Leaderboard

Im going to throw Panasonic into the equation, I just shot a Feature film with 6 Panasonic G7 cameras with Nikon Glass and Metabones XL speedboosters and Gini Rigs cages G7 in 4k is an amazing camera I tested it at length against a RED Epic and Arri Alexa and we all prefered the image fom the Panasonic especialy in low light it out performed the Epic , so much cleaner image off the Panasonic no noise or fizz in the blacks like the Epic had. I shot the movie with these lenses Nikon 80-200 f2.8 'Bourne Lens' Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 'Bourne Lens' Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 all on Metabones speedbooster XLs to give a Super 35mm field of view on the G7 it also made the f1.7 contant apperture zoom . The Nikon Glass with the Metabones XL gives a look very similar to Zeiss Master Prime lnes its that sharp and good. with those 3 lenses you can shoot your entire movie see pic

magellan, welcome! There's really no one piece of advice that's going to fit everyone's needs. The best way to decide on your first anamorphic is to research, research, research. Tito's Anamorphic blog is one of the best starting points. And you won't find a larger collected body of anamorphic knowledge than this forum. Search it deeply! Also look at test footage on Youtube and Vimeo of various lenses to see if a particular brand of lens produces an aesthetic that really appeals to you. Ultimately there is no perfect anamorphic solution. Every choice has benefits and drawbacks. The only way to know the best choice for your is to list our your needs, search through the options, and find the type of lens that most closely matches your needs. Once you find a lens or two that falls within your budget, search EOSHD and other forums to see what others have built to get the most out of those lenses. You'll find that there are different strategies to mounting them... from 'bailing wire & bubble gum,' to buying specialty parts, to custom-fabricating parts on your own, and many options in between. Here are some other thoughts, in no particular order: 1.33x adapters don't have the sharpest image quality and don't do well in low light, but are often the easiest to use. They tend to be lightweight and adapt easily to taking lenses. Usually good flares but less oval bokeh. They are relatively easy to acquire and will run you between $500-800. Not a bad choice for starting anamorphic. Big projector lenses will give you that nice 2x oval bokeh, but vary wildly in terms of flare and image quality. They are invariably heavy so they require a certain amount of adaptation and support (which adds even mre weight). Although I don't have one, there are some dual-focus lenses that appear to deliver great images. But dual focus seems to present another set of headaches if you're shooting something with lots of movement. Probably not something you want to take on as a beginner. Dual focus owners can speak better to the learning curve and the time involved to get good focus during dynamic/complicated shots. Watch some films shot with anamorphic. I just rewatched the original Mad Max, and realized there are some shots with horrible aberrations at the edges, and the film has barrel distortion throughout. But you know what? It doesn't matter. What matters is how the images made me feel, not how razor sharp or technically precise they were. What Bioskop said. It is okay if your anamorphic images aren't perfect - they aren't meant to be. Most importantly, MONEY = TIME. If you save money buying a cheap anamorphic, the more time you'll have to spend getting it to work. So they key the questions are: what's your total budget, and how much spare time are you willing to spend building your rig? I saved money buying some B&H's, but the time it took me to get them to where I needed was enormous. If I had to do it over again, I might have chosen a different route. Then again, I learned a LOT in the process. I hope this helps!

Plus there is a fair amount of technical skill in operating a boom pole well, which nearly all "friends holding a boom pole into a Zoom" don't have. "Time" is still a crucial part of a low/no budget film. If anything... even more precious than on big budget films! As you can't just pay people to get more of their time. There is only so much of people's time you can ask them to give up for free (or even for very low pay). Thus one of the pitfalls I see of ADR on low/no budget productions is that you run out of "time" with actors to get them back to do ADR. As the logistics of herding cats is not easy.

Hi all, FilmConvert here. We've just released a v2 of the NX1 camera profile which corrects some of the color issues you may have experienced. Download from www.filmconvert.com/download/camera-profile

