Leaderboard

"Anyone who sets out to shoot a film on an iPhone rather than a proper camera is simply doing it because they are either very silly or want to attract publicity for their film. Proper cameras that shoot wonderful video are so bloody cheap these days, there is no excuse. Shooting video properly with an iPhone is a right pain in the bum." by Philip Bloom

Film offers a lot of advantages. For example the motion looks a lot better than on digital cameras, just download the original clip and see how "shitty handheld" can look not disturbing but pleasing.

Rectilux is working well so far on my Kowa 16-H

OK, I tested the camera, shooting non-stop for 3 hours, immediately restarting every 1/2 hour with each time limit. Quite amazingly, the camera showed zero signs of problems (was barely warm) and probably could have gone indefinitely. Also, you can use the USB cable for power if you need. Bottom line, NX1 should work fine for arbitrarily long shoots.

See what I did there? Any who, lots of blah blah about smartphones beating "real" cameras. IMO no camera on the planet is better than another. A smartphone easily beats an Alexa. The Alexa kills the GH4. And a GH4 is much better than a smartphone. It all depends on who, where, when and at what cost. Still, shootouts are fun. Don't have an iPhone but my LG shoots 200Mbps. My G7 was shooting Cine-D. The XC10 was rocking C-log. Had two misses with the ND in the video and haven't even tried to match them in post.

Hi everyone. I have uploaded a test sequence with shots from a indie feature I´m doing. We Shot a small scene with film because we wanted a really particular look for this par in the movie, more vintage, like memories from childhood. Se we shot on a SRII super 16mm Fuji Eterna 8673 stock. Then scanned on an Arri scanner. I never color graded film. So wanted to hear some opinions about. If any one have questions, please be my guest PASSWORD: fuji test Also, i wanted to share the raw clip for anyone who want to give it a try. Remember its film log. compressed in DnxHd https://mega.nz/#!hFh1hAyA!b0mxVAk1KtjL7guXYcRExBEcdTAVinaTLfMIQq5k-24

I think it could be the Eye of Horus... Or the Eye of the Tiger.

No amount of resolution can make up for the grain of rice sensor and the associated boring aesthetic it delivers. I'd take 720p and some dof control over 8k from an iphone

Personally I'm not provoked by the iPhone, in fact I use it sometimes for quick shots on professional shoots. The thing that provokes me is using misleading titles as clickbait, which in turn serves to misinform those who are learning.

Sounds like I'm wrong! I blame YouTube adding macroblocking to the XC10

Thank you for that information Xavier!

A late response but i shot a wedding this summer on the NX1 with a 12.000 mAh USB battery. No problems what so ever during the 7 hour shoot and the battery lasted all day.

The NASA quote above is cute, but also gave it away a bit too easily. The mystery lens is almost certainly a 25-120mm K35 zoom with a 2.4x speedbooster to work on the Ikegami EC-35 2/3'' vacuum tube camera. (The Kubrick lens is a 70mm f1 with a 0.7x speedbooster adapting to 50mm f0.7–or close to it.) Coverage is unusually good for S35 on the original K35 zoom, but I would be VERY VERY surprised if this covered S35/APS-C. That's crazy to assume it would. If it does I'm SHOCKED. That said, there are two possibilities: After the speedbooster group is removed and the mount is modified, this becomes a 25-120mm K35 zoom with incorrect markings, making $1.5k an insane steal. That is IF the optical design is really that simple and it's possible to take it apart and retrofit with a PL mount for under $1k or whatever. If it's not simply as a 25-120mm K35 with a condenser and is actually an entirely different lens, it's still a pretty awesome lens on the t3i with 3x crop mode, giving the genuine K35 look. It might even cover the BMPCC. But the cost of adapting the mount for infinity focus is still there.

Things require time to be made, correct? The problem with these forums is the fact people from so different origin come to post and say anything as it is the most consensual truth. As matter of fact, experience speaks on our behalf. We can't put some worker with one, two or more decades of experience in the same basket of some young fellow anxious to see the bird out of the cage. I'm sorry but that's what it is. Our actions speak by itself. To infer some manufacturer has some trouble because didn't post any sample footage in half dozen of days, only pops up as evidence of it. Instead.

