Leaderboard

Deakins is declining to go into much detail until the film is released, but in every question ha has answered he has emphasised that the looks were achieved on set in the camera and that virtually no post manipulation was used. I can well believe this.

Just wanted to say thanks. Im verbose. Nothing more, nothing less.

Definitely. I almost think I should preface every opinion I have as... I'm a hobbyist with dreams and no real deadline.

Yes the book is far better & slightly different. The one thing that the new trailer has completely overlooked is that the original film always had the question of whether Deckard was an android at its core (depending on which version you watch, obviously) & by having an ageing Harrison Ford, that question has now been answered. But what i did notice is that they have basically pushed that question onto Gosling's character - so yet again Hollywood has rehashed the same story into a more updated version, which will be unsatisfying. Don't mess with the classics, as dissappointment will be the only result! Seen 2 films at the cinema recently: Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 & The Handmaiden. One was a huge waste of time, energy & money - also too long at 2h16min (Baby Groot couldn't save it). The other is almost certainly the best film that i'll see this year, by one of the most talented directors around. I really think people need to forget Hollywood rubbish (they're never going to change & will regurgitate everything in a worse wrapper) & learn to embrace reading subtitles, because the best cinema isn't American or even in English!

You missed last call....

Loved many of Andrews articles, like that one about Top Gear and his Digital Bolex material, also his older articles are treasures. If you google eoshd and cmount or Pentax 28mm or even GH2 you´ll find tons of awesome stuff to read from him or forum members. Often this site and forum give great topics for further online research. So, it´s a great thing to express your appreciation, @HelsinkiZim!

Not sure where you're going with that? Are you leaving EOSHD because you feel like you've outgrown it or something? Or was it just the point of saying 'thanks' for allowing the guidance of your journey to your present day situation? So, I take it everyone is welcome here whether you own a cellphone or a RED. But... there's a lot of people that could use some help figuring all this shit out when starting out. And there's just too many places that are too pro, too serious and couldn't care less about n3wbz. I feel like here, there's no judgement, whether you're using a Sony F35, URSA Mini, GH5 or T2i/550D... it's all good, it's about getting the basics right and being able to deliver convincing content and there's more to that than an expensive camera. Think the crowd here is mix of professionals and enthusiasts that aren't quick to judge and are supportive of eachother. Positive vibes. There's too few places like that around on the good ol' interw3bz. Anyways. There's continuously going to be people starting out and not that quick to drop $3k+ on a camera and of course the core that gets more experience and higher end equipment as time goes on. That just allows for more interesting insights and knowledge to be spread around here, so personally I don't see the DSLR community going anywhere... if by that you mean the users of consumer & prosumer DSLR and mirrorless cameras that want to practice their art and be executing their talent as cinematographer or filmmaker. And isn't an URSA Mini a mirrorless camera at the end of the day either? And one more accessible than an ARRI? Seems there are a lot of 'coffee and <insert interest>' events popping up everywhere. I feel like maybe this is a 'coffee and filmmaking' hangout, where you can just talk about whatever is on your mind filmmaking related (or occassionally even otherwise) amongst people with similar interests.

Often the best position to be in when it comes to creativity though isn't it? Thats why most band's first albums are their best, because they wrote and perfected the songs without a clock or an accountant in the room.

@Karl Hungus I would not use a q-tip from just the force concentration to a small point alone. You want to spread any downward force over the largest area possible to avoid damaging the optics. Second, q-tips aren't rigorously controlled in manufacturing for cleaning expensive optics. Something like this for those who want to be super careful (individually sealed): https://www.amazon.com/PEC-PAD-Lint-Free-Wipes-100per/dp/B0001M6K24/, https://www.amazon.com/Optical-Lens-Cleaner-Spray-Bottle/dp/B0002HMRF2/ (some folks reported ROR better than Eclipse: https://www.amazon.com/Photographic-Solutions-Eclipse-Cleaning-Solution/dp/B004WBR8C6/). If you apply the microfiber over the largest area with the least downward force, that will minimize the chance of any damage (really just want to move laterally with almost no downward force at all to remove the cleaning fluid). The truly best solution would be if the solution could completely remove everything then use compressed air to dry and blow away accumulate (basically touch free cleaning).