NX500 can work as a cinema camera just fine. I have had to work with old DV cameras from the 90s, its not the best equipment but you know what? It is what I had on me and I just had to make do with it. It is terrible that you got robbed, I hope you contacted the police and the fu(censor)ckers are caught, hanged publicly as a warning. So let us look at what the NX500 cannot do, well it cannot record audio from external microphone no 3.5mm jack in fact no jack at all and the USB audio wont work until someone hacks it. Neither will you be able to get Gamma profiles which lets you have very flat image, however you do get all the regular colour profiles. The NX500 neither does 120fps at 1080p nor does it do 2160p at full sensor readout but it can do 1440p at full sensor readout with hack although I do not recommend using it for professional work. What can the NX500 do then? Well it can record in UHD, it can do super slow motion albeit at 720p, it has very beautiful in-camera colours, the Samsung pro camera colour profiles are among the best in the industry for in-camera colours, each are like their own film stock. So use the NX500 like you would use a film camera really, you get what you shoot essentially that is not to say the NX500 does not possess a flat profile of its own that you can grade but honestly? This grading footage is getting overrated, its a lot of work and a lot of pain in the bum, use the in-camera colour profiles and you can adjust them in post. Trust me, the results will blow you away for what the camera can do. The NX500 is in a lot of ways a 35mm film camera, it shares some of the same drawbacks. It possess a huge variation of film stocks, it shoots high resolution (but with a crop) not a big issue really because wide lenses were hilariously expensive in the film days so they often used standard range like 30mm and 50mm. NX500 has the NX1's famous autofocus system you basically get a TV camera autofocus with a film camera, what is not to like? NX500 is also extremely light and small, it is VERY portable with a good OLED screen although no rangefinder which is a bummer. Can it reach cinema quality video? The short answer is yes, it can. The NX500 like any camera system can shoot a cinema movie it is just up to the skills of the end user, thankfully the NX500 is VERY easy to use it is just not the AK47 of camera systems like a NX1 for example although the BMPCC is INFERIOR except in grading to the NX500 but with the bitrate hack there is almost no contest anymore, you gain the details in the shadows, you gain a bit detail in the highlights (protect those highlights at the cost of your own life soldier!) Do I recomment you get a NX500? Yes, it is very cheap these days and while the lenses certainly are costly you can always get an adapter, the NX500's UHD crop almost reaches the same size of the MFT sensors. Is that a good or bad thing? Well I dunno, if you really need that UHD then I suppose it is but if you can work around it then really, the NX500 is the camera for you, I say its better than the Sony A6300 except in low light. ------------------------------------------------------ I really recommend you read this forum section if you do not believe me that the NX500 and NX1 is capable of the industry's best in-camera colours. www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20370-nx-500-as-a-cinema-camera/

MKE600 + 2x Saramonic UwMic10

Here are some more NX1 screenshots from past weekend: //Edit// CLICK on picture to see full quality 4K & 1080p 120fps, Samyang 85mm F1.4 & Samsung 30mm F2 Settings: Portrait, Normal Gamma, Sharpness -10, BMP +15, Green 0.97 Film Convert settings: Default 709 profile, FJ Astia 100 stock, Saturation 132. Lumetri settings: Tint +9

Just to be very clear... not shot by me!! I wish it was! It looks great. But I just happened to come across it, and had to share it, as it is a nice example of what can be shot with GH2 in capable hands.

You will always have to synch some lines, or parts of lines.... Meaning you will be using lines, or parts of lines from different takes in different shots. Audio editing is a laborious task As you said, if you have a wide, establishing shot with dialogue, unless you go wireless... Which would probably be a good option for you BTW, you will have to edit lines from other takes to match sound fidelity. That's unavoidable. If you want to make life easy on yourself, don't mix mics in a scene. Don't take one line of dialogue from the lav and then the next line of dialogue from a shotgun... It will be a pain to match their sound qualities in post. Since you are personifying an inanimate object, or animal, you should definitely record that dialogue with the same mic the other actor's were recorded with. With all of that being said, if I were you, I would get a Rode and a deadcat, or get a couple small recorders... Even some higher end dictation recorders can be used because they are small, or the Little Darling recorders from JuicedLink, or the Tascam that IronFilm linked to, and get some lav mics... You can get a decent one for less than a hundred. I've used Azden lavs and the sound is good enough... They cost 25 dollars. I am a fan of in camera audio. Mount a shotgun like the Rode Pro and boost the signal +20db, or if you have a preamp like a JuicedLink or use your zoom as a line in recorder and then get an extreme close up takes of every angle. Audio sucks and is a craft of its own, so unless you hire a professional audio guy, you will be bastardizing it. If you have to bastardize it, make it as simple as possible.

Your terror is justified. Avoid looping like the plague. It's not something you would ever want to do. If you do not record your audio live, you are in for a long slog through the mud in post. ADR was discussed in a similar thread last week. In this post, I embedded a video example of the proper way to setup each take in an ADR session to save time. If after watching that video you still think ADR is a cake walk, do a test -- try shooting one page of dialog with camera audio and then loop it. See how you feel about looping your entire project after doing that small test.

