kye

I watched the Werner Herzog course on Masterclass.com and it was fascinating. He's not short of an opinion, that's for sure! I'm not sure how many things I agree with him about, but two of them are definitely the importance of perseverance, and also the concept that you have to do something different to what you normally do. He does things differently to what most other people do (making up quotes, forging paperwork, etc) but he is remarkable because of his uniqueness, and we all have this potential for uniqueness, but it requires experimentation and persistence to find it.

I think that an aspect of all this is we don't talk about control and shooting ratios. Ultimately we only get judged on the final edit, so if you have complete control over what you're shooting, you could (in theory) only record a single take of each shot, and basically just edit-in-camera. You wouldn't want to do this in real-life, but you might only shoot 3:1 or so, especially if you really know what you're doing. In these situations, it would make sense to take time, set things up right, and nail the shot. In this sense it's much better to do one good take of the shot you use, instead of seven average takes. However, in low-control situations we don't know exactly what is going to happen, and we don't know where all the gems will occur, so in these situations it's better to sacrifice quality for quantity. This is because an average shot of the best moment is more valuable to the client than a great shot of an average moment. And the other aspect of this is that shooting at 5x the speed doesn't mean each shot is only 20% as good - it's probably 70% as good, so the tradeoff is worthwhile in many cases. It also comes down to style. Even in wedding films (for example) there are film-makers who have a very formal style, with shots being very geometric, locked-off or ultra-smooth slider shots, and typically with elegant music and a slower editing pace. On the other end of the spectrum is film-makers that capture weddings in a very informal sense, often having hand-held shots, free-flowing camera movement, getting close and even included in the events (like in the middle of the dancefloor) and potentially even having people look at or even address the camera. Combined with a much looser style of edit, this approach can create a very whimsical, fun, and exciting viewing experience. These differences exist in almost all types of film-making - high control / slower processes and low control / faster processes. These situations will of course be reflected in equipment choices. No-one would shoot action-sports with an ARRI and no-one should shoot set-based dramas with an action camera. They're just representative of different priorities. I'm going to repeat myself again - we often underestimate how different other people are to ourselves in terms of what they're shooting, the situation they're shooting in, and how they go about it.

I agree that it's to keep people in the ecosystem. That's one of the reasons I like adapting manual lenses to mirrorless, it means that I'm not kept inside an ecosystem - specifically I have access to almost all of the gems from the past, and at greatly reduced pricing compared to what they cost when new. I don't think this is just about YouTubers. Think about it like this - if you can do something better than the tech (and have time and attention to do so) then it's better to do it manually, otherwise you're better letting the tech do it. Very few people would have been worse for focusing than the early CDAF systems, especially considering they'd completely ruin shots regularly, so this wasn't a real factor in film-making. However, now we have DPAF / PDAF combined with face-detect and eye-detect that can be adjusted to transition smoothly at a user-specified rate. The tech has developed so that it's now better at pulling focus than quite a lot of people, and many of those people are working pros who are just trying to get through each job smoothly to get a pay check and feed their family. Yes, in Hollywood there are DPs that can pull focus better than an "A to B in X seconds" AF mechanism, and with the budget to have a dedicated focus-puller you're better off with that, but this is by far the minority of productions. Most pros are working on lower budget docs, TV shows, or ENG, and having something be able to reliably acquire focus and keep it is good enough for them. Things like pulling focus from one object to another isn't that common a move, and most shots don't even need that to happen. YouTubers are very vocal about AF and flippy screens and all that stuff, but it matters to the majority of working pros too, and they're too busy out there making the majority of what we watch to come on these forums and talk about it, or to make videos about how many buttons their camera has and upload them on YT.

It's always interesting to see what they add or don't add. The biggest problem I've seen with consumer cameras, and the iPhone in general, is that it has no slider to adjust the green/magenta balance on a shot. What this means is that in nature the cameras auto-WB makes all the brown walking paths appear purple. If I'm getting an image where brown comes out as purple, why would I care that I can adjust almost anything else? It's like they're making a Ferrari that can only turn left.

I don't have memories of what film IQ was like from back then (it was before I started paying attention) but in terms of this challenge, I figured that the 480p delivery bitrate of YT would take care of seriously degrading the image quality of something!! I've tried to design the film challenges to encourage people to pay attention to some aspect of film-making or other, but in the middle of a bunch of 6K camera announcements / releases I think it might have been too optimistic to think people would be interested in exploring very low bitrate 0.8K video ???

