HockeyFan12

I'm the same way and I get into terrible creative partnerships as a result, but it sounds like you're in a good one! It could have just been someone with the same name, I never sent the suitcase back. But I did google the address and the house there is worth >$4 million and it's in the right part of town so maybe... ?

I think this is good advice. I'm not one to ask personally, but in every case I can think of where someone I know "made it," they made something and through a combination of people they know irl and/or online platforms (major festivals, YouTube, even small local or online festivals but run by people with industry clout) or even just saying to their boss "hey I wrote this will you read it" they got what they needed to get a meeting or representation and took it from there. But the content always came first and it seems there was always an intermediate step. I think... Anyway, getting into a major festival can get you representation pretty easily. You can try hiring a press agent, too, or getting someone you know to pull strings. Or hiring someone to handle festival entries. Just my opinion of course. This sounds great. I thought your last short was more interesting than a lot of Netflix content and I love King of Comedy so I would watch it. But I would worry about the short/pilot before worrying about the series. (Also, record good sound.) It sounds like it might be a good fit at one of the production companies Adult Swim hires out, and I think those companies work with Netflix and others, too. I submitted a short to one of them about a decade ago, worked with people at another, and flunked a job interview at a third lol. But they all seem fun. Generally, I think Netflix is going to production companies rather than to individuals so I'd focus on the journey rather than the destination. Of course, if I actually knew how to succeed at this I probably wouldn't be posting here. Or maybe not. If you're in LA that does make it easier. I met a showrunner in Trader Joe's and now he has an HBO show in development but I didn't have anything to show him. ? I also bought a suitcase at Hollywood goodwill and it had the home address of an A-list showrunner and instructions to return it to him, I think. Maybe I should have... with a pilot script. (This actually happened.) Another tip someone told me: people like to be appreciated (but it's nice when it's in good faith and not just fawning). You can generally hunt down anyone's email address, and if you can't you aren't trying hard enough. Look for someone you genuinely would like to work for, and try to work for them. Then show them your stuff. This is harder if you want to do everything entirely on your own, which is sort of my deal and it sounds like you might be that way, too, in which case festivals seem like a better bet. Channel 101 used to be a really good scene, but it seems like the well has run dry even though their current content is still fun. It feels a little like an imitation of itself to me, but I really like some of the current shows anyway.

I think that's what these arguments ultimately come down to, personal preference. I think the PB grades look hideous, but that's just my personal preference. I think the grades themselves are very well done, much better than most YouTube channels. I just don't like the style with lifted blacks, sort of a monochromatic faded wash, etc. My favorite film stocks are generally Ektar and Velvia type stuff, so very saturated and higher contrast. Just a difference of opinion. I think he has a good eye and is technically adept, just not my favorite style. And I do like his reviews, he's charismatic. But it feels like an instagram filter over everything (to me). Then again.... look how popular instagram is. But that's 100% personal opinion. And why I think arguing over color is a bit worthless once you've made up your mind about what you like. I strongly suspect we all see color very differently from each other.

I think I heard that from a friend (a working DP whose A cam is a C300 Mk II). He didn't like the the A7S, really liked the A7R III I believe.

Yeah but if you underexpose six stops the Canon has a little more noise, so it's not even an option. Isn't Nikon using Sony sensors? Nikon files look fine. I don't get it.

That's a pretty good number for crop. I believe C300 Mk II is 8.3ms, C200 is either 16.7ms or 8.3ms, and EVA1 is 16.7? Any idea if that's right? Any idea what the S1H might end up being? Sounds like the A7SIII will be the one to look forward to. That and the S1H, I guess, but Panasonic will have trouble hitting that rolling shutter figure.

What’s the S1 rolling shutter timing? 17ms? 33ms? 6ms would be groundbreaking.

Nice job, my favorite three were all BMPCC 4k lol. Should have bought one maybe.

I actually think the dynamic range is pretty amazing on the Canons cinema cameras, these tests feel about right to me, except I think they used the old imaging pipeline on the Red Monstro and it should have returned better results: https://cinematography.net/CineRant/2018/07/30/personal-comments-on-the-2018-cml-camera-evaluations/ I'm guessing CML will find the EVA1 has less DR than the C200, but it's all personal preference. If the highlight detail is nearly the same I don't care about the shadows. https://cinematography.net/CineRant/2018/01/09/c200-eva-ursamp-im-going-to-duck-and-cover-now/ Technically they're all amazing I'm sure. The feel is pretty different, though: Both look great to me, though.

You're braver than I am! Lmk how it goes. The C300 Mk II looks pretty great, but it lacks 60p and still costs a lot. Image is softer than C200 or EVA1, too. You do get timecode sync, though. Again, I was largely chasing the price tag, but I do love the Panasonic colors... a bit too magenta (Alexa is a little too green) but really saturated.

At that point it’s a harder choice. For me at least. At $3k or $4k it’s an easy choice. I think most people would prefer the C200 to the EVA1. I think the C200 is a technically superior camera and far more feature-rich. The NDs and DPAF are great. The dynamic range and low light actually seem better to me than anything else under $10k for “cinema” but just by a hair. Dynamic range is just outstanding. Great build quality, best NDs I've used by far (this matters a lot more to me than to most people), DPAF with tap to focus via Wifi or the included monitor, etc. But what’s missing–10 bit intermediate codec, proper timecode sync, good shoulder mounting options–is frustrating. It's not like Panasonic is amazing in that regard: you get 10 bit h264 instead of ProRes, timecode sync that I've read has a tendency to drift (but even the F5 was frustrating for me in this regard, so whatever), and you need a Z finder because Panasonic and Canon both charge $6k for their entry-level EVFs. It's pretty terrible too, but it's something. Personally, I think I prefer the colors on the Panasonic, but that’s largely nostalgia for the dvx100. C200 has more modern color, more neutral imo. The kids would prefer it, but I'm getting old. My favorite cinematography is Kaminski's stuff from around fifteen or twenty years ago. I also associate the "dvx look" with that era subconsciously so it might just be nostalgia.

Thanks, and yeah it is a great camera in most ways. I guess I just started putting Alexa and EVA1 footage from jobs I was on into the same Resolve timeline and throwing on way too many LUTs and noticing the C200 footage fell apart sooner, despite being raw and being flatter. It looks amazing if you don't mess with it too much, but if you do it gets chunky. I totally agree with keeping it simple, though, that might be the best solution. The C200 definitely has more highlight detail than the EVA1, even if only by less than half a stop. It's noticeable. Never tried the SDI out. I don't like external recorders. But that would solve the problem I'm having with raw being too slow to edit. That's really the biggest problem. A big part of this was just the price tag. If I could get an EVA1 for $3000 I could sell the C200 and still come out ahead. But now I'm less sure. Overall I totally agree with keeping it simple.

Yeah I’m thinking seriously about it. As you know I bought a C200 last year, but in a lot of ways it’s too much camera for me. I still have a 2016 laptop and the raw footage renders very slowly. So I was thinking of switching to something more straightforward. The C200 shadows are also very noisy, something about the new sensors makes the noise really chunky. And the Varicam has my second favorite color to the Alexa now that Canon has changed its color to be flatter. Most people prefer the Canon color, so this is just personal preference. But I love the image from the C200, if it weren't for the EVA1 I wouldn't have second thoughts. Did post on a Varicam show two years ago and really loved the image and the more I try to correct in that direction the more the noise becomes an issue. The C200 has 1/3 to 1/2 stop more highlight detail than the EVA1, though. And DPAF. I suspect the C200 is MUCH better in low light. Well, that doesn’t sound so great. I’ll hold off for now, but maybe this is a sign from the universe the C200 is too much camera for me. Maybe I’ll rent an EVA1 and decide. I really like the C200 but it just feels like too much work in post. Meh I should probably just be satisfied with what I have. ?

There are numerous red flags here, but $3750 minus $750 cash back on an EVA 1 is.... let's just say it's tempting. https://www.rakuten.com/shop/6ave-electronics/product/PANAUEVA1JG/?scid=af_linkshare_23803&PublisherName=Ebates.com&ranMID=44166&ranEAID=AysPbYF8vuM&ranSiteID=AysPbYF8vuM-Od2z2K.79BiF9JA9hg444A&siteID=AysPbYF8vuM-Od2z2K.79BiF9JA9hg444A

Unplug it and plug it back in a few times and see if it fixes the problem. I had a similar problem often on my C100.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I suspect the C200 also bakes in white balance, but could be wrong. Weird things happen when you change white balance while rolling.

That's good to know. Regardless, +5.5 at base is very competitive. Similar to the 4.6k, no? I believe Foveon sensors have a non-linear rolloff, but point taken. I think the complicating factor is with A7S SLOG2 or something you have chroma clipping and sharpening that can muddy up the highlights in a way where they're difficult to recover aesthetically because the channel data is clipped in raster even if the signal wasn't in raw: https://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-dreaded-clipped-channels-on-sony-blue-footage.9970/ But I suppose this isn't an issue with Red, Alexa, Black Magic, etc. whether in raw or ProRes. That said, there must also be something to the highlight recovery algorithm? I do wish Black Magic would implement this for cameras other than its own. My C200 raw footage could benefit from it for sure based on how effective it seems to be with 4.6k footage, but maybe that's not possible. Just bought a Resolve license so you're getting my money either way.

Looks nice. Nice colors and tonality. I'm taking this surprise sale on Resolve as a sign from the universe I don't need this camera, though. I have other bills and software I need to license this year that would agree. ? Will want them this year, won't need a B camera until next year is my guess. Hopeful this project gets off the ground, but not a lot of progress on it yet. But braw sounds very impressive... the extra highlight detail and raw to SD cards seems to put this camera in a class of its own.

Yeah, I've read you need to kit the camera out. I was looking into buying a Resolve license (15% off today at Rakuten, maybe I should just buy that) but also wanted a B camera for a web series I might shoot next year. (Talking heads mostly....) Was considering an SL3 or 90D when that comes out, but the BMPCC 4k would only be $1000 effectively after the Resolve license and I wouldn't be using it as an A camera. I wrote this camera off before because I want more highlight detail (just personal preference), but +5.5 stops at base ISO is competitive with Red, etc. And 60p 4k raw is pretty awesome... On the other hand, a dSLR would be smaller and more rugged, even if the BMPCC would be a ridiculously better A camera. Mediocrity may win again, probably going to end up with a 90D or something. I found some strange discontinued Kenko variable ND that prevents color shift I think with a depolarization layer or something? Expensive (around $300) but originally around $700 and can be dialed in to as little as 1.3 stops. That said I am a huge fan of internal ND filters, too. Well this looks like an awesome camera that has only gotten better, but perhaps it is not for me after all.

That makes sense. The CinemaDNG test is still a pretty good result now that I compare it with some of their other tests. I'm a little suspicious of ProAV's methodology: Those cameras (C200, EVA1, FS7) are clipping at +4 over key on Caucasian skin. On average, Caucasian skin is about +1 stop over 18% gray. 4+1=5. So this indicates an over of <5 stops, somewhere around 4.5 stops it seems. But the FS7 I believe is rated at +6 and the C200 is +6.3 and EVA should be around there, too. Suspicious. Highlight dynamic range is two stops short of expected. Or maybe that guy is really, really pale. How are they metering their scenes? Compare with this test someone posted on Reduser: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?176662-FULL-FRAME-TEST-MONSTRO-ALEXA-LF-MAVO-VENICE&p=1857643&viewfull=1#post1857643 That indicates over values of: >7 on Alexa (rated at 7.4-7.8) >4 on Mavo LF >6 on Venice >6 on C700 FF (rated at 6.3) >5 on Monstro >5 on Ursa 4.6k (rated at 5.8 if I remember correctly) That test seems much more accurate. How is the performance for you at 800 ISO? This camera is getting more and more intriguing to me... Edit: the more I look at ProAV's tests the more convinced I am they don't know what they're doing.

If I'm not mistaken that video is looking at Cinema DNG and ProRes, not at braw. They also show a graphic of the old chart that I posted, not the new one you found in the new manual. The Cinema DNG highlight recovery looks okay, not great and not bad, but if braw is 1.5 stops better than that... well... that's really good.

Thanks. If we take 400 ISO as the BMPCC 4k base ISO, the revised numbers put base ISO over (highlight dynamic range) at +5.5. That's just behind the newer Reds at their base 800 ISO (numbers are unpublished, but similar to UMP 4.6k in practice), URSA Mini Pro 4.6k (+5.8, I think), etc. and just ahead of the C300 Mk I (+5.3). C300 Mk II is +6.3, guessing Varicam and Venice are around +6.5. Alexa is +7.4 to +7.8 depending on model... Or if you shoot at 640 ISO (+6.1) or 800 ISO (+6.5) then you've got highlight dynamic range competitive with big name cinema cameras. But you can also push other cameras a stop. Apparently Panavision rates the Red at 1600 ISO to get an extra stop. So then it's around +6.5, too, with more resolution. Did braw also improve the highlights on the 4.6k? Couldn't find a manual for that. I agree. The "under" part usually seems exaggerated, especially at high ISO. Canon claims something like 15 stops at 100,000 ISO and it's not even close. But the original specs on the BMPCC 4k indicate highlight dynamic range close to a 5D Mark III or a GH4 (+4 stops over 18% gray) and the new numbers are closer to high end cinema cameras. Maybe that explains the debate about highlight detail, and if the new numbers are accurate, it's pretty darned good... Of course it also depends on how good the shadows look. I think the F5 and A7S both have +6 over at base, but their shadows are so bad in SLOG 2 you need to overexpose them by a stop. So it's less in practice. @docmoore Do you know if the revised over/under is only for braw or is that for ProRes, too?

Is that accurate? Where'd you find it? That's a huge improvement. Really really good numbers, competitive (in practice, at least–shadows might be a little worse muddier) with the better cinema cameras available. Maybe that explains the difference. Those numbers indicate excellent highlight dynamic range. The early ones don't.

I haven't used this camera yet (though the price is right), but I found this interesting: At 400 ISO ("native"), you get four stops of highlight dynamic range. That's not bad, but it's not great. But you can imagine how someone shooting at 800 ISO would be happy with five stops over and someone shooting at 100 ISO would be very disappointed with two. But the kids these days expose by histogram and not meter so who even knows anymore. Besides that, rolloff has a subjective quality. The F5 has a pretty good over at 2000 ISO (six stops, I believe), but the original SLOG 2 implementation had chroma clipping and sharpening that look horrible. I would try sticking to 800 ISO for challenging scenes if you can tolerate the noise level and see if that helps. I think the Alexa Mini has something like +7.8 stops at native 800 ISO (and even more at 1600 ISO) so that's insane.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/# I actually prefer the look of the 2k images in that demo to the 6k images.