EthanAlexander

Love these games. Looks like Panasonic so I'm going to go with GH5 or EVA.

@Don Kotlos & @Geoff CB Why Cine 2 and not Cine 1? Isn't C1 nearly identical to C2 but it goes all the way to 109 IRE instead of 100?

I understand the fear, but luckily reliability, creativity, and being an easy-to-work-with person trump "free" in the long run. I've been slowly and steadily increasing my rate despite the barrier to entry getting lower and lower, and it's all because I focus on delivering more than just the video. Ever since the 5D2/7D/T2i got popular there have been clients unwilling to pay for videos, but those aren't the clients we want. Clients who are worth it will be looking for things like consistency and long track record, so as long as we keep working we'll always have that leg up on the new kids on the block. Having said that, we can't ever get complacent or sloppy or we'll get chewed up and spit out faster than you can say "vertical videos suck."

I'd definitely try to find an S that fits your budget. Over the A7, the A7S will have a bunch of extras like 50Mbps XAVC-S, 4K out over hdmi, 120fps @720p (1.5x crop), and of course the god-like ISO performance. It really is one of the cleanest images at base ISO anywhere. I may never sell mine.

@Mark Romero 2 5D3 raw is best used for passion projects with long turn-arounds. The workflow is time consuming and the storage requirements are super high. You also won't get much more dynamic range over h.264. On a sensor level we're talking 11.7 stops max vs 14.5 on your D750. If you're shooting at ISO 1600 or more though they're all similar in dynamic range:

Trick question everyone knows professionals don't use autofocus in the woods.

Had a go with the 3.5K: You basically have to shoot blind, and hitting focus is up to the camera gods... The only thing about using Resolve over ACR is there's no "remove chromatic aberration" button and you can see it would have been useful for this.

That was at ISO 100? If so that's really not impressive. I'm sure some of it can be graded away but that severely limits the useable dynamic range. It's interesting how they're encoding. The GOP is HUGE. Definitely would worry about fast moving shots falling apart.

Didn't realize you had one. Me too. So what made you get the Air? I don't think I can ever use a drone anymore without at least the 100Mbps h.265... It's game-changing.

Thanks for the write-up. I'd be interested in seeing some footage if you have any. You've got a P3P, right? Which do you think you'll be flying more often? If anyone cares, my prediction, based on the Mavic Air: I think the Mavic Pro 2 is going to be everything the P4P is, maybe even with longer flight time (and of course it will fold), but they're going to leave out h.265 and variable aperture. Idk about P5P but I'd say 35 minute flight time and 4K60 will finally be h.265.

Couple things: If you select a clip and press control+v you'll get a pop up menu, double click opacity, and drop the opacity by dragging the handle from the side. This will keep your clip length the same. (You can also do this in the inspector with keyframes but it's slower) Also, (because it sounds like you're placing the video clips in the magnetic part), place the audio in the main magnetic part of the timeline since that will stay constant. Then, it's up to where the video clips connect to the audio. You can change this by holding down CMD+option and clicking on a specific location on the clip you're connecting (by default, it's the beginning of the clip you're adding, but it can get moved when making cuts). Then, no matter what happens to that (audio) clip on the magnetic part, the video clip will move with it. There's also the whole other side of making compound clips but that's hard to explain in text. The above method is my general method of keeping audio in sync for live events or music videos. But if you've got one long video clip, you can use that as the anchor instead of the audio. EDIT: also forgot to mention I use the adjustment layer add-on made by RGB House constantly. Another glaring omission but this is free so it works out: http://rgbhouse.com/?p=74

I highly recommend adding this audio crossfade: https://blog.alex4d.com/2011/07/11/fcpx-transition-sound-only/. I use it in every single project and it's one of the most glaring omissions on the part of Apple. I also highly recommend you DON'T try to make it work like premiere. I tried that for the first few months and got nothing but headaches. EDIT: @Mattias Burling beat me to it. Definitely don't fight against it you gotta go with the magnetic flow

I like you I just think you're wrong. JK ; ) - Seriously though I just disagree about benefits outweighing the costs. I believe you that there are certainly drawbacks to trying to cram so much info into a small container; as I mentioned I don't shoot SLog nearly as much now, after reading some of your posts. But I know, having compared the HDR and SDR masters of a huge-budget feature, that ultimately HDR is more pleasing to me. I do appreciate all your posts though! They're educational and make me think. And your posts back in June are actually the reason I even signed up for a forum account... I signed up to argue with you about S Log

