Lasers_pew_pew_pew

Hi there lovely people. I was wondering if I could pick your squishy supple brains for a moment. I'm doing a 24 hour charity fashion filming stunt on Saturday. And the deal is we turn up, film this stunt all day, and then I go back and edit the video and publish it to the interwebz that very night. Here's the problem. My Mac Pro can't play or handle h.264 4k files very well (VLC will play them fine-ish, but quicktime finds it impossible). I usually AMA into Avid (I am an avid editor, yes I know I should get premiere but for this project I have no choice but to use Avid 7). My plan on the day was to have a laptop converting the h.264 files into 4k ProRes on my laptop so when I get back to the office to start editing I can AMA the files and start editing off quickly. And then export to 2k when done. (Or more likely a 1080 down sampled file which should look nice). The AMA's of the files converted to Pro Res I have from a test day, can crash the computer constantly and lose all the work at times. And they still don't play back greatly. I can transcode in the back ground some clips but this will massively slow the edit down. Also I'm not sure what to transcode them as, 420 MXF is the top option that comes up on my avid settings I think? (I'm an idiot with codecs), and when I tried cropping in I noticed I was losing more resolution then I thought I would when cropping in 200%? I was hoping to use the cropping ability of 4k to help me get different shots on the fly and zoom in on details of the clothes and posters, but is 200% cropping not feasible? Or is it that when I transcode to 420 MXF that is bringing the quality down, what should I transcode to? ANYWAY, What workflow would you guys recommend for easy editing and to quickly be able to start editing straight away and export off with as little problems as possible! (preferably!)

Can I just ask, what's the deal with cine lenses like the SLR magic/Rokinon's? is there actually a picture quality improvement? A resolution/detail improvement? Or is it just the clickless aperture/better focus throw? yadda yadda.

Happened to me when I ordered my nikon one a while back. But it arrived in London pronto.

Sooooo….. as someone who's just getting started… Should I be selling my nikon m43 speed booster, and sigma to 18-35 nikon mount lens, and buy one of these and some canon glass instead? Canon glass really that much better looks wise then Nikon? The idea of IS sounds really awesome though. Especially for documentary shooting and taking photos. But you have to use slower lens, which is a shame. I suppose I could always get another sigma 18 - 35 second hand but canon mount.

Can I ask why'd this be impossible without a tilt shift lens? Thank you for all the thoughts guys. I actually just worked out that my 18-35 has such a close focus limit while, that it actually acts like a macro. I can get REALLY close to stuff, and add in that I can always crop in 4 times with 4k. That leaves me with not really needing a macro ever I don't think? Also managed to pick up this lens for £30 off ebay! I am very happy! http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200f4ais.htm I think the next step would be to ignore the tilt shift for the time being (although second hand one on ebay for just over 200 quid is really cheap I think?), and pick up an old nikkor 50mm. Just for the sake of having a fast 50? Even though I can't think of when I'd ever need it? To be honest, after trying the 4k crop in tactic with my gh4 for the first time today, I'm not sure I need one, and I'm not even sure now that I needed a telephoto in the first place? What do you think the benefit of using a telephoto over a wider lens but with 4k crop would be guys?

Hi guys, could I ask your thoughts on using a tilt shift or telephoto long lens for documentary or film? Or if you have any good examples of when either have been used? I'm trying to justify buying either for myself for documentary film making and short narrative films. Even stuff for youtube. Thinking telephoto definitely for any sit down interviews for documentary, and any really close up details of objects for documentary and film. Telephoto for fast sideways movement far away as well. But struggling to justify it to myself when I've got a gh4, sigma, 18-35, and m43 speed booster.

Such a helpful answer thank you!

Do you mean sorry that a 150mm on my gh4 with speed booster (still a slight crop compared to c300), will give the same shallow depth of field as a 200 on c300? Or is everyone saying it's the actual lens size that gives the look, and cropping won't give you the same look? Basically it looks like if I want that look I will have to get a big ass lens, I can't just use a smaller lens on a crop?

