Christina Ava

maybe i will use some from the dance!the flashed are always a big problem, but theres nothing to do about it, everytime there is an important moment bam-flash, thats why i love video, is so undercover hehe..nobody even knows you are filming them they think you are photographing them, this was my set up and it was hard to shoot...monopod and double focus ...good luck

yes, thats why i posted the test, they dont look that bad, when in the hands of someone like matthew scott that knows what he is doing, in terms of lighting and overall production, although im sure he would do even better with better lenses. but put noobie+samyang dont know if that will make the same results, while a good lens can help out even the noobiest of the noobs, me always included.

heres a guys test that might help you. i dont like samyang lenses, they are cheap for a reason, but who can afford real cine lenses? http://mattscottvisuals.com/blog/2014/1/19/lens-up-my-nikkors-vs-the-rockinonsamyang-cine p.s i d rather have 1 good lens, that 3 that are meh.. i mean how much do the 3 samyang lenses cost? 1500euros? better spend that on one canon L 50 1.2

this is very interesting, the big wide optics, can they pair up with the 85mm canon L fd? and what a pair they would be.. i dont even know if redstan makes clamps so big the point in the wedding is that you need to capture the moment and that means mobility, you have heads popping up in front of the camera, people coming and going...lights changing all the time..

same day rough edit! password: ana it was shot with a 135mm pentacon as a taking lens that was harder to focus than the anamorphic, and had some jag, so we kept losing the vertical allignment. I need to find a better taking lens..but over 100mm to keep it from vignnetting in the full frame, suggestions welcome!

mission acomplished! thanks for the tips, it was very hard but i think i have some nice footage!

Hello, i need your help, im off to shoot a wedding and i decided to film the reception with my sankor c double focus on a 7d or mark 3, will see which.I will shoot with another mark 3 for safety with non anamorphic,just in case i destroy their wedding :) I am confused concerning the setting of the Aspect ratio, im shooting 1920 24 frames PAL, do i keep the 16:9 or switch to 4:3 other options are 3:2 1:1 thank you

i thought that actors adore malick, and line up just to put their name on the credits, his direction of brad pitt, restored some lost respect i had for pitt. he has everyone in the movie focused and beautifully illuminated. have you heard that actors dont like working with him?

yes ive seen it, amazing doc. he died in 2007? :( i really liked shallow dof, but i started to notice that all my favorite directors-dp's shoot with extreme depth, and have very stylized compositions, almost everything in focus. as i said its my personal opinion, that the better you are the deeper your depth is, the more natural your light is, and the wider your lens becomes, then its all composition and meticulus work, and to bring things into context, you now have a 4k camera, i bet gregg toland would have flipped with this tool in his hand..so much detail,to waste in blurry backgrounds and closeups.

yes matt i do. no its not something that just came up in my mind, check the work of lazlo covacs and zsigmond vilmos two of the best DPs still around ,check the work of gregg toland, probably the best cinematographer ever, he is the contrary of shallow depth of field, noted for his amazing ability to create extreme depth.(citizen cane) it takes some extra talent to keep everything in focus,and keep it interesting, and no anamorphic is not just to preserve resolution, its an artistic choice, that needs alot of creative talent and expertise to pull through..you have a huge canvas and it needs to be perfect. shallow dof, is a gimmick that we use to cover up our mistakes (me included) and make it look "cinematic", but wasnt covacs "easy rider" cinematic enough?