It probably is only worth that much, but when you think about how much she likely paid for it, and how it still basically does the same job as before and we still have the same eyes, it must be a bitter pill to swallow. In terms of her next steps, I have no idea. I didn't ask too many questions about her business or budget or get into ROI or all of the million questions that I'd ask someone on here. She didn't seem technical and she had an accent I couldn't place, so her studio might be somewhere exotic where SD is still a going concern, or there might still be SD or HD-limited infrastructure around where she is. I recall John Brawley commenting that the network he was shooting for still only broadcast in 720p, and that's in the US which is pretty tech-forwards in comparison to many other countries on earth.

We used to do this, but we upgraded to a significantly larger TV, and it also does 4k, so naturally we now hire movies in HD instead of SD ?????

All I know was that it was my sister who was the poor film student who had to pay for her miniDV tapes, so it was her making the decisions. We were using the universities loan cameras so you can be sure that they weren't treated all that kindly either I would imagine!!

Check this out: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Industar-26m-2-8-50-52-lot-of-lensblocks-32-pcs/223606342665?hash=item340ffa0409:g:CFgAAOSwjBRdQVcR 32 x 50mm f2.8 lenses for US$25 + shipping. That's less than $1 each!!

yep.. I think this is going to be a good one!

It's challenge time again. Behold.... The SINGLE SOVIET PRIME LENS challenge!! Based on your replies on my poll, here is the next challenge. RULES: The entire film must be shot with a single Soviet fully-manual prime lens (they're cheap and there are heaps to choose from - more detail below) You must include at least one person in your film. It can be yourself, a friend/relative, a model, or a complete stranger, but there has to be someone in it. You must include the following shots: A wide, showing a landscape of some kind (it's advisable to have at leas one of these as an establishing shot). If there are people in it, they must fit completely within the frame, head-to-toe. ie, go really wide A medium shot (showing the persons chest, shoulders and head) A close-up shot (the persons face must be more than half the height of the frame) Bonus points for low-angles, high angles, extreme wides, or other types of shots Timing: Films are to be posted in this thread by 1st November (this allows time for equipment, shipping, shooting, editing, grading, etc) Judging will occur from 1st November to 8th November (see below about judging) No talking about any equipment until after judging. ie, until after 8th November This timing won't change, so plan accordingly. Remember, you can enter as soon as you like. The prize is eternal fame and glory Everyone is a judge, and can present any award they think is well deserved. To present an award you must say what the award is ("best cinematography", "best sound", "best Dalek cameo", etc) who the winner of the award is, and what the winner did to deserve the prize (why they are the winner). What lenses am I allowed to use? Any lens from Helios, Mir, Tair, Industar, or Jupiter, or any other lens you can prove was made in USSR / Russia (eg, Dog Schitd lenses are fine). They are common, easily available, cheap, and adapt to almost any camera, so no excuses. Each of these brands made a full set of FF lenses in the soviet era, so you can choose any brand or any focal length you like. This thread here has more information than you could possibly want about Russian lenses: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?152436-Russian-Soviet-USSR-Lens-Survival-Guide Remember that you need to get wide, medium, and close-up shots, so try not to choose a lens with too long a focal length, but remember that you have to get a close-up, so unless you know someone who will get quite close to the camera, you should also avoid a lens that is too wide. Remember to take into account your sensor size, a 58mm Helios on MFT is the equivalent of a 116mm lens on a FF camera! (note: speed-boosters are also allowed) I'd suggest something in the range of 28-60mm FF equivalent, and if you're not sure then go with something around 30-40mm equivalent. The most common mount is m42 (which I'd recommend if you're new to adapting) but they also come in other mounts, so be sure to check before ordering. If you're not familiar with Russian lenses, they have a vintage look with heaps of character, but can be super-sharp stopped down a bit, so I'd encourage you to think about the lens as a lens you might use in the future, not just for this competition. You can use a Soviet lens you already own, however I'd encourage you to buy a new one for this challenge in a focal length you don't already have, this way you will still learn something from the challenge. FAQ: Why only one lens? Many famous directors made entire films with only a single prime lens. Noam Kroll wrote an excellent article about why this is a good idea - check it out: https://noamkroll.com/many-iconic-directors-have-shot-their-feature-films-with-just-a-single-prime-lens-heres-why/. Why do I have to get specific shots? To understand that even without a zoom or a kit of lenses, you can still get a variety of shots. ...and even moreso than that, a film with a variety of shots is far more interesting than one where all the shots are POV mid shots (like many lazy YT film-makers do). The article above lists lots of benefits to this approach. Where do I find more info about different types of shots? This might be useful: https://www.careersinfilm.com/types-of-shots-in-film/ Why does it have to be a fully-manual lens? The first reason is to experience using manual focus and the aesthetic that comes with it. Many people are frustrated with AF (as I was) but are afraid to tackle manually focusing a lens, however the learning curve isn't that big and the aesthetic of pulling focus manually is better than any AF. This is because when you pull focus you get the speed and transition that feels right just by doing it, whereas no camera can read your mind about how fast to transition etc. The second is to get exposure to using older prime lenses. These lenses (assuming you don't get a lens that has been heavily abused) will feel great to use in the same ways that only modern lenses costing many thousands of dollars do. There is a reason that people on reduser.com who own high-end 4K/6K/8K RAW shooting cinema cameras have multiple threads talking about cheap vintage lenses, and why the USSR lens thread has over 90K views, the Contax Zeiss thread has 1.4M views, and the Minolta thread has 131K views. What camera can I use? Anything, as long as it's not a potato. (oh, ok, those are allowed too). Can I.... use Speed-boosters? use wide-angle adapters? use creative filters (Black Pro Mist, etc)? Absolutely. Can I.... shoot 6K 60fps RAW? shoot 8K RAW? shoot 120fps? deliver in 2.35:1? deliver B&W? use my Soviet lens in an anamorphic rig? Stand on one leg? Use The Force? I don't know if you can do those things, but if you can then you're welcome to do so. Like they say - "if you've got it, flaunt it!". What other equipment can I use? Whatever you like. What if I'm no good at film-making? Just beginning? Don't know anyone? Live in a cave? Just get a Russian lens, an adapter and any camera. Go to a city or where people are and shoot people. Shoot people in the distance, shoot people walking past the camera, put the camera on a ledge and shoot yourself walking past to get the close-up. If you live in a cave then just take shots of yourself - I'm sure that living so far from the rest of us probably means you have beautiful scenery so be sure to include that. Look at all your footage and choose the best shots, making sure to include the required shots. Put music over the top and post it. There is beauty in simplicity, and beginners luck really exists. Just give it a try, if you do something you've never done you will learn something new - I guarantee it. [Edit: you can also enter as many times as you like. You can buy as many lenses as you like too, but the limit is that each entry can only be shot with one lens. If you wanted permission to buy a whole set of vintage soviet lenses, this is your excuse!!] If you have questions then fire away, but otherwise, gentlemen (and Kaylee!) start your engines!!

