Leaderboard

Let's ruthlessly dissect and analyze Neumann's first comment of 2018: First of all, let's look into his first sentence, why did he write "Happy New Years" and not the more common "Happy New Year". Or the more grammatical correct "Happy New Year's Day"?! What deeper meaning can we mine from this? & why did he next say "everyone", does this hint at a well rounded GH5s being a camera for "everyone"? Suitable for wedding videographers, news reporters, film students, doco shooters, Bollywood and Hollywood big productions too?

6K sorry, I had to make the pun

A few friends of mine got a 25 minute film into SXSW and were able to secure over a million dollars in funding for a subsequent feature from its success. Long shorts aren't necessarily a bad thing... if they're good. As a rule (and festival programmers repeat this to me), 12-60 minute is a no man's land for festival entry and for viability on streaming platforms (for original content). Under ten minutes is the new guideline for shorts, even. That article mentions a few medium-length projects that got into a few unnamed festivals... and yet you have hundreds of traditional format shorts (and features) getting into A-list festivals every year. So the article is at best pointing out the exceptions that prove the rule, and at worst being provocative and misleading. As Sandy McKendrick wrote, ""Student films come in three sizes, too long, much too long, and very much too long." Even if we consider ourselves above student films (I don't), it's true for festival entries, too. Your job, if you want to secure financing, is to leave people wanting to see more. In which case, nothing is worse than something that's too long. ....except something that's not long enough to get the point across in the first place. If you have a story to tell, the story will determine its own length. But a medium-length project will 99% of the time be more challenging to get into a festival or staff pick: http://filmmakermagazine.com/99583-shorter-is-better-sundance-programmer-mike-plante-offers-advice-on-short-film-strategy-at-the-sundance-next-festival/#.WkqNNSOZMlU The self-fulfilling prophecy of the equation is that 20+ minute shorts must be EXCEPTIONAL to get programmed. As a result, they'll stand out not just for increased duration leaving a stronger impression, but also for being the best of the best at a given festival. And if you just want to sell a feature, make a feature and sell it. But that's a separate can of worms...

Losing 20 pounds.

First time I tried multicam editing in Resolve. Shot with two NX1 cameras. This is fireworks in Kuusankoski Finland (part of Kouvola city) clock 8pm

Happy new years everyone! So does everyone have a new years resolution? For me, shifting my focus to lighting and experimenting with filters.

Happy New Year to all! Looking forward to a dynamic year with plenty of smooth highlights and very little noise.

From what I understand (and this is something I read a portion of one wikipedia article on, so I don't understand much), most so-called "holograms" are either stereoscopic AR (hololens) or a pepper's ghost (Tupac) or at best an implementation of a lenticular display (like the 3DS except with a wide viewing angle and without eye tracking). Lenticular displays divide the resolution in each dimension by a factor of the number of discrete viewing perspectives... so a UHD hologram would become 240X135 if you have a 16X16 display hologram... and that's not even enough perspectives for a decent horizonatal viewing angle. Think Lytro cameras, but in reverse. I think the Lytro cinema camera is 755 megapixels so you'd want something like that to get a cinema-quality hologram, both on the capture and display side... Don't quote me on this but the 7D holograms are likely glorified wide FOV stereoscopic 3D (the whale video is a magic leap promotional video rendering in CGI). It's probably just like those 3D IMAX shows from the past, but updated a bit. Just my guess. And I've heard the Red Helium technology is a four-view lenticular display, possibly with some sort of tabletop viewing tech on top of that that provides the illusion of projection from the screen. (3DS is two-view with eye tracking and must be viewed within a narrow viewing cone.) From what I've heard, there's no really groundbreaking tech there, but it's all in the implementation of course. The iPhone was only groundbreaking to the extent that it worked well. :/ I am excited for the 90D, but the crop will probably kill it.

2nd here already

Just get the G85 dude. It's much more ergonomic in comparison to the a6500 and XT20. Also from my experience, the G85 is no slouch in dynamic range or low light. Yeah it's not the best, but there are definitely worse - including from APS-C and full frame cameras. A lot of it comes down to how they process the raw image into video.

