Leang

  lol.  are you referring to the 1's 400fps?  most people aren't afraid to call it ''lower resolution!''

  No way dude, but most things around here are subjective innit.  Logan shot in daylight, interior, night, and no to mention proper graded it himself.   Tbh, most pro DSLR music video kats could shoot night time scenes with a 1.4 ..  :P   some nice hover shots though.  cool stuff

  these things all depend on the project (playback) settings from whatever NLE you're rocking which is separate from the sequence settings.  You say you want to use some 60p footage for slow mo, but not all of it?  Whichever rate you plan to record the interviews should be the fundamental sequence.  Priority is lip sync especially if you want to do 23.97.  All  other footage is exempt from 100% conformity once your render out.  Personally I'd continue to shoot at 60p for the 30fps publish...

APS-C sensors are atheist.

unless it's super industrial grade mechanism, you're not gonna see 60fps still capture on such bodies. this is the benefit of mirrorless tech.  forgot to particularly mention RAW camera.

    I agree with the point, maybe not $10K.  but more specifically the attention of 1 sec RAW burst mode of stills is a different (ballgame) protocol than H.264 video capture.  

of course the majority cannot afford new generation electronics, so it's easier to dismiss it with the same theory as when overpriced Plasma's first came out or HDTV.  when it's affordable it becomes the standard...not ''it's irrelevant, or you can't see the difference.''  ask anybody in pro media if you can see a difference in workflow between Apple's Macbook Retina displays vs. Macbooks from 3 years ago.   the biggest irony is when people suggest ''you can't see a difference'' and dismiss the ever growing nano tech in all forms of electronics.  personal choice, from whatever standard that may be, shouldn't be mixed with the way electronics are heading.  you'd think pro's would acknowledge that and take advantage.  kind of like the intro of open source app markets.  anyhow, looks like the BBC has some initiatives for themselves with Ultra HD if I'm not mistaken

the Japanese and Koreans probably feel sad for the west as they're on a whole different agenda!

Sony Vegas Pro 12 can easily open the sequence, and even at previewing the sequence in Draft - Quarter mode the image still looks amazing. At the current rate, I wouldn't worry about ''grading.'' The V1 already provides amazing images, depending on the experienced head who's exposing correctly with the right profile. Surely in 32-bit mode the RAW sequence has more color depth control than in 8-bit mode, however with the amount of data already within the images you can ''grade'' just fine and still get amazing results. I had problems in 32-bit mode in Vegas as it becomes a bit unstable during render or linking to Premiere CS6, but in 8-bit mode it's easy to render. Unfortunately Vegas no longer supports DPX or still image sequence renders. I don't know why they took that out. Looking forward to solely work in AE and Twixtor with this. So far these 1 sec edits are really unimpressive, or imo just too limiting.

what the average size of a raw burst mode sequence?

Pretty generalized statement, so I'll second that and say that "British Filmmaking" isn't your strong point, Reid. Compared to my background from yours is no "speculation" either. Know better than to insult PEOPLE directly as many of you here do vs. generic debate. Follow Philip Bloom's advice and shoot material that matters before describing some make believe authority. You should lock the thread as others have mentioned. Mixed opinions are normal, and let's be realistic and acknowledge others in filmmaking, especially those on your site that have evidence of work, or is that not good enough for you personally? Sorry if I offend others but anybody can read that I'm just for the Oscar and move on. Don't be so analytical about it or insult others directly. I guess Doyle is God in this thread and Miranda knows nothing about the process and VFX heads have all the right answers (regarding the topic). For those forum haters on me directly let me just say that I love you guys so much I think I'll go roller blade in circles near a green screen and sing.

that's cute.

You're saying R&H only had/has/have five clients worldwide? You're making it a big deal in understanding several positions to help acquire more business. Doesn't R&H provide commercial work services for let's say the many ad agencies? Or are R&H only exclusively in filmmaking to these 5 companies you mention with penalties for more business? Am I understand you right? weird shit if you ask me. I guess we should be thankful projects like Life of Pi provide such work...

do you think this masterpiece would have had the same fate had Doyle or any other shot it, and if many think yes, would that be "pure speculation?". its normal to fumble a ball

. Yeah you know an individual that works at a company that's responsible for "spreading the word" about their company to obtain new customers and clients. If you're telling me these tandardized protocols don't exist then no wonder VFX houses are going under! Lol.