I wish I had 900ft... I have only two rolls of Velvia left right now

There are so many good cheap 135's out there, I can't think of a reason to spend 2100% on one.

I often admitted that I can't grade. That's true, though I technically understand everything Huczek did in his tut and think I could have done even better. I agree that the key is not as good as it could have been. BUT: The difficulties start when you don't grade a single, isolated shot so that it looks much better than before, but a whole sequence, in which almost every shot presents different problems. Yeah, Resolve has this very easy-to-use wipe-splitscreen for saved grades. Now the way to make the sequence look "consistent" (term by Stu Maschwitz) is to grade your favorite shot from the sequence first, for look. Then you compare the rest of the shots one by one with the splitscreen. Not just with the naked eye, you watch the RGB parade, which also shows the split and indicates if the balance matches. So far the theory, and by following this advice, a half-blind will get 90% of the task accomplished. The remaining 10% separate the boys from the men. Because then you balance without net, and you will just need "an eye" for it, much like a good cook needs "taste" not to spoil everything but instead make it special, sensational ... Two more aspects to consider: the whole philosophy of skin tones which need to be preserved because they are "memory colors" (Maschwitz again) is arguably wrong, the vectorscopes' skintone-line just a crook. If the skin color is perfect "porange" (Maschwitz) doesn't mean that it's looking alive and beautiful. Because that - second objection - has more to do with the richness of nuances, with the number of different shades and colors the skin is composed of while it was stored in the recording file. Who says that colors are more believable if they are "pure"? There is a reason why the classic painters didn't just smear some porange on their portrait sketches. They applied different shades in layers, they let shadows wash away the saturation, they let the skin reflect the light or nearby objects. You could say they did a lot of grading. To get beautiful and not just acceptable skin, you need the right light/exposure, the right WB, the right color science of your camera's profile. The best options offer 10-bit or raw. And you need that extra bit of delicate taste for colors that will never be taught in a tut. EDIT: On the Larry Jordan tut. This is not grading, it's saving a shot with a terrible cast through color correction. We don't see the girl full screen, but we will all agree ("everybody knows the color of human skin") that the color balance looks natural. It is an SD-approach actually. In SD it was enough when the outlines were filled with the right color. For true HD, let alone UHD, this doesn't suffice anymore. We are able to see so many details that the chroma values can't just represent skin. It's like a jump from a children's coloring book to a Vermeer.

That is some grotesque magentaface grading... it looks like what happens if you start with Sony colour, then move the colourwheels by using dice and whiskey to make your decisions. On the original subject I actually use the iPhone for little pickups and stuff, it's pretty good for that. In that way it's more useful than a Nikon SLR! The original video title is just clickbait though

I do my costs on day rate, whether it's only 3 hours or 10 hours. Pre-Production: estimated days to complete pre-shoot work. (treatment, references, locations, talent, equipment, shot lists etc). Production: days to complete shooting schedule. Post Production: estimated days to complete post work. Within these costs, I add a 25% margin to cover the cost of business and a bit more for cushioning. I will also add an extra 2 days for post production amendments and advise the client that should they request anything above what was agreed, then that would be charged at day rate too. The amount that you charge really depends on the value/quality of your service, the expense of operating business and the project type

Cost: $4500 for body only. Already had the other parts: rig, 7q, vmount, 2sdi cables (for 12bit 444) Richg101 is making me some Pl mount Trump lenses (38mm and 58mm). Will hopefully be arriving soon! When he does I'll post some shots. Short on time, so I haven't been able to shoot or play with footage much, but very impressed so far, especially in the highlights.

Benching 300 one time is still impressive though. Max days are a thing.

5D3 Raw is not that difficult to work with at all today. There is only 1 step (MLV conversion) ahead of it's RAW workflow and it's easy. Now that you have Davinchi 12 out and MLRAW viewer,SlimRAW, or Rawmagic it's so easy. Also with Lossless Compressed cinemadng RAW files you save a ton of hd space. Every time i get footage from it I love it. Just don't use it for shooting events or long continuous recordings.

The other day I did some test shots using 4K. On the left is V Log L and on the right is James Miller Cine V settings shot. I've tried to match sky this two and you can see clearly that shadows are much more crushed in Cine V.

Ugly, ugly post. Here's a clean table: