"Things are returning back to normal. For real this time" editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras and higher) and have interchangeable lenses.In contrast, consumer camcorders normally have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://pastebin.com/35u6DcnF>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVEPrevious thread >>3905152Quick FAQS>what’s the best camera available on a “budget”?The blackmagic pocket cinema camera 4k>>what’s a good beginner video camera?Anything that works, shoots at least 1080p and preferably has interchangeable lenses. Any recommendation beyond that will cause arguments so read the fucking sticky if that isn't satisfactory.>Can I use a zoom lens for video?Yes>Do I need cine lenses?No>Do I need 4k?No. It will make your footage look sharper if it’s in focus, and it gives you breathing room in post. But 1080p is still absolutely fine>Can someone tell me if my video is any good?Yes, but be prepared to receive harsh criticism. If you're going to waste 5 minutes of our time with a shitty out-of-focus montage of nothing then we'll tell you that it's crap
Is Vegas Pro 14 a competent video editing software?I got it a few years back in a Humble Bundle, and I had used it to make an edit for some videogame footage.I've recently looked into how capable it is (or maybe isn't?) at doing colour grading, hypothetically for Log profile or HLG profile video.Another question: why does VLC Player not have any support for ProRes codec? It seems perfectly fine with H.264 and H.265 codecs, but you wouldn't immediately expect that a .mov file with ProRes codec would play at 1fps in VLC....
>>3917476>Is Vegas Pro 14 a competent video editing software?technically all the basics are there, it has decent performance but hasn't really got any compatibility updates over the last years so most of the new camera codecs and such are missing>I've recently looked into how capable it is (or maybe isn't?) at doing colour grading, hypothetically for Log profile or HLG profile video.yeah no forget about that, it's purely an editor and even shittier than premiere for anything else>Another question: why does VLC Player not have any support for ProRes codec?it does, works just fine here
>>3917479>forget about thatOk...Here's a "test" of the colour grading that I tried out last week.Please ignore the editing and the bit at the end...https://youtu.be/WGNugE_k8YQNow, the original footage was shot in a "natural" profile, which looks ok, but I just wanted to see whether or not I could grade it to look "cooler".Here are the original clips.https://youtu.be/51jiAWYT5bYAndhttps://youtu.be/DeS0UHapiewNot looking for criticism, they're just there for reference. I just want to play around with more video and I already have Vegas Pro 14, and I'm just wondering if this is the right sort of software to have already, or if I should look elsewhere.Not gonna lie, Adobe doesn't seem too appealing for the subscription fees, and if the only good alternative is Final Cut Pro, then... no thanks, I'm not getting a Mac for one piece of software.
>>3917491I seevegas is completely fine for your dicking around, why even bother with anything else
>>3917493I'm "dicking around" to learn by trial and error (and intuition) so that maybe in the near enough future, I could do some amateur video work for... stuff.I have an office job, so it's not as if I'm planning to do this for a career (I missed that figurative boat when I picked my university subject), but I do want to expand my hobbyist photography into some videography, if not because it's something to do/have an interest in, but also in part because maybe I could do something useful with it someday.
>>3917496yeah sure I didn't mean that in any negative way, everyone has to start somewhere so why not start somwhere comfortable that you already know your way around and you already have and bother with something else once you get there
>>3917476I used Vegas Pro from around 2007 to early 2020, when I started a job that specifically required me to use Premiere. Switching immediately solved every recurring problem I had with Vegas and I've had zero regrets with no noticeable disadvantages. Most of the upgrades were just conveniences, but a giant pile of conveniences can really help you out. Vegas was always sufficient for whatever I needed through my college years, my commercial work, and a few short films, so it's probably just fine for you. I made a lot of good stuff in there and accidentally opening it takes me back to being a struggling kid with a used Acer and pirated B-list software.https://youtu.be/cmdprbBOMT8
Anyone recommendations for a mini fluid head, suitable for something like pic related?A big black Bogen RC128 / #3126 isn't going to cut it.
what should i take some video of?
>>3918158your neighbors, preferably in their bedroom
>>3918158ligma balls haha
>great dynamic range>12bit+>actual raw>4kWhat are my options apart from the ridiculous expensive cinecams?
>>3918534all cameras these days have great dynamic range (yes even mft), so you can just drop that from your list of requirements.
>>3918536They don't.So I'm keeping it on my list.
>>3918534>actual rawI think at this point there are no more affordable cameras that record raw, at least internallythey all moved on to some sort of lossy compressed raw
>>3918540>They don't.lol they literally do.even something like an em1ii has nearly 13evs of dynamic range. fucking cameras like the canon 7dii/1dsii/5ds only had 11.8-12.4ev of dynamic range, and those were praised as the ultimate full frame wedding/event cameras, chosen specifically because of their dynamic range.
>>3918534Pocket 4k & pocket 6kSigma FPZ camcanon r5 and 1dx3red komodo
>>3918544That's what I've been seeing too sadly. >>3918546That's not enough, anon.None of those cameras can handle the dynamic range either, it's just noisy artifacts.>>3918549Thanks, anon. I'll have a good day checking these out.
