Leaderboard

Short films dont pay the bills

Well said. I'll follow this wise advice then, thanks for joining the discussion.

Right now there is absolutely no need for HDR. I am cooling down my self, concentrate on my 8 bit stuff and workflow, and wait for the next big wave to happen. We got at least the whole 2018 to think things through. It is not advisable to be at the tip of the spear (or the edge of the razor, the peak of the iceberg etc); except you have plenty of money to waste, or you are at least 80% positive of your "investment". In anyway, the HDR dust hasn't settled yet, let them (or the market) decide on most standards and specs, and we go from there. But I do agree that HDR is a big deal, anyone can see that is much better than HD, they just can't truly see it yet!

I'm totally with Kisaha. I'd prefer a 5000€ Canon C100 mk3 with 4k 50p with reasonable fast turnaround codecs Dual Pixel AF, good low light, maybe even slightly smaller than the C100mk2 and if possible some sort of IBIS. Pure run'n'gun all rounder. Like my C100mk1. A solid sensible camera. If it needs better codecs then you have to use a recorder. Ok, fine. Most people I know would buy that camera.

But without any audio whatsoever. That in my books hardly even counts as any sort of video.

I got an Alphatron for cheap Here is my run and gun anamorphic setup (still have to find shorter cables!). Here on a tripod but I use it on a K-3 pistol grip :

I created this short film with the GX85 (with Cine-D): I do have a GH5 and G85 as well (my G85 and GX85 are usually B/C cameras), but I was curious as to the performance of the GX85 with the Cine-D mod so intentionally just used only the GX85 for this!

I would be a uniquely unusually odd owner op who only does raw or 8bit 420 shoots and never ever had any demand for anything else?!

I think I'm going to go ahead and update my BMPCC to a BMMCC finally. Mostly because EVERY SINGLE CLIENT is asking for slow motion, ha! Anyway, I want to check in with you guys who own it, what should I get for it? My current "run and gun" set up with BMPCC is just a cage and a monopod for weight, and going similar with the BMMCC I assume I basically just need a monitor? Was looking at the SmallHD Focus? Both camera and display can run on Canon LP6. Should I sell my metabones (nikon BMPCC) and my Nikon lenses and do EF, or is that just too much trouble for nothing (I don't personally see a reason as I always focus manually)? Uhm, yeah hit me with everything you got about this! THANKS

Here is what’s best I’ve found from over the years... Option 1 Shoot with a camera that has internal ND feature. Option 2 Instal fixed ND’s upfront in a rail mounted mattebox - or VND/ circular ND using a filter tray adapter. Option 3 Rear mounting a fixed or VND (between Anamorphic rear and taking lens front) can work perfectly well, providing the setup is on rails. In bright conditions a collapsed rubber lens hood can also be used to create a lightproof donut that is compact enough to not introduce added vignette. Flares are not affected or dulled...at most an added faint green line is added to the streak flare from the ND’s multi-coating. Option 3 If rail mounted setup is not used - front mounting ND’s can be attached to front of scope lens by using clamp adapter, or screwing into native thread if using iscorama lens types. If using clamp adapter, some added vignette might be introduced if using wider taking lenses. Fixed value ND’s are usually best used in this scenario since they are usually thinner. VND’s can sometimes introduce issues if used on the front clamp of scope lenses that rotate whilst focusing, since a shifting polarising effect can be introduced. Sometimes front mounting ND filters can introduce added flare effects, usually an added faint green streak line flare is apparent when exposed to intense direct light source. Always best to get the best possible quality filter budget will allow - especially if mounted to front of a rotating scope, since some lower quality ND filters can introduce unwanted texture to bokeh. When these are rotated it can be very distracting to see this artifacts in bright light as well as ugly colour shift. A very decent budget solution is the Hoya PROND64 (six stop fixed ND) - quite capable in bright daylight and easy to rear mount in a rail setup as described previously.

You don't need slog for most things. The Cine profiles are great with more than enough dynamic range. The Cine/Pro/sgamut3.cine colors work great and if you boost saturation a bit you can have a great straight out of the camera look.

