[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


The Industry is On Strike edition
All 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 ABOVE

Previous thread >>3931697

Quick 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
>>
>>3951487
when is the a new blackmagic camera coming out. we need a camera in the same shape as the og bmpcc with 4k or 6k and a global shutter. imagine how amazing a small camera like that would be. or even a cube shape would be alright
>>
>>3951530
just buy the komodo then
>>
>>3951535
komodo is $6k. and the SDI problem means you blow out the port even if you do everything right. the warranty doesn't cover it so you have to pay $500 each time it does. fuck red, if they didn't exist every single camera company would have true compressed RAW video
>>
I am thinking about doing some kind of video essay type content about local urban and infrastructure planning.

Of course most of the actual video would come from actual locations. Stock footage is garbage and expensive for what it is.
But the problem is, while I could easily write up a script, video out in the field and probably semi-competently edit it all together into a finished product.
But how should I actually present it?

Jay Foreman's "Unfinished London" is a particularly nice format - but he mostly speaks to camera and often features skits or other humourous elements.
Wendover is much more in the way of the voiceover style, but is often seen as "the guy who speaks over Google maps" - only some footage is actually from on location reporting, and even then... most of this videos now are basically summarising Wikipedia articles.

I don't really think I'd look good in front of the camera, and I know my voice sucks ass - I just sound like an American Gay Twink, and no one would take me seriously.

Non-fiction genres which are informative and documentaries appeal to me most - but I must say that formatting this just seems like a total nightmare.
>>
>>3951530
Apparently the next Olympus is global shutter. We may start seeing global shutters on the mass market soon.
>>
>>3951584
>I just sound like an American Gay Twink, and no one would take me seriously.
Seek out a family friend or pay an old man to do your voice over. You should be able to find one willing to do it for relatively cheap if you go to the right places (community shit that you find boring and full of old people)
>>
File: SYCV10M-C.png (229 KB, 354x495)
229 KB
229 KB PNG
What's the difference between the Samyang Cine SYCV10M-C 10mm T3.1 Cine and Rokinon DS10M-C 10mm T3.1 Cine?

I've only seen reviews of the Rokinon and i know they are basically the same company but the Samyang is $200 cheaper
>>
>>3951584
>video essay type content about local urban and infrastructure planning.
Tough order, my eyes get bored just reading that.
>often skits or other humourous elements.
Because it's boring otherwise.
>I don't really think I'd look good in front of the camera
Not much of a choice, you likely have to be in front of the camera in an interesting on-location shot. An old guy's voice won't help you, he'll probably sound even more boring. You don't have to look good or serious or something, you just have to be a human element that the audience can naturally focus on. A lot of TV shows have been hosted by unattractive slobs and people you wouldn't even look at on the street, not even people with anything particularly special to say, just human elements that can offer a personal story about abc or xyz every few minutes, and they do it well enough to make money off the show.

If you can't make skits work, maybe try ten-second interviews with locals. Interesting looking locals. Don't try humor in the interviews unless you get a lot more confident.
>>
>>3951667
They are exactly the same, branded for different markets
>>
>>3951589
I've considered getting someone I know from a Discord server to do it, but she wants me to pay for it.
Only alternative she recommended to me was fiverr, but if I got someone else to do voice-over work, it would make more sense for the voice-over person to be consistent across multiple videos, no?
Unfortunately, I don't really have much in the way of family friends.
>>3951679
>Tough order
A lot of people do it with footage of Cities Skylines these days. I'd rather make use of real footage instead of something "fake".
>Boring
Perhaps, but some people would rather watch a video to passively absorb the information than actually... yanno... read a blog about urbanism on WordPress.
>Not much of a choice
I mean... It depends...
The examples I can think of, of people who aren't attractive people, but presented information clearly are the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and the late Sir Patrick Moore.
The former made a career out of being entertaining to watch, the latter made a career out of just being able to clearly and concisely convey information about complex subjects.
>interviews with locals
I'm familiar with field work - I did quite a bit of it during my studies at university, but all of those field trips would only ever involve writing down responses on a piece of paper as part of a qualitative data collection.
Getting strangers to appear on camera is a totally different challenge to getting strangers to have their responses anonymously collected.
It's not even like I have any reputation that could even secure the likes of interviews with politicians, civil servants or other administrative individuals.
Heck, one of the longest running passenger advocacy groups dissolved some years ago because the issues they were campaigning on just stopped existing.

That said, I would love to ask how easy it is to be a one person "film crew". A camera on a monopod + having some sort of interviewer microphone on a stick is a good way to end up fucking up both.
>>
>>3951794
>if I got someone else to do voice-over work, it would make more sense for the voice-over person to be consistent across multiple videos, no?
No? Why?
Have multiple people doing voice overs for different videos makes you seem more professional because it means you collaborate with a wide variety of people and aren't just using yourself or your one friend.
>Unfortunately, I don't really have much in the way of family friends.
Like I said, go to a community event (like church, or a farmer's market, or an amateur theatre group or some shit) on a regular basis. Eventually some old people will start talking to you and you can ask them. I say old people, because old people tend to sound better than young people.
I would categorically recommend you don't pay some random discord cunt. Also, facebook is a useful tool for finding people to work with. Join a bunch of acting groups for your area.
>>
>>3951667
No difference at all.
>>
Has anyone else written numerous screenplays and is filled with ideas for films but inside you know nothing will ever come from it because you aren't the chosen one. I would write novels instead but I have no interest in it
>>
>>3952054
No, I've stupidly clutched onto the idea that I can make it if I just keep pushing. So I'm finishing up my first feature now that I made for almost no money.
>>
>>3951530
> global shutter
It's going to cost you. Do you really need it? Are you doing a lot of whip pans or filming actors in front of trains?
BMPCC6K does seem to be on the edge of visible jello at 6K. I'd never it at more than 4K DCI, personally.
>>
File: eBay-Logo-2012-present.jpg (95 KB, 3840x2160)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
I want a (used) video camera AND lens for $1,000. Lens doesn't have to be long. I want to shoot log/color grade.


Im looking at a Sony 6400 or 6500.
Anything else I should be considering?

I have an extra $250 set aside for a gimbal.
>>
>>3952214
>Anything else I should be considering?
a way to power it for the durations of your shooting days
>>
>>3952214
>I want to shoot log/color grade.
Then Sony is not for you. 8bit log is way too low colour space for any serious, or even half serious grading. Look for 10bit Panasonics instead.
>>
>>3952242
Any exact models in my budget?
>>
>>3952242
How about this? This does 10 bit video.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAndroid RP1A.200720.012.A315GDXU1CUG1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1080
Image Height1501
>>
>>3951584
>Non-fiction genres which are informative and documentaries appeal to me most
You can 100% shoot a documentary, and if you plan it right, you can do it fairly cheaply. As you pointed out, you can very easily shoot the stock you need.
My suggestion would be to grab a small drone, and use a combo of that and timelapses to add visual interest. Then you can either find talent to be your A-roll, or you can write a script and find some wanker on Fiverr to read it out for you. Good luck anon!
t. shot a documentary on Zero budget.
>>
>>3952214
USD I assume? G9. Throw whatever in front of it.
Tbh there's no camera that comes close to the g9 for bang for buck right now imo.
>>
Tfw might pull the trigger on a Canon M50 MKII
>>
>>3952242
You're not technically wrong, but 8bit log being trash is a bit of a meme. Let's assume

1. you nail exposure
2. you aren't shooting in very low light
3. you nail your white balance

8 bit will still get you there, you just don't want to be pushing it around as much.

>>3952294
Get a G9. That's gonna require several hundred dollars more in ancillary equipment.
>>
>>3952317
>>3952315
I decided to just bite the bullet, spend a little more and get a bmpcc 4k.
I'll just have to save a little longer.
>>
>>3952316
Crop on crop video.
>>
>>3952359
I dont know what that means if its a diss (I'm a beginner just getting into better video work)
>>
>>3952361
It means that that camera is only using part of it's sensor when shooting video.
>>
>>3952361
It's a meaningless criticism.
Basically, it just means that the field of view in 4k is less than in photos/1080p. It can easily be resolved by using a wider lens and actually results in better quality video (normally) because it uses 1:1 pixel sampling instead of pixel-binning.
>>
>>3952393
oh, do you have a different suggestion on a camera? I read the sticky and watched a few videos for the M50 but I'm not committed yet
>>
>>3952397
I gotcha, recommended lenses ?
>>
>>3952397
>It can easily be resolved by using a wider lens
Problem being there are no wider lenses on eos m mount... There's Canon's 11–22 mm f4-5. With it being variable aperture, it's hardly usable to shoot video. And then there's Sigmas 16mm f1.4, also some cinelike Mikes and Samyangs. And then there's rumours that Canon will release R mount apsc camera soon, further abandoning m mount. m50's in theory are usable, it's basically m43 sized sensor for video, but that crop on crop really is headache that even I would not go into, I'd never advise it on a noobie.
>>3952398
Get a panasonic. It's the safest option in that budget range. Huge lens selection and pro bodies further in the lineup from them, or blackmagic, and zcam. Or spend more for xt4. You get the most for your money there.
>>
>>3952426
The G85 does seem pretty nice too, will do more research
>>
>>3952401
A cheap prime, a cheap zoom. Should cost you 300 bucks absolute max for both lenses.
>>3952426
>I'd never advise it on a noobie
Someone new probably shouldn't be shooting 4k in the first place since it's an unnecessary extra headache for an output that definitely doesn't need it.
But you yourself just mentioned viable lenses (especially if you light your scene properly). And anyone learning to make films needs to learn proper shot composition. Having limited fov helps that, based on my own experiences.
>>
>>3952555
I'll keep the M50 in mind but the G85 is making me feel things right now

