Leaderboard

So I tried adding ONLY an input LUT to the V-Log footage. AlexaLOGtoREC709, with a tad bit saturation. That is all. Colors are looking great IMO.

What's up with this guy?

I've been using RJ Lens Turbo and Nikon G adapters from the start. They're great, nothing "quick fix" about them! You'd have to be an absolute bonkers idiot of the first degree to damage your lenses with one of these. And as you're smart enough to read EOSHD and post on this forum I'd say you're not that :-)

Well that took a bloody long time! But I've just this minute completed my new reel and site. It's not "announced" until Monday.... social media campaigns etc blah blah. But it's live! Check them here: View my new showreel and website! Some info Each and every image - I shot, lit, edited, graded. A little directing. Very involved in creative ideas. Core crew was mostly 4-5 regular people in these productions (Director, DOP, Production Manager, Spark, Make Up Artist). For the geeks - cameras used are Sony F55, FS7, FS700, RED Epic, GH3, BM Pocket. All images are music videos, but going for commercial/corporate work aggressively into the next year. (and still many music videos). The aim is to have 100% new material for Showreel 2016. Max creativity required. Anyway, if you like it or don't like it, whatever. Just thought I'd share.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-HC-WX970-Camcorder-Built--Camera/ 4k = future proof camcorder = no time limit price = $850 20x optical zoom, easy to use, HDR movie so no exposure expertise needed, interesting sounding twin camera function for close ups of the pastor from phone. No reviews below 4 stars. "Real-Time Broadcasting* — You can live-stream events on USTREAM as they are being recorded in Full-HD resolution." Sounds like it should be ideal to me, plus Panasonic is a great video brand.

Maybe a used D5300 and Tokina 80-200mm f2.8? I got that lens for £250 ($400) on ebay.

Sometimes I wonder if it's possible for me to be more patronizing than this online I wonder

I think you should take for consideration the recording time limits on those cameras, I have recently downgrated some of my grear back to canon 600d with magic lantern from sony a6000 and a5100 just cause with ML I have auto recording restart option. Maybe you should consider good old camcorder instead of mirrorless or dslr as they are not desiged for long recording times.

I didn't say that, and I think you're taking the comment that did a little hard. It's interesting to deconstruct whether Canon color looks good to us because it's actually accurate (no) or pleasing (definitely), or because we got accustomed to it during the years where they were the only good option. You could make a similar argument for 24p and long focal lengths on close-ups. Maybe it's because I started off as a critic, but personally, I put a lot of importance in understanding why I like something, not just whether I do or not. Art Adams' articles on Canon color helped sort a lot of it out, but I still find the very emotional responses to critiquing Canon color fascinating. I wonder sometimes if we'd feel the same way about Nikon's color science if they'd kicked off the HDSLR market first. I wonder sometimes how much of this is cultural. We in the west tend to prefer tanned women and warm skintones, whereas in Japan, white is beautiful. They prefer cool tones and pale faces (this was the Kodak vs. Fuji dichotomy back in the day). I wonder whether Canon's lack of accuracy in reds and greens (in C-LOG and WDR) ever bother the average Canon user, whether they don't notice, or whether they've just learned to embrace it. And sometimes, I wonder why, even though I notice the creative hue shifts and somewhat Crayola rendering, Canon color gives me this feeling like slipping into an old comfortable glove whenever I see it done well. There are no right or wrong answers here. At least, not yet. So it's important to come at these issues with a sense of academia, passionate as we may be about our position. Savvy? (For your perusal, links to those Art Adams articles: http://www.provideocoalition.com/color-matching-a-canon-c300-to-an-arri-alexa http://www.provideocoalition.com/cameras_more_thoughts_on_canons_color_science_this_time_with_pictures http://www.provideocoalition.com/canon_c300_trimming_white_balance_plus_a_look_at_daylight_vs-_tungsten_colo http://www.dvinfo.net/article/optical-science/a-short-history-of-camera-color.html That last one is one of my favorite camera articles. Art has forgotten more about color science than I'll ever know.)

