skiphunt

Sweet! I wasn't aware you could create your own plugins in Motion. I've got the latest Motion but haven't played with it much. To be honest, I don't think I've used Motion since way back at version 2 I think.

Thanks! From playing so far, it looks like it's easier to dial back an aggressive LUT.

Awesome. Thanks! I've actually already watched all the Color Central tutorials. Watched them back in December but likely need a reminder. I bought his LUT utility as well. I dove in yesterday and much of it came back quickly, but will need a refresher. What I wasn't clear on if if mixing LUTs and color correcting is redundant? Destructive? etc. But, I think for me getting good looking general footage first, then tweaking the "style" by mixing in LUT emulators seem to be a good combo. Gets confusing if I first start with a LUT, then start tweaking levels, etc. The other way around, ie. general adjustment for accuracy, then tweaking a style... is more intuitive. Thanks for the recommendations.

I was really surprised that I didn't get any replies to this... until I looked at the subject lines of ALL the threads. This really is a gear-porn-only site and not so much with indie-filmaking as it's ultimate theme. That's in no way a criticism, but I think I've finally got the picture and it's all making sense now. So, with that in mind... since there are several here who are making short films, travel pieces, art films, music videos, etc. is there another site that's got a good community like this one, but is focussed more on the creative, production, editing, grading, audio design, etc. that goes into it after you've bought your gear? You know, the creation part after you've left the gear store. ;) If so, any recommendations? Thanks in advance :)

I'm going to answer my own question. I have no idea if this is the "right" way to do this or not, but so far I'm really liking what I'm getting. My D5300 footage is looking awesome! Don't have anything I'm proud enough of to post yet, but this is what I've been doing so far: Adjust the source clip's highs, mids, shadows. Balance color. Add a wee bit of saturation and tiny bit of film grain, along with about a +2 of sharpness. When I have it looking as generally accurate and pleasant as I can using the builtin coloring tools in FCPX, I then add a LUT for style and dial it down to taste. So far that seems to consistently be around 50%. If anyone sees anything wrong with this approach, please feel free to let me know.

Personally moving on from camera discussions and now focussing on how to get the best grade from what I have. I know that it's preferable to start with a raw source, or at least flatly shot source if you don't have raw capability... but what I don't get completely, has to do with film emulating LUTs vs just doing all the adjustment/grading yourself from scratch. Have done several tutorials and can get a pretty decent final image with just using the color tools in FCPX. But, then I drop various LUTs on top of that and it often looks even better! Logically, it seems it'd be best to just get good at dialing in your look from scratch and not fooling with LUTs at all, but there are looks I've seen after applying various LUTs that I can't even fathom getting on my own. A lot of Brandon Li's footage lists the Osiris LUT for his MK3 raw footage, and some of his RX10 footage as well. Is it a waste of money buying something like the Osiris LUT package for use with a Nikon D5300 that isn't raw source? Or, am I better off just spending the time to get the color grade/style looking the way I want without using LUTs at all? Or, is it best to get the basic levels adjusted in FCPX for a generally good look, then stylizing with LUTs like Osiris after the fact? Or, applying the LUT style you want to start off with, and fine tuning the look via the color tools? Sorry for all the questions, but it feels redundant using both the builtin FCPX color tools AND the various LUTs. (PS. I know about Davinci Resolve, etc. but want to stick with getting it with just FCPX for now)

Actually, can't speak for Matt... but I doubt he's left the Panny camp at all. Before I decided on getting my D5300, he made a very good argument for the G6 speed booster combo. I almost went that route based on his points. And, for video alone... I would have possibly preferred that option. But, my needs... unlike Matt's, are heavily influenced by stills usability. So, the Nikon won for that reason in my case. That being said, with the few annoyances in handling aside... it really is capable of a nice look that more often than not... has an organic feel to it. The review of the D5300 on cinema5D is pretty much on target IMO.

