Leaderboard

Zoom F4 I think it is a bit pointless getting anything else below that, especially when you already have the Tascam DR60Dmk2. As the Zoom F series (and the MixPre series too) offers so so so much value for money, they're leaps and bounds above anything else. (to give a camera analogy, would you bother with a GH5/a7S/5Dmk4 if an EVA1/FS7/UMP cost only a couple of hundred of bucks extra? Most commercial shooters would say "nope!" That's the case with the Zoom F series, they've brought features/specs/quality that used to be far more expensive, down to very very low and affordable prices. Why settle for anything less?) The other issue, is that when you look in the world of non-F/MixPre series recorders and exclude them from consideration for a moment, then the Tascam DR60Dmk2 is damn good value itself in the "no budget" category. Sure, you could look around for something like a secondhand Tascam DR70D / Tascam DR680mk1 / Roland R44 / etc that could be found for only a little bit more money than a DR60Dmk2 but less than a Zoom F4 costs. However all of those other options merely give you extra channels over the DR60D, plus perhaps an extra little tweak or two, here or there, of benefits. But nothing at all which is a real step forward in features/specs/quality over your DR60Dmk2. So unless you DESPERATELY need "more channels" but can't afford a Zoom F4 (hint: you don't need more channels, not at this budget level), then I don't see why you should do anything else but stick with your Tascam DR60Dmk2 for longer into the future until you can afford a Zoom F series (or a MixPre series).

This dynamic range chart seems curious. Usually the industry standard Xyla charts are available in 15, 21 and 26 steps. But this one seems to be somewhere in between 15 and 21 steps. Maybe RED invented their own chart?

I've had way too many projects I've certainly wanted to "Alen Smithee," but they were just corporate videos, no production credits involved.

I always think that shooting video is like having to think in 5 dimensions at all times - particularly as a one man band. You're thinking about the 3 physical dimensions you're occupying with your body, your equipment, the physical space of your subject, your environment, where is the light, is the sound ok.. You're also thinking about movement and time - where is something coming from, where is it going, how long is the shot. And you're also projecting part of your mind to the edit, where future-you, or an editor, is sitting down to view your rushes and working out how it all goes together. Added to that any interaction with the subject in a documentary setting where you're also trying to chat, ask questions, capture something real. Yes, it's really hard. Most of the youtubers, for obvious and understandable reasons, create content in environments where they are in control - whether that be standing with a long lens on a tripod where you can pick off shots from a distance, or in their bedrooms. What, for me, it all boils down to is this: The craft and technique and equipment are 2%, and what is happening in front of the camera is 98%. That's why you're probably frustrated if you're reading this with thousands of dollars worth of top equipment around you but nothing to point it at. There are very, very few people who can shoot mundane things and make something great out of it. Not many Dziga Vertovs or Ron Frickes around. An amazing tornado or once in a lifetime sporting play captured on a shit camera is worth 1000x the most beautifully crafted shot of your cat. Perhaps one of the problems is that there are so many people with cameras now in the world, and in actual fact so little of the world is 'cinematic' or lends itself to being filmed. That's not to say there aren't great stories everywhere, but not everything works well on screen. Likewise the reason we enjoy professional movies and tv isn't because they have the best equipment and budgets, although that obviously doesn't hurt. It's because there's millions of dollars in value in front of the camera - the greatest and most beautiful actors, spectacular scenes, great scripts and stories that have taken years of man-hours to craft. Without that, the best DP in the world would have nothing. My final comment on Phillip Bloom - not everything he does is my cup of tea, but he's certainly very skilled and knowledgable. He's had the bravery to put his face and name out there on the internet, and also you may criticise his work for being mostly slow mo shots of people doing nothing shot with a 100-400mm, but to me the fact that it's usually watchable and evocative to some degree is pretty great. As we've all seen in this forum, that's a hard trick to pull off. I've worked solidly for 15 years or so now shooting and editing big sporting events internationally, and doing some corporate, and honestly while I think I'm ok at what I do, if I wasn't shooting something with millions of dollars of value flying past my lens, my work wouldn't be interesting. I'm not what makes it interesting. I try to do personal work sometimes and I find it a struggle and it's never something I'd share here, just memories for my family and friends mainly, or tests for myself. I don't think my daily life is that cinematic or interesting to people on the internet. I've tried to make peace with that.