It's called the Render Cache, go to page 140 of the manual: But usually, you won't need to render in the Edit page, since pretty all funky things happen in the Color page (those few old-fashioned effects can't be a big deal).

Classy.

Yeah the Animators 7S is great in low light

I shot a rolling shutter test for the dvxuser thread, or anyone else who wants to play... there is supposed to be quite an angle on the vertical line and I moved it fast enough to achieve it. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue! Oh and I agree they don't have the bandwidth to read the whole sensor, but I really am sure I did see it somewhere (planning on buying the camera does aid memorising odd facts that come up). They should certainly be able to read two sensor pixels per video pixel and could do who knows what on-sensor combining to make those pixels. Maybe they just meant they used all the pixels in the 16:9 area with on-sensor combining, it is very clean and my initial ISO 3200 test is also looking okay.

Science, yeah. Hail Science!

Youtube must pay more than I imagined for ads

Reminds me of the following: But dear Lord, why?! That's just unnecessary abusive!

Have been playing around but here is EosHD cinema profile 1080p > EosHD Log LUT > Captain Hook BMC LUT + some tweaks in FCPX.

!?!!?!

Keep in mind that the kit lens isn't weather sealed, so your body won't be either with it on.

Very nice Aaron. And thanks for your support with the purchase. Nice that people are experimenting with different in-camera profiles before taking it to the EOSHD LOG Converter. Curious to see the results of that as well!

Looks very good, Aaron!

I didn't have any Cine V footage at hand, but here is Portrait > EOSHD LOG converter > Kodak Elite Chrome LOG LUT

Thanks very much for all the feedback. It's much appreciated like all constructive criticism. With the site loading, it's being looked into. The "contact" heavy interface is based on a current call-to-action one-page high content trend (make sense?), the generation of the scroller. A lot of it is experimentation - and the site will be amended accordingly with data collected from certain behaviours (such as the Pop up contact box and clicks on buttons). As most of my clients are musicians/agencies/labels - the site still has to be branded to favour them as that's where the chunk of our content is. The next step is direct contact with creative agencies where we illustrate where we are now (this site) with what we are offering as commercial/corporate video makers (with examples, PR and such). This is to drill up projects in this area internally and adjust our public image appropriately over time. A big amount of feedback we have received is the true lack of style with substance for commercial/corporate in my local area - apparently it's very hard to find, and that's our USP. Recently we had a sportswear client who came to us because they didn't want a boring, done-it-all-before video. They wanted our locations, visual style and modern-natured thinking while still being corporate (Kukri Sports - Together Stronger). Everyone involved understands we are probably too outlandish, energetic and not boring enough for bread and butter "give me all your money" corporate work, and this is a factor we are considering away from the "Video Ink" brand. So much in fact we have employed someone to develop it. We understand the money is good to keep things very secure and successful. Even a subtle taste of our style in this area might work wonders. We will see. On the other hand, there are unconfirmed big things in motion which, if they happen, will completely change everything. But at this moment in time, we just get on with it and prioritise our majority client base