It does seem to matter somewhat. If you start with a high contrast, saturated, camera processed image... you don't have as much wiggle room when grading. You obviously don't have as much as with raw, but with flat you can certainly have room to play somewhat. Think I'm going to move on to figuring out how to grade and such. For me, this camera is a good tool for the money and will serve my needs for a while. When I'm ready to move on to something else, it'll still serve well as a backup still camera. Take care all, and thanks for all the great info! Cheers :)

Yes, it's not that big a deal to change settings... but here's how it went for me: Out walking the street with all my settings for stills just the way I like them so that the still is nearly where I want it without having to spend a bunch of time in photoshop, etc. I don't fool with raw files like most. Only on commercial shoots do I bother with raw at all. So, I've got everything where I want it for stills, ie. iso, Aperture priority, saturation bumped a bit, contrast where I want it, etc. Then, I see something I want to get video of... have to quickly change to flat profile, switch to manual mode, forgot to set f-stop, back out of live view to set f-stop, refocus, change holding position for video shooting as opposed to still shooting, ie. up to my eye via optical finder. Hopefully, I haven't missed the shot in the process. Then boom! I see another series of stills I want to get, back out of manual live view mode, flip back to auto-focus, change my profile back, flip over to aperture priority, etc. You get the picture. Not pleasant if you're interested in shooting both stills AND video. For that kind of shooting, I'm betting that Sony RX-10 is much friendlier. When I end up shooting something that's intended to be more dramatic/cinematic, I'll likely just take two cameras. One set up for how I want to shoot motion, and a second one for stills. Because I was traveling and didn't really have any specific intention for anything I shot, other than stills for print sales... I just gave up on shooting all flat and moved toward a middle of the road approach with the profile, etc. Wouldn't want to carry two kits of course, but flipping back and forth between stills and video proved to be fairly frustrating.

I hope it didn't come across that I was implying Andrew is some sort of shill. Wasn't saying that at all. The point was, if I may clarify, is that I value the findings of other users who don't review all the time. Those who're looking for a camera to do the same things I want it to do and have similar criteria as me. The conversations like the ones I had back and forth with Matt before we each decided that based on our experience with the D5200, the D5300 would meet our needs. I'll add that I first got the D5200 based on what Andrew wrote about it, and the work that Brandon Li was doing with it. So, I do appreciate his opinion and weigh that with what appears to be a little different ultimate criteria, ie. final work flow, budget, and computing power/storage needed. Before I left for Mexico, I did a few tests and started playing with grading. Not completely happy with my skill level with grading, so I figured it was best to just show the flat stuff mostly untouched. The problem with shooting those extremely flat profiles... is that if you're going back and forth from video to stills, it becomes a real pain. I'll have to see if there's a way to quickly go from completely different custom setups without having to go into menus. My little Nikon compact has a plethora of customizable settings I can quickly change to with one flip of a knob. It'd be nice if I could find a way to do that with the D5300. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Andrew doesn't like the D5300 so much. What's odd is that it seems to matter to others so much. People have different needs and what they're willing to put up with to get the image they're happy with. Andrew does a good job of stating why he likes this or that and why he doesn't like something, though... it didn't really seem like a "review" that he did of the D5300. More of an opinion piece to call out just how much he doesn't care for it. So be it. I personally don't need anyone to validate my purchase. If it had not lived up to my expectations, I would have simply returned it. So far, it has surpassed my expectations and I'm looking forward to getting better with the camera and grading. So far, considering I haven't even tried grading anything from Mexico yet, and shot for a month handheld under a variety of often difficult conditions... my purchase has been self-validated to my liking. :)

LOL! Sorry!!! No, haven't forgotten your name Matt, was just replying about Andrew's opinion piece on the D5300 and slipped. When in stills mode, I didn't use live view. I'm used to framing from the viewfinder, so I only used the live view when I needed to hold the camera at a very low level, or raising up above a fence to get a shot. Most of the time I used the optical viewfinder. Mostly just used the LCD to make sure I got the shot or for video obviously. Auto focus for stills was really fast and accurate. Several still images I got were grabbed so quickly, I know there's no way I could have got the shot with a compact... at least none of the compacts I've used. Still love compacts for stills work, but I can't deny the benefit of dSLR speed and low-light performance of a larger sensor.

Thanks Andrew. I didn't have any audio to drop on it, and since I'm using YouTube... couldn't just add some good music. I recorded some ambient plaza music, but that didn't work out so well. So, that narrative is all I had handy and wanted to put something up to show what the nearly untouched stuff looked like. I really didn't like using one camera for video and stills. It might just be that I've been a still photographer too long and it's too difficult to switch back and forth. I have shot plenty of motion in the past, but for some reason... it's difficult to jump back and forth. At the same time, I didn't want to carry two different kits while backpacking. But, at home... I'll likely migrate to having two camera kits, one for stills and one for motion. Or, just practice more. ;) I'm only just now getting back into this stuff, so it's likely just learning curve pains. I do think that based on my tests in some very low light shooting situations, some very difficult spaces (i.e. underground cenotes with almost no light or having to pass through a vertical wet/muddy tunnel to get down into one, with high humidity, etc. that the camera performed well. Mostly just grabbed a bunch of shots at random and put them in some ordered grouping, but if you knew the very low amount of light there was in many of those clips... it'd be more impressive. Once I get my head around grading stuff, will edit something down with a proper soundtrack, etc.

