Ed_David

Good for you baxter. Filmmaking should be fun. Success does suck. Ask kurt cobain. Failure is even better. Thats why i write. To fail. Let me lnow if you need crew or gear for your next film.

Running a board aint easy. Its like hosting a party. But at a certain point you gotta just let the discussions go. Thats the irony. If you dont people start to think the board is being unfair then the leave. Its gotta be tought because andrew and mtheory are emotional like the rest of us. and it gets heated because people can say the darnest things and not see the reactions it causes. Good old online interactions amongst strangers.

dude calm down moderator. Go out and experience life.

Creativity caN be taught. Its called riffing in jazz. Boogie nights riffed off the opening of i am cuba. People can talk about creative rigs etc or mood or color or editing. Just not always about camera ghdhdhsud4 or rumors. Thats what i think fuzz was sayin

Tangents are always more interesting sometimes than where it begins. Thats why i love essays that go somewhere different by the end.

I agree w fuzzynormal. Most of it is a giant waste of time. I just watched an arri amira video because i am thinking of renting this camera and the video was nice but creatively boring. They are all tools. I rather shoot on my flawed nx1 because i can quickly make a story. But we are also camera nerds too. i am obsessing right now over anamorphic adapterand the new dji phantom 3 as cheap ways to create new tools for my storytelling all made possible by this site and others. Some of the talk is worthless some isnt If you want to talk about the art of filmmaking please please come to my new blog http://www.eddavidblog.com where i talk about the art of it all. I invite all if you to come

​Honestly Sekhar, I'm happy you don't like the look of the film - don't be worried or feel left out - it's okay - man - it actually is good for me to then have to figure out if I do like it myself and why. It's called constructive criticism and yes I was defensive and still is (I'm a super emotional artist like most of you on this board) but it's useful for this to have as a spring board and discussion for anyone's work. Once one just surronds oneself with yesmen and yeswomen, one can't really move forward as much - one's ego takes over. Hence, Martin Scorses or George Lucas - their best work was early in their career when they had to prove who they were.

I fully agree but at the same time, we are mostly cinematographers, not directors on this board. And DOP obsess over lenses, filtrations, film stocks, etc etc etc - I can't stop obsessing myself while I should be doing my comedy writing. ARGGG it's hard - this internet and these boards have so much information floating around that no one in my normal life ever wants to talk about .

​I think what is important to be open to everything - and sometimes too sharp is not good either, nor is too soft - it really depends on the mood you are trying to set. For doc, watch a bunch of docs and find ones that you respond to and move based on that. My whole life I react the most to the look of film - the DP Lance Accord is one of my heroes - how he intellectualizes scenes and how he works with lighting and movement and his use of lenses and certain film stocks really inspired me. And I just personally love the aethetic of film - I love grain and texture and all the color information of it all - but really it's up to you - there are no right answers. Trust your own instincts.

You got me! Adding film grain is to add texture and movement to the sequence of images in a frame. what's ironic is that most film stocks have gotten cleaner - there is kodak 50D which is grainless pretty much - so film is moving away from grain, digital is moving towards grain. not to mention all the diffusion and filters and specialty lenses to put on sharp sensors to soften them - to make faces look better. I am glad you don't enjoy the look of the film - we all have our opinions and they are all important. my editing of the short fashion film is very quick and kinetic and not for everyone!

​I agree completely with you . I thought it looked terribly soft and just fuzzy and dumb and the editing was really short and weird - I couldn't figure out anything that was going on with it! People have all lost their minds!

here's a few instagrams from another production - basically the same setup - https://instagram.com/aedigitalstudios/

the cold rush piece looks really nice - I think using any camera is always interesting - especially the ones long forgotten. the F35 with the odyssey 7q is pretty much the same weight as the Red Dragon - around 8-12 Lbs or 4 KG-6KG - and it's boxy about the size of the black magic production camera or 4k camera - it's really not that big. It's much smaller than the alexa - half the size and you can configure it for handheld work that makes it very small - that's what I do. I put a baseplate on it with 15mm and use a snap on matte box and it's off - with the odyssey 7q now as the monitor and recorder - and it's really not that much more than like a f55. yes it's bigger than a DSLR, but once you trick out the DSLR and add audio inputs and a monitor and external battery supply - at the end of the day - it all weighs pretty much the same - maybe 2 KG more - there is one on ebay still - and I think Matt Allard is trying to sell his because he got upset at Sony so he's selling all his sony products. His loss, your gain. I think Egypt would be a great place for the f35 because of handling the desert highlights and I have used it in 120 degree F weather - I think like 45 degrees celesius and it holds up fine - it's a beast.

Motion cadencemo, I go so - here's something I whipped together - sony f35 - CCD - I softened the image in post to try to make it feel like super 16mm or god knows what - let me know your thoughts:

​I think this forum has always been a little bit "intense" with comments - that's what I like and don't like about it. I also appreciate the moderators for not censoring comments as much as the other nerd forums like dvxuser or reduser which feels like way too type A. But also this is people questioning people's gear - which cost them thousands of dollars. I understand how people can get their feathers ruffled. Imagine going up to a Harley motorcycle owner and telling him that the bikes are as good as they used to be.