why is this shit so difficult lol
>>
>>3952583
Get whatever, you can't really go wrong with any interchangeable lens camera that shoots 1080 and was made after 2016.
I started with a canon 500d (t2i) and it served me fine for a year until I upgraded. It's probably better to get a shitter and cheaper camera than what your instincts would suggest, purely so that you have the chance to realise what features you really need and can't do without. But like I said, you can't really go wrong.
>>
>>3952597
fair enough. I'm mostly going to be shooting youtube quality shit with random B roll, nothing too intensive or insane, I just like to spend my money wisely and make sure i get something quality enough that i'm satisfied
>>
>>3952356
Not a bad call, depending on what you intend to shoot. Good luck.
>>
>>3952397
>actually results in better quality video (normally)
Not if you shoot in any kind of low light. Typically speaking, the goal is to use as much of the sensor as possible. Binning/skipping only occurs because of higher resolution hybrid sensors and thermal management.
The m50 is such a waste of time in my personal opinion, just grab a G7 and 3 lenses, or step up to a better tier like the g9.
>>
>>3952583
You won't go wrong with a G85 at all. If it's your first real camera, what was said here
>>3952597
is pretty truthful.
>>
>>3952699
That's not how low light works.
There's a theory (and there is conflicting evidence for and against this) that bigger pixels results in better low-light performance as each pixel receives more light.
However, that is not the same as cropping. You're claiming that a camera gets worse at dealing with low-light, the more the sensor is cropped in. This is nonsense. That would mean that a photo would get worse quality in regards to shadows/noise, the more you zoomed in on it. The only theoretical basis you might be able to claim that cropping creates worse low-light is that any noise becomes more apparent because the pixels are larger. However, this is also wrong from personal experience because the majority of cameras do not oversample. So any noise is over-represented due to line-skipping and 4:2:0 compression, meaning that there's no noticeable difference with regards to noise whether or not you crop.
Additionally, your comment about binning is also wrong. I should've said line-skipping, but pixel-binning is a form of oversampling. Most cameras use line-skipping because oversampling is too resource-intensive. Pretty much any relatively cheap camera that takes stills larger than 9mp will use line-skipping (unless they crop the image in).
I don't really care about your personal opinion, no offense. If you believe I'm wrong on any of the above, I'd be interested in reading why
>>
>>3951667
Go for the cheaper one. They're probably different prices because they have to ship them from different places or something.
>>
if you could only have one lens, what would it be?
>>
>>3953028
25mm
>>
>>3951487
this image speasks volumes to me... :^(
>>
>>3949810
nigga, I precisely want to avoid tapes or mini cds so I don't have keep buying them as opposed to flash storage.
>>3949850
any recommendations where it has more of an average consumer look rather than amateur?
>>
>>3953084
>so I don't have keep buying them
just write over that shit
>>
File: dunc.jpg (197 KB, 1920x1080)
197 KB
197 KB JPG
>>3951487
>165million
>arri alexa large format

I'm sure /p/ will say they could do better with blackmagic4k and meike 12mm t2.2!
>>
>>3953198
Should've watched a good film instead, CGI palm boy
>>
File: guesswhat.jpg (322 KB, 1920x816)
322 KB
322 KB JPG
>>3953200
But I am watching a good movie.
>>
>>3953198
Serious question, how do you even get that amount of barrel distortions and vignetting on a LF?
>>
>>3953198
Idiots will sure.
The thing that made that film so visually stunning wasn't the camera or the budget though, although they definitely made it easier.
A large part of was how they used cgi in a way that's almost impossible to detect (inb4 someone spams the fight scene shot that lasts less than 5 seconds). For the majority of it, you can't tell what is full cgi, what is compositing and what is use of miniatures and actual sets.
Like 1917, it used a very epic score that really highlighted the shots and made them feel larger and grander than they would have on their own. Just blaring the horn as you switch to a wide shot unironically makes that shot seem more epic.
I mean I could go on, but the point is that it was artistic mastery, not technicals, that create such impressive results.
>>
>>3953322
panavision markets the H-series as lenses with a "vintage feel" using actual old glass with old coatings rearranged into modern housings, I guess they're actually fantastic originally s35 lenses that just barely cover the LF and that's where the flavour comes from.

same as with the really good looking netflix series "dark" that left arri rental scratching their heads because the DP insisted on using the old ultra primes which are s35 lenses on the big alexa65 anyway for that vignetted falling apart corners look
>>
File: guess what 2.jpg (157 KB, 1920x816)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
>>3953215
Let's make it slightly easier.
>>
>>3953346
>The thing that made that film so visually stunning
Weak bait.
>>
>>3953363
>>3953215
yeah, it's Cimino's Year of the Dragon
>>
>>3953364
Hating popular things isn't a substitute for a personality
>>
>>3952174
you have a trailer?

>>3952294
>>3952356
if you plan and like tripod, bmpcc and zcam are acceptable. if either of that stops you from going out and shooting then that will halt your progress. finishing projects, even small ones no one sees, is the most important variable. i'm not the previous g9 poster, but I have one as well, and i believe I would not have shot as much if i had a bmpcc, or especially the zcam. i can grab and go right now, and I can plan and tripod when i need.
>>
>>3952438
I think that one is better than the m50mkii. also canon were being trannies and hobbled that camera. it could have been so good, but they want you to spend $1.5k for their 4k tax
>>
>>3952712
You're basically trying to rehash equivalence. An individual pixel doesn't magically become worse in its performance because it's on a smaller sensor, nor does the ADA become noisier. However, a larger sensor captures more light, avoiding one of the largest contributors of noise, shot noise, which is caused by the actual nature of light as it arrives in irregular packets. There are other reasons why larger sensors are better as well, but the fact is, a larger sensor, all else being equal, will perform better in low light than a smaller one. You can go with the whole - same source of water but larger bucket analogy - if you wish.

Cropping in on your sensor to produce a direct 1:1 readout for video will reduce the low light performance. It may have some positive side effects like sharpness, or rolling shutter, but it's generally, understandably, considered a bad thing.

I'm not sure what you think is wrong in my comment about binning/skipping. Both are used as demosaicing to handle larger sensor resolutions than the video being captured. Oversampling is a separate process which is the best method to use - however it tends to be demanding.

An excellent example is the camera I use for work - the A7iii. It oversamples a 6k sensor down to 4k, which produces a STELLAR image. And it doesn't overheat, (only once actually). However, in 1080p the image is trash, it's a known fact, because of binning/skipping (I don't remember which one Sony went with).

The A7Siii doesn't have this issue, even in 1080p, but that's because it's a 10mp sensor.

The ultimate solution is to have actual video cameras instead of hybrid trash, but budget etc, a lot of us end up needing to do both sadly.

Also, saying that you don't care about my opinion on a camera is a redundant and pointless sentence after you had just given yours. Personally, I would never rec the M50 to anyone beginning video. Even the mk2.
>>
>>3953540
>Cropping in on your sensor to produce a direct 1:1 readout for video will reduce the low light performance.
But why? You literally yourself stated "An individual pixel doesn't magically become worse in its performance because it's on a smaller sensor, nor does the ADA become noisier" so in what way would the low light be worse?
>it's generally, understandably, considered a bad thing.
But you can't explain why?

>I'm not sure what you think is wrong in my comment about binning/skipping
It was wrong because the majority of sensors do not oversample. The a7iii is one camera that does downsample properly from a 6k image for 4k. But that is not the norm.
The other thing is that many people (myself included) use line-skipping and pixel-binning interchangeably to refer to the process of discarding pixels to achieve a lower resolution. However, this is incorrect. Pixel-binning is actually a form of downsampling.

>The ultimate solution is to have actual video cameras instead of hybrid trash
Sometimes. For the record, I would argue that a modern phone is more than capable for a newbie looking to get into filmmaking. Cameras are insanely capable and it's easy to forget how amazing even the shitty ones are.

