mercer

I compose in camera but for some folks, I see the benefit. I don’t know if 6K will give an perceived increase in detail over 4K other than annoying sharpness. Now, I wasn’t referring to loss of sales from people in the market for a cinema camera, I’m talking about the folks who started with a P4K and may want to upgrade to the Ursa for the specs, those could be lost sales. With that being said, I am considering a larger scale short film in the winter. This camera could be perfect with its’ 6K anamorphic mode could be useful for a camera/lens rental package but as a purchase, this camera is just not really here nor there for me. At the price, rigged out, you are getting way too close to EVA1 and C200 territory, which are more workhorse cameras in my opinion. I’m hoping the Sigma FP will come in less than $2000.

I almost wonder if BM functions day to day from the money they make from preorders... joking. I actually think this is a strange camera release and they’re banking on the desire of enthusiasts and up and coming filmmakers to drink the Kool Aid. If I’m being honest, I’m almost offended that less than 2 months ago, people were still waiting for their pre-ordered P4K and then they release this. Also, what does this camera do to Ursa sales? I’m sure a lot of folks were planning or considering a jump from the P4K to the Ursa and now don’t have to. Interesting.

So only 120fps in 2.8K mode is windowed? Not really. Most of the shooters on this site aren’t cinematographers by the criteria of the title, they’re videographers. But for the point of your argument, that’s just semantics. So, I digress... if you look at professional cinematographers and the films/tv shows produced and released, only a very small percentage is captured in 4K and higher and even less is distributed in 4K and higher. So the argument is that if it’s good enough for an Alexa and your local multiplex, 9 out of 10 times it’s good enough for a smart phone distribution. With that being said, technological advancements are great and hopefully the major players will get hit hard by these smaller camera companies releasing bleeding edge features that us mere mortals can afford. I’m sure the C500 Mark II’s price tag won’t look so great at IBC when BlackMagic is showing off their $2500 camera.

The 2.8K mode is windowed? What a waste. With this information and at this price, the P6K enters the rental category for me. $1299 for the P4K is a price that makes the headaches of BM cameras go away, $2499... ehh not so much.

The EF Mount and the 2.8K mode on the P6K is the only interesting aspect of this camera to me. As a side note, Metabones must be pissed off tonight. To add, the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 with it’s IS will be a good option... of course the benefit of an IS Lens will be negated by the battery lasting about 30 minutes or less now.

Pretty crazy, don’t know if I’ll ever need 6K though. Did they announce a shipping schedule, I wish they would release a basic EF model with just the 2.8K mode. And then you can pay to upgrade to the higher resolutions if you want them.

I was thinking the same thing.

I think you have the option, with Amazon to charge a rental/purchase fee or be part of their percentage points (I forget what it’s actually called) program. It’s my understanding that iTunes is the best of the lot, but it’s very difficult to get on there. Supposedly you need an aggregator, or something, to do it for you. I believe an aggregator is a middle man that takes care of the process for you.

My friend tested the process with an old, short film he shot and he said it was easy but laborious. Amazon breaks down everything you need to do, they are just very strict in how it’s done. And it took a couple weeks for the approval process to be completed. After I finish some ADR for my role, he is going to upload his feature film. Here’s a link to his short film on Amazon Prime to see what the final layout looks like. https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0793CDL9P

I mean, do you have a promo code set up with Flying Fur that they can give their donors/followers that if they rent/buy your film, a part of the proceeds will go back to Flying Fur?

Also, I think you may be charging too much for your rental fee on Vimeo. I assume it’s an upsell price in hopes they will just buy it but since it is on Vimeo, a lot of people would watch that on their phone, who wants to watch a long documentary on their phone? And if they do, I don’t know if they would want to pay more than .99 cents for it. With the Amazon angle, your title will appear next to other animal programs and documentaries as a whole. And a lot more people watch Amazon on their TVs, so if you decide to monetize your doc instead of the pennies per view idea, you could probably yield a lot of views at .99 cents for the rental, or $2.99 to purchase... but with Amazon you need to go through some hoops like having a closed caption file... Thanks for posting this. As I try to make my film, I constantly think about how or what I will do with it once it’s completed. Unfortunately, the democratization of filmmaking makes it a little more difficult for people’s work to be seen with all of the competition out there and so many people expect everything on the internet to be free, it’s really hard to make any money. I can only imagine. As a filmmaker, I think there’s a constant struggle between making a short film as a showpiece or making a feature for some sort of profit. Sadly, both seems to be a fool’s errand. When was the last time you heard of a noname director breaking through with either? Can you break it down into a web series, if you need to? Check our The Witching Season on IG. They made a bunch of short horror films and released them on Amazon and YouTube as a series. They got such great reviews, they were able to raise Kickstarter money to turn one of the shorts/episodes into a feature. Perhaps you could release the trailer and the first episode and use Patreon or something similar to market the other episodes to supporters of yourself or the cause. Also, are you doing any shared profit promotion with the organization?

