M Carter

Figured as much, you come across as a classy guy with good taste - hard to imagine you rocking a series-E! (But as I said, if money is tight, the Series-E 100 2.8 is really more special than the reviews would have you believe. If you can't afford the classic 105mm, it's a steal at $70-$100 or so. The Series-E 28 is pretty much mush wide open, OK at F4 or so).

Yes, it's upgrade time and I've been reading dozens of tests and reviews. (And I know this has been discussed, but many older threads). I'm leaning towards the iMac. Top of the line - with the 4GB graphics upgrade - is $500 less than the base-level pro and has a very good monitor (I'll still grade with an external and color bars, etc). Everything I've read suggests it will be plenty fast for the stuff I do most - basic cutting (either FCPX where it really flies or Premiere, still tossing that around). After Effects and ProTools. I'm still on a Mac pro tower, so I have a significant investment ahead of me in RAID enclosures, thunderbolt stuff, etc., and my ProTools interface is no longer supported, so there's that. Wouldn't mind saving some cash, and I can always move to the Pro when I recover from what will be a "moving to a new state" level of upgrade I imagine. I plan on keeping the current tower for any FCP7 jobs that come back to life. Either work them or export EDLs to the newer system. I do want to play with round-tripping with Resolve as much of my color workflow is AE right now. Resolve seems like the place I'd see more benefits from the Mac pro. But basically, the old Mac Pro is choking on 4K, AE render times are long, no real-time in AE even at low resolutions. FCPX struggles on the old machine as well. I'd like to get a couple years from a new system. Here's the setup, not including external RAID for work and scratch files, etc. 27” 5k 3.3GHz quad core 24 GB RAM to start 256GB internal SSD AMD Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB video memory That's $2400 or so. As mentioned, work and scratch and renders will all be external, Tbolt2. Anyone have real-world experience with the iMac vs the Pro? And thanks in advance, but I don't want a windows machine and I don't want to build a Hackintosh. Absolutely 100% not interested at this point, I need as little down time and re-learning as possible. (I just put in 3 weeks of 16 to 19 hour days, literally... perfect storm of gigs... need scotch now...) Appreciate your thoughts and experiences.

Nope, I've been using many of the same Nikkors since the 1990's (on still bodies). Never felt the need to look at anything else for straight-up work, just for effects or character. (Shot a music video with one of those soccer-mom "HD wide angle adapters" screwed onto a 50mm... the chromatic mess in the corners was just kickass, as were the insane flares!) I've never shot the 20mm, but the 28 AIS is just kind of legendary. I've shot with one but don't own one, pretty happy with the wide end of the Nikkor 28-70 2.8, but I don't tend to shoot wide that often. It's on my shopping list though.

You really can't go wrong with many Nikkors, and theres tons on testing and blogs and writing about all of 'em, so you can find the killers from the dogs. People are enthused about the Samyangs, but does a Samyang 85 really beat a Nikkor 85mm 1.8? Same price range (used for the Nikkor) but F me, that's a magical people-shooting lens on super-35. Just sexy as hell. If you have a mirrorless camera with adapters available, the 1960's era Canon FL lenses are kind of special too. Really unique color rendering, they're capable of real shape performance (they were pretty high-tech for their day), but the soft areas can have a really magical diffused look, and you can do some cool stuff by allowing some flare and working your top flag. And other than the (spectacular) 19mm "R" lens and the 85 1.8, you can get a set of primes for next to nothing. (The faster-than-1.8 glass can get pricey as well). There's something kind of "rembrandty" about them. I wouldn't make them my main-squeeze corporate interview lenses, but when you want character... give one a try.

Depends on the flavor though: The Series E is in the so-so to "crap" range, but very affordable. (the Series E 100 though, that's a sleeper!) The 28mm Ai is decent. The 28mm AF is the same glass as the AI (or maybe the Series E?) Nothing to get psyched about. The 28mm AIS - that's a classic mofo of a badass lens. Nikon threw everything they had at the design. Compares favorably - often better - then the similar Zeiss lens of that era. Which is a badass piece of glass as well.

Indeed, sometimes learning even what parameters to test gets you off to a good start. I've reached the point in my darkroom that I'm going to completely re-evaluate my ISO rating and development, and nail my usage down 3 B&W films and 2 developers. Reminds me of the days when testing actually cost money (I'll go through about 6 35mm rolls and 3 or 4 120 rolls, and a bunch of paper). So I'm very glad I have some starting points...

Resolve is interesting, but from what I've read, we're a release or two away from it being your main editor. I'm in the same boat - STILL cutting in FCP7 and using AE for much of the stuff a modern NLE does natively. I finally have some time to upgrade hardware & software, I'l probably start with FCPX and see what I think.

