Leaderboard

If it's true, it's probably more likely they're going into the raw direction after working with the Magic Lantern folks. What an awesome and unique step that would be. We'll see.

6K video !

​Not if they do it out the USB3 port Honestly, just hoping for better RS in 4K, center 4K crop, higher bitrate options in 1080p, and a 1080p HDMI out option.

They could changing the architecture to 10bit?

​Did i miss something? bmpcc records RAW on sandisk extreme Pro SD´s

i think they dont look as good as the colors captured by you, and if you bought them so have other 100 people that will have the exact same look. i think you should develop your own style, the footage is great, just tweek it a bit and it will have your signature on it. they look instagramish, and unless there is a serious reason why they should look "green" or highly saturated because of a client or a story i am against luts and color grading. i guess its my taste,and i am the minority here. and as i said your footage and the dog looks awesome. c.

I don't these Luts at all. Ruining otherwise great footage. Horrible stuff

great job guys - these all look really nice! yes James loves to lift the blacks! I enjoy the looks he gets on his footage very much. tweak tweak tweak. I like the digital bolex stuff you got a lot - great job!

Internal 10Bit & true log (keeping nice colors) and I'm totally in...

We should look into processor related improvements, since it has one of the best processors around, what I think the improvements can realistically be : Reduced Rolling ShutterHighter 4K Framerates6.5K videoChoice between 264 and 265RAW HDTrue Log profileI still dont have my NX1, but will be buying mine in may, and boy, this camera is getting more and more amazing.

Reduced rolling shutter? (+10bit, +high bitrate 264/raw)

I hope for 10 Bit would be nice.Real usable HD out the HDMI portBetter HD quality4k slomo at any speed is better then noneLet us pick 264 or 265 or at lest HD in 264 so we do not have to trans code HD.Fix the audio betterFocus peaking that you can assign to a button to turn on and off for when using a finder covering the back screenMuch better low light focus for both stills and videoRaw would be nice but that might be pushing it some for this camera and how much space would that eat up..ouch Wish list for next version two card slots one for photos and one for video or over flow and much better cleaner low light performance, Two XLR audio inputs or a add on for that that ties right into the camera that is very small and lite. More lens lots of them

Lenses hands down. Even getting a couple of Rokinon primes VASTLY improved the picture I got out of my T3i. Pretty incredible really. For picture profiles, I also used Vision Color with their LUTS and found the result to be very cinematic.

​And a true log profile please

I agree with both sides - none of us wants to have a "preset" look define us - but they are good starting points - I am very guilty of using filmconvert and impulz luts for all my work - I have made a few custom luts - but it's good to have a jumping off point - in the end it's all the same - if you do it yourself or you use someone else's starting point. Whatever gets you to a look that feels right for that story, for that film, commercial, doc, etc. There is no magic bullet. And speaking of magic bullet - back when the magic bullet app was the only game in town for color grading done easily, man did some people do some really terrible "preset" looks and call it a day. I think resolve is helping all of us discover more and more about color. And yes it takes years and years to understand it all - hence why some colorists are paid I think over 10k a day.

Thanks, Rich. My unit functions so well -- it effectively ended my anamorphic search that had spanned over a dozen or so different lenses, and the B&H is now the only anamorphic lens that I own. I'm definitely hanging on to it!

id starts with a used 5D mark 2! after you really do a check in the condition of the camera, try not to buy from a proffesional photographer /videographer because it will have 1 million takes on it, since the camera has been around for ages. try to find one from a camera enthusiast that kept it in top shape! 70d/old 7d 60d rebel etc are not worth it the 5d mrk 2 is much better. you can also do the awesome ML raw, but its hell to process and edit.

Like Ed Wood said, you don't like this one, wait until you see my next film. Paraphrasing.

​Yes, and then had many thousands spent on it for all sorts of post processes to actually get it to a distributable level, and then in the actual distribution. Look at the numbers: http://www.indiewire.com/article/sundance-2015-infographic-most-festival-films-will-land-distribution-deals-20150116 Roughly 2300 films submitted to Sundance. Of that, maybe 100 get some sort of distribution deal. The average budget is nearly $2mil - commercially viable films that just need someone to distribute them. How many of those films that were picked up had sound from a mic that was mounted on camera? How many have crews that are in the 1-2 people range? I'm going to take a guess and say none. I can't recall the last film that was made for <$10k with a crew of one that ended up getting picked up for mass distribution - can you? Perhaps Monsters, but then that was ~$25k + 10 times that or so to get it to a distributable level, and then distribute it... Even Like Crazy had a $200,000 budget and a pretty large crew, despite being shot on a 7D and being a really rather simple, non-extravagant love story. I'm happy to be proven wrong - I guess I just don't really understand the whole playing the odds of doing it all yourself - you've likely got more chance of winning the lottery; at least someone wins the lottery each week.