If you need the lenses to be physically large and have cinema ergonomics, then Rokinon is the only option in that budget range. However, in my personal experience, Nikon AI primes produce the more traditionally cinematic image compared to Rokinon. Rokinon has strange colors. I have a harder time color correcting Rokinon shots than Nikon ones. I remember watching Duclos tear down the 35mm and his bafflement at finding an orange lens element inside. Doesn't surprise me. It's not that they're terrible, but every time I used them it's an uncanny valley, something is off feeling about the colors. I never had issues with sharpness even wide open, especially not compared to vintage Nikons. In my opinion, follow focus gears and a step up rings make the Nikons look aesthetically like cinema lenses. If you really wanted to you could even add lens hoods or something like that. My recommendation is to stick with Nikon, save the money, and enjoy beautifully imperfect images, the best build quality out there and the ultimate adaptability.

This is all XC10. Most of it on a Ronin S. Just a home movie but it gives an idea of image quality.

Hi ! The eterna LUT is to use if you don’t have a color checker. You could actually use it before applying the color checker correction nod but there’s no point to it. For the gamma question, I can’t remember what gamma there is in Resolve. You can try gamma input « slog2 » as it’s not far from flog gamma and I usually do a blackmagic 4k gamma output as rec709 crushes everything. But most of the time, I put the same gamma Space input and output so the color checker only corrects colors and put me back to some rec709 color Space, and I adjust the gamma curve myself in another nod, so I have more control. But overall, if you don’t have to match your XT3 with other cameras, I’d suggest You apply the fuji WDR lut (the one which only affects colors, i can’t remember the exact name) so you’re back to a rec709 colorspace but with fuji’s touch. And then in another nod, you apply a custom curve. I have gorgeous results with this simple workflow. and finally, another method is to use color transform and put « gamma input flog » « color Space input rec2020 » gamma output « blackmagic 4k (same as above) » « color Space output rec709 ». There You go, 3 methods to normalize your flog image. I encourage you to use the second one if you wanna keep fuji colors.

I love slider shots. And it feels like today there is an obsession with gimbals. Honestly the shots most people do with gimbals looks boring now a days, and even when trying to keep the gimbal steady, the camera obviously looks like it’s floating. I like the look of a slider. It looks like a gimbal moving, but without the “floating in the air thing.” They aren’t used too much, and one can make beautiful camera movements with one. There is something about the camera being locked down and moving compared to a gimbal where the camera is “floating and moving.”

Perhaps it may sound like a distant reality to some, here in Chile (South America) a documentary filmmaker who made a documentary film about the Mapuche people (indigenous people), was sent to jail for 100 days, for doing that work. The state staged an imprisonment assembly, which was fortunately underrated, but the objective was to intimidate journalists to report on the problems of indigenous peoples. After these events, the people who audiovisual recorded these events, think about the possibility of using other names, to publish these events. For more information on the case, you can consult: http://www.icei.uchile.cl/noticias/elena-varela-documentalista-y-presa-politica.html

It's impossible to use CS lenses on C-mount, so it kinda have to be the other way around.

Most Rokinons I've used are nothing special wide open, but fine by f2. They have unusually even resolution across the frame. Some of them I wasn't wild about the bokeh with but it's not bad. The 50mm I understand is good even wide open. They aren't bad. Do you have the option of renting or returning what you don't like? I feel like hipsters would sneer at Rokinon and corporate clients might ask why you're using old lenses their grandfather owned if you showed up with Nikkors. I had both for a while and there is nothing terribly wrong with any of them, except my 24mm f1.4 Rokinon was soft wide open. Unpopular opinion: 28mm f1.8 EF, 50mm f1.4 EF, 85mm f1.8 EF is a really good and really affordable kit, especially used, except for the focus ring. Big but not too big. But a lot bigger than Nikkors and bigger than Contax. Consistent 58mm fronts. Fast. Good center performance. Canon-branded so they look legit. Nice build quality and durability. Not as clinical as Zeiss or Sigma, not super vintage. I don't own the 50mm f1.4, but it's based on the nFD 50mm f1.4, which I think is the best of its kind, and the other two aren't perfect, but they perform better at f1.8 to me than their Rokinon brethren and I like the look more, too. And so incredibly cheap for what they are. Like $700 used for a set of three. The 28mm f1.8 has a bad reputation but it's actually pretty good, center is perfectly sharp even wide open. The 85mm f1.8 is very good. The focus throw is short and they don't have hard stops, and that might be a deal-breaker for you or you might shoot the kind of content where it's not if you're just pulling off the barrel anyway. But other than that they're just great. Absurdly cheap for what you get. Nice and chunky, too. Well, that explains why nFDs have the smoothest focus rings I've ever used. The K35s turn yellow over time, so does the Cooke 75mm, and apparently the rare glass in the Super Baltars degrades over time, too. It's almost like an E60 M5, when you tune something as far as you can tune it, it's not built to last. Master Primes fail in extreme cold. The Iscorama plastic parts are all apparently a mess, too. Anything bespoke or over-engineered seems to have issues, but those are always the most fun and most special. Aren't M43 lenses still serviceable at least? And if rehousing changes the focus mechanism, is there a market for your 85mm? I'll ask about this issue next chance I get, but it sucks. Panchros and K35s fail too, though. And virtually every cinema lens gets haze or stiff focus rings. I have some museum quality vintage lenses and it sort of hurts just to use them or to put focus gears on them that will scratch the barrels or whatnot.