>>3918549>Pocket 4k & pocket 6kbraw is great and grades like raw but it's compressed. Excellent balance of storage efficiency and quality, but not "actual raw"
>>3918605same with the r5 raw light, zcam zraw and redcode btwall compressed
>>3918534>>3918544Sigma fp, shoots CinenaDNG aka real RAW. If you wanna save some HDD space (about half), you can compress it lossless with slimRAW afterwards.By the way, I was reading Ninja V's owners manual and it claimed most of the current non-pro cameras usually output 1080i trough HDMI, not 24p/60p/etc. That can't be true in 2021, can it?
>>3918933>Sigma fp, shoots CinenaDNG aka real RAWthat's a really weird one, thoughthe dng files are "only" 4k, means they are somehow binned/downsampled from the actual sensor resolution because they're not windowed as would be expected with raw filesalso the tests show a weird 'cutting off' of the noise floor going on with the values just tanking to black below a certain point, so there's clearly some tampering going onboth of these points mean that while the camera writes stuff into cinemaDNG files, it's clearly not "real raw", huge bummer
>>3918939If your definition of "real RAW" is a full-pixel readout without *any* tampering done to Bayer filter samples, good fucking luck. Your best bet would be porting Magic Lantern to R5, studying Canon's RAW pipeline & how to remove all the optimizations and overclocking the sensor to have a 44MP full-sensor readout and somehow writing that massive data chunk to memory card. Oh, almost forgot, trying to keep the camera recording longer than 30 seconds without exploding.And there's nothing wrong with binning/sampling if it's done properly, a well-done oversampling actually improves image quality. Also, I'm very interested to know which test you refer as CinemaDNG should be about as flexible in post as possible.
>>3918940>I'm very interested to know which test you referpretty sure it was on CineD beginning of last year when I was really interested in that camera, but I can't find it at the moment, maybe they took it down as the camera got patched to 2.0, seems like some things happened - see the patch notes>The phenomenon of flickering in dark areas in video footages has been corrected>Improved image quality>“OFF” option available in Color modeI rented the camera very early (I think it was on 1.10 then) because I was about to buy it but at that point the camera couldn't play back it's own files, the raw files were super weird, flickering black levels with clearly cut off noise, obvious aliased downsampling compared to the super35 mode which is about a 1:1 crop, gamma and color settings baked into the raw files, not as obvious as with the h265 sure but "something" changed as you changed the profile settings where it shouldn't in a raw fileand then a couple of days later I saw that test that pretty much showed all these flaws and a couple more and I was bummed the fuck outno idea if it got fixed at this point because I can't find any 'lab' tests old or new right now but that thing was a hot mess
what lens types & brands should i be looking for?
>>3918941That's bad if Sigma has fucked up fp. I've really been considering buying it also for the "real" RAW. One thing that might affect its image quality is Sony's old habit of baking RAW files a lot, their still cameras used to have absolute horrible image in some situations. On the other hand, Sigma's cameras are known for their image quality so I hope they've tried their best to make it good.Do you have any sample CinemaDNG sequence hovering around or do you know where I could find some?
>>3918945cooke, arri, fujinon, angenieux, leitzprimes and zooms
>>3918947forgot zeissthe supreme primes are very good
>>3918948Cheers, if you could only pick one type of lens what would you go with? ie the best all rounder
>>3918958a good clean prime set like ultra primes will work for almost everything
>>3918966you can get away with basic canons. you dont want clinic purity with cinema lenses.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Il_l3tu6Q
>>3918975nothing about these canons is basic, they're optically solid lensesbut the price these days is inflated as fuck because of retarded videos like that
>>3918977I got lucky and built up my FD kit for dirt cheap a couple years ago. Love them
>>3918945What are you shooting? What is your Budget? What look are you going for?Lens choice is one of the bigger creative/technical choices you can make and can really change the personality of what you're shooting.>>3918958I tend to enjoy my wider primes, either my 18mm or my 28mm. Though I have been working on an excuse to really put my Angeniuex 12-240mm to work. >>3918158Not sure but whatever you do make it interesting. >>3917476Would recommend loading/learning Davinci over Vegas if Premier or AVID out of budget. Bit resource heavy but worth it to learn longer-term I think.
Your August Issue of American Cinematographer is herehttps://transfer.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac0821/offline/ac_ac0821.pdf
>>3919345thanks, mateyou're a god
>>3919345>https://transfer.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac0821/offline/ac_ac0821.pdfa PDF of adds... kek
>>3919345thanks super based anon
>>3919346>>3919349you're welcomebtw, you can change the 0821 part to get any other issuefor example January 2021 would behttps://transfer.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac0121/offline/ac_ac0121.pdfthat should work all the way back to 2007, then month and year are switched for some reason so for example April 1995 ishttps://transfer.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac199504/offline/ac_ac199504.pdfi've been trying to figure out the url for the manual/tables+charts, it's definitely delivered through nxtbook, but i haven't found it yet, i guess i can just buy it. the ac manual is on libgen but it's low quality>>3919348yeah there are a lot of ads, i suppose it works better in print
How do I reduce video noise from an RX100 VII?
