Leaderboard

@PannySVHS, you're on the spot : ) and we live cinematic days from Walmart toys... *cough cough* Real movie cam, yeah, seems more appropriate to call them so, when the results are beyond any screen requirements. BTW, speaking of big-big-screen, a dozen years ago, in a Master Class with Tonino Guerra, the great master had all his eggs for the future of motion pictures in those 'cineprese giapponesi'... His words when he pointed one of the attendants with one of those consumer digital cams in his hands filming his lecture. Nice to see he stands fully right ;-)

Sure, all about the shooter... There are better capture devices than other ones though ; ) Here's more from the same production house. Worthy to take a look. Those two couples shine because there's an eye beyond the camera and skillful hands to handle it.

Nothing wrong to assume predictable framing for cinematic purposes. On the contrary, people go to film school in order to practice predictable techniques :-) Cinematic can also be the word for Russian wedding cinematography: No need to go to the movie theater... at all.

The 5DII has some of the more filmic looking stills for a digital camera, too. My friend shoots an RZ67 and 5DII and you'd be hard pressed to tell which is which without being told. Some of that is post, but still.

Indeed. That's my point exactly. If you're happy with, why to move along? : ) I have to be pretty sincere on here. I normally resist to trade in my tools for the newest promise to keep up the vibe. To me the secret is always on combos. That's just my weak point :-D Speaking of devil, 5D2 only had two flaws: DSLR form factor (I did the move to the GH series to begin with the GH1 and never looked back in any way other than as when ML RAW popped up) and aliasing/moiré. The latter one much prone to overcome with the proper handy skillful workarounds. We did a feature film with (even before ML hack) becoming a web series too later, at least:

Just heard a cool thing on radiolab - asked, are our personalities fixed at birth? The scientist replied, "half-fixed." So for me this means we can learn and constantly improve our skills. And whatever natural talent anyone has for photography or cinematography, or lack there of, it can be learned. 10,000 hours of practice and watching and learning. So forums like this are really good.

I'm looking for a secondary camera for underwater shooting with decent low-light support for 1080P. Most GoPro footage I've seen fails in low-light and I'm somewhat afraid of housing my A6300... The Olympus Stylus Tough TG-5 looks interesting, it's rugged & compact, but I would love to hear your personal experience.

http://us.yuneec.com/comm-en-e90-overview Yuneec announced a serious drone, that cam looks nice.

We should rename this thread to "Actually, you can make the GH5 do slow-motion"

Some wedding stuff is well thought out. Some of them have a nice mix and balance of film grammar and are not only nicely laid out but also well executed. Of course one can find it to be Kitsch, because it has to be, just like dating movies. Well done eye candy. But too much candy starts to become a bad thing in the stomach. So you guys, stop watching strangers´ wedding videos. You are takin the bandwidth so I cannot watch them before I go to bed and dream. Brides will always look glam, which is a good as long as they don´t start to look alike and get mixed up I still don´t like the threads name. Deezid does great work and color work with the Lumix cams, so of course he can make it cinematic. Nobody questioned this. The GH5 in the right hands can be a cinema camera more than anything in the price range up to 6000 USD. LS300 does not have the IBIS nor the nice EVF and Display, nor 10bit.

In Premiere, select your clip in the timeline (or an adjustment layer above it if you work that way) and then go to the "Lumetri color" panel and in "basic correction" category, there is a "input LUT" dropdown, open it and select brows, find your cube file and select it. you are done. Also I recommend trying FilmConvert, with proper profiles of course. In my very limited experience with log footage, if you want to have accurate colors, you need to "transform" colors from whatever color space the log footage is using to your viewing or output format and it is properly done by the use of a manufacture provided formula (color transform matrix, LUT, IDT, ...) and eyeballing it is not really accurate. I'll be glad to hear more experienced members opinion on this matter.

Charlie, you are in a great position of leverage. Your work is good and you have a steady source of income, so you don't need this gig. That's an excellent place to start from. Another bit of advice I read that didn't occur to me at first....but makes sense.... is that it's normal for people to balk at your prices a bit. If every single person happily accepts your rate without question, then it's a definite sign that you are undercharging and leaving money on the table. Took me a while to get this. Ray Roman has talked about this. He's a really high end wedding video guy, and he says he books maybe 15% of inquiring clients. Not everyone can afford you, and that's okay. I would always worry the second a client got cold feet about pricing, but now I want that a little bit. It's part of the process, and ensures you're actually getting what your worth. Nothing will kill morale faster than grinding out high volumes of work for cheap. I've been there, and it made me question whether I even liked doing video. You are in a perfect position to avoid that trap.

