barefoot_dp

If you're balancing with natural sunlight, using Daylight LED's will be easiest since you likely won't need any gels. I've shot a bit in hospitals and we always use an Aputure C300d in combination with two LED panels; 300d to bounce light off a wall/roof and give the whole room some bright ambience, one 1x1 LED panel with a soft-box as a key light, and the other 1x1 LED as either a rim light or background accent as required. Make sure you consider what their theatre lamps are balanced at (not the ceiling lights, but the one on the boom arm that the surgeons can move around), and what want them to look like in the scene (ie: either daylight/white like all the other lights, or tungsten to highlight the area) that will help you decide if you want to use them as a practical or augment them with your own lights (something like a Dedo does the trick). Are you a regular poster at DVX user or was it your first post there? They have a new members section which you have to post in first before you get full posting priveliges. It's designed to weed out spam bots or people who don't basic read instructions.

I'm not sure about the F1 example, but I've worked on the broadcast for an international sporting event series where Red cinema cameras are integrated into the broadcast. There's essentially two camera teams working side by side. Broadcast cameras (including specialty slow-mo cameras) cover all the action & interviews for the live stream. Red cameras get better quality coverage for heat highlights/daily highlights, promos, sponsor/partnerships content, athlete profiles, social content, archival etc. The Red content is ingested and edited on site so packages can be integrated into the live broadcast, sometimes with very fast turn around times. I'm talking really fast - eg following a good match-up, an interview plus some b-roll & might be shot and within an hour edited into a package (including action highlights) and ready for broadcast. I'm sure there's plenty of sports leagues around the world doing the same thing, and I've definitely seen plenty of Red's and Arri's in the background when watching sports broadcasts. Anyone who's worked in a live sports broadcast knows that a lot of content that appears to be live is actually delayed, (eg post-match interviews might be recorded during a commercial break immediately after the final buzzer and played back "as-live" 20 mins later after lots of post-match commentary/breakdown) so it's quite plausible that this sort of content could be shot on a Red, ingested, and played out as-live without anyone even realising.

The crazy thing is that, even though I'm sure this is happening, the used market is never flooded and the price for used cams is barely less than a brand new one. Right now it's cheaper for me to buy a Hero 7 new rather than used, because with a brand new one from a retailer I get the 10% GST rebate (because I am also a GST registered business). It does seem that GoPro control the market for older models very carefully. You won't ever find a 2-years old model in the bargain-big at any big retailer, and it seems like the day a new models comes out the old one is taken off the shelves. They must do some sort of buy-back program with their retailers where they get all the old stock off the shelves, giving people no option but to buy the newer models at the higher price (and also keeping the used market price up because the msrp or street price never goes down before all the stock disappears (unlike, say for example, Canon, who seem to build price drops into their pricing strategy over the life-cycle of a camera).

I don't really think they need to worry about that too much. Most people buy the FS5 for the 'real video camera' aspect, and will continue to do so with future models even if the mirrorless one has better resolution or frame rates, etc. Of course Sony aren't going to crazy and put 4K120p 10 bit in to the A7sIII, but I don't think it's a big deal if one or two specs are slightly better.

That's probably a bad thing. If they don't use FF/S35 as the differentiator, then the FX6 will likely be missing a lot of other things. I'm thinking no 60p and no 10bit 4K, just like the FS5.

I'd say it's probably not worth it. I've never ever had a client ask about my qualifications. My reel, samples, CV and referrals are the only thing they care about. Probably the one valuable thing you might get from it is contacts and connections. But If you're going to do a masters course in anything, do it as a director - that way you might meet the people who will actually hire you later on, rather than the ones you'll be competing with. Of course you could always try to find out who from your undergrad course is going to do a masters as a director and offer to be their DP. That way you still get the credits and experience of working on some masters short films without having to pay for it.