>Also, saying that you don't care about my opinion on a camera is a redundant and pointless sentence after you had just given yours
I said that because it came across as if you were dismissing any actual defenses of the camera arbitrarily as if your opinion supersedes facts. I don't care about whether or not you think the camera is trash. I somewhat care why you think it's trash because I fully accept that there's a lot about cameras that I probably don't know. But if someone wants to know whether it's any good, I'll try and give them an honest breakdown
>>
>>3953540
>>3953548
I want to finish this thought about low light.
Larger sensors are generally better for low light, this is true. But the reason for this is because of the available light. If the sensor's larger, there's more light hitting it. Now how do you rationalise that with your statement about individual pixels?
I'm fairly certain, though would be curious to see evidence that I'm wrong, that this is actually because of the lens. The lens is what's distributing that light, and larger-sensor-lenses have wider circumferences, so more light is filtered through them. This also explains why speed boosters are a thing, giving lenses additional stops of aperture when focused onto a smaller sensor.
The way to test this properly would be to take a full frame lens that can be adapted (without a speed booster) for an aps-c camera and check exposure at the same aperture. If it's the same, that would imply that my theory is correct. The issue of course is that different sensors are different in multiple ways, regardless of sensor size. Some cameras iso 100 is the same as another camera's iso75 for example. So it would be pretty hard to do a proper test unless you could guarantee that you had a crop sensor that was literally just made from a larger sensor (or vice versa).
The bmp4k versus the bmp6k might be an example of this. If I recall correctly, the 6k literally uses 2 of the 4k's sensors tied together.
>>
I just got a sandmark 1.55x anamoporphic lens for my iPhone so I can play around with the anamorphic look? What should I expect from this lens? Why are anamorphic lenses for cell phones so much cheaper than anamorphic lenses for mirrorless (MFT) cameras? Could I use my iPhone with this lens and cut some footage with a mirrorless camera, or would that look weird?
>>
>>3953579
A sample image from the anamorphic lens. It’s a fun toy for spergs to play with, but can it be used for serious filmmaking.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFilmic
Camera ModelFirstlight
Camera SoftwareFirstlight
PhotographeriPhone
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:20 21:45:40
Exposure Time1/8 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating250
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness-0.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length6.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
What shutter count is a good amount when buying used?
>>
...so how many people here actually make money with their video skills?
>>
>>3953618
Not me. I end up spending money to get video stuff. I wish I knew how I could make money with my video skills.
>>
>>3953618
3
>>
>>3953618
I work for a football charity so i get paid to produce schlock videos that 40 people watch, shits cash. Any recs on a good budget camera, think 5d mark iv or Sony a7iii
>>
>>3953403
>you have a trailer?
Yeah, but I'm not posting it here because finding my address/name would be pretty easy and I don't want death threats from schizos and neo-nazis.
Also, I don't want to be associated with 4chan.
>>
>>3953704
>implying the 3 people on this thread would give a fuck
>>
>>3953676
I wouldn't be surprised lol.
>>3953738
No it's actually pretty smart not to post any identifiable information on 4chan. I'd never post anything of my own here or tell anyone that I come here.
>>
>>3953738
You would be really surprised. Don't underestimate the level of autism on here. Chances are I'd be fine, but there's a reasonable chance I wouldn't. And that risk is way too dangerous to be worth it in any capacity
>>
>>3953586
Another picture that I took to test out my new anamorphic adapter for my iPhone.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFilmic
Camera ModelFirstlight
Camera SoftwareFirstlight
PhotographeriPhone
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:21 11:16:26
Exposure Time1/1143 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating20
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness9.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3953586
It looks out of alignment. Make sure you shine a light into the lens and use the flare to get the rotation right every time you shoot
>>
>>3953738
lol every time someone is doxxed on /p/ their shit gets vandalized how new are you?
>>
File: yearofthedragon w.jpg (4.23 MB, 5760x3264)
4.23 MB
4.23 MB JPG
>>3953367
bingo
>>
>>3953752
Yes another test of my anamorphic lens. The Sandmarc 1.55x anamorphic adapter for my iPhone X and the awesome filmic app made famous my Soderbergh

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFilmic
Camera ModelFirstlight
Camera SoftwareFirstlight
PhotographeriPhone
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:21 16:04:30
Exposure Time1/13 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness1.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3951487
I do zero video but I immensely enjoy seeing the OP pics of /vid/ every time a new thread is posted
whoever picks these always manages to get a funny one
>>
>>3953756
I will keep that in mind when I use the lens for real. Right now I’m just playing around with the lens. I can only afford anamorphic lenses for cellphones so now I can play with it too see what all the hype about anamorphic lenses is all about w/on going into debt.
>>
>>3953548
>but why
Because you're shrinking the sensor. If your sensor is apsc like the m50 and you crop that down to basically micro 43, or smaller, you're reducing your low light quality, as you are losing total available light. This doesn't change the qualities of the individual pixels, or the ADA, but it will still OVERALL reduce your quality in low light.

>It was wrong because the majority of sensors do not oversample.
I don't see how that's related. Sure, many sensors don't oversample, for obvious reasons.
My statement was:
"Binning/skipping only occurs because of higher resolution hybrid sensors and thermal management."

This is perhaps an oversimplification, but still mostly true. You aren't explaining how it's false, you're just saying that oversampling doesn't occur too often. And to be honest, it's more common than you might think, multiple Panasonic cameras do it as well. The terms around binning/skipping are indeed all over the place, and this is confounded by the fact that manufacturers don't always release the specifics on how they're getting the downsampling done. Binning and skipping are both bad overall, and don't result in great quality.

>argue that a modern phone is more capable
I somewhat disagree, not to be pendantic. I'd rather use an older MILC or 1 inch sensor eng style cam than a phone, primarily for zoom range and shutter angle / audio.

My opinion doesn't supersede facts, but I was giving it as someone that works in the video field (hopefully not for too much longer, this is soul crushing) and has used a wide variety of cameras.
>>
>>3953552
>If the sensor's larger, there's more light hitting it. Now how do you rationalise that with your statement about individual pixels?
Which statement, sorry?

It's partly because of the lens, but even a full frame lens focusing its available light can only give so much of a boost. Indeed, that is why speed boosters exist, but although they help, the surface area of the actual sensor isn't changing, ergo the total light you can collect still isn't the same as that same lens on a FF sensor.

By the way, I'm not one of those FF idiots that says you have to have it. Unless you're shooting in low low light, you can use the right lenses and techniques to film great material on m43 or 1 inch sensors. In fact, I shot my first documentary on a G7, which was tedious at times but still possible.

Have a good night.
>>
>>3953579
>Why are anamorphic lenses for cell phones so much cheaper than anamorphic lenses for mirrorless (MFT) cameras?
Quality, size.

>>3953618
I'm a corporate videographer. I shit you not, I'm looking to go back to college and get a real trade. I'd like my favorite hobby to go back to being fun. I'd strongly caution you, if you love vid/foto, make plans for big personal projects and at most do work part time. There's very little vid work out there that isn't soul crushing / repetitive, or just banal in some way. However, if you're somewhat decent, it's definitely possible to make a living doing it.
>>
>>3953946
I had an internship where one of the clients was some shitty duo for hire. Imagine doing 100 takes while some a-hole shouts in your headset about zooming or panning while the song "unforgettable" is played over and over
Imagine doing that for a living. I couldn't.
>>
I want to buy a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 with a speedbooster for my G7.
I know it's a good lens but I keep going back and forth on it.
Right now I have 3 cheap native lenses, the 14-42mm, 25mm, 45-150mm and before that I was using dummy adapted manual primes from old film cameras.

Now my focus is going more into videos so I want to have one lens that can be on my camera the whole time, plus I have to use a gimbal and a steadicam more and more so the extra weight and non tromboning zoom helps with balancing.

Will I regret not spending more money on a native lens like for example a panasonic 10-25mm f1.7?
Adjusting for the crop factor or the AOV the lenses are almost identical except for the panasonic being slightly wider and sharper with less CA but who cares about that anyway.
>>
>>3953361
Since you seem like a glass need, how do you achieve a purposefully distorted look on a smaller sensor like MFT.
Speaking only about barrel distortion, can you just buy an ultrawide lens?
If so how wide?
>>
>>3953028
The one I have with me.
>>
>>3952054
I want to become an independent cinematographer so I can produce reverse propaganda films that will undo the years of brainwashing done by liberal filmmakers.
>>
Anyone have any experience writing or filming mute characters who's face you can't see or whom don't have a face?
And I'm mean relatively important characters with decent screen time.
The goal isn't for them to be menacing, they just literally do not talk.
>>
>>3953881
wow do you eat all that shit ??
>>
File: DJI-Ronin-4D.jpg (203 KB, 1000x673)
203 KB
203 KB JPG
IT'S OVER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUzPz6RWJEs

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5DS R
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2048
Image Height1494
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:21 10:49:40
Exposure Time0.3 sec
F-Numberf/13.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/13.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height673
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3954078
nah
>>
>>3954078

So many parts, that shit is gonna be so unreliable to use. DJI's gimbals and other shit is unreliable already, knowing the quality of their parts and components that isn't any different.
>>
>>3954077
No it's for the cats
>>
>>3953756
I tired again, did I fix the alinement issue

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFilmic
Camera ModelFirstlight
Camera SoftwareFirstlight
PhotographeriPhone
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:22 06:36:18
Exposure Time1/7 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating80
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness77096/2047903 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.00 mm
CommentGrain
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: Resolve.png (217 KB, 601x544)
217 KB
217 KB PNG
https://twitter.com/Blackmagic_News/status/1451384040255213572
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=149263
>>
>>3954091
thanks, blackmagicbot
>>
>>3954091
No mkv, no webmd, still lacking plugin support, i'm back to pirating adobe. Sorry.
>>
>>3954078
This is one of those things where I'm stupidly impressed and can't really see any flaws except that it's not for me.
There's too many parts to it. It looks like it will be a pain to set up just a 'normal' static shot (which I think are very underrated). I'm not going to switch to another lens mount. You can't really casually whip this out on a train or in public to get some quick shots.
And then at the higher end, does the image quality really beat the canon c70? Nevermind an arri or a red...
But I think this will be perfect for some people and hopefully it will push other companies to find a way to integrate gimbals and cameras better than at the moment.
>>
>>3954049
Kek, your current kit is exactly what I shot my first documentary on. I shot all on monopod due to the nature of the project, all my moving shots were mostly done via drone.
Never used the sigma but can't say that you'll miss much using it since AF is basically non existent on the g7 anyways.
>>
>go on site to shoot some products
>notice camera cant lock focus
>constantly get af errors
>cant fucking figure out whats going on
>client look weird at me
>i tell them to give me a sec
>just forget it and shoot manual focus
>later i find out i accidentally had focus limiter set 5m to infin.
just fuck my shit up
>>
>>3954113
pirate te old cs5 version or is there a way to pirate recent
>>
>>3954176
nay
>>
File: 1606694061268foto.png (36 KB, 300x250)
36 KB
36 KB PNG
>be dp in murica
>get shot
>>
>>3954183
normal 3rd world things
>>
>>3954089
seems ok at a glance. Another tip is to carry a ball with you to shoot as reference for each shot to properly correct squeeze and skew in post. Not sure about how that lens works, but on some anamorphics the squeeze factor changes with distance from the lens, higher end cine lenses will automatically adjust for this but on cheaper lenses you have to correct it in post.
>>
>>3954183
that's what happens with a non-union armorer
>>
>>3954216
My lens has a notch that I line up with my iPhone case to make sure it’s aligned. I guess the notch things works.
>>
So I hate to have to say it, but it's necessary:
>/vid/ is team /DUNC/
We like the film and reject the edgy contrarians complaining about the lack of ending or small details changed from the books.
Curious about other blockbusters?
We're PRO
>Blade Runner 2049
>Casino Royale
>1917
>Green Book
>The Revenant
But we're ANTI
>The Last Jedi
>Avengers Endgame
>The Shape of Water
>Spotlight
>Dunkirk
>>
File: 1629242723869.jpg (60 KB, 1080x1141)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>3954264
>>/vid/ is team /DUNC/
BOOOO

