Bioskop.Inc

My computer slows down to a snails pace with the plug-in version, but I edit everything first and then either add it clip-by-clip (if its short enough) or more recently I use an adjustment layer - having already done exposure on each clip via FCPXs colour settings. I started with the trial Stand Alone version & just thought it would be easier to have everything in one place. Not sure what to recommend for you - correct first & then edit? You could always do minor tweeks to exposure/colour etc.. in FCPX if needed. Or just re-do the clip/s if need be & replace. It might not be practical to do it the other way round (edit & then cc).

The problem with 3D is the framing - if you cut/clip the top of someone's head it just kills the whole aesthetic. The Hobbit was horrible in every single way, it just looked shit - in normal 24fps (non-3D) it was acceptable and still then they messed with the story so much that it still didn't appeal. The only film in 3D that I thought was passable was Prometheus - 3D works really well when it enhances the depth of field of a scene. But it is a gimmick that has had 5 different incarnations over the years & i've vowed to never be hoodwinked again. I might consider Ang Lee's new film, since he seems to have understood that you need to really rethink how you make a film, but still I don't hold too much hope that it will work.

Nice - do you have anymore footage from the D16 that you'd like to share?

My only problem with 4K is the 8-bit cameras, just won't ever go there again after ProRes HQ (I've just no time or space for RAW - it is amazing though). The reason is that at the moment i'm editing up some old 8-bit footage & it just sucks. There's no need to defend your 4K decision, if you're happy, that's fine with me. I just hate the overly sharp aesthetic it produces, it looks fake & unrealistic to my eyes - you really need a filter to kill the sharpness. For me its all about getting perfect 1080p or 2k, and as far as broadcasters are concerned in the UK, its the same for them - need to crack that first before we start to think about trying to roll out imperfect 4K TV. Cinemas is a totally different thing & that's why 4K was invented - big screens need it to project digital pictures, way more than small screens. ATM, because I shoot anamorphic, I'm more than happy with 2K footage - Colour, resolution & only a small part is DR. I done live concerts, never been a problem - you test stuff out during the sound check (or before the event) and when you see the shot, you film the shot. I understand it can be a life saver, but personally, I don't need it right now - mistakes is how you learn & get better. Yeah, crop pans are great when shooting x2 anamorphic - its a good easy way to add a bit of movement/life to some footage. Arri Alexa mode in Film Convert really is so much better for BM footage & I am assuming their LUTs are great for all cameras - skintones especially (actually for everything).

Its a very interesting grade, as she looks very natural, whilst it also highlights the warm colour in all the lights. Yes it always amazes me when people talk about great DR and then don't ever use it to full effect - they just stick a LUT on it & go wow look at this. Its like people who think they need a 4K camera & don't realise that hardly anyone has the capability to actually view it - compounded even more by the fact that no HD TV channel is actually broadcasting in Full HD & streaming can be/is an even bigger joke. Once you point this fact out, they come back to you with "well, now i have the ability to re-frame" - which is basically admitting they can't frame properly in the first place. Or, they talk about pretending they can downscale & somehow miraculously convert 8-bit into 10-bit. Each to his own, i suppose.

Cheers Zak, that's what I thought. I just find it a bit weird that in FCPX it automatically downscales the vertical height, but as you said if you don't go past the 1:1 point it'll be just fine. So now i just have to calculate the percentage I can zoom in (FCPX uses % scale instead of No. of pixels). Do you have any experience of upscaling from 2K to 4K - can you just do it in an NLE or do you need specialist software to achieve really good results.

I object to that cLog style type of washed out stuff that you used to see - lazy Alexa grading? Of course Mattias is right - LUTs are just a [lazy] starting point. Dislike Bloom's stuff, just does nothing for me - the man, the machine, the whole package. I love putting a tiny amount of Blue in the Blacks or Mids, but this is partly because I'm using the Arri Alexa profiles from Film Convert on BMPCC footage, which seems to introduce a green tint.

Man...you're living on a completely different planet from me! If you give them money up front, like now this minute, then you deserve everything that's coming to you & no BS small print is going to save you from being scammed like a new born child!

Man, you can wash your blacks out a little bit - don't listen to these idiots, since taste is absolutely subjective. And your footage always looks nice...

edit: FFS, just post a link, instead of all that shit! I mean all companies have small print that can fuck you - ever read the iTunes agreement? If they can actually deliver & the image is good, then this could be a groundbreaking product. You could simply start off with a simple set up & use what you've got already. Then buy as you go, until you have what you want. If it has a sensor as good as or better than the (put your camera of choice here - not going to get into that debate here), it'll be a winner? And...look,...they...gave...you...120fps...for...all...you...slo-mo...freaks...! I wonder if its the same company that was talking about doing a modular camera a few years ago? Think that might have been a photography camera though?

Nice Armen. I've been using the Arri Alexa profile settings from Film Convert on my BMPCC footage & especially if I ETTR (use zebras @ 100% & move ND just below clipping). It really does something else to the footage, when BMs own colour space is so lacking. Did a Timelapse experiment/test for a music video (posted in the Screening Room) & found I had to lower the exposure by 3/4 stops when using the Arri cLog profile, but it did introduce a little bit of a green tint & you need to up the saturation a lot.