This is where the pancake timelines come in handy. On the top level you have the timeline that you're gradually culling so it's just a whole bunch of footage on a single track (maybe with some markers or colour labels to break up different sections or key clips). Then on the bottom timeline you have your clean slate that you can drag and drop things onto and build it from the ground up. So you can essentially be doing both techniques at the same time.

Fury Road might be because of all of the practical effects & stunts, which usually get multiple angles of coverage as they're harder to repeat. 10 cameras shooting a single take = a 10:1 ratio, for example. So in that case, even though the shooting ratio is going up, the budget doesn't really change that much as they're not adding shoot days on to get the extra coverage. Not sure about Gone Girl though - I guess just lots of takes trying to get those nuanced emotions? My next biggest editing tip would be to work backwards from the end product. Do a paper edit, or edit it in your head first, before you start anything else (ideally you'd have the end product in your head before you even start shooting!). Decide on roughly how long it is going to be, what your climax is going to be, your opening and closing shots, what sound bites you want to use, what the pacing is, etc. Then once you actually start cutting, put the best shots/sequences in first in roughly the right places, then get your soundtrack & audio bed sorted out, then fill in the holes. If you work out the edit on paper (using the aforementioned spreadsheet) before you even start cutting, you'll be able to do the actual task of editing with a lot more purpose and the decisions will almost make themselves.

I was going to go into a whole lot of detail about my post process for larger projects (I do a 10x23min travel TV show) but then realised I'd sound like a pompous wanker (which I am; I just would rather not sound like one), so instead I'll leave you with 2 tips: PANCAKE EDITING. Once you've got your timeline with your rough selects on it, set up a workspace with two skinny timelines stacked on top of each other (like pancakes) - one with all your media, and one which is your working draft. Then you can quickly drop clips down from the top timeline to the one below, without ever having to go back to your project window or toggle between different timelines. Makes it really quick to scrub through and grab shots to drop into your edit. SPREADSHEETS. If you haven't already, make a spreadsheet with notes on everything you did. Date, shoot day #, location, people, activities, cameras used, key events, hero shots, etc, etc. Normally I do this at the end of each shoot day while the footage is transferring. It will come in handy so often when editing bigger projects. On big features, everything is planned in minute detail so shooting ratios are generally lower than on a doc. a 400:1 ratio would cop any director a serious grilling from the executives. Now obviously they allow time for rehearsals, dry runs, multiple takes etc, but as crew sizes go up, every extra run through a scene just adds to the bottom line. Of course certain scenes will take longer than others because they require more impactful & precise performances, but others are knocked over in one take to compensate.

Will they ever make one? Yes. However I'd like to point out that surpassing the equivalent resolution of film is not the same as "digital being better" than film. We've probably already surpassed the equivalent resolution of s35 film but plenty of DOP's still prefer film for qualities like it's highlight rolloff. In fact resolution is probably rarely even a factor these days when it comes time to choose between digital or film.

Has anyone here used the Cinematics mods of the Sigma 18-35 & 50-100? I know they're not true re-housings, but do they do the job? Are the focus marks accurate and are the hard stops able to withstand a FF motor repeatedly? All the comments I've read about Cinematics/PCHood seem to just simply say "it's a case wrapped around the lens" which seems true of most of their early products and most DSLR lens mods. However the Sigma zooms seem to have more going on as they've added proper manual iris rings as well. I know they're not real cine lenses but for me, what they offer for the price would probably be worth it over the cost of the regular Sigma lenses for my personal kit. Anybody with experience able to chime in here?

The trend I have noticed with decreasing budgets is that the pace on set is much faster. In that kind of scenario, the time spent digging into a menu to adjust AF sensitivity, or doing extra takes because the AF jumped to the wrong person, is very costly. A good focus puller will not make these mistakes (not saying their focus is always perfect, but they are at least fairly predictable in their hit ratio and behaviour). You might note that I said AF/IBIS etc are more the domain of single-person shoots. What type of work are you doing?