We're PRO
>Blade Runner 2049
>Casino Royale
>1917
>Green Book
>The Revenant
But we're ANTI
>The Last Jedi
>Avengers Endgame
>The Shape of Water
>Spotlight
>Dunkirk

I'm pleased to say I've only watched two (2) movies on your peb list. You should be ashamed of even writing it.
>>
>>3953942
>Because you're shrinking the sensor.... This doesn't change the qualities of the individual pixels... but it will still OVERALL reduce your quality in low light.
How though? You haven't explained how. Reducing your sensor doesn't reduce total available light. I even addressed this previously, it's the diameter of the lens that affects how much light hits the sensor. And you even admit that it wouldn't affect individual pixels.
You're implying that zooming in on a picture would make it darker just because you've zoomed in. That's obviously false.
>oversampling
My point was literally just that most (hybrid/stills) cameras don't oversample.
> I'd rather use an older MILC or 1 inch sensor eng style cam
That's your choice. I think there would be pros and cons of either, but I'd rather use a modern phone than an old camera with a 1 inch sensor myself. Zoom would be the only downside but easily overcome. Shutter angle can be adjusted with so many apps. Audio I'd do externally regardless of which camera I was using. And low light/dr would probably be better on the phone (depends on the phone and the camera obviously)
>Which statement, sorry?
"An individual pixel doesn't magically become worse in its performance because it's on a smaller sensor, nor does the ADA become noisier"
It was originally one post but I ran out of space and then expanded it into a longer comment.
>the surface area of the actual sensor isn't changing, ergo the total light you can collect still isn't the same as that same lens on a FF sensor.
This is actually incorrect (what you mean, your words are technically right)(or prove me wrong). A speedbooster works by focusing the light on a smaller area. Thus, the lens still refracts the same amount of light, but the booster focuses it on a smaller plane. Hence why it gives you extra stops because focusing the light more condensed results in more light than otherwise.
>>
File: Casino Royale.jpg (3.78 MB, 3840x2448)
3.78 MB
3.78 MB JPG
>>3954294
Actually, it would be three. But I very much doubt that he means best bond.
>>
>>3954294
>>3954328
>he wants to be a filmmaker but he doesn't watch all the major mainstream films
wew lad
>>
>>3954216
Thanks for the ball tip. When I do more than just snap pictures, and start doing videos, I’ll film some blue balls so that I can correct my footage in post. That’s a great idea.
>>
>>3954375
Yes Another test of my anamorphic lens. An autist got a new toy. I’m one happy asspie.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height722
>>
How do I migrate a Davinci project to FCPX?
>>
>>3954569
export fcp xml
>>
I haven't been to these threads in 2 or 3 years and they're somehow even worse then before
>>
>>3954583
The thread does what it's supposed to do
>a focus point for people who want to talk about cameras with regards to their video capabilities
>a place for people who actually want to make shit and learn to find resources and get some feedback on ideas and gear-choices without the background noise of usual 4chan shitposting
Anything that you think it should be, that it isn't, is because the people don't want it to be that. The only major flaw, in my mind, is the incessant shilling by certain brands and their fanbases
>>
>>3954397
This asspie is very happy because anamorphic iPhone lenses are so fun to use.
>>
>>3954618
I forgot the pic because I’m a massive sperglord.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height722
>>
>>3954579
Thanks, that was easier than expected
>>
>>3954620
How much softer does the image get with those $30 lenses?
>>
>>3954648
yes
>>
How come when I use a soft focus “cinematic” filter my footage look so plastic and fake? I like the sharp digital look and not the more “cinematic” look that a 1/8 blackmagic filter is supposed to give me? Am I weird in thinking that a sharp digital image looks better then a softer filmic image?
>>
>>3954670
>Am I weird in thinking that a sharp digital image looks better then a softer filmic image?
No.
It's the exact same shit as the 24p shit. Certain elements are associated with being more cinematic due to historical technical reasons. There's nothing inherently more cinematic about one image over another. It's all psychological-association.
If you prefer the look of a sharp image, go for it. Personally I flip-flop both directions. Sharper images look 'better' to me, but then I see a mainstream film that isn't that sharp and which looks great and get sad that my stuff doesn't look the same.
>>
>>3954670
better is just a matter of taste. a softer more dreamy image suits my sensibilities, but that's just me. Another thing to consider is you have to light and compose for a contrastier image to start with to look good with a low contrast filter/lens
>>
>>3951487

Need some pricing advice, anons. Pls help:

>Film a bunch of medical examinations for client for an e-course they host
>Get paid for filming days
>Agree on price paid after all videos delivered based on believed length of each video
>Realize each video is about 1.75-2x the length initially thought
>Plan on renegotiating price, but feeling slightly guilty because I hate asking for more money
>Client then asks if I can make an ad using all the footage I have in order for them to advertise their e-course
>Realize I definitely am within my right to renegotiate at this point, but unsure what to ask for

Should I just go for a flat increase in price and get a bulk payout? Or should I now ask for some type of perpetuity instead? The client's e-course runs a couple times a year, and they charge money to be able to take the course. The videos are private and unable to be downloaded. However, now that they want to use my footage to advertise, I feel like I should be getting some type of royalty or perpetuity?

Help me out, anons.
>>
>>3954655

This.
>>
>>3954796
I will try that and see if proper lighting making a softer image look better.
>>
>>3954341
maybe he wants to be an independent auteur instead of a mainstream yes man
>>
>>3954897
Independent auteurs still need to have knowledge of the mainstream. Otherwise you end up with shitty arthouse films that are identical to mainstream films but with lower budgets and worse mistakes because they didn't learn from those who came before.
Anyone who thinks they have nothing to learn from the mainstream, because it's beneath them, is a pretentious twat who's unironically ngmi
>>
Sony a7iv
need it or chuck it?
>>
>>3955464
chuck n fuck linked up?
sneed it or keep it????
>>
>>3954927
Damn, you guys are dumb... You can't learn anything from the contemporary filmography, since you don't even know what's good or not, what's going to stick, and what's going to be flushed down the toilet next year. And you certainly can't learn anything from the cgi movies, since only cgi you'll be doing in your basement will be horny bunnies 3d.
>>
>>3955536
>You can't learn anything from the contemporary filmography
Imagine unironically being this fucking stupid, hipster and arrogant all at once
>>
>>3955540
Evidently, I'm a lot smarter than you. You're outright incapable of argumentation and need to revert to pointless and embarrassing use of projection in your replies.
>>
>>3955542
WOW YOU WRITE SO WELL YOURE SOOOO SMART!!!

>this is the reaction anon is hoping for
>>
>>3955536
People who think they have nothing to learn are almost always the ones that need education the most.
>>
>>3955572
Well, we can keep flinging dirt at each other, or we can have a discussion. Here's the place where you list all the modern auteur approaches that engraved itself into a strata of medium, and I'll counter with importance of basing knowledge on tradition.
>>
>>3954871

No one has any knowledge on this subject or can share some opinions? Does no one here do any paid work? Are you just here waxing poetics about filmography and cinematography without actually getting paid for anything?
>>
File: bdw.jpg (2.45 MB, 5760x4144)
2.45 MB
2.45 MB JPG
>>3955599
You sound desperate, bro. I'm sure if you try hard enough you can come up with a fiscal plan on your own. You're free to hop in on the discussion of modern cinematography, though.
>>
I know 32 bit float expands the audio threshold up really high, but does it expand the threshold down beyond what you'd normally expect? Wouldn't any substantial extra range be invalidated by the noise floor in an average microphone?

I've been using a Rode NTG2 with a decade-old Zoom H4N for years. Am I better off using the Rode with 32 bit or getting a better mic for the old Zoom?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1500
Image Height1500
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:07:16 11:06:53
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1024
Image Height728
>>
>update davinci
>renders are stuck and never start

