Leaderboard

Will be joining the YouTube party at some point.

I don't think the majority of his work is even meant to be enjoyed. However in all of the Von Trier films I've seen, I've felt an intelligence and deep layered meaning was there behind all of the graphic scenes. If certain things are to be censored like sadism, then it means certain stories can't be told and I don't agree with that. Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion on a film and whether they enjoy it or not is up to them. It's hardly going to be a date movie is it? But to get hysterical about it and walk out of the cinema like those 100 at Cannes is more likely a result of these people not really seeing beyond the surface. As for left vs right politics, let's try not to get into that here, because it isn't really what the article is about. The left has gone more extreme, has gone hysterically politically correct, but the right has gone more extreme as well and both sides at their most extreme are as batshit crazy as each other. I don't support any form of political extremism either left or right. What I do support is the freedom of the filmmaker to make a film of his choosing without censorship.

Bigger sensor, or faster lens? Which is most important? Well, a lens you can change and your sensor you cannot. Here's how to stop worrying about crop sensors. Read the full article

I use the c500 for all my work 2k 60 12bit the C300 mkii does not have this. It is an amazing camera. I think you can get DPAF on this it’s not been done however it is the same sensor as the C300 mk1 and that has DPAF. Re: Pro Res Raw, in the menus it does have 4k 60 raw and 4k 120fps half raw email Atomos and shout about it they should consider it. Here is some of the Work shot with the c500, a documentary I am working as a DP on

Interesting article and great job matching the focal lengths and depths of field, but the cost associated with getting the full frame look with the GH5 will put you at $2500-$3000. With an a7iii and a Nikkor 35mm f/2, you can be well on your way for less than $2200, plus you’ll have the option to go with f/1.4 and 1.2 lenses and higher ISOs. The Voigts are a great cheat though and the 25mm is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used.

I agree. I don’t personally care for Von Trier’s films, but that’s about as irrelevant as it should be. There is too much influence portrayed as a universal acceptance in cinema simply because of the bandwagon. I saw Black Panther because I felt like I was the only person in the world who wasn’t hash tagging how amazing it was.... Bullshit. I felt like I was “supposed” to like it because if I didn’t, that was racist. I just didn’t. The fact that it’s a problem these days if you don’t, and not prioritizing the acceptable cool kids club agenda - is more offensive to me than anything Lars will ever do and I guarantee only about 10% of the 100 critics who decided to walk out of the movie were just not interested. The rest probably left because if they didn’t, what does that say about “them”. Get a damn load of Gasper Noe.. lol

Haha, seriously?! Sometimes I really think all of the talk about this camera or that camera, is a bunch of nonsense... I visit this site and watch most online videos on my phone, like 95% of the rest of the world and since I knew you shot ML Raw, I just assumed that scene was shot Raw as well. Crazy. Either way it looks awesome, man! All of it does. Those screengrabs are epic. I love the choice of making some of your lighting practical... SMART!!! Did you use the same Leica Rs with the Raw shots as you did with the h.264? Hmm, that’s pretty cool. I’ll have to give it a try when I upgrade to 15. But to be honest, I’m shooting 2:35 at 1920x810, and I’m still blown away by the detail with the right lens, so I don’t even know if taxing my MacBook Air with the higher resolution is worth it to me... it would just fall on deaf ears I think.

Articles about creative processes are boring. Because they usually have absolutely nothing to do with creativity at all. If you really want to know how an artist's mind works, look no further than the highly controversial Cannes visits of Lars Von Trier. Read the full article

It’s been over a month now since the release of ProRes Raw and I’m seeing people like Caleb Pike and others doing tests with ProRes Raw and it’s gotten me really really excited. The usability of it seems to be unreal. It got me thinking... the two best options in my opinion for price and performance would be the C500 and FS700. Is it worth picking one of these cameras up used to try ProRes raw on? I’m sure BMPCC 4K will get an update that it’ll shoot ProRes raw eventually, but the C500 has never been cheaper and more appealing to me. Anyone have any thoughts or experiences with either camera? Here is a video from Caleb about his journey to ProRes raw. I can’t believe how well it holds up and I’ve been waiting for something like this ever since 2010 when I tried RED raw for the first time.