"Game changing" …mmm, drama! Test reports are so-so, with fringing and onion bokeh. I bought my first Sigma lens in 1995 or so, a 28-70 2.8 AF zoom that was just OK. They've certainly come a long way, and as far as Tamron goes, it's good to see aftermarket glass with good motors and VR or IS. But Sigma cold be said to have changed the game as far as lens technology and price/value, showing that Nikon/Canon and the classic Euro shops are no longer the only game in town for IQ, and doing it for a reasonable price. Which leads the question: is Nikon and Canon glass overpriced? Hard to say - much of it is pretty damn expensive, but many of their lenses are best-in-class. I have several Nikkors that I've used for two decades, stills and now video, and they're tremendously good lenses, some approaching their 30th birthdays. But Nikon's pricing feels more ridiculous every year. Game changing to me is going to be no-compromise on features and IQ, at 30 - 50% less than the big guys. I don't own any Samsung S zooms, but they're very highly regarded and as far as I know, they did it from scratch (and overnight compared to Sigma & Tamron). Apparently it can be done.

…and after the last few major upgrades I've done, I've learned that grownups CAREFULLY SAVE THEIR PURCHASE CODES for plugins… the serial numbers or whatever, the download link, and a master list of plugins for everything, all in one place. It can be months after an upgrade and I'm mixing in protools and realize "that vintage comp emulation would be tits on this"… and it's not there… grrrr. Trying to remember to do that every time I buy something. One thing I miss about the previous Mac Pro? All those places for hard drives. It was so easy to pop in an SSD and boot back and forth - and still have your older OS drive accessible if you needed to dig through the library or whatever.

I swear sometimes, the answer to 70% of the questions here are 'TEST TEST TEST'!!! I'm thinking of buying a lab coat so when I'm testing things I'll feel super-legit!

If at all possible when you upgrade to a major OS version, stick it on a partition or a separate boot drive (clone your current boot drive and then boot from the clone and install the new OS and you'll see how everything will work through the upgrade process to actual real-world work). Test everything you can think of on the new one. if something's not ready for prime time, you can get straight back to work on your old drive. When you finally decide it's cool to switch over, keep the old version handy for a few more weeks just in case. I assume most people working with this level of software are only using their boot drives for system, apps, and maybe email and invoicing. Maybe music and personal photos as well. That's really the way to go (and you should be backing up your boot drive as well as your raids and work drives). Keeping your boot free of work and renders and scratch files makes testing a new OS a lot easier.

These kinds of questions are dependent on many factors. It would be easy to do some tests and find out. Get the same clip in prores, AVCHD, etc, play with it, stack some effects, and you'll know how it "feels" - and also time your final renders and so on for harder data.

Charbax, you are either a serious optimist or you don't read many photography blogs! (It's cool, I like optimism…)

The big issue would be the card melting into a sticky liquid inside the camera and... Kidding aside, I was at a bar one night and a client returned a SanDisk Extreme SD card (20mbs) I'd forgotten about. Stuck it in my jeans pocket (in the little plastic case - which isn't watertight or dustproof). Then we had drink after drink. Anyway, a few days later, I noticed an SD card sitting in the laundry room. My wife said, "Oh, that thing was in your pocket". It had gone through wash, rinse, and spin, and then into the dryer for an hour. On "cotton" or whatever. I took it to my desk, out of curiosity I wanted to test it before I threw it out. But… I got busy, and it got mixed into my other cards. I still shoot with it to this day, a year or more later (not fast enough for my current 4K, but it goes in the big Panasonic and my Nikons). I have no idea which card it is. Works fine though.

Some NLEs will let you edit right from AVCHD (but they're basically rendering it in the background as I understand it). Opinions are various and often heated, but I'm a prores shop and transcode from the start. Makes it easier to share footage, and more seamless to jump from after effects, etc. I also very much prefer to trim files in MPEG Streamclip for effects or motion graphics vs. trimming in AE, and I tend to do that daily. So again, Prores is much more universal on a mac. And if your system doesn't have a lot of oomph, editing native will slow you down, where ProRes will crank through like melting butter on toast. I shoot AVCHD, H264 and H265 (NX1). I really dislike AVCHD since I can't go to the folder, see the clip I want, and grab it, insert it, trim it, effect it, whatever. it's a good format for shooting but I don't like it for post. Don't know about FilmConvert, but you can edit ProRes 1080 on a pre-2000 mac all day, full screen, full rez, no slowdowns unless you add a lot of filters or stack a bunch of titles and graphics. it's designed to run like a champ on a decent Mac. And you can recompress ProRes all day with no artifacts or visible loss. EditReady does a killer job with AVCHD, just drag the folder in, set your output folder, and make some coffee or whatever. You can also resize and conform frame rates at the same time. (FCP 6 and 7 also do a good job transcoding HVAC with their log and transfer windows). EditReady is well worth the fifty bucks and it will handle about anything you can throw at it, it's a robust piece of pro software, not like Rocky Mountains at all. A real workhorse. My workflow is "get back from the shoot, copy the raw card, transcode with Editready while I unpack or do invoicing or snort coke off a hooker's.." well, you get the idea. I don't return the cards to the cameras until the next day, after my backup has run, so I have the raw card and the ProRes on my system and my backup drives. Just my .02 but it's a very robust and versatile workflow.