Another vlog neebie here - got mine last Thursday. I used curves in Premiere pro. i just set black and white points, and added a minor S curve. looks ok for my uneducated eyes.

1299 usd only the camera without the drone.... P4p seems a much better buy

A bit off topic, but man I feel like wedding videos are becoming more about the videographer than the couple. Pretty stock footage and staged shots. Where's the friendships, memories, connections with people?

The camera specs are nothing better than the DJI Phantom 4 pro. At this stage, P4P is a much safer bet.

I think the main idea when discussion like this come up is that many shooters want to emulate cinema style production "on the fly," or documentary run-n-gun style. It's tricky but doable. This look is accomplished with shooting skill first and foremost. You know, things like understanding how to use natural light, framing, sequence shooting, dolly emulation, etc. As mentioned, any recent camera will do. Some tools give one a bit more post production flexibility, but it really just comes down to the shooter's decisions on location. And, yeah, an easy initial trick is to do slow-mo with a long lens and shallow DOF... but that's only a starting point...

Well, that would be too much, watching 90min of wedding videos in a theater. The videos above are very romantic. But after a while I feel an urge that I want to hug someone myself so I have to leave the computer behind:) Like I said GH5 is a real movie camera. So title of this thread should be: The GH5 is a real movie camera. Oh, didn´t I just say that? Btw, I really like this one. I even wrote the filmer but never received an answer. The vimeo account doesn´t seem to get checked much:( For the educational purposes with reassuring effect, aaahem:), I must say, a very specific technique is used in the weddings above, among a number of aspects of visuality of course. I would call this approach the moving 2seconds photographs. It is very interesting to see what one can do with it, honoring the tools and craft. Have to rewatch Oskar and Ellie again. One of the best wedding videos I´ve seen. Despite the music though Of course, I don´t watch wedding videos too much or do I?

Jon, I don´t care what other dudes are doing, I want to see your footage showing off some jonpais 7.5mm glory!:)

I think its the kind of predictability of successfully and realiablilly reaching the desired effect of their efforts. It does not exlclude surprises and variety:) By the way, I enjoyed the video. It´s just with that technique any camera from Canon 550D on will do a good job. A DVX100 would do too, interlaced on interlaced displays would do a good job as well for the desired effect. Heck, the GH5 is a true cinema camera! I think it´s massive quality in almost every aspect. A big leap in quality. I shot my shortfilm with it this weekend, in REC 709, 1080p, 8bit and it´s still looking really impressive too my eyes. It´s a 10bit cinema beast and a C300 MK1 run and gun 1080p machine plus slo mo. All for 1800 USD with great IBIS and battery life and rolling shutter. To cameras for the price of one! And a great photo tool as well.

I find the title of this thread could be potentially misleading. Already with average micro/low budget production values it is easier than ever before to shoot cinematic images with this camera, the same would go for the G85. For the footage of flowers, I can tell that GH5 is able to capture images in a variety of lighting conditions, I would consider it as adequate test footage. The footage of the young woman above shows a blueprint for pleasing but also predictable framing and slomo pace, showing off the capabilities of a well liked specific muted look of an turkis gold color palette, as I would call it. A lot of this classic subject has been shot with the GH2 for testing the beautiful look of anamorphic. I would like a new thread gathering legit short films done with the GH5. There was an early GH4 video showing off a super clean digital look being some of the most cinematic footage to me done with a hybrid camera. Maybe I can find it again

Dual pixel AF with 45MP final output image would require a natively 91MP sensor and for continuous AF purposes all of this data would have to be read and processed during focusing. Cross-type phase detection with a quadruple pixel design would require 182MP (if 2x2 are used instead of some other pattern). These things are easier to implement in a camera that isn't intended to produce high-resolution stills. Dual pixel AF is limited by the processing power available and having a high pixel count makes it more difficult. Notice that Canon's 50MP models don't have dual pixel AF either. D2H and D2Hs had an LBCAST sensor. I think the main problem wasn't the technology of the sensor but the fact that it was 4MP while Canon's was 8MP. The D2X had a 12 MP sensor but Nikon hadn't yet cracked optimal high ISO at that time (the breakthroughs came later with the D3s). In my opinion, the details of how Nikon collaborate with their partners to make the sensors for their cameras should not matter to the customer. Users should be interested in 1) image quality, 2) performance, and 3) cost. If the results are excellent that is usually enough. It is clear that Nikon's focus isn't in video but they offer video as a feature (instead of the primary function of the camera). Nikon seems to prioritise still image quality over features such as video AF. This is neither a good thing or a bad thing, every company would do well to concentrate on their strengths. I do think Canon may be more motivated to offer full frame 4K in the near future because both of their main rivals now offer it. Since Nikon are planning on releasing a high end mirrorless camera system in the future, that will surely require some kind of on-sensor PDAF which then can be offered on the DSLR side as well.

