kye

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

He was also on the cover of the video issue of Popular Mechanics last October.

Anyone with YT Red want to do a quick review of his videos to see which are sponsored?  IIRC it indicates which ones are.

That kind of attention must be a sponsorship of some kind - Casey has good commercial instincts and isn't afraid to ask for money..   There was a video back when he was raising money for Beme, and Casey told the story that his mentor said something like 'make a list of all the people you can ask for money and then call them all and ask' and Casey made the calls and got some investment, and on the back of the fact he actually called people and got investors his mentor also invested..  IIRC - I do a bit of stuff with start-ups so the respect for action caught my attention.

3 hours ago, Yurolov said:

Wait for next iteration of canon or get a a7iii or xh1 or gh5 as none of the cameras you listed meet your requirements. 

I wasn't sure if any of them did - the last time I bought a camera I was looking for high-bitrate 4k (and wound up with the XC10) and the time before that I didn't think about video and ended up with the 700D.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Sounds like the Panasonic G80/G85 is the camera for you, and you could pair it with a couple of lenses such as say a Panasonic 25mm f1.7 & Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 

Looks capable, if a little more expensive than I was hoping.

12 hours ago, sam said:

if that's too big, you could try vid-atlantic filters and a .50x wide angle adapter to get wide.  

I missed this reply - sorry @sam !  I don't know that those filters are to my tastes, but the wide angle adapter is a thought I'd had before.  I think the Canon one was something like $250?

Do you know what these do to the speed of a lens?  ie, does it keep the same T-stop?  and what about the depth of field?

I bought a cheap one as a proof of concept and it was meant to be 0.45x but was actually about 0.75x and was so blurry it makes vintage lenses look like scientific instruments!

41 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

sam finds you a cheap ass solution and you want a XC20, Oh My God!! You have been talking to Mercer haven't you?

Lol, I want my cake and to eat it too.  I don't think Mercer is the only source of this type of sentiment

Is now the right time to tell you about what cars I'd like to buy? 

33 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

On second thought I agree with this. But I'd be more inclined to wait for the canons because of color science. 

Yeah, we could be waiting a while.

I'm surprised no-one has come up with an obvious suggestion - whenever I was reading about the Sigma 18-55 f1.8 lens everyone said it was the 'YouTubers favourite lens' but I can't find any info on what they pair it with that makes any sense..  The only combinations I've seen are the 18-35, metabones, and a6000 line cameras, but I can't imagine that the vast swathes of youtubers can afford such a thing, and whenever I see vloggers / travel filmmakers go to events I see most people have Canon/Sony FF/APSC, pocket cameras like RX100, or phones.  Maybe it's their favourite lens that they'd like to buy, but can't afford?  Or the few people that have it talk about it a lot?

I think I want to buy the 18-35 f1.8, but can't get past the lack of IS and mediocre bitrate.

Wow.. that's not what I was expecting!  That thing is HUGE!!  There is no way I'll be able to get that into carnivals, speech nights at the kids school, or use it at parties and picnics!  People will think I'm about to zap them with my ray-gun!  Imagine taking that thing through border security.. :O

The M50 / 22mm f2 combo is interesting - I was thinking I'd get better value by going for better but older second-hand options but it's something to keep in mind, the form factor is great though.

I was expecting recommendations like:
- Sony a3000 / a5000 and a manual lens
- 100D with ML and a wide manual lens
- early model RX100 (?)
- Ricoh GR (?)
- or that it's much easier to hand-hold an 18mm than a 50mm so don't worry about IS and to buy the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and run ML on my 700D with a higher quality mode for the 1080 (which actually sounds like a potential option, assuming I can get it to write a stream higher than the 56Mbps file it gave me when I tried it on 3x quality)

...or something even more esoteric like an old DSLR film-makers kit from an obsolete lens system but a body with clean HDMI output and an Atomos Ninja Star.

I recorded a test video with the 700D and 50mm 1.8 and it was almost passable in terms of IQ (softness and low-light performance at f1.8), but just wasn't a practical focal length.  If only Canon had a "Plenty Twenty" 20mm f1.8 lens for $200 and a HQ video mode that did 100Mbps!!  (Yeah, I know, it's Canon we're talking about....)