>>3919405use low iso
How good is the meteor 5-1 s16 zoom lens? Is it parfocal? How well would it pair up with a blackmagic pocket camera? Here is a link to the lens.http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_1481.html
Tips on reduce the reflections in carwindows such as your hands?Cover the skin?
>>3919452Thing is I used one for that.Can you stack them?
>>3919453you can stack them but all that does is making the image darker as you create a variable NDmake sure to find the right angle instead to cancel the reflection as best as you can
>>3919450that massive rolling shutter though
>>3919467It's just wind, bro.
>>3919453You might have to change your angle relative to the glass and/or rotate the filter, because it works best at an angle to the reflective surface. Rays that bounce straight off have less polarization and can't be filtered as well
>>3919469if the wind bends the street signs 45° then you might want to seek shelter asap
>>3919466>>3919470Ah, it's the angle of attack then. I love the out-the-car-window type of shots, I'll just have to experiment further, thanks.>>3919467You ain't seen nothing yet.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3919345>“ Indie production” — or independent film — can refer to a small film, a low-budget film, and so on, but really, “indie” should be seen as referring to a film with independent spirit. “Risky” subject matter is, after all, usually what indies take on.shoo indie fuckers, go shoot risky lbgt- matters, and leave big topics for the big guys!
>>3919546I literally can't figure out what you're trying to say here
>>3919550You're not very keen in the reading department. It's a reply to the editorial of the linked ac.
>>3919553You start by quoting them, saying that the term 'indie' should only refer to film that basically do something bold as opposed to just being low-budget shit.Then you reply by saying, mockingly, that 'indie fuckers' should stick to shooting lgb shit (I assume this is a catch-all for all progressive themes) and that 'big topics' should be left to the 'big guys'.This is the confusion.Are the big guys the "indie" filmmakers with a decent following like PTA, the Safdies etc? Or are you talking about blockbuster filmmakers?And either way, you're saying that indie filmmakers should only shoot progressive crap and not films that make us think. Or are you being sarcastic, as clearly The Avengers 65 isn't going to handle a deep/interesting topic with particular grace?But then another issue is, you're implying that the big topics have nothing to do with progressive topics? Like you don't have to want a dick shoved up your ass to realise that there are a lot of very interesting themes related to society's attitude towards homosexuality, for example.This is why your post makes no sense. I can't figure out how your comment relates to your quote or what you're even trying to imply.I assume you have a mental handicap of some variety, so do you have a wrangler you can ask to help you reformat your post as something comprehensible?
>>3919408>goat towerThat takes me back.
How would you film the equivalent of long exposure photography in moving format? Are there any modded cams that shoot 1/fps with constant exposure, or would it be a better idea to blend and animate a stack of long exposure photographs?
>>3919574>words and projections that mean nothingAre you retarded or just playing as one? Or just on drugs? Seeing you like jewdies and homosexuals, I'd bet that you're on drugs, possibly hormones as well.Let me be very slow:> Indie production” — or independent film — can refer to a small film, a low-budget film, and so on, but really, “indie” should be seen as referring to a film with independent spirit. “Risky” subject matter is, after all, usually what indies take on.This is industry leader self defining what 'indie' term should mean.>shoo indie fuckers, go shoot risky lbgt- matters, and leave big topics for the big guys!This is anon mocking him for that in a witty reply.Got it?
>>3919484Take off polarizer. It's only viable for static camera movement. Open the window, or use this shit. You'll get no glare at all.
>>3919621the p4k can do time lapses. you just have to do the math to get proper 180 degree shutter
>>3919639Oh fuck that's brilliant. I'll diy this.
>figured out I can set the gimbal to do a 1hour timelapse to then hit the Preview to get as smooth of a pan I need to record regular video
>>3918946From what I've read, CDNG has binning at 12bit.8 and 10bit is fine.If you want "real raw", then you may want to obtain an Atomos Ninja V for the ProRes RAW, but then the thing is, you could literally obtain any other camera out there, even an Olympus OM-D E-M1X...
>>3919887>If you want "real raw", then you may want to obtain an Atomos Ninja V for the ProRes RAWThis is the worst advice I've ever seen. Prores raw barely counts as raw at all. It certainly wouldn't satisfy someone who's upset at compressed raw codecs
Any hint of Sony coming out with an update to the ZV-1? I'd really like 10-bit and a USB-C jack. I'm just playing around with the CinemaPro app on my Xperia 5 II, and while it's nice for a phone, you really can't lift and shadows much without the image falling apart, despire 10-bit video.If money were no onbject, yeah, BMPCC 6K Pro and a Sigma 18-32 f/1.8. I already use DV Studio 17.
How good is the SLR Magic Anamorphot 2x + Rangefinder adapter? What are its limitations? What lenses do I need for it to work for super 16 or 16mm vintage lenses? Why would I spend a king's ransom for anamorphic lenses when I could just buy this adapter and turn all of my lenses into anamorphic lenses?
>>3917766> pirated softwareSince Resolve is now free if you deliver HD footage makes it not as necessary for kids to pirate software these days.