When I opened it I saw only the "Contact - Email or Call us Here" at the bottom right, and a spinning icon. I clicked on it. Nothing. Eventually the site loaded. I'm in the U.S./East Coast. Even though your clients may not live here, they may look at your site while visiting the U.S. on other work. So, you really need NO EXCUSE quick load anywhere. The site is stunning and impressive. I find it a bit too needy. To many "Contact us here..." buttons. Even the first one of the bottom right, I'd take it out. Why? Corporate/commercial clients do not look for "Unique. Stylish. Cinematic", they look for "Current. Targeted. Distribution Friendly." Don't call them, they'll call you For music videos, the more creativity the better. They are musicians, not filmmakers, so whatever you can do to keep a viewer interested long enough to listen to the whole song is ALL that matters. You'd think that would be the same goal for a corporate video, but it isn't. Established companies must balance keeping their existing customers (brand/perception) focused/stable/reliable while doing just enough new stuff to look fresh. There will be factions within every corporation that want you to just do what's been done a million times before and which they believe pays the bills (and keep in mind will pay YOUR meaty invoice). There will be factions that want to try something new, or go in a different directions. Balancing those competing needs will be the difference between success and failure. Both factions have to sign-off on using your company. Right now, your site speaks only to those factions wanting to do cool stuff. It will turn off the other factions. Getting back to musicians. Most of your clients have little to lose. Every song they swing for the fences. If they strike-out, they just try again. Corporations have people who pay the mortgage, feed their families, every day, based on current clients. They FEAR failure, of losing their existing business. You HAVE TO WORK with these people and if they get a whiff that you're going to be a prima donna artist they'll sabotage your getting the work, or working with them again. In short, all commercial work (though I work in a different field) is about getting along with others. Naturally, everyone has their "thing" that bugs people, but only one bugbear per person! SO... I suggest you make a separate site/business, called Vindeo Ink Corporate, or something like that, where you DON' T SCARE THE F'ING SHIT OUT OF THEM Put up only your commercial videos. Put up all you experience, put up testimonials, put up language that says you can work in anyone's f'd up company without throwing a hissy fit. Just like Hollywood, they want something new, bold, daring, but with the exact same story as whatever movie came out last month and made $500 million! Don't take my word for it. Talk the customers you want, PEOPLE who would actually hire your services. They'll be closet filmmakers like you and would love to have drinks after work. Again, these are people with boring jobs at large advertising/media companies (you actually want to talk to c-level people because they know what gets bought and why. The higher-ups talk bullshit.). Let them help you fine-tune your site to get the consensus you need to get projects. (Warning, you're not going to like these corporate cogs--a long story why, but you need them). The other way to do this is to make a blockbuster film and become a celebrity filmmaker Lastly, you know I think the world of your work Oliver. You've got the creative/talent thing down!

The site likes fast internet connections. I'm in dialogue to speed up the response time on the server. It's Google integration (analytics and fonts) that slow it down.

My RX10 II's are from DigitalRev and they are fine. Took one out for a quick spin as needed some pick up shots for a simple narrative in a music video. First Impressions: Good Stuff - A lot of fun to shoot with! - Steady in the hand, even at 200mm. - Easy to use and change settings quickly. - Lens is the best feature! - Slo mo is great upto 240fps. - Amazing "shot-getter", could be used as an A-cam on low budget stuff. - Not too difficult to get some nice shallow shots. - Very compact. - Motion cadence is better than expected. - Stills are good enough. Areas to Improve - Peaking and zebras seem to need a bit of firmware tweaking for accuracy. - Zoom is slow when recording. And noisy. - Screen is very flimsy, needs looking after! - 2 seconds is not long enough for 240fps. - Video thumbnails are pixelated in preview mode. - Menu button placement is awkward. - Should be able to use shutter button as record. (come on Sony!!) - Battery life is terrible. (Sony should do better here!!!) - No MLUT for Slog2 (judging light is hard in this mode without MLUT). - Not good in low light. - Difficult to seperate subject from background on mid-shots. (cant have it all). - Can look sterile in 4k out the box (incredibly sharp!) For the money.... it's a fantastic litttle camera.

Very intresting wolf33d. My two cents is I would not trust a camera with a movable sensor for landscape photography. There are heat dissipation issues and the slightest software/hardware glitch and the sensor become unaligned to the lens and you get blur. Many photographs ALREADY go crazy with micro-focus issues with fixed lenses and sensors. For centuries, it has been true in photography, and all machines, if it CAN go wrong, eventually it will. This is ALL theoretical but in my "real world" I need to have the most confidence that the least amount of stuff will go wrong. That's subjective, sure. I pick up a Nikon and I get this sensation from the camera "I will always turn on. I will always get you a shot quickly and competently." The question is very simple and should be respected. Are the trade-offs Sony made to get in-camera stabilization worth the risks one takes in long-exposure photography. Unless one works in landscape photography opinions should be circumspect? Bottom line, thank you for having the guts to post your opinions in a "4K is the be-all and end-all of all things camera" Forum. I say that with Love for EOSHD

Most LUTs don't support Rec709, so converting into LOG "flatness" gives you access to wider variety of LUTs (like DeLuts or Arri Alexa profiles in FilmConvert).

