pablogrollan

That is not entirely true... I imagine the FS RAW out of the FS700 is very similar to the FS RAW out of the FS5 (both 12bit linear and from very similar if not the same sensor). I can tell you that both the raw to CDNG and the raw to Prores HQ 422 recorded to an Atomos Shogun Inferno are considerably better/more flexible than the original Slog 2/3 10 bit files, both from an FS5 or even an FS7. It could be that Slog files -which are not as flat as Slog 2&3- are "less strained" and can handle pushing in post better (can't know for sure because I haven't used an F3), but I doubt it. FS RAW out of the FS5 is only SLog2, so in practical terms most of the times I end up recording a Prores HQ 422 Slog2 file that is slightly better than the clean uncompressed 10bit 422 file out of the SDI without the raw license. If I need an extra headroom, I always have Cinema DNG. Plus, am I wrong assuming the FS700 raw license also unlocks framerates and resolutions not available before such as UHD/4K 60p? I know it's still far from the 16 bit raw of an F5 or F55, but I wouldn't consider it a step down from an F3.

Don't think so. That has been available for Windows users for quite some time... and compatible with a broader range of GPUs. Besides, plenty of Windows laptops do not need that extra graphics computing because they already have a powerful enough GPU. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a laptop for "portable" editing, not to mention an ultrabook plus the eGPU is more expensive than simply buying a powerful laptop. If you buy an expensive laptop to edit -and all macbooks are relatively expensive- you should not need to look for an additonal external GPU!! I believe the main target audience of eGPUs are people who use light ultrabooks for productivity during the day but may want to use it for gaming at home.

No, you just "drag & drop" and edit natively, and export from Premiere -Premiere's export dialog is actually an integrated version of Media Encoder-. That has been available in Premiere for ages. It was Avid exclusive long ago, back when FC was great for students and Premiere was a buggy toy to cut home movies. Again, that was in the past. As far as I know Avid is a software-only platform now. They just list the requirements or "certified parts" of the computer build, just like Adobe does -FCPX doesn't because Apple does not officialy endorse custom builds-. It is no longer necessary to have a supercomputer specifically buit for Avid since the required specs are pretty standard and its performance is scalable depending on the available "computing power" -though the ones listed on their website for "feature performance" are ridiculously high. A decent modern build would do. In fact, Avid have released a free basic version -Media Composer First- that has pretty much everything a non-advanced user may need and runs on a decent laptop. Keep in mind that the days when Avid had no competitors on the pro level are long gone and that the power of domestic computers has evolved enormously! 10 years ago you needed at least a Matrox Digisuite system to edit DVCPro. Editing suites have become relatively affordable and that's why so many post houses went out of business...

Nope, it is a platform agnostic codec, open and downloadable for free from Avid's website both for decoding and encoding -Premiere even has the presents for both .mov and .mxf wrapped DNxHD and HR-. In fact it is the closest to an industry standard. You can edit Prores on Windows without problem, too; it's exporting (encoding) that's not supported though there are "unofficial" workarounds. Can't talk about FCPX -not familiar- but FCP7 wasn't that different from Avid and Premiere's evolution has been a transformation into some "avidesque" NLE. I used Avid for some years don't find it any more complex than Premiere. In fact, the latter's advantage is that the full suite expands the NLEs functionality far beyond what Avid does. Avid has always been very good at server based workflows where the footage is server-stored and shared by several stations and in different stages of post production, which I suppose is why large post houses use it.

Ok, that mirrorless version is not really a cine version. I did buy a Samyang set back in the day in Nikon mount, since its pretty much the oldest and most adaptable mount like IronFilm said. And just as he said, the m4/3 mount versions are always a bit larger and heavier than the Nikon and Canon versions. If you buy a lighter lens, well, you're definitely not buying the same glass! Sometimes that is a big compromise in quality, but it obviously depends on the lens -I have not tried that version-. The VDSLR II versions are sharp and generally optically very good in a so-so plastic chasis: that means they are light for their quality but have to be handled with care. In my opinion, probably the best bang for the buck when it comes to a fast and sharp lens set. For m4/3, the Veydra miniprimes are nicely built, optically OK and really smal.l

