fuzzynormal

Of course, that's good for interviews as well. Allows a better report and interaction with the subject. So often film making is not about the visuals.

Yes. My theory is pretty straightforward: ISO is only one of the exposure variables. The amount of actual light (ambient/direct) in the setting, as well as the speed of the lens makes a huge difference. When you can shoot at 10KISO in a room with decent light and a fast f-stop, it's going to hide the noisy shadows, right? This footage, while technically in a low light situation, also has lots of ambient light bouncing around in the corners. There's a good scoop of photons for the sensor. On the other hand, when you get someone shooting 10KISO in significantly dim situations and a slow lens, then blacks will be the majority of the frame. Flaws will be more obvious. Bottom line, it's all relative. Take it all with a grain of salt. Consider the context of the shots (and operator skill set) when trying to judge this stuff on youtube and otherwise. Or, as mentioned, it could be a straight out misrepresentation to cynically garner attention. Such is the early 21st century in which we live.

Yup. As a doc filmmaker, I could work with that. ;-) 10KISO and a f.095 lens? That's handy for dark scenes. I might actually be able to make a film or something now!

Thanks for being willing to give this a test and share here on EOSHD. I've been curious as well. This setup, depending on how it renders DOF with wide open medium format lenses, might be ideal for documentary/corporate "talking head" interview production. Extreme shallow DOF and good low light offers an ease of interview shooting that potentially could justify it? I could see this as a dedicated rig for only that purpose if the advantage was there. If not, full frame and a 55mm f1.2 still looks awesome.

I've used a pro level Dropbox account for a few years now. No problem here regarding large files. It also will allow for upload interruption and continuation without trouble. So if your signal drops when uploading a huge file, it's no big deal. It just keeps going when you reconnect to the internet.

Depends on how much Depth-Of-Field you want or don't want. ND is typically used to allow slower shutter speeds as well as lower f-stops.

Not to hijack the thread, but I've been frustrated by the workflow of hacked RAW. Just a bit backwards and cumbersome for my style. Not that it's a bad image, but, man, you really need to put a huge "in depends or your production" asterisk on ML acquisition.

A pragmatic consideration is how the extra mass on a beer bottle (or fabricated prop that looks like a beer bottle) will affect the movement. If it's too heavy, you'll run up against some "uncanny valley" sort of physicality. Might not be a big deal based on your idea, or might be. You may have to settle on a lighter rig.

My recommendation is to consider longer focal lengths for what your going for. I've been shooting with a canon fd 55mm f1.2 and a cheap speed booster. It's not a pristine image/high contrast image, which is why I like it. The longer focal length appeals to me, emulates some "filmlook" mojo, and looks more flattering for capturing portraits/people. Plus, it's very fast, even though I don't often shoot with it wide open. That glass combo is about $325. Getting used to going narrower on the field of view is a challenge, but the visual rewards are worth it, imho. This glass on my stabilized gx85 or em5ii has been a lot of fun to shoot handheld. On the other hand, as mentioned, the Speedboosted Sigma 18-35mm Art F1.8 would give you one lens with more focal length options.

Uh-oh. As I said, good luck.

Trying to help friend-o. You claimed Red cameras need a slow pan. It's a fact you said that. It's also false. It's not brand specific. I was just clarifying the issue as you and I are not the only ones potentially reading this stuff. And FWIW, the actual advice from the specific person you requested was the same advice as various other posters. And, I'd bet that you do need some more guidance about camera operation, but each of us has to find our own way --and at least you're here trying. That's something. We all keep learning. Good luck.

No, that's not accurate. It has nothing to do with the brand of camera. This is just fundamental camera operation. Shutter speeds and frame rates affect motion blur. Those things are constant across every motion picture camera made in the last 100+ years. It's okay if you don't fully grasps these concepts yet. But, definitely make it a point to understand them if you want to develop your craft.

Welp. everyone's gotta start somewhere. As they say, "There's no such thing as a dumb question..." Just because a question might betray someone's comprehension of things doesn't make the question in of itself ridiculous. After all, learning about this stuff now will lead to a better skill set down the line. Here's some 101 level info I found quickly using the world wide web information super highway search engine provided by google.com: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning-speed

Well, we don't know how violently the lens was panning when those shots were taken. Looks well within normal motion blur probability to my eye. Why are we looking at stills anyway? The c100 is a video camera. The OP should upload the actual clip.

The OP might be new to videography and obviously does find these results unexpected. (how a beginner has access to c100 and a Nija Star recorind system is interesting, but perhaps it's a student) Don't know what's really up until certain questions are answered. From what I know about c100 ghosting, it's a field interpolation error that pops up from time to time within the hardware of the camera. It looks a little like inverted field rendering that one would see back in the NTSC days. Thanks for the info. My conclusion/guess is that you're not aware of the physics of light and how cameras work. That's fine. You'll learn. Bottom line: your camera is operating without error. You're making an incorrct assumption about your perfectly natural visual results. It's most likely not "ghosting" it's motion blur. The c100 "ghosting" would look more visually stratified. If I'm wrong, I wouldn't be absolutely surprised, but that's my best guess.