I haven't used any of those (C200 and EVA), so I will take my words with a handful of salt! To be honest I do not use viewfinders at all, so the exclusion on the EVA is not a big deal for me, for the money they should have put one though, just in case. Ergonomically, the sound buttons on the EVA are the fewer I have ever seen on a camera, you have to go to menu for most of the sound related options. My points were: 1) the 7.500$ cameras, cost 10.000$ in Europe 2) there is a huge gap, or no option between the 2 aforementioned cameras and their lower tier siblings (or the lack of them)3) the 5000$ market is a viable one, the 2 most prominent cameras of that price bracket, C100 in all their versions and FS5 have sold a lot, they are just a bit old fashioned at the moment (for different reasons each), I would rather wait (and that I do) one more year for their next versions 4) C200 is missing some middle codec for the price/EVA is missing some -modern- futures (such as the touch screen dual pixel AF), for the price. @jax_rox we obviously have different views about the markets (and the world) and how they(it) work(s), that is just fine and I respect your civilized approach, we just do not agree 100%, that is perfectly fine. A lot of big companies have gone bankrupt in my timeline, for exactly the reasons I mentioned, not reading the market right and keeping their nose up in the clouds. I was pulling focus on a documentary recently -ironically, for the connection of European and Chinese philosophy- and we had C300mkII and Arri 18-80 or Zeiss primes for landmarks, 80% (at least) of the focus pulling could have been done easier and faster with touch focus Dual Pixel. Also, I put "cine cameras" on quotes, because, what does that even means, but Canon C line, is their Cine line. I will come back after using these cameras, a little bit unfair judging from the specs and my imaginary expectations. I know there are a dozen of C200 in our market currently, not one EVA, as it is just recently available. Very good releases for sure, I truly respect these 2 brands so I am eagerly awaiting their next moves.

We shot a short film on a Panasonic GX85 (apart from a Nikon D5200). Thw colours weren't matched in post. Not really something I would wanna share. I will share another film or episode I shot on the GX85, hopefully soon.

Colors, sound, HDR, HFR... The new frightening features to spoil our movie/video enjoyment. All of these combined must be a horrible experience.

I wouldn't say there is that much of a dealbreaker for me personally with a Nikon D5200/D5300/D5500 vs a Sony a6000, and sticking with the Nikon brand has benefits for now.

For all but a tiny tiny tiny niche of readers here, the 1D X mk2 would indeed be a luxury item. And I bet a not insignificant portion of 1D X mk2 sales go to rich dentists/accountants/lawyers/doctors/etc Ha! "Just buy both" is not that simple at all for most people.

The friend I know who does the highest volume real estate (as in at times dozens and dozens of houses per week!) was up until a few months ago shooting them on 2x Nikon D700 bodies, also 12 megapixels.

A rear-mounted EVF is, honestly, useless. You can't judge the ergonomics without trying it out, and I think it's far superior ergonomically to the FS5 and at leas on-par with a C100/200. Dual Pixel AF it doesn't have, sure, but for me personally auto-focus isn't even a factor I really consider when buying a camera like this... To suggest that is also to suggest that the FS5 and Blackmagic URSA also remind you of a video camcorder rather than a 'cinema' camera. What even is a 'cinema' camera at this price point...? To me, a cinema camera is an Alexa or maybe an F55 (F65 without the ridiculous recorder back). The C100, C200, C300, C500 & C700 do not resemble that in any way. If you make the suggestion that a C200 and a RED Raven and an FS7 and a Blackmagic URSA mini and an Alexa are all 'cinema' cameras, then you can't also say the EVA1 isn't - every single camera I mentioned has entirely different ergonomics and sizes and weights and body shapes and designs. Yet the EVA1 isn't a cinema camera because....? Have you even seen one in person...? Why would you crowd the market with incremental cameras...? What sense does that make..? How do you further differentiate each price point..? Secondly, the GH5 consumer division is entirely separate to the Pro division of the EVA1 and above. The EVA1 is actually currently Panasonic's cheapest 'cinema' camera, whilst the GH5 is Panasonic's most expensive/flagship consumer DSLM. I do think the EVA1 is a touch too expensive. Yet you seem to think that your Western European mindset is more similar to middle eastern, Indian or Philippines.... And you also seem to think that your analysis of developing markets is better than companies that throw literally millions of dollars at research. They're different markets. They're not looking for $6k middle of the range cameras. Not right now anyway. You mention all the manufacturers developing specific models for these markets. And yet major companies aren't developing $6k middle of the range cameras for them. You think it's because they're just dumb? That they just never thought of the developing markets? That no-one's ever said 'hey, you think we should put our products into the Philippines or India?' Or do you think that maybe these companies have spent millions on research, and have people on the ground in the markets and they tend to see what actually works and what doesnt..? No. That's not how markets and business works.