I agree. My father, who got me my first camera, said that B&W is pure visual expression of an idea that is the same for all people; whereas color creates an emotional distortion that affects each person differently. I don't remember his exact words. I agree with @TwoScoops that the lack of color is too disruptive for most viewers; however, color has become a lazy-way to generate an emotional feel. I thought "The Artist" or whatever that semi-recent B&W film didn't use B&W properly. Anyway, I'm with webrunner5. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a suspenseful film in color that matches Hitchcock and others in the 30s and 40s. Last night my daughter put on "Hot Fuzz" again. It's in color of course, but Edgar Wright never uses color, in my opinion, to tell the story. No LOG bullshit for him All his visual conceits and story bits would work in B&W. The only film I can think of recently where I really thought color added something that couldn't be done another way was "Her". And while I'm rambling. Watched the 1st episode from Season 3 of "Black Mirror". By God, the distance between those stories and what one sees in the movie theater these days! And finally, what those cinema cameras and projectors can do these days! Wow!

Nothing wrong with that at all. I shot a play the other day and went with standard rather than dealing with the log profile.

This is going to sound weird but... shoot less log. I spend way too much time color grading just because it's fun, but I could be using that time for more productive things when log isn't absolutely necessary. BTW I wouldn't say this if I weren't so impressed with the latest EOSHD Sony color profiles.

Never made any DCPs but I'm very picky and can spot TV crap like "motion smoothing" from a mile away so I'll give you my thoughts: If you force SDR to display as HDR, or force Rec709 to display BT2020, 9 times out of 10 it looks weird. Sometimes it works but it's like forcing an old mono Beatles track to play stereo... it just isn't right. On a more general note, once you start experiencing the true contrast and color that come from actual HDR content it's very hard to go back to SDR material. It's got a depth to it that is almost like watching in 3D. But again, I generally forget about all this after watching for about 5 minutes and I get into the film... Unless we're talking the motion smoothing gimmicks. I never get over that ; )

You need help, you really do LoL. I think you can convey a Lot more emotion, suspense in a B&W movie than you ever can in Color.

Well, it's 2018... Happy new year!

Make sure that I've thoroughly researched each piece of camera gear before I purchase it.

Don't ever make something longer that 15 minutes for a short. If your at ~40 minutes expand it to a feature. The last short film I worked on was 27 minutes, the runtime absolutely killed its festival potential. Because the festivals can either pick your film or 2 others. Don't force them to make that choice. This is true though, half hour to an hour is okay if your aiming for TV.

Tbh, I wouldn't get into the Sony APS-C system either. A bit russian roulette regarding overheating, because some people don't seem to run into it almost at all and others have it constantly. Of course, you now have the tripod mode, where you're raising the threshold where overheat protection kicks in, but rendering it so hot, that you can't comfortably hold it in your hands, hence: tripod mode. Of course it greatly has to do with them deciding to keep the body so damn small, which makes no sense as they've neglected a dedicated APS-C lens line-up for the last several years now, so it's more like an APS-C limited FF entry level to get you warmed up for an A7 or A9 body, already having the FF covering lenses. In the end, the lenses are what makes a system compact, so releasing new cameras that are very compact, but failing to embrace very compact lenses to me is the wrong strategy. Then there's just ergonomics 'n stuff. No frontfacing screen, touchscreen is a rather limited implementation, there's no dual cardslot, no dedicated headphone port, battery life is not that great. Then there's the footage... lots of potential on a purely sensor/pixel performance level, but that rolling shutter... and default profile colors you definitely need to mess about with because else you're getting zombie skintones and color channel clipping. All in all, I just can't be bothered with them unless they change up their approach in this APS-C segment (bigger body... better heat disspation, more features/better interface, new exciting compact lenses native to APS-C). Like, if Sony could give me a Panasonic GH5 or Olympus E-M1 Mark II with APS-C sensor... and a exciting compact lens line up to go with that, I'd be all about that. But... no joy. Maybe 2018? In the APS-C realm, I actually consider Fujifilm to make the most sense now... and they're still quite traditional, have still a bit to go. Atleast they're nice to use. Now they just need a body with sensor stabilization, a frontfacing touchscreen and a dedicated headphone port on the body. My money's still in the MFT basket. You just can't beat the compact factor and value you're getting. It just means you can't be relying on super smooth C-AF and you need to really think about your shots as lowlight and dynamic range challenges you. But, that's all stuff that you can actually make work. Except for the DR, this is as close as you'll get to shooting with an actual cinema camera. With a BMD, RED, ARRI etc, you're not relying on lowlight and C-AF either. So it also kind of depends what kind of shooter you are of course. Of course the GH5 packs a punch, but I'd consider the Lumix G9 as well if you're into a lot of viewfinder work and stills (I guess that's what the Nikon was used for partly as well). Shorter clips only, but still impressive. Supposedly the processing is quite nice and gets raving reviews. Both the GH5 and G9 are quite sizeable bodies though, mind you, so with going compact, it isn't so much about the bodies, but the lens advantage there. But I always say: a camera wouldn't get made, if they didn't think anyone would buy it. And everyone has different needs/wants/budgets, so really it's up to you to figure out. If you have friends or a rental place, see if you can get your hands on 'em. Or just at the camera store alone. That will probably tell you more than comparing specs on paper.