Yes. Seems like you have a handle on things. When it comes to small productions, unless you have a good reason (story) to actually use a camera and film something interesting I really don't see a reason to put the cart before the horse. When you're finally really excited about what's on the page, then take time to worry about the tech. If your film was on a budget wherein you were the DP and your main concern was the camera, then you could burrow into the rabbit hole. Otherwise, just get what you can with that 8K and you'll be fine. Personally, I sometimes wonder if too many production people feel like the subjective issue of skin tone/color is something that'll make or break a movie. I mean, I care about it too, but it's waaaaay down on the priority list. That's me though. I tend to do work wherein I'm the beginning and end of everything, so my priorities need to take into account much more than just camera... The first one being, would a viewer even find this story interesting?

Very cool. Then we can grow Dali´s mustaches doing night shifts with grading:) I mean the UI really looks too nice!

I contacted someone who posted it years ago on Lift Gamma Gain. he's still active on there. maybe something will come of that :3

Right?? I mean, Da Vinci Resolve Lite is probably a superior alternative, but still, was super bummed to discover it and then learn it was dead so quickly

Hey Liam, Didn´t know there was a tool from Cliptoolz named Color.This tool looks too interesting to not to try it out. Haven´t found any working link to it though. Maybe we should keep this thread alive.

FWIW, the basic technique of match-cutting has certainly been part of the craft from the earliest days of montage editing. Now, since the tempo of modern editing is so frantic and kinetic I'd call this evolution of the style "hyper-match-cut" as it's over and above even the fast paced stuff we're used to in more "standard" edits. Also, the craft to aggressively accentuate the blend of movement is obviously such a huge priority it becomes the prominent aesthetic and the entire justification of the video. Cool, to be sure. Enjoyable in short doses as it's style above substance and fun to look at. Perfect for impressionistic travel films. How well does it work for fictional narrative though? I suppose it depends. Alright, so this is going to be a bit of a tangent, but I must say since this thread has me thinking about it, after watching "Jason Bourne" last night, I felt that the fast cut style was pushed beyond my tolerance. Your mileage may differ, but for me it became unnecessary distraction rather than an effective technique. However, it was interesting to note how incredibly short the editor/director was willing to make a shot and still attempt to maintain narrative cohesion. The answer, as much as I could tell, was about a 4th of a second. For me, it was like this: visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a knife falling to the ground, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, he landed a punch there, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a gun, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, his wound is a liability, etc., etc. --And all that happens in about 2 seconds. I'm actually not being dismissively critical of the "mess" part, (flying elbows, CU's of motion blurred faces) because I realize it's designed (or tolerated?) to be a sort of impressionistic din and then the incredibly short but important visual clues let the viewer connect to the unfolding sequence. I'm just fascinated by deconstructing the technique and the limits they were willing to push. So, it works for me when it's short and highly stylized as in these travel videos, but kinda annoying when looking at it for extended action sequences.

H265 from nx1/nx500 can take a pretty substantial color grade. Not as much as raw from my bmcc, but a good deal more than most codecs, I grade straight with h265 in both resolve and premeire, although you can transcode to h264 or whatever before if you choose. It can be a very cinematic look if you know what you're doing. Never hurts to light a scene in a cinematic way or to use good lens either. But it is a more robust codec than people seem to assume.

and Century Optics is not a shit advice, lol; ISCO ultrastar is an amazing anamorphic lens, tack sharp, beautiful bokeh, plenty of character; weaker, more settled flares, but this is matter of preferences. my favorite taking lens is FL55mm 1.2, paired with my ISCO ultrastar - pure magic!

The BM Pocket and the Micro are also great, but I find them great when you have time to set them. When you are in rush (run & gun) they are slower, especially outdoor and the battery's life is poor compared to Panasonic. I think Panasonic in "natural" Andy' setting, after a good color correction are almost indistinguishable from real cinema camera. I mean: I do love my BM Micro, but I'm faster with Panasonic and the internal codec is really good.

Yesterday I had my first real gig with both G7 and GH4. Cleanest image (in 4K) then GH4 in low light and at 800 ISO. Great awesome camera! Thank you very much fro the advice!

The inanimate object is 99% of the time indoor, so I could use the normal condenser pencil with the Zoom H5. Do you think the SmartLav+ could be useful for outdoor instead of the shotgun? Or which Rode Pro do you think is ok for that work (and maybe for indoor also, just to not change sound from indoor to outdoor)? I run a recording studio and I do a lot of voice over, I sometimes recorded ADR for some shorts, but they always was like 3 minutes shorts with maybe 1 minutes of dialogues... Audio on set is something completely different, a really difficult task! Thank you!

Wow. Pretty Neat. Just goes to show that it's always more about the talent, than the equipment in whose hands they rest.

@Marco Tecno I understand the effect but I want to understand the physics So literally all the focal reducer is is a converging lens...