​yes I love when we find a simple and elegant white paper that uses science to solve our fears and rises above marketing.

yes how light is captured - with film - and mechanical shutters vs a computer algorithm that comes from digital - also how film is transferred to digital in a telecine also how film grain affects sharpness and motion. naturally or added in post speaking of magic - can you tell in the still world what photographs are shot on film and what are shot digitally now? Geoff Boyle from CML has a new article about sharpness control that also affects motion. very well worth a read - http://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/texture-of-the-digital-image.html

I think an examination of 23.98 vs recording 24 FPS would be interesting also on my f35 I am going PSF to record the images. also to look at how sharpness or softness and the inherient grain and softness in the D16 takes the edge off also how it handles highlights. I think the D16 looks incredibly filmic in many ways - but I need to start seeing side by side with other cameras to make an scientific understanding to it. it reminds me a lot of the ikonoscope camera which may have a similar sensor. here's a film my friend Hunter shot on Super 16 fujifilm film stock - it looks very similar to what we are seeing with the D16 stuff -

_

​here's the thing about the sony f35 since I have two of them - you can record 12 bit 444 DPX files out of them into the odyssey 7q and it has a lot of professional features like XLR inputs and multiple hd sdi outputs the digital bolex looks absolutely amazing - that footage was gorgeous - I think the only issue I saw was the video noise in the image - but that's pretty minor - all the footage I'm seeing looks incredible - I just wish the camera was built better - with removable ssd cards or cfast cards and a viewfinder that's more logical. her skintone - her face was gorgeous - I would be curious about this camera - but also though you have to have a viewfinder and all that too anyway the d21 is really lovely too - it's a 250 ASA camera though - the f35 is 640 ASA (that's what I rate it) - also I rate the red dragon at 320 ASA - the OLPH sensor - I rate camera's ASA based on my own artistic likes and wants in highlights and shadows. I don't listen to the "camera makers" - but motion to me is also really important, so is natural sharpness, resolution, skin tones, highlight handling, and the userbility of the camera and the weight a lot of factors - paired with lenses and filtration and you have tons of variables. Also I like how it gets people to use vintage glass on their cameras. also the control over the image you can output - so many amazing things to obsess over. also motion is magic - digital cameras may have a global or mechanical or rolling shutter - but it's also the compression and resolution of the sensor and how it interpolates this data that creates the motion feeling - one camera's 180 degree shutter will feel different than another on many complex algorithms. also the look of film - we are seeing it thru a telecine - we aren't watching 35mm film prints anymore - we know and love about film is how it got processed in its pipeline to digital or vhs or dvd or blu ray. degredation of the image this way. so film is complex too. this is all digital, nothing is organic - this isn't as simple as a bunch of photos taken together 24 frames a second - it's how the codec and interpoloation of all that data comes together and streams together to make motion and also how we view this motion on our monitors or iphones or god knows what. Before I shoot a movie I do tests then project and now projection doesn't even matter - it's how it looks on a tiny iphone.

​the sony f35 is on ebay for like 8k - join the revolution - I have two of them - one man's dinosaur is another man's lovely lovely beast. I have shot 10 projects on them this year - hopefully one of those will win an Emmy.

Sony F35 with ultra prime lenses . I don't think display quality will go up - if anything they'll continue to go down. Have you checked out at your local electronics store how bad the contrast is on the latest 4k tvs? Across the board TVs are cutting costs. It seems most people rather get a cheap TV than an expensive TV - and for good reason. Most people use TV to watch sports and crappy reality tv - and they don't even switch the motion to normal 50 or 60hz they watch at double 120HZ so it looks like a soap opera. I don't have much hope unless for some reason Apple does releases a Apple TV that has a really nice display. But I think they would have by now. Until then, you gotta make it look good for a 5' (12 cm) display. That's the future of people watching films. On their little iphone and android phone (which I think look better in contrast and color than most consumer Televisions).

​Holy gosh that article is amazing - it's everything I've secretly been thinking. With actually real analytics now available - the world can see how ineffective advertising is online and of course from tv and radio. Never before have we been able to analyze this in this depth. The classic response is "well advertisers have to make more engaging content" - and that's what they need to do - make more "content" less ads. Stuff that's actually funny and engaging. Like BMW films used to do. I'm curious if we finally start seeing some sort of shift. And also companies putting money into R&D over advertising.

Now I see what happened - facebook has crushed vimeo - http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/08/facebook-acquires-video-compression-startup-quickfire/ - so Vimeo has left the social-media video sharing and is focusing on video on demand. Pivot away from doom. It's smart, Vimeo can't compete with facebook in anyway. And if most click thrus cames from facebook, then it's bad business to try to fight.

as a co-worker once said back in 2002, "I've reached the end of the Internet" - Vimeo is mostly crap, just like youtube is mostly crap, and most content is crap and has always been crap. If there was only a website that organized the good from the bad better. Had more features to reward good than just "staff picks" - had discussion sections, up-one voting - well like reddit I guess but for video primarily. The paid content on Vimeo is good, but there is no reason they can't have a better user interface and make it more interesting and easier to navigate. I am more and more getting ready to start having my friends in Palo Alto start creating a better video social-media site. Vimeo made millions and was bought up years ago. I think there is still hope for a website with a better UI and better interface. If only the guys on the Silicon Valley show would make it along with their killer compression engine which reminds me of H.265. Fast loading videos, videos that take up less space, cheaper, and better user interface. That surely would win some sort of award at the Tech Crunch disrupt event. I even hope Hooli is listening.