Absolutely. I mentioned to her the GH1 and GH2 shot very nice 1080 and could be bought second-hand for very little money in comparison to new cameras. I think her challenge is likely that she's not so technical, so wading through the various complexities of MILC setups may require considerable research. My (very vague) memories of working with a PD150 was that you put in a tape and rewound it, plugged in a mic, made sure the phantom power for the mic was on and had a fresh battery, then thought about other things (like what was in front of the camera). The setup from scratch, per-setup, and per-shot checklists on a MILC setup is about 50 times longer!

The T-stop of a lens is often just a little slower than its F-stop, so I would suggest these are the cine version of F2.8 lenses. Maybe this one rehoused 16-35/2.8? The extra space and size would allow for the power-zoom functionality which doesn't seem to be present on the still lens, as well as equalise filters and weight across the range.

A couple of weeks ago a lady noticed my GH5 / VMP rig and asked me about it. Turns out she runs a small studio and is looking to replace her PD170 and "go HD". We spoke for some time and it was obvious from the conversation that she hasn't been looking at the tech for quite some time. Her three concerns were 1) no-one was offering any money at all for selling her PD170 (people were offering $20 and 'novelty' amounts like that), 2) she wanted to digitise all her tapes, and 3) she wanted to get new equipment and was admiring how small the GH5 was. Really goes to show how we on these forums are in a little bubble of 4k/6k 10-bit etc, when there are people out there who haven't gone HD yet, and we did the $200 challenge with HD cameras!