@wolf33d the oracle

A6500 has bad rolling shutter but good af-c. Also horrible battery life and overheats after a while. Sharpest 4k, no flip screen. 1080p trash. G85 is ok but af-c is trash. Flip screen. Smaller lenses, less dof. Low light not great. Get gh5 4k60p but af-c is useless, not as good low light because of sensor size. Just depends on what great quality means to you and what you are using it for. For "real" landscape photos I use FF with good Dr sensor. For casual use I just bring rx100. You can make great videos with any of those cameras, at that level the content is more important than which one of those you use.

Yeah I drastically disagree with that article, as a medium length one won't help your career much more than making a short would (unlike a feature film), yet is nearly as much effort and cost as to make a feature film! The one exception: if you're making a doco for TV distribution and needs to fit in the standard one hour slot. (Minus adverts!)

I was just commenting on a Curtis Judd video about this issue. So many YouTubers mangle these concepts and I hate feeling the outcast. Anyway, AFAIK the concept of 0-100 IRE dates back to when video was produced by tube cameras (which I shot stuff with back in 1985). With those cameras, a video signal was an analog signal that was read by an oscilloscope, the waveform being one way of displaying the signal. The 0 -100 ERI basically measured when you were under exposing or over-exposing the image. It assumed an analog input, so I don't believe you could save, later, anything above or below those values. Anyway, I believe it is a limited metaphor for today's digital equipment. Even though they are displays available in Davinci Resolve, etc., they confuse people who doesn't understand the difference between a recording gamma (which doesn't exist in RAW) and a display gamma. If I'm wrong, I hope others will chime in. I think where you might be confused (and I was too) is believing that luma is encoded in your data. It isn't, though it is implied. When you record a value with your camera, whether a gray tone, like 128,128, 128 or a color 78,53,250, the brightness is ultimately set by your display. So the difference in brightness between say 128,128,128 and 250,250,250 might be 2 stops or 3 stops, depending on your display gamma. Your video data doesn't know the gamma it will end up in, though again, for most cameras there are expectations baked in. Think about it, if luma was baked into your data than on some displays it would look really washed out, on others very bright. Every display, from your phone to your PC monitor, transposes a range of brightness levels, calibrated to its expected output, onto the data. If the data was to say, display 128,128,128 as a fixed level of brightness then how would each different piece of equipment do that, if some couldn't? The whole "rec709" problem, IMHO, is a fake problem thought up by people who wanted to sell cameras, or their color profiles or LUTs. I have never experienced a practical problem between shooting sRGB, AdobeRGB or others. All the color spaces outstrip our ability to differentiate colors and they have a complex relation to luma. Anyway, the fact is, assuming your expose your material favoring what you want exposed, then all software will work to create a relative output that assumes the display is using a rec709 type color space, or similar.

