HockeyFan12

Lol I saw that on craigslist I think.

Pretty much, but thankfully the most important part (writing) is free!

That is a difficult market segment, the corporate/wedding/b cam, because there's no positive euphemism for it. That said, the image on the camera itself (with an external recorder especially) is significantly better than many higher end cinema cameras (including for 24/1080p the Red and Scarlet MX, which are a generation behind in sensor architecture and more than that in terms of color processing, and far ahead of the F5 before Sony developed custom film emulation matrices and the custom SLOG3 matrix). I remember first using the C100 and C300 and thinking–wow! This is the first time I can intercut fearlessly with the Alexa. We had an MX on set too and it had a very similar image but harder to match for color and shadow noise texture. But then I spoke to an AC using the C300 on a Super Bowl ad and he HATED it. Why? Difficult to rig a pineapple into a proper cinema camera... The BMCC 2.5k is similar in that regard, punches way above its class for IQ but not for ergonomics. But you use it and the ergonomics are immediately wrong. So what do you say? I think anyone who has the money to shoot with a proper system knows what they're getting into, while wedding videographers know what they can and can't afford, and the rest of us just want a "cinema" badge on a grown up dSLR. The fact that you only need to explain the difference to people who don't even know why it matters that there is one is very telling! And besides that fact, there have been 7Ds on major features and national ads since they were first released so it's not like either IQ or ergonomics defines anything concretely. 90% of the image is in the lighting and set design anyway. That said, every network and client has its own rules that must be followed. Netflix banning the Alexa for 4k acquisition is just about the most annoying thing ever.

I always thought it was a marketing term to differentiate from ENG cameras or camcorders and didn't mean anything specific. Interesting that it's changing to mean raw capture or a certain lens mount, I did not know that.

Would be cool! Would love to see some good slow motion in a camera with that form factor.

Ah. I see. I strongly disagree. Certainly we see a lot of neotribalism etc. in the world right now, a lot of it informed by the internet, twitter, 4chan, and divisive identify politics, but I don't think it's a great place for filmmakers–whose work tends to be more universal and emotional–to be. Ideologues work in dicta not in empathy and the choir doesn't need more people to preach to it. I find filmmaking to be an emotional medium, and while that emotion can be tied to any story and any ideology, I don't think it needs to be politicized further. The middle left has already politicized film too much for my taste, and I'm not hungry for the far right's response, either. The type of filmmaker you've identified has already emerged and it's Dinesh D'Souza and Steve Bannon. Their films might or might not be very good politically (I haven't seen them and obviously that's a matter of taste) but even based on the trailers I can tell that neither is a great director. I for one don't look forward to the era of ideologue filmmakers. Also, blocking is not "not tripping over something." Where you stand and in relation to whom is a tremendously powerful and emotional tool. Treat the camera like a character, and treat the characters like people. Spielberg has many gifts, this is one of them, and nothing to sneeze at. I work with many A-list directors and DPs, and many of them (not all of them) share my opinion on Spielberg. And not because his actors don't trip. You can accomplish with strong blocking what would otherwise take a lot of effort with camera movement, editing, etc. It's the first step in crafting the scene... then the camera... then the edit... and in my opinion, the most important. I also remember a Guerillmo del Toro interview (not someone I know!) where he said he would love to show up on set one day just to see Spielberg's blocking in action. We needn't agree on this either. But if you're dismissing blocking as "not tripping" either you're the most gifted filmmaker alive or you're missing something, and either way, you should leave us little guys our appreciation for what we appreciate.

Clarify.

Good advice.

I disagree about Kurosawa and Spielberg sharing that much in common formally, and Spielberg's blocking techniques are my favorite of anyone's. But it's just a matter of opinion. Spielberg I think takes more from Classical Hollywood like Ford or even David Lean (British, I suppose, not Hollywood) than he does from the Japanese. But Kurosawa is great, too. Roshomon I think is amazing, but it feels like there's more emphasis on composition and editing than on blocking, there. Kurosawa is a more intellectual filmmaker with more authorial presence than Spielberg, who is more emotional and formally transparent imo. Just my opinion. But yes, there are plenty of other filmmakers who are good at blocking and Kurosawa was no slouch there! I don't consider Welles to be a master of blocking or that much like Spielberg, though, but again, he's not bad at it, either. I think Welles was inspired by theater and radio and he had some talented DPs and editors who were adding a lot in their own regard. But it feels a little fussier with him, more showboating, and why not when you have all that talent? But Spielberg's craft doesn't draw as much attention to itself; Welles' does, more like Kurosawa. He's showier, and the genius of Spielberg is that he can shoot one of those near-oners (or just minimally cover a scene) in a way that organically doles out information and even emotional cues (based on characters' proximity to camera, to each other, their frontality or angle from camera, etc.) and it works so well you have to go back and study it just to see why it's working. He's not always subtle but a lot of his craft is so good it's invisible. His oners don't feel like oners–and that's the point. And there's a lot of physicality to what he's doing, how he shoots, the unrealistic lighting, letting all the gags play in medium shots whether it's sfx or cgi. I think Bazin would get behind him to that extent. All three are great talents, though, and studying them will get you farther than reading any book. (Or just study whoever impresses you, it's all subjective. If you want to make a blog study your favorite bloggers. And why not.)

