Liam

I don't know if everyone else has been seeing all the tv show reruns being like uncropped to fit 16x9. Mostly I'm just confused how it's possible. I guess they kept the original negatives and rescanned everything for higher resolution etc. But it seems they also shot (s16mm instead of 16mm) - or whatever format - in 16x9 with the foresight that they would be uncropping later when tv standards changed..? PLUS a lot of the lenses vignette like crazy because of it.. meaning they were using the wrong lenses for the camera? But it's also weird to me that they'd even want to do this. It fits the screen now, but vignetting (a ton on That 70's Show), performances that were supposed to be cropped out (people breaking character on Friends etc), once I saw a body double whose face would have otherwise been cropped off on Malcolm in the Middle. It's bugging me.

Well it better hurry. I'm getting sick of my A7s7

Hitfilm express is probably the second best free NLE, after resolve (but a $20 add-on might be kind of necessary). Not that you're against spending any money probably. can also run on a lower specced computer

Don't you have an nx1..?

I think the A7s7 is really gonna be the sweet spot

Organic is completely different from cinematic I think. I'm alright with us calling House of Cards cinematic, but organic it is not. "Organic" can be shot poorly, in bad lighting, with insufficient dynamic range and resolution, at f8, on a one inch sensor. the important element would be the camera or grade, maybe a nice grain, proper highlight and shadow rolloff, maybe cadence.. "Cinematic" is the production quality argument, with HDR and high res, good lighting, and apparently doesn't need good colors these days (having just watched Sneaky Pete on Amazon)

Think that was the d810, if I'm thinking of the same one

It should. Only reason it wouldn't is if they rearranged the physical pieces in the mount or the shutter. But if it doesn't work, there will be a new dedicated one soon enough

Isn't apsc usually a little smaller than s35? Definitely in the case of like a Canon rebel. It's also not the only film standard. I don't know any of the specifics of The Game, but like Imax film is enormous. Anamorphic changes things too

Speedboost it!

I think for me, La La Land hit that little spot where I couldn't really have a criticism because all of it was either awesome as a throwback or just straight up magic. Or something to that effect. Trying to think of other films that had that effect (ones where it isn't just a me thing). I guess if anyone has every called a film "perfect", you can probably look back and say there was a "problem", but if you already see it as perfect, even those just become charming. So maybe means I was a little clouded by sentiment, but it does mean the film did a fantastic job of pulling me in. The style obviously isn't for everyone; maybe that let some people be more aware of issues as it went along.. I really wanna see Paterson too Also, just a tthought, no one has done it I don't think, but give a heads up for spoilers.

I was just looking at cheap shoulder rigs. sometimes the cheap ones like rest on your stomach partially.. looks a little awkwards, but supposedly those can work well. but I was mostly for the specific 16mm style cat-on-the-shoulder look. Not sure the audience will really see much of a difference between that and regular handheld though

be specific!

Finally saw La La Land. Amazing. Manchester by the Sea I thought had a lot of issues.. really freaking weird editing in one scene, but overall liked it more than I thought I would. Casey Affleck is talented. What should we be excited about? What was overrated? Post a review or a title or whatever. Or just say screw the Oscars. What won't get recognized, but we should all see? Go!

a6000 has an evf and a little better of a codec I believe. think I heard the a5100 can overheat (never heard it about the a6000). you've got some panasonics in that price range, like the g6 or gm1. nikon d3300 looks alright for video, but no flippy screen or flat profile and the least flexible mount. canon is of course weakest in that range, but the eos-m is still up to par with their rebel line at least for video, and a hell of a price these days.

I don't think they could fit peaking in if it's the same body

Those look nice. I like Andrew's a lot, and his additional profiles and LUTs are great too. Could be fun to see how they compare, but I wouldn't want to nitpick too much between them if they're both good for skintones and dynamic range and using LUTs

haven't seen any. do you have/enjoy James Miller's?

very cool, that's something I was curious about. how do I use your file exactly?

A sub-forum for low/zero budget filmmaking as a whole would be nice with the cheapest options in every filmmaking area, and this type of stuff too. I often feel a little dorky asking for the dirt cheap gear here, when it's such a broad range of people, and I don't want to clutter the forum. I'll have to google those. Tangerine was surprisingly good

@Bioskop.Inc nice, I wish I had a camera that produced the grain on its own. I did some more testing. I think what was bothering me before was just because I was zoomed in way too far. Also adding a touch softness to the grain made it match my footage a lot better, and kept me from whining and fussing with other adjustments to make it more aggressive. Anyway, this wasn't totally about my issues, other ways of graining welcome. David F Sandberg said an interesting way on his vimeo a while ago, one image of grain that he randomized on his own, I believe? Talented guy

@martinmcgreal great images! Have you compared the pocket cadence in prores to raw? I heard raw is notably better

do you mean 16mm? - just confused, but if that's what you meant, you can speedboost it to help that (as well as low light) also, a few things your top requirements are now the most subjective (cadence, good color, softishness) I was pretty sure the pocket was supposed to have some of the best cadence. you can add the 1dc to the best cadence list for sure by the way. the f3 was the camera Ed used on his film Five Star. all handheld style filming, great test of cadence. maybe "not perfect", but "better than some" could even be an understatement maybe make sure you're comparing to the kings in the cadence arena too (f65, alexa, film) and that you're not just now discovering a problem with your display or noticing 24fps as a problem or something, because of suuuper intense pixel peeping I'm confused how you like graded 8-bit c-log you're seeing, but you're concerned about how well it holds up to grading (your looks may be more intense I suppose, or just in case there's a problem shooting you can correct it - but 1dc/c300 footage doesn't look too thin or artifact filled at all). also, I assume you have experience with the anamorphic lenses in question, but that glass has potential to both make sharp 4k more cinematic (especially opposed to online tests using L-series lenses or god knows what) - and not be a problem for good 1080p to cover. probably all of your options and more have been suggested though. it's okay to have opinions and be picky here, it's a big purchase. but maybe the only thing you can do now is mull on it. remember the audience could be amazed by just about any of those suggested and/or not notice the difference (not that you shouldn't fall in love with the camera, but if you hate all of them.. that's too far the other way)

It's the free one from vision color (35mm 1080p, in case they may have more idk), should be well made I'd think. I thought of a couple more ways i could maybe adjust it in my editor, but i haven't gotten around to messing with it again lately. Maybe it's just meant to be a little more aggressive like that.. I'm gonna start looking up other free ones

yep, just a style thing. Surely the compression artefacts, low resolution, possible sharpening issues, etc that my camera does on its own, and which adding grain seems to help with, could be considered.. not ideal. Adding grain has never seemed crazy to me, but I won't make you do it