Yeah, I didn't either... until he offered that "revised review" that seemed rather petty. At the end of the day though... doesn't really matter to me. Everyone's got an opinion. Some of his I agree with, others... I don't at all. Still, I'm curious if Andrew is just buying all of this gear on his own to test for fun, or if he has some arrangement with a shop or some of the manufacturers? Maybe that's explained somewhere on the site? It's nice to know the perspective someone is coming from and their motivations. Originally, I just thought Andrew was someone into indie filmmaking and had a bog to share opinions of his gear purchases. Is that the case? Or, does this site also provide some sort of revenue stream as well? For me, I mostly value other user's experience who're either investing in the gear to use for their work, or who share my same indie filmmaking goals like several user's on this site.

Hey Andrew, awesome! You're making that baby-mode work quite well for yourself. ;)

Thanks! It's not really a finished thing. None of the clips are adjusted/graded at all, and it's just sort of a quick collection using some random audio recordings. Not sure what I'll do with the footage, but it was mostly just to test the camera to see if I could get decent/cinematic video images from a hand-held consumer-level camera. I decided, for the money and all around usefulness for stills as well, it's definitely a keeper for me. I don't get what appears to be pure hatred of this camera by Andrew. I'd said "with due respect to Andrew" before, but after a couple of his posts regarding this camera being only for "soccer moms" etc. I'm wondering why I offered any respect at all. Clearly this camera isn't his personal choice, but his absolute disdain for it has me scratching my head a bit. Is this a completely unbiased site? Does Andrew pay for all the gear out of his own pocket? I have no idea what the motivations are on this site. Perhaps there's an ethics statement somewhere like on Philip Bloom's site? I noticed the EOSHD in the url. Did this start out as a Canon EOS site? Sorry for my ignorance, but I only started visiting this site a couple months or so ago, so I don't really know what the purpose of the site is, Andrews motivations, how the site is paid for, how the gear is paid for, if certain manufacturers give some bloggers more favor that others, etc As for me, I haven't been in the motion game for a long time. Mostly just stills. Haven't even shot anything motion since the Panasonic HVX was en vogue. Only just got FinalCutPro X in December and had only started to play with grading right before I left for Mexico. So, I because I'm not comfortable grading yet, I figured I'd just put some random clips together for those curious what the camera does in a variety of field shooting situations. Initially, I started shooting with a flat profile, but got tired of switching back and forth when I wanted to shoot stills. Eventually, just left it on the Standard setting with the contrast all the way down and sharpness up a bit. Haven't even tried to grade anything yet, but I can tell from my ungraded clips, that the camera is capable of delivering what I want from it, for less money and less hassle that many of the other options. If I was only interested in video, I might have got with something like the G6 for focus peaking, but if I continue to use this camera for video work, I'd likely just get a Ninja as soon as it can handle the 60p footage. In short, for the money and range this camera has... I think it's an excellent option as an all-arounder without the need for a bunch of extra peripherals, extra storage, time-consuming raw workflow, needing a faster computer, etc. If I continue to focus on indie filmmaking, and my specific needs change, I'll revisit the options then. For now, this one delivers what I need from it.

Yucatan Mexico Nikon D5300 Video Samples Only have a free vimeo account and this is 12mins... so too big to post on vimeo. This was shot in Jan-Feb 2014 in the Yucatan/Campeche regions of Mexico. The purpose of this footage was to see if this consumer-grade Nikon D5300 could produce acceptable video images for possible use on future film projects. All of the footage was shot flat, and the footage is not graded. Only auto-color balance and auto-stabilization with a little sharpening in FinalCutPro were used. The footage is all hand-held and a Nikon 18-200DX f3.5-5.6 VR lens was used for most of it. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with this, but wanted to share with others who might be curious about the Nikon D5300 and/or those who dig Mexico and want to see some of the things I saw. :)