:)))
>>
>>3955628
I have the f6 and the noise floor is significant to the point where the audio is useless when you pull it up really far.
It's impressive how much you can hear though.
Probably need a particular mic to benefit more out of it.
>>
>>3954871
Eh asking for a percentage is wierd, and i'm pretty sure that's not the norm when it comes to advertising (would an agency that makes an ad for Pepsi get a share of Pepsi's revenue?). I'd say just do the edit, grab some extra cash, add it to your reel and be done with it.
>>
>>3955546
He may be smarter than you, but I'm sure he doesn't have you shitty tastes.
>>
>>3955590
This is such a stupid argument though because you're genuinely arguing that there's nothing to learn from contemporary films (which presumably you haven't even seen based on the reply chain).
It's like arguing with a high schooler why contemporary philosophical papers are worth reading instead of just rereading Plato and Berkley for the 50th time. You either don't know what you're talking about or you're arguing in incredibly bad faith.
But to respond: even shitty films have lots to learn from. They might showcase one or two scenes which are done really well despite the film's quality, which leads to questioning why those scenes stand out, why the quality of the rest of the film doesn't match (or maybe it does which might tell you something else), whether the film is bad as a whole together or whether individual scenes just ruin the flow etc etc
And more importantly, anyone who thinks that there are no decent mainstream films from the last 10 years shouldn't be a filmmaker.
>>
>>3955722
That's unfortunate, because I really had my hopes up. I think I might be better off getting a Sennheiser MKE600 and just using it with my old 24 bit Zoom. Any anons have input on that? I am more paranoid about having to raise audio and getting too much hiss than I'm worried about peaking.
>>
File: jpeg.jpg (179 KB, 1920x1152)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
>>3955738
>(which presumably you haven't even seen based on the reply chain)
Care to explain what gave you that idea? Dude listed ten films that include capeshit and propaganda. I, personally, would have to be lobotomised to try and force myself through half of them.
>This is such a stupid argument though because you're genuinely arguing that there's nothing to learn from contemporary films
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that you can't learn anything new from contemporary films. You can pick apart Parasite, and learn from it, but why don't you just do what Bong Joon-ho did in the first place, that is, he engorged himself in Hitchcock, and learned from him? When you go for the source you know that it's time tested, and that it works. When you go for the new, you don't know that, you'd have to have supreme judgemental abilities of foresight to see that. At worst you'd be learning wrong skills and approaches that will be outdated and scorned in the future. Take a look at shaky cam, and piss filters, for example. First is already dead, the second is still clinging, yet should you still risk going for it, or should you take the chance now and gamble that it'll all revert back to vibrancy?
>>
>>3955799
This (>>3955738) isn't me (>>3955755)
> I, personally, would have to be lobotomised to try and force myself through half of them.
Congratulations? All you're doing is making yourself look like a tryhard hipster cunt who thinks he's too cool for mainstream films.
> I'm arguing that you can't learn anything new from contemporary films.
Which is a fucking stupid thing to say.
> You can pick apart Parasite, and learn from it, but why don't you just do what Bong Joon-ho did in the first place, that is, he engorged himself in Hitchcock, and learned from him?
Because, surprisingly enough, Parasite isn't identical to any Hitchcock film and there are different lessons to be learnt. You're taking the view that nothing original has been done in the last x amount of years in film which is nonsense and not worth genuinely responding to because you're either an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about (evidenced by thinking that everything in Parasite is in a random Hitchcock film)(Hitchcock is also a complete hack but separate argument) or a contrarian who refuses to acknowledge anything recent in case it makes you seem not unique enough.
>When you go for the new, you don't know that, you'd have to have supreme judgemental abilities of foresight to see that.
Wow. Imagine forming your own opinions on things and keeping up to date with what contemporary filmmakers are doing...
>At worst you'd be learning wrong skills and approaches that will be outdated and scorned in the future.
This applies to literally any film from any decade ever. The whole point is you learn from the old to innovate in the future.
>Take a look at shaky cam, and piss filters, for example
So you choose two horrible examples and think that's the only thing to learn? Like I said, you're a fucking retard. How about advances in lighting which have come so far recently? Or use of scale and cinematography techniques? You don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>>3955805
>Because, surprisingly enough, Parasite isn't identical to any Hitchcock film and there are different lessons to be learnt.
It's not identical, but he's bringing similar approaches to story building and even scenography to the screen. Argument isn't what you can learn from Parasite, but how you can do a Parasite. And that's by studying Hitchcock. Do you want to be next Tarantino? Don't study his flicks. Do what he did, study/steal from, spaghetti wester, nazisploitation, blaxploitation, and hk action cinema. It's never done the other way around.

Also, learn to write. Nobody will take you seriously with multi quoting.
>>
>>3955809
Anyone with half a sense of artistic integrity shouldn't be trying to remake other people's films or become "the new [meme director]", they should be trying to make original films and push the medium forward.
The only way to do that is to know where contemporary artists are at. I'm sorry you're too up your own ass to acknowledge that.
>>
>>3955795
get the mic position as spot on as you can. remove all refrigerators and ac units in a 20 mi radius
>>
>>3955811
> make original films

the asspies on this board don’t know how to do original shit, they just know how to copy others and spergout about gear that they probably don’t even own
>>
I made a film with some friends, it's a sort of matrix spoof about a guy who likes toast. I think it's pretty well made and I'd like to enter it in a festival. Which festivals should I try to enter?
>>
>>3955896
sundance
>>
>>3955896
Just go on filmfreeway and do it step by step
>Step 1
Filter out to festivals that don't charge an entry fee. Apply to any that your film seems relevant to. You won't hear back from 90% of them but might get into one if your film is half decent.
>Step 2
Click on the 'discounts' box. You should find a couple of relevant festivals that offer waivers. And a bunch more offering between 30-80% off the price. Pick as many as you can afford.
>Step 3
Find out if there are any festivals in your local vicinity. Those are the only ones you should even think about paying full price for. Pick 2 at most, but only do this if you're sure your film is any good.
>step 4 (optional)
If you're just desperate to get your film into a festival, look for ones that advertise how many awards they give out and how many films they accept. These festivals are literal 'pay to win' scams. They're normally online only. Pre-covid that was a good way to weed them out. You pay the fee, they select your film, you get a laurel that you can post on social media and pretend to be a successful filmmaker. Anyone who knows anything about the industry knows that the laurel is worthless. But it will impress your family and instagram followers (and dumb actors).
You may or may not be able to easily find a discount for these festivals.
>>
>>3955795
A-anon, I have that exact mic too, with the f6.
What exactly will you be recording?
>>
>>3955937
The MKE or the NTG? Dialogue is my main concern, but I do a lot of foley, too. The foley on my most recent film seems like it has a bit more hiss to it than I'd like, but this is my first time really noticing it. What's your experience?
>>
>>3954183
it's actually the fault of nepotism in hollywood
>>
>>3955805
you are a slave
>>
>>3955971
MKE600.
I don't like it personally for voice. But just getting the mic closer is going to beat certain gear.
For me the 32bit float is purely for not needing to care about setting the gain and the ability to still have usable recording if it clips.
If the sound you record doesn't blend with the background noise or noisefloor, I've been able to remove it enough with noise reduction.
>>
File: 1630847651751.jpg (181 KB, 1500x1500)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
What are some filmmaking sites/channels that are actually about making films and not just fucking camera reviews and spec babble?
https://youtu.be/f6GNWCayPOI
>>
>>3956805
Meet the Gaffer. Very practical on set lighting demonstrations
>>
>>3956805
I like this episode, especially his fail attempt at the in the end. Dude is a faggot, so make sure to skip everything that's not on topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5POb5fQ4BYM
>>
>>3956818
Btw, books is definitely worth reading. You have it on ligben in pdf, I personally reformatted it from some ungodly format. It's readable, just don't expect polish.
>>
Your November Issue of American Cinematographer is here
https://transfer.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac1121/offline/ac_ac1121.pdf
>>
>>3956805
If you want to see actual professionals talking about stuff you pretty much have to go on smaller forums
>>
Random question but does anyone have any de-esser tips?
Have a really bad case, tried using presets which helped but not enough. I'm using dodgy software so I can't easily download a plugin. So far, the most effective thing I can do seems to be to try and heal using a spectograph and pinpointing places where there's a weird hiss. But this doesn't get everything and is extremely time-consuming
>>
Do you need Full Frame to be taken seriously as a professional? I know it sounds like a very trivial and superficial question. I know that your equipment doesn't make you a better filmmaker. I always thought that bigger is better, and that is why I bought a full frame camera for myself instead of a cheaper aps-c. However, the Lumix GH5 seems to be a very well respected camera for video, yet it only has a Micro Four Thirds sensor.

So I guess what I really want to know is: if you plant to become a professional, is a micro four thirds camera worth investing in?
>>
>>3957637
>Do you need Full Frame to be taken seriously as a professional?
lol no
There are idiots, just like with any profession, who will hire you based on arbitrary and stupid grounds. But whether or not your camera is full frame shouldn't make a difference (the exact model of your camera is a different issue as they'll sometimes be like "only people who shoot with a sony fx6 please!").
> So I guess what I really want to know is: if you plant to become a professional, is a micro four thirds camera worth investing in?
If it works for you and gets you results you're proud of, then sure. But if you actually 'make it' you won't be shooting with your own personal camera most of the time. If you stick to freelancing on indie films, you probably need an actual cinema camera.
>>
File: 1635686407804.png (74 KB, 796x371)
74 KB
74 KB PNG
>>3951487
What do we call this level of incompetence?
>>
>>3957833
visionary
>>
>>3957833
If it's stupid but it works, then it's not stupid
>>
>>3957833
how is this new
a lot of big films like skyfall wre shot on digital and then transfered on good old kodak 2383 for projection
now that digital projection is basically everywhere they still do the exact same and then just scan it back in for the digital delivery
>>
>>3957869
It's fucking pretentious. Moreso when there are digital plugins that can add whatever grain you want without all the waste.
>>
>>3956805
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNCiCp3PHpy_Jo-STmker-Q/videos
>>
>>3957916
why use some shitty plugin when the real thing is available and makes zero difference in the budget
>>
>>3957920
The shitty plugins are visually indistinguishable from real grain. Continue coping, filmfag.
>>
>>3957923
keep telling that to yourself, poorfag
>>
>>3957923
this
just call hollywood and tell them they're retards for not just using FilmConvert
get 10% off with the link in the description below
>>
>>3957925
Continue staying irrelevant and beaten, filmtard, digital technology has replaced you and no amount of fake scanning is bringing it back.
>>
File: 20211031_132025.jpg (2.67 MB, 4032x2268)
2.67 MB
2.67 MB JPG
My shotgun mic's case is obnoxiously long, does anyone have any ideas on fitting this in my camera bag?
Im considering getting a 13-14"x11" pelican/hard case just for my sound kit, but I'm trying to find the lowest profile way to store my shotgun mic, I'm thinking outside the box like a tube-like sleeve
>>
>>3957934
it's very common to use one of these cardboard tubes they use to ship things like posters
Cut it to the right length, staple one of the lids shut and fill it with rolled up foam till the mic is snug
>>
File: 1632532361598.jpg (45 KB, 480x480)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>3957923
Filmconvert isn't convincing. Red Giant isn't convincing. Dehancer comes pretty close, but I have still never seen a film emulation program that is indistinguishable. For indies the big advantage you get from software is that you have maximum control over the details, but if you have a blockbuster budget for it, you can make that happen anyway, so why not go for authentic? The only issue you actually have with this process is the picture you put in your own head of the director smugly jacking himself off over it.
>>
>>3958052
Why spend a fuckton of money on software to fake the film look, if you shoot something on digital just embrace the digital. 99% of people watching a movie care more about wether or not the story was a good story, and not about what it was shot on. Autists here probably would care about stuff that most movie goers would not see.
>>
>>3958116
>I like that thing but let's leave it out because some people will not notice it and won't care, so why even make it as good as I can
that's the ngmi attitude
>>
>>3957869
>a lot of big films like skyfall wre shot on digital and then transfered on good old kodak 2383 for projection