Thought I'd play around with that shot. The overexposure on the guy's collar really bugged me at first but it doesn't seem to be hugely obvious now.

I used the 25m T/0.95 from slrmagic extensively and enjoyed it a lot. The GH5 still lags behind though compared to full frame. You need the GH5s in order to much the low light performance for the same DoF (two stops slower on the FF) at least in video. For photos there is still at least a 2 stop difference between m4/3 and FF and will always be the case for sensors with similar technology and a 4 times area difference. The advantage of the FF lenses is that you can get very good AF with very shallow DoF which can also work great with video. The eye-AF is just an amazing thing to have if you like shooting faces with very shallow DoF. Another important point is that while these lenses are OK for video, the quality is not great for stills. You have to go up to the newer Olympus f/1.2 PRO line to get really good results, and then you are actually paying a lot of money for a m4/3 lens and still lag behind in the sensor department.

There are some differences that you might not spot on this shots but you might in other situations. One it's how apart objects are from one another in depth. A 17.5mm makes the space wider, this is almost not noticeable in many cases but for example when you are filming a dialog between two actors the distance in depth between then will be different and this will convey another mood to the scene. Also, a 17mm will in most cases have more distortion especially when you are close to the lens, and also focus will be easier on the 35mm 2.0 than on a 17.5 at 0.95 .

Wide open I don't like so much. I typically set mine on a 1.4 - .95 split. That looks good to me. No doubt FF and FF lenses have a lot of advantages, (I exploit them myself) but it's not like one sensor option is wildly more impressive than the other.

Good article but what about the image quality at 0.95 ? I tried the 25mm on my GH4 and I was not very impressed by the quality wide open: ton of vignetting and CA, very soft image. The advantage of 35mm lenses on FF is that you can find very good options (e.g Sigma Art) and stop them down to f2 or f2.8 where they really shine. Don't forget the traditional "whaaaaat's up guyyyyyys" at the beginning of each video, along with "SUSCRIBE" with your hands pointing down toward the button...

Nice find. Have you also tried their Nikon F mount for Sony E-mount adapter? Curious to see what the AF is like on that.

Talking about crop sensor and cheating on them. I wanna recommend this adapter, The Viltrox EF-M2. Is´t really sharp, nice optics, works really well with electronic EF lenses and it cost a third the price of the Metabones speedbooster. https://www.amazon.com/VILTROX-EF-M2-Adapter-Thirds-Camera/dp/B079M4W8MQ I'm not kidding, it is a really good adapter.

I wish you'd start a Youtube show Andrew to combat all the misinformation (esp from Northrup) out there

Yep, small & no moving parts. Never seen any distortion with the Isco Widescreen 2000 or it's smaller counterpart the Isco S8/X2 - again, small lenses & no moving parts, as they're fixed focus. Just got to remember that Anamorphics are completely different from spherical lenses - for the most part, you just aren't going to get this lovely pristine look. Most people who turn to anamorphics tend to like & want all the imperfections, what is normally described as a lens having character. They're not for everyone, that's for sure. If you just like the flares, then there are plenty of options out there - blue streak filters etc. Same goes for Oval Bokeh - you have options now. IMHO it's sacrilege to want to make these lenses fit into a prescribed look. They have their own look, which a lot of people love & you adjust yourself for the really serious distortions (like the big fat heads in close ups). It's like that Lens thread that has been overtaken by certain people posting examples of newish lenses, which you can find examples of all over the net - it kinda ruins the whole point of why that thread was started in the first place. Love the vintage look, gotta love the imperfections.