Another vote for the D750. It'll be a good stills choice for years to come, a lot of people still rate the D700 highly.

Honestly, I don’t love the size for casual use. Also, the Canon gets a lot of attention. That can be good or bad. The GH5 is invisible. The 1DXMK2 comes out when I need great stills. It’s a fantastic camera. It’s almost like cheating when trying to get the shot. Lately, the GH5 sees more action as I have convinced myself that it is the perfect all rounder. The new codec is easy to work with. Both in cpu load and flexibility in post. And while it might be a good all rounder, the Canon is the better stills camera, and the better low light camera. I still love the video from the 1DXMK2, but if planning to do heavy post work, the GH5 would be my first choice of the two. Otherwise, the straight out of camera footage is plenty good.

Well... I already started to sell off my Nikon lenses ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sold off the 18-35 G and sold off the 85 f/1.8 G and my Sigma 10-20. So right now I only have my 50mm f/1.8 G and a couple of DX lenses that I use on my D7000, which I am selling off as well. For the Sony a6500 / a6000 I have the 10-18 (my bread and butter lens, 98% of my still photos are done with this lens, and about 75% of the video I shoot is with this lens), a couple of 16-50 kit lenses (one is a really bad copy), a 50mm f/1.8 OSS, a Sigma 30mm f/2.8 (not the f/1.4, but still a competent - if a little slow at f/2.8 - prime lens that is sharp). I also have an 85mm f/2.8 SAM A-Mount lens that I use with an adapter. I just picked up a 70-300 G original version A MOunt to use with an adapter but I am having some problems with it. Might just be human error, might be the lens, might be my adapter. So that's kind of another reason to sell the D750 and just consolidate; I don't mind paying for lenses, I just don't want to have to pay for the same lenses for two different systems! And almost as important is I don't want to have to keep track and organize two different systems. Especially as I will start to add video lights and maybe a filter or two. Plus I also have a drone (Phantom 3 Advanced), so keeping it to one camera system really is just going to make it that much easier to get me a bit more organized. At least I hope it will help make me more organized...

I would rather have a Canon C200 with the EVA codecs, than either the current C200, or the EVA! Now, I dislike both! Where is this Canon C100mkIII?! They still do not offer a 4K camera for less than 5000euros/$/quids/money, also, the camera between the GH5 and the EVA, is the AG-DVX200?!?! wtf!! I believe ALL the manufacturers, are missing the most important aspect, and target group, of the market, the around 5000money segment, something from 4500 to 5500. In Europe C200 is around 9000-8300euros, and EVA around 8700 euros (yep, more expensive than Canon in almost all the places), then you go to a C300 or C100mkII, and to a camcorder, or GH5 for Panasonic. Am I the only one seeing a huge gap in between pro segments? I would believe that a slightly cheaper capable camera could sell to the thousands, if you consider the markets of South America and Asia, or other less profitable markets in the world (South Europe, Eastern Europe) that 9.000euros for a camera is a certain NO, in buying power and work profits, and these people will need 4K at one point, because their 4K TV sets are cheap, why not their cameras? (then, of course these are the reasons that Canon C100 sold so many cameras, and GH5 sells now). Anyways, I belong to that 89% of the world that 8500euros (10.100US$/12.900CA$/13.300AU$/14.600NZ$, mind you) for a camera is a certain NO!