Different thing. It was shot on digital, then film was only used for projection. This shit was done on digital, projected to film for muh colours, then edited and projected on digital.
>>
>>3957833
the Lars Von Trier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPmWixRLFPQ
>>
>>3958118
So in other words if somebody has a shirt script that nobody likes because it’s garbage they blame it not being shot on film as the reason nobody liked the pile of shit they produced … this seems like the typical Hollywood director’s mindset …
>>
>>3958153
no
>>
>>3958118
I’m a script writer so I give a fuck about a great well written story; I don’t care about what type of grain it has or what camera it was shot on—unless, of course, the type of camera it was shot on is important to the story, and the camera that was used to shoot the film usually doesn’t matter for anything that’s not a found footage horror story.!
>>
>>3958129
explain please
>>
>>3958235
Breaking The Waves was shot on film, then transferred to video, then back to film
>>
>>3958264
and in Medea, they filmed a tv monitor that played the movie
>>
>>3952214
>I want something I can't afford
Many such cases. You're looking at $15k minimum for anything worthwhile.
>>
File: 20211101_132908.jpg (858 KB, 2880x2880)
858 KB
858 KB JPG
>>3957934
>>3957936
I was considering it and remembered I kept a tube in my trunk just in case for a year now, it can keep my mic and foam dead cat perfectly In place, although I'll probably use a pool noodle instead of my dead cat since it's a tight squeeze, and I don't want to tear off the hairs
Thanks anon

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2880
Image Height2880
Image OrientationUnknown
>>
what do i do if i need to record the sound of someone screaming really loudly, but i don't want my neighbors to call the police
>>
I’m just getting into using my DSLR for video and have a couple retard questions.

1. What’s a good value gimbal for slow walkthrough tour type shots
2. Redpill me on these cine/T lenses, what’s the difference to those over standard DSLR lenses?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPod touch
Camera Software15.0.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:11:02 09:01:46
Exposure Time1/33 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating40
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness4.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.30 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3264
Image Height2448
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1635798476566.jpg (704 KB, 828x1304)
704 KB
704 KB JPG
>>3957833
Why should I watch a movie on large screen imax, when the quality it was shot in was downgraded, from large format into lowly fool frame format?
>>
>>3958312
T lenses tell you exactly how much light passes through the lens. F numbers are just about meh bokeh and not about how much light actually goes through the lenses. Cine lenses have gears to put a follow focus on, and a large focus throw to make manual focus easier. Photo lenses need gears added. Cine lenses usually have better iq then photo lenses, but Cine lenses tend to cost as much as a new car and photo lenses are much cheaper and if you are new to cinematography you can get away with a photo lens and you don’t really need a Cine lens. If you have an mft camera you can get a reasonably priced Cine lens from slr magic or meike. If you have any other questions about lenses just ask.

Pic related: some Cine lenses

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height2000
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: coffee foot.jpg (8 KB, 261x216)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>3958343
I see. I will be sticking with my normal lenses then of course. Really want to get the Bentax 14mm but it's a thousand bucks so maybe I'll start with my 10-17mm fishy and see how that goes

Thanks for your help anon
>>
Thoughts on the Zoom F6?
>>
File: 00450002.jpg (764 KB, 2048x1365)
764 KB
764 KB JPG
>>3958443
It's awesome. Some argue it's awesomer than the SD MixPre 6 and some argue it isn't, but in any case it's awesome. I personally use a DR-70D for recording ambience which I think is the bees tits and works perfectly for my needs. Depends what you do. I don't get any discernible preamp noise from my Tascam but will someday upgrade to either the F6 or MixPre 6.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeMAKER NAME
Camera ModelSJ4000
Camera SoftwareAperture 3.4.5
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:05:01 00:45:44
Exposure Time1/3215 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Brightness1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeAverage
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1365
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3958447
>I personally use a DR-70D
Not the one you're replying to, but we recently got that one too and there's one problem with it. When we plug the USB into a laptop and select storage mode, after pulling out the plug the tascam simply switches off. Does the same happen to your recorder?
>>
>>3958452
I think it does but why's that a problem? I usually eject it, turn it off, and then unplug it anyway.

Also you just remound me to check and see if there are any new firmware updates
>>
>>3958443
Small and 32bit float.
"Fire and forget" sort of setup.
>>
>>3958453
idk the way it switches off with the screen getting visibly interrupted seems like a bug if not a malfunction to me. And the fact that the latest update is from 2017 kind of tells me tascam doesn't care much about the model anymore compared to its bigger brother 701d.
>>
>>3958456
I think the instructions say to power the unit off before unplugging anyway. It's using the USB cable for power while in Storage mode. I don't think it's going to cause any problems but I baby mine and turn it off before unplugging.

It's a pretty nice unit especially for the price
>>
>>3958461
>It's using the USB cable for power while in Storage mode
Well that maybe explains it. Probably should've read the manual more accurately.
>>
>>3958312

1. One of those small Ronins will do just fine, ideally that new one, the motors are strong enough to hold a Sony FX6 so if you ever upgrade to a non-dslr you’ll still be able to use it.

2. If you’re shooting on a dslr and planning to do gimbal tracking shots, look into getting geared lenses at least (if not full on cine lenses) - such as Samyangs - and perhaps also a wireless follow focus system - something like the Tilta Nucleus M or N ( the M is considerably better but the N is much cheaper of course)
>>
What would happen if I submit a film with copywritten music to film festivals? Could I get away with it?

I made a film with my friends a couple months ago and I wanna submit it to some small festivals where I think we have a shot to win. We made it just for fun so we didnt really care about the music and just put in stuff we liked from other movies. Theres also lots of sound effects from video games (gunshots) and movies in there.

Obviously we dont have the rights to any of this. Could we get away with it at these small festivals? I just dont wanna get sued.
>>
>>3951487
Living in a shitty 3rd world country you can guess which one, is the fotga ND filter good? Any alternatives with the same price? Poorfriend btw btw
>>
>>3958668
I'm not a lawyer and I've never tried this so take the following with a grain of salt.
Obscure music: you could definitely get away with except for when you don't. If you get caught, you run potential copyright risks (unlikely though since you're not being paid, presumably, and they need to issue a c&d first). The bigger risk is the festival blacklisting you since you'll then be someone whose content is always under suspicion in their eyes. And festivals tend to talk to each other.
Famous/well-known music: Any established festival will reject your submission immediately without clear-cut evidence that you have the rights. Really small festivals probably won't care, but these are the sorts of festivals where you have to apply with written application forms and the jury is 6 people who play bridge together while complaining about the damn kids on their skateboards

You can probably find somewhere that will play it if you really care. But, personally, I wouldn't. Just shove it on vimeo (youtube will fuck you before you've finished uploading) and schedule a private screening with your friends if you really want.
>>
>>3958672
Its on YouTube and its been claimed. I did have a showing at a freinds house. I think I will probably make an edit and swap out the music for royalty free stuff. Getting blacklisted from festivals sounds awful.
>>
>>3958116
Lots of people like the look and physicality of film, so they add that to their image even if it isn't possible or practical to shoot on real film for whatever reason. When they go digital they also crop their shots, grade their image, stabilize it, etc. instead of relying on whatever natural look they get out of it, which I assume you probably wouldn't have a problem with. You're the one being autistic by acting like you can't wrap your head around why someone might do this.
>>
>>3954871
I'll help you out, why not.
>You should have a meeting with the client to discuss details about the project expectations.
>You should have done your homework on them (how big are they? how much do they sell their courses for?) this will help you figure out the price because you can look at it as how much value you're bringing to them.
>You should leave the meeting in agreement of terms (how many videos, how long each one is (even generally)).
>You should put that in a legal agreement (tons of youtubers have legal templates - Tropicolor has one).
>Have then sign agreement.
>Do work. Get paid.
>They get nothing that's not in the agreement. They want more they pay more.
Just respect yourself and your client more and do BUSINESS. If they don't respect you for that then fuck em.
>Onto the next.
>>
>>3958480
>One of those small Ronins
apparently not compatible at all with Pentax cameras :[
>>
>>3958796
what compatibility do you need exactly
>>
File: a.gif (2.26 MB, 600x337)
2.26 MB
2.26 MB GIF
>>3958802
well it'll hold the camera but won't link to it so i guess you have to put it down and make all your camera adjustments on the camera itself, but i guess that's kinda not a huge deal

the Ronins look good but considering the cost I could literally buy a DJI Pocket 2 plus the Freewell lens/ND filter kit and get similar results (I'm not making films I'm going on pretty walks)
>>
>>3958443
>>3958447
>>3958455
Yeah agreed it's awesome. I was hired as a sound op when I just got started and they provided me with an F6 to use. Had a great time with it, currently saving up to upgrade to my own F6 from the H5 I've been using for student films.
>>
where can I get some good royalty free music for my film? There isn't very much good stuff on youtube and downloading it with a youtube to mp3 website is kinda sus.
>>
>>3959239
Kevin Macleod
>>
>>3959242
actually?
>>
>>3954871
Retain the rights, let them licence your materials for a specific ad campaign with a defined start and end. No clue about pricing - it depends on a lot of factors.
>>
File: 1635084655012.jpg (50 KB, 720x724)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
Do I save up my money for a 4k Blackmagic pocket camera or should I just get a GH4 or G7 and use the leftover money on lights and equipment? I like the idea of shooting in RAW video but I feel like 4k LOG is almost as good. I'm only 20 years old and this'd be the first camera I own
>>
>>3959239
https://freemusicarchive.org/home
>>
>>3959289
>I'm only 20 years old and this'd be the first camera I own
Buy a shitty camera for less than $400 first.
>>
>>3959289
I'd go with g85. No doubt that bmpc4k will have better quality on the long run, but I think that it's better to start with something more versatile to start with. You get actually working af and ibis instead of raw. But know that you do not get v-log. You don't get it with g7 as well. You need to go to gh4.
>>
>dick around with an mx-1 and edit using shotcut for years
>After acquiring a reflector and lights and tripods/lightstands and a softbox and a big ass umbrella, finally buy a g85
>cannot preview my edits for shit on shotcut
>think maybe resolve will help since it uses gpu power, PC has an r9 270 or 280 or 370 can't remember, 4790k, 8 gb ram, keep video files on ssd while editing
>some weird error pops up when I try to start resolve
I'm going to try reinstalling but can I edit 4k on this or am I fucked?
>>
im an absolute retard when it comes to cameras, I only know how I want my film and images to look. I'm gonna shoot a short on a sony a7 III and wondered if I should shoot in S-Log 2/3 or not if I'm gonna turn it B&W in post later
>>
>>3959465
It honestly won't make much of a difference. If you're 100% certain that you're delivering in b&w I would even recommend shooting it like that in camera (helps with noise to a minor degree - there's some complicated sciencey reason why it will look a bit better than desaturating it in post).
Bottom line: don't freak out over it, just make sure your image is correctly exposed and in focus and you'll be fine
>>
>>3959330
>can I edit 4k
Your system is far from ideal, most software recommends at least 16gigs of ram for 4k editing.
But there are a few things you can try. The video compression right from the camera may be too taxing, so you can try transcoding to a format that is more easy to decode. Alternatively consider editing proxy files and then export with high quality files.
>>
>>3959640
If it's just the memory two sticks of 8 is like $50 right now I think. Might just try that.
What's the minimum system if I don't want to transcode? Would whatever latest $250 Ryzen and 16 gigs do the trick?
>>
>>3959239
Incomputech is where I used to get some stuff. Extensive moods and styles. I still pull from it sometimes if I'm shitposting.
>>
>>3959717
Start with 16gig ram, it's minimum on for resolve. With your specs you shouldn't have problems on 4k otherwise, unless you've some low mem gpu as well.
>>
>>3959775
ohhhh, that's probably why resolve won't start lol. I was thinking if it's not enough I can just add on a CPU/mobo but my mobo is DDR3.
>>
Thinking of "pulling the trigger" on a GH5II - the delay of the GH6 is enough to make me want to settle.

Now... I've been thinking of audio solutions.
I like how the Rode Wireless Go works, or specifically how you can get a thing that can turn it into like a reporter's microphone, which is what would be excellent.

I know Panasonic make an XLR adaptor for the hotshoe, but I don't think anything XLR is really necessary, unless I went to do recordings of musical performances, when audio quality does matter more.

So.. What are good shotgun mic recommendations you have? I'm not looking at anything for vlogging, just non-fiction video genres, where on-location audio that isn't done with the built-in mic would be nice.
>>
>>3959315
Looks like g85, Sony a6400 and Fujifilm xt-3 all shoot log and have either 10 bit or 4:2:2 color. Gonna get one of these used for around $700-800.
>>
>>3957833
This is literally peak dishonest cinema. And I hate buzzwords
>>
>>3960041
Notice how it says, "Fraser shot Dune one the Alexa LF", but Villeneuve then transferred the image onto 35mm film". Fraser is washing his hands on this one.
>>
>>3960041
You're literally peak retarded
>>
>>3960052
> what it was is that you filmed out the imagery and then you would put it through the bath, to expose it, and then you would scan that back in. Not the print of that, but the actual scan of the negative. And what that actually produced was you didn’t get something really grainy back. You could hardly tell the grain. But what it did, like it does on film, whenever you get those hot highlights, you get a certain filmic halation to anything bright, and that’s basically what I was seeing. I was seeing this analog form of halation, based on a chemical process and not a digital process. And it gave it such a quality to it. That test was something very much which Denis wanted to do

https://beforesandafters.com/2021/11/06/the-dune-visual-effects-team-used-sandscreens-instead-of-bluescreens/
>>
>>3960055
>*Buys 100 bucks tiffen black myst filter*
Keep the change bro
>>
File: copter4.gif (4.35 MB, 480x270)
4.35 MB
4.35 MB GIF
>>3960055
I'm now convinced this movie was money laundering operation...
>>
File: s-l1600.jpg (432 KB, 1200x1600)
432 KB
432 KB JPG
red one mx 4.5k for $3k aud

worth it bros?
ill need to get a lens or adapter for it
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/124845357794?hash=item1d115cfae2:g:4lgAAOSwbQ9hEQ~h
>>
>>3960180
hell no
the one is such a piece of shit and that price is a joke
>>
>>3959330
>>3959824
Screenshot the error too dude, may be something simple.

>>3959465
Work more on your lighting, if you can shoot a few lighting/color tests in S-Log that would be best.

Keep in mind that if you go for the B&W aesthetic that:
1) it fills a place in modern visual language and could be misinterpreted by audiences
2) good exposure still matters

>>3960180
not a bad price for all that's included, however a few things to keep in mind

1) It's heavy - you're going to need a tripod capable of 17lbs+ by the time all is said and done.
2) RED has a bit of a learning curve, RED One behaves more like a computer than a camera and has some downfalls (slow boot times, black shade calibration required)
3) you'll need a new mount for it unless you have PL glass. Swapping mounts on this camera is not trivial.
4) RED CF Cards kinda suck. 16gb Card won't get ya a ton of shooting.
>>
>>3960338
Can you use non-red branded cards on the red mx 1? Or are you stuck buying expensive red cards?
>>
>>3960067
A film print is nothing compared the cost of a movie
>>
>>3960347
Nah man, these hollywood producers who are wasting money on arris and reds, when they could be buying a bmp4k with lenses for less than 2 grand, are just stupid and hacks
>>
>>3960352
nah an iphone is all you need
>>
>>3960359

>an iPhone is all you need
Steven Soderbergh would agree with you.
>>
>>3960180
don't do it, that's a money pit
>>
>>3960729
Did they hack the camera so it will work with non red-branded cfast cards?
>>
>>3960730
of course not
also prepare to have the cooling fans replaced every 6 months, and keep money on the shelf for random repairs like sdi outs, buttons/screens, temperature sensors and eventually the whole sensor
>>
>>3960761
Is it’s image quality better then a new Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4k? Or would the new Blackmagic blow this camera out of the water?
>>
>>3960782
I have and love my p4k but it's not in the same league as Red or Arri. Though it's much easier to use as a solo operator and has less demanding post requirements
>>
>>3960782
The one is comparable to the pocket
maybe a tad more highlight detail but it's noisy as fuck at native iso by today's standards so you need to overexpose it and throw that out anyway
>>
>>3960343
To my knowledge you're stuck buying expensive RED cards.

switching the module over to the mini mags (expensive RED SSDs) is an option and then I think there was one third party option out there (I recall a few lawsuits over it?).

Also to note, nothing is cheap on this camera.

>>3960782
Image Quality I'd say is about equal to the One MX depending on the environment/lighting. But Image Quality isn't the only factor here.

From my memories of the RED One, takes about 6-10 minutes for the camera to boot up. It also takes 10 minutes to run black shade calibration (fixes FPN & other issues, and is a must to run). It also weighs over 20lbs once you have it fully rigged which means you need a more expensive tripod generally.

It won't work with most gimbals, so steadicam or a dolly if you want to move it around or shoulder-rig it.

You will also need to transcode all of your footage, even if you run it in the higher compressions as most NLE's won't touch REDCode RAW (I believe Resolve & Premier are the exception).

The Camera is a bit more than just an imaging device in cinema/video. It's a system.
>>
>>3960338
>Keep in mind that if you go for the B&W aesthetic that:
there's no way I can use external light and I'll just have to rely on the daylight. It might even be overcast the day I'll shoot so I don't know. I'm going for B&W because I know how it's supposed to look. I've shot ilford HP5 for 6 years now. I really don't know how proper grading should look for color. The only references are motion pictures, but it's not as easy to replicate. I never shot color on analog cameras whereas I've probably shot over 10800 stills on hp5 and developed them myself too.
luckily zebras and histograms are a thing on mirrorless cameras so i guess it's hard to mess up exposure if you rely on those
>>
>>3960023
G85 can give you very nice flimic results if you adjust the highlight and shadow controls, just keep in minds the sensor is noisy and you'll see it if your shadow curve is too much. Use Auto-ISO mode if you're not going full manual, since the aperture is not stepless.
BMPCC6k Pro or bust for me.
>>
>>3960338
I googled it, turns out it's incompatible with windows 7 and I'm trying to run it on 7. As other anon said it does list 16 gb minimum ram and I only have 8 as well.
>>
>>3961113
Which lens are you shooting with?
>>
Ages back, someone posted on here asking for advice for being a film producer. Another anon responded with really incredible advice, which I think had been copied and pasted. I'm SURE I wrote it down, but it has since gone AWOL. Does anyone know what I was talking about?

Or, does anyone have any advice to get producing films?
>>
>>3961894
a sigma 35mm 1.4. i got both the camera and the lens through amazon refund scam. i've literally never had a digital camera before, i've only shot analog and sony handycams with 8mm video cassettes for filmmaking.
>>
whats the processing here besides desaturation and boosted orange/yellow vibrancy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeK4F61Ie_k&ab_channel=zackdagoba

looks fucking slick
>>
File: wp-content-2.jpg (304 KB, 1382x922)
304 KB
304 KB JPG
How in the GODDAMN does anyone transport these shits around? I don't have money for a pelican case big enough to dedicate just to this bitch and the cardboard box it came in is falling apart fast
>>
>>3962507
Forget photo or gear bags, you need a proper hiking pack for that shit. And yes it will become a scratch and dent gradually over time but there's no reason it should get properly damaged.

At least in my experience I don't like to carry anything in my hands, it all goes in my pack. Pic semi-relates, my old rig. I now have a slightly bigger pack but also different gear.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX
Camera ModelPENTAX K-50
Camera SoftwareArcSoft PhotoStudio
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:05:02 14:38:04
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashFlash
Focal Length18.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1355
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeClose View
>>
>>3961142
adjust how? standard or low contrast in highlight shadow?
>>
This mv feels so sooc. Am I right in thinking it just needs a better grade? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCuVqnNynUk
>>
>>3962530
the grade is the least problem with this
the worst ist the shitty very flat lighting making it look very cheap
>>
>>3952312
Elaborate, please. I want to do something similar but want to hear from people who've done it. My plan is to:

Make an Epicly Later'd (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nnl8Vxzn7w) kind of mini-doc about a local that's pretty wacky and use it as my personal portfolio and get sweet bucks.

My gear is shit but it could work for my needs:
1 Canon EOS 60D
1 Zoom H1
1 Desktop with picrel (OP for my gear lol)

Ideally, I would get funding from the state, state Uni or one of the local newspapers to keep going and turn it into a job so I can stop being a fucking NEET.
>>
File: speccy.png (124 KB, 822x745)
124 KB
124 KB PNG
>>3962719
I forgor
>>
>>3962528
Are you the /out/friend?
If so, nice YT channel.
>>
File: iu[1].jpg (115 KB, 1000x895)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
ok /p/, i come searching knowledge so i hope this is the right general
my uncle left me a stack of 8mm home movies in his will, and i want to digitize all of this before it degrades further
i know there are services that will do this, but when i contacted one they said their method was basically to project the film onto a screen, then use a modern digital camera to film the screen
is that as good as the digitization process gets? theres no frame by frame film scanners or someshit?
>>
>>3962901
You can do it yourself properly by buying a machine for around $400
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgXw9EOuXZM
Or you can find a proper lab to do it for you
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/buying-guide/guide-scanning-motion-picture-film
This was literally a 5 second google search. Be less lazy
>>
>>3962529
I don't have the camera anymore, it's a picture setting which adjusts the shadow and highlight curves, you can find tutorials easily online.
>>
>>3962906
That actually looks pretty good. I "converted" my old family films by shooting off the screen at 24fps with a slow shutter. It was good enough.

If I wanted more quality, I'd get something like a FLIR USB3 color machine vision camera with a trigger input, and find a way to hack the projector so a pulse is sent whenever the shutter is open. Stick a macro lens on the camera and mount it to the lens mount so it's looking at the film gate. Last I looked, it was about $800 for a USB3 camera capable of doing real-time HD capture at 24fps. This sounds expensive, but it's nothing compared to the per-foot cost of a telecine conversion.
>>
I want some headphones for video editing. Right now I'm using gamer headphones which are huge and make me look silly so I want something a little more professional. My budget is around $100. Right now I'm looking at the Tascam TH-06 Bass XL monitoring headphones. They look really nice and they have pretty good ratings on B&H.
>>
>>3963236
shp 9500
>>
I want to become a colorist for people who are just doing normal corporate videos and not high end multimillion dollar commercials. What monitor should I get that is both very color accurate and affordable? Preferably an HDR monitor so I can make HDR content,
>>
>>3963238
the people you're aiming at usually don't hire an external colorist, so there's no clients for you
>>
>>3963254
They also don't do HDR.
>>
>>3963266
well that's a given, since almost no one at all does HDR
>>
Thought it'd be interesting to add the following to the sticky. According to cinema 5d (CineD), these are the dynamic ranges of a few cameras.
Snr = signal noise ratio.
Snr1 can basically be ignored but I included it when they did just for interest
Arri Alexa - 14 (snr2)
Arri classic - 13.8 (snr2) 14.8 (snr1)
Arri alexa mini lf - 13.5 (snr2) 14.7 (snr1)
Canon c300 mkiii - 12.8 (snr2)
Panasonic s1h - 12.7 (snr2)
Red Komodo 6k - 12.5 (snr2) 13.6 (snr1)
Panasonic s5 - 12.1 (snr2)
Sony a1 - 11.9 (snr2)
Ursa Mini Pro 12k - 11.8 (snr2)12.8 (snr1)
Sony a7siii - 12.8 (snr1) 11.6 (snr1)
Panasonic BGh1 - 11.6 (snr2) 12.7 (snr1)
Sony Fx9 - 11.5 (snr2) 12.7 (snr1)
Sony FX6 - 11.4 (snr2) 12.6 (snr1)
Sigma FP iso1250 - 11.3 (snr2) 12.8 (snr1)
Sigma FP iso100 - 11.2 (snr2) 11.8 (snr1)
Z-cam e2 - 10.8 (snr2) 11.9 (snr1)
Canon r5 - 10.8(snr2) 11.8 (snr1)
Canon r6 - 10.5 (snr2)
Panasonic GH5ii - 10.5 (snr2) 11.5 (snr1)
Panasonic GH5 - 9.7 (snr2) 10.7 (snr1)
>>
>>3963277
are those numbers in stops?
>>
>>3963280
yes
>>
File: 1636521574615.jpg (34 KB, 699x485)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>3963277
>Panasonic BGh1 beating fool frame sensors
>>
>>3962528
Not that guy, but I use a pelican and bike trailer, shooting school and amateur sports.
>>
>>3963277
sonyfags are seething
>>
I am trying to export some vertical 9:16 video but all the movement in it creates artifacts. The footage is a mix of 720p and 1080p at 60fps, 30fps and 24fps. The sequence is 720p at 24fps. Some of the footage looks fine but then some of the it does not. All footage shot at 24fps looks fine but footage at higher frame rates creates weird lines in the movement.
>>
>>3963402
I fixed it. The lesson is dont mix and match stuff. I had to slow down the faster footage to make it all the same frame rate and that got the artifacts to go away. 80% of 30fps is 24fps and 40% of 60fps is 24fps in case anyone is wondering.
>>
>>3962864
y-yes I am, thanks anon
>>
File: gumball.gif (3.6 MB, 600x337)
3.6 MB
3.6 MB GIF
this gimbal shit is hard work. i'm too tired after work to really get much practice in so i'll have to hit it hard this weekend. my shots are all fucking trash. i guess flying through the house is pretty advanced stuff with the camera having to turn all different directions at the right time but dang. I need a gimbal mentor to come over here and show me some pointers ':[
>>
>>3963892
I'll come over for let's say $900 a day
>>
File: content-prod-190865.jpg (158 KB, 1500x1500)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
>>3962864
>>3963440
Post link and thanks for the idea fren :) I already keep a backpack for my "Everything else" stuff and keep my recorders in a pelican(Apache case), but maybe I could keep another backpack just for booming and one for other stuff
>>3963318
Hmmm I do have this bigass cloth wagon that comes with a little sunroof, its for dogs and small kids but it also fits in my car when folded up, do you bike your gear to set or just lug it?
>>
>>3964080
>do you bike your gear to set or just lug it?
I could, but the reason to use the trailer to set up shoot, ride across the park, set up, shoot, ride across the park, etc for coverage
>>
File: IMGP2301.jpg (1.03 MB, 2048x1355)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB JPG
>>3964080
no probs anon. here's link

https://www.youtube.com/mjcrecordingsaudio

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX
Camera ModelPENTAX K-50
Camera SoftwareAperture 3.4.5
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:12:12 18:22:11
Exposure Time30 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1355
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
File: Resolve.png (48 KB, 597x255)
48 KB
48 KB PNG
https://twitter.com/Blackmagic_News/status/1461148860047192065
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=151011
>>
Kinocheck;
What's the last film you saw that you thought was kino?
>>
>>3964258
zulawski’s l’amour braque
>>
>>3963277
Anyone have numbers for the D780? I have a D750 and a good set of lenses, it'd be nice to keep using the lenses.
>>
New sticky
https://ghostbin.com/JuUzz
>>
File: Henry.and.June.jpg (217 KB, 1920x1080)
217 KB
217 KB JPG
>>3964258
Effectively softcore with Uma and other HW bigshots. No story to speak off, but quality lightwork.
>>
>>3964258
Billy Wilder's The Apartment. dunc was pretty good, too
>>
Yo black magic dude when I upgraded to the latest resolve on Linux braw stopped working. Is their a way to fix braw or should I just use the older version of resolve on Linux which supports braw until the newest resolve supports braw. How do I debug resolve so I can figure out why braw stopped working when I upgraded to the newest version of resolve.
>>
>>3964334
De Palma shot on location in WTC in the biggest firm at the time. Wide angle as well.


Oliver Stone rented space in skyscraper and built a set, it still wasn't as impressive as that, apparently small, set in LA with cardboard miniatures in the back rows.
>>
>>3964259
First Reformed. I love nihilistic films. It was made by the writer of Taxi Driver. It’s an awesome film.
>>
>>3964415
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux,
is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component
of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell
utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day,
without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU
which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are
not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a
part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system
that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself;
it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is
normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system
is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux"
distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
>>
bump limit reached, new thread
>>3964542
>>3964542
>>
>>3964543
has it?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.