Theory/History: Hitchcock/Truffaut, Bazin's Film as Art*, Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art and Film History. (Those two are the intro texts for all good film programs, I just happen to find Hitchock and Bazin interesting and I recommend looking into them but it's not essential reading whereas Bordwell and Thompson are.) Technique: The Bare Bones Camera Course for Film and Video (covers in 40 pages 90% of what you need to know to be more technically competent than 90% of industry directors–and it's the only cinematography textbook at some of the best MFA programs, including I believe USC, although you'd need to read a lot more to be more technically competent than industry DPs, American Cinematographer magazine is a good starting place for that but nothing will substitute for on-set experience, starting as a camera PA then working your way up to second AC, AC, op, DP, etc.). Storytelling: http://channel101.wikia.com/wiki/Story_Structure_101:_Super_Basic_Shit (the standard guide in most writers' rooms and by far the best and funniest take on storytelling I'v read). Save the Cat is okay, too, if prescriptive. Robert McKee's Story is... it's fine. I guess. :/ I dunno about that book it's kind of self-important. Just watching movies matters ten times more than any of this bullshit, but the above is all better information than what's available online. (Though Every Frame a Painting etc. has some good if fairly obvious insights, I'll admit, and I'm contradicting myself because Story Structure 101 is online and is the best of the best information available on the topic.) Directing actors: https://www.amazon.com/Directing-Actors-Memorable-Performances-Television/dp/0941188248 Not everything about this is good. At the better film schools (AFI, etc.) they'll tell you not to over-direct actors, because the best actors already know what they're doing. If Daniel Day Lewis shows up on your set, you kind of just go with it, you know? He's put in the work and you haven't. But a lot of the techniques in this book (action verbs, metaphors, etc.) are very useful especially with actors who have only medium levels of experience... and just in establishing a level of trust and comfort. Some of the dicta ("never give a line reading") should be ignored, however, or taken as good suggestions but not absolutes. Also you only need to read the first few chapters. Every actor is different. This is social skills stuff, not technical, but the above book is still very good. Really just study shot choices and blocking. Where the characters move, where the camera moves and when, why, in terms of emotional response and intellectual response (what you learn when) and how the two are interrelated. Spielberg IMO is the master of blocking and camera. Fincher and Kubrick are interesting, too, if much colder formally. Kubrick the stronger of the two but Fincher has some really slick commercial techniques and his music videos are great, very well cut. Polanski is quite good at blocking and he keeps his use of the camera pretty simple. Bay is superb at staging in depth, best eye around. Scorsese might have the strongest editing in his films (Schoonmaker is a genius). But it's whatever you like, just study it, emulate it, see why you failed, rinse and repeat. *My favorite.

Yep. But don't worry, stock brokers are miserable, too. Only they're rich and miserable instead of broke and miserable. :/ The irony is that in LA any job except industry sounds cool.

Yeah, agreed completely. I misread that. Original Red MX is not that bad at all! The M is the one I cannot stand. The MX has a pretty good image but SUCH a pain in the ass to use oh my god. $2k for an entire working kit is worth it but don't expect it to give a better image than an F5 or C500 and do expect it to be a LOT more of a headache. The A7S technically has a better image in a lot of ways but the codec is just too thin to be useful, not so with the RED MX. Some people don't mind how slow it is to operate, but I remember I did. By the time the Red MX came around that was the first time the Red camera was really production-ready for any heavy lifting. It needs a lot of light, but no more than film. Really pretty good! Yeah $15k for an Alexa is a good deal, too. The MX was the first "good enough to use" affordable digital cinema camera and the Alexa was the first "film is dead now" level affordable cinema camera. I don't want either because I don't consider them appropriate for lone guns or run and gun, but I'm in a different position from most people. I'm not trying to run a company or anything.

