill particularly under tough lighting or impossible situations - every shoot presents its own challenge and calls for a unique solution just like your restaurant project.</p> <p>I'd encourage you to experiment if you're not under the gun to deliver results, and most of us here will be more than happy to help if you have specific questions.</p> <p>One thing I'd add is, composition is everything so spending some time on framing will really pay off. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Darian, there are many ways of accomplishing high contrast scenes at night. </p> <p>One technique is to use blended exposures - one exposed for highlights (the LED display board) and the other exposed for deep shadows, or as many exposures as necessary. Generally no flash - natural light only as it will usually give you the most aesthetically pleasing results.</p> <p>I have a similar example of a restaurant with a very brightly lit sign shot with the above technique: <br> <a href="/photo/804063">http://www.photo.net/photo/804063</a></p> <p>If you really want to get creative, you can try a few shots with light painting - long exposure and lighting the scene with a continuously moving torch light to "paint" the scene. </p>

<p>I struggle with increasing file sizes too, but maybe we're just not thinking the right way. </p> <p>Resolution will simply continue its increase until it's no longer practical. What was once digital medium format territory is now commonplace in amateur cameras, and there are now 10K televisions just when we thought 1080p was enough. </p> <p>As long as the price of entry stays about the same, I see no reason to reject any technological advancements which will make our experiences incrementally better. </p>

<p>I suppose there will be many rehearsals in that type of situation where filming can take place and later spliced, especially when the audio isn't live. </p>

<p>Thanks for your analysis, Matt. </p> <p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glee_(TV_series)">Wikipedia entry on Glee</a> suggests the episodes have a $3M budget and up to 10 days to shoot mostly due to the elaborate dance choreography. </p> <p>I imagine it's conceivable to shoot it in one take with as many cameras as necessary which would actually reduce production cost. </p>

<p>The 2 minute musical clips begins at 00:55. <br> <a href=" <p>Lots of rapid transitions and from many camera angles; I suspect at least one steadicam and a crane-mounted camera; possibly a few retakes to fill in the other camera angles. </p> <p>What's your take? </p>

<p>Great observation, Donald. It looks more probable than vegetation. </p>

<p>Any cheap Windows tablet will enable viewing without much of a fuss using software such as <a href="http://digicamcontrol.com/#hero">DigiCam Control.</a></p> <p>It can also control your (DSLR) camera as a bonus. </p> <p>Storage will generally be limited to 32 or 64 GB via its removable micro SD cards, but Windows tablets are capable of On-The-Go (OTG) which will allow simultaneous charging and external storage devices attached such as USB hard drive or thumb drive. </p> <p>My $100 Windows tablet bought almost 2 years ago does all this which came with 8.1 and I upgraded to Windows 10.</p>

<p>Maybe floating vegetation got stuck on its head from feeding? </p>

<blockquote> <p>"Can't you simply put it in full manual mode?"</p> </blockquote> <p>The camera behaves differently in video mode, and the apparent manual settings in the menu still won't allow complete manual control; just one of those quirks. </p>

<p><a href="https://nikonhacker.com/wiki/Supported_Models">Nikon Hackers</a> offer a firmware upgrade which will lock ISO in video mode but the D5300 is not one of the supported models. </p> <p>However, there's a workaround which you might try:<br> <a href=" <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>"Zooms counterproductive? To a non-negligible degree, I think so, as rather than scope out a subject and angle of view beforehand, the tendency is often to stay on one spot and zoom the scene and others within eyesight, whereupon you make your decision of what image to shoot."</p> </blockquote> <p>Beginners might do that, but I think any photographer with any artistic sense will place composition above all else and frame accordingly using zoom only as a facilitating tool. </p> <p>The alternative is to foot-zoom which is often impractical and can alter perspective in a way which might be unfavorable to the photographer's intention. </p> <p>Most photographers will no doubt prefer to own an arsenal of prime lenses if budget allowed, on the other hand, doing your best with available tools is no less an artistic challenge which in the final analysis, an image is judged on its own merit and no one will care what gear was used to make it in their aesthetic analysis. <br> </p>

<p>There are a number of SB-600 repair videos on YouTube which I haven't gone through, but I bet at least one of them will address mechanical issues such as you're describing: <br> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nikon+sb+600+repair+">https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nikon+sb+600+repair+</a></p>

<p>Hi Daniel, although not quite the same as your mandate, <a href="/search/?cx=006577976762569540560%3A1n8vmghdzjw&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&section=all&q=school+yearbook+photography&filter=0&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search">school yearbook photography</a> has many similarities which you can peruse in the provided link where all of these issues are discussed in-depth. </p>