I probably just want an XC20.

I shoot handheld run-and-gun home videos / personal projects and my XC10 does this very well, but the one thing it can't do is BOKEH!

...and I can't get it out of my head!!!

I am wondering if there's a cheap setup that can get bokeh, can run-and-gun for home videos with decent results, and produces a half-decent image after dark.  The smaller the better, so no old cine cameras.

I've tried my Canon 700D with 50mm f1.8, but 80mm equivalent is way too long, the lack of IS makes everything shaky, and the Canon IQ is lacklustre.

Therefore the criteria is:
- BOKEH!! (f2.8 equivalent or faster)
- nice image (better than my 700D 1080p ~56mbps codec)
- not too shaky image while hand-held (I record while walking - image stabilisation probably required?)
- can either autofocus or has a lens with ok manual focus ring (ie, not a quarter-turn for the whole focal range)
- wide enough to be useful indoors (shorter than 50mm equivalent - a short zoom would be useful)
- as I live in Australia - it cannot have overheating problems (I've had my iphone overheat while recording video - our weather is no joke!)

I can either get a sub-$600 lens for my Canon 700D:
- the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 looks great, but lacks IS - will it be wide enough to hand-hold?  80mm handheld was impossible!
- Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM - not wide enough for indoors?

Or I can sell the 700D and lenses, then I'd have ~$1000 for a camera/lens combo.  What might that be?

I'm ok with ML or firmware hacks as long as they're reliable, purchasing second-hand is assumed.

Is this possible?  Or has wide-angle shallow depth-of-field just not come down in price enough yet?

That settles it.  I'm only shooting in ARRIRAW 3.4K from now on!

I have the Dell UP3216Q 31.5" UHD panel.  I'm not a pro so I'm not sure if I can answer all your questions, but happy to try.  I run Resolve Studio on it, connected to my MacBook Pro laptop.

49 minutes ago, Rodolfo Fernandes said:

I personally don't find that accurate, if you want something done right, photo or video, its hard to make. For some people getting a good video out is easy if its hard for you or me it does not make it a hard thing, good content no matter what format it is is hard to create period.

Good content for talking head vlogs is in the writing.  Or, if you're a good communicator, in the ideas.

As they say, content is king

35 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

This video is absolutely wonderful, completely changes how I edit LOG from now on. Thanks!

Did you watch his other videos?  He's obviously a pro, and his attitude in the Linny LUT video is hilarious - giving the LUT creators crap while casually explaining advanced colour concepts like they're something that is taught in primary school is a very entertaining mix.  I can't wait for more.  

What stood out especially in the Log grading video above is that part about grading in Arri LogC and how you should use the Offset, Contrast and Pivot controls instead of Lift Gamma and Gain - I can almost feel how much I'm going to learn when he explains that!

19 hours ago, mkabi said:

when in fact those rain drops are SFX/CGI add-on

I did have that thought when I was watching it.  I watched a few tutorials on twixtor when I discovered Resolve basically has it built-in, and it was obvious that optical-flow time-stretching (what twixtor uses) is great for things that move proportionally, but absolutely awful when things move in front of other things.

I guess embracing the softness of the effect and using it to your advantage is kind of like the Zen of film-making!

In a sense that film has certain luxuries in run-and-gun film-making that other formats don't have - that's the ability to just select the good stuff in post and only use what works in the edit suite.  If you're a wedding film-maker it wouldn't go down too well to not include key moments in the video, although now people are making 'highlight reels' there is more latitude for removing bad bits if there were technical issues.

@User What a wonderful video - I hadn't seen that one, thank you.  Here's a similar one that I've seen that is also imperfect in quite pleasant ways:

And to add to the Operator vs Camera theme of the thread - the above was shot in an iPhone5, so I don't think anyone will be rushing out to buy this magical hardware to get the look above!