It's just my opinion and I only used the Red right after it was released, when it was truly a nightmare of bugs. With the modern firmware and processing, I bet it's a heck of a lot better and I have seen some nice footage from it, but it's a pain. That said, yeah, the need for support gear makes it a nightmare. And slow to set up. I don't think there's anything special about RAW; it's just that only the Alexa currently processes RAW to RGB 99.9% as well as a computer does, so other cameras benefit from RAW but by varying amounts, it totally depends on the camera... I'm not a big BMPCC fan, either, too much shadow noise and fixed pattern noise... and poor ergonomics. The 2.5k looks pretty great, though. I wouldn't use it as an A camera on a commercial shoot, but for a hobbyist I think the 5D Mark III RAW is a pretty cool camera if you can tolerate the problems with it or if you want the problems associated with it (getting to/having to process images in ACR). Again, I would not use it to shoot commercial work, while I would use it in h264 mode for that purpose because reliability is king for corporate work where you only get one shot at it, or when you have A-list talent that's costing thousands an hour even if it's BTS work they'll get pissed off if a single take has to be redone for camera. But I think that thing has image quality nearly on par with an Epic MX if you only need 1080p, and better color. If ML gets a consistent 4k out of it then it will probably be absolutely top tier. It's pretty sick. I suspect the 5D Mark IV with C LOG will be nothing to sneeze at either and honestly if it's as good as a 1DC it will be better than a first-gen Red by far and close enough to the MX, but less fun if you want RAW.

I found the original Red (pre-MX) to be borderline broken. I think I used one of the first ones a few months after it came out and everything about it was awful, ergonomics were horrible, color was a complete joke, incredibly noisy except when rated at around 250-400 ISO which meant it clipped faster than a Canon dSLR and it did not produce an acceptable image in tungsten light color because it was too noisy under any conditions when starved of blue light, very soft OLPF that made it softer than most 1080p cameras today, and even when they fixed the color processing in redcine it still had a green tint to tungsten light. I would rate it at about the same dynamic range as a 7D and much slower, but with a good smooth image with nice tonality and absolutely zero aliasing. In full day light you can get a nice image from it but with very limited dynamic range. But look at the Informant, every tungsten-lit scene is bright orange for a reason, they had to process 3200K-lit scenes at 5600K or else the image would have been unacceptable. That said, the movie looks decent overall. With heaps of light it had a better image than you get today from dSLRS etc. But it was essentially broken out of the box, which makes it more impressive to me that the Dragon/DXL is pretty darned great now (minus some color issues that remain, but which a talented colorist can largely fix)! The Red has a bit of a more digital look than the Alexa and I think in the long run the digital look will be more popular than film, sharper and punchier color, more familiar to YouTube audiences while still very high end and impressive. The new Red stuff has a more digital look in arguably a good way, just not my style. I also feel the Red One was harder than an Alexa or F55 for a one man band to operate (I think two people could effectively use an Alexa on a slower-paced set, you just need a full team to move as fast around a narrative set as possible) because it takes 90 minutes to boot up and has short battery life and crashes a lot. But with new firmware, etc. I bet it's usable now. I think you can get a slightly better image than a GH2, for instance, under similar conditions, but that it's not worth the effort. I would rather have a CX00 or any Sony cinema camera that shoots RAW or at least properly implemented 10 bit SLOG3/SGAMUT3 (because their color is broken on their cameras that don't) by far though. The F5 and F55, neither of which I particularly like, are orders of magnitude better than the original Red, and slightly beyond the MX. Their RAW is competitive with the Dragon, even. The Alexa doesn't need RAW its image processing is so advanced and refined. The Red MX, while still clunky to operate, is still quite formidable, however. Social Network looks good. Fincher processes all his films through a very expensive post process (Lowry process) that costs up to seven figures per feature, and that's one reason those movies look so smooth and so good and clean, but he still shot them on just a regular Red MX. The image is nearly on par with the C500 but it is softer, with worse color, etc. but also a little bit less of a digital sharpening edge. I wouldn't want one for free lol but other people like them! The Red One MX is a pretty solid performer, however, and potential bargain for someone with the time to babysit a slower-to-operate camera, you might love it. The original I think is just too clunky.