One question: Were the shot of the whores (as you put it) resized or taken with a longer focal length, so as to be discrete? I only ask as those pictures did seem a little different from the rest of the piece.

What I should have added, is that I'm using FCPX & it appears to automatically fit the 1080 height of the image into the new 858 height of the timeline, but the additional sides stick out. So what is FCPX doing? Is it somehow squeezing the height into the new size and is that even possible - surely 858 pixels is 858 pixels? Or is this so boring, that no one gives a shit? Too techy, for the techs?

Fuzzy head this morning - absolutely confusing Focar for Foton. Now I see what you're doing! Yep, you're best off getting cutting!!! I remember a while ago, I was having a conversation (via e-mail) with QuickHitRecord about diopters & found a website that might do this sort of thing - can't find it in the ton of bookmarks I have at the moment, but do remember that it was in the US (I'll keep searching).

Didn't you get the Foton-B with the A? They normally come as a pair & the B is a +2. And if you're still having problems, you stack the 2 together - but they aren't the best. But if you're having problems getting close focus with the A, you could just use a longer taking lens - I had this problem with my pair of Fotons & this got me a lovely close-up shot of an eyeball (almost macro). Or have I got your problem wrong? You want deep depth of field & close up at the same time - hence the split diopter? The Schneider Series 9 split diopters aren't too expensive.

I've been experimenting with different aspect ratios recently & just want some expert or more technical input - its not that I don't get it, just want to know some more: DCP 2K Anamorphic Ratio (2.39:1) = 2048x858 Now if I shoot on a 16:9 sensor with a x1.5 Anamorphic lens then, once unsqueezed, I am getting - 2880x1080. The closest official aspect ratio, for a x1.5 anamorphic lens, would be 2.66:1 (2872x1080) & that translated into DCP standards would be 2048x770 - just for info. Now if you still keep the height of the DCP 2.39:1 figures, for a x1.5 anamorphic, you would get 2282x858 - meaning you'd bin 234 pixels. So on a DCP 2.39:1 timeline (2048x858), I am able to pan left or right a little in order to create a small fake pan or re-frame slightly (no problems here - its better if you use a x2 anamorphic). So, in theory I should also be able to zoom in a little, since the original vertical pixel height was 1080, which has been squeezed into the new height of 858 - its possible, as i've been trying. What I want to know is: "Am I loosing any resolution by doing this?" Technically or Numerically I shouldn't be & the only downside might be a touch loss of sharpness, but there shouldn't be right? Any loss in sharpness is an illusion & in fact its exactly the same image, at exactly the same sharpness? Any input?

Never shot a timelapse on the BMPCC, let alone in ProRes. Experimented in upscaling some of the footage by 100%, in order to zoom in - its possible but has its limits. Looks Ok on a phone or tablet, but you'll notice the zoomed in bits on a computer. Oh, wasn't mean to look too sharp - just in case any sharp freaks watch this!

really nice!

You're probably more likely to see the insides of the Pocket/Micro in the 2.5k body than you will the reverse - if they could make the Pocket/Micro sensor do s16 & s35 [in 2.5k?!] that would be a real bonus. This would make a lot of sense, since they already have the bodies for the 2.5k & there are a lot of accessories for it already. The pocket will almost certainly remain & if they do update, they would keep the same form factor, it might have a better battery and/or screen - no increased frames rates etc...

Stick to Nikon ai-s - lovely lenses. Here's some useful links, that really helped me out when choosing which lenses to buy (the first link has spot on evaluations, the second is just serial numbers/dates): http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#35

If you're on a buget you could always try the Yashica ML lenses - cheaper version of Zeiss, really underated & excellent.

I use the Mir-24 (35mm f2) a lot for video work & it is good - probably the best Russain lens that i've used (I just use Russain lenses or Nikon ai-s). It comes in Nikon or M42 mount (i've got the M42 version) - the different mounts have different bodies & the Nikon version apparently has more/better MC. However, I don't really think that its in the same league as a Leica, but then what lens is - it is as good/better than the Nikon 35mm f2. Very good lens, focuses very close (almost macro) & cheap for the Nikon mount version - quality control with Russain lenses can vary.

Problems, maybe? Or they're all out shooting so much SlowMo that time itself has started to take a toll on them & they...are...moving...so...slowly...now...

Yeah, it is a bit heavy! As @bluefonia suggested, Yashica ML primes - a lot cheaper than Zeiss Contax & in the same ball park. Useful info about Yashica: http://cargocollective.com/yashica/About-Yashica-ML-Prime-Lenses Or Nikon ai-s, I'm starting to get these & took a punt on a cheap 24mm f2.8, which focuses really close & is lovely. Here's some really good/useful info for Nikon lenses: Evaluations (which are spot on): http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating Serial No. list: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#35

You could just get the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6/2.8 (the angenieux version) & you'd have pretty much everything in one lens - got mine for £150, but they normally go for about £200. Or if you had the money buy the original Angenieux - bit pricey!