Leaderboard

you choose the 60p footage on the library then go modify footage>interpret footage and change the 60p frames numbers by hand to 25 step by step here: In the Project panel, right-click the desired clip. Select Modify > Interpret Footage, and do one of the following: Select Use Frame Rate From File, Select Assume This Frame Rate, and type the number of frames per second. Click OK. then drag the clip to your timeline and its in slowmotion ths is the most seamless way to do it

I'm working with two musicians, Hauptman & Friendly in Berlin. They are composing sound tracks for filmmakers which you can license for your own work and avoid the dreaded Copyright Match on Vimeo. Pricing will start at just $19.99. The cinematography reel I have edited above showcases some of my cinematography along with the score "Chains" written by Ofer Hauptman. This is in the early stages... I'd love to hear your feedback about what you'd like to get from EOSHD Filmic Compositions and how you'd want to use it. We won't be going for quantity, but quality.Read the full article here

This just in: http://goo.gl/6pXSyN dpreview's iso tests of the Sony A7S Something just occurred to me after looking at this. We've been looking at a straight RAW to JPEG conversion the whole time. Maybe even the black and shadows raised?. Of course there will be noise at ISO12800 in RAW. You can get the 5D Mark III to look noisy at ISO 800 if it's dark enough in RAW. Looking how well the in-body noise removal looks for JPEG, I expect the video to perform as good as the smoked fish video, especially resampled to 1080p.

The C100 should have a slightly different noise texture, but it shouldn't be a different color temperature and exposure at apparently equal settings so right off the bat it's obvious that whoever did this is doing something wrong. When you're examining low light performance by testing ISO, you need to stop down or change the shutter speed to compensate. If you expose everything much too brightly it gives an unrepresentative result... In the test posted, they're boosting the ISO, but not stopping down or decreasing light levels to keep the exposure consistent. So the image won't look noisier… just brighter. The test is totally useless for this reason. If I point a C300 at a light bulb at ISO 80,000 of course it will be noiseless, it will be pure white… and it's that but a little less egregious. To compare ISO meaningfully you need to compensate and shoot at an even exposure, by stopping down, adjusting shutter speed, adjusting light levels etc… Look at virtually every other ISO comparison ever made. This "test" is just… incredibly stupid and whoever performed it doesn't have a basic grasp of exposure. Not trying to be rude, but if you don't know what you're doing you might use this as a reference, and it's useless as one. The C300 is only this clean at extreme ISOs when extremely overexposed and, likewise, only noisy at low ISOs when underexposed. A series of shots exposed at key at different ISOs would have been useful, and that is how every other worthwhile ISO test I've seen has been handled. (I've seen this mistake repeated, but it doesn't make this any better or more useful.)

If you need slomo (up to 240fps), the FS700 is good for what it costs. You might look into renting an Odyssey 7Q to get you ProRes or RAW with the FS700 (the 7Q will also help with critical focus). Also consider a RED Scarlet. Many rental houses are upgrading to the Dragon sensor and non-upgraded Scarlet's might be a lot cheaper now (up to 120fps slomo). I have found it's best to set up the FS700's color profile(s) to do close to what you want for the final output. It's reasonably gradable, however when shooting people/skintones, it's best to get the color profiles as accurate as possible and to expose and set WB precisely so that skintones look their best.

Ha ha. As if Americans have any monopoly on unethical business practices! Welcome to human nature, where people exploit other people. There are no boundaries in this regard. And, point of fact, Americans barely even rule themselves much less the world.

listening to music through youtube is like eating the best french cuisine from a dumpster. youtube was quite fun 10 years ago,before the ads, the wait till i load crap, the killing of anonimity, blackmailing you to sign up for that google+, keeping histories of what you browsed plus the bad sound-image quality lag and sea of trolls trolling trolls. i dont think i have uploaded any videos there, and although i lose clients, i prefer to re-direct them to vimeo. check this about google blackmail: http://digg.com/video/google-is-going-to-blackmail-you p.s check this interesting chart about the % of indy music from phonofile.com/

As you know the Russain lenses aren't perfect, but that's what gives them their character. And yes, you get [some of] that character back with this type of cheap speedbooster simply because you have a reduced crop factor - its still m43 size, but its better than S16 in terms of how much of the lens is used. For video they are perfect & i'm not an anal pixel peeper, so i haven't even bothered trying to see if they are soft at the edges. They probably are a little bit, but i don't care as the images look lovely & no one ever looks at the edges of a shot/screen anyhow.

Not necessarily as I seriously doubt Google has contacted each and every band out there, but rather the publishers that represent them. For example, my band goes through various distributors, including but not limited to CD Baby. Since CD Baby acts as our publisher, they only have to work with CD Baby since we agreed to let CD Baby handle that aspect of those particular releases. CD Baby has something like 3-4 million tracks in their catalog with the same agreements. Tunecore has a similar number and agreement, and The Orchard has probably even more. Between those 3 catalogs, that's well over 10 million tracks right there (disclaimer: I'm a software dev for a digital music service and I'm directly involved with the ingestion of those catalogs). A huge chunk of the rest of the indie bands come through labels that are under the Merlin agreement, who handles reporting and publishing for those. Chances are, the indie bands themselves aren't even involved in this discussion and it wouldnt' surprise me if the vast majority are even aware of what's going on. They just want to create music and collect their non-existent royalty checks.

