PPNS

this project ended up not being graded and ended up discarding some of my favorite parts. Here are some of my favorite screengrabs from that though.

If the rumor site cant even get the sensor brand right lol… i dont get why people yearn this much for new gear. If it happens, it happens.

thanks guys!

here it is, a rejected music video for a demo of my band's song: pw: buster luckily that's not what i said. i said that it's not that much work to match two cameras shooting at least 10 bit log 422 files in a rec709 color space if you know the right technical transforms and have some grading proficiency, in case you're shooting the same scene. i said that it's also not hard to make a display lut for a monitor to give you an image that is more similar to the og bmpcc on the 4k and 6k if you figured that previous step out. depends on the production. of course an arri would be nice, but i'm not going to turn down a shoot if that's the last minute change in a camera package. they say that, and i'm sure they've had a huge hand in designing it, but i find it hard to believe, especially since the sensor dimensions match the komodo's exactly, and it's not exactly easy to become a sensor manufacturer. exactly. the bmmcc was made as a crash, drone, or awkward angle cam, with an ok sensor, and 2 good for the time codecs that made it possible to get a close match to better cameras of the time. but if you really think the image you get out of that is per definition better than any of the newer bmd cams combined with a good colorist? that I think, is a bit naive too.

i dont really want to turn this into an annoying self repeating argument, and frankly i dont have a lot of experience with most of the cameras mentioned here. bmd sensor wise, i do know that you missed the ursa mini 4.6k, the ump and ump g2, which are made by the same sensor company as the og bmpcc and bmmcc. The 12k might be canon, and a belgian company did the dogshit sensor for their global shutter cameras. i do have some experience with both the original pocket as well as the 4k (and the 6k for that matter), and from what i can tell is that the original just has the kodak 2383 characteristics embedded in its luts/color space transfers in resolve. You can very clearly tell that, while the 4k and 6k dont, they have a way more neutral r709-ish starting point. That doesnt mean that they cant look like that, you just need to apply the cst to cineon (or gen 1) + kodak lut in resolve, and add some extra grain, to basically get the same result. You can even export that look as a lut, and embed it in the 4k and 6k to have it displayed while its shooting. The data is all there, you just have to know how to finesse it to get it to look right to your eyes. what this means to me, is that those older cameras are just less flexible if you ever do want to get a more neutral look out of them, or go for something different. They might have some digital noise that may remind you of film grain, but it is pretty clear that they just perform worse imo. When the ursa minis were updated to gen 4, they also had a more normal r709-ish looking profile that matches the look of the 4k and 6k more closely. Give me a while and i’ll post something that was shot on a sony sensor, and was graded by me to look a bit more like how i wanted it to. Let me know what the concrete “sony sensor characteristics” will be please.

some moving images for once.

In the past, if you wanted to be a good dp, you would have to know about film processing techniques, and have good relations with the people at the film lab to get the exact results you wished for. now you have the ability to capture more, and more pliable data, and you need to work with colorists to get the exact look you want. The look you’re aiming for tends to come from preproduction anyway, so I’m not actually sure how much changed. the alexa also looks clean and modern imo.

i would also advise everyone to avoid manfrotto at all costs

get a second hand sachtler ace or libec something. don't get some bottom of the barrel shit that's barely better than whatever you have right now. even if you're not planning on panning/tilting while recording, it can actually be useful at some point in the future.

i’m gonna be honest, i’m not going to read most of the replies here, sorry. just based on the kind of things you shoot, which seem like corporate video/testimonial kind of stuff, get a camera that makes your life easier. For you this will probably be a sony fs7. I dont know what the market is like there in the us, but they’re getting ridiculously cheap here. You’re going to be so happy to have built in NDs, full size xlrs for your microphones and decent audio menus. Keep your nikon for a while, and keep shooting tests with both, so you can practice matching the two cameras in resolve. That way you can save yourself some money by not buying a matching B cam or whatever.

Well because a fs7 + the f4 18-105 is still closer in weight to regular camcorders and mirrorless cameras than the alexa 35 with an angenieux 🙂

Whatever is available at the rental house that has: - a decent zoom range - iris ring - can be easily operated in manual mode - records in a 10 bit 422 codec Something like an fs7 with a good zoom, which isnt quite a camcorder, is something i would like as well for that context.

if i were to do documentary type work, i would rather use a camcorder than any mirrorless thing.

hey hey i love my 24 fps just fine and i have one of the smoothest brains in the business!

i've done it a bunch. not going to pretend these are amazing or anything, but it's absolutely justifiable to light boring shit this way

I think these are really good too, but i think they would look even better if you had the darker side of the face towards the camera. You’re looking for natural contrast in light which is what it’s all about, but if you put the person from still 1 in the same position as the lady from still 2 with the same background and lighting condition as you had before, that would be something i would prefer myself. The same with still 2, if you just put her in the right side of the frame, and rotate her 180 degrees.

you guys are getting a monitor pic from me since i’m not grading the last project i dp’d. i think lighting wise this looks nice, but framing wise i would set up the camera a bit higher, and then angle it down slightly to make this man look a bit better. I personally wouldnt center frame interviews, but i don’t necessarily mind it either. Ideally i also wouldn’t show anything beneath the logo of the football team to get a proper medium close up. I think most of your work looks good, and this is personal preference, i think you should consider stopping down more. I think you would benefit from having to shoot at f/5.6 on that big of a sensor and getting to see your background a bit more.

shouldn’t 50i with the right shutter speed just convert to a perfect 25p?

I’ve actually used both cameras, and how would you exactly define the fx3 to be a better video tool? I think both are completely miserable to use for video, especially compared to the fx6, which i do really like. I guess the fx3 has a slightly less dogshit menu system, but you cant really handhold it like an a7s (and you could use the evf as a third point of contact there). The screens are more or less pointless to judge anything on there, so you need an external monitor (sadly also the case for the fx6, but it’s more bearable). Since they’re both FF they both need big ass lenses which makes the ergonomics extra awkward. You could rig both of them up, but that often makes them worse or more annoying to use, but I guess this will always be a problem with smaller cameras. They are fine on a tripod, and have to potential to get really good results, if there’s somebody next to you who knows the menu system through and through.

This is also the case with the fx6 fyi. It gives you a 1:1 sensor mode so it crops more than just the top and bottom.

pocket 4k

Thank you! You can go ahead and assume that there was neg on everything except the super wide shots. I’m a bit lazy when it comes to scrimming, so no. The scene in the park was actually shot before golden hour, which is why the light on them is so hard in the wider shots, but i like the edges that you get from that. For the closeups, the sun was already behind the trees, which is why it looks so soft in comparison. We had a tube light which was intended to emulate the hard edge, but obv it wasnt powerful enough at all, but i still liked the slight extra level it gave on that side of her face.

some stills from a new short i dp’d. Still ungraded, some still need to be cropped a bit.

im unemployed, check out my reel! https://vimeo.com/797642822