I have used the Pixapro 100D MKII with a large softbox and they're great -silent, nice light- but found that a little more power would be welcome. It's meant to be used 1-1,5 metres away from the subject... How is the Pixapro 200D? As good as the 100D but double the power? That could be a much more workable option for me. Lately I've been using rented Kino Celeb 400s and they're great, but bulky and pricey. It's great having a large soft light powerful enough to shoot from a distance or through a scrim jim. A nice alternative: http://www.cinelight.com/led-lights/flexible-led-lights/ I've used the L model and it is really nice and lightweight, though not really that large. I believe these are the same lights sold under Falconeyes and Swit brands, but I've only seen the 120x40 240Watt at cinelight. It's tempting since it looks like a Celeb power wise at a fraction of the weight and price.

Not just you, most DPs I know don't like Red and couldn't care less about 8K, they'd rather choose an Alexa any day. In fact, top end films are still shot mostly on a combination of Alexa, Alexa mini, film... The Alexa LF is referred to by some as the "Netflix Alexa" since the lack of true 4K made other Alexas non-eligible for Netflix Originals -something Red really took advantage of-.

Yes, I live in Madrid. The only big downside is that the industry is pretty much Madrid and Barcelona... Mallorca gets shootings from German production companies -some have offices there- but the rest of the country lacks large clients and agencies, I'm afraid. Still, Madrid is well communicated and it is no problem to shoot on location all over Spain if you are based in Madrid -happens often-. As to which is bigger, well Madrid is a bigger and more populated city and there is a wider variety of clients and projects but Barcelona has always been big on advertising -many advertising agencies there- so while there's probably less "film industry" in absolute terms there's probably more work relative to its size. Double edged sword... since you don't need the money you could do it for free as a hobby, but then again if you don't need the money you don't have to put up with shitty clients and can afford to pass on a job that pays nothing but "networking". Ask yourself if those are really the kind of contacts you want/need/can lead to better or at least paid gigs. Your reel is maybe missing some more "variety" to showcase your skills and some studio work to show how you deal with studio lighting, but the footage is really nice, the editing is fine and it is DEFINITELY GOOD ENOUGH to be paid work!! There's nothing in that reel that screams "amateur not yet ready to make a living out of it"... Have some appreciation for your talent and your work, if you don't sell yourself nobody else will do it for you.

I believe you should be getting that LOT of expensive light, either buying or renting, so that your experienced DP can give you excellent footage... that should be higher on your list than 12 bit 444 IMHO. I'd much rather have the "quality" footage from a good DP with enough lights, modifiers and lenses shooting 8 bit than poorly shot REDraw or ArriRaw. After all, if you like extremely stylised looks like Blade Runner's, you can shoot so that you have the look on camera... Still, there's more than 8 bit-10 bit-12 bit to footage falling apart in grading. If you plan to grade heavily, it is a good idea to use a external recorder as bitrate and compression are as important as bit depth when it comes to banding/artifacts. I think 10bit Prores or DNx with a high bitrate holds pretty well in grading.