Compression artifacts are blocky distortions, chroma banding, things like that. This isn't that. I'm going to wager these stills are captured from video clips where the camera was in the middle of a violent handheld pan. Most likely you're recording @24fps, right? In other words: a normal visual result. We're looking at a still that represents 1/48th of a second as the lens moves quickly. Was the camera moving for these stills or not?

That it doesn't look anything like compression artifacts in my experience. It looks like motion blur. OP: Shoot the exact same shots and use a tripod. Don't move the camera. Upload those images. If the "ghosting" is there, you can start worrying.

Hey, my camera does that too! Actually, all the cameras I've used over the years have done that.

Indeed. Consider the choir preacher to.

Just one filmmaker's opinion: animated lower 3rd graphics are ridiculous.

Old productions were lit well. I wouldn't asssume the film stock was the only reason that show looked great and your digital footage looked bad. As for motion pictures as art, I do remember my first movie going experience was seeing "Bambi" at the "Twilight Drive-In" movie theater. As a three year old I was hardly able to tell what would be discernible as art, but I recall being engaged in the storytelling. At any rate, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from thinking film IQ ain't grand, but when it was all-film-all-the-time back in the day, the distribution chain did have issues. We're in a place now where, practically, digital bypasses those quality control issues. I can shoot a doc on a gm1 and have it edited then screened with no loss in quality from the moment it's shot to the "4-walled" user's eyeballs. I'll take that trade off vs. a difference in DR IQ. Watching my films projected via DCP has been a lot of fun. It looks incredible. That kind of thing has only been possible on the cheap in the past few years. And, without a doubt, in the next few we'll all be shooting high DR stuff on consumer gear that does surpass film.

Yeah, no question, but when I was watching films at run-down grindhouses during the 1dollar matinees, the print and projection was not all that great. So the quality perception is skewed regarding "film" if all one is used to is watching a pristine transfer on blu-ray. My movie going experience as a kid growing up was decidedly less refined. Memories of sloppy screenings of "Corvette Summer" or "Fort Apache The Bronx" or "Phantasm" are more my recollection. ...this doesn't even touch on the reality of VHS home viewing of movies. So yeah, film is great! But by the time copies of movies filtered into my rust belt neighborhood, the IQ reality had taken a beating.

Agree to disagree. Raw ain't the "filmlook" panacea many people like to think it is. Its great, and I shoot it from time to time too, but it's not a priority for me. And 12 stops of DR is better than what I was used to growing up on 70's cinema screened at the drive-in. It's not like those films were awesome image-wise. Salvaging some highlights is nice and all, but blown out sky on a bad print never stopped me from enjoying a Sergio Leone or Sydney Lumet film. In fact, a good exercise last year was watching "Hateful 8". The novelty was fun. Even under the best controlled conditions of what they were doing, I was thinking, "yep, this is a film projection and it's crusty." after a few minutes of the narrative, it really didn't matter. Also watched the last MissionImpossible, shot on film, (digital projection) and thought, "Wow, that's grainy and rough." For me, a lot of the "film look" is the analog flaws of it all. The blessing and curse. Of course, that's just me though. Your mileage may vary.

I tend to think if you shoot a "360" degree shutter it pretty much takes away most of the video look. I used to call it "0 degree" shutter, but 360 is technically correct (so I've been told). Whatever the case, it's basically a 24 shutter speed matched with 24fps video. One needs to be mindful of the motion blur, but I really like motion blur because it takes away the video-ish-ness. I shoot my documentaries this way, on m43, with longer focal lengths. The footage doesn't look like it was shot on video at all to my eye. Not sure if you can say they look exactly like film, but it seems pretty close to me. Also, I think MTM was a multicam film production, like other sitcoms such as Cheers. Gunsmoke was film too, I'd wager; single cam. Typical film production style. Price is Right was most definitely live to video tape. Studio video cameras all the way. An interesting bit of trivia you probably know: in the days of before video tape, electronic NTSC tv shows were recorded live to film via a primitive telecine; basically a film camera recording a tv screen. FWIW, the magic bullet suite is a 3rd party plugin from red giant software. I think it costs about $800. It's not installed by default with premiere, so the OP might not have it on his/her particular system. But regardless, you can easily make a custom gradient and overlay it on your video in any NLE. personally, in premiere, I'd recommend just masking a lumetri effect.

To be honest, I'd say 1 out of 2 ain't all that hard these days. Even the laziest SOB can throw one of these new cameras/lenses into auto, dial up a flattering color profile, and shoot clean motion pictures that look technically impressive. Artistically impressive? Probably not. But technically impressive? Yeah, no problem. The other stuff? You're right, not so much.