Policar

Following up, the most useless feedback you'll get is from online audiences, unless you're specifically trying to make what they're trying to make and doing it better than them. The best advice you'll get is from an ignorant audience. The second best is from masters of their craft. Online know-it-alls combine the worst of both worlds. Spielberg doesn't give director's commentaries. That bad photographer with an afro won't shut the hell up. Here I go spouting nonsense online instead of working. Inadvertently proving my own point.

Your last post reminded me of this: http://channel101.wikia.com/wiki/Story_Structure_106:_Five_Minute_Pilots That whole series is worth reading. Word-for-word it's the best advice on story structure available online. The only competition is the Save the Cat beat sheet, but that requires some context and is specific to selling a feature-length "Hollywood" genre spec script, and less applicable to telling a story in any medium. So Harmon's guide is a better place to start, especially for shorts and episodic content. Fwiw, Tiny Furniture–shot on a 7D–launched a major career for a storyteller and nothing posted here ever will. It also launched a major DP's career. There's already an entire industry devoted to production value and a lot of great cameras and technicians if you can afford them–and so the ability to get decent production value cheaply is far less interesting than the ability to tell a story, especially once budgets surpass $100k. And so those who are getting blood from a stone will only continue to get more stones to milk–unless they develop an eye that's more aesthetic than technical or a voice as a storyteller. But those are more terrifying skills to tackle since there's no test chart to quantify them. And there is money in corporate and in post–where technical polish is more valuable. But even then you'll only rise above the noise floor once you can carry a signal. Sure, Fincher is a genius technician. That's inseparable from his storytelling skill. But if you could separate it, it wouldn't be worth much on its own. Also: excellent observation on result vs method acting and result vs process direction, regardless of the quality of the performances above. Check out (but don't slavishly adhere to, especially when working with experienced professional actors, who do much of the work themselves) Judith Weston's book Directing Actors. Or the first few chapters. Ironically she's a bit too prescriptive, though, given that her advice is not to be. That said, this isn't a filmmaking or storytelling forum. You're smart, you should realize this immediately. This forum exists specifically for hobbyists to try to get the best image possible from lower end consumer gear through technical tricks and gizmos. Is there value to that? Sure. But if you're stuck with a cheap dSLR looking for the best image, you could spend your effort looking for a new LUT, a new vintage lens, a weird camera hack, etc. Or you could spend the same effort developing a pitch and networking and creating a story that attracts talent and money. In both cases, you'll end up with a better image. In one case, best case scenario it'll be a slightly sharper dSLR image you can use to shoot your friend's wedding (or whatever parts are in focus and not dropping frames from whatever weird anamorphic raw video hack you've employed), in the other it'll be a legitimate crew and high end gear being used as a secondary tool to tell a story. But you know this isn't a filmmaking or storytelling forum. It's a technical forum. So it comes across as trolling when you criticize anything but technical skill (or what's perceived to be technical skill by a narrow-minded audience–usually the best barometer is either the best-informed eye or the least-informed). Really it's just irrelevant. The audience here is after tips and tricks to get a better image cheap–and that can be valuable, too, in its own by. But it isn't after storytelling. Are you? Back when I was shooting 4x5 I met a technician from Polaroid and showed him my fancy lenses. He said–nice lenses, but are you going to use them to take photos, or is your interest the lenses themselves. My interest was the lenses themselves. I spent money on landscape lenses rather than a trip to Yellowstone. I have some really sharp chromes of my backyard that no one will ever look at. They were really fun to shoot, though. And that's the thing. You're going to get nowhere–except to dead ends–unless you follow your interests. And while storytelling seems like a nobler goal than GH2 hacks, there's a market for both. This site caters to the GH2 crowd. If you're lucky enough to be interested in storytelling, you should look for that crowd. Maybe someone in it owns an Alexa (and ideally knows how to use it, too!).