Hey, Need to try and work something out... If you get a really nice shallow depth of field on a canon 2.8 70-200 (at the 200mm end), on a c300, would you get the same shallow depth of field on a 50 - 150mm lens on a cropped sensor? For example, if I buy a 50 - 150mm 2.8 sigma zoom for my camera, on my gh4 speedbooster with a crop factor of 1.6, at the long end it becomes a 240mm. At this end at 240mm, will it have a very similar look and a shallow depth of field similar to the 200mm end of a canon 70-200mm 2.8? I'm wondering basically is the lovely shallow depth of field from those long lenses due to the actual lenses inside being made to the bigger focal lengths, what causes that lovely look? Or will I achieve the same look with a cropped sensor and smaller lens?

What does push and pull mean sorry?

Hey guys, I used a 70 - 200 canon on a c300 recently and fell in love with it. I love being able to get that close and the super shallow depth of field and nice look it gives. I was wondering what you guys thought was a comparable lens in terms of quality and depth of field on a Panny GH4, with m43 speedbooster? I was thinking nikon 70 - 180? 80 - 200 maybe? Which do you think I could get for cheap and that would still look high quality? Or the sigma 50 - 150? not the new one with OS, (since speedbooster doesn't allow OS), but the older model for a bit cheaper. I was also wondering in terms of old lenses if I get something that's really old but still sharp and fast, if it'll make much of a difference? Like a really old nikkor from the 80's? Or the 'Bourne supremacy' lenses, which were some old Nikon zooms that were used on that I film, like the 80 200 I believe. Any thoughts welcome

Hi guys, So I'm trying to build the perfect c300 shoulder rig for our production, and it's proving to be a bit of a nightmare. We've used some rigs on hire and to be honest I thought most of them were shit. The best one I used was one we hired from procam, which was actually an amalgamation of a few rigs in one. Basically the bit we want at the front is below, with the grip re-locator...http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/zacuto_usa_z-lshk-cgr&utm_source=shopping&utm_medium=shop&utm_campaign=feed&gclid=CIO3mK2AgcACFfOhtAodNGsAtA Although my director who will be using it mostly (when a DV director or I'm not using it as well), is fine without a follow focus as am I, I saw this tornado grip from zacuto and thought it was pretty interesting! Anyone have any experience with it? http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/zacuto_usa_z-drr The next thing is an actual proper shoulder cushion, not some really hard uncomfortable rubber thing, so found this http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/portabrace_sp-3g But here comes the more complicated problem... We were planning on buying a miller arror 40 tripod, which has a base plate the same size as the satchlers, and IDEALLY I'd love a base for the camera which will fit on the zacuto bars, which has a quick release for that size tripod base plate of miller arrow 40 baseplate. Which is the same as the satchler video 18, at 79.5mm by 65mm. That way the director could move from shoulder rig, quick release the camera and then use the same base plate to put it onto the tripod? Don't want to be putting the whole rig on the tripod as the type of shots, movement, extreme close ups, pans, wouldn't allow a rig with handles coming off the front or back. Anyone have any suggestions? And any suggestions for a matte box that is easy clip on and off?

Hi there, I've got a GH4 and I'm looking at audio options for it. It comes up with a right and left audio levels on the screen, which makes me think it can do separate left and right audio channels is that right? Also if I used something like a beachtek/juice box that'll give me proper XLRs but record the sound onto the camera, (so it's not separate so I don't have to sync it later), will I be able to use separate radio mics in each xlr, and they'll be recorded as separate audio tracks on the video files?! It's really important with documentary shooting where you have to have two people radio mic'd, but keep their audio separate, or have a radio mic on the left channel and then a top mic on the right channel. That way when things go wrong with the radio mic or there is a lot of noise coming from the contributor's clothing, in post I can use audio from the top mic to cover those bits with clear audio. Just wondering if anyone knew either way? Or had any tips/a solution?

Thanks for the reply! I can imagine it still helping with a shoulder rig, but my worry is that I'll spend the money on a lens with IS, but at the same time it won't be as good quality looking as something like my Sigma (which I picked up 2nd hand for £400!!!), so it'll be more stable, but look a bit crap. Is the image quality out of the panasonic's good for professional use? I know it's not going to be a cine lens, but nice to know it'll hold up quality wise and not look too low production value. It's hard to tell the quality on super compressed youtube videos. But when I got it into the edit or I'm showing my executive producer, then quality will really show. I think I might just try get a cheap one with IS and leave it to just use with photos when I'm going to family events or something like that. I've ordered a metabones Nikon to MFT adapter, and a Nikon G to MFT speedbooster. I've got to wait a week for the adapter, and 2 weeks for the speed booster. Everywhere in the UK is out of stock of the speed boosters and apparently all suppliers are waiting for the same shipment of stock from China in two weeks time!!!

