Leaderboard

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster. Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids. The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds. All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing. And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step. An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio). Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie! For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm). And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.

I shot on film for a few years when I started out. I've shot on a variety of video formats for quite a few years. I'd definitely choose to shoot celluloid if I could on my next film. I worked differently on film. It made me think differently about how to approach what I'm doing. I think shooting on digital has taught me heaps of bad habits, to be sloppy, and not value the moments I shoot. And that quote from Andrew Wondlan regarding Kodak Vision 2 could be equally applied the progress of HD/4K and the pursuit of more pixels and dynamic range. I don't give a ****. GH4 looks like garbage no matter how many pixels it has, and I have never felt my pulse quicken when I look at it. I remember the first time I saw 4K projected, at a test screening of King Kong in Auckland. it made me feel sick. I feared for the future because I doubted that a beautiful film would ever be made on 4K. Nothing has changed my mind. So yeah, cheer for the democracy of digital. But I'll shed a tear for the beautiful films that made me want to pick up camera in the first place.

Cinema EOS line still has no 4K under $8k and no consumer / enthusiast model. Pretty glaring holes there that DSLRs fill perfectly, well mirrorless. None of them by Canon! So do go into more details why you think that's a good decsion. I have no problem with Cinema EOS being a separate video line, but it's not very interesting. The C100 and C300 were always going to be like the video professional's office tools. The Canon copiers of the cinema world, not really cinema cameras.

Other than the magenta bias for the FS7 and green bias for the Amira, the FS7 looks pretty decent in color and highlight tonality (no CC other than what is noted). Once Sony fixes the firmware issues, the FS7 looks to be a decent camera for the price. In the comments it looks like Nate sold his F55 to get an Amira. Even though the F55 can now closely match the Alexa in post, clients are asking for ARRI so he switched to Amira.

It's written in Filter Meister. Not compatible with recent apps. Must be rewritten. With this app you can export results as look up table - Photoshop .amp file.

​And what is "local news report" but a story? It's basically storytelling. Sure, it's not "cinema" and it's not meant to be, but it requires a fair bit of talent and creativity to make it good. Or at least watchable, because the "live events" are usually very boring.

The fs7 is on fire. Especially enjoy Ed David's perspective. (Ed has a recent American Cinematographer interview) "The whole campaign of "Sony Skintones looks like crap" has been going on since the f900 vs Panasonic Varicam days - back before log recording. I find Slog 1 and slog3 with sgamut3.cine and sgamut to look really damn good right off the bat. Canon log - skintones to me look great. Red log gamma - again skintones look great in daylight lighting - get a little funky in tungsten lighting. but yes it's good lighting and good exposure. A7S skintones - I've found using the CINEMA or PRO setting to give the best skintones easily. anyway the worst things I've found with Canon C300 and C500 is highlight handling - same with the red epic mx and red one mx - you can't overexpose without the highlights looking as crappy as say the af100 or the hvx200 highlight handling - the dark ages of digital cinema on a budget. The Amira stuff I've seen does have this orange feel. At first I thought the sony f55 ftg looked bad - including stuff I shot on it but then I started to watch Nate Weaver's and Grugs work on it and I was so impressed I started using it. The FS7 and Amira are in their infancy - I'm sure once more people like you guys work with it, test it, and color it, we'll see what the cameras are possible of. And I, who used to hate the look of Red footage, find that dragoncolor and redloggamma graded well can look so incredible. The Age of Adeline trailer I saw, shot with dragon and anamorphic glass looked so good to me. Some stuff shot on alexa like that film "The Canyons" was some of the worst looking footage I've ever seen. Same with "They Came Together" and that guy I think shot "Wet Hot American Summer" which looks incredible. so it doesn't matter what camera it is, it's going to either look like s*%t or good, depending on lighting, lenses, and grade, and exposure of the image and the talent of the DP. "

Let's remember all the wonderful things about celluloid: 1. The lovely "bob and weave" in the image, as each frame never lands exactly in the same place as the previous one as it goes through the camera or projector gate. 2. All the sparkling dust and dirt in the image which gives it that nice "real world" feel. 3. The fine lines of scratches that appear if you dare to run your film through a projector more than once. 4. The fun of having no idea how your shots came out until a day or two later when your film comes back from the lab. 5. The marvelous megatons of toxic waste generated by photochemical processing. 6. The joy of your footage turning yellow or pink if you store it in a hot place. The fun of having to store film stock in refrigerators to stop it from going bad. 7. The ecstasy of spending about what a Canon 5D costs to buy thirty minutes of film stock and get it processed (workprint or video transfer not included).

Yes, that device is a transmitter to turn a dynamic hand mic into a wireless one that can be synchronized with the receiver. There is also a bundle without it (slightly cheaper): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/618739-REG/Sennheiser_EW_112P_G3_A_EW112_p_G3_Camera_Mount.html The EW G3 is a single lav mic plugged into a transmitter on the same frequency as the receiver. If you need 4 lavs, you need four sets (from Sennheiser or any other brand) of lav mic+bodypack transmitter+bodypack receiver. The 4 sets would obviously need to be set to different frequencies and the receivers could be plugged into the 4 XLR inputs of the Zoom H6. I also have seen this bundle: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/877198-REG/Sennheiser_ew_100_ENG_G3.html There are many brands and many bodypack wireless bundles, but most of them are crap! I would stay with the few reliable brands: Sennheiser, Shure, RODE, AKG... If you have a tight budget you might consider skipping Sennheiser and trying out Shure or the new RODE filmmaker kit, but nothing cheaper. I have tried out some cheapo brands and the difference is so noticeable that it isn't worth it.

I like the organic flow of an electronicless steadi-/glidecam. With this... sometimes I have seen some very motorized corrections going on. I get the thing with steadi-/glidecams is, that you need to hire someone, or put in tons or practice, because it takes time to master and with this kind of thing it's more about calibration than flying it, which is great (and terrifying), because it does enable everyone to set it up and they're pretty much done, but to me it's not quite there yet and wouldn't jump on the bandwagon quite yet unless you feel like you have to be an early adaptor and like to tinker around. Not sure about the pistol grip type stabilizer either. I think because of the small form factor, the degree of stabilization is rather limited. I have also seen quite a bit of up- and down bouncing. Someone should come up with 4-axis stabilizers (I've seen some projects, but they all seem to have been abandoned), having some kind of shock absorber that naturally dampens up and down motions caused by walking. We've all seen the MOVI getting a lot of competition that got really affordable, real quick. Now, it won't get much cheaper for very specialized gear like this, that already comes from a Chinese manufacturer, but there's still room for quite a few alternatives and a sub 500 USD solution. So, I'm gonna wait this out just a little longer... I might even prefer just to go for something like this though:

They're having retail demos all over the place here. Maybe I should try to get a hands-on. Anyone wants to know anything? No promises, but I'll see what I can get.

​No doubt. But like any obstructions, actual ones are harder to overcome than the virtual ones. You always have that safety net of knowing you can ignore a self-imposed constraint. If you're on a diet, you tend not to put a box of doughnuts on your dining room table after all. Discipline to not to break the easily avoided virtual obstruction is great --if you can control that discipline! Most of us would reach for the doughnut when things get difficult. Then again, if there's no way to avoid an obstruction you're forced unconditionally to figure out a way around it. For sure I'm getting esoteric now! Philosophical reductionist navel gazing. But I do believe all this digital production is a double edged sword. Weirdly, the ease of digital production can potentially diminish the quality of a film. If for no other reason than it requires less production effort to attain similar IQ and less concentration/skill from the crew. (normally - most of the time - that's freakin' awesome, actually; more for less) Surely making things harder to do would seem counter intuitive, but depending on one's creative desires... well, it just might not be. I haven't shot a production on film for at least 3 years, but my colleague and I are doing s16 for a new documentary with various mixed media. Why? For all of the reasons listed in this thread.

yes nx1 is much better in low light than the lx100, even though they have same photosite area (better bsi technology and noise is reduced by scaling down the croped 23,6Mpix down to 8,8mpix, the lx100 is just a 8,8mpix crop) : same night scene iso 800 (already too much noise for the lx100) lx100 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVaA0840d3M nx1 (+samyang 24mm f1.5) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gdrFX2oFDw guess who wins i am in also to buy nx500 but i'll wait to see samples first because samsung should in all logic limit video quality on purpose to avoid stepping on the toes of the nx1 warning: 800 is the sweet spot for nx1 above that it falls appart and 3200 is terribly bad for a unknown reason

Well, the samples speak for themselves. Seems ETTR gives you great results indeed. Interesting. Definitly need to test this for myself.