Leaderboard

He who wishes to be rich in a day will be hanged in a year leonardo da vinci         grasshopper     my child  you name this in honour of a god who fell to earth. leonardo of italy.   i call it panasonic japan.   you name your plastico fantastico your wing yip your long dong of china.   as tribute to a man sent from the stars mighty leonardo da vinci.   ohhhh ohhhh   to be damned with such faint praise.     poor leon : (         .

  I really hope there will be a new wave of influental independant films that deserve this name. Even worse than being dependant on the politics of major production companies is the situation in my country. It has the "FFA", an acronym for film promotion association, founded in 1968, and it effectively finances german theatrical films with tax money, but approving the standards, which can only be described as uncinematic and boring. It's a federal association that decides if scripts are worth the investment, and you can easily imagine what that means for creativity and originality.    I particularly hope, that indie filmmakers will stop to think retro. If they want to reinvent cinema, there is no frigging 'cinematic look' to be followed, no grain filters, no exaggerated DoF-gimmicks, no oange-teal-'blockbuster'-grading, that would be embarrassing. There has to be a good and revolutionary story that dictates it's own aestethics, preferably clean and straight.   Don't dream about fancy imagery, you've got a camera with sufficient color depth to look good on a big screen. Now it's time to tell something!

  As I wrote, scaling down is about anti-aliasing the edges through interpolation of pixels. What you stated before, that 4:2:0, by merging pixels, get's miraculously 4:4:4, is wrong.      You will never reverse the 4:2:0 to 4:4:4.   However, unless you are working in a set like this:   ... you can do with 4:2:0. Because a green screen will have only green pixels in 4:2:0. It's the outlines that cause problems. The Keylight method to blur the edges and mix them with purple is no longer state of the art, as mentioned above.

words cannot express how bad those videos look

4:2:2 is all you need. It sounds like people are trying to give you the best here but not taking into account time management and affordability as a whole package. Most broadcast is keyed with 4:2:2 cameras. You still get definition around hair and fuzz. It is completely manageable. I would never go back to 4:2:0 after working with a live digital key, you notice the difference instantly. Yes the G6 is a great camera, yes it is adequate, but you are going to get more value out of the bmpcc.

this guy is a beginner and a 4 2 0 camera is fine for what he whats to do - Ive had alot of pop vidoes broadcast across the world on MTV and all the major music chanels shot on a 4 2 0 camera - you dont need to go spending a fortune on a camera just to do blue screen or green screen - there is alot of smoke and mirrors on this forum of people who read spec sheets and and believe myths Get your lighting right thats the important bit first.

  Andrew of EOSHD has done quite a few tests with D5200. Check the blog: http://www.eoshd.com/content/tag/nikon-d5200

Well I guess my idea of rehousing the taking lens and the anamorphic together caught on. I will rush my design and buy up all SUN anamorphics I can find and sell the rehoused stuff for 1K. I will be rich. Market it as a whole new design with the intention of vintage look and retro flare.   I am glad that anamorphic lenses are being produced, just don't try to fool anybody. At the very least make it look different. Make it durable, metal. I think it would be very nice if this "new" lens properly mention what it is. Say that it is a Zeiss Jena taking lens and a Pana anamorphic paired together in a beautiful, sturdy body. No alignment issues and such. Just don't try to market it as a whole new deal.   rant over.

Well sort of. It needs to be mounted on the back lens group and move together with it. It can be done on telephoto lenses that have room at the back of the lens (check out the back of a Jupiter-37A, you could easily fit a Helios back lens group in there), otherwise the focal reducer hits the mirror. Would be good to own a mirrorless cam. That way I would not need a negative diopter, I could move the whole lens closer to the sensor.

BMCC is 4:4:4. I have keyed 4:2:0 footage successfully ( 5D2 H264 ), but it takes me about 3x times longer, plus some shots got spoilt because my DOF was too shallow and the edges of actors were too blurry. With BMCC, the sensor is much smaller and your actors' contours will always be very sharp. You can always add DOF in post, but taking it out is impossible. Plus, with 4:4:4 you will be able to adjust exposure and the 2.5k will provide a better pixel sensitivity for your keyer.    In fact, if you absolutely, definitively want the best key in the world, shoot your actor in portrait mode...that should give you an equivalent of a 4K RAW 4:4:4 vertical resolution...the absolute top notch image for keying and compositing into something else.