That's shit, though. Part of the reason I got into filmmaking is so I can make videos for my band without having to worry about some flakey videographer/filmmaker (and I'm shooting one tonight and another in the morning). I want to make music, not promote. I want to perform, not worry about distribution. I want to get in the van and ride to bumfuck Indiana so I can play in front of 8 people for no money, because it's what I enjoy doing, not play phone tag with the venue or two dudes putting on the show with a couple local bands that no one locally cares about. Same thing with films, right? Do you want to make films, or do you want to spend all your time trying to sell them? It's like that dude with the script. He's so busy trying to sell it, he forgets to write another one. If your band is already well-established, like trent reznor, for example, going the full monty direct distribution route is feasible. If you're joe blow just trying to make it, having a good label behind you can be the difference between going "somewhere" or just spinning your wheels. There's an art to it. From a consumer perspective, I like labels because they curate their music collection. I can be assured that music coming from a specific label, while I'm not guaranteed to like it, at least is in the general ballpark of the stuff I do like. That's the value of the label to me as a consumer: They listen to 10,000 shitty bands and pick out the couple that have potential, so I don't have to. From a band perspective, the label gives us good/reliable contacts in other towns to help set up shows. They handle the pressing and distribution of the recorded product and I don't have to have 100 boxes of 7" records laying around my tiny apartment. The label sends out the records to the various fanzines and college radio stations, and all we had to do was get in the van and drive. We sold a lot of merch, but with gas at $4.50/gallon, that was a break-even proposition. I don't know what the actual answer is other than to try and weather the storm and see how it shakes out on the other side, but direct distribution isn't the 100% answer 100% of the time. EDIT: I will add that we also don't pay to record our music because our singer is an audio engineer in his day job (I'm a software dev). He has a nice recording studio built in his backyard, but that wasn't free to build or maintain. It doesn't cost the band anything to record, but it's far from free and is typically subsidized by charging other bands to record there, as well.

Andrew, Thanks for headlining this issue and making people (me included) aware.

playing the devils advocate google-youtube could say that the costs of maintaining servers and giving access to millions of people worldwide to your music is a highly valued service...bs i have quit using youtube a long time ago as a medium, one of the courses i studied was internet privacy, google is the original robocop company of a dystopian future. all engrossing monopoly all seeing eye, panopticon. i think we as users should kill it. log off go for the wild horse..

I make about 90% of my income making music videos, mostly with independent labels, PR and unsigned acts and I know a lot of bands... the effort these guys go to is absolutely immense and many of the tracks are much better than that chart nonsense the big labels stuff into our ears and brain until we are hypnotised or get into an almost violent, rebellious state of mind. This completely sucks. I'm fed up of this bullying in the music industry. Some band members I know are geniuses, but have to make do stacking shelves 8 hours a week in a pound shop. They get bit by the money men and get nothing in return. They either waste talent or steal their worth for their own greed. My music video was up for Best Music Video at the Metal Hammer Golden Gods 2014 (it didn't win), and the quality of the entertainment was incredible. The energy and desire form the playing bands was unreal - bands who have toured constantly, slept in the car boot and lived on instant noodles just to play and get noticed. But the way things are going, genuine bands/artists won't get this chance and we will forever be presented with the conveyer belt of manufactured, soulless rubbish designed to make the big wigs fat and the most promising musicians with nothing but their 8 hour shift in the local pound shop. This says it all.... my brother is a singer and auditioned for X Factor 'for a laugh.' He got through 3 rounds, but was then turned down as they couldn't see how he would benefit from the competition. We received sad news that his wife (my sister in law) was diagnosed with a life threatening illness. X Factor representatives called him regarding auditions for Britains Got Talent...he said he couldn't attend as he needs to look after his wife because of her illness. At the instance he mentioned it, they said he could go back in the process because 'he would get far and have great appeal.' My brother sniffed a rotten fish...and told them where to go. This situation with my brother was quite sick, and sums the music industry in a nutshell. The power of the talent shows is immense and they dominate so much of the industry. But they are soulless sods who are only interested in exploiting vulnerable people and trying to dominate the industry with diluted brain warping rubbish. Independent music needs protection and must find a way to triumph over this diabolical situation.

First Outdoors Test - MiniCyclops - 14x14 inches "sensor" size camera.

The best way to learn filmmaking is to watch and observe films, develop a taste, then experiment and eventually arrive at your own techniques. It worked for Quentin Tarantino, and it will work for you.

Whilst i do love a good bokehlicious image, I think for the most part it is overused/rated as a cinematic tool. Shows like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead are shot on 35mm film, but often use deep focus. Their image is very atmospheric. Quentin Trrantino is another director who mostly uses deep focus. And if i remember correctly, Reservoir dogs was shot on 16mm. Then you have shows like Game Of Thrones that uses the Super 35 Arri Alexa. They often use shallow DOF, but to their detriment IMO. Because all the effort they put into making the fantastic sets becomes blurred out in every dialogue shot. Also I sometimes find shallow DOF to make the image look fake - as if the actors have been green screened in to the scene.

Some 1:1 bits of 1080p clips made from a GH4 4K. test clip dowscaled to 1080p on export. The original clip comes from the other thread, and was heavily banded on purpose. We can safely say working at 4K but exporting at 1080 is good! Transcoding to 1080p at the start is just shooting yourself in the balls, but less sensible.

This will be THE video camera for doing sex tapes :)