Perfect?? Only if you don't need to hide the transmitter frequently! Then RodeLinks are useless. So it might be ok for some sorts of documentaries, or for ultra low budget corporate shoots, but for everything else you are wasting your money buying RodeLinks. Especially as a secondhand Sony UWP-D11 / Sennheiser G3 is similar (or less!) money than a new RodeLink. Zaxcom or the latest Lectrosonics is waaay too expensive for me :-( But 200 series Lectrosonics is very affordable! I am building up four pairs of Lectrosonics 200 series wireless at the moment. (plus have a 5th Lectrosonics TX/RX pair, which is fixed frequency) And for the rest of my wireless, for the curious, I have: 2x RodeLink + 5x Sony UWP-D11 + 3x Samson Micro + 1x Saramonic UwMic9

I love the 5D2 and ML Raw... some people like that look more than the 5D3. Honestly, what more do you NEED than that?

Yes, it's true : ) Funny question... I've just posted a new thread on topic: I have enrolled myself in some productions (mostly narrative, aside a few docs or experimental stuff when happens) of other people, although in sabbatical retirement these last two years. When and where I've practically dedicated myself to photography as personal path of my own or funding new projects to come next year or to luckily start in the end of this year. Let's see what happens... :-) 5DII, earlier GH series' offer and G7 by this chronological order with or another exception aside, as shooter.

It's actually the former, Nikon has had an in-house design team for a very long time; the D1x's oddball configuration was from them, and it's not always a hit either: the disaster that was the D2x's LBCAST sensor was from them too.

I guess that's true. I find Netflix requirements strange (the F55 raw looks worse to my eye than "4k" Alexa prores, which Amazon and YouTube will accept, although both are good) but jumping early on the 4k HDR bandwagon is a big part of their business model and makes sense. Even if compression kills it now, in ten years they'll have a huge library they can re-encode. I do think they're pretty much the only "mid range" company that has a large portion of their content originating in raw. The rest is mostly limited to the very high end and one-man-bands.

While it is true that individuals have little power to change the world compared to the masses, we still need independent individuals within the mass in order to find optimal directions of change. As @jcs mentioned, the multidimensionality of ideas cannot be simplified to just left or right, especially with modern systems in which democracy is reduced to voting once every few years. People need to play a more active role in which political discussions are always encouraged and never suppressed, and education should be the first and most important step for the evolution of every society.

If you ask about budget they will always low ball it or say "as low as possible" which is normal. You must provide a price range based on the complexity and level of service. Tell them that you have a wide range of options, that you can do A for $ or Z for $$$, then let the customer pick where he wants to put the cursor. This way you respect his choice. Also, no need to be too "anal" about the contract because it may deter the client at some point especially for small project like that. Put the essentials (price, deadline, delivery format, license rights, the do and don't etc) but in any case if the client break some small conditions what are you going to do ? Hire a lawyer at $2000 block rate to fight for a $1000 job ?

The term "Guardian Reader" is often used to describe a "champagne socialist". The sort of person who happily debates social inequality over a glass or two whilst warming in front of an Aga in their £500,000 kitchen renovation. The sort of person who might make a mini doc about the homeless on their personal Red in the hope of changing social attitudes. Not something to be taken too seriously...