In this case I have to disagree... Not only is Spain the fastest growing economy in the EU -after a long and hard economic downturn- but also not every field is the same in every country. Filmmaking/advertising is big and with high rates in certain "not-so-developed" countries; for example, Czech Republic is full of qualified professionals working in international productions making a lot more than the average salary. In some countries, being a small producer or cameraman is a well paid job and in others not so much... Here -Spain- 1000€ does not get you an experienced DP with Amira, lights, etc. Here, 1200€ gets you a nice DP -not top nor novice- without any gear, and hiring such a DP "mandatorily" involves renting a high end camera, lenses, lights and at least a couple of grips... Spain is not a super booming market in terms of filmmaking such as the UK or France, but it is ahead of most European countries and so are the rates -even if the median salary is lower-. I'd never work for free unless the project really meant advancing in my career -and when you find such a project, normally it is well budgeted and everyone gets paid-; unpaid work spoils a certain type of client -the scum of the earth- who actually believe they can get that stuff for free. Once you have a portfolio, they are not going to pay you, either; they will keep offering you to work for free and if you decline they will look for someone younger/less experienced/probably worse that will agree to do it for free. In my experience those clients do not appreciate what you do and don't take you seriously. It doesn't matter if you are 21 and inexperienced, you should get paid according to your skills and what you bring to the table; after all your video is going to help them make a profit in some way. Really, if at least they had offered a 100€ flat rate per job they would've shown respect. If you can't afford it, don't buy it; just like you don't try to buy a Red Weapon and offer 500 € you should not conceive hiring somenone for free. The fact that there are "specialists from the 90's" competing in the same market with kids form bad private media schools -which is true- just broadens that market. Not so long ago a commercial or a corporate video was something that only medium sized or large companies could afford. It was hard to make a corporate video for less than 7000-8000 € and a commercial was minimum triple that amount. Now there are many more products accessible to more companies with faster production and adjusted to the needs of each client. That doesn't mean there's no room for the novice -quite the opposite-, and there are "salary slots" depending on the job, but "for free" should never be one. Here 500 € for a job is not much, it could be an acceptable rate for somenone starting out -keep in mind that every job requires pre-production and post-production-, especially because it is very unlikely that you work every day and you'll have to survive on a couple jobs a month in the beginning.

200 seems too low IMHO, unless you are an intern, a non-pro doing a favor or a reduced day rate based on the amount of days hired. I live and work in Madrid and 200 would be ok if you get hired several days a week every week... Anyway, just like everywhere else, it depends on the distribution and the scale of the job -in this case, I suppose it is mainly internal or web use-, your skills/experience -although knowing how much others clients pay for your talent is only useful to you and measure the value of your time-, and the gear used. It shouldn't be like that but the rates are different if you are using proper lights and lenses on an FS7/C300 than if it's just you with a 5D and an on-camera light, regardless of your talent and the result. If it's just you with your camera, don't go below 500€/day... and try to get something extra for an assistant.

I'm not stuck with domestic grosses, where do you get that impression? In fact, this movie was probably greenlit mostly because of foreign market revenue since the original Blade Runner was a flop in the US. It is a cult movie nowadays so it could gather a worldwide audience to make it financially viable -let's hope it does-. The issue is that whatever international distributors spent on international marketing is irrelevant to studios. Most of the times, studios make movies, market them and exploit them in the US -where they control the whole production chain up to movie theatres-. That's why we can sort of calculate how much they spent and their break-even point. International distributors usually pay for their own marketing campaigns and simply give back 50% of the BO gross. Well, that prediction may not be far off! giving a x4 performance through its box office is kinda optimistic, though. That would be an ideal -yet possible- scenario given the good reviews and word of mouth. Take into account that more "hyped" movies like the Twilight films only manage to double the first weekend gross during their box office life. And no, those figures do not include DVD/Blu-ray, Streaming on TV rights... those are the very last chance for the producers to get their money back. Hey, even Waterworld eventually broke even...

If the budget was around 155M$, then 400M$ is a reasonable break-even figure. Producers/Studios generally receive an average of 50% of the gross Box Office (the other half is what distributors amd cinemas keep). It is an old rule of thumb that movies need to make between 2 to 2,5 times their budget to break even, depending on marketing expenses and distribution deals. According to this, Blade Runner 2049's marketing expenses would have been less than 35M$ which frankly seems to make sense given the media presence and promotion has been OK but not huge... In addition nowadays there are many movies in which most of the marketing budget come from pre-opening campaigns by "affiliate brands". I remember Men In Black 2 had a crazy high marketing budget -for its time- but it was mostly paid for by Mercedes-Benz and Burger King. Minority Report also had important sponsorship and product placement deals with big brands -Nokia and Audi, I believe-. I don't know about Blade Runner 2049, but wouldn't be surprised if the marketing budget had been tied to the agreements they managed to sign. Truth is 35$M is a poor opening, but we have no idea how long its legs will be (8.7 on ImDB) or how well it can go in international markets... we'll see!

I've also used the Rode filmmaker kit -300$ new- and, though it is nowhere near as sturdy and well built as the Sennheiser kit, sound quality is pretty much the same and it uses the "digital" frequency range and therefore does not interfere with other radio frequencies -and that range is free I believe, which is one of the reasons the kit is so cheap-.