The Shining, Scarface and Terminator got mild reviews when released too. haha

"so many people can’t interpret the correct target of a film or even a joke, because they are too thick." A joke, or a film that has to explain itself to the audience is a failure. If the audience don't get it, then you as an artist have failed, you've either marketed it in such a way that the wrong people are going to see it, or you're not a very good artist. Now if you're trying to show something to an audience that they wouldn't usually see, and are trying to show them why your work is good, then you both need to expect the discussion about it, along with the criticism and for only the very pinicle of your genre to have any chance of success. If you are not at the pinnacle, you're likely to fail. " I remember reading just recently about a top scientist who was in a large elevator with a lot of members from the audience of a conference, and he joked he wanted someone to press the button for him to get out at the women’s lingerie department. The target for this joke was of course himself, a decaying old man finding humour in a desperate fictionalised version of himself, seeking sexual satisfaction by exploring the women’s lingerie department, " With you completely... "but he ended up losing his job because people in the elevator took offence" He didn't lose his job. He didn't lose anything. If he does, it won't be about the joke, it was about how he responded to the complaint. See below. "saw the target as their gender, thought it misogynistic and wanted him fired. And the community in which he worked was so politically correct that they actually went ahead and did so. A life’s work ruined in a blink of an eye, a career smashed in the time it takes to make a wise crack in a lift. Actually, the complaint about the joke was, quite rightly about to be dismissed. The big problem wasn't the joke, it was that he tried to intimidate the person who complained. Ex Partie communication is a very bad thing and should never be defended. "but trivially empty family friendly content has kick started a mental health epidemic" No it hasn't "In the lead up to this year’s Cannes, Kate Muir of the Guardian newspaper in the UK lambasted Von Trier’s presence in the festival purely for being male" It's interesting you think she lambasted him, given that all she did was print his own words, in context. What she was saying was, when there are all these great female directors, why is space being given to this guy. Here's things he has said. She was lambasting Cannes, yes, but him, no - his own words were enough - she even printed his follow up's to complaints about his words. "At the screening of the new film, over 100 critics walked out mid-way through, probably because .." Probably? Hmmm..... anyone can make up stories about why someone did domething that supports their narrative, look: You probably wrote this article because you have been kidnapped by aliens. "The Ghostbusters remake and Black Panther were both terrible films " Black Panther was terrible? Really? Most people disagree with you. "and were practically immune to criticism" Not being criticised doesn't mean they were immune to criticism. For starters Ghostbusters was heavily criticised. I've only seen one even slightly positive bit of press about it that they didn't pay for and it was as faint praise as you can get, basically saying that it's for kids, and this is what kids find funny (They don't, as you can see by kid's criticisms of the film). Black Panther meanwhile was not heavily criticised because most people thought it was OK. "This privileged puritan mindset implies that women and black people are so downtrodden, they need some lightweight popcorn hit to empower them into doing something with their lives. " Hmmm... No. This "privileged" "puritan" mindset implies that not all successful movies need to be made for straight white guys in their early teens through late 40's. "it demonstrates to us that Von Trier and artists like him are right not to care, because logically the audience have no right to be offended." You there, stop feeling the things your feeling and saying the things you are saying! You don't have the right too feel those things and say those things. Von Trier would wholeheartedly disagree with this statement of yours: “Rebelling is part of my family. If you come to a family gathering, the family says something, you have to say something else. Then my family met my wife’s family, who said yes to everything, but my family often said no. If I see a form or a concept, I’d naturally challenge it, to see if there’s any possibility to gain more from it.” If everyone loved his film, if no-one was offended, if no-one criticised it, then he's failed, in his own eyes. "It is the filmmaker who is offering something to the audience." In exchange for money. Never forget that bit, you can rightly rail against criticism if you are offering it with no expectation of recompense, but as soon as you earn a living from your trade, expect to be compared against others doing the same, and criticised for where you fall short. "To feel personally insulted afterwards tells me that these critics are grandstanding a superior moral position over a work of FICTION, whereas the job of Von Trier the director is to create art, not a piece of ethical code for society." Logically then, you are grandstanding a superior moral position over a film writeup, whereas the job of a critic is to guide consumers to work they may enjoy, not a piece of ethical code for society. "In the puritan society" Let's talk about this. Can you really call a society puritan when bikinis are acceptable wear, when pornhub exists, when comedians routinely get naked on stage. Society isn't puritan, especially when you understand puritans dislike violence too, but society doesn't want to see tits in nearly every film (It would be nice if violence was in nearly every film too), not because they don't like seeing tits, but because it's so fucking boring seeing the same story points over and over and over again. If every schlocky horror film had gratuitous closeups of amputees limb endings, it would be that which society would be bored of. " really, it amounts to cultural censorship" Spoken like someone who has never experienced the horrors of actual censorship. No-one is putting him in prison for his movie, they are just not going to give him as much money as you would like for it. That's not censorship, cultural or otherwise. "If the industrial pioneers whose technology led to the creation of the camera all sat around raising awareness about empowerment of science, rather than making experiments in a lab" They did both, actually, because, you know, people aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts. "and the way things are going we’ll be without the future films of one of the world’s most interesting directors because no studio will accept his material." The irony, on a piece decrying pearl clutching, you scoop up the mightiest pearls you can find and clutch them so hard it's making me think this whole piece is your attempt at comedy. ---- I do agree with the thrust of your argument - that films like this are important and should be given publicity - I just think you went about it in quite the stupidest way possible. Now excuse me while I write an email to my local arts cinema explaining why they should show this film. Please stop assuming I'm so dumb (and the silent majority) that I swallow critics self serving ramblings hook line and sinker. And try to not say things that are factually wrong.