Every camera (especially with the well under $5K range) has its own little set of niggles. Even the famous and expensive 1D C has ***HEAPS*** of niggles. Even an Arri Alexa has some niggles, that is why they brought out the Amira and then the Alexa Mini. But with an external battery pack (or a pocket full of batteries... I've got 13! So I can go with either option, just internal or external as well) you can go for ages and ages. I did this a couple of weekends ago inside at a Motorsport Expo, using the BMPCC as a quick and dirty run and gun camera on a monopod shooting to Rec709 ProRes LT (as there would be a lot of footage, none of which I'd be editing). This shows you can even happily use a BMPCC for one of its most unconventional uses: run and gun! If I was doing this outdoors I'd have added a monitor (I've got a Feelworld FW759 now, but hopefully I'll get a nice little 5" or smaller one to add to it instead). The total size and weight would still be smaller than what a naked 1D C would be! And more functional. (1D C monitoring features are shit) GoPros have been around for many years longer than a BMPCC, for a long time they were the ONLY option. That is why they were used. GoPros would still be used now for their low cost , their widespread availability, waterproofness, extreme small size, and ease of use. But for when image quality really matters, productions will always be now reaching for a BMPCC/BMMCC over a GoPro. In many many cases 4K is not **NEEDED***. 4K is not needed for nearly all of my work. As AaronChicago just mentioned only a few comments before yours, he is really only using his URSA Mini 4.6K as FHD ProRes HQ and not 4K as that is all that is required for his needs. So yes, would be lovely if the BMPCC had 4K! But it absolutely does not have to be a deal breaker requirement for many of us. As for 60p.... that is solved, we have the BMMCC if a person must have that. Needs an external recorder however... if BMD had included that inside the design then it would be a lot bigger and no longer Micro, plus the price would leap up. This is however something I'd like to see! Could likely be sub $3K? With a URSA Micro (even a bit smaller than URSA Mini! But please please add internal NDs) design with a 1" (or 4/3") sensor doing 4K that gets recorded internal. NAB 2017? To ship in 2018! Haha I dunno, they would sell a **SHITLOAD** of Canon Rebel series DSLRs (and 60D/70D DSLRs too, only one step up) to people who never buy anything more than the kit lens it came with. Maaaybe a 50mm f1.8 and/or a walk around superzoom as well. The people who buy L series glass from Canon are a tiny proportion of that. But yes, if you excluded Rebel DSLR buyers from these figures, then I could agree with you. 5Dmk4 and 5D C having two very different sensors? Doesn't seem like a Canon thing to do! This seems unlikely to me.

Yes. This. x100

I'd go with FS5, the small size, slow motion, variable internal ND, features, all make it more attractive than a C500. Plus in many cases will be a better match with your A7r II as a B cam.

Skin tones are great. I would move them out from the wall to create some depth, possibly hide the LAVs or use two booms if that's not possible.

Wasn't this the same spiel Jones said to people to get them to move to Jonestown? I kid. Amazing skin tones / gorgeous.

Shame, I can recommend the Isco Widescreen 2000 as one of the best of the Focus Through/Fixed Focus lenses out there - Run'n'Gun or whatever you want:

I use Sony Vegas and I think it is the best editing software. I tried Premiere and FCPX but SV Pro 13 is much easier and much friendly SW :-) I am so glad that SV is not dead!

This is the focal test: 1 picture, NX1 + NXL adapter + 50mm Nikkor Nikon 1.4 AF (aperture F8, Focal 50mm); 2 picture, NX1 + 16-50 OIS (aperture F8, Focal 38mm); 3 picture, NX1 + 16-50 OIS ( aperture F8, Focal 50mm). (All picture it's taken freehand). Are welcome your comments!

I recently won 'Best Director`in a Fashion Film Festival (FashionfilmRd.com) with this simple shortfilm. 2 men crew, shot on A7s2 with slog3 on an external recorder, I found slog3 wayyyy better than slog2 in lowlights, better contrast, had 0 issue with noise. I hope you all like it.

I hate the fact that you keep peddling these shit lenses to people, they are a complete & utter waste of time & money. To hell with sharp, as Anamorphic lenses are all about the defects they produce & a little about the flares. My advice to the OP is to do some searches in this section of the forum, as we have gone over & over which lenses are good. There is so much info here, it's stupid. Spend a while looking at different posts - you might have to go back a while to avoid all the bad advice that is handed out by this guy Ken. Don't take offence Ken, but you really do hand out some really shit advice when it comes to Anamorphics.

if you don't wanna pay for the EOSHD guide, mine is free. (and better. hehehe) www.tferradans.com/anamorphic

I made a video in this style. Definitely not as good as the Watchtower of Turkey, but I'm pretty proud of it. What do you guys think?

Contax 50mm 1.7 MMJ on a GX8 using a standard CY to MFT adaptor. Shot at F1.7