Interesting topic, shitty predicament. I know very little about this stuff but I did take a glance at your IG page and I don’t think you’re following enough people. Instagram is a... you “like” my photo, I “like” your photo kind of game. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there that will start following you just so you follow them and once you do, they stop following you. You also need a lot more hashtags so people will come across your posts. But you have way more followers than I have, so what do I know. @Mattias Burling has a great IG page and may be able to help. Also, maybe start liking and following posts from people who host animal planet shows. I’d also assume, but unsure, that frequency of posts, may affect where you appear on people’s feed. And finally, you may want to look into putting your film onto Amazon Prime. I believe they have some program where you get paid X amount of cents for every minute watched... or something like that. Otherwise, reach out to different sites to review your documentary. Buy banner ads on those same movie review sites. Sadly, the state of indie film distribution isn’t what it used to be and it isn’t as easy as it once was to make a film and sell it to a distributor and if you do, it’s my understanding, you’re lucky to make your money back... and by make your money back, hopefully you spent less than a few grand on it.

Try emailing Zacuto, they may just send you new screws.

I think ProRes is a minimum for me going forward. I truly can be happy shooting my 1080p ML Raw for the next few to five years if I have to and I still don’t care about 4K that much. You’d think these manufacturers would realize that most Hollywood films are shot at 2.7K and distributed at 1080p... or even 720p... they could use that as a marketing tool to give us nearly everything we want without overheating issues. Otherwise, I don’t really care about the sensor size that much as long as there is an equivalent zoom at a constant f/2.8. Internal NDs and IBIS would be a definite plus. Reconfigured Cameras? Interesting. New side venture? Please include Raw in my model.

I don’t even mind the 1” sensor and I’d be happy with 4K compressed codec and Canon 2K RawLite.

I know I will. I love lenses and all they can offer, but if I could have the a relatively fast zoom on a relatively large sensor on a relatively small camcorder sized body... take my money. Seriously, if Canon released the guts of a C200 in an XC10 body, I’d happily give them a few thousand for it.

Nice light... gotta love golden hour down the shore. How did you like that 70-200mm? I know a lot of people go gaga over it? Was this handheld? And that’s the appeal of zoom lenses. If I’ve learned anything about getting it done over the last couple years, I’ve learned that in the end, the film is all that matters and if a zoom lens can give you a better shot ratio, more efficiently, then they’re worth their weight in gold. Traditionally, one of the reasons you would buy the faster variant of the lens is because when you stopped it down to slower lens’ maximum f-stop it would be sharper than the slower lens. Take the Nikkor ai-s 50mm 1.2 for example. Wide open it’s a dreamy mess but by f/2, it’s the sharpest, manual, 50mm lens, Nikon made at f/2.

Hey, I like webrunner... he’s a solid guy. We just had a disagreement. I don’t like to criticize anyone on a public forum... especially one involving artistic endeavors. There are way too many places to get knocked down in this world and one where people share their work shouldn’t be one of them. With that being said, I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark iii and Magic Lantern Raw. I’m a hobbyist, narrative filmmaker that may complete my first film by the time I retire from my real job... lol. Let us know how those cinema lenses work out with your Z6.

Actually, I posted it as a peace offering because I thought you would find it funny. Unlike you, I have been nothing but respectful to you during this exchange. Whereas you became belligerent and offensive because I stated how and why zoom lenses are useful for run and gun filmmaking. So, my opinion about zoom lenses led you to attack me on a personal level where you called me meek, a loser and inferred I am not a man. So after you personally criticized and attacked me, I posted a joke frame to lighten the mood and stick it to you a little. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it. As a writer/aspiring filmmaker, I’ve learned to have a thick skin a long time ago and some person on a stupid forum isn’t going to get under it enough for me to weep and cry.

Anyway, here’s yet another shot from my film...

With all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I know you enjoy arguing with people around here, but trust me, you CANNOT just go and film with a crew in public places and think you’re going to get the shots you need. And even if you could squeak by once or twice, you will eventually get caught and be put on someone’s radar. Then what if you need B-Unit or pick up shots? And I am making a feature film, otherwise it would have been done a year and a half ago.

It’s not about embarrassment, it’s about legally being allowed to shoot at the places I’m shooting at. You need permits and insurance to shoot a film. In a lot of places, you can’t shoot a film in your own house without a permit. Now I would assume that 7 out of 10 times, nobody would care, but when I need to get a shot on a crowded boardwalk, without a bicycle cop giving me grief, I need to be as fast and as inconspicuous as possible. Hell, when I have my Rode Micro and deadcat attached to my camera, I get more looks and atttention than you can imagine... Getting this shot handheld, outside of a motel room, ended in a 5 minute conversation from someone who thought I may be a Peeping Tom... Also, you mentioned earlier about never needing to shoot with an f/1.2 or 1.4 lens... well when you shoot in public, if you get a bystander on video, you would need a release form from them granting me permission to use their image in your film. With a fast lens, they’re so blurred, it doesn’t even matter.

I’m gonna watch this tomorrow when I get on my computer. But, in spirit, I agree with your assessment... Samyang/Rokinon lenses pull a lot more than their weight. There was a great article written by Shane Hurlbut a few years back that I am sure you have read about still lenses that are good enough for the big screen... https://www.hurlbutacademy.com/director-of-photography-still-lenses/ That article has always resonated with me and my recent lens tests were born from my desire to shoot with a lens that could fit that criteria. Other than the Leica and Hasselblad Zeiss, I’ve tested a couple lenses from all of his options and as a set, as you’ve said from your test... Nikon lenses seem to offer the biggest bang for the buck. And although I am a walking contradiction that changes my mind with every passing minute, deep down I think a good set of Nikkors based around my two favorite Nikon lenses, is probably the best path for me. I’m sure the Samyang lenses could fill the criteria I’m looking for, but I can’t relinquish the size advantages of the ai-s lenses. I think my biggest question going forward is if I should introduce a modern zoom and an L prime into my kit. I’ve been testing the 35mm 1.4 L recently and it’s a pretty remarkable lens but I’m unsure if it’s worth double the price of the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 and since I’m not selling the Nikon, is it worth having both.

As I assume you do not intend any disrespect and in fact intend to inspire the opposite reaction, please take my reply in the same context... You sound like a cute, inspirational poster on a pediatricians wall. As a writer first, I have endless opportunities to create a world to my exact taste. But it’s not always possible in the real world to get exactly what you want, so you write and create according to those limitations. And there is no amount of “leading” or “just getting it done” that will change that. There’s a reason why most truly indie films take place in one location with only a few characters. I’m already breaking a couple “rules” with the film I chose to make. And you know what gets me some of the most looks and attention... changing lenses. So, although, I’d rather use a prime lens, or multiple prime lenses, in the end, the story must be told and if a zoom gets that story told, I’d be a moron not to take advantage of it. I mean, Spielberg used a ton of zooms early in his career. And I’m sure if Hitchcock or Spielberg or Scorsese or DePalma were starting out today, shooting no budget, indie films, they’d shoot handheld on a camera that had IBIS with a native zoom lens attached and they would “get it done.”

I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment but reality is reality and more often than not the straightest line between points A and B is the best option. Otherwise, everybody would use manual cinema lenses instead of AF or other modern conveniences. I have a friend that owns two native lenses to shoot his films... a prime and a zoom. One day I brought an adapter and a good manual lens along with me for him to try on his camera and although he preferred the image from the vintage prime, he never has asked me to borrow the lens. And although he prefers the image from his native prime, 99% of his shots are taken with the native zoom. And I don’t blame him one bit. Native lenses are way more convenient and native zooms, especially good modern ones, are more than good enough to tell a great story. Hell, if I was a smarter man, I’d probably sell off all of my lenses and buy a Canon 24-70mm 2.8 lens and make my films with just that lens until I have the resources to truly utilize a set of prime lenses. In fact, the more I test my lenses and realize what matters with this hobby of mine, I can truly see myself doing something like that. I’d keep a small set of Nikkor primes and pick up the Canon 24-70mm 2.8. For the films that are more run and gun, I’ll use the zoom and for the projects where I have a little more time and freedom, I’ll use the Nikkors. But whoever said I was smart... hahaha.