Honestly, I was trying my best to give you an open mind and not disagree with you, but if this is what you think, without even experiencing it in person, then I disagree with everything you've been saying. It's frustrating that you've already come to a conclusion without actually experiencing it. HDR is more nuanced. It's more detailed. It's more pleasing in every single regard, including color. If you can't see that in the iPhone photos, fine, but take my word for it - in person, the kind of saturation in the 2K BD is gross. As is the contrast. I'm sorry again, but you're just not speaking from a credible position here. If by saturation you mean there are fewer variations in color (IE the computer technical definition), sure, but it makes the image look like it was shot on an iPhone 4. I could easily make the HDR look just as sh*tty as the SDR version if I cranked up the saturation and fake contrast controls on the TV. Maybe I'll do that later to show you. This is literally the statement where you lost me completely. This is absolutely 100% unequivocally incorrect. SDR colors look like Crayola colors in comparison to the HDR version. I guess I disagree with your definition of "rich colors," entirely. Please, PLEASE stop any further disbelief in HDR until you do this kind of true comparison in person. Until then, I don't think you have credibility speaking on this subject.

I've got a high end Sony HDR and I compared Dark Knight 2K BD and 4K HDR BD and there is absolutely a difference. The gradations are so subtle, the colors unlike anything I've seen on a TV before... It's glorious, and I highly recommend you experience it! So, I don't think I'd call it a scheme because it is a truly improved viewing experience for high-end productions. Here's why I think low compression 10bit HDR is 100% worth it: My TV has the exact same settings for both sources, with main contrast and brightness turned to 100% but all "special" contrast enhancements (IE dynamic range and color killers) turned off: Exhibit 1: Exposed for the highlights with my iPhone. It's very hard to see in these photos, but you've got to trust me that in person there are 1-2 extra stops of visible detail in the clouds on the HDR version. This is one of the highest contrast scenes imaginable 2K: 4K: Exhibit 2: 2K (shot with non-HDR iPhone camera setting) this is pretty much how my eye sees it: 4K HDR - without using the HDR iPhone setting, the dynamic range doesn't even fit in the image where the sky is too bright (I tried to get the rest of the image exposed the same, but I'd say there's still an extra stop visible in shadows) Please also note the subtle transition on the ground from shadow to highlight: And here's 4K HDR shot with HDR iPhone settings to better show how my eye sees it: Now, here are some comparisons, all shot with the iPhone in HDR mode, that speak for themselves: On the last one, it looks like the helicopter spotlight is blown out, but in person it's not. There's still plenty of detail there. So it seems like the dynamic range displayed might actually be higher than what my iPhone 8 can capture even in HDR... or maybe I didn't expose perfectly. I guess you could say the difference is... Knight and day. Ok, I'm done.

One day!!

I think you may not realize that 2017 iMacs are Thunderbolt 3, and thunderbolt 3 is by far and away better when running something like an eGPU, which makes the iMac much more upgradeable and future-proof than a trash can. And no, TB3 is not basically USBC - USBC is just a connection interface. I encourage you to do some research on the incredible difference between TB3 and both TB2 and USB 3/3.1. And yes, I can have the native 5K display running along with two C4K displays running at 60Hz. That's 3 pro displays Like I said, TB3 is something like 90% efficient with today's GPUs, unlike TB2, so this is a major disadvantage of the trash can over a new iMac. If you're wanting a Mac for Premiere then this discussion is not very useful. Windows is by far and away better value for money and infinitely upgradeable. I incorrectly assumed you wanted a Mac to run FCPX, because there's literally no reason to buy a Mac only to use Adobe unless your one objective in life is to throw away money. But hey, it is a trash can so I guess you should go for it! (EDIT: Just so you know, I'm a diehard apple fanboy) I just mentioned this because I've upgraded it as much as possible, and there's just no competing with newer architecture. Within two years this will be 100% the same case with the trash can.

Andrew, I just... where do I start? There are many many reasons why people shouldn’t be on a Mac Pro. The GPUs suck. Limited to thunderbolt 2. CPUs are old as fuck compared to new Kaby’s with h.265 acceleration. DDR3 not 4... For reference, I’ve got a 6 core 3.33 2010 Mac Pro collecting dust while I’m running my 2017 maxed out iMac (costs the same as lowest spec Trash Can Pro) connected to a Dell 4K. I upgraded the shit out of the 2010, including an Nvidia GTX 980ti and I still love using the iMac more. That should tell you something cause that’s one hell of a GPU. Plus, because of thunderbolt 3 I plan to run an eGPU enclosure (high Sierra native compatibility) at some point and it’s something like 90% efficient. In FCPX I’m playing back 4K HEVC with effects like it’s h264. That’s only possible with Kaby Lake. Even on the maxed 2015 iMac at work this isn’t even close to possible because they’re only skylake. I’m pretty sure only the RAM is upgradeable in the trash can, FWIW. TLDR: the maxed 2017 iMac non-Pro is one hell of a machine and I’d recommend it over any other Mac