Been there, done that, and with corporate offices it's a nightmare. I'd revise that to the days of "making sure you have every fixture plugged into a power strip with a working 15 amp breaker", which can save a lot of pain (though you gotta do the math for your strips and also make sure they're not tripping at 10, or aren't actually tripping at all…)

Interesting. I think the lightstorm could be a great replacement of the standard-issue kino-quads and knockoofs, the 4-tube biax flos that have lit a million interviews. The 672 is wildly popular, but it's a lame key. Just not enough oomph, but fantastic for doing the things you used to rely on a 3" 300 fresnel for. Backlight, hair & cheekbones, picking out bits of background. And you can pack 4 or 5 of 'em in the space of one or two 300's. (But then we have a generation of raised-on-DSLR kids who can't imagine shooting at anything but F1.8… I really prefer about F4 - 5.6 for interviews myself). I had a chuckle over the "tungsten is the best" posts. I always assume those are guys who can't afford new lights. I have a TON of tungsten stuff and it's great for music vids or narrative (night interiors) or beauty. Sucks for corporate gigs though. LED, flo, and HMI is how you do that these days. I took a 650 fresnel to a CEO interview gig for - who knows why?? The whole time I was like "what was I thinking?" and I was totally packed and the damn thing was still too hot to touch. I could have used one of my HID 150 fresnels and heated up the room a lot less and had more control. But I have a soft spot for those tungsten fixtures I guess. But if you can't make a "middle aged lady" look lovely with a biax quad and some diffusion and some skill - I'd say go back to being a grip and watch and learn. The quad biax has been a mainstay for me for hundreds of interviews (unless the guy has the corner office with all the windows, where a 575 HMI par will barely cut it). There are a lot of kids and newbies buying into the whole "LEDs are the future" thing, but we're just now getting to where an affordable LED panel will outrun a quad biax (and a quad knockoff is under 200 bucks now and will last for years without a hiccup - it's packing them that's a pain)… but for three times the money? I dunno. "KIds today" comes to mind! (Unless they're trust fund kids and can buy a pile of lightstorms!)

I have no idea how well people do with stock - I do notice a lot of the same photos on different sites, so apparently the thing to do is get on every possible site?

The biggest issue is finding photos that work - I pulled a lot of photos for this project that seemed like 100% good and just didn't pan out. For interiors, too much lens distortion will mess up VP and you need to correct that first; and of course, any furniture that breaks across planes (or even stuff that doesn't) can really blow the look. The other issue is that vanishing point only works on flat layers, far as I can tell - so you have to isolate your images first, and my technique was to use a solid green BG (like R0 G125 B0) as the background, and then in AE use keylight to isolate the buildings (you can always retouch the PNGs that VP produces, but Keylight gives you more mask control). But you generally need an instance of keylight on each plane, so it can slow things down a bit. You can also retouch the PNGs if something doesn't align quite right, but that can be hard since the flattened planes can look really bizarre. For stuff using displacement maps, it's another story, like isolating vertical stuff, retouching the BG out, and then making sure your displacement map has wide enough gray areas to stick the vertical objects back in so they don't distort but stay put if the camera moves. I learned a fair amount about finessing this stuff, really didn't have time to make each clip perfect but the client was thrilled, and all the suits at the tradeshow were patting some backs.

Sliding waaaay off topic here, but… 3d stuff is great for giving stock photos a little kick -

I had to come up with about 50 of these for a project where they had the unlimited stock photo account but a very low budget. It got to be kind of fun, other than the deadline had me up til 2 and 3 AM. This kind of stuff can add to your billable hours - since most of us have decent computers, after effects and photoshop and AI, if you can learn character animation, animating charts and data, or basic animation of things like manufacturing processes… you can really add to your billing (more for one-man-band guys than studios with dedicated animators anyway), farm less stuff out, and have more tools for telling business stories for marketing videos.

AE is like Photoshop, a dozen ways to get to the same end point that all depend on what tools you reach for. I do reach for the camera for lots of motion that's not really 3D or what the camera was "intended" for - things like easing and DOF, etc can be very handy. Love how your titles are locked to the images though, that was very cool!

I imagine so, just a question of more weight on the bottom and balancing it. The appeal to me is what a tiny and lightweight system it is, I think the S zoom weights more than the camera? I don't own the S zoom and probably won't, I like the look of the Nikkors with the NX1. The kit zoom is a bit more "sterile" but that's pretty subtle wide open. Very very clean image and very sharp, and the colors really pop a bit more than the Nikkors. Easy to deal with in post, but I still want to play with something like a light glimmerglass or diffusion for the kit. So cheap working at 52mm I can try a couple different things.

Ricardo, try using a 3D camera in AE with motion blur on, and use camera position and rotation for transitions like that. Kind of the same look but I imagine it would be a little quicker with the camera?

Thanks for the head's up - on my browser, the site text was off-center and cropped from one side; all I could see was "Super 16mm" - a glance at the PDF was all i saw as well. They maybe should shout that out a bit (and browser test their site). I have too much love for the lenses I've been using for two decades now to crop them as severely as super-16 (Or I'd have had a pocket years ago). They sure do rock at Super 35/APS-C though...