>>3920076It's very soft and generally looks like ass
>>3920076Get an isco ultrastar 2x, any kind, unless you want the flares. It's the sharpest of the bunch but is very muted for the flares. Then like an fvd16 single focus adapter.Generally the anamorphic projector lenses require 70ish mm on fullframe to clear the full view.So with that you can calculate which lenses you can use, maybe there's calculators already.The single focus adapter will add even more to the limitation of focal length, vignetting.Don't get slr magic, they are soft as shit, ugly as fuck flares.
>>3920084>isco ultrastar 2xI've got one, anyone wanna buy? central europe based.
>>3920184red or gold?
>>3920187gold. I bought it from a cinema forum a few years ago for 100€ or so. In the end thought it was just too much of a hazle to actually use it.Also got some kind of rod, clamp rig and fuji something diopter for it (have it somewhere in storage)
>>3920084>isco ultrastar 2xIs there any anamorphic adapter that would work with wide-angle lenses?
>>3920206Wide angle anamorphic is the hardest one to manufacture. The proper ones are impossible to get.You can diy it to probably get around 40mm FF on widest possible for 2x. It's just not viable.But there is the sirui lenses. Iirc they have a 28mm one, for apsc though I believe. That's only 1.33x.Also has the same flaws as slr magic adapters though. Soft image and ugly flares.There was this rear adapter that had a 1.33x squeeze factor iirc, not sure who made it. Might have been sirui as well and there was something about it that was dealbreaking.
>>3920206>>3920221or you could put a very large and strong wide angle adapter in front of it which in return degrades image quality even further.Low budget anamorphic isnt worth it imo (not to mention I dislike anamorphic in general but what ever).The setups are difficult to use, expensive and/or image quality is so lala.For the money one could just buy a better camera, a good wide and fast sperical lens to achieve the same or even wider aov after cropping or other kind of equipment like a good gimbal, follow focus etc.A movie will not get better just because it is in (low quality) anamorphic. It wont even impress except some anamorphic enthusiasts.Story, characters, cinematography in general are so much more important then the plain look (flaws) of the lens.
>>3920251I disagree. Even lesser quality anamorphic lens, can give a unique look. Yes, you need to be mindful of flares and quality defects, but so what, when anamorphic lenses first came in existence, they were as bad, that certainly didn't prevent film makers from creating stunning movies with them. The real problem with anamorphic is that not a lot cameras offer it. You'd think that since most of them are on 3:2 or 4:3 sensors, that they'll all have full sensor 3:2 or 4:3 output, but that's far from truth. You're either completely tied to 16:9, or limited to crop and other various quality drawbacks when shooting 3:2 or 4:3.
>>3920283>Even lesser quality anamorphic lens, can give a unique lookI never said otherwise. The question is: Do you really need this specific look? If you have the money and are ok with the immens drawbacks of diy solutions or flaws and quirks (sirui's strech for example differs between close and far focus) of cheap anamorphic lenses go for it but if you have to brake account and save on other ends, dont.>they were as bad, that certainly didn't prevent film makers from creating stunning movies with themthats what I meant with other traits being more important than the lens. I can enjoy a good movie even in low quality on a small screen. Of course it wont be as visual impressive but who cares when I'm immersed in the story.Back in the days anamorphic was only a tool to get the widescreen effect to offer something in cinemas you could not have at home on your TV.Now its just because of the lens character. Not much different than shooting with a basicly flawd lens like the Helios 44-2.Modern anamorphioc lenses from eg Zeiss have little distortion, little breathing and dont flare much. All thats left is the "increased" bokeh with oval shapes.If you like the look, again, go for it, but please dont just because you think it makes your movie look more cinematic. Dont fall for basicly visual tropes. Same for stuttery 24fps. Once a budget decision, today "muh cinematic look" (and again a budget decision because of post 3D rendering)
>>3920300>stuttery 24fpsliterally every narrative film or tv show in history except for a handful have been 24 fps, even if it was displayed in a 3:2 pulldown for broadcast or home video. Maybe learn how to move the camera properly
I have a nikon z6 and it records in mp4 and mov (or raw if I send it in to be upgraded). Is mp4 or mov better than the other or does it not matter?
>>3920325And you learn some history.>take large roll of film>search the sweet spot between acceptable smooth image and least photos possible to save on filmTV programs already upped that when not bound to film.>learn how to panIf you have to be careful in certain camera movements because FPS too low, it surely is nothing wrong with that frame rate. It’s even in big productions and it makes my eyes hurt.Hfr is just as “cinematic” if you get used to it (there are studies on this topic).
>>3920378You're confusing framerate and frames per second. Slow framerate is creative tool, often used to increase tension with great effect, that it's looking jarring to you it's possibly from you viewing movies on monitors or tv screens. As for anamorphic, I'd say go for it, it's another great tool that can immediately bring up wow factor to every output.
>>3920378Also, 24fps is absolutely universal across tv and film, only movies in recent time that used 60fps are Hobbit and that latest Will Smith action flick that bombed as well.>>3920333It should be just different cointainer, but check camera documentation for differences. 265 to 264 is of larger importance. You want to shoot 265, if possible, but it's slightly more cpu intensive.