6 hours ago, Parker said:

For me, "mojo" is that certain je ne sais quoi present only in certain images, or with certain lenses. I agree with Matthias, it's more easily seen in stills than it is in motion. In my own images, I remember the first time I really felt its presence was after I got the Sigma 18-35, especially with stills. There was just this... gloss... to the images: how the glass rendered things, the focus fall-off, the quality of the light — that I found to be simply incredible. Even the most mundane, ordinary object — like an empty chair, sitting in the sun — can take on this transformative, seemingly magical quality when you're staring at it through the right lens. 

I have seen this same indefinable image magic with the aforementioned Sigma 18-35, the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS, and most especially the Contax Zeiss 50mm 1.7, regardless of which cameras I have paired them with (70D, EOS M, NX500, NX1, A7SII, GH4, GH5) so glass definitely matters. It's not about sharpness, either. There's just something there that I think we're all familiar with, that gives some soul to an image. 

Obviously lighting is important. White balance is important. Color is important. Composition is crucial. But I don't think you can really pin down in black and white, pure terms what you can or can't do that necessarily makes one image seem transcendental and special and another one mundane and disappointingly ordinary. 

I have my own personal recipe for what makes an image appealing and I'm sure the rest of you do as well. The fact that all of these recipes probably have different ingredients is what makes playing with cameras so fun, I mean how boring would it be if every movie looked exactly the same?! 

Fascinating - thank you.  Not much has been spoken about lenses in this thread.  I knew the Sigma 18-35 was a favourite but I've not heard it described like this!  I contemplated buying it for my Canon 700D but after doing some tests of IQ I concluded that the codec was just too compressed for the kind of work I wanted to do.  That lens still peaks my attention when it's mentioned, maybe in the future I'll make the decision to buy one and then work out what camera to put on the back of it

I'd be interested in hearing your personal recipe.  Not to copy it (which sounds like it would cost thousands of dollars in lenses!) but to see if there's anything in there I can learn from.  Obviously if this is 'secret sauce' and you'd rather not share then no worries.

On a personal note, I think I've made several strides in the last few days.

Yesterday I found a wonderful combination between C-Log ETTR as recommended by @mercer (thank you again!) and the post workflow described by @Juan Melara in this video here:

I was previously using the custom profile from the XC10 thread that was hammered out in response to finding the ghosting in C-Log from the temporal noise reduction they sneakily add at higher ISOs to bump their lab test scores.  Unfortunately what that meant was that there were no LUTs or camera profiles available for me to use, so I was thrown into the deep end of Log grading in Resolve without a paddle, however shooting in C-Log and then using the above method gets wonderful punchy colours almost effortlessly, but is also flexible enough to correct for my inevitable exposure and white-balance issues.  I've watched my body-weight in YouTube videos from amateurs showing workflows that seemed to work for them but never for me, or pros who did it and made it look easy with test footage shot without the problems that I encounter - none of them had a workflow even remotely like the one Juan uses above.

And on top of that my investigation into YouTube and how to get nice looking video quality out of YouTube has paid off to the point where I now have a workflow without major issues (for the first time since buying the XC and Resolve!) so I'm pretty stoked about that.  Now I think I just need to shoot more and gradually learn what I like

I've made some progress.

On Mac, only Chrome supports VP9 (and therefore 2160p and above).  

Genyoutube supports 2160p, but downloads to webm format files, which is an open source format, that contains the VP9 stream.

I've managed to convert the webm with VP9 into an uncompressed .PNG sequence, which can be loaded into Resolve. (uncompressed TIFFs don't work - not sure why).

In Resolve I compared the original clip to the PNG sequence and there is a small difference, mostly highlights.  I also compared the webm from the 4k YT video where I just uploaded the original MXF file from the camera, and saw the differences.  I then removed the difference that the image sequence conversion created from the difference between the original MXF file and the converted webm file, and significantly boosted the video levels to get the below image.  It should show the areas where the compression is damaging the original file.

In theory I can do this for other uploads and then compare them.  I can't get signal-to-noise ratios as it's not calibrated, but I can get relative values.

Is this something that anyone is interested in?