I don't know as I haven't done it myself, but that is normally quote as one of the reasons you shoot raw. I think the difference is the compression. If you are shooting RAW then there will be a pixel just to one side of an edge and it should be completely the colour of your green screen, there will be an edge pixel which probably has some green and some object colour, and the next pixel should have no green in it whatsoever. I think with most forms of compression you end up with that transition line (where the colour of the pixel is a mix of green and the subject colour) being a lot wider than one pixel, which creates problems getting a clean edge mask, so you end up with the subject having a green halo, or you have to crop into the subject to eliminate all the green but now the subject edges have all been chopped off.

The $200 challenge was fun, and I've been thinking about the next one, and what might be some good rules. I'm travelling and have had slow internet for the last week, and the highest quality I could watch YT without buffering was 480p, and it has been an interesting experience. Obviously the compression basically hammers the video quality into the dust, but some traits remain, and the aesthetic is interesting. I've been watching on my 13" laptop screen, and although things are notably fuzzy and lots of movement has lots of artefacts, some of the really important things still come through, like composition, colour, DoF, editing pace, sound, music, etc. So, I have a challenge and a question.... I challenge you to watch YT in 480p for at least 30 minutes. The idea is to watch some of your favourite films, and to watch long enough to get used to the quality, so that you get a solid impression of the feel of having very low resolution, rather than just a first impression. You should watch for long enough to forget you're watching for video quality and see how much enjoyment you still get. The question is, if I make a next challenge that you have to make a film and one of the criteria is that it must be uploaded to YT in 480p (720x480) would that be of interest to anyone?

Great stuff. I'm reminded of this article on shooting with a single focal length sent to me by @mercer https://noamkroll.com/many-iconic-directors-have-shot-their-feature-films-with-just-a-single-prime-lens-heres-why/ There are lots of advantages to having limitations and I've incorporated many of them into my setup, kind of unknowingly lol. I also like the idea of a 40mm 2x lens - if you frame someone up vertically the way you would normally (head, mid, etc) then it keeps it closer to a 40mm lens, but just gives you a wider background, so although it's a 20mm from the horizontal view, that's typically not how you frame up shots of people. You also 'learn' the lens and can see the framing without looking through it which helps creative vision, you don't need to change lenses so are faster on set, matching in post is much easier, so there are many advantages. I use a 35mm equivalent lens as my default, potentially cropping to 2.35:1 which would make it a 46mm equivalent lens in vertical FoV, so we're operating in the same territory Sure! Just put a handle on the bonnet of @IronFilms truck and if you look confident striding into the airport maybe they'll let you take it as carry-on! Seriously though, lots of the peripheral stuff is getting smaller and smaller - I've seen a battery-powered smoke machine product that was half the size of a VHS cassette, we've got tiny LED lights now, so things are moving in your favour.

I'm in the same boat as you - it's a lovely lens but carrying it around all day would do horrible things to the ligaments in my wrist!

@IronFilm Nice calls on the Fujinon zooms - very nice image from those.. and also the Sigma f1.8 zooms that @barefoot_dp also mentioned. I especially like... ??? and when you say "I'll note the title said VIDEOGRAPHY." I'll give you permission - what film-making kit would you have??

My dream kit is (mostly) my actual kit because even if I was super-rich there aren't other options that have the combination of features I want. Setup One Things I already own: GH5, Rode VMP+, Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95, Canon FD 70-200mm F4 + Canon 2X TC Things I would upgrade: I would replace my SLR Magic 8mm F4 with the Laowa 7.5mm F2 for ergonomics and low-light ability I would consider replacing my Konica Hexanon 40mm F1.8 with the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 I would replace my cheap monopod with a nice monopod, maybe a Sirui one with the three little feet on the bottom Setup Two Things I already own: Sony X3000 action camera with remote control monitor thingy, finger cage thingy Both setups use Area-Swiss style QR mounts and also the Peak Design Capture quick release plates for ease of use. The reason I choose this setup is that I shoot travel videos of my family as well as sports of my kid playing football. The considerations here are that the camera can't be big enough to attract negative attention (from other parents, or from security at private places that don't allow 'commercial' photography) and can't be heavy enough to not hand-hold all day (many places don't allow tripods or are too busy / cramped to use them anyway, and we're normally on the move and often on-off boats or busses or whatever so I need to be able to move quickly). I like the low-light of the fast apertures and combined with MFT they don't have too shallow a DoF to use. Having a 16-35mm fast zoom would be great, but no-one makes a f0.95 zoom, and if I went FF and got a 16-35mm f2.8 it would be slower, have deeper DoF than my 17.5mm (which is equivalent of a 35mm F2), and would be too heavy to hand-hold. I don't change between 16mm and 35mm too often and if I needed to then I can use the X3000 which has a wide on it. Wide shots in low light are either worth swapping lenses for or aren't worth getting. I really feel like most people would love to buy an ARRI LF and Master Anamorphic Primes or something, but my setup is the best compromise for me regardless of price that yet exists.