>>3920393framerate and frames per second is interchangeable. Do you mean slowing down a higher framerate to another while keeping the same number of images aka slowmotion?>>3920394>Also, 24fps is absolutely universal across tv and filmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadcast_video_formatsmaybe have a look again> only movies in recent time that used 60fps are Hobbit and that latest Will Smith actionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates48fps for Hobbit and 120fps for Gemini Man. Plus there are many others.
>>3920283>Even lesser quality anamorphic lens, can give a unique lookIf by 'unique' you mean 'a look indistinguishable to 99% of the viewing public, with the other 1% aware of how it looks identical to every other hipster film that has nothing to say so relies on gimmicky bokeh and lens flares' then yeah, sure
>>3920399I can't tell if you guys mean shutter angle or fps. "speed of the camera", or "speed of the projector"?
>>3920399Yeah that's what a 3:2 pulldown is for. A 29.97 interlaced frames with each frame being two fields, and the 24 frames being distributed along those fields in a 3:2 pattern. Nearly every release that's not in a pure progressive 24 frame format is treated this way. Gamers please stop talking about stuff you don't understand
>>3920445>Frame rate (expressed in frames per second or FPS) is the frequency (rate) at which consecutive images called frames appear on a display.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate>>3920458who is talking about pulldown? Most stuff for tv is either shot in 30fps for NTSC or 25fps for PAL because of the 60/50hz. 24fps, which indeed requires pulldown, is nearly exclusive to cinematography (or every content creator feeling the need to use it, for some reason).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1LTx4h7D_0^ is basicly just a streaming codec stresstest but still, its much more enjoyable to watch
>>3917469that german guy has posted a new videohttps://youtu.be/YT_MupZp5v4
>>3920488Too much for my consoomer brain, I just want a talking head and a pre-written script with some not-at-all paid options about some new shiny camera.
I want to do a dumb video for youtube where I narrate the video. Eventually I'd like to move into live action videos and if I follow my dreams, maybe a short doc or two, would a lav or a shotgun mic plugged into my PC (or recorder if it needs phantom power) be the most future proof option? If I do need a recorder, what's a good option?
"Hmm, the c70 looks pretty amazing, 4k120 with facetracking, clog3, good formfactor. I wonder what's wrong with it.">apscOne fucking job.
>>3920640Apsc is the standard for cinema cameras and has been for decades.If you're that upset about it, there's a canon focal reducer which allows you to use full frame ef lenses at essentially the same FOV as full frame while still retaining the same autofocus.Alternatively, just get an fx6
>>3920642>Apsc was the standard for cinema camerasftfy. The future is fullframe.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
>>3920668*or even bigger
>>3920668Considering the exponential rise in people shooting content on smartphones, I disagree that any format is the future.The future is the artist's choice. You can be a hipster about it all you want, but that doesn't change that there are acclaimed and beloved films shot on tiny sensors and that there will likely be more in the future as technology allows you to change things like DoF and motion blur in post more easily with results that are indistinguishable from achieving those results in camera naturally.
>>3920676more like muh low light, muh dynamic range, baka.https://youtu.be/RwgkXcUX984?t=966
>>3920681>https://youtu.be/RwgkXcUX984i watched that and came to conclusion you're all jerking off to specsheets.the iq was phenomenal irrespective of camera, and any difference comes down to turbogear autists larping as directors of photography.
>>3920686the alexa isnt even the best at low light.IQ is never the most important thing of a movie but it opens many posibilities if you can shoot at night with available light or be able to transition between bright and dark scenes in one shot.The whole point was: larger sensor is technicaly superior and therefore the future in general. It also becomes cheaper so I dont see much room or even purpose for apsc down the road.
>>3920694>The whole point was: larger sensor is technicaly superior and therefore the future in general. It also becomes cheaper so I dont see much room or even purpose for apsc down the road.You're a fucking moron if you genuinely that cheaper costs for full frame will make apsc obsolete
>>3920698name some arguments that makes apsc more viable if we consider both costing the same.Bodies as well as lenses basicly have same size and proper lenses arent cheap on either.
>>3920699You need more light to be able to stop down to a usable DoF with lf
>>3920699>name some arguments that makes apsc more viableAssuming you mean compared to full frame:-it's still cheaper-at the same price as its ff counterpart, you're getting more features (eg compare a c70 to an r5)-cameras are smaller-it creates less depth of field-some manufacturers don't bother with larger sensors-more lenses can be adapted to it-some people prefer the lookAgain, you're a fucking moron if you genuinely that cheaper costs for full frame will make apsc obsolete
nevermind the lack of ff anamorphic lenses.you dont have a six figure budget to rent them.
>>3920712woot?>>3920713>if we consider both costing the same.>neglecting this point on purposewhy do you even reply?>cameras are smallerjust not true. Neither for cheap cameras nor for expensiveeg.>The ALEXA Mini LF (left) has the same dimensions and the same mounting points as the ALEXA Mini (right)>-it creates less depth of fieldbecause the smaller sensor size affects the Blur Circle>-some manufacturers don't bother with larger sensorsand the future will tell who is still in buisness>-more lenses can be adapted to ittrue, but why would you even adapt if you got good native glass? Dont come to me with "character" of vintage lenses>-some people prefer the lookthere is no such thing as look difference that is noticeable if you match two cameras properly.https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html>lack of ff anamorphic lensesanamorphic is just another type of character lens and yields little benefits in times of digital. Only benefit is greater dof but you allready arguet against dof.