Its not to stop everyone from trying just it would just be nice if people would just stop cutting corners and only going for the superficial reasons for shooting anamorphic. Its not something anyone should jump into, I think its amazing that this method has resurfaced after being a work around to get more detail on the film negative. In doing so we got amazing things like the horizontal flares and oval bokeh. Other things like getting a wide and tele feel in the same lens resulting in a more intimate image to your viewer. Wides often alienate the viewer and anamorphic kinda solves this along with tons of character.    Anyways these are the reasons why slrmagic, letus and this dont really interest me. My thoughts on this set up are yes it looks like the Panasonic adapter, it also sufferes from the terrible edges and awful distortion even at longer focal lengths. The flares look ok but the lens was mounted lopsided so it wasnt very..horizontal. and lastly being a 1.33X I guess is that the bokeh is not very great. For 2k there are plenty of great deals to be had that have more character and better aesthetics.   I know they are all a lot more expensive but having an iscorama I may be a bit spoiled. Also having used a wonderful Lomo I just cant see using anything less. its not apples to apples or anything but compare what you are trying to do with the Girl and a gun lens tests of the hawk 74 series lenses. Not saying I want that for 2k but if you can even reproduce 10% of that you would have my attention.

Jiban, just in case you don't understand the issues from the beginning...   The generic term for green screen (or blue screen) is chromakey.  It means you "key" out a color (chroma), like a keyhole, and now you can see what is behind it (the chroma/color).     In order for this to work, the software must go through the image, pixel by pixel, and determine if each pixel is the chroma you have selected, green in your case.  Naturally, every pixel will not be an exact green.  Some will be dark, some light, some may be bluish from the lighting, or reddish, etc.   In the software you can set the lattitude of what is, or is not, a green.   This leads to problems.   To key out the bluish green around an edge of the screen, you may pick up a bluish-green part of someone's shirt, and then that ends up being keyed through.     Green, may reflect off the screen, onto someone's hair, and then that gets screwed up.   IN SHORT, GREEN SCREEN, IN PRACTICE, iS DIFFICULT TO DO VERY WELL.   Optimally you need   1. A large screen 2. A long distance between screen and subject to prevent spill 3. A well lit screen 4. A well list person, lit in a way that will match the visuals you'll key in.   If you think about this stuff, you'll realize that the better the camera knows a green from a not-green, the better it can apply a key.  Most video cameras throw out a lot of color information in compression, 4:2:0 (instead of 4:4:4) that one doesn't notice much in most circumstances BUT is a serious problem for green screen work.   YES, you can pull a good key with 4:2:0 video cameras, like the G6, but it is MORE difficult than a camera that doesn't compress the video image in that way.  I don't know whether it would be better to invest in a better green screen and lighting and use a G6, or invest in a camera that does 4:4:4, maybe $4,000 used and go cheap on lights, etc.  There is NO hard answer.     In short, I am giving background behind what mtheory is saying--no one in their right mind would choose a 4:2:0 camera to do professional level green screen work unless they had a perfect studio setup.   The ML setup works because the RAW video contains 14bits of true color information at every pixel location.  Yes, the workflow is monstrous, but if you end up spending all your time trying to light your screen screen to get a good image, and can't, with a 4:2:0 camera, you might not think it so bad ;)   Almost every camera your friends will own is probably 4:2:0.  Borrow on and try it first.  Don't invest money in any camera until you go through chromakey workflow at least once to understand the issues I've explained.  Then you'll know what is, or is not important to you.

For perfect green screen work you can't find a better camera at the moment than BMCC with an ultra wide angle lens, it's $2k and its small sensor will ensure that your image will be sharp. 4:4:4 is the best possible solution for keying.

Hey everyone, I'm new to the site. Just wanted to show a video I shot and edited. Shot on 5D MK III using ML raw format. Hope you enjoy and thanks for watching!   https://vimeo.com/77063826