If you're talking professional commercial sets, raw and autofocus are actually not used that much. Most commercial shoots using the Alexa shoot in Prores4444 rather than raw, as do a great deal of feature films. Of course there's Red, but r3d is the only option available (for all res/frame rates) so you don't have a choice but to shoot raw. And autofocus is very rarely used on professional productions. It's more in the domain on hobbyists, or single-man shoots like weddings. Even for gimbal work, pros generally use a follow focus, or deep focus + careful blocking, rather than AF. We hear a lot more about raw, AF, IBIS, 6K/8K etc on forums than you do on real productions because the people on forums are largely opinionated tech nerds with G.A.S!

I'm almost certain you're being tongue in cheek - but I'm sure Scorsese understands that very well. He'd just rather put his efforts into films that he sees as artistically more fulfilling, rather than another interchangeable smokescreen that is designed purely to put more money into the studios pockets. And I think he's earned the right to pick and choose his projects by this point (not to mention he's earned enough that he can put time into projects he loves over ones that are more profitable). I agree with him, and have personally not bothered to watch any of them recently unless I'm flying and I need something brainless that I can only half pay attention to. It's just rinse and repeat, for the most part - but often that is what audiences want most (unfortunately!). I just hate the way that every super-hero movie (or other franchise) these days seems like they're are just a teaser for the next movie. It feel like many movies' entire purpose was to introduce a new character, just so that character can have their own stand-alone movie. But that stand alone movie always ends up being the teaser for another new character on the endless treadmill.

So your argument is that because I can't prove he hasn't seen this movie, it is 100% correlated to his actions? We're talking about a guy who's part of an organised criminal enterprise - the type that you're in for life. His profile picture is him flexing with a baseball bat and a very scary dog (and for those not based in Aus - baseball is hardly even a sport here. A baseball bat is not something every family has in their garage). He went on a crime spree which was the culmination of an ongoing, long-term domestic dispute. And you're claiming all of his actions were a result of this film?

That was a bikie, not some superhero movie fan turned bad after a movie screening. Totally irrelevant to this conversation.

Why would you expect it to offer something more? Most likely it will be priced lower and missing a few features. If I had to guess, I'd say: s35 4K sensor. Up to 4K60p but 10-bit limited to 30fps. Possibly raw without the extension unit, but only if they keep the sensor at 4K.

It's not just the UMP that suffers from that problem either. C100/200/300 and EVA1 all share the same combo, as do some of the Red cameras. Not to mention all the people using Metabones adapters on E-mount or m4/3 cameras, and the sure-to-be-wildly-popular Pocket 6K. There's a huge gap in the market there but I suppose all the manufacturers are currently focused on either the new mirrorless systems, or FF coverage for the new pro cine cameras. I don't like the FS5 as much as the FS7, that is for sure. Though I would take it any day over any mirrorless camera out there. Proper ND and audio are far more important to me that 6k, raw, IBIS, AF, etc. Not to mention the benefits of using the Shogun Inferno.

On FS5 & FS7 I use speedboosters, so they're pretty much FF equivalent. I use Canon L zooms 80% of the time and Rokinon Primes the other 20%. Canon 17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Rokinon DS 35/50/85 No strategy other than If I feel a need or a gap in my coverage, I plug it. I mostly use the zooms as they're much easier for the doc work I do. Never use or want AF and always have IS turned off on the lenses that have it (I have my cameras rigged heavy so the inertia helps smooth things out, and the IS on the older Canon lenses is too jumpy). I'm thinking my next camera will be the UMP G2 and the lens choices will be a bit harder than that. There's just no good wide-to-mid zoom that ticks all the boxes the same way the 24-70 or 24-105 lenses do. I'll likely get a Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 but don't think they will quite give me the coverage I need for my work. It's really been a while since any company - either OEM or 3rd party - bothered to update their ~17-50 APS-C line-up, and the existing ones are all pretty terrible for video work due to their poor build quality (though some are optically good). I'm really quite surprised that no company has yet released a decent, modern, 17-50 f/2.8 EF mount cine lens, given the amount of s35 cameras that support EF mount. Something similar in price and build to the 18-35 Sigma cine, but a bit slower and a bit longer, would be the perfect run-n-gun lens for a huge number of people, but it simply does not exist at a price point that makes sense for cameras like the C100/200, UMP or EVA1.