We had an FS700: +1 on ETTR and while I would not use Slog(x) for internal recording, it's fine if recording RAW to ProRes (10-bit). If after grading and compressing for final delivery (e.g. online streaming means at least 1 H.264 pass) the noise is too much, Neat Video is your best option (only after done with everything else- it slows down the workflow; no point even messing with it (other than a quick test to make sure the clips are usable after NR)). One of the secrets of the A7S I/II is the in-camera NR (probably more than the hardware). The FS700 is decent in lowlight, however slomo and super slomo needs a lot of light, else it's noisy, e.g. 240fps = 1/240 - 1/480 shutter.

I have FS5 which said to be better performance than FS700 but lowlight still outgunned by much cheaper A6300, FS700 can only be worse, I guess their good low light performance is for year 2012 and not year 2017

Yeah that the thing, we are shooters with different purpose and mindset, I for one shoot for economical gain so having cost control/time management is important as well. If I do stuff for hobby/interest where time is unlimited then shooting raw seems to be fine, but not if you have deadline due for the client which is a different story.

Just say nothing TSA had a 95% failure rate during recent undercover tests nation wide all major airports Department of Homeland Security was able to get fake bombs, weapons and my favorite they thought Claymore anit-personnel mine was a lunch box and it got on a plane.

Have you considered not using Slog2? Slog3 and 2 are not recommended in low light, and even less in slow motion. Try using a different profile and you'll probably get a much cleaner image that you can still grade (not so much in terms of contrast).

I took one of these cheap shoulder/chest mounts on a flight a few weeks ago and when its folded for travel it looks uncannily like the sort of sub machine gun the French military use. Because I had so little space in my bag I had to lay it side down as well so in profile from the top down view of the x ray machine it looked exactly like one! So you can imagine my anxiety putting it through. They pulled the bag but not because of the massive gun shaped object but went off their tits because I'd left a travel size tube of toothpaste in there. I'm always amazed at the inconsistency between airports though about what they want you to take out separately. When I fly out of Spain I have to take absolutely every camera, lens and battery out to go through separately for no apparent reason as I hardly think ThinkTank have started lining their bags with lead so the x ray machine can't penetrate it. Yet flying back anywhere from the UK I have yet to find enough electronics that I can jam in a bag that fazes them. And believe me, I've tried. "Been buying every lithium ion battery that Amazon sell have we sir? No problem. Just make sure there's no toothpaste in there" Makes me think they make it up as they go along.

Well he did write/co-write his early films & this shouldn't be forgotten - he can tell a story & has. Of his American films the pick of the bunch are Enemy & Arrival, but one shouldn't ignore his Canadian films Polytechnique & Incendies, which are excellent. The thing I find troubling with him is that he tends to jump around a lot & this makes for a lot of Hit'n'Miss films - I found Sicario to be very dissappointing & not worthy of all the praise it was getting.

You're seeing exactly what you should be seeing. It's just that with ungraded log material it will be more obvious. Parts of the image with plenty of light will not suffer from noise. Other parts of the image that are low light will show noise unless noise reduction is applied in camera. This is just the physics of the situation. To see less noise without using noise reduction, you have to increase exposure (more photons hitting the sensor).

Awesome, ordered it! It's a lot cheaper than the other options I've been looking at too. Thanks!

Almost for certain I'd go for ProRes or some other similar but high quality compressed codec (such as AVC Intra). Had exactly this discussion too with a director that I was going to shoot a feature with (although that sadly hasn't happened yet, as his life went through a few upheavals out of the blue that he had to focus on first), he is a diehard raw fan! But when you are so very constrained with resources when it comes to time/money/people, then that little extra 1% gain from raw is just not worth it. So ProRes HQ it is! (was going to be shot with a mix of Sony PMW-F3 / BMPCC / BMCC, although we did for a little while have access to an F5 too) Although we did kinda come to a compromise that on very very very rare occasions then we might shoot specific shots in raw instead, where we/he thought it would really benefit from raw for that shot.