Some additional useful information here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfSRlszQxh0

It does look good! Nice price also, especially for its length. Keep us posted!

One user tested via the same method that Cinema5D does, and gave the Monstro a score of 13.4. Interestingly enough the Alexa got a similar result, but as we all know its the quality of the pixels that matter. Anyway, Monstro at 13.4...Komodo at what...13? S1H has a result of 12.7 so this will be interesting. I am assure red will be able to squeeze out more due to Redcode and their patents.

There's one on ebay from Adorama at the moment. I think it ships internationally https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zoom-F4-Multitrack-Field-Recorder-with-Timecode-6-Inputs-8-Tracks-SKU1256834/254610621129?hash=item3b47f9c2c9:g:q2gAAOSw0Yxez7qE

Can you not find any used first-generation MixPre for sale? Now that the second generation is available with 32-bit floating point, a lot of people have been selling their first-generation recorders. Having 32-bit float can be useful for location sound when level changes are unpredictable, but plenty of people managed just fine for decades without it. I'm still using a first-generation MixPre 6 and have no plans to upgrade to the new generation.

I understand the situation that you pose, I live in a country where human rights are trampled by the state, despite the visits of the UN, Amnesty International HRW, it is increasingly difficult to register these violations, the state and its police, you They chase, destroy your equipment and harass you. I am currently working on a project to denounce these acts and I am evaluating the same alternative, beyond the use of a pseudonym, it is about avoiding pressures, jail or harassment of your family. I personally believe that documentary cinema has a commitment to historical memory and is a small act of cultural resistance.

Interesting... I noticed if you search for Red DR tests similar looking images come back on Google for all their cameras. So you might be right that they’re using their own chart.

Agree with Zoom F4, but in terms of the Zoom F series the one I'd avoid is the Zoom F1. It's brilliantly small but has a number of issues that make it a dealbreaker for me: 1) there's some sort of EQ going on in the plug-in power preamp (for lav mics or other mics); it seems optimized for voice which I guess makes sense since you'd mainly use a lav mic there, but makes it near useless for recording ambient sounds with binaural or omni mics that use plug-in power. 2) Gain is set only in steps; if you want precisely controllable gain you need to buy one of the Zoom mics (shotgun, M/S, X/Y, etc.) that attach to the front of the recorder. With these, recording quality is acceptable but nothing to write home about. I bought the M/S mic but regret having sunk more money into this recorder as I only use it when I need the small size and the ability to mount on camera (which I never do unless I absolutely have to). I've been spoiled by the sound quality from the MixPre series, so the F1 spends most of its time sitting at home in a box.

"Mike Russell" 😉 Or "Justin Frame"

It does to me and would of course involve plenty of Araldite. And the complete destruction of both items.

I completely agree with all of this and echo that same experience. The worst shot that I took in a Champions League final was always ten times better subjectively to a viewer (and to me too) than the best shot I ever took in a lower league match. A man jogging along on some grass with a ball at his feet and no one within ten metres of him is a pretty dull shot unless that man was Lionel Messi and that grass was the pitch at the Camp Nou and the people that were ten metres away were part of a sell out crowd of 100,000 people. I'd also 100% agree about finding interesting subject matter away from that environment and back in the "real" world particularly for someone like me who was into self isolation way before it became mainstream. I'm partly "all the gear and no idea" when it comes to video but thanks to my somewhat, erm, challenging personality I'm mainly "plenty of lens but not many friends" so lack collaborative partners or subjects. Its unfortunate but, as you say, best to make peace with it.

An average portfolio of a full time stock footage provider consists of 5.000 to 10.000 clips on average. As @JurijTurnsek said, uploading all these clips and moving metadata on another agency will take months. And even then it will take longer than a year for these clips to start selling again. Adobe Stock and Pond5 are more contributor friendly regarding their paying schemes but Shutterstock is leading this market for the last 10 years through aggressive marketing. As i said i am not directly affected by this as i have a tiny collection but i always considered this market as a great side job for content creators especially now that the market has taken a big hit and almost every summer shooting session is cancelled. This is one of those changes that are taking place in total silence (i guess major news portals won’t even report this as Shutterstock sponsors all of them) even though millions of people are affected. They even delete commends on Twitter and Facebook as content creators are furious and their only chance to be heard is through social media.