Yeah, that controversy is pretty crazy. From what I recall the fall out of it was even weirder I forget what happened exactly. I agree, I like the Alexa best. I work with a lot of footage from every manufacturer and it's always my favorite on set or in post (if you have the crew to use it properly). But if you need higher resolution and can't afford the Alexa 65 (who can?) the Red is a good option for 4k or 8k or whatnot I think. Netflix requires 4k and won't take Alexa footage and I think there are more 4k finishes these days (on higher end stuff than I work on). The Dragon isn't bad, it is a step up from the MX and I suspect the DXL is a step up from both. Neither is the F55's RAW bad, fwiw, it's really decent, and I think Sony might be doing some good work putting RAW into the smaller bodies now. SLOG3/SGAMUT 3 is not bad! Used Alexas are under $20k these days. Rentals are pretty cheap, too. Given that you need a whole camera crew (at $400/day per AC, conservatively, then an operator at $800/day if we're talking union) to use one properly, it seems fairly priced. Even $60k for an Amira, which could be used by a team of two, is nothing next to the lenses and support gears you'd need to properly support it. I think it's priced about right and I'll often see companies buy an Alexa body but no lenses (for that reason). Even the Mini is a beast to operate, not for the faint of heart. I wish it weren't so expensive, but I also wish I could get the same thing in an owner/op style body... and I can't. So I'm less concerned with not being able to afford it.

There's a write up on the DXL and it seems like there's a lot of custom work being done with the grading presets in particular, and of course the ergonomics. Panavision has a history of renting rehoused lenses, Leica lenses for instance that are simply rehoused still lenses, and the Primos are Leica-based in their own right if original designs, so it's not unlike Panavision to do this. (I have worked with both on set and they are nice lenses!) The red and green chromaticities are too close on the Red cameras and they will always have a ruddy quality I personally find quite objectionable, but the images from the DXL are much improved in this regard and as regards saturation roll off. Light Iron has done some very good work with the camera in terms of default grading profiles. (I've had a lot of stuff I've worked on graded by them recently, and they always do a good job whether with Red or Alexa-originated footage.) Panavision has never sold cameras or lenses, their model is and always will be rental-based, so it's no surprise, but I am disappointed that they use the stock sensor when it has problems with color rendering inherent in it. I too would rather have an Alexa 65 any day. A fancy Red is still a fancy Red. But I suspect the ergonomic changes and world class support are the biggest improvement, even more than the color. Panavision has a history of doing great work but I do agree it's too bad their large format project didn't make it. :/ Also the last two times I used Panavision kits the gear was beat to hell; it was their ultimate discount stuff and it did work and get the job done, but it was a bit disappointing. The Primos are marvelous lenses, though, very Leica-like. In fact I shot with one of the first Panavised Reds so in a way this is no surprise to me to that extent, though the last feature I did with Panavision gear (4x3 Alexa C Series anamorphic then graded by Light Iron) was an Arri show all the way. I was not on set for that (I was just doing post) but believe the gear for that project (higher end was it was) was world class. I think Panavision is getting it together, or so I hope, and I wouldn't be too put off by this camera. What matters more is the support they offer their clients, and that seems to be quite good despite my few bad experiences with their cheaper gear (which was still a great bargain, to be fair).

Exactly. It's almost like the Red vs Alexa debate. Do you want the power (and responsibility) to dig in and get your hands dirty with the image, and to whatever extent you choose supervise and control every step of the experience yourself (Red/PC... or Sony) or do you want to pay a little more for something with worse specs that holds your hand throughout so it's harder to screw up (Alexa/Mac... or Canon) but ultimately less powerful? I know my choice. Regarding your laptop breaking, you may be more of a power use than you think and end up burning out your graphics card. It's been a problem on every laptop I've bought, hence the Apple Care I consistently buy. I'm not a power user, myself, I have simple needs but still "pro" (Adobe Suite, mostly). I strongly recommend the retina MacBook pros (the 2013 generation refurbished if you're on a budget) despite this. Reliable and the pro res support makes a HUGE difference. And yeah if the computer doesn't turn on it doesn't mean your files are lost. You can get them recovered professionally even if the drive is corrupted pretty often, and if the computer is broken but the drive works you can just tear it out and plug it into a toaster/caddy/whatever and recover your work.

Nice! Sounds like you don't need a set now, though! The SR3030 is like 15-20 years old I think, has a bigger, better amp and is compatible with new models and old models (like the awesome Lambda Normal bias from like the 1970s, which sound particularly amazing) but I think the newer generation has a better sound signature than the SR-303 (less colored, less etched/sibilant treble) so you should be set already! The SR-303 measures better, flatter response and better bass, but to my ears it has too much treble at loud volumes (by a few db, these are all world class), which the L300 should fix and I think that's a worthwhile trade off. Be careful with voltages, though. The amp will have a standard ac connector but may be wired to run at 100v, not 110v so you might need to buy a transformer or to re-wire your amp (which is what I had done, I think it's super easy but be careful for high voltages as the bias voltage is almost 600v, actually over 600v on the Koss, and there will be big capacitors in the amp, I think there are guides online). If I had the money ($2k or so, which isn't even that much in the world of hi-fi) I would get the L700 and an old used tube amp. Sounds like you already have a good DAC, but that can make a world of difference if you don't. I'm not sure electrostats make good monitors, though, I just use my less expensive headphones for video, and in theory you'd want to use speakers of course. But for listening I really love them. I have my pair hooked up to the headphone out on my PS4's controller and and I like to watch movies on the projector with the electrostats, so crisp, it's great.