A7S is a stunner in low light, but AF is really poor for stills compared with the 5D Mark III at least, which is my reference for "good" AF. I wouldn't push the 5D Mark II past 800 ISO for motion unless I was okay with things getting splotchy or 3200 on the Mark III. A7S I would push to 20,000 without worry. It's nuts. If you can tolerate dodgy AF a used A7S will really blow anything away. Better low light than Alexa, Red (well, so anything is better for low light than Red), C300, F5, etc. and not by a small margin.

I didn't like the F5 when I used it, but it has good specs. Rent before you buy. I prefer the original C300 Mk to it. It might be much better after firmware updates.

Since you basically have a K35 cinema zoom modified for a 2/3" sensor, the 3x crop mode could be perfect. If you can get infinity focus, etc.

Even then it's not about user base, it's about style. Super speeds look like less S4s than a lot of Canon lenses do. But sure, it makes a difference. It's just not the biggest factor 9 times out of ten. If you can afford to rent at that level and hire a DP at that level it does make a difference, sure. Anyhow, in my experience nothing touches the Amira for high end corporate. The A7S is a weird camera and spectacular in low light, but if you can light for its more limited dynamic range I recommend the C300 over the rest as the skin tones are nice and I find the Canon CX00 series excel as Alexa b cams, despite the somewhat different color. The rolloff and skintones are compatible and arguably Canon has nicer skintones. I haven't used the FS7 but I believe it has a similar sensor and colorspace to the F5, and I find the F5 to have a pretty bad look but it does have a stop more detail in the highlights. The Amira is hardest to screw up.

I don't see it. The "look" of lenses is subtle, so much so that I recently confused Summiluxes on a project I'm posting on for S4s, and I normally can tell. (The bokeh and lack of distortion should have been a sign, but it was a short spot in relatively deep focus.) What makes the difference is the lighting and compositions. A lot of Nikon and Canon glass (and Leica glass) has been rehoused–even by Panavision–and used on major features. When I shot Canon glass against Angenieux higher end zooms the biggest difference was mechanics and the second biggest was actually a quite major advantage in the Angenieux wide open. That said the skill-set of a videographer and a photographer are closer-matched, so the correlation does exist between those favoring photo gear and giving a "wedding photo" look, but that correlation has more to do with style than with how lenses render. That's a very very subtle distinction.

The mystery lens has the same housing as a 25-120mm t2.8 K35 zoom (EXACTLY) and is made for the Ikegami EC-35, the first "film look" video camera, which has a 2/3" sensor and had lenses specially made by Canon to match film lenses. Makes sense then that it's a 25-120mm t2.8 K35 zoom with a focal reducer bringing it to a 10.5-50mm t1.6. If the focal reducer can be removed and a PL mount retrofitted (and markings repainted), it's a K35 zoom. But it might not simply be a focal reducer.... But the lens was definitely made for 2/3" cameras, the Ikegami EC-35 in particular.

The NASA quote above is cute, but also gave it away a bit too easily. The mystery lens is almost certainly a 25-120mm K35 zoom with a 2.4x speedbooster to work on the Ikegami EC-35 2/3'' vacuum tube camera. (The Kubrick lens is a 70mm f1 with a 0.7x speedbooster adapting to 50mm f0.7–or close to it.) Coverage is unusually good for S35 on the original K35 zoom, but I would be VERY VERY surprised if this covered S35/APS-C. That's crazy to assume it would. If it does I'm SHOCKED. That said, there are two possibilities: After the speedbooster group is removed and the mount is modified, this becomes a 25-120mm K35 zoom with incorrect markings, making $1.5k an insane steal. That is IF the optical design is really that simple and it's possible to take it apart and retrofit with a PL mount for under $1k or whatever. If it's not simply as a 25-120mm K35 with a condenser and is actually an entirely different lens, it's still a pretty awesome lens on the t3i with 3x crop mode, giving the genuine K35 look. It might even cover the BMPCC. But the cost of adapting the mount for infinity focus is still there.

What makes you think it will cover the sensor? Just curious.