>>3920727Jesus christ, thanks for confirming that you're a moron. For people who aren't retarded but think your post has any validity, it doesn't/>neglecting this point on purposeI didn't neglect the price point, apsc is cheaper. The equivalent priced apsc camera has more features. And then I provided examples.The reality is that apsc is cheaper and that's a huge factor for a lot of people.>The ALEXA Mini LF (left) has the same dimensions and the same mounting points as the ALEXA Mini (right)So you found a camera with the same dimensions? Congrats? That doesn't change that the majority of apsc cameras are smaller than their ff counterparts. Do you honestly dispute this?This is like me saying that the ursa 12k is 12k, while the arri 65 is only 6k so apsc is clearly better than mf.>because the smaller sensor size affects the Blur CircleWhy do you think this is an argument? "Yeah, that's a thing but here's the explanation for that problem...."That's like saying, yeah the dynamic range is shit but that's because they couldn't figure out how to make it not shit.>and the future will tell who is still in buisnessThis is an even shittier argument. 16mm film stock is still used. Smartphone usage is rising exponentially. You're a dumbfuck.>true, but why would you even adapt if you got good native glass?Oh wow, your arguments continue to get worse. There's not even a response to this, it's like asking why use a steadicam costing tens of thousands when you can get a gimbal for less than 500 bucks?>there is no such thing as look difference that is noticeable if you match two cameras properly.So why not shoot on the cheaper option then? Are you purposely arguing against yourself?
>>3920731>I didn't neglect the price point, apsc is cheaper.you did. You did not engage in this hypothetical scenario to focus on the actual technical properties.>sizeI took the time to compare sizes, they are not smaller, some are even on the bigger size like the Ursa (and the mtf gh5 is bigger then a FF A7 btw)>blur circleits all math, bigger sensor, greater dof with same lens, just stop down if needed less, but at least you have the option>other formats16mm is certainly not a field you make the big bucks in or that is super widespread. Smartphones will certainly never replace a dedicated camera, thats just not what they are made for and their tiny sensors are physically not capable of any siginificant dof. Even IF their tech would get on par with large sensors one day.>adapting because cheaperagain money as an, in this hypothetical scenario, not viable. As FF becomes more popular, so do cheap lenses>why not cheaper optionagain, money, but: Look in terms of aov and dof, but the smaller sensor will hit a wall if you try to match it to the larger one at some point. Plus things like better iso performance etc
>>3920738There's no way you can honestly type the shit you just typed and not realise that you're an idiot, right?
>>3920747he has a terminal case of gearfaggotry
>>3920750probably>>3920747but why am I an idiot?
>>3920756Without a shadow of a doubt.
>>3920756>but why am I an idiot?Because you're ignoring the responses you've been given, taking the stance that any response is a valid counterpoint regardless of its relevance. On top of that, you clearly lack knowledge of the way that the industry, and professionals within it, operates.Here's the reality: you've been given numerous reasons why people will continue to not shoot on full frame, just as people shoot on smaller formats than apsc at the moment, but you think that those reasons don't count because (for retarded reasons that don't logically hold up) they don't convince you to want to shoot on a different format.
>>3920488Quality watch.The big point that normies are missing about anamorphic lenses is not just wacky flares, it's giving up unique background rendering, and native wide angle look. Crop wide aspect, looks different, cleaner. You can almost see the cuts where frame is cropped.
>>3920778>You can almost see the cuts where frame is croppedelaborate please
>>3920786That would be a sample for blur. It's very busy compared to the above sample, or this one.Spherical lenses often need to be used open to blow out background completely. With anamorphic, blur is smoother, more cinematic.
>>3920790For me its quite the opposite. This waterfall blur feels very distracting and busy to me. Modern spericals have very smooth blur I find much more pleasant.Spherical lenses need to be shot more open because to create the same horizontal aov with cropping you need a shorter focal length.Like 85mm f/2.8 anamorphic with 1.8x squeeze needs a 47mm f/1.55 spherical.>>3920802its not really meant to be watched>Meridian was developed as test footage for use by video streaming services. It makes deliberate use of an extreme range of lights and shadows, as well as cigar smoke and water, in order to make the film difficult to effectively encode for streaming. In one scene, the sky changes from bright sun to dark and overcast, interfering with the light balance; this is a common cause of color banding in video streaming. The film is shot in the high frame rate of 60 frames per second, making use of 4K resolution, and has a peak brightness level of 4000 candelas per square meter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian_(film)#Productioncolors are also flat on purpose and such stuff.
>>3920488part one of his anamorphic video here btwhttps://youtu.be/bIhaItLnSR0
>>3917469OP I want to know where Rear Projection TVs come in on this meme.
>>3921102What crop would the movies with tracks be considered compared to 35mm photography format?