I agree. My SSDs (I must have five or six by now) are still going strong. I've broken quite a few HDs in the same time. The HDs can withstand more read/write cycles and don't slow down, but I've found them more susceptible to random failure and the SSDs are still faster overall. So while you are right and surely the expert on this and I don't mean to disagree with something that is beyond my area of knowledge, I do want to provide the perspective of someone who doesn't use hard drives heavily but is occasionally clumsy. A RAID5 server array is what most of my clients use for back ups, but for home use: a refurbished retina MacBook Pro, Apple Care, and time machine are the least expensive easy to use and reliable option, and then an Adobe subscription gets you most of what you need. TCOO is very very low.

I buy a top of the line rMBP every three years with Apple Care and then sell it and replace it before Apple Care runs out. It's decently fast and very portable for working on the run. My needs are VERY basic, though. Adobe Suite and that's about it and almost always ProRes 2k or 1080p. I just got the 2016 touch bar last year and I'm not crazy about it, though, in terms of what it offers over its predecessor. A refurbished 13" 2013-era retina may be all you need and it's very affordable, about $1000. I would not recommend it for power users, however, and I'm not one myself. Usually my Mac Books still break quite a lot (almost always the graphics card or monitor), but I still have a working computer 99% of the time and I know I can fix it if it breaks. I use hard drives for back ups, and would recommend iCloud or Time Machine if you get a Mac. I keep a high end PC at home for when I don't have my laptop or when I need more horsepower, but I never use it. I mostly work from other people's computers so if I only had one machine and I worked from home maybe I would get an iMac instead. I probably don't need the PC. I find the total cost of ownership to be lower for Macs, but mostly I need full ProRes support for work and all my clients use Macs exclusively. PC laptops seem to have worse build quality than Mac laptops, at least in my experience. For desktops it's more of a wash and a home built PC is often the way to go for pure performance (everyone I know seems to have one of those, too!). I have had good luck with AppleCare so I continue to buy Macs as my primary machines. Given how often you use a computer (and how slow renders are), a higher end model pays for itself almost immediately but if you're using it mostly as a hobby machine, just get the best you can afford.

Great write up! The Focals (the high end ones especially) are apparently groundbreaking so far as dynamic headphones go and I hear the smaller set is good for the money, too. I'm sure it beats both the M50X and the DT1350s I recently upgraded to for work (which are great, too) and definitely the 7506. Wish I could have made it! Should have driven over sooner, was finishing up work for a client after meeting with a friend in Hollywood/Silver Lake and missed my appointment then had to rush back to send out some work. :/ If you're looking for a cheap set of Lambdas I'm probably selling my SR-3030 kit (SRM-313 and SR-303) for around $500 some time soon. I barely used them. I find the treble too aggressive for my taste, but they're really excellent if you like detail and sparkle. I mean, they're freaking amazing, but I listen very very very loud and by some miracle have very sensitive high frequency hearing still, so I prefer a more subdued sound signature when listening through entire albums.

Thanks everyone, really helpful. I think I'll go with Wordpress or Wix and skip the business cards. I don't run a company, it's just an attempt to have more web presence and a better way to present a reel.

Cool! Yeah I wish I had made it. Terrible timing, was talking with a client and missed my appointment by ten minutes. I really wish I had made it... What did you like most? How did you like the Koss and HE-1s at least?

I have neither and should get both. I originally planned to start a production company, now I want to look for work (full time, ideally) in post at ad agencies. The freelance grind has worn me down. I'm cutting a reel now, or at least culling material but I have a good idea of what I'm doing with the reel and someone more accomplished has generously offered to give me advice on what my level of client wants to see. I want to keep everything else minimal. Home page is reel and contact info. Only three pages. "CV" "Blog" and then just a promotional blog with news and stuff and ideas, stuff clients might want to see that's more specific than the reel and old reels, but also fluff pieces and essays. I want this website to look SIMPLE. Gray on gray. Or blue on gray or something. I am a tech idiot and don't know how to write HTML since I was in middle school. I hear Wordpress is good? How does this work? I just want the simplest theme but I want it to feel customized. For business cards, I've never had them (except at summer job once). I don't use Linked In or FaceBook for work, or have much presence online. Should I get business cards or focus on online? Thanks.

Jealous! I ended up having to stay home and do work. What did you buy? How did the top tier models (and Stax) stack up?