First how "big" is this project ? Is that for national TV or small web diffusion? Then is that work for hire? Do they provide the contract? What are the conditions? How complex the project is exactly? What delivery format do they want? (resolution, FPS, color depth, etc.) You mentioned monologue, is that a simple tripod interview type of thing? You are not going to charge the same way for a huge project for national TV a small agency that sub-contract the work to you. Then you must list your cost and expenses: - Equipment (rental or amortization if you use your own) - Insurance if you have one - Tax (federal, state and all other tax that) on your general income (LLC) or corporate tax. - All other direct fees: parking, transportation, actors, location rental, stock music and footage license if any, etc You can set your price based on EXPENSES - PRICE = benefit or actual money in your pocket. That's "Invoicing 101" but if your costs are $2,000 you won't make a dime if you charge less than that. In your quote/invoice break down the costs and expenses so the customer realize all the elements. Mention your base price multiplied by the number of days: - On site preparation and filming ($200 days X 4) - Editing and color grading ($200 days X 4) - Equipment rental (camera, light, etc.) (xxx) - Actors (xxx) - Song license ($150 for internet license) - Studio rental (xxx) It's very hard to tell you what to charge without knowing the conditions and complexity of the project but don't go the cheap route. First because you will look like an amateur and second because all work must be paid and you can't work for free or for less money than a Mc Donald's employee. I checked your work and I think that you should at least charge $400-$800 per day depending on the complexity of the project. Now if you really want the job for your resume and reference you may want to lower the price but in this case explain why and include a SPECIAL DISCOUNT line at the end of your invoice (eg. 80% discount) And by the way congratulation for your work.

From what I understand, industry rates for commercial/corporate dry hire non-union camera ops (not even good ones) run about $600/day, significantly more with a kit. Editing/vfx/color maybe $300-$500/day, more if you use your own computer. Heck, I know DITS making $1500/day regularly. Sound, $700/day wet hire. And that's before a 4-10X agency mark up (what the agency or studio charges the client). But your potential client isn't hiring at industry rates for a reason. I'd just ask them roughly what their budget is. I wouldn't undersell yourself at $100/day. That'll make them suspicious that you don't value your own time, and they won't value yours. I wouldn't try to take home a full rate for your first job, but I also wouldn't undersell yourself. Ask them roughly what their budget is or bid a little high and let them negotiate down. At least then they will recognize up front that you respect yourself. But the reason it's a difficult question to answer is that there's absolutely no standard or good answer for this kind of work. Which is why I wouldn't feel bad asking them what their budget is.

Determine what your time is worth for each day, and add 10% for contingency. Add/list expenses, plus 10% contingency. Hint: don't list the contingency amount separately -- just include it in the amount you list for your services and also in the amount for the expenses. Have fun!

Only 1080. 4K is 8 bit. And not even 4:2:2. "EOS C200 can output either 1920x1080 YCC 4:2:2 10-bit over the HD-SDI Terminal, or 3840x2160 4:2:0 8-bit over the HDMI" http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2017/eos-c200-production-brief.shtml And to your other point, having to use a bulky 7" recorder is a big deal to a lot of ENG or even narratives (such as for gimbal use), so to act like it's no big deal is a bit of a stretch, especially when other cameras in the price range offer 10bit 4K internally.

I have them both. The Gx85 is great for the money but is a bit fiddly to shoot with and has rubbish sound. The GH5 big advantages are 4k 50p, 10 bit, better ergonomics and a decent evf.

Go with the GH5 and keep the lens (or better invest into Sigma 18-35/50-100 lenses and an EF-Speedbooster for cleaner/sharper images and more range). The GH5 is easily usable up to ISO3200 (or 4000) unless underexposed in both Video and Photo if sharpening and NR are turned down to -5. I agree with @JordanWright about the 3 stops less lowlight capability. But a clean and usable F1.2 aperture easiliy compensates for that. ISO3200 (4000) Limit on the GH5 vs. ISO25600 on the A7s2 F1.2 vs. F4.0 basically. Not too bad. Try to focus using anything faster than F2.8 on a Fullformat camera... lol And the GH5 will show more fine grain with lots of fine detail (10 Bit codec) while the A7s2 will look washed out at high Isos with bubbling appearing starting from ISO12800 when underexposed and ISO25600 when properly exposed. Forget about using Canon cameras if you concerned about low light or even Video AND low light. ISO800 is the max for an APS-C style Canon and 1600 for the 5D MKIV and 3200 for the 5D MKIII using Magic Lantern. The GH5 will still show way more detail at ISO3200.

We -most- have all these incredible 1080p 5.5" phones for a few years now, it just makes perfect sense to use them as a monitor. They have 4/8/10 core processors 2/3/4GB of RAM, and everything that can consist a perfectly good low cost monitor. I am just puzzled how no one has made anything similar yet. Xiaomi/Lenovo and others brands have huge 4100+mAh batteries that last days. They would be able to last a few hours as a monitor with nothing else on, and they cost around 200$ or less. Another positive is that it could be working with various phones/brands, and future ones too. That Ikan monitor is great though (there is an even cheaper Chinese original of this, but it seems it doesn't exist any more). I pledged.