Thats why I use MF, so I don't have to worry

This one: https://craigmod.com/journal/gf1-fieldtest/ ? If yes: it is indeed a great read and stunning images!

It's not an either or situation...if you're shooting a commercial or a film, you would have a focus puller....you would, whether shooting on a GH5 or C100 or RED or Alexa have at least 3 in the camera dept not including the DP....when the crew cost is 100,000+ per day, telling me that AF missed my best take, is not an option...not snobbery or being pedantic....simply what is economically involved on some shoots compared to others...shooting corporate videos or documentaries or weddings are no less professional as people still get paid....perhaps the biggest difference is that now you're working with a crew of possibly 2 or 3 people (in the case of a documentary I may be short)...you control the edit and if AF misses in a few shots, you're not going to use everything you shot anyway...so a few misses can be worked with...to shoot a 30 second commercial with say half the day on a sound stage and 2 other locations, takes between 3 to 4 prep days...a shoot day between 12 to 16 hours (not flat!) and a wrap day....so...the AC needs a focus puller....the director wants his stuff in focus and the producer does not try to save $350 on the shoot day because it's ridiculous...the one scenario is no more or less professional than the other...what is different are the scales of economy...and of course there is one important factor not being mentioned so far (maybe I missed it)...as with all artistic positions nothing is cooky cutter...and pulling focus and developing a rhythm that works for the scene and making decisions as to when to blur the image, when to rack and when to stay sharp throughout the shot happens in real time...decisions being made between the DP, director and camera department...something AF simply can't do...and make no mistake...pulling good focus is a difficult job at the level of narrative...it requires an instinct for the speed the actors move through their marks and how you follow them on the follow focus and excellent eyesight...it is a precise and demanding job....especially shooting in unforgiving resolution...and lastly....if we're shooting in 24p, because that is the frame rate we are accustomed to in movie theatres...the motion blur we want to see, and yet we use AF which is always obvious to the eye...why not just shoot in 60p as it handles movement better and gives you more than twice the frames per second...so much better image...EXCEPT we want our stuff to look like what we saw in movie theatres when we were kids!...well, to some, the same applies with AF/MF...it's a question of creative choices, economic choices and finally practical choices (the delivery of the final product to client)...neither is superior to the other and nor are they replaceable....the one works where the other would not and vice versa.

Yes...A friend's brother bought the GH5 in Germany as a kit with the 12-60 which came in at around 600 where I paid 1000 for mine...in the US where my GH5 is from. no kits are offered...having seen your film on Peru though, these were made for you!

Keep in mind that Villeneuve isn't a writer on any of his big films. The only problems I've had with some of his recent films are story related. I think he's a super talented director.

Thank god for that - got kinda worried that they'd go down the tried/tested route & basically remake the first film. I don't read stuff before I watch, as there are too many spoilers getting printed these days & I don't want to know everything before. But honestly, I think I'm looking forward to the new Alien film more - mainly because that is my favourite Ridley Scott film. Also not really convinced by the director - his films are up & down quality-wise, but he appears to be a good lap dog.

I believe replicants only have a 4 year life span... so if harrison ford is alive he cant be... or maybe he is fake recently made one that was created aged to manipulate the protagonist!!!

I have and really like this one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687341-REG/Oben_TT_100_TT_100_Table_Top_Tripod.html I use it without the ball head, which is awesome as well, but it's sturdy, all metal, and fits right inside the zhiyun case no problem.

