Leaderboard

The stuff about the double bladed projector shutter (some projectors had a three-bladed shutter, there was also a prism-technology by the german manufacturer Kinoton, which, without Maltese cross, had tiny transitions between frames and no black phase at all), the 180° shutter and the discontinuity of time is true for digital technique as well. Insofar as the exposure doesn't capture 50% of all motion then. What imo counts most is the look and feel of it all. Old 50i/60i camcorders had indeed a more *realistic* way of capturing motion, it looked 'live' always. But as we all still recall, it never looked good. What people like Trumbull a.o. mix up is immersion and virtual reality. For immersion, which is the goal of fictuous cinematic storytelling, you need to fill the screen with obviously stylized images that trigger intended emotions. For virtual reality, you have to convincingly avoid obvious style. Ideally, you don't look through a sharp, noise-free window, but are surrounded by an environment. Not an image. Things like cuts and music will destroy that illusion. I am not entirely against HFR. I think all depends on the intention of the narrator. Cameron could have very well filmed Avatar in 48p. Because the narration was about the sensual experience of a virtual reality. He made images that were clearly pure CGI look like ENG-style camcorder-recordings. He inserted lens flares, camera shake, even jerky zooms. And it would have helped 3D to look clearer. I bet, Avatar would have been better in 48p. The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a fairy tale. Once upon a time, but not now. One of those stories where the voice of your grandma can carry enough magic to suspend your disbelief and get you there, totally immersed. I always thought of Galadriels narration ('The world is changed, I feel it in the water ...') that way. I immediately realized how Jackson had a very LFR approach to the accompaning images (as he often has, if appropriate). They could have rather been 12fps than 48fps. Just to test this theory, I downloaded the clip from Youtube and exported it with 12fps, here. Now of course it is a bit too much. With a modern 200-800 Hz TV-set everybody can easily check the opposite extreme and tell if he wants to follow 10 hours LOTR in HFR. A few days ago, Matt James Smith posted his 12fps test with GH4 raw footage,

I have to agree with this. For the most part, give a middle-range client shallow depth of field and they're happy. But there's a reason I stopped doing those sorts of gigs. For the most part, people do appreciate the quality difference even if they can't tell why they like it more. It's important in as much as you should know that you can shoot on a GH3, GH4, A7s, 5D3 et al and shoot stuff that clients are going to be happy with. But that does not mean you should not strive for better quality work in everything you do! I'd personally rather move my way up through clients than stall at a certain level because I'm happy just giving them 'good enough' images. I didn't get to shoot commercials and films from delivering images that were simply 'good enough.' Never. There are so many different ways you can light a scene, compose a shot, tell a story through the camera, - I'd go as far to say that there is no right way. Just 'ways' that are more visually pleasing to many than others. The right way is the way the Director wants/is happy with. That way may be completely at odds with what you're thinking or what you want (hopefully it isn't, but sometimes it is), but at the end of the day you're working for the Director. My tip is that there's always more to learn - it's impossible to learn it all, so embrace everything (even the terrible shoots) as a good learning experience.

I vote for GM1, since I am using it completely for run&gun. The missing stabilisation is not that much of a problem if you have a steady hand and if you actually wont run while shooting ;) Some examples with that camera:

I've never seen "showscan" so I have to reserve judgment, but despite how much I respect Douglas Trumbull, I think we part ways on the HFR passion.. interesting video nonetheless:

+1 Nightcrawler +1 Grand Budapest

Here is an example of the cinelux es 2x running on the zeiss 85mm f1.4, wide open on full frame. no cropping. 3:2 still from the A7r then de squeezed. Incredible image quality.

JGL, MJS, whatever ;) I'm liking the GH4 well, I've done a lot of work with it theses pasts months, not already online. Recently I've done a music video, and also a Making Of of a long feature movie, with two weeks shooting (in anamorphic of course) in Ethiopia. Soon online ;)

Right, the A7S could possibly do better with more available DR, however the skintones won't look as good. Just as with real film, we light for faces/skintones and make sacrifices for hightlights/shadows as needed. IIRC, the A7S's sweetspot for skintones puts more useable DR in the shadows vs. the highlights, so it may not do better than the 5D3 for this condition. What elements don't look filmic? Do you have examples of your Alexa work you can share showing how and why it looks more filmic? Regarding looking like an Alexa: there are many examples showing 5D3 RAW comparing well to Alexa footage in the exact same conditions. Do you have examples showing otherwise? (I would expect an inside to outside window shot to favor Alexa (DR)). Here's a tutorial and example footage for converting 5D3 RAW into an Alexa rec709 look: Regarding dynamic range- I think we both covered the same points in the same way (clipping, optimization), however mathematically 14-bits (16384 steps) provide for more color and luminance manipulation in post before artifacts appear due to color compression (from e.g. a curve slope) and quantization. Amazing things are possible with ACR highlight/shadows and 5D3 RAW: There's more detail in the shadows- I crushed them to focus attention on the sunset. I'm not sure if the A7S could do better for this shot (perhaps a slightly smaller sun clip area. If the shadows needed more light, the A7S would do better, but again, was not needed for this shot). Ideally we'd want to use all available DR for every shot, however that's not always possible (and rarely possible outside of a studio if we're optimizing exposure for skintones). From all the tests I have viewed, 5D3 RAW and Alexa can perform similarly except in extreme conditions for color (Alexa can record 2.8-3.4K resolution (Amira will do a scaled up "4k")). 5D3 RAW even compares well to film (see the Atlantis video in this thread). At $40+k for an Amira, no one is arguing that 5D3 RAW (or A7S) matches or exceeds ARRI, however in many conditions it's amazing that it comes close enough to easily cut between cameras.

Good Luck Robbing you might need a mask.