Kendy's style initialy is based on "gimmicks" shallow dof, framing low light, lo-fi mood, which are great because he compensates the lack of "high art" expensive cinema gear. (zeiss cinema lenses, arri cams,etc) as he grows and (money rolls in) i think this will change. Which brings me to the point of "filmic" quality. Shallow DOF is a gimmick, you direct the eyes of the audience to where you want them to look, and hide the (bad lighting, bad framing, cheap ugly backgrounds). The truly great DP&Director, keeps everything in focus, and you look at a moving "painting" where everything is balanced, and of course shoots wide, anamorphic being the ultimate, imo. Lubezki: Many of them were the same rules we had on Tree of Life, where we avoided underexposing the negative and wanted a lot of depth of field. Terry doesn’t tell the audience where to look in the frame — if they want to look at the actors, they can, or if they prefer they can look behind them at the trees. We want complete depth and clarity in order for that to happen, so another rule is to shoot with film that is as grainless as possible — in general, Terry prefers images that are sharper rather than softer.

i want to vote for both lenses and grading.... ^_^ but lenses is no 1, due to the lens lust

great ideas especially the color grading part, :D bump

kendy ..pure talent! he has a page where he sells his canon picture style and how to grade it here: http://www.kendyty.com/#!stills/ck0q

now this is gonzo...

the black magic, and the previous gh cameras, even the gh4 as i can see now, needs a lot of correction to be "watchable" colors come out flat, the purpose being probably to have the artistic freedom to grade them as you want. Unless you are a skilled colorist, you need to spend hours upon hours to grade them.

yes i agree 100%. the mark three for its money is still a top camera for the following reasons 1. 100s of lenses to choose from! L-series! zeiss, vintage canon, everyone makes lenses specifically for this camera! 2. beautiful still photography Full Frame!, easy perfect photos fast professional raw 3. size, i cant even work with those tiny cameras, you feel you are holding a camera not a toy, doesnt need 100 paraphernalia to film, great live view size. 4. Full frame video, you put a 85mm lens and its stays 85mm! 5. NO COLOR CORRECTION! apply correct exposure-apply kalvin ,manual whitebalance, and you have the footage ready to cut, dont need to spend 100 hours making it look normal. huge time saver, forget the "ill fix it in post" 6.the "canon look" warm tones, balances greatly with zeiss lenses that are colder. 7.ML raw looks fantastic 8.solid bulid quality, not flimsy, ergonomic, all the buttons i need are not buried in menus 9.takes two memory cards 10.records sound internaly 11. iso 2000 has the same noise as iso 200! perfect for low light :)

yes but if you have passion and work hard you can achieve everything, he reminds me Ed Wood with the sci fi movies in the 50s...

where did you remember this movie "the room"? you know they hold screenings in cinemas to go see this epic cult, probably one of the worst movies ever made... as for the gh4 footage, everyone can have a pencil not everyone can write a book.

its still on pre-order in cvp where i get most of my stuff, but is it wise to get the first models that come out?

i am sure the zeiss will look much better than anything modern, im not sure if they adapt corectly on the mark 3, i adapted the canon 85fd and it was a real hassle, but worth it. also they dont actually come cheap, i think that with the conversion this should total the same as the new canon 35mm . on the other hand the sharpness of the zeiss lenses fits perfectly the mark3 muddy sensor. another idea is the Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL-II, a very cute pancake for canon. i just cant seem to bring mysellf to spend on Sigma lenses...i dont like the image they produce, but this is totally subjective, a matter of taste and i could be wrong.

this looks like an interesting lens the 24. i own the 85mm 1.2 converted from the lensdoctor, and its serious eye candy, the FD line features some superb lenses for video, only problem is the conversion with the mirror and not focusing to infinity even after the conversion in some cases.

Hi John i ve heard they are not good at all at 1.4, there are a couple of brands like samyang that you actually get what you paid for, sigma is another brand that puts me off, but theres a lot people saying good things about the new "art" line, only it concerns photography, not sure about video.

Hi Karim, i dont care about photography that much my interest is in video, i ve heard that the samyang is not good wide open from people that use the lens...do you have it? i havent seen any footage with the sigma 35mm, in photography its ok but video is completely different, and the lens should have a good chemistry with the camera, i would love to see footage shot on a mark 3 with a sigma.... br c.

hi pascal, great idea, although the 1.8 is a bit of stopper, i try to film at dark with natural light so 1.4 is important to me...but good idea to search something a bit wider.