JazzBox

​Thank you very much! I'm going to read it! The short will be on YouTube and Vimeo, so I don't know if will be under the U.S. law or under Italian law...

​Thank you! It's not real a bad light: it's some scene we need to shoot in order to show the character's life, that is a 40 years old man a little depressed and very rock&roll.... Of course it is not bad in our intentions but I asked because it's better to change a little the screenplay then paying some lawyers

Ciao! I have an idea for a web series: I read some books ("How to Write a Movie in 21 Days", "Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting" etc...), but all talk about a feature film. I'm planning a series of 6 episodes of 5 minutes each: do you think it is better to follow the 3 act structure in each episode? I was thinking also to divide this structure in 6 episodes, but probably it would be boring, because every episode needs a climax and an ending... I have the subject, I wrote all the (few) characters, but I don't know how to make each episode self-sufficient and still to narrate a whole story trhough all 6 episodes. How would you write for a series? Thank you very much!

In Italy you virtually need permits for anythings, but - unless you are too visible with an huge rig, bug crew and 120 actors in historic costumes - none will notice you and you can always say that you are very good with VFX, CGI etc...

Hallo! I'm going to film a short: in some scenes the protagonist take famous medicine and drink a well known whisky. Do you think it is legal to film the real medicine boxes and a bottle of that whisky or could I have a problem with the companies? Do I need some permits? Thank you very much!

Happy Holidays to you all!

I want to become a better storyteller and write a web series. I have ideas, but sometimes it's hard to give them a rhythm and translate them in a visual - cinematic way.

​I have that lens: it is really amazing (fast, sharp, great image quality, super straight etc...) but in the mechanical mode has an issue that I really don't like: if you pull the focus very slowly you see your image shifting focus in micro steps. It's very annoying I returned to the shop and try 3 other identical lens and I had the same results. I hope they could resolve it in a future firmware update, because it's a quite expensive lens... and I'd like to use it in the mechanical mode. Anyway, I use it in manual focus in the standard (endless) way, because in that way it has not micro steps. Apart that it is one of my favorite lens and I use it a lot. Just don't use it with a follow focus or gears, because it's a waste of money.

It will be funny to see what Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Blackmagic etc... will offer the day Canon will decide to give to their sub-5000$-users a decent EVF, focus peaking, zebra, a great codec, 50 to 96 1080p, decent battery life, 4K, easy connectivity to tablet/phones etc... For the moment, in my small town, 3 Canon enthusiasts filmmakers (not counting me) switched to MFT, one switched to Blackmagic and one remained with Canon, of course using ML's raw. Of course I'm not saying that if you have a Canon you should throw it away, but people that have to buy a new camera surely have some better options. I think Canon should pay lots of dollars to Magic Lantern guys, that seems the only real reason to shoot video with Canon.

I really like the way ML opens up possibilities on Canon, even if it is not very comfortable to work with in situation where you are in hurry: 5D MkIII's RAW is probably one of the best image quality under 5000$, but - apart I prefer a more S35like look - it's too tricky for me to work with ML. What I dislike about Canon's philosophy is the way they pretend not to know what ML can do on their cameras. They clearly consider their DSLR just photo camera and want you buy a 10.000$ device for video. It's offending, because they started a revolution and now they act as they did not know it: ​it does bother me their way to ignore how 95% of people work today. Just that :)

I like it! But I prefer to work with Panasonic G6 over a 5D MkIII 95% of the times. It's a matter of taste, of course there is not a perfect camera that fit all works. Last week I worked with a Canon 60D because the DOP that called me has that and did not want to use my camera. Other times I worked with a 5DMkII and MkIII, I had a T3i and a 70D... I admit I like Canon's menu better then Panasonic, but I like Panasonic image better then Canon because it's sharper and 60p in 1080 is something I use often. With Panasonic I have a better quality in handheld shots thanks to the smaller body, I can use lot of lenses (FD are superb)... I have the EVF and the focus peaking... it's something I cannot work without.

Wow! :O

I'm sure that an old iPhone 3G would have more dynamic range then an Alexa in that situation with semi-naked ladies :P

I also switched from Canon to Panasonic THANKS to this great eye opening article: http://www.eoshd.com/2013/07/panasonic-g6-review-the-gh2-redux/

Exactly Andy! It's just crazy! I'm so happy with my G6, but lot of bands asked me: "Hey, why you don't use a 7D or a 5D?", then I show them some clips I made with Canon and some clips I made with Panasonic... and they instantly know why G6 is better! Not to talk about GH4! ;)

Probably the smallest possible with MFT mount that allows me to use the old lenses I love. Maybe a future, super-cheap Panasonic G "6+" that could have internal stabilization, 120 fps in 1080, V-Log profile and internal ProRes recording :) Maybe 2.5k, because for the moment I'm not so much involved in the 4k thing, even if I have (and love) a GH4. But G6 is always in my pocket and in my heart ;)

I had a T3i and I changed it for a 70D. Same image quality. I didn't know EOSHD: then I read an Andrew's article about the G6, I bought it and IMMEDIATELY I knew that it was sooooo better then the Canon! Why? 60p for slow motion, focus peaking, freedom to use old Canon lenses (and all the lenses you want) that you can't use on new Canon cameras. After a week I sold all my Canon stuff, I bought some old Canon FD lenses and I had all the features I expected from my Canon. Funny that with 7DII those feature still miss! If you don't want to sell the T3i for a G6 (of for a GH4) just take it and don't "upgrade" to the 70D, because it's not an upgrade. p.s.: here Andrew's article: http://www.eoshd.com/2013/07/panasonic-g6-review-the-gh2-redux/

100% agree with you!