Another curious thing is the danger of doing more or a better job than what was asked for. When I was a student I used to make renders for some terrible Architects who had no Idea about what's important in Architectural representation. Everytime I did a better job than the shit they were asking for ,they acted like they were paying for something they hadn't ask for, even with the price agreed before the actual job (which was way too much if you compare it with today, but at that time the working generation had no idea about renders) Obviously there are people who know what they are doing, so try to figure out what case it is.

That you want to "leave clients out of this" is the very reason Ebrahim's advice is SO important, and which, the sooner you begin to appreciate, the more "camera angle" issues you'll get hired to deal with. When I hire a DP say (though in my business that person would be in the software/data business) I trust him to do whatever camera angle he/she thinks good. Assuming the DP is basically competent, the camera angle will be good enough for what I need. If it's a special camera angle, called for in the script, I might not even know the right questions to ask. This gets to the equipment issue. Richg is right that you want good equipment, but ONLY because the client trusts you to do what's necessary. There is no disconnect between Rich and Ebrahim. Anyway, if my DP thinks we need a specialist I will let him hire someone. If I want to use a $6,000 lens, the client will let me if I have his/her interests at heart. All productions are the sum of many people, each which have ideas that would go ten times over their budget. A lot of time and energy is spent, politically, collectively figuring who should get the budgeted time, money, etc. When I was younger (like you?) I spent a lot of time reading/learning techniques (I still do) and felt getting to a certain level of expertise would be the key to success. Unfortunately, what I discovered is that EVERY project is different in some small but significant way. Every project depends on my finding a solution to a problem I didn't have before. Styles and tastes change. So no matter how well I might perfect a "camera angle" say, it would eventually go out of favor so I'd have to figure out something that fit the new projects. In short, 90% of my clients use me because they trust me. The skill they need from me I find trivial!!!! Of course, I use the $9,000 lenses when I can, because it's important to me, and I do believe they see it, BUT ONLY AFTER I've done the 90% of the blocking and tackling. Another way I might say what Ebrahim is saying is that getting the 20 minutes "in the can" with consistent quality, that meets the client's needs (which they will never be able to fully articulate) always requires a million compromises which CANNOT be saved by all the most expensive cameras and lenses on Earth! It's not that the client won't appreciate a good lens over a bad lens, it's that the "story/message" is 90% of what they're looking at. A $10,000 lens in the wrong lighting will NOT beat a $200 lens with the right lighting. Like everyone else, I admire anyone who uses $10,000 lenses in the right lighting, but there is no real technique to that because lighting, as Ebrahim says IS A FUNCTION of what mood the client wants. TRUST, TRUST between you and the client is everything! So it's more important you WORK WITH PEOPLE, than learn techniques by yourself. Get any job you can. Work with young people on school projects. Finally, if you want to know tips and tricks, then you need to look at that person's work and ask them how they solved a certain problem. Or you need to ask what kind of look you want and what the person does. There are no tricks that apply to everything...except the learn to work with people for a COMMON goal that, as jax_rox says, may not be your own.

LX100? 4K, small, good stabilization.

like Kubrick the arri 2c + kodak...=CINEMATIC NIRVANA

though in 90% of cases things like the difference between a canon nifty fifity on a 550d / t2i vs a c300 + a zeiss 50 is overlooked, it should be noted that if you want the really good clients, they'll be used to seeing the results from proper cameras and proper lenses. Personally I don;t aspire to service clients who can;t tell the difference since then the hard work also gets overlooked in the same way.

Here's a 5D3 RAW handheld focus test with skintones and grass: A wide variety of grass, animals, and colors: I have been using the A7S and GH4 lately, however if I need the absolute best quality for color, 5D3 RAW is the way to go. Panasonic (including the GH4 and especially the new Varicam) also provide better color than Sony. My ranking goes something like this for color (motion pictures): Film (Kodak EXR 100T 5248), ARRI, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic (Varicam), Red (Dragon), Sony (F55 through A7S)* Sony cameras can do pleasing color, however it's not consistent and can be tricky to get skintones to look right in all but sunlight and incandescent light. With the A7S I have been making sure the colors look as good as possible in camera by carefully exposing for skintones and tweaking white balance. Trying to fix color in post is time consuming (and sometimes impossible for skintones). In cases when working fast or just needing good coverage, the A7S works well as a video camera (everything on full auto). If Canon were to release a 5D3 successor with full 1080p, 60+fps, and a modern codec (as good or better than GH4 and A7S), lots of folks would switch back for the color science. The full frame 5D has a look not captured by Canon's Cx00 line (1DC is due for upgrade too). In the meantime, if you've got the time and disk space, 5D3 14-bit RAW is here now, and is the best image for color this side of an ARRI Alexa/Amira. * The F65 as graded in Oblivion was stunningly beautiful color, detail, and very filmic. Not many folks are using the F65 due to size/weight and real-world production cost. The F35 is also popular with some indie filmmakers. In Hollywood and now Atlanta (Hollywood 2.0), ARRI is the most used camera.

I do think people get used to the Canon "look" - like someones taste in ketchup - everything else seems bad, but in reality it isnt, just different.

I believe that now may be the time to reveal that I am in fact Joseph Gordon-Levitt! Andrew, I am a huge fan of your blog!!! As I apply 'the method' to everything I do I have in fact been living in North East England for some time, shooting a lot of stuff with a Nikon DSLR and adopting a grouchy and abrasive persona to disguise my easy-going and gregarious nature.

Wow I am surprised so many people didn't really like Interstellar, it was really a great movie for me at least, I guess It's for a different generation I don't know... My favorite movies this year where Mommy by Xavier Dolan (he is 25 years old and makes such amazing movies it's insane! that guy is a genius) I also liked Gone Girl, Locke, Under the skin, The Grand Budapest Hotel and Boyhood.