The extra CPU cores help, but also look into a more current GPU, such as a GTX 1070 or 1080. Even a GTX1060 6GB as an affordable alternative to the 660ti

Yes, you should definitely expose and WB to your subject -with a white balance card is perfect-, not the green screen.

I don't... I would if the C300 MKII were a successful seller that needed to be proctected or "not cannibalised", but the sad truth for Canon is the C300 MKII cycle is over. The original C300 had a long life and was a sold and rented long after its release, but the C300 MKII failed to do so from the start -mainly due to the FS7- and it's gathering dust in the shelves of stores and rental companies. Whatever hype sales or loyal customers it had, they ran out long ago. Canon should accept that fact and move on -even if some C300 MKII owners feel a little screwed-.

I had never heard such advice... and I sure would not follow it Nowadays it is not strictly necesary to have a blue o green screen -some other colors could do- though it still helps, specially since those specific shades of green and blue are easier to key and not so close to the green and blue we find in every day life (clothes, skin tones, etc). Having said that, the color of your greenscreen material is way off... The most important elements are different lighting and separation. You should have a set of lights to light the greenscreen and a different set of lights to light the subject. Light the greenscreen so that it presents an even surface on camera and light your subject however it fits the scene, context, VFX work, etc. Obviously, you should expose and WB to your subject! Then, if necessary, adjust the background (greenscreen) lighting. The longer the distance between you subject and the greenscreen, the better; separation avoids green spill in your subject. In exterior locations, it is easier to avoid and usually available room is no problem. In interiors, try to put as much distance as possible between subject and greenscreen, and cover with black cloth the parts of the greenscreen that are not in frame -they still reflect green light- and use a proper hairlight/backlight. I hope that helped! P.S. I hope that is not the guy's "professional green screen studio" because that is far from pro... the ceiling is too low and I can't see a truss or anywhere to hang the lights and the back wall should gently slope to the floor to avoid that 90º shadow line, not to mention the green colour is way off as I said before.

I do see the indexing -only once- since I import the full folder with the rushes which usually weighs several GB and can see Premiere "conforming" every video file and "generating a peak file" for the audio tracks and files. This happens in the background though sometimes the file that is being indexed doesn't respond well to scrubbing/editing until it has been indexed. But once the indexing is done, re-loading the project is really fast. The "over a minute to open" is really a long time to open a project, but I guess it makes sense considering how many media files the project has. The 20 minutes after that should not happen... Have you checked how much space is allocated for project files in your drive? I kinda remember you could define how much disk space the folder could use and that by default it was not too much. Maybe that folder is full and the indexing is only stored in RAM and not the HDD, making it necessarry to re-do it everytime you exit Premiere? In my experience, file format has little to do with how long indexing takes. File size is directly proportional to how long it takes Premiere to "conform" it. Compressed and long GOP files are simply more hardware demanding and may result in choppy scrubbing, dropped frames and general poor performance if the computer is not powerful enough, but that's about it. From an editing prespective, not a technical one, have you considered dividing the job into several smaller projects? I know the nature of every job is different and sometimes that is not possible, but even if the files are small I cannot imagine what it's like to navigate through your project structure... How many bins you have?? how many items per bin?? It's gotta be a challenge!!

No it doesn´t. Files are indexed when you first import them and that's it, unless you erase the project temp files created by Premiere. No. I just opened a project I edited last month: not too long, not too short, around 500 clips including short B-roll ones and 20 minute long ones from interviews, plus subtitles, 8 songs, After Effects lower thirds etc. It took about 5 seconds to open the project and after that less than 3 seconds to load the media. No re-indexing or "conforming". As I understand it, the reason behind indexing is precisely to accelerate the process of opening a project and recalling all the media files associated with it. The footage was a mix of Sony MXF files (FS7 and FS5) and Quicktime h264 files form a Canon DSLR, and the station is not the fastest around (old-ish i7 with a GTX1070 and 32GB of RAM).