We have already established that uploading in 4k (or 1440p) is a good idea, even if you only have a 1080p source file, in order to get less harsh compression.  Others suggested that 60fps may also get you VIP privileges during the conversion process.

I'll do it if there's interest, but the analysis is a PITA to do, and I think I've satisfied my own curiosity from a "good enough" perspective.

8 hours ago, sam said:

is the word mojo up for interpretation?  it already has a defintion. lets not change its etymology  in a single thread ?    

the op doesn't ask 'what' mojo is.

 to paraphrase he asks which cameras have mojo and does he need said cameras to get it.    

I would love to know 'what' mojo is, but I don't think anyone will be able to answer in detail, so in the absence of a detailed description I'm happy to try and approach it from a different direction, which is to ask where are the examples of it and what is it that we can describe?

My underlying motive for all this is to 'learn to see'.

I am relatively new to 'real' cinematography / editing / colour work (or compared to some of you I'm a complete noob!) and I don't yet really know what I like, and when I see something that looks nice I can stare at it but I just don't really know what I'm looking at.  Thus, all my questions.  I am also a very logical person and the inner voice that reacts to creative content is quieter, so I have to learn to listen to it, and when I do it's harder to understand the subtleties of what it is telling me.

Many people have made the very valid point that it's just a matter of putting in the work, and being organised: shoot, take notes, evaluate the result, analyse the notes; or pick something I like from a film and try and shoot it, dozens and dozens of times if necessary; and I would also add in others like find tutorials grading sample footage that is available and try to follow along.
This methodology is excellent, but it makes sense to combine the work of making your own discoveries with the wisdom and knowledge of others, which is what this thread is.  Since starting this thread I have shot, edited, and graded two ~1 minute long short films (about my fish - a well lit and reliable subject!) and done two other camera tests where I'm filming the same thing only changing one parameter then comparing the results, so I'm pushing forwards and learning things each time.

8 hours ago, mercer said:

Honestly, I think you’re looking at it wrong. Find a camera and lens that feel good in your hands and makes you want to shoot.

It's a good sentiment, however, in my particular case, this is counter to why I started this thread.

I own a camera that I can't afford to replace.  Even if there was some sort of magical camera out there that would be better for me than the one I have, I can't afford it.  I am 'stuck' with what I have, at least for some time.

The purpose of understanding what might go into 'mojo' is so that I can use the tools I already have (Canon XC10 and Resolve) to optimise the amount of mojo that my films have.  This was my hope for this thread.  I already knew about the 180 degree shutter, but I suspect there are 27 other 'rules of thumb' that I don't know that I could exploit.  Maybe there's a ratio of rolloff for grading highlights (I just made that phrase up as an example) and that's how film looks, so that will get me a bit closer.  Then perhaps there is something to do with shadows, or vibrant colours, or......  

From editing photographs I learned that you want to do a huge number of things that all push the image to be better by just a little bit, and it's the sum of all the parts that makes the overall difference.  Just pushing a bit here, pulling a bit there, etc.

I want to learn what to do in making films.  That's the purpose of this thread, for me at least.

11 minutes ago, anonim said:

Do you find that second footage is not so good? Why if it is so, in which aspects first surpass second and where it is visible?

(Of course, there's no necessity to answer, especially if, as I supposed from your question about Ebrahim Sadaawi, verbal expressing in English is not your native.)

I think you might be confusing me with Anonim who made the comment about Ebrahim Sadaawi!

On 12/01/2018 at 2:30 AM, webrunner5 said:

I really don't think Any camera, from a Arri to a GoPro, has no noise, even at low ISO on walls. I guess it has to do with digital signals. Bayer stuff, who knows.

I don't know specifically about cameras, but I've done lots of stuff with audio and all circuitry has noise.  The noise comes from analog circuits but when analog signals are digitised then the noise from the analog circuits will be captured as part of that digital signal.

If you were to generate a digital file using only mathematics (for example VFX) then you could argue that the starting signal will have no noise, but if you manipulate it afterwards then the limitations of digital resolution can be accentuated, which is what people are really talking about when discussing why 10-bits is better than 8-bits.  