:O :O :O :O :O Edit: OMG the soligor is worth so much too! http://www.ebay.com/itm/SUPER-RARE-NM-SOLIGOR-135mm-F-2-0-SUPER-FAST-and-NEAR-MINT-42mm-SCREWMOUNT-/351200815947?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51c5332b4b Looks like im getting something better than the a6000

Copies of that Minolta are listed on eBay for 400 bucks... You may have gotten the deal of the year.

Hi! I found these two old lenses in a thrift shop for 40 bucks, no clue what the brand/mount is but they look interesting. The 135mm F2 is enormous so probably wont balance too well on my nex. The 21mm looks interesting but very weird with the back part of it. If you know anything about these lenses i would love to hear if they are worth keeping or if i should get sell them. Btw isn't F2 for a 135mm really fast?

you are right, I'm done with their conflict of interest. The connection between the president of Red owning BMCuser.com and DVXUSER.com is not healthy for this industry. I ask all of you to take those sites with a grain of salt. Anything bad they say about Andrew Reid can be said a million times against Jim Jinnard and his Reduser reign of terror. And he's a billionare. Andrew Reid is just like you and me - just a guy who is trying to improve his cinematography skills. I will not be bullied by a billionaire and his army of "Yes Men" and "Board of Bros." I hope all of you guys can see this too. It feels good to not be the only one disgusted by how they run their camera forums. UPDATE - now I feel sorry for the mod who deleted my post. He is moderating with 27,000 posts a website owned by the president of a multibillion dollar corporation and has to pay for his little ads for his books on sound etc - So you spend countless hours on this forum and have to pay for your ads? On a forum that is owned by the president of Red camera which is a multimillion dollar corporation owned by a multi-billionare?Wow okay I'm sorry for calling you a liar. But now I feel sorry for you. Originally Posted by David JimersonYou did call me a liar. Which is an insult. It's also untrue. I haven't lied about a thing. I do pay for my ads, not that it's any of your business. Have from the start. Do you pay for the link to your own website in your own signature? (No.) Why is that link there? By your own reasoning, doesn't that make you a "paid employee" as well? If not, why not? RED is not our parent company; Jim Jannard sets absolutely no rules about how we moderate DVXuser, and Jarred has no involvement here anymore. (He could if he wanted to, but he doesn't.) These are all facts. Your refusal to believe them don't make them any less factual. I don't have anything to say about Andrew. Like I said, he can say whatever he likes. Originally Posted by eddavid Originally Posted by David JimersonI am no more a "paid employee" of this site than anyone else who runs ads on it. Lowel runs ads for lighting systems -- are they paid employees? I will admit to a chuckle when I read that. Originally Posted by eddavidNo actually it does. You are generating income from the site. Therefore you are a paid employee - you get paid in advertising. As a paid employee, you are consciously or subconsciously following a code. Because you have a vested interest in these forums. Originally Posted by David Jimerson'Coz I don't wanna. Has nothing to do with anything. Originally Posted by eddavid Originally Posted by David Jimerson Originally Posted by eddavidAnd you like to sell books.I was a mod here for years before I had anything to sell. My participation here isn't necessary to sell anything, anyway.Then why don't you get rid of your banner ads? I don't have thick skin. I did call you a liar. But that's not an insult, it's the truth. Lowel pays for their ads. Do you pay for your ads? Jim Jinnard runs Red camera which Jared Land, CEO of Landmine Media which owns reduser dvxuser etc is the president of. Don't you see the conflict of interest? Anyway I am glad you chuckled. That takes the air out of it. For you thinking that I was threatening you. When I wasn't threatening you. I am very, very, very curious to hear your take on Andrew Reid. He already told me his take. Please do tell.