Leaderboard

Every now and then I stumble upon something that it useful from a film / cinema / video / technique education perspective. Maybe you do too. Let's share them here. To start, here's a course I've just started watching, it's an MIT film and cinema history course, which (so far) appears to be the videotaped lectures. The presenter is very passionate and lectures seem to be quite engaging. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/literature/21l-011-the-film-experience-fall-2013/index.htm

I'm talking about the C200 here and I'm not sure about the C100mk1. Just check the user manual and official canon resources. The recommended "native" ISO values are there. Get the info from the source, not just a bunch of nobodies on forums (including me!). In one of the Canon papers they also show the distribution of DR in highlights and shadows based on the ISO. Basically, my understanding is that lower than native ISO will give you less noise but also less DR. More than the difference between ISO 800 and 400 in log 2, I don't shoot in log low light. I stick to WDR for that (which again, is not a log curve). Log 1 is also acceptable as it was designed for 8 bits capture. Usually, low light situation doesn't come with the need for great DR capture. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks, and yes I love the files as well.

Hey guys, I started livestreaming on my channel - anamorphic on a budget, you're not familiar - and I'm doing a Helios 44 anamorfake next Wednesday at 11:30am PST. I'm giving away the resulting mod at the end of the process to someone in the stream, so there's a chance you can walk away with a fresh lens on the way. I'd love to see a bunch of you there. I'm answering questions there too, so if you got something to ask, that's a good chance!

Ok, so I did some digging in my canon resources. First I need to correct the IRE values I gave you earlier. Here is the exposure for 18% grey recommended by Canon, these values are indicated in this great paper for the C300mk2 but I saw similar values for the C200: C-log 1 = 34% IRE C-log 2 = 39% IRE C-log 3 = 34% IRE I think C-log 2 is only available by default when shooting Canon raw with the C200 but there is no C-log 2 for 8 bits recording on the C200 which makes sense considering how "aggressive" c-log 2 is. Personally, I have no shame to revert to non log curve on some cameras because shooting with aggressive log curve on many 8 bits cameras is a non-sense (eg. S-log 3 on sony, D-log on earlier 60mpbs 4k DJI drone, etc.). I see too many people selecting C-log no matter what because it's "Pro" or "better"... This is plain stupidity if you can't nail the exposure (eg. uncontrolled environment outside) or don't have advanced grading skills. Don't forget that you can apply LUT directly to the LCD screen if you prefer to expose "visually" as judging exposure on the screen in Log can be tricky and it might be the reason why you underexposed in the first place. Indeed, on the screen, Log footage looks brighter which is why you should stick to a reference (grey card and IRE value, X value for certain type of skin-tone, or ballpark estimate on the EV indicator). Also, as far as the colors and look goes, check the "Color Matrix" in the Custom picture/HDR menu (where you set the gamma). Here you must understand how it works with the C200. There are basically 2 options to select the gamma curve: #1. Select one of the presets (Off, BT.709 (WDR), C-log, C-log 3), here the gamma curve and associated color matrix are grey out and they are locked inside the preset with these settings (screenshots from the C200 user manual) #2. Leave preset OFF, then the gamma and color matrix are not grey out and you can choose the combination you want. Notice from the table above how C-log 3 uses the neutral color matrix whereas C-log 1 uses the "Cinema EOS Original" which is a color profile designed to match colors across the EOS camera board (eg. C100, C300, etc.). You may want to play with that if you are not satisfied with the color and overall rendering. Finally, you can also tune the colors in the "other settings" option in the CP/HDR menu. Cheers

Take it with a grain of salt, BUT despite the clickbaity title (which is totally intentional), it's a solid piece of advice and shows how a professional DP tackles basic color grading.

Levi Allen just posted a great video on his entire workflow using 360 video, but he also goes into his philosophy for using 360 footage in a 'cinematic' edit and talks about things like shot variety, cutting it up with different cameras to provide context, and other artistic choices. His overall approach was to use it as a camera that can get shots you couldn't get otherwise, but beyond that to just frame up a shot and stick with it, so the fact it's a 360 camera is kind of not that obvious, because it becomes a gimmick if you use it too much or make it too obvious.

Cool discussion so far, and a few notes from me: like @PannySVHS says - first one so who cares! Congrats for getting the gig, shooting it, getting an edit together and publishing. It takes more guts than people think to actually get things done and get them out into the world than people think, so total respect for that. I'm completely out of touch with what is in style these days (actually, who am I kidding, I was never in touch with it lol) but I can say I definitely enjoyed it, the song was great and your video seemed to match. What I mean by that is that you had a concept (daydream), you had a style (kind of retro vibe), you made framing and editing decisions, and the band made a bunch of decisions when writing the song, and for me they all matched. As someone who has learned a lot by just shooting many projects, I can give some thoughts on how to get better and develop your style.. which is to work out what worked well and what could be improved next time, and the three sources of that information should be the client, the target audience, and you. I'd suggest that you concentrate on only one or two major things to improve before your next project. Obviously little things can be addressed, but if you focus on too many things then firstly you're not focussing, and secondly you'll get depressed about how many things could be improved and you're less likely to do another one. So pick a few things that worked really well, and one or two things to work on, and actively try to include them in your next one. My last thought is just to say that you should do as many projects as you can. There are a bunch of things that we only learn by doing over and over and after a while certain patterns will reveal themselves and we'll understand that something we do in prep has a certain impact in post. Great stuff!!