I think it does, in the background. I honestly don't usually pay attention to that when I import the media (I will tomorrow and confirm for sure). Still, the indexing should only happen once when you first import the media into the project and after closing and reopening the project you should only have to wait for the media to load...

Looking at your setup I seriously doubt a GH5 would boost your creativity... In some cases it is true that a better/more ergonomic/more versatile camera could enable you to do things you can't do with your current gear, but having an a6500 and an FS5... Come on! Both cameras are light, small and very capable -with some shortcomings, like every camera-. I use the FS7 and the FS5 for paid work and frankly, if I don't enjoy as much as using a stripped small cam it is because I am WORKING. Even if your job is your passion, there's a tiny bit of pressure when there is a client, pressure to not screw up, to not miss any shots, to go on schedule and even pressure to "get it right" -sometimes you shoot and edit exactly what was agreed and scripted and the client doesn't like the final film and wants to re-shoot, re-edit or start from scracth-. There's also the fact that you are many times not shooting what you really want but what serves the client's purpose. No matter what camera you use, nothing will compare to the joy of shooting with your small cam on vacation or shooting an improvised goofy short with friends. You'll always find more joy when you can experiment with lighting, camera angles, lens choices -or lack of, using just one- having the luxury to get it wrong or "not perfect". All that "dedicated video cameras kill creativity vs mirrorless open up new worlds" is the enthusiast/purist/idealistic/childish filmmaker in all of us talking. We've all felt a little bit that way some time or another, but deep down we know it's not true. It's the kind of BS that crumbles down the moment you are faced with the reality of the industry, its tight deadlines, its constant need for quick technical problem-solving, for formats that meet the detailed requirements, for footage that is easily cut with the rushes someone else has shot who knows where, for files that are platform and NLE agnostic... Your tools are just that, and fatigue may set in no matter which tools you use. Take some time off, maybe? Try different projects? I, too run a production company and know more often than not this is not possible. If you find there's some limitation that really affects your work -what clients expect of you- such as 200p @ 8K then sure, look for a new tool that'll serve you. The FS5+RAW is a real workhorse, uncomfortable at times for sure, but it's a professional tool that gets the job done. The a6500 not so much -was never intended to- nor the GH5 nor any other camera that is not meant for that use, even if we all use them sometimes with mostly acceptable results. I've been in your place more than once and what I learnt was to stop, leave emotions aside for a moment and objectively evaluate if the change is really going to have a meaningful positive impact in my workflow or what I offer to the client. Will it make you faster, more efficient or allow you to offer something clients might want that you can't give them now? If I were you I know I'd end up missing having proper internal ND filters, proper audio connections (even though I have a soundman recording externally) and the rest of the "little things" a dedicated video/cinema camera provides... even if the GH5 is a true accomplished camera. Sure, like the F5, F55, FS7, FS5... if you use a prosumer stills camera with hybrid/video features, even if the specs are impressive and may deliver stunning results, do not be surprised if those things happen. I seriously doubt the casual street photographer shooting RAW stills is ever going to experience those problems. In a shooting there are things far more "impressive" than a rigged camera: large lights, grips running around, lots of stands with flags, cables, trucks, an old DP with his light meter... The rigged GH5 might be cumbersome and uncomfortable compared to an FS5, so the advantage of "going light and free" is lost. Even in a small shooting with few people, If my livelihood is at stake I'd always choose convenience/usefulness over looking cool... I'd probably choose a C300 or C100 over the GH5 provided the requirements of the project are covered with the C100 -even if it's not the best iq available-.

I sometimes use the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 with a speedbooster that makes it approx. a 19-50 f2.0. The range is enough most of the time, the "effective" f2.0 makes it very versatile and it is very pleasing to have hard stops at both ends of the focus ring -even if the throw is not very long, just like with any other stills lens-.

Have you considered not using Slog2? Slog3 and 2 are not recommended in low light, and even less in slow motion. Try using a different profile and you'll probably get a much cleaner image that you can still grade (not so much in terms of contrast).

The old C300 was 12000$ when it was released, right? I really think it would make more sense to release a C200 in the 5K$ region, just like I believe it would make sense for the new "mini-varicam" that is going to be announced in June.