File: IMG_2778.jpg (697 KB, 1571x1178)

697 KB JPG

>>4307820

Is the Roger Deakins dream cam. The Arri Alexa Studio with the mechanical shutter (not the electronic shutter) and optical view finder, a global shutter camera. What advantages do you get from having a real mechanical shutter in the camera rather then an electronic shutter? The advantage of an optical viewfinder is it looks cool and what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) without any lag time to put a signal on an electronic shutter. Why don’t they make more digital video cameras with optical viewfinders and real mechanical shutters. (Is their an advantage that an electronic shutter would offer people?)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 70D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:10:30 12:23:20
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/13.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1571
Image Height	1178
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4307826
>Why don’t they make more digital video cameras with optical viewfinders
Optical viewfinders in a video camera can be done in one of two ways as far as I'm aware. Either you have a mechanical shutter that you sync with/attach to a mirror, much like in an slr, and the viewfinder is showing the image between the camera's recording of frames. This has the downsides associated with using a mechanical shutter and means the image you're seeing is flickering and not technically the same as the image being recorded.
The alternative way is to use an optical splitter, to split the light that comes in from the lens so that some of it goes to the sensor, and some of it goes to a secondary source. This what they do with most analogue video cameras. The problem is that this reduces the amount of light coming in from the lens, thus making picture quality worse.
Instead. when the image fed to the monitor/evf is identical to the one being recorded, delayed by a couple of frames, most DPs and camera operators find this to be a much preferred solution/
>and real mechanical shutters
Mechanical shutters are moving parts. Moving parts break. If you have a mechanical shutter, your camera will need servicing a lot more frequently. When you're on a large film set, that's potentially millions being lost if the camera shits itself in the middle of the day.
One of the advantages of digital cameras is that they don't need to use mechnical shutters

>>4307828
> millions of dollars lost if it shits the bed because of problems with the mechanical shutter

I guess it is for autists that lust after gear and not Hollywood dops. Is the fact that Roger Deakins loves that camera a fact or is it just a meme?

>>4307826

The Arri viewfinder isn't very good, at least not the one that is on Amira and Mini. Genuinely hard to pull focus with it if you are doing work without a 1st AC. I'd love to test the optical viewfinder.

>>4307835
> viewfinder isn’t that good
I thought everything arri made would be of the highest quality given what it costs to buy.

>>4307844
Some companies are very aware that if they charge more, it will be perceived to be of higher quality.
The entire cinema camera market relied on this for decades until canon accidentally fucked up their business model when they flippantly put 1080p video into a dslr meant for photography.

>>4307847
But Arri’s lenses the master primes and ultra primes are top-tier quality and their zeiss/arri macro lenses are also top-tier quality.

The real company that shook everything up is Blackmagic Design. If you wanted your old canon camera to work for video you needed to hack it with magic lantern to make it into a video making beast.

I heard that the color science on the arri is the goat is that true?

>>4307826
OVF isn't WYSIWYG, lol

>>4307867
When I said WYSIWYG I was talking about the colors that the camera is capturing from the lens because I am a colorist. EVFs will always distort the colors. Without an Optical Viewfinder, you’d need to rent something from FSI or buy something from FSI and have your Flanders calibrated to make sure that the colors you were seeing were accurate to what was on-set. If you aren’t a colorist, you probably wouldn’t care. But if you want to grade the image it is helpful to know how the colors actually looked when the scene was filmed and an optical viewfinder would let you see the accurate colors getting captured by the camera.

>>4307858
No shade towards arri's lenses or cinema lenses in general.
HOWEVER
Vintage photography lenses used to be cheap as piss until about ten years ago when everyone realised how amazing they were, combined with the blowup in "content creators" using dslr/mlcs. Those vintage lenses produce great images. They aren't cinema lenses because they aren't optimised in a way that DoPs would prefer.
The same goes for normal stills lenses. The canon nifty 50 is still a great lens. It's cheap as fuck.
Cinema lenses are the price they're at because that's what people expect them to cost.
>The real company that shook everything up is Blackmagic Design
Everyone has shook things up since. The point is that canon accidentally opened pandora's box with the 5dii.
But yes, blackmagic has consistently been proving that cinema shit can be a lot cheaper without sacrificing quality. Their 17k camera should embarrass the shit out of arri

>>4307872
So, I’m 10 years too late. I could have gotten a set of super baltars 10 years ago for a few hundred bucks not the price of a car. The image quality of the 40mm macro kit lens from Nikon gives my expensive cinema lenses a run for their money. I heard rumors that the glass from that lens was rehoused and turned into a cinema lens by one of the major players either Arri or Panavision—is that rumor true?