Yes, the short vs. feature argument. I know it all to well. Back in the 70s and 80s directors made shorts to promote themselves, usually USC, or UCLA students who utilized their situation to develop a "calling card" short. In the 90s when I first became interested in filmmaking, it wasn't in fashion to make a short, or go to film school... You used that money to make a feature. Making any movie is hard work, akin to moving mountains... The thought process was why should I spend a crap load of money and time on a short, when I can spend a crap load of money and time on a feature. Remember El Mariachi was shot for 7000 bucks and that was shot on 16mm film. So, I think I am still in that mindset. But distribution channels have changed, so the short film has once again become a viable way to market yourself.

​It all comes down to your goals. What if you want to make a feature? Do you want to make a feature that is able to commercially distributed, especially without needing to convince a studio to spend millions 'fixing' everything for you (especially the sound mix), or do you just want to make something that you can show to some friends, burn a few DVDs and attempt to drum up some interest online to be able to sell DVDs? Do you want to have a better chance of making your money back quicker? Or do you want to take the risk that you may never make your money back? It sounds like you've placed a lot of imposition on yourself. You don't want to record dual system sound, despite the fact that for ~$200 you can have a recorder and boom pole that you can have a friend hold and instantly you'll have better sound than simply sitting a mic on the camera and hoping you'll get close enough. Plug the lav into the recorder and hide the recorder in the actors clothes - makeshift wireless lav. I can tell you that the best Directors consider sound and sound design right from the start, rather than considering it simply a 'pain in the ass'. I don't look down upon you for doing what you feel you need to do. I just think you've unfarily impositioned yourself and by doing so, you're severely hampering your chances at major success. Now, maybe you don't want major success, and that's fine too. All I know is I shoot a lot of different projects - and I know many filmmakers I've worked with who are trying to get noticed would rather spent $5k-$10k making a really damn good short with a simple but excellent story, great production values, a good colour grade and proper sound design and mix - send it to festivals and eventually the internet and try and sell their feature script after that... Rather than attempting to make $5k-$10k stretch for an entire feature - as they know that the feature will be mediocre at best, and the production won't be of a level that they're happy having out there as their calling card.

​No worries, mercer, I take my words back too. Try not to worry what other filmmakers think, by the way, all that matters in the end is you, your film and the audience. If you can shoot a feature and finish it yourself, then distributors at film festivals will be even more willing to talk to you.

Thanks for the tests! Most of the filters feel kinda Instagram-like. Including the names Mostly because of the lifted black point I think. Might like it more with proper blacks...

Thanks a lot for all the feedback guys. I've been using the Metabones Nikon to MFT and it is absolutely rock solid and I haven't once removed it from my GH4 - it is like a part of the camera. Unfortunately, I can't find anything similar for Nikon F to EF, perhaps this is to do with the flange distance? Anyway, I will try a few out and let you know how I get on!

I prefer to use cheap ones - for every lens an own adapter. If it´s a bit wobbly, it´s easy to make it tight.

​Looks good. I love Sigma. I'm thinking of just going with the Canon 10-18 b/c of weight, and the STM feature of face tracking.

You make short films until you have the resources to make larger films. You publicize and promote them at film festivals, always carrying a screenplay with you in case you meet a producer looking for a new talented director. Either that or you go purely through Internet, do crowdfunding and hope you get millions of youtube views to be noticed. There is only one way to succeed. Use the the resources you have to impress maximum number of people with best work you can do. There was a time when even if you made your own film, you could only screen it to people physically, in a room, etc....now...you upload it once and if its good, it can reach millions. Filmmakers have NEVER had this option before. Ever.

First off, sorry about all the quotes, kind of new here and I have no idea how to quote specific parts of people's comments. Thank you Axel, this is very close to my original point. I'll use the BMPCC as my example. When that camera came out I was excited to see the feature films that were going to be made by low budget filmmakers. I am so low budget, I couldn't even afford it when it first came out, but I was very interested to hear filmmaker's experience with the camera. When I went over to the forums and read that people are rigging up this camera with rails, and matte boxes, and follow focus machines, and screens. What? The camera is called a Pocket Camera, it is designed to look like a consumer camera. Why in God's name would someone rig up that camera? Imagine the possibilities of taking a legitimate cinema camera into a restaurant, or a bar, or a hospital... And people think you are holding a point and shoot? Your production value would rise incredibly. I don't own the camera but I now understand that it needs stability to function well, but do you really need a full, professional rig, for every scenario? We, as filmmakers, are in such an amazing time with this digital revolution. A cheap, consumer camera can be used to make a very good looking movie. I mean Blair Witch was partially shot on a Hi-8 video camera ... Surely a better film could be made with this new technology. But if you're going to hold stringently to how the pros do it, you probably will fail? So what do you do, if you have little money, little crew but a big desire to make a movie, with a good concept and a great script, or vice versa? To Be Continued