The definition of noise is anything that isn't part of the signal (the bit you want) so cumulative digital errors are a source of noise, which is one of the reasons that intermediary codecs are normally high quality - you want to avoid 'baking in' as many compression artefacts and other undesirables.

Anyway, all cameras have noise.

6 minutes ago, anonim said:

 

 

I've got no idea about why this looks good (hence this thread), but one thing I noticed was that the shots with the water dripping into peoples hands and into the river was with a very short shutter speed - something way shorter than a 180 degree shutter.  I mention this because the 180 shutter is meant to help something be cinematic, but this does despite it.  Interesting.

This is a fascinating conversation.

One of the most interesting bits was @jonpais mentioning Red - which I don't recall anyone mentioning as having mojo, however Chefs Table is absolutely gorgeous and definitely a stand-out production (visually and in potentially every other way).  This leads neatly into the idea that perhaps considering the wide DR and huge data files coming out of it that the magic was added in post?

In terms of some mojo coming from the operator - I too suffer from creating bad output from good cameras, but it can't be that all the people that bought a 1DC or BMPCC were good operators!

12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

It’s a myth. But according to your post, only Canon has the secret. Very revealing, ES.

They're just the ones I've heard mentioned - I think I've heard Digital Bolex mentioned in this sense as well.

What does ES mean?

5 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

1) Several. And its not so much the camera imo as the camera and lens combination.

2) Sensor and lens combination. So it includes sharpness/lack of sharpness, colours, rolloff, DR, sensor texture, curve, rendition, etc and so forth.

In theory if you capture enough DR and bit depth, you should be able to re-create some of these in post - colours, rolloff, curve, and maybe rendition (I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "rendition").

5 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

3) Very little and it requires to much work imo. Better to get it right in camera.

I agree it would be better to get it right in-camera, assuming you can afford it that is!

For those of us with modest means, I'm curious to have a little more understanding.  Not only can understanding get us part of the way there with what we have, but it can also do that for our archive of footage that regardless of wealth cannot be shot on a different camera!!

I know that many on these forums don't dip into their back-catalogue much, but for family videos its a real thing

I hear lots of love on this forum for cameras like the 1DC, the C100, etc.  
The context is that they're more than just the stats, that it's something potentially involving the movement, or the sharpness (or lack thereof), or maybe the colours..  I'm sure there's other things too.

Three questions:

1) Which cameras have it?

2) For each camera that has it, what is it about that camera that gives it that mojo?  Movement? Colours? Highlight rolloff? .....what?

3) How much of this can be done in post?  Surely if you record 13-stops DR high-bitrate in 10-bit there's enough data to get the colours, maybe the highlight rolloff?  Maybe sharpness can be tailored?

43 minutes ago, no_connection said:

*edit* I'm a dummy. Using h246ify means 1440p max since YouTube only does 4k with VP9 coded. Should have figured that out before scathing my head.
So in short. H264 max out at 1440p and VP9 goes to 4k and beyond.

Interesting, I guess if some of the download tools have this limit then that explains why they don't show options to download 2160p.

However, that still doesn't explain why I can't play 2160p on YT site natively!

Can anyone verify the above videos have a 2160p option for them in YT?

I'm still having trouble with downloading.

Firstly, I found genyoutube.com but can't get the saved file into Resolve.  

Also, I don't seem to be able to get videos to show in YT as more than 1440p - they simply don't give me that option.

This video here:

Gives me this in Stats For Nerds:

and this one:

Gives me this:

I find it hard to believe that both of those videos weren't uploaded in 4k.  

Can someone else please let me know if they are able to see a 2160p option in YT?  

On 27/02/2018 at 6:53 PM, andrgl said:

Stats for nerds can be used on the app or browser to confirm the video codec.

Didn't know about that - thanks!

On 27/02/2018 at 7:22 PM, Anders Bixbe said:

They have recently stopped showing the VP9 in the nerd info. Instead they name the codec 313/opus 251. In Marks video it´s 315/opus 251.

It looks like it's changed again from the two shown above - my original upload is also the same as above.