In that case free isn't uncommon. Or $100-$150/day if there's a bit of budget, whatever covers the cost of gear. I thought it was corporate videos for small businesses, in which case $600/$400 is a low rate if you're the vendor, a pretty normal mid/low end rate if you're a wet hire working for someone else.

$600/day or $400/half day seems pretty standard for low end.

I'm really feeling this thing and the new M43 raw Inspire. Just not the price tag. The $1999 kit with the motor might prove to be a steal, however.

We're about to see a lot shitty red footage, then.... (not that reduser isn't already full of it). The GH4/C100/A7S etc. are already capable enough in good hands and much easier to use and light for and operate. They are SHOCKINGLY close to the high end until you really push things far beyond what anyone here is shooting, anyway. Red is nice on the high end, but what they do well doesn't benefit those without the money (in post and in lighting and camera support) to make it workable. The camera is not very workable for a single operator, is a light hog, tricky in post to get the most of, etc. And even the Alexa is affordable as a rental. Ever noticed that the most expensive cameras have the best looking footage? It's not because of the camera, it's often because of the cost preventing incompetent people from getting their hands on it. To a point. Lots of rich incompetent people, too, though they also have money to hire decent crew. Nice car, though.

If they do, it would be so dumb of them. Boxster aside, Porsche would be so dumb to release a car for "everyone." It would dilute their brand as a desirable high end car. It would put the car in the hands of people who don't care enough to drive it well, and they'd burn out their transmissions. Red dodged a bullet by giving up on the 3k/$3,000 camera. No one takes the Scarlet seriously except as an owner/op camera... I can see them lower the price and capability of the scarlet, making it more of a true C100 competitor, but man. If Red does this... DUMB.

422 HQ at best.

Just my opinion.

The greatest visual director of his generation.

I think most people here are hobbyists. I have a lot of friends shooting for Vice, etc. C300 or Amira owner/ops and they do well working as wet hires at that level. On the higher end less so. If I can add $300/day to my rate by owning a C100 or $700/day to my rate by owning an Epic, I'll do that. But if I'm getting $50,000/day I don't care. Still, Bay owns a 235 and probably an Epic or two. I think more creatives own cameras than you think, they just rent higher end ones for paid shoots!

I was talking S35... Still hate 50mm. :/ Dunno why!

No one is mad at you. At worst jealous. 1DC looks like a gem.

Is this true? 28mm is right around the perfect normal. Fincher shoots wide, too (usually wide open). I like everything but 50mm. I guess I am no Ozu. The most sophisticated artists I know prefer 40mm and occasionally 65mm.

Doesn't seem that wide to me. Lubezki spends most of his time ultra-wide, Polanski was usually on the wide side of things (40mm anamorphic and 20mm anamorphic), Spielberg hovers around 28mm for the most part... Bay and Woo obviously go super long, too, but spend as much time super wide.

Additive imagers (slide film, digital) increase saturation as brightness approaches 100%. Negative imagers (color negative film) decrease saturation as brightness approaches 100%. The Alexa clamps saturation at its highest at 30IRE then gradually decreases it as it approaches blowing out. There's a custom SLOG3 for the F5 that sort of does this, Canon Log and WideDR sort of do this, and Red's new color sort of does this, too. Arri still does it best. I'm not smart enough to figure out the correlation between those gamuts and saturation clamping, but the a7s blows out to ugly colors unless it's white balanced to that one particular color. Sorry. This is why I've always liked Canon's cameras and the Alexa. Great color.

Canon has a lot of cache among producers. C300 and Alexa are buzzwords. (I think rightfully, but that's just me.) I see C300s and Amiras whenever I walk down the street it seems, Dragons occasionally. Yet to see an FS7. If you're investing this much money as an owner/op, you want something producers are likely to hire. If you are buying it for your production company or as a hobby it is up to you. I agree Canon's colors are still second best to Arri, but they are both leagues above anyone else, although Dragon is not bad it just needs more love in post.