Must be my poor english. Mercer liked your posting, so I guess you didn't hurt him too much. Too many cooks spoil the soup. What you are talking about is an industrial product, not a good film. And regarding VFX, it's accomplished on the backs of many (credits) underpaid modern slaves, who ruin their health sitting 14 hours a day in front of computers. The last film I saw in the cinema was Avengers - Age Of Ultron, and though it was somehow entertaining, it really was a big heap of shit. I never dreamed of making such a film myself (though at age 16, before having seen really good films, I dreamed of making car chases with lots of guns and explosions in James Bond style). ​Excellent check list. For a one-man-band (or a small crew of trusted enthusiasts), you had to delete some of them from the start to make the project manageable. The crucial part would be to leave the right ones on the list. Somewhere I read a wise line: Good, cheap, fast - pick any two. On the short film Ascension (search on Vimeo), the filmmakers say (homepage >making of): Let's start with some numbers: 5 students, 1 year and 2 months of production, 19 000 hours of work, 2 months of calculation on 20 computers, 11 000 final pictures, 4 To of storage and very few sleeping time. Those are numbers that impress me. ​I'll try to, and I start by confessing what I have not achieved so far: pulling off something that I'm really proud of, capturing my dreams on film. Am I alone? Well, if very many had succeeded, I'd expect to see more good short films around. If I finally succeeded, I expect that instead of typing lengthy postings on how to succeed, I'd lean back and dream about the next project ;-) EDIT: As I see it (and I am the TO), this isn't off topic. The software industry (not Quantel or Flame) must be careful to sell their products to us without risking their reputation of being 'pro' (whatever this is supposed to be, in our times). In the beginning of cinema there were the pioneers, and they found out how to entertain and astonish their audience in a playful way. Had they had one percent of the opportunities we have today, they would have happily exploited them without having to compare their work to any industrial standards.

Wish you did finish that project. I like the small size and the huge amount of old school flares. Unfortunately I don't have the time to modify mine either. Selling it too, looks like your IV version. Your first one is a super clean copy. I suggest anyone getting into anamorphic buy one of these. Really a great deal, was my first anamorphic lens too.

​Yup, they're so cheap you can easily pick up 2 or 4 of them, and go with whichever one you personally prefer.

​I briefly tested Hitfilm. Without reading any docs, was able to quickly mix video and particle effects, etc. Yes- you can mix video and motion graphics in the same timeline (there's also an editor/mode for the VFX layers). However, I prefer node-based designs, as they are ultimately the most general and most powerful. Since I have limited time to create video projects (part time), I have a basic constraint for all the tools I use: they must be real-time or nearly so, otherwise I won't use them. Premiere Pro, FCPX, Motion 5, Resolve, and 3DSMax are the current real-time tools in my toolbox. For the green screen laser fight scene our short film, Delta, I did everything in Premiere Pro, and it ran in real-time (or nearly so). After Effects would have required rendering previews and waiting: prefer interactive real-time, and as a video game developer, know most video-related tools are way behind what is possible with current CPUs & GPUs.

if you want to wash your head from bad acting/script/cinematography i suggest you watch Inherent Vice... if you like this type of flics i guess KUNG FURY is the one to watch! Most of the raw footage over green screen had been filmed using a Canon EOS 5D and a Sony FS700,

OMG.... I have been shooting with Canon for many years, never got any feelings about it, they were just tools. But nowadays, I am getting personal feeling about Canon. It is embarrassing. You treat me like an idiot. What cost-saving? This is a bloody expensive camera. Without any lens, you could have realized even more "cost-saving". No RAW while cost-saving.... Even my little cousin knows, that first comes the RAW then the JPEG. Shame. This is my other favorite.Canon tells us about their fantastic 4K lenses. Oohhh, yes, they are able to resolve 8MP... And now you think, what should you put on your 50+MP topmodel

This camera is quite possibly the most hubristic camera-spec-to-price-point camera Canon have ever released. I also think it's hilarious that they even mention the stills 'functionality' in the marketing. Chuck says "It can really do a credible job as either a video or a stills camera, depending on the needs of the user or the project." Uhhh, what? Unless you're a mom at a soccer game, I fail to see how 12mp JPEGs coming off a 1" sensor from a slow fixed lens will meet any photographer's needs. The whole spectacle is really absurd. Meanwhile Blackmagic announce the URSA Mini with basically every spec I desire outside of internal NDs at a base price only $500 more. It's really fascinating to watch how long you can milk brand loyalty and lens ubiquity before people wake up that you're selling the same thing for 3 times the price, while your competitor (BM) undercuts everyone else by half with almost 1/100th the manpower.

austinchimp, I have the a7s since a couple of months and I am still on a path to get decent skin tones while having accurate colors. Trust me, I tested all those profile guides that I found on the net. s-log is at the moment no option to me since I want to have ISO 100 and i did not start using ND filters yet. Anyways, you might give those settings a go: Take PP2 as a base (with default values of course) and change the following: gamma: cine4 color mode: pro color phase: +5 These settings work amazingly well for me, here is one quick example: Another very important aspect I found out is setting the white balance manually to appropriate kelvin values. You can look them up using Google if you are not familiar with them. Interestingly, I found myself nearly always using 5600k during daylight circumstances, no matter whether it is shady or bright sun (even with snow!). Only on tungsten light or halogen, I change the white balance to about 3900k and within the above mentioned color profile, i change color phase to +2 (i use PP3 for that to change it more quickly), otherwise the image is very yellowish. You could give those settings a try. I would love to hear from you if it helped a bit since I am sure that this journey is not done yet.