Definitely. Honestly, with such a cringe worthy and aggressive grade this could have been shot on a DSLR with the same destructive output. If this grade/look was the intention of the production/client, budgeting/using the Alexa Mini for this project was simply overkill. The distribution channel for this is probably Instagram and Facebook which ends up in a super compressed 8bit codec anyway. I've been down the road where I as the DP/cinematographer lose control over final vision of the project and the powers that be take over and just ruin the hell out of it. It really sucks. I feel your pain. The last time this happened to me the edit and grade looked absolutely horrid, I voiced my issues, and then was basically told to go back into my corner. I was so upset I ended up walking away from the project sighting "artistic differences". How I help combat this is I'm also and Editor. I actually approach my cinematography as an Editor and try to get in as package deal. I've also learned that being dipolmatic and having the director sit over my shoulder while I'm cutting sounds good spirited in theory but usually ends up in a situation where I basically become a technician to a backseat editor, rather than a storyteller crafting a story, if that makes sense? I dont find it fruitful. Since narrative filmmaking is my side passion seperate from my day job I can be selective about which clients I work with. I've kept this setup intentional. But I understand not everyone does it this way. Some have to work with what they have because it keeps the lights on. If I come across a client that basically is unwilling to trust me for what I bring to the table I dont bother working with them. Lots of ppl have a story to tell. They can hire someone else or shoot it themselves. No one who has talent or skill should be made to feel like a wrench monkey. On that note, if you find a client or director you have chemistry and a good working relationship with do whatever it takes to nurture that relationship and keep it flowing. This is why you'll often see the same Director/DP/Actor couplings across multiple films. This type of connection doesn't come along easily.

True, but I must admit that after watching Casey Neistat and Peter McKinnon’s videos with it, I was pretty impressed. When it hit $1249 for a refurbished model on the Canon store, it’s not a horrible choice with the better high iso performance it has over the 80D and SL2. Full frame with DPAF and articulating screen for under $1300 isn’t a bad deal for a hybrid camera... especially if you shoot a lot of photos.

Got this from eoshd: Got confirmation from an A6300 tester " DVFire", 4K 24P/25P crop factor 1.5x (24MP full sensor readout) 4K 30P crop factor 1.9x (13MP crop area full readout) HD 120P crop factor 1.9x (13MP crop area pixel binning readout) *The crop values are written relative to the FF image circle. So your 35mm will equal a 66.5mm lens.

Now filming for a few days in The Efteling, the Netherlands. Because of the low light at evening I decided to build my setup; NX1 + NXL speedbooster + Mamiya 55mm f1.4 + Bolex 16/32/1.5x + Rectilux HCDNA. I had to set the lens not at infinity, but somewhere about 10 meters to get the sharpest results. The film follows later, for now a few pictures. After all, I am very happy with the NXL speedbooster.

GH5 at a friend's wedding. A little bit of grain, vignetting, lens blur and digital diffusion... plus a colour treatment based on my experiments with matching colour and contrast with Ektar 100 film.

Horrible color?

Do you think you could add to that: 11. When asking a question like "what's the best gimbal?" or "which lens should I buy?" add what kind of camera you're using (or system) and especially for what purpose. So hard to be helpful when there's no way to tell what the gear will be used for.

Nikon already beats the A7s in dynamic range with its flat profile. Its imo pretty even with the Blackmagics at 13stops. For me LOG would be nice but not at all needed unless it also meant higher bitrate. What they are doing with their bitrate today is simply mind blowing to me. I cant believe the quality/mbit compared to other brands. Thats why I hope they dont go down the 100mbps 4K road. Imo its no good. For 4k it needs to be minimum 300mbps to become worth it for me. I rather shoot high quality HD than brittle 4k. So Nikon, if your reading, you have something good cooking here. Dont get cought up in the Panasony race. Play it cool. Focus on your great DR and implement things like peaking and false color. 4K can wait and 100mbit isnt worth it. Might as well upscale the HD and save the space. Your ace in the sleeve is your color.