Stab, the same is for music: people buy a 50$ mic, a 200 $ PC, download an unstable, cracked version of a recording software and start to call themselves "mixing engineer", "producer" or "artist". But I'm not minimally worried about them: as a long time musician with more then 10 years in recording (first as musician, then as recording engineer) I just think that they have a different "target" from mine. Let them have fun! Let them have some cash for their holidays! I mean, come on... I'm not Quincy Jones or Chris Lord Alge (neither Tony Maserati), I have a lot to LEARN FROM other people, but I have some dozens album recorded and mixed for national and international labels, so why would I care about some bedroom warriors? I'm sure that some of them, if persist, in some years will be stellar artists and possibly will produce some great music I will enjoy... But they are not stealing my clients, even if I help them with some advice about a compressor that make the same work of an 1176 for 1/3 the price... It's not the gear, it's years and years of experience (and talent!) that make the differences! Trust yourself, work hard, be curious and share your experience with people that love your same things: this is the life, you will be happier! All other things are a waste of time.

totally agree! In my humble experience with GH4 it's better using an higher ISO then underexposing. Grain is really "organic", not harsh! I like it!

Yes, of course it is me! I love that movie, exactly because for me it is a great example of cinematography. Joshua Caldwell made a great movie because he wrote a great story, he choose good actors, he made great compositions, great editing, great colors... and the DOF in his movie is always appropriate, it is never too shallow. I'm sorry If I gave an answer a little bit too strong to hmcindie, but I did not like the way he wrote me: I wrote something about the way MOST of the people (not all, obviously) use the full frame and I think that this way it is not very cinematic, it is simple too shallow for my taste and I can easily spot a 5D video when I see an extreme DOF, just that! It is the same when I see an exaggerate fisheye and I think: "it has to be a GoPro", because it is something very stylized. Maybe it is good for something, but when I watch an Hollywood movie I can see the eyes of an actor, and probably also the ears. In a lot of music video made with the 5D I can just see one eye and not the second, because it's out of focus, like the ears. But it has not that much to do with Canon 5D, it has to do with the shooter: with full frame you have to stop down the lens a little more then with APS-C. Of course great filmmaker do that and Joshua Caldwell did that, so his movie has a great photography. But a lot of people just don't do that: they know that 5D is a great low light camera, it has the possibility to give a shallow DOF and I think they became lazy about putting a light on the set and stopping down a little... maybe with A7s someone will start to make movies in absolute night without a single light, but it does not depend from the camera, it depends from a lazy choice of the shooter. Of course there is not a perfect camera that fit all situations and 5D is nonetheless a great camera: 5D with Magic Lantern is probably one of the best image quality for a budget filmmaker, but a good movie come from a lot of things, not just from a low light monster or from an exaggerate DOF. Ciao :)

Hey, I'm talking about "look", not certanly difficult of pulling focus. I simply don't like the extreme - unusable for my humble taste, and for the most of Hollywood big boys - look of a razor shallow DOF, because is something that clearly come from a 5D (or from a generic FF camera). Cinema is 99% made with Super 35, so what's your point? I don't like to use words like "shitty", but I can easily spot a "shitty" 5D VIDEO LOOK from 10 miles. And m43 looks more cinematic because the sensor's dimensions are a lot closer to Super 35 than Full Frame. In cinema the supershallow does not exist. I don't try to replicate anything, I just saw a lot of movies and, i.e. "Dallas Buyers Club" is shot handheld (no tripod, no crane, no slider), with just practical lights and a minimal crew in just 25 days. Is it "cinematic" or is it "shitty"? A super shallow DOF it's not automatically "cinema": it is often an alibi to be a lazy cinematographer. I think that "cinema" is a little more than shallow DOF. Just that! :)

I had a very similar setup (G6 and an Olympus 9-18), but it all depends for the "look" you are after. 7-14 (and 9-18) gives you a very wide image. You could need a 20 or 25 mm (that becomes 40 - 50mm in m43) for "normal" shots and a 42.5 (or 45 or 50) for close up and portraits.

100% agree with you! 5D MkII and MkIII look is so "videoish"! Hollywood has a shallow depth of field, but not an extreme, unusable depth of field! And a lot of movies just haven't!

Great news! I hope V-Log will work also internally!