@Caleb Genheimer I agree with all you said, I do find the NX AF more reliable for video, in my experience on a gimbal NX has better percentage than a 6300, NX AF is on the sensor, but not a Canon dual pixel, per se, technology, only on mobile phones Samsung has exactly the same technology as the Canon. Canon has the most reliable AF for video in my opinion, just not a pro mirrorless camera, like the NX1 is. Sony does not have a APS-C pro mirrorless camera either. I do have 2 NX1, 1 NX500 and 1 NX3000 (just for kicks!), and I do implement them all on live/show recordings. @Parker Very detailed and great description of things. I didn't mention IBIS, because it is a blessing and a curse the same time. People have completely replaced their mono/tri-pods with IBIS, which ISN'T a mono/tripod in anyway, and can't replicate a real gimbal. The last few productions we did with the GH5, we used ZERO mono/tri-pod, in my opinion, that resulted in some so-so results. Tripod shots, are tripod shots, you need a tripod. I use mainly tripods for most of my personal work anyway and all this hand held stuff ain't my cup of tea. Of course it is something that NX misses, and our next cameras, definitely will have this feature, so that is a + for GH5. I personally prefer the NX1 type of display, I prefer having my monitor in the center of my subject and just raise my head to check my subject, and back down (or up) to my monitor, also, the side ways screen of GH5 covers some of the I/O ports(! yep, designer's fault here), also you can't damage the screen, in NX's way. Except the "hesitation" you descripted, we have different issues among the GH5s I have used, in one we couldn't stop rec some times, another one didn't turn on and off easily and some other erratic behavior, all of them corrected with battery off camera/on camera, but it was a thing or two to get stressed when working on important jobs with famous presenters/people. I do not like the full frame look, but I have a lot of legacy lenses that I would like to use with the NX on a wider focal length than the X1.54 of NX, but most of my lenses are FD, that would be very difficult to adapt with Lucas adapter I guess. The other aspect of it, is the additional light it offers, that would be great to ease some of the NX deficiencies. Is the NX-L adapter still in production I am wondering? All in all, like I skip GH4 (and I used that camera a lot, just not MY camera!), I think I will skip this one too. Maybe next Fuji will be it, or maybe the first Nikon mirrorless will be the s@#*t! (Nikon mirrorless, having a crop mode, could be just amazing, but I guess, with an unbelievable price tag stick to it as well). In the end, I would much rather prefer a dedicated video camera to up my game, as NX would be perfect for low budget jobs for the foreseeable future, maybe a C100mkIII, or a FS5mkII, or a JVC LS300mkII will be perfect for what I do (something that C200, FS5 and LS300 ain't).

As far as I know, the NX1 is the only camera south of the Canon Cinema line to have dual pixel autofocus. For anyone on a gimbal, this is a gargantuan feature that can’t be overlooked. I pick up other cameras and forget that I have to control focus, simply because I run around with my NX1 on a Ronin every day and never even touch focus. I’ll second that the battery life is very good, and add that powering/charging over USB is extremely handy. Not only can I charge three batteries at a time (internal/grip/external charger), but I can power the camera off of my Ronin M with a simple little jumper cable. The one thing it is not is a low light camera, but then compared to a Sony, most other cameras aren’t. I plan to pick up Luca’s NX-L soon to help with this, and to get that full frame look when called for. Truth be told, I am considering retiring my NX1, and getting another NX1 just because I’ve used this one so much. For the price, it’s an extremely powerful tool that can pull its weight in almost any situation, and having two for multi cam shoots will be useable far into the future, even if I do switch to something else for an A-cam. I’ve been waiting for dual pixel AF to show it’s face on another DSLR in order to switch, but I suspect I may wait a fair while longer still. I know I’ve not been compelled to switch just yet.

I have some short documentaries shot with the GX80 - but honestly, they're more of like my kid on a day out or holiday videos. I think that's the main market for this camera at least. If you want to see, I can post a few videos up here, but like I say, they're not really short film narratives, although they are a bit about home videos. HereThat said I do often use it in combination with my LS300. For this live performance, the GX80 is the handheld cam and the one on sticks is JVC LS300. It might give you a good idea of what you can get out of the camera with a little grading etc. - Sorry about the watermark, not my idea.

Thanks everyone!! We ended up picking up a Sony A3000 for $149 USD at a pawn shop, it came with a 18 - 55mm kit lens, two batteries and a bag. (New Condition) Shes new too photography/Video and so I thought this was perfect! Tested it out earlier and am actually quite surprised by this camera! Probably the best $149 we have spent on an entire shoot ready camera! 20 Megapixels, decent low light! 1080p video that's basically on par with Canon rebel cameras (Different color but gradable) and with decent auto focus, even during video! Thanks again everyone

Another point to keep mind, is even on very small budget short films, if they have enough resources to still do it half decently looking with art department / actors / crew / lighting / etc, then they're probably not going with the cheapest of cheapest Panasonic cameras such as the G or GX/GM/GF series, they've got a GH (or better) camera instead. Thus those shooting shorts with a G7/G6/G5/etc tend to be only the most ultra of ultra low budget people. (thus even if the camera is capable of much much more, that probably won't be shining through at all) Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of short films shot on a Panasonic G7. A quick look on Vimeo shows up a few. And of course how could we possibly forget our own andy lee, who shot an entire feature film with 6x (yes, SIX!) G7 cameras: (however it is still in post production)