I agree - if they take feedback and accommodate what they can (technology permitting) they could end up with a really interesting camera that accommodates some niches that the other manufacturers didn't realise existed. Getting the extra bit-depth by recording less pixels is a great idea, and you could get that by either not using pixels at the sides (for an anamorphic mode) or by not using pixels at the top/bottom for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, both of which are useful in different situations. That's one of the things I really like about ML RAW - the options to lower the data rate through aspect ratios. Assuming the viewfinder previews it well (which I would assume they would do) then it's great to be able to shoot like that. That's one thing I miss on my GH5, if I want to shoot 2.35:1 then it gives me these tiny/weak guidelines that are practically invisible, but doesn't 1) black out the other parts, or 2) not record the other parts. Getting a smooth 2.35 shooting experience would be really good, both by framing things easily, as well as allowing you to compose with the right aspect ratio. I find myself composing according to what I see in the viewfinder, as well as using the other eye to see the world and what is out of frame before it goes into frame, and when combined with the other eye and also thinking about sound as well as not falling over something while I'm walking or whatever, the aspect ratio guidelines get lost and I compose for the 16:9 and then have difficulty cropping in post because I've framed using the top and bottom parts of the 16:9 image.

It seems counterintuitive to me and that makes me think it's probably a sensor thing (which I don't understand and know very little about). I wonder if @androidlad can shed any light on this particular aspect?

One advantage of RAW is shooting green-screen and getting clean edges. Most forms of compression crunch edges and give you halo problems, so this would be an advantage, especially if you lit and exposed well to get the image right in-camera. In a sense this becomes really great for film students and small-budget productions where you're cutting out the LOG profile / colour grading in post headaches but still retain many RAW benefits. I wonder if there is still a bit of a gap in the 1080p RAW camera lineup? The BMPCCv1 had bad audio preamps, the BMMCC needed a rig, ML can be fiddly for some people. I don't know if the P4K / P6K do 1080 RAW without any major drawbacks? I also don't know if there are many people in the market for shooting 1080p RAW? But if there is a gap in that market then maybe this will find a niche there too? That handle looks very cool BTW, combined with a hardware to lock in the connectors this would be quite an elegant way to get the 12-bit RAW 4K. Or (unlikely) have it do 1080 RAW internal and 4K RAW external simultaneously? No idea on how that would work, but having 1080 RAW internal and 4K RAW master files would allow full grading to be done on the 1080 12-bit RAW before rendering. Things requiring tracking like stabilisation or compositing would need to be done on the 4K files, but for productions not requiring those, that would be interesting.

Do you think that they will release a video-centric flagship as well? That seems to be a common approach now (S1 vs S1H, A7R vs A7S, etc). That would be fascinating to see considering they don't have a cinema line to protect, so could go all-in. Yes, I didn't think you were knocking IBIS. I haven't seen the patent but I'm very aware that if you dig deep enough everything electronic happens physically. I read somewhere that there's a limit to OIS / IBIS of something like 6.5 stops because at that point the sensors start compensating for the rotation of the earth. I think they'll likely exceed that 'limit' eventually, but I find it amazing that technology based on mechanical parts can be made to be so accurate and in such a cheap and reliable way. I've studied the whole stack of IT in terms of algorithms and the logic of data processing, below that is the machine language that the chips use, below that is how analog circuitry implements digital behaviour, and below that is the physics of transistors and how electricity behaves in silicone and other materials. I'm no expert in these, but I know enough to understand that modern technology truly is a marvel and we are incredibly lucky to be alive at such a time in history to be able to see all these things and play with them. I'm not that old, but I remember as a kid not having a TV and when we got one only having a tiny black&white set with the rabbit ear antennas when we got the first one. In this sense I've seen a complete technological revolution within my lifetime, and I'm planning to live to be at least twice as old as I am now, and I can't imagine the progress that will happen over that time, but I'm really looking forward to it.

There's some interesting ideas in there. It will be interesting to see how it ends up. If they respond to user feedback it will be something special, although if they're talking to people that want to use a $2k-3k camera as a crash cam then they might not be quite the same things we're chasing.