Good enough! I'd forgotten you used a G7 as a reference. Thank you!

Be warned the C500 is bloody noisy. Although some people have had good luck with using an external fan which is much quieter so that the C500 doesn't get hot enough for the internal one to kick on.

I was suggesting something more along the lines of some sort of compressed RAW via HDMI and Atomos decodes and can recode it as either CDNG or Pro Res Raw - or other pro res non-RAW formats. I don't understand... Isn't that what the a7III is doing? 4K FF Mirrorless for $2K... I don't understand this either... What are we doing here... follow the leader? From my understanding each company (specifically Canon, Sony and Panasonic) leap frogged one another... Yes, it all started with the 5D mark 2... but lets skip ahead to the 4K gen. cameras. I mean I can talk about the GH1 to Gh3.... but again.... lets skip to the 4K DSLRs and 4K MILCs... 2012 -> Canon 1DC - First 4K DSLR. Panasonic said, we can do that and add 1080 @ 96fps -> GH4 Sony took their time but they did have a low-light monster... eventually leap frogged them by introducing 1080 @ 120fps (though cropped in the a7sII) 2016 -> Canon 1dx mark 2 - First 4K @ 60p and 1080/120p (no crop) Panasonic said, oh yeah? 10 bit and 1080 @ 180p No wait... we have more improvements -> GH5s Blackmagic comes in.... and said.... "What? You forgot about us?" Throws the Pocket Cinema4K and mind fucks us. Sony, can't be like... we can match the Panasonic GH5...........

Knowing Sony, it will most likely be limited to 8-bit 4-2-2. And one stop/one and a half stop improvement in low light, and colour science on the lines of the Venice and FS5 ii. Nothing else.

A couple more shots from the Canon 28mm 1.8. I got this lens for an insanely low price and it's quickly becoming one of my favorite lenses. Even without IS, I am able to go handheld on FF, which will make this lens indispensable going forward.

I thought about it it, but then I got the M9. I figured for the price of MX I can have 3 M9s this way I have 3 practicals. I think M9 is too bright and too heavy. One person on FB user group posted that the fit and finish was too rough and sharp and it could practically cut your hand. Ted Sims responded for something more portable he would pick the M9 himself. I think the MX has it's place, but for the price, I rather have the versatility of 3 M9s. There is the new korean company that I posted above (proFound) they have a small flexible LED that connects to the USB power source. It's just a LED cloth with a USB cable. They're not shipping yet, but that's the one I would get, if you want that flexibility.