It sounds like the a6500 is a better option for the way you work. Just find a video profile you like, the G-Film thread here has a nice look. As far as finding other gigs, you just have to keep hustling and find other potential clients. Outside of RE, maybe food stuff for restaurants, corporate headshots or corporate videos. Lots of local business have events, I've been fortunate enough to find work shooting for a local spa that throws monthly parties. They have a very wealthy clientele, and from that I've gotten a number of gigs shooting various functions and such. Cheers chris

I've always enjoyed Matt's work and he's always come across as a genuine guy who loves what he does. I find it hard to think of another person who's shared so much usable information about cameras, lighting and techniques with downloadable files for FREE. He doesn't need to do that. It sounds like a genuine mistake on his behalf. It's just a shame that there are so many people/creatives out there who are ready to be Judge & Executioner at a drop of a hat. Maybe they should concentrate on working on their own issues rather than projecting it onto someone like Matt. - B.

A7R2 + canon ts-e 17mm. Badass

I wasn't aware there was any doubt, in anyone's mind, that HDR technology is buggy, in the real world I also can't believe anyone on this forum would doubt that you shot what you said you shot. They're just reporting what they see. I mean, even in this late, mature state of PHOTOGRAPHY one can print/view someone else's JPG that will look all F'd up! Even using color calibration systems I have found them to create unsuspecting problems in software that doesn't recognize them. So don't get down, Mark! I'm looking forward to looking at your stuff when I have HDR equipment.

It's a taste thing, right, trading color saturation for greater dynamic range. We certainly wouldn't want HDR if it did that because people who favor saturation over DR would then be left with inferior images. We need both. When I say "saturation" (and maybe someone can give me a better term) I mean the amount of color information we need to discern all colors within the display gamut. Banding is the clearest example of what I mean. As I mentioned elsewhere, if you display, say 20 colors (saturation) of yellow on an 8-bit, 6DR gamut display, you will see banding, because your eye can tell the difference. Here are some examples I created. The first is all 255 shades of green an 8bit image, which should render "bandless" on a 6DR screen I can already see some banding, which tells me that the website might re-compresses images at a lower bit-depth. Here's a version where 18% of the colors are removed, let's call it 7-bit And now for 32% removed, call it 6-bit The less colors (saturation information) there is, the more our eye/brains detect a difference in the scene. HOWEVER, what the above examples show is that we don't really need even 8bits to get good images out of our current display gamuts. Most people probably wouldn't notice the difference if we were standardized on 6bit video. But that's a whole other story How does this relate to HDR? The more you shrink the gamut (more contrast-y) the less difference you see between the colors, right? In a very high contrast scene, a sky will just appear solid blue of one color. It's as we increase the gamut that we can see the gradations of blue. That is, there must always be enough bit-depth to fill the maximum gamut. For HDR to work for me, and you it sounds like (I believe we have the same tastes), it needs the bit-depth to keep up with the expansion in gamut. So doing some quick stupid math (someone can fix I hope), let's say that for every stop of DR we need 42 shades of any given color (255/6 DR). That's what we have in 8bit currently, I believe. Therefore, every extra stop of DR will require 297 (255+42) shades in each color channel, or 297*297*297 = 26,198,073. In 10bits, we can represent 1,024 shades, so roughly, 10-bit should give us another 24 stops of DR; that is, with 10bit, we should be able to show "bandless" color on a screen with 14 (even 20+) stops of DR. What I think it comes down to is better video is not a matter of improved bit-depth (10bit), or CODECs, etc., it's a matter of display technology. I suspect that when one sees good HDR it's not the video tech that's giving a better image, it's just the display's ability to show deeper blacks, or more subtle DR. That's why I believe someone's comment about the GH5 being plenty good enough to make HDR makes sense (though I'd extend it to most cameras). Anyway, I hope this articulates what I mean about color saturation. The other thing I must point out, that though I've argued that 10bit is suitable for HDR theoretically, I still believe one needs RAW source material to get a good image in non-studio environments. And finally, to answer the OP. I don't believe you need any special equipment for future HDR content. You, don't even need a full 8bits to render watchable video today. My guess is that any 8bit video graded to an HDR gamut will look just fine to 95% of the public. They may be able to notice the improvement in DR even though they're losing color information because again, in video, we seldom look at gradient skies. For my tastes, however, I will probably complain because LOG will still look like crap to me, even in HDR, in many situations 10bit? Well, we'll just have to see!