In real life you are very right. From a feature film writing perspective though, there's just no reason for him to "turn" on a character level, which is very frustrating for me as a filmmaker and movie-lover. BTW I don't think you have to agree with me, but you did ask for our opinions in the first post These are all very good points. These reasons would have had more impact though if in the rest of the first act he had shown character traits more in line with him standing up for what's right even when it means potential harm. Another possibility would have been some other kind of plot device like "if these particular cops get the wand then the whole world will die." This is how plenty of "bad" characters start their journey to becoming the good guy. Sadly, this wasn't employed because it had to be used on the next part of the plot Thanks. Most of my frustration comes from the fact that I believe this could have been an outstanding movie but it tried to do too much. Because of that, it missed simple things like the fish out of water, which is a very common plot device. The most applicable example would probably be Neo in the Matrix. The audience gets to learn along with him and it works perfectly even though the world he's in is so different than our own. EDIT: OH AND LAST THING: Will Smith's character should have been the one who died and got brought back to life. The orc cop was already a good cop so it had little meaning. But if Will Smith had been the one to sacrifice himself and then rise again, it would have helped with an actual character arch. It's frustrating how good this movie could have been with simple changes like that

"They were going to kill him, so he had to stop them." BUT WHY? This is what I mean by "he did it because the plot needed him to." Please don't excuse poor writing. His character had no traits that indicated he was concerned for his partner, or anybody but himself and his family. If anything, he should have killed his partner because that would have been the best thing to do for his family. See, now if killing his partner would have somehow meant his family would be in danger, that would have been at least excusable, but the way it went down was very, very poorly done. --- Anyway, no it wasn't the worst movie of the year, but it was very bad and I was left very disappointed.

Well guys, it was pretty bad: One of the biggest problems with Bright was that there was so much to learn about that world and its mythology but there was no "fish out of water" character to help the audience learn what the f*ck was going on. Even a pre-movie title paragraph explaining anything would have been helpful. There's a reason star wars has the title crawl, and lord of the rings has the voiceover, etc. Plus, Will Smith's character didn't start out likeable at all. He was a dick, and a complainer, and his "turn" to good guy basically happened out of thin air. He goes from hating his partner to killing other cops in an instant, and there was really no reason in the story for him to do so other than the necessity to get the movie to the next plot point. The nail on the coffin to me was that it tried to be a dozen things and didn't do any of them well. Hats off for trying, but it wasn't a good fantasy film, it wasn't a good drama, it wasn't a good dystopian movie, it wasn't a good buddy cop film... at best it was a so-so action film.

I've had this question before, and I think it comes mostly down to compression. Big budgets are shooting ProRes or raw, not low bitrate h264. I haven't watched all of Max's stuff but from what I can tell from experimentation, there is definitely a tradeoff between dynamic range and color information when not shooting raw. I'm a great colorist (from years of dealing with S Log), but after reading/watching Max's take on the negative tradeoffs, I've been experimenting with using more contrasty profiles and have found that for compressed footage, even 10 bit, the image is much more robust by starting off closer to final image in camera. This is more true the higher the compression, and especially the higher the noise. I stopped shooting SLog on my FS5 on 120/240fps all-together, and on dark overcast days pretty much don't use it either because there's so little color in the world to begin with. To me, the real advantage of Log on compressed images is keeping the shadows and highlights from getting macro-blocked together and lost forever. But this definitely comes with the sacrifice of color fidelity. I've also come to realize that 90% of viewers don't care if blacks or whites are clipped, so long as people (skin tones) look great and there's a smooth roll-off.

I was just talking about Stu Maschwitz's settings, not any of the log profiles like yours

Ok, maybe we've been saying the same thing after all, just using different language... I'd be curious to see the two compared with the lower ISOs on the GH5. I think, based on quick math, that ISO 640 on the GH5 could be compared to 1600 on the 1D with same lens settings. If you're up for it, this would be an interesting comparison.

Look, I'm just trying to educate other readers because I spent a long time misunderstanding what speedboosters actually do. At one point I actually thought that speedboosting FF lenses to smaller sensors meant I'd get more light and better bokeh than using an actual FF camera So, to answer your condescending question: As I've said - You can think of putting a 24-70mm 2.8 with SBXL on the GH5 as EITHER a 15-45mm 1.8 on a M43 sensor OR a 24-70mm 2.8 on an APSH sensor (Or, for shits and giggles, you can think of it as a 30-90mm 3.6 on FF) But you CAN'T think of it as putting a 1.8 on any sensor larger than M43. (This is the fundamental misunderstanding right here that has led to confusion on countless threads.) Therefore, the light hitting the two cameras is exactly the same wide open. The whole reason I was telling you this in the first place is because you can actually do the comparison between the two cameras with the GH5 at lower ISOs and see how the noise performance compares at equivalence (Because of the squaring rule, I'm not sure the math, but there's a calc on the web, I'm sure). This is because of the normalized ISOs I was referring to.