<p>For me, it depends on the type of photography I'm engaged in.</p> <p>If it's an "assignment" like concerts, wedding, walk-around or travel, then I will mostly rely on "seeing" for composition, framing and lighting.</p> <p>If it's something I've planned in advance or made to my mind's eye, then I will often associate it with music even before I shoot. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"and then what..."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>If photography is a journey, then every step regardless of the degree of difficulty will facilitate ones development in tangible or intangible ways. <br> <br> However, sometimes it's for no other reason than to have the satisfaction of having done it oneself. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"Mine is kind of a silly (fun?) paradox"</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I suppose philosophy can play a significant role in photography in the way it might influence ones mindset. </p> <p>As a personal hobby challenge, I've been wanting to photograph the <a href="https://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-6762-137922477212.jpg">Andromeda galaxy</a> for years; most of it was spent thinking about the process and planning, with a couple of half-hearted failed attempts. <br> <br> How hard can it be? All it takes is a camera capable of Bulb and a 300mm lens, right? It's even a large enough target that any reasonable kit lens should be adequate. <br> <br> It turns out that, similar to the parasite video, you'll really need to know enough basics about astronomy in order to succeed at astrophotography, and be resourceful enough if you don't have access to the required gear like an expensive tracking mount, or live in the city with polluted skies, have a free night when the weather conditions and seeing is just right, and the software know-how for post processing.<br> <br> It's a common target beautifully photographed by many committed amateurs, but I haven't done it successfully yet, and I will, one day. <br> <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"I think photography is so easy that success is almost impossible not to achieve."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I suppose it depends on the type of photography and how picky you are. </p> <p>Technical photography can present many challenges which I'd hesitate to characterize as easy. In the case of macro or micro photography of live specimens like in the video, or astrophotography, although many have achieved spectacular results, are not as easy as it appears. Things like photographing snowflakes can be even more difficult.</p> <p>In many instances, even well established techniques can require expensive gear and lengthy setup times even if taking the shot only takes but a couple of minutes, providing one has the knowledge. </p>

<p>Hey, Julie; cool snake, but I'm too chicken to go anywhere near one. :) </p> <p>The video reminded me that perseverance and resourcefulness is such a big part of successful photography - just keep trying until you succeed; a spirit I once had with a camera but seem to have lost somewhere along the way. </p> <p>It inspired me to try, and keep trying. </p>

<p>An interesting look at how a biologist photographs parasitic creatures: <br> <a href=" - cued to the "how he does it" part. </p>

<p>I think it depends on how you typically shoot video. </p> <p>IS won't make much of a difference on a fixed rig mounted on a tripod; and it's also a terrible solution to handheld-shake which is better addressed with a handheld cage that's available for under $100, or a shoulder rig. </p> <p>There's also not much point in shooting video with a wide-open aperture if you can't control focus dynamically while handheld. </p> <p>DSLR video is a wonderful solution if you're after the cinematic look, shoot in short segments and do a lot in post production, but for longer duration shoots, unless you're on a fixed tripod, DSLRs will be more of a headache than a asset. </p> <p>That said, I think final video "quality" is often more dependent on shooting style, processing and rendering than the choice of lens - you can also use software shake-reduction if you develop sufficient technique to minimize shake initially and make your clips as smooth as possible without IS. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Can you post an example of your unsuccessful attempt? It will help to answer your question and offer better suggestions. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"Just buy a GoPro and be done with it."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Unfortunately, a GoPro won't do any of the things the OP wants to do. </p>

<p><em>"Wedding video is a run-and-gun business much like TV news shooting. Look at what the TV folks use to see what works in the real world."</em><br> <br> It was quite enlightening to watch a 6 minute episode produced by the CBC on breakfast sandwiches; the entire piece made on location (in a restaurant and on a bus) with minimal gear around a DSLR:<br> <a href=" <p>I grabbed a screen shot at 2:10 which shows just the DSLR on a manual slider and a monitor to get the most fancy 2 second shot of the entire piece, otherwise the camera appears simply handheld with nothing more than a ring light. </p> <p>For audio, the host had a wireless lavalier mic that was apparently sufficient to pickup a face-to-face speaker, so it's indeed doable with professional editing to create broadcast quality stuff on the cheap - no fancy shoulder gear, lighting, or fancy mics and multiple assistants.</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18218726-lg.jpg" alt="" width="850" height="475" /><br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18218727-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1440" height="900" /><br> </p>