Canon 1DC is better than the M50

I like some of Von Trier's films, I've not seen all of his movies, but there is something to be said about a man who keeps making exactly what he likes regardless of the criticism he's faced over the years. Cannes is simply not the audience for him. I'm working there this year, filming on the red carpets, junkets etc. There's not many fantastic films here compared to previous years, and the ones that stand out tend to be very 'leftist'. A few that spring to mind are 'Girl', about a transgender ballet dancer, 'El Angel' about a homoerotic gangster (based on true events) and 'Sauvage' about a rent boy looking for love. - None of these are competing for the Palms, but 'Girl' in particular is expected to run as Belgium's foreign language Oscar next season. On top of that, 'Total Recall's Paul Verhouven - also of 'Black Book' and 'Elle' announced his next movie, a love story about lesbian nuns called 'Blessed Virgin', which he assured buyers will not be pornographic, but artistic. Oh and then there was 'Star Wars' of course. With this brief list, and of course there are films I've missed out, but where does a hyper violent art movie fit in? Von Trier has never really been loved at Cannes and has previously been banned by the festival after his bazaar nazi comments in the press conference for 'Melancholia'. They're simply not his audience, but as long as they keep accepting his films, he'll keep playing them there. There's no such thing as bad press, and for a Von Trier it almost seems like negative reviews from the press make his real audience want to watch them more. If the general public and movie press don't like a film, then they simply don't understand it right? Luckily, those who can see the subtleties in the art of genital mutilation will stand by their loved Danish director, regardless if they actually like the film or not. Lars has made a name for himself and in many ways, that name is more important than the films he makes. He could piss in a bucket and people would watch it. And honestly, if its filmed like the first scene of 'Antichrist', I'd probably enjoy it too. Sorry for the rant, but to me Cannes rejecting a Von Trier movie is just not news. If they applauded him after the screening, then I would have been surprised. ------- TLDR: just a whole load of BS really

Shameless plug but that is one of the benefits of my controller in that it makes the operation of different Panasonic cameras identical and you could operate two of them at once in the scenario you are looking at. This is from my original post to demonstrate the hack. It shows the output of my G7 and GX80 using Cinelike D pointed at the same charts in contrasty lighting. If there is a difference then it isn't glaringly obvious.

“A filmmaker is always provoking some reaction from an audience.” I totally agree Andrew. But the means a filmmaker uses to achieve this can define the quality of his art (at least from my point of view, anyone can disagree). The easiest way to challenge your audience is by serving them scenes with genitals being cut with a pair of scissors or crashed by stones and then calling them puritans based on their totally justified reactions. Is it a bad thing that most people can’t stand sadism & graphic violence in cinema? This doesn’t have to do with a pair of tits being “shown” but with a pair of tits being “cut off” (plus children being shot). And you are calling this an antidote? I don’t get this but who knows, maybe i am a puritan too. But in any case i consider my self as lucky for not enjoying his films.

And while people talk about cameras and more cameras, they stop recording and doing work, while others with cameras from 5 years ago, do amazing jobs.

BM are just catching up

Ok, figured it out. Here's how to key out the edges and apply any Resolve adjustments to just the non-edges. This will allow NR without blurring edges (or any other adjustments you want to make). In the Colour panel create two nodes Add the EdgeDetect OFX plugin to one of them to make it the "key" node (Node 1 below) Connect the video signal like this: Make the adjustments you want to in Node 2 (eg, chroma NR) Adjust the settings in Node 1 to refine the mask that gets applied in Node 2 (I recommend adjusting Brightness to maximum to get a strong mask) The above setup excludes edges from being processed in the node, but it seems like you can also exclude other areas as well by adjusting the masks in Node 2 like qualifiers or power windows too, so you could (for instance) use the above to de-noise non-edge shadow areas by having the Qualifier in Node 2 exclude brighter areas of the frame. Enjoy! I wish I had worked this out before so I could do heavy NR processing without heavily blurring the video!!

The left have become a bunch of whiny, pearl-clutching Victorians. They've gone completely off the deep end with the offense culture and all the divisive race-baiting and reverse sexism/racism. Hillary was the last time I vote with them. Glad we still have a few brave people like Kanye and von Trier who truly don't give a fuck, but they are few and far between.