>>3919351jesuschrist these adslov'em
>>39211112perf super35 with audio is 21.95 x 9.47mm
Edited together some old footage i shot.Mostly shot on the original BMPCC and 1 shot taken from the 4k. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQBbIuwgZ_8
>>3921396>>3921396How does the og pocket compare with the 4k in terms of iq and looks? how does lossless cinema dng compare with braw? If you have a computer that can handle the dng workflow is it worth it to use dng or is braw better than dng? Is it worth it getting used og pocket or does the 4k do everything that og pocket can do with moar resolution?
What's a good place to post short videos in the same sense as photos?Like flickr, but 5second ish "b-rolls".
>>3921528I personally prefer the old fairchild sensor on the old bm cameras. The soft 1080p footage combined with the textural quality of cdng creates a very film like look. The footage out of braw comes out too clean for my tastes imo but the 4k isn't a terrible camera. It is noticeably more digital feeling when trying to match with the 2.5k and the og pocket.
So.. if a camera is able to take photos, raw, as fast as 24 shots per second.. Wouldn't that be the ultimate video camera for 24fps?The thing holding it back would surely be the bandwidth not clogging up the buffer?So how come this isn't a thing already?Just interface a gen4 pcie ssd from the very start. Someone like sigma seems like they are capable to bet on a camera like this after the fp.
>>3921670That is basically what the magic lantern hack did for one of the still canon camera.
>>3921670>So how come this isn't a thing already?It is a thing. Several cameras do that. Because of this, people have started to realise that raw is overrated and that they don't need a better camera to fix their films, they need to be a better filmmaker.But it's also led to increased interest in dynamic range, 4:2:2 log recording, autofocus and sensor size.
Im shooting a lowlight short film soon and i've got a choice between the Gh5 (V-Log) or the Blackmagicpocket 4k. Lenses are the same and I don't care about gimbals/extra rigging, I just want to know which camera will give me better dynamic range/lowlight footage. I will still be using keylights and backlights but I want high contrast Nighttime city shots
>>3921906both are decent if you know what you're doing but the second gain stage of the pocket especially in the iso2000ish range is pretty damn good
>Canon EOS M50 Mark II>comes with 15-45 mm lens>£549I'd like to film documentaries but in reality, I'll mostly be taking photos.Don't know too much about cameras (know enough to avoid Sony).It does 4K at 25 fps but I can't really see that as much of a problem. It does 1080p at 59.94fps which I thik I'd use it mostly in that mode. Can someone redpill me on lenses? This uses an EF-M mount and can use EF and EF-S. Is that... Good? Will say I'm not a brand fag. If you recc a Sony instead of this, then I won't bitch.
>>3922042For that price range, you won't do much better. After me, a bunch of panasonic will come in screeching about a more expensive camera with a smaller sensor, so be ready for that.I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the original m50 outside of this general (known a few people who have one, but not the mark ii) and canon make some of the best lenses in the world.
>>3922042that kit lens isn't going to be good for documentaries. It's slow and has a variable aperture ("1:3.5-6.3") which means it gets even slower when you zoom in. A fast constant aperture lens isn't going to be cheap, so look into that before making your decision
>>3922043>>3922044 (checked)Oh really? I just stumbled upon it. I know the lens isn't a 'nifty 50'. If I don't zoom in too much (maybe lean on the 4K mode and crop it down when I need to), and use good lighting, could I get by with it until I save for a better lens?
>>3922047>could I get by with it until I save for a better lens?yes
Anyone up for making /vid/ approved movie list? There's like five of us, we throw out suggestions and pick those that we all agree on.
>>3922079This is from back in 2018...I don't know, as soon as we start trying to agree on what films are good, we basically just devolve into /tv/.Like you know that there are without a doubt several Nolan faggots lurking who will reee the second their god isn't given the credit they feel he's owed. And that applies to so many other filmmakers and films as well that it's not worth the arguing
>>3922084I can't even narrow my own tastes down into a definitive top whatever
I havent done shit all summer and it's driving me crazy. It feels like every day is another wasted day and it just eats up my brain at night. I have the camera, I have the lenses, I have a tripod, but I just don't do anything. How do I find the energy or motivation to do stuff?I've done 3 things all summer:2nd shooter for a football campFilmed a funny with my friend where he went around car lots drinking water from a gas canStarted a project with some friends but never finished it because one of them is having a baby and the other one is busy with work.I'm filming some stuff this Friday night and saturday
>>3922084>that chartPretty poor taste, /vid/
>>3921109*leaks coolant in your path*
>>3917469hey look, some *edditor made this but worse
Hi,I work with GH5 V-LOG, is there a way to see the video with an applied LUT to it without converting it ?I mean, I have a monitor that does it. There must be a way to do it on computer.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera Modelconnect 4.7Equipment MakeMiamiImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownLight SourceUnknownImage Created2016:08:28 13:29:35Metering ModeUnknownImage Height2400Focal Length4.60 mmImage Width3200Date (UTC)2016:08:28
>>3922260except for all the paid DIT shit like video valley's 'screen' there's no video player at the moment that supports 3d luts, not even with pluginsgotta use your editing software like everyone else
does anyone know any guides on how to declick the control ring on rf lenses? I can't find any DIY guides online and I don't wanna pay $80 to send it to canon and have them do it.
>>3922260Just play it in Resolve and put up a single lut node.