DR looks very impressive next to Helium https://www.facebook.com/625665414/posts/10157378019065415/?d=n&substory_index=0

One of the things that I have read time and again is that creative people need to form a "personal brand" and then stick to that brand. I've read this in the context of photography, film-making, music, art, and others. I get why that's the advice that's given (people go to mcdonalds to get something familiar and reliable, not the best food or the most experimental new ideas) as that's how people want to get sold to, but from a creative perspective it's ridiculous. The reason I mention this is that, naturally, many successful creative people get around this by having lots of pseudonyms which all have different brands. To certain extent what you're talking about is having a duplicate brand, which comes with all the overheads of maintaining that brand. Also, you're talking about being distanced from that as a person (in terms of blacklisting etc) which I guess can range from obfuscation to deliberately hiding your identity. I have no idea how you would film a doco and hide your real name to the point that a government couldn't find out who you are, but I guess if you want something badly enough then sure. To me I guess the question is if the costs are worth it, and only you can really weigh up that equation.

I like the XC-10 as a concept. But it needed a sequel. I would caution against bothering with it in 2020. Far better results can be had by putting the Fuji 18-135mm on an X-T4. Neil Matsumoto did a great review of the XC10. Have a look at the cons... https://***URL removed***/reviews/crossing-the-bridge-canon-xc10-review No Dual Pixel AF on the XC10. I found the AF to be very hesitant in 4K. It did have a decent 1080/60p mode with very capable stabilisation in that mode, but the stabilisation in 4K was nowhere near as impressive, and far less impressive than an X-T4 in 2020. Detail in 4K is a bit scratchy. Looks pixel binned even though it isn't. Low light is quite poor and stills are JPEG only. No RAW mode of any sort!! The screen is nice but the loupe a bit daft and blocks the controls. No EVF. The ND filter is quite weak, so in sunlight you need to add extra which defeats the whole point of the built in one :) Also the lens is quite slow especially at long end. But it was a concept that deserved a bigger effort from Canon and it never got it! Bit like 1D C didn't! So yeah - X-T4 a way better shot getter, with much larger S35 sensor, and optics in a different league. Ergonomically and with regards 5 axis IBIS it's also a lot nicer to use than the XC-10. The AF is far better, which is important for run & gun.

Now I have to go trolling for models again! I always feel like I'm cheating on my wife when I do that. Its even worse when the girls are interested in more than just modeling. You can turn down a meal or a drink, but turning down advances from women can get you killed or at the least, incorrectly thought of as gay, (with all due respect to the LGBTQ community 🌈 😃).

That's tough. While I understand your wish for privacy and security, what made you choose to make that doc? We all don't have a name until some of us do. Do you plan on working on other docs? Maybe use your name under initials ou just first name and the first letter of your last name? That's a difficult decision and managing another identity must also be challenging. I guess you must decide how much of that security risk is enough to make you keep your identity a secret. Because that could be a decision for the long run.

Not always true though, depending what you're doing. For instance, say you're filming a pottery instructor and you know you'll be cutting her 45 minute presentation down to a 3 minute video. you better stop filming her talking along the way and get plenty of close up shots of the throw wheel, hands, or her students looking on... Its all part of the craft. Knowing what to shoot and when. That said, I've hired plenty of people to shoot stuff for my projects and when I review the footage I'm like, "what the hell man!" That said, I've been the shooter for plenty of my projects and when I review the footage I'm like, "what the hell man!"

Absolutely not! Even an external monitor is a big no for me, never mind a gimbal or sliders or anything that isn’t; a body, a lens, something it can stand up on it’s own. The end. I am a strict one man stealth ninja band. Most weddings/guests don’t realise I am shooting video and that’s the way I like it. I am under no illusions that I am filming a mooovie. Anyone who does at a wedding is delusional. I do call it filmmaking in my spiel to clients but only because I do want them to think of what I do as something a bit more considered than the stereotype of a ‘wedding video’ and partly because I do actually consider what I am doing with at least a nod to cinematography. Intent-wise at least. My priorities are simple: 1: has to be transported and operated by one person (me) and alongside any/all stills photography gear and capture. 2: has to be able to happen at the same time as photography, hence which it needs to be on either a freestanding monopod (clips) or tripod (ceremony/speeches). 3: has to be 4K 60p (to punch in, level horizons, warp stabilise if needs be) because so much of my end result is slowed in post. If anything, I’d go even smaller and when I saw this new Sony announced yesterday, having used a 100v before, I thought for a nanosecond “maybe...” but then the reality of no 4K 60p and Toneh f7000 kicked in. Losers. XT3 is for my specific needs my favoured current option and I think more than good enough. I am interested in the XT4 as a pure stills machine. I am always interested in getting the best/a better output simply for my own amusement but the reality is, at this level, the kit is already good enough so the biggest difference is the operator.