On 27/02/2018 at 8:33 PM, no_connection said:

I use ANT video downloader plugin for FireFox. It uses FFmpeg to combine the file, you can ether install it yourself or have the plugin download it for you. On FF Quantum it's a little different so you might wanna test both. I use FireFox Portable from portableapps.com so you can mock around all you want without breaking anything.
You might wanna try something like h264ify to get H264 instead of VP9 from youtube.

23 hours ago, no_connection said:

I have never had a problem downloading 4k even tho I have 1920x1200 monitor.
*edit* this is the one I'm using https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-downloader-player/
You can grab older version 2.4.7.43 that works with ff48 for example (I use that version)
If you are using the one that looks like a tri color pellet then I stopped using that long ago.

VP9 would be the default since it's used for HTML5

Well, I tried installing Ant Video Downloader, and I now know that you're both PC users.  and from this comment, you now know I'm a Mac user!  The extension installs, but not the standalone program. Doh!

On 27/02/2018 at 8:33 PM, Mattias Burling said:

If you are on a Mac you can download any stream natively in Safari. Or at least you could the last time I did a few years ago. Cant remember the command for it but Im sure someone else remembers it.

I did a bit of googling and I found something that says that you need a certain version or earlier for it to work, so it looks like that's not an option anymore.

2 hours ago, sam said:

Well above was all you gave me.  And thats simply not true. Cant you find a decently sharp telephoto lens to use with one these?   www.iphoneness.com/cool-finds/attach-dslr-lens-to-iphone/   

True.  I ruled them out due to no autofocus, but you're right that the image quality is better than the other options.

Regardless, I think that we've gone a little off topic, and although phones are very capable devices and can be kitted out with rigs that make them almost as useful (and almost as large) as a DSLR, I don't think that anyone would make the case that a phone is a suitable alternative to a 1DC or a 1DXII..  at least not until the RED phone is released 

@CastorpDefinitely agree about frustration / confusion.

So many people seem to see cameras as being as good as their best spec, and ignoring the weaknesses of a particular camera, but I think the opposite is true, a camera is only as good as the weakest feature it has that you use.

I bought a the Canon XC10 which was almost universally hated because it didn't do anything spectacularly well but also didn't have any amazingly bad weaknesses, and yet people rave about the GH5 when I eliminated it immediately as it can't be trusted to focus.  Partly this is people having different requirements (eg, if you use manual focus), but also it's due to people not taking into consideration the practicalities of real-world use.

In purchasing my setup for my own personal projects I eliminated so many cameras - even if a camera shoot RAW 16K in 16-bit with 20 stops of DR it would be useless if it can't reliably focus (GH5), or ran out of battery (A7SII), or its really heavy and you're too exhausted from carrying it to use it (complete BMPCC rig), or you get hassled by security or they won't let you in the venue because your camera is too large for working without a shooting permit (C100), or you don't have it because it's too expensive and you can't afford it in the first place (1DXII), or many of the above (1DC, Red Raven, URSA mini, Kinefinity, Digital Bolex, etc etc etc...)!

10 hours ago, sam said:

Well that's just not true.  Multiple phones have various optical lengths.  Or add a lens. Tons available.   

I'm interested to know what lenses you've seen that I haven't..  To my eyes anything except the Zeiss primes look so bad in the corners that I'd file them in the "vintage" category, and it's not like they have anything much in the telephoto range.

I regularly shoot at 280mm or 400mm in my videos.  If you're doing narrative work or filming in 'controlled' conditions then sure, you can get away with 16/28/35/50 focal lengths, but if you're shooting run-and-gun in the wild like I do then reaching for my phone to then have to stop and put a 50mm equivalent zoom lens on it is completely ridiculous when the built-in lens on my XC10 does 28-280mm and I don't have to change anything.

I understand your comments, and you do have a point, but not everyone has the same requirements that you do.

10 hours ago, sam said:

why not just shoot on a high end phone with a small stabiliser?

For one thing, they're fixed focal length.  Otherwise I'd use mine a lot more.

There are other reasons of course too, but this is the main one for me.