>>3922312What are you talking about, do do you even own rf lenses?
>>3922351when you turn the control ring on an RF lens it makes click. Not even a nice one like in vintage lenses just a weird nasty one. I own two RF lenses. My 24-105mm f4-7.1 was not clicked for some reason. My guess is because the control ring doubles as a focus ring. I got a 35mm and the control ring clicks.
>>3918007Manfrotto has some compact tripods which come with a hybrid head (ballhead with a handle) or a three-way head. These heads are pretty small and will probably work for you.
Did some filming last night for the first time in forever. We had some trouble setting up some good lighting.
>>3922628Literally all you had to do was put a lamp near the actors and your lighting would be a thousand times better.
>>3922628>trouble setting up some good lightingYeah i can see that, white shirt dude looks okay but the dude with dreads looks like an african
>>3922628Lighting from above is generally better so your shadows are hidden and the modeling on faces is better. Also lighting subjects and background separately so you can control balance better. If your lights don't have barn doors pick up some black wrap to control spill
>>3922642Thislighting from above eye height also means all your background shadows don't go upwards like they do in your frames, which always looks unnatural as fuck
Yo, how do you pick out a solid cinema lens for starters? I've noticed the Pastebin sticky has a really nice list of cameras and budgets, is there something similar for lens? Any Micro 4/3rds recommendations for something in the ~800 USD budget, for instance?
>>3922754rent everything in your price rangebuy the ones you like the most
>>3922754Buy a cheap zoom, the equivalent of the nifty fifty for whatever mount you're using, and then a wide angle prime.The first two should cost less than 100 bucks each. The last one should be less than 200.Use them and figure out what shots you can't get that you feel you definitely need.
>>3922628Biggest problem is location. A lot of regular home clutter is a serious problem.>>3922754Meike t2.2 cine lenses, or one of the f2.8 zooms.
>>3922754Just to be clear, I am not being condescending.1) You should not buy Cinema Lenses unless you are capable of monetizing them consistently. 2) If you are buying or using Cinema lenses, you should already know what you want or have the budget to rent and test lenses to find what you want.3) Buying a single micro-budget 'cinema' prime isn't really worth it in my opinion as most of them are rehoused stills lenses anyway. 4) Buying Native MFT Cinema lenses locks you to the MFT Mount and severely limits how useful in the long run they are. You may buy a new camera every 3-5 years, but lenses last a lifetime. You can't adapt MFT to anything else. Follow what >>3922806 says. Use modern or vintage stills lenses, learn what focal lengths and lens characteristics you want. >>3922628Really need some practical lighting to motivate your light source (a lamp or something?) and some fill light. Shadows are telling me the light source is tilted upwards, which looks artificial in a room that should have overhead lighting.>>3922079Tough ask, too subjective
>>3922754This anon: >>3922806 has already given you a good answer, but I'm going to elaborate a bit with my own opinion.Your question is a "I don't even know how much I don' know" question, so you shouldn't be working with expensive lenses and cameras at all. Jumping into the deep end tech wise is easier than ever, but it stunts your growth hard because you never have those formative experiences where you have to struggle against the technology to get what you want. You probably pride yourself on your sense of taste when it comes to film, but execution is a different thing entirely, so your first few films are going to be total trash no matter what. You might as well maximize the learning experience. Get some cheaper photography lenses and use those.
>>3922823>>3922824>you should not buy Cinema Lenses >single micro-budget 'cinema' prime isn't really worth it in my opinion as most of them are rehoused stills lenses anyway. Total nonsense. Cine lenses hold their value extremely well. You can buy them, and then sell them for almost new price five years from now. This is not true for dslr lenses that are dropping in price like crazy right now. Even the cheapest cine lenses are all extremely well build, and they have no electronic parts that can fail with age. You can use one single prime for whole project, three in a set will cover everything.
>>3922829>and they have no electronic parts that can fail with agenot entirely truemost lenses have cooke-i or a compatible tech that reads out focus distance, aperture diameter and zoom seting and transfers that to the camera to be recorded in metadata
>>3922831>most lenses have cooke-i or a compatible tech that reads out focus distance, aperture diameter and zoom seting and transfers that to the camera to be recorded in metadataYou mean rare expensive lenses. And it's not useful at all, unless you've an expensive camera that records data as well. Besides, it's a moot point. Cine lens will still retain full functionality, even when that fails. With dslr lenses, you're left with no focus, no aperture, or worse when electronics eventually fails.
>>3922829Which is why I would only recommend getting manual primes, which is what a beginner should be learning on anyway.
>>3922853strongly agree. I learned so much more about lenses and how they affect the image after switching to primes after years of zooms
>>3922642>>3922690We didn't have proper light stand so we had trouble bringing the lights up. The lights were for product photography so the stands were really short. I will definitely invest in some black wrap.
What's a good Camera/Camcorder to record videos and make hobby level of filmography?I'm pretty much /vid/ illiterate so I won't be able to understand the lingo here.My budget is around 1500€ but I can go up to 2000€ if it's really that better than things below the initial budget
how the fuck do i get my timelapse down below 70meg; it's only fucking 4k and 20 seconds longi hate the antichrist