>>4307872
>Their 17k camera should embarrass the shit out of arri
Overheard at work: "Maybe Nikon will make them stop chasing K's and work on IQ for once."
Not that I know anything, I'm in the engineering department here.
>>4307878
You don't even need a re-house, 3d printed focus gears are a thing. You can stick enough plastic on a lens to make it *look* re-housed.

>>4307880
Unrehoused without a mount and without good optics you’d spend more then $5,000 for a set of super baltars with some lens that have fungus. If you wanted copies without fungus and proper mounts for modern cameras they’d cost $30,000 for a set and if you wanted them rehoused with proper cinema gears they’d cost you $70,000 or more for the set. So you are saying I could have gotten good clean super baltars that worked on a camera for less then $5,000 for a set of lenses. I started looking for lenses 10 years too late.

>>4307882
>super baltars
Get in on Soviet glass while you can.

>>4307884
I collect Helios lenses. They cost $60 per lens and I love the bokeh they produce.

>>4307880
>Maybe Nikon will make them stop chasing K's and work on IQ for once.
I'm very curious. But this is a sensor they say they developed themselves (compared to the other sensors in their cameras that they bought off the self essentially).
They rate the Pyxis sensor as having 13 stops of dr. CineD rated it at 12.9 at snr1, and 11.8 at snr2.
They claim the new sensor has 16 stops. If the same logic holds, that would put it above 14 stops for snr2, which would put it above every other camera aside from the Alexa 35 (including the alexa lf). Now that's obviously a huge if but it's at least very realistic to assume that the dynamic range will be considerably better than the one in the Pyxis which is already pretty decent.

>>4307886
The only reason why Blackmagic can deliver usable 12k or 17k. They make Resolve an NLE so they can make sure that the 12k or 17k raw file is handled properly so it can be edited without bogging the system down.

>>4307844

Outside of the viewfinder being mediocre, I agree. But it just isn't very good. It is better than what most competitors have, but the problem for me is that if your eye isn't pressed "correctly" in a very specific way to the viewfinder, you can't tell for sure if your focus is absolutely correct or not. The viewing angle on the EV is not great, which sucks if you want to do handheld and use the viewfinder. I don't know if they fixed it for the S35, unfortunately I have not shot or assisted that camera yet.

>But yes, blackmagic has consistently been proving that cinema shit can be a lot cheaper without sacrificing quality. Their 17k camera should embarrass the shit out of arri

Their hardware is unreliable, especially the lower end cameras. That is the downside of them keeping their prices so low.

File: dune2-helios.jpg (42 KB, 639x330)

42 KB JPG

>>4307885
OH yah I heard about dune2. Picrel.
>>4307886
I didn't get into the details. There's hardware and software in the workflow, and I'm only involved with the software part, which has been problematic. Some projects won't have us using the Red GPU accelerated debayer, for example.

>>4307892
I got them way before dune 2 was around, they used to sell dirt cheap on amazon. I haven’t looked for them in a while but I but the price is going to go up because of dune.

I also got a lomogroaphy bokeh control lens and a modified 100 year old petzval lens because I just love the look of swirly bokeh.

I shoot music videos so I am after crazy bokeh to make my music videos unique.

I love my lomography bokeh control art petzval lens because you can dial in the strength of the swirl in the swirly bokeh and I find that awesome.

I am looking for a lens that makes totally round bokeh so it looks like a circle of bokeh forms something that looks like a black hole around the subject. I haven’t found a lens that does that effect yet.

>>4307835
If the viewfinder is hard to use. How do pros who use arri cameras pull focus on sets that cost over $10,000 usd an hour to shoot on where getting proper focus is critