Leaderboard

It's just upscaled. I did some tests a while back that showed that youtubes compression is so bad that hd upscaled and 4k looks pretty much the same. But when upscaled youtube enables three times the bitrate and when viewed in 1080p the resolution is back to normal but you still gained the higher bitrate. Same with good HD from the bmpc and 4k downscaled, on youtube it looks the same.

You've got to research your festivals. And then have the willpower NOT to submit to the shitty ones just because it looks like an easy in. There are 100% legit regional festivals that have huge sponsors and attract audiences to the festival. They don't simply rely on who the filmmakers can bring. I'm leaving in a few days for the Phoenix Film Festival. This is a regional fest in a largely conservative state that attracts more than 23,000 ticket buyers of independent cinema every year. I had a feature-length movie world premiere there in 2013 and we sold out 2 of our 3 screenings without lifting a finger. There are many more like this... deadCENTER in Oklahoma City, Dances With Films in LA, Cinequest, Austin, Sidewalk in Alabama. It takes work but there are ways to learn which festivals to submit to. Moviemaker magazine puts out yearly lists of great festivals worth the submission fee. This makes it easy to avoid festivals like the Buffalo-Niagara Fest that pressures filmmakers to buy advertising in their program and whose screenings are routinely attended only by other filmmakers who happened to travel in for the festival. All in all, there are too many festivals, I agree. Most suck. But there are a select number that do a great job and serve a large audience that's hungry for independent movies. They might be harder to get into, but that's the point right? They have to be more discerning because they've built a reputation based on the movies they program each year. Which points to the real difference i see between successful fests and unsuccessful ones. Successful festivals make the experience of the festival AND the films they screen into the main attraction, unsuccessful ones rely only on who the films attract, which as we know, often doesn't amount to jack shit. I've learned to navigate through the garbage and thankfully, it's been more years than i can count where i had the misfortune to attend a festival I'd describe as "lonely".

I felt compelled to reply to this topic. I've been on many sides of the fence on this issue, I've been the guy who, when the fs700 was released, absolutely had to have 120fps for camera work. I was so enamored by the possibilities that I could implement with slow motion, then I actually used it and realized it wasn't too special and I probably overdid it (https://vimeo.com/109775095) but can definitely add value here and there SO AS LONG as you keep the idea/feeling you want to portray in mind. THEN I became the super jaded guy who was getting irritated with test videos all using slow motion, and tons of videos being uploaded in Vimeo all implementing their respective cameras slow motion. I would say things like "slow mo is cliche" or "slow mo is played out" and basically felt like it wasn't all that special anymore since everyones iPhone could do slow mo. THEN I realized I was merely projecting my insecurities on others. And just like that I didn't care anymore. It no longer matters to me if people are using slow mo, lifting the shit out of their blacks, the important thing is they're trying to make things. If it's slow mo that captivates someone into doing something creative, so be it. I like that. I like seeing people with cameras, trying to explore a side of themselves that pretty much all modern societies try to surpress. Is it overdone ? Absolutely. Does it *actually* affect me, and my ability to deliver ideas? No, the only thing that could ever affect that is myself. Overall it's a tool, and I think it's important that ALL camera manufacturers, at this point, include at least 120fps to be there when people need it.

​Sigma 8-16mm if you want very wide. Sigma 10-20mm if you want cheap wide angle (used less than $300) Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 (or the previous 11-16mm 2.8) if you want wide + big aperture Samyang 12mm f/2.0 (comes in NX mount)

Slo-mo definitely effects the emotional side of us human beings and that is why it's over-used. I see several posts on a FB forum were they all want the NX1 to shoot 240fps, okay, yeah, that would be nice, but that camera needs a lot of other things before it needs that. People are obsessed with slo-mo.

​In the feature film world, all directors and camera operators are adamant : "don't touch our framing carefully performed on stage". But if you are the man of all hats (camera operator / editor / colorist) on a documentary film, recording these extra pixels can help you reframe or stabilize your images on some occasions. Whatever the situation, the out-of-frame grayed area is a good alternative to the standard white or black lines that in the fire of action your eye no longer sees... letting you frame onto the full viewing screen.

Maybe they are all like Leonard!    

I honestly think DSLRS are great for films. Look at the season 6 finale of House! It was shot on a 5d and looks incredible!! Same with Act Of Valor!! That was a bug budget Hollywood movie shot 90% on 5d's. If a Canon 7D can be used to make features like "Like Crazy" then an NX1 should be perfectly usable at 4k! Hollywood movies use expensive cameras because they are better in different ways. It's going to be much easier to make an arri Alexa look like a movie than it will for a NX1 so Hollywood of course will use the best there is. But if you know what you're doing the NX1 can be used as a story telling tool just as much as a red can. It'll take more work but for the price I wouldn't mind working a bit harder.

I can see using it sometimes but if a camera did not have it but was a great camera it not having slomo would not be a deal breaker for me.

I havent tried putting them on a digital camera (only the 55 2.8) but for video they should be sharp enough for shure, the 35 3.5 probably being the worst but still more than usable (its actually the most expensive in that list). The only problem might be bokeh, I once compared the mamiya 55 2.8 against some nikkors and the mamiya had very nervous bokeh (its actually a fast wide angle lens on 645, so nothing strange there) while the nikkors were perfectly smooth @2.8 (50 1.2 , 60 2.8). The 110,150,300 wont have that problem. Anyway, these lenses should give similar rendering as the nikkon zoom (not vintage, but also not super contrasty). You could always resell them if you dont like them.

​I didn't say Canon is irrelevant. I said the GH4 competitor from Canon will be irrelevant this year, when Pansonic (and others) will be one step ahead of the curve.

I think it's way more common in music videos and sport commercials. But you're right. A ton of slow mo beach/city footage going up on Vimeo.

​I think the problem I that Canon have shown themselves to be very cynical with lower priced cameras in the past.. Withholding features to protect their own high end equipment won't win them any favor with the majority of visitors to this site. By all means though, if the can come out with a price competitive camera for once, that would be great!!

I just got a D750 yesterday and I'm very impressed with it's performance. Lots of detail, no moire, great dynamic range. I have it matched with the optically stablized Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 and the results are excellent.

Canon 1D NA?

I'd probably think most of the "internet camera nerds" don't bother using lighting, or very little. Whether this comes down to shooting style/hobby/lack of interest... Don't know. I can be a camera nerd who surfs the net on a daily basis to feed my latest craving. But I also see cameras/footage being critised where proper, good lighting was NOT utilised. How many actually realise that a camera produces superior images with a good set of lights, or a knowledge in how to mould natural light? A lot of the "skin tone" footage on the net with the A7s sucks because the operator raised the ISO to 20,000 in locations with weird colours/no colours, and didn't bother to consider light at all. Lighting is far more important than cameras. You start to realise that your tool has much better colour, dynamic range, resolution and motion than you thought. Even if you use a flat piece of foil to reflect the light on your subject, every little helps. My order of importance for every shoot: 1. Idea 2. Subject (actor, location etc) 3. Lighting 4. Lenses 5. Camera So onto your subject, whatever camera you use, start with lighting first. You will get much much further with your filmmaking and produce much better images this way My honest opinion is - those who are serious but don't consider lighting, you might as well not bother!