How predictable. I though it was nigh time you started resorting to insults. As for educating me, I consider myself more of a visual learner. So perhaps you can show me a visual example demonstrating what you've said you've done?

Ok, so you've graded some drone footage. That's not exactly adding lighting that wasn't there to begin with. It's just playing with colour and contrast. It's a standard part of every editor & colourists job.That's a far cry from adding a rim light or kicker to a talking head that wasn't there to begin with. Also I'm not talking about highlight rolloff - that is a function of the camera - I'm talking about quality of light; whether it is hard or soft. Gradients. Big sources vs point sources. Photography/cinematography after all, are about painting with light. Now you've also introduced computational photography, multiple exposures, etc into the mix. That has more in common with 3D modelling, animation and compositing than cinematography. My initial comment was that 20 stops of dynamic range is not going to replace the need for lighting. Maybe other technology will (eg the combination of photo-real animation and motion capture for 100% virtual sets), but dynamic range will not. So, do you have any examples that show you have "actually seen and done that in post" regarding the three examples you made that comment about (ie added a kicker/rim light, turn harsh sunlight into soft portrait light, or completely remove harsh shadows created by a direct overhead source)?

I would love to see an example of a shot where you've effectively added a non-existent kicker in post to make the subject stand out from the background and still look natural, or turned a hard edged shadow into soft falloff across a subjects face.

I wouldn't necessarily call those things "style" though. They're just standard techniques for making your actors/actresses look good and be properly visible on screen. Stylised lighting would be things like mixed gels, or low-key, or high-key, or golden hour, or night-time interiors, etc. Things that evoke a certain mood. 20 stops will help you control a bright, sunny background while shooting your subject in the shade for softer headshot lighting, but it's not going to help you with all the elements of shaping light that are the essence of cinematic images.

20 stops would be great but it's not going to negate the need for lighting. Having 20 stops isn't going to help wrap harsh sunlight softly around cheeks. Or get rid of harsh shadow lines under eyes from an overhead streetlamp. Or magically make a rim light or kicker appear where there is not one.

It's going to be a lot easier to find someone who'll lend you a DSLR or mirrorless camera, or possibly even a Red, than to find someone who'll lend you their phone for an hour, let alone for the weeks or months it takes you to shoot. Plenty of people have cameras, even really good ones, which sit there for months at a time not being used. Some of those people are happy to lend it out to friends (And if you're into filmmaking, you or someone you're shooting with has probably got a few friends that own some of this gear). However people are much more attached to their phones (especially the Apple fanboys who rush out to get the latest, greatest iphone) and you're never going to get someones uncle to lend you there phone for however many hours/weeks/months it takes you to shoot your project. The only phone you'll be using to shoot a film will be one that belongs to a crew member that is already going to be there for every single scene - ie the director or dop. And as I pointed out in my previous post, you can get other proper cameras cheaper than the cost of the new iphone. And regarding the better IQ/benefits of the newer phones - that will have much less impact overall than people's skills & creativity. Nobody is pixel peeping 4K footage when watching a $0 film. But if it's not well lit, or the sounds sucks, or the acting is terrible, or the story is non-existent, nobody will watch past the first 30 seconds. Also you mentioned IQ on the big screen, but lets be honest - a $0 film is not going to be seen on a big screen no matter how good. Even festivals have entry fees, assuming your final film is even good enough to make the cut (which - if you're a bunch of total amatuers who between you do not know a single person you can borrow an old DSLR from, is very unlikely).