C100 and C200 are pretty different in my experience. Not sure what to make of it, but the C100 has +5.3 stops of highlight dynamic range at base (850 ISO). C200 has +6.3 at base (800 ISO). So for the C200 maybe the best way to get an image closer to the C100 is shooting 400 ISO where the highlights will be similar. How are you metering? Since most of us are just metering by eye the ISO setting feels kind of irrelevant relative to how we expose, or at least can only be discussed in that context. I found the cameras to be completely different. Totally different looks, totally different ergonomics, totally different workflows.

Not sure about the C100mk2 but lower ISO should give you less noise in general (at the expense of DR). Also, optimal ISO for C-log 1 is 400. So: ISO 400 for C-log 1 and WDR ISO 800 for C-log 3 I'm not sure about the ISO for C-log 2 but I would say it's 800 (to be confirmed)

hahaha. Just doin it for the love! (I'm the dude with the glasses btw). I didn't really set out to make this thing I just shot and it happened. Lenses on E2 +MBXL: nFD taking lenses - 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2.8, 200mm f4 Anamorphic: ISCO s8. Rapido FVD8A variable diopter. (There's also a couple of shots of the yellow rail and kicker which were taken with el-nikkor 50mmf4 and Kowa8). Lenses on GH5 + MBXL (housing shots mostly): nFD 24mm f2 Sony 1.33x anamorphic Drone and Action Cam: Hero 7 Mavic

@tweak, some crazy ass rebels infront and behind that camera! Hard to believe. What was your taking lens?

Yeah, I mean a camera is a camera. The F3 is a lot easier to get to a nice point color wise though. A bmpcc 4k or something can look good in the right hands as well, it just takes a lot more post work / experience in my opinion. Flat film scans are probably the easiest format to grade.

Have you done any grading other than applying a LUT? I was underwhelmed by the .mp4 files from the C200 but didn't find them quite this noisy, I found raw lite noisier. How did you expose these shots? The log files do look dark. Try black balancing and see if it helps a bit. I had the same experience with the C100 having more noise (and a stop less highlight detail) but nicer noise texture, at least with an external recorder. I found the C100 noisy when I exposed properly, more so than the C200, but the look was nicer when it was. Made me focus more on aesthetics and less on specs (or even lab tests) but with a camera that has gobs of dynamic range as the C200 has, it's easy to expose incorrectly, too. And then the noise reveals itself in post.

Don't forget to SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON! & hit the bell notification!

Tom posted a follow-up to the above, with the results, and also the under/over exposure tests. I did it blind and picked the P6K first, with the UMP second. Interestingly, I chose based upon the colours, and the strange green tint from the Alexa and the awful strange everything colours of the RED made them get third and last places, respectively. The more I grade, the more I care about good colour and the associated art department choices (which obviously aren't a factor here) and less about the resolution or whatever else of the camera. The sharpness of the P6K doesn't phase me as I know I could soften it in post, or on set with lenses and filters. Considering that the Alexa has been used by other people to get good colours once or twice before we know it's possible and the camera isn't fundamentally flawed... yes, I'm kidding of course. I don't even think he botched the WB. It's very odd how the colours were rendered, and strange that the RED also shared some of the bad colours from the Alexa. Regardless, seems the image from the P6K holds up pretty well, and the over exposure highlight rolloff didn't look too much worse than the Alexa, of course with the under-exposure shadows being much superior due to lower noise levels.

I hope they don't succumb to the same mistake Z Cam did in this situation, and JVC puts out a Global Shutter camera.

All I want is the perfect camera. All I want is the perfect cameraaaah!

Hi folks... I got a GX85 a few months ago. There's a few quirky things about it that I find odd. Since this thread is really about external mics I won't go into them here. 1. Thanks to BTM-Pix I now have the service manual 2. I;m an avid modder of all sorts of things 3. I had been using a Panasonic point and shoot for years before getting the GX85. I was astounded at the poor sound quality of the GX85. It's noisy, there's always hissing noise, etc. Not very good microphones and you are stuck with them. 4. Looking at the service manual, I have a pretty good idea what to do and where to add an external mic jack. 5. My camera will get taken apart soon to see what I can do to add a mic jack.

I'm in the same place. The ability to go to 20 is huge! A friend bought the sigma 10-20mm 3.5 years ago when I bought the 11-16mm and the ability to get to 20 made me really envious of that lens. It makes a huge difference to be able to go from Ultrawide to just wide. They 11-20's are getting so cheap now too that I'm sure I'll buy one over the course of the next year or so, but for now the 11-16 has just been so good to me I have no reason to change it. If I start shooting something a bit more run and gun the 11-20 would be on my short list of things to buy

Pity there is no SDI and no loop through.