I never said "high end" and that's a subjective term. Compared to an iPad, the RX100 is high end. Compared to a RX100, a C300 is high end and so on. And people earn income using both, so the definition of a pro is wide ranging. Nat Geo and Sports Illustrated shooters aren't using Arri's and Leica Cine primes - neither are most wedding and event shooters, they're shooting video with something that likely has AF. You're presenting a very narrow slice of the professional shooting industry, and that's part of my point, when people are dismissive of AF, they're ignoring the bigger picture. And I'm not talking about asthetics, a look, or artistic expression or anything else beyond the fact people getting paid are actually using AF. Geez, I saw an episode of Diners, Drive In's and Dives being shot at a local restaurant a few years ago and the b-roll shooters were using 70d's and tapping the screens. Watch any reality show and you'll see AF in action. Canon C100/300's (and 5d's, 80'd's, A7s and so on) are being used to shoot commercials, TV shows, documentaries, web series, vloggers and so on, and yes people are actually using the AF when they shoot, despite the stream of "this could never be done with AF" samples. Just search eBay for C1/300 with the DPAF upgrade, if its never used, why did so many shell out the cash to get it? I'm not saying everyone is suddenly using AF exclusively because I try to not talk in absolutes, but to say "pros never use it" is condescending toward anyone that gets paid and does use AF. Today more content is being pushed onto Youtube than any other medium of delivery. Regardless of what anyone may think of that, its a fact. There are no concrete numbers, but its pretty easy to surmise there are far more people earning money shooting with AF cameras. AF tech and algorithms are moving at a pretty fast pace, it won't be long before they can pull off almost any shot. AF can easily track moving subjects while the camera is moving independently - like walk-and-talk gimbal shots, and the rest can still be done manually. When digital first hit the line was pros would never shoot digital. A decade later when the 5d2 blew up there was tons of dismissive talk about how pros use real video cameras. This stuff will never end... Cheers

I got the same issues on a native pany lens. The 100-300. I'll mess around and see if I can figure out the problem as well. Lets not assume it's an adapter causing the trouble however.

Says Kodak or Nokia... But not releasing new camera often means the camera doesn't depreciate fast, so good for us camera buyer in a way

They said that Goseling isn't a replicant in an interview and that it won't be the core of this film. Although you're right about Deckard aging. That answers that unless they reference aging components.

@tomekk- those look like fantastic LEDs. Excellent spectrum examples on their site as well, and excellent R9 performance. As competition heats up, expect even better light performance, not just in color but also thermal and luminous efficiency per Watt. Fiilex-sized (and build quality) point-source lights with more power will be amazing! (Aputure produces excellent light, however not in the same class in terms of size, build quality, and industrial design (to be fair, Fiilex are much more expensive lights per Watt/Luminous output)). Fiilex is just releasing the new 360 Pro Plus: http://www.fiilex.com/products/P360_ProPlus.php. At $995 ($845 without hue control (still has color temp control)) it's a few hundred more than the Aputure 120d, however it's also variable color (including optional hue control!), much smaller, IP24 weatherproof, and has many cool modifiers available. The Aputure uses 135W vs. 90W for the Fiilex (+ Fiilex is variable color), so I'd expect the Aputure to be brighter, however we'd need to see independent tests for lux at 1m for both lights). Fiilex has more powerful lights (e.g. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1043613-REG/fiilex_flxq5ac_q_500_ac_5_bfresnel.html), at $2k we're no longer in the best-bang-for-buck category (the build quality and light quality is amazing. Would be interesting to see a comparison with the new Aputure 300d when released).

Holy crap! So old! Haha. It's ridiculous how long Canon takes to move.

..or maybe this one http://www.eoshd.com/2014/03/canon-4k-refresh-c200-c400-coming-nab/ !!! a 3 years full circle!

I think you forgot a few "smalls" ? But yes I completely agree with your statement. I don't mean to pat myself on the back here, but without shooting Raw on the 5D3, I never would have gotten an image close to what I've been getting. And when you're shooting completely guerilla style as a one man band... every little bit of IQ helps. For instance, I know this isn't the best image in the world, but I would never get this level of skin texture with an h.264 codec... Even zoomed in, the actor's skin looks better than anything I've ever captured. So for someone like me, a shooter and colorist with a minimal amount of skills, and productions like mine, with a minimal amount of self-funding, to be able to do a minimal amount, or a simple but extensive amount of LUTS and still get an image that doesn't break proves just how effective Raw is for no budget productions. IMO. YMMV.

slightly less blue in the highlights.