  A lot pros in the VFX sector of course are going to love this sensitive gossip.  Of course the Academy is going to shut down a commercial speech from a post house that's having financial issues.  Think about the politics!?  Imagine how many post houses would start an even bigger fiasco towards the Academy for letting R&H promote themselves because they're having financial issues.  The Academy did the right thing an being neutral towards the situation.  Yes it's sad, VFX workers getting downsized, but that's not the Academy's fault.  It's  whoever's managing sales and marketing at said post houses.  There's more revenue in commercials so to blame the ''film'' industry is stupid.  R&H won an Oscar.  That's a huge win for that house.  Now it's time to flaunt it again and go stronger with past, current and new clients.     Regarding Doyle he's got nothing to lose since most of his treasured work is overseas and patronizing American culture in which 'Lincoln' has no real American historic value...or is he sub textually hating on the cinematography for that as well because it was shot on film...these are all ''who knows?''  could have ''Lady In The Water'' been visually better had Miranda approached it?  Who knows...   What's the point of talking about dynamic range or raw in the digital domain - camera's that strive for the film look - and then dismiss its ''processing'' technology by simply stating that the real ''crafting'' is in post.  My point is the DoP, lighting and the camera.  I personally loved the look of Tron on the big screen because that's what I expected it to be since I also loved the original.   I think the problem starts with people thinking that lighting schemes are all the same.  This is why I mentioned earlier that gaffers are dope.   But there are even better Oscar politics and gossip such as when Brando was being the pimp that he was!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QUacU0I4yU

I guess all fortune 500 CEO's or lower executive officers must literally walk into other departments so that the company's general employees don't post on forums and complain that their executive officers aren't "printing" the important documents that drive the company...

  Is this your philosophy as to how Directors like Ang Lee work?  Because we're specifically talking about ''Life of Pi.''   Do you have a clip or name of the project you're referring to?

I'd go for the Shure MX150 second hand on ebay, and second option the AT Pro70 brand new.  They sound great and amazing for the price!  For M43 Macro's it's best to consult with others.  I'm still confused about us mentioning ''voice overs.''  The reason why I mentioned ''voice over'' was because we don't see any talking heads in the video.  Therefore if your initial storyboarding didn't have shots for talking heads then it would have been better to approach it as a table top voice over which would sound really pro.  Speaking of which, maybe one last investment for your mic kit would be a medium to large diaphragm condenser mic and an audio interface.  You can buy a cheap $10 desktop mic stand and sit across from your subject on a table and record the interview.  It's all cool stuff to learn and master.   However, in the meantime the original t-stand setup I mentioned will do justice.  try it and you'll hear a difference.   B)

You also have a nice framing aesthetic for machinery.  Maybe down the line get a Macro for your GH3 on sewing detail.  think about that!   ;)

  Not at all.  Your current mic kit is nice.  The more mics you have the better, plus you're rocking Sennheiser and Rode.  Don't get confused, again omni lavs are more beneficial and practical when actors are engaged or when heads are engaged conversing in different directions since the consistency pickup is safe.  I only mentioned uni because if it's a stiff talking head it would pick up less noise than the current omni.  Don't worry about it so much.  In fact forget I said for now.  It's more important you practice the t-stand setup I mentioned and use your boom mic if you do not plan to show talking heads in your storyboard.     ?

Good stuff Blanche.  Here's some audio tips from an audiophile.  B)   First off for talking head framing in docu's I prefer uni lavs since usually your subject is always facing a consistent direction and not so much moving their neck around...most likely always to the direction of the interviewer.  So your uni lav pattern will be focused towards the chin whereas the omni lav's pattern is going to pick up more room presence as its intended to.  Of course most real world scenarios in acting or news you can't be restricted to a static neck position which is why it's mainly used.   Can I assume the Zoom was strapped onto your subject with the lav, and your Sennheiser connected to the cam?   If you plan to do a similar edit again with no talking head cuts then it's to your full advantage to record audio at the closest proximity.  For this sort of docu framing forget about shoe mounting your Sennheiser to the cam.  Instead buy a cheap $20 t-stand for your 400 MKE and position it to the lips of your subject (court room style) as close as possible and strap the Zoom recorder to the stand.  You can now move the mic setup anywhere in the room at full control knowing the frame and avoiding noise as much as possible.  Voice over narration should be a priority if you don't plan on showing any talking heads.  Also, notice your close ups for machinery.  Do the exact same thing with the t-stand setup pointing the 400 MKE to the machine just barely out of frame.  Approach it the way a foley artist attacks challenges.   Good luck Blanche.  Looking forward to your next docu.   If you need advice I'm more than happy to give.  

  Mauro Fiore ASC - B.A. from Columbia College Chicago (Avatar) Oscar Janusz Kaminski ASC - B.A. from Columbia College Chicago - 2 Oscars

there's a 1 sec comp over at vimeo for you V1 holders

  nor does your camera work.