I bet RED could sell a camera with nothing but a price tag! Without a single spec released, and they'd still find RED fanboys who want the honor to be first in line to buy one Waiting for the RED Scarlet MX bodies to be given away for free on eBay. We're almost there.

Not really, camera manufactures like Blackmagic are very close to making something that really doesn't need anything additional besides like you said maybe a mic. One of Fuji's lower end cameras had a 1000 nit LCD, hopefully we'll see it in the XH2. The GH5 is nice of course, I've owned one twice before. No dual ISO though. The S1H is really close to being pretty much perfect. Once Panasonic gets internal RAW they will be on top in terms of usability, other than AF. But yeah I get it, no excuses, every option is pretty great nowadays.

Yes, video is very hard. The difference between, for instance, wedding video and photography is almost ridicilous. I have seen photographers literally just burst firing away at the wedding cake whilst moving the camera. One of those 30 pics should be alright, not? And if not, you just crop and enhance the 30 MP 14-bit raw image until it looks good, with a bunch of downloaded Lightroom presets. Also, the shooting is done on auto iso, auto focus, auto shutter speed, etc. The difference couldnt be greater. No audio, no capturing complete stories or scenes, no camera movement, no keeping the focus, no 'shit people might move in front of my camera soon', just recompose and burst away. And yet they earn the same or more. And girls drool over them. The last one was a joke. But not really. But then, lets talk about actual film making. I just finished my first feature film script. Jesus christ, i have a lot of respect for writers now. What a task, to do it properly. And it's never finished. There is always room for improvement. Of course I wrote something that needs a big production budget and a lot of visual effects... Impossible to pull of without major funding or a production company. But then, i will probably not be given the chance to direct. Difficult. But working on proper film productions is the only way forward. No more messing around with cheap and soap like short films. Or test video's. Cat video's. Travel video's. They were interesting when i started out, but also because camera's were just getting better and content was interesting just because it was shot with a certain camera. Those days are over. Every modern camera looks good. Its a done deal. Also, there a literally millions and millions of video's online now who do the same thing. Everyone seems to do the same. Billions of GB's of test video's, flowers with shallow dof, their girlfriend in slowmo in the park, their last holiday with a cheese voice over to make it look like there is a narrative, city shots without meaning, etc. I cannot look at it anymore. It's the 'easy' version of film making. You point your expensive big sensor camera at random stuff and expect that people will want to watch your 'film'. There is no story, no narrative. Also not when you add a voice over in post. Or music you ripped from another youtube video. Yes i am very harsh. Also on myself. I want to make real films. I am talented, but i'm not sure i have enough of it. And i will ever make the high end narrative stuff that i appreciate from selective other people. And... If i will ever fully enjoy it. Because film making is indeed hard. Long, exhausting days on the set. The stress. The constant 'will this even work'. But, when you finally do create something which has story, performance and production value and it all comes together and actually does work, it is the most beatiful form of art that exists. When you blow the audience or your clients away, in retrospect it was all worth it. Or was it?

I already posted this in a proper thread in the "footage" sub-forum. But I want to add it to this collection here as well. My passion project "The Night Knows No Shore" shot with a Canon FD 85mm 1.8 and an Iscorama pre-36.

Fuji's own 18-55mm F2.8-4 is a great lens for the money but the Sigma is even better and more versatile in my book. A nice bit longer at the telephoto end. A bit wider too. Much better macro. More versatile. Fits more cameras. Goes on a Micro Four Thirds Speed Booster as well, where it just about has 1.3x crop covered. I would keep it on the X-T4 though and not the older Fuji cameras as the AF seems FAR better on X-T4 vs my X-Pro 2. On the older ones I'd use Fuji's own lenses. Also you need the Fringer adapter. The cheaper ones don't do it for me. So far anyway. Firmware may change things later. Speaking of zooms... The Sigma Fp got married today To a Russian She is 37-140 dress size. F=fit. Ex husband is Tarkovsky. And she loves the Fp because IBIS is useless with manual focus zoom lenses. So here it will be a case of the lost art of sticking it on a tripod like Tarkovsky.

And RED has been proven to often lie....

Didn't wanna make a new thread for just memes.. ??