Hi guys, I have a beautiful new GH4 but without a lens I can use for it at the moment... I was also looking for a standard native lens I could use for general video and stills that I could just take around me. Something with autofocus, IS, preferably a zoom, really fast constant aperture, parfocal? Not asking for much am I? ;) So at the moment for my GH4 I have a Sigma to 18-35 nikon mount lens. Brilliant right? Well it would be if the company that sold me my speed booster hadn't fucked me over and I'm still waiting for it. That's right, I've had a camera sitting on my desk for weeks now that I CANNOT use. Luckily someone has lent me their cheap adapter and some old nikon manual lenses for a day so I could at least have a go on it. Trouble is everything seems to be in the same range as my 18-35 sigma, with an adapter or speed booster when I finally get them. My sigma with a speed booster and an adapter will cover 28mm to 80mm (filming 4k, 35mm equivalent). I'm trying not to over lap the ranges that much as it'd feel a bit like a waste of money. Am I being a twit? What do you guys think? Do I really need an IS for video? Or at all? My filming is going to be documentary or narrative, and I always use a tripod or a shoulder rig really? Will IS help for photos? Is it worth it at all? I'm looking to add a Tokina to my lens collection once my god damn speed booster or even the new adapter I've ordered actually arrives! But if I got a wide native lens with IS and AF, that was great, then I guess I wouldn't need one.

The one in the black dress looks like a very famous model, although can't remember her name, dating the footballer Ronaldo. Irina Shayak or something?

Can I ask how easy it was to work with the anamorphic adapter? And if you think it was worth it? Do you feel like it actually added anything to the image? I mean you could have just filmed the same subjects but wider on Cine4k, and added black bars. Oval shaped bokeh and horizontal light probably doesn't add that much feeling to the image doesn't it? I want my short films I'm planning on making to look cinematic, but not really seeing the benefit of using an adapter like that? (Trying to keep costs low, but if it truly does help then it's probably worth the money).

Diego, that was nice man, real nice.

Very nicely done. Out of curiosity, how did you get into directing commercials?

How is the colours of the 5D mark III compare to a GH4 then? Question then, how do you get GH4 footage to look like 5D Mark III footage? How would you film it picture profile wise, and how would you grade it?

Thank you, that's an awesome example. I feel slight buyers regret for ordering a GH4 now, as I could have got this and I can see how it would make micro budget/stolen pictures filmmaking easier at times, with uncontrollable lighting situations. Being able to have a deeper DOF in such a dark environment, getting people at multiple marks/distances and it still be well lit without a lighting set up and crew would be bloody handy! But I suppose the ability to reframe with 4k all the time would also be a huge benefit, as I can grab shots and worry about close ups and framing later on. I'd probably get more use out of that when my GH4 turns up. Especially for run/gun one chance to film documentary work. I know the A7s does 4k to an external recorder, but that would probably make the stealing shots capability harder with the extra bulk/weight/money. I'm a light as possible kind of guy. It's the first camera that's going to come to mind when I need to film in such dark environments. Environments that were basically impossible to film in before without night vision cameras!!

"If you can't figure out what to do those things creatively to increase the quality of the work you're outputting, you might consider a different line of work." Yeah I figured the new DOF choices as a given.

Can someone explain to me the creative benefit of the low light performance of this camera? I'm a bit curious, as all I can work out that it would benefit me would be if I wanted to film at night a well lit scene, but had no lights. Then I could just make it look well lit. Which is really awesome! But that's the only benefit I can work out at the moment...?

Anyone with an opinion on the ninja blade or the old samurai's/ninja's?

Can I in theory buy a ninja blade and use that to record the 10bit output? Also I have some old atmos ninja's and samurai's (first models), do you think I would be able to record the 10bit output from the GH4 onto them? I'd rather a ninja star though for the small size and cheap price, for what I'll be using it for I won't need the 2nd bigger screen.