Thanks for sharing. Last time I graded jvc ls 300 footage it wasn't so robust. Either I changed or the footage improved.

3 isn't a great range scale for a rumour is it? That only gets you from almost certainly true to could be true to no way is that true. Or from Elvis is dead to Elvis is alive to Elvis is alive and spearheading an alien invasion of 9 foot cyborgs in rhinestone clad jumpsuits. I might start a rumours site with a Spinal Tap scale where the rumours go up to 11.

Haha. I love Red Letter Media.

I can send you ae project with gh5 matching 5d3 from this video

????

I'll never understand why when a discussion of zooms comes up, the question of 'how much reach do you need', never comes up.

I did some very basic test footage of my son. Strangely, to me, the unbalanced setup with the crane seemed more stable than the perfectly balanced setup (same exact setup) with the crane m. Here is footage from the perfectly balanced setup on crane m: https://youtu.be/e6B3bsB8njQ Here is the non balanced footage from full size crane: https://youtu.be/X1II_b7E7wY When I say not balanced, basically the tilt and roll axis roll back to level shooting position instead of staying put. I may just keep the full size crane and keep working to get it balanced...or just use unbalanced.

I own the Bolex since a few months an I really like him. I use him with the Voigländer Ultron 40mm at my Samsung NX1. I have the one with bleuish / magenta flares and that one is what I have heard very rare. I consider buying the hardcoreDNA, but then I need also a rig for the weight of the combi. But perhaps I switch over to the Iscorama 36 to keep it compact for point and shoot. The sharpness of the Bolex is amazing!

Here's a trailer for a short film I've been working on, called Homecoming. It's a neo-noir revenge film set in the mid-90's recession era Finland. We shot it on and off during the early spring and late fall of 2016. Originally we were supposed to wrap the whole movie during spring with one flashback scene shot in the summer, but we had continuous trouble with the weather and with the health of several crewmembers. I spent the first week of shoot on a high fever and was functioning on painkillers alone, and later when we were supposed to shoot the finale our lead actor became bedridden with measles and we had to postpone the finale to late fall. But now it's slowly coming together and it's starting look like an actual movie. The trailer is NSFW, it contains some extreme violent images. (Click CC for english subs) We shot the movie 95% on BMCC 2,5K EF, with some shots here and there taken with 5D2 ML RAW and Sony RX10 MK2. I'm using kodachrome LUT as the basis for the post-process, with heavy color separation and high midtone sharpness to give the BMCC footage an 80's film/RED footage kind of pop. A lot of visual cues are taken from Scandinavian/Finnish films from the 80's and 90's. The movie was mainly shot with Sigma 18-35 1.8, Super-Takumar 50 1.4, Samyang 85 1.4 and Tair 11A 135 2.8, with some special shots shot on Petzval 85 2.2. I often use diffusers and other physical filters but here they're used very sparingly, only on flashback scenes. Instead I went with self-made vignetters to shape bokeh on the daytime scenes to look like brushstrokes or scattered drops. The effect is not very obvious in the trailer as it focuses on nightscenes. If you have any questions about the process or the movie, shoot away!

Alas... it seems The Fellowship if the NX Hack is broken... But long shall the memories of their deeds echo through these halls.... and thanks for the heads up I never heard that it can fry your sensor... Perhaps Ill reconsider its use....

120-140-160 I believe is best for hard disk drive space/camera heating (mine gets really warm)-sensor annihilation/file problems created. For casual use and time long projects I do not even bother. Otto is Gandalf the Grey, Kino Seed is Frodo Baggins, and Vasile was that human Boromir(?) that his pride and recklessness made him vurnable to the Ring's power. He also dies at the end of the first movie! The pitty is, we need more allies from the elves and dwarfs, for Otto the White evolution, and the lonely Kino hobbit carry the ring further; so maybe there wont be 2 or 3.