Keep checking, I got really damn lucky on a PIX-E7 and PIX-LR, which I absolutely cannot live without now (The giant meters are now invaluable for me for monitoring audio while shooting) and if I spot another one for cheap I will probably buy it as a backup. Sorry I never responded to the 4:4:4 question, yes you can output 4:4:4 and record 4:2:2 (At least, I know it works on my PIX-E7) and I really do recommend doing this. Stills from some recent interviews.

There is an ARRI Alexa Classic (with High Speed license) for only US$5K on eBay right now: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Arri-Alexa-Classic-Camera-High-Speed-Ready-To-Shoot-Package-w-Case-600-Ship/174312729518 That's because they hadn't used the Mini before. But once they had, the Mini became their default. The only ARRI shoots I've worked on during the last couple of years which were not Mini shoots was because they were low budget stuff which couldn't afford the rental rate for a Mini so used a different ARRI instead.

Yeah that extra 4mm is really significant for an UWA lens. Is nice to know that if I changed from say the 18-35mm over to a 11-20mm, that if I had a change of heart about the FoV and wanted to go back to 18mm (or even 20mm) that I could do this without having to waste time on yet another lens change! So I do really want the 11-20, but then again my 11-16 still "does the job" so I'm not spending any extra money at the moment for now

i do like the images your getting. How did you cut the glass ? i'm guessing a diamond blade on a 5 inch grinder ? By the way you should enroll that kid in drama classes you've got a budding actress on your hands 😀

The images out that camera looks incredible! I don’t know too much about this specific model, but after seeing those images I’m going to do some research. Truly wonderful images!

yeah cool idea, I did cut the HI FI 2 and the 35Nap to 70mm diameter to fit inside the FVD, then used both front glass and mixed with other rear glass. Among the pictures I posted above you can see the 1.75X still which is a mix of the 35Nap and Moller 46 rear and the HI fi 2 front mixed with the rectimascop 48, fixed at infinity with the single focus ability. Quick focus video test of the Hi FI 2 front with the rectimascop 48.

I really enjoyed using this setup. I work for a studio that has a pair of the C300 Mk2s and I really got used to having something that was really compact and easy to use. I should have shot more projects with this camera. I could run the camera and monitor for around 2 hours from one Swit battery. I would love to see this camera with some Leica Rs or high quality PL glass.

You are right, I am not a pro (yet 😄 ) so I will wait to see how the situation evolve... but I will have an eye on the next canon bodies, because half of my lenses are EF. As you said, image and ergos are so good, and Sigma will surely announce more lenses, so waiting may be a good thing. The camera has no problem other than that (ah, yes, the sd card door... feels unfinished, as many have reported, but I fixed it by using a smallrig cage eheh). Oh, and on the photo side, because I use it for 50/50, it is a pure joy also !

FYI, there's an interesting discussion about "native white balance" on the BMMCC sensor here: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=114403 The upshot appears to be that if you set the WB on the BMMCC to 5500 and shoot at ISO 800 (the native ISO for this camera), you have as much latitude in ProRes HQ for adjusting WB and exposure as you would if you shot in raw. I haven't tried this myself but I have noticed that ProRes HQ files have plenty of latitude for WB and exposure adjustment anyway, but I'm normally shooting in daylight so this might explain why I've experienced so much flexibility.

Great I hadn't even heard of that 17-35 Zeiss and now I want one BAD. Also given it's performance and lack of vinyette maybe it would work mounted on the GFX100 andrew?

It would be nice if they could release a 0.58x speed booster for Hasseblad lenses to Sony E mount.

If you want to know about Toneh and other useful insight in the relativity of it all, don’t forget this channel: I especially like the insider/management meetings he does 🙂 There are a few great ones about Sony and Canon...

Please follow those who deserve it! High quality info... Mattias Burling (Youtube) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgVwlIabrL100C9_6vyM9-g Hollywood's HotRodCameras Cam Noir podcast http://camnoir.com/the-cinematography-podcast/ Marques Brownlee https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBJycsmduvYEL83R_U4JriQ Tito Ferradans anamorphic https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8nvNpXmCZmg_YJFkrQsryw Neumann Films https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHC7WKecm42ptBmWM-FWv6g Dave Maze https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFyIEjsL3T-Bn5xZEKYVvqw Dave Dugdale https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpPnsOUPkWcukhWUVcTJvnA Micro Four Nerds https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAu6iO8En48gGBcEzoUl-sA Y.M. Cinema https://ymcinema.com Theoria Apophasis (Nikon and Fuji shooter) https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom Jonas Rask Photography https://jonasraskphotography.com Fuji Love https://fujilove.com Sigma's own blog and the CEO Kazuto Yamaki himself on Twitter https://twitter.com/KazutoYamaki Steve Huff https://www.stevehuffphoto.com Neil Matsumoto at Panasonic (Blog) https://www.panasonicvisualsystems.com/industries/broadcast/8kroi And many more... sorry to the ones I forgot to mention from top of my head. I am going to do a proper list later. It is not about the number of friends you have in life. It's about the quality.

Portkeys LEYE 2.4” HDMI looks interesting:

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar. I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.