It's a great lens for sure, but it's not so great for video except in very limited circumstances. It breathes a lot and isn't parfocal. But it's a beast for stills. I wish Olympus would repirsise the F2 zooms they did in 4/3 for m4/3. (They made a 14-35 F2 as well) JB

That first video does not look particularly "cinematic" to my eyes. Many blown highlights, underexposed subjects and poor framing. I'm going to replace the word "cinematic" with what it really means... "good cinematography", that is to say, shot by someone who understands the art of cinematography... which is defined as the art of making motion pictures. There is no camera setting at normal playback speed that will do this for you. Light you subjects, compose your shots, have purpose to your camera movements. All should support your story. The second video is again mostly all slow motion, save for one scene that last only a couple of seconds. The title is correct... the GH5 can look quite cinematic... but as we have seen demonstrated time and time again... so can a smartphone. But only if the shooter understands the art of cinematography. At this point in the game it's not the cameras that are lacking, it's the users.

I couldn't agree with you more! I mean like, triple AMEN! I have never worked with a camera SDK that seemed like it was designed by half-competent developers (unlike the main ML devs). Indeed, recently I wanted to control Sony cameras. Did I load up the SDK? NOPE. Been down that road, with unanswered questions on life-less forums. So I installed the USB Camera Remote and used a library that basically does key-stroke pressing on the application's interface. When it comes to SDKs, all the camera makers are pathetic. Now this may seem like a tangent, but I want to prove a point. Adobe Premiere just re-vamped their whole TITLE making process. THREW OUT THE WHOLE THING. Now there is a "Graphics" interface. When you create a title you get bountiful properties and methods in the Graphics pane. It's been built from the ground up. Should be perfect, right? Yet it has everything but the TEXT OF THE TITLE! In order to change the text of the title you have to click on the "Text" tool on the timeline. Is the text of a graphic a property of a timeline? WTF! It makes me speechless! My brain freezes trying to comprehend how Adobe management could let something like that pass. It's a KLUDGE of monumental incompetence. My 2-cents There are very, very few software developers who have a real talent for programming. Just like there are very, very few bloggers who have a talent for writing about cameras The world runs on computers. There is still a fair amount of managers at Canikon who weren't brought up on computers. In short, there is a chronic shortage of talent. If Adobe can't get enough good talent, what hope everyone else? Look at ML, of the 28,000 members my guess is there are only 50 or so people with hard-core programming skill. And if more, they don't have the time. Put another way, I bet 8 out of 10 software guys at Canon don't even understand what the ML devs do. It's over their head.

That's most Panasonic glass imo. 12-35, even somewhat the 42.5 1.2. Really good for architectural shots.

Um, it's not about perfection... It's about paying for a full frame camera and expecting a FULL FRAME image! And the codec is inexcusable.

well that explains the Aus price too. As the 5div is about $5100 over here (D850 $5300). But Nikon has traditionally priced its cameras very close to the US equivalent and sometimes better. So we have the weird situation where the D850 is 60% more expensive than the D810. What they may not have taken into account is this now makes the A7rmk2 more attractive @$3700. It makes this scint photographer determined to wait for the next crop of sony cameras, and maybe the nikon mirrorless offering. The D800 still produces amazing stills, and I dont need most of the D850's bells and whistles (very nice so some of them are).

If you need RAW for video, buy a dedicated video/film camera shooting RAW. There are many options out there starting as low as 1.000 USD or even less (used). The D850 is a DEDICATED PHOTO CAMERA with some nice video features. But - at the end of the day - it is and remains a capable photo camera. A Ferrari can hardly cross a river through 1,50 deep water. Therefore you have to buy an Ural...Bashing the Ferrari won't get it into the water and bashing the Ural won't get it to win races....

Also here are a few more screengrabs from my film.

My issue with Resolve has always been performance. I love the editing workflow, both for video and for audio, but It still can't handle the H.264 files any of the slightly lower end Panasonic cameras like my G85 spits out. Editing chokes and it crashes randomly. Rendering times are absurd. I think this is because it doesn't to do GPU acceleration properly, at least on my R9 290. Compare this to Sony Vegas which is as smooth as butter and renders files in around 1/4 of the time. I know it's meant for "pro's" and not designed for "consumer workflows" and "you should spend two days transcoding all your files before editing them" and all sorts of other elitist garbage.