Ahh... wait a minute... I get it.... Just like with motorcycles and other toys people obsess over. There are those who're are really into specs, tread patterns, new kinds of braking systems, synthetic vs non-synthetic oils, reading all the data, comparing speed tests, etc. And there are those who are really just interested in riding. Those two conversations obviously have crossover, but really aren't the same thing. Nothing wrong with either interest of course, ie. gear enthusiasts vs cinema enthusiasts... But conversations about imaging gear details often get confused with conversations about actual cinema. Now that I've finally clued in to this... does anyone know what forums the storytelling, cinema geeks hang out? Something on reddit perhaps? :)

Oh geez... seriously, this thread is getting comically absurd. Doesn't anyone have something they wanna go shoot? ;)

With all due respect to Andrew... why the heck do so many here care what he likes and doesn't like? Everyones got different taste, needs, priorities, and budgets. Mine are specific to my own needs, so what meets someone else's criteria isn't necessarily the same as mine. Is the D5300 a great filmmaking tool with excellent ergonomics and a contender against cameras costing thousands of dollars more? No, of course not. Does it have a sweet low-light sensor that in the right hands can render cinematic results on par with the better filmmaking tools out there costing much more, and deliver stellar stills as well... for $799? You bet it does. I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me... it's now about realizing a good cinematic idea and using the tools I have to the best of my abilities. For me, that's the only hurdle to get over now. :) I'll leave the arguments over sensors, pixels, resolution, dynamic range, etc. to the gear enthusiasts. I've got to go brainstorm an idea and stop wasting time on gear forums. ;)

Pretty much knew the D5300 wasn't Andrew's cup of tea before buying my own. So, none of his review is surprising. Some of it I agree with. Just got back from using the D5300 for a month in Mexico. Awesome stills camera for the money. Excellent video results as well. Handling was very awkward, especially going from stills shooting, to video, then back to stills. Had to just settle for a middle of the road Standard setting, but managed to find a few work arounds for shooting on the go. For the money, being able to use my Nikon lenses, the articulating screen, the great low light performance, excellent stills, and a very light weight... together made for the camera I was looking for. I also chose this camera because I didn't want a cumbersome work flow and have to accommodate huge file storage, especially on the road. And, I know the tech is improving leaps and bounds each quarter it seems, so I didn't want to invest in anything that would likely be eclipsed quickly by the next so-called "all the rage" 4k, raw, over-hyped-bla-bla-bla gear that also needs several thousands worth of accessories to make them usable. If that GH4 works out to be all the rage and might have at least a good 2 years of valuable shelf life, then I'll grab one and my Nikon D5300 will still be useful as an excellent backup stills camera with an excellent low-light sensor for video in a pinch. Despite the awkward handling of the D5300, all things considered, especially if a no-fuss workflow, clean low light images, low file storage needs, light weight, and greats stills performance is important to you (as it is me) then the D5300 is a great alternative for an affordable $799. I'll just add that I bashed this camera around pretty good (unintentionally) and even got it very wet on accident on a few occasions, but it never failed in any way. It's a solid performer for the money from my personal experience. And, I'm quite happy with the quality of the images. Once I get caught up from being gone a month, will splice a few clips together and share.

Just watched it at 2k on my tb display... can't find much fault with it at all. Might be slightly videoish, but if they're getting this kind of image out of an all-in-one $2k camcorder... the GH4k ought to be awesome.

I dunno... looks pretty dang good to me. Glad I went with the budget D5300 to tide me over for HD until the 4k smoke clears and the dust settles.. then Nikon will still be a nice stills backup cam. :) That new Sony action cam looks like a GoPro killer too.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Will likely take that route at some point unless something else comes out that's better. Haven't seen any tests comparing the output from the camera to the clean HDMI to verify it's much better though. Could be it is, but I just haven't seen proof yet. From the reviews I've seen, the 70D has the D5300 beat for handling and I've always liked the way Canon's generally handle skin tone. But for me, the Nikon look is preferred. The option thrown out to go the D5300 AND G6 route with Metabones, would be a great combo for the times you want ease of use or low light performance with great stills. That's the combo Matt is rockin' I believe.

I wouldn't want to put anyone off the D5300. I'm completely happy with mine based on the criteria I listed above. It's just without histogram, or focus peaking, touch screen, etc. some of those other options seem like friendlier video choices.

I think it was a 35mm DX lens at f1.8, but I could be mistaken. Already deleted. Just shot ISO6400 as a test to see how usable it was. Just a test, wasn't really trying to get any particular shot. It might have been at 60p as well. No need for advice on how to shoot it though. I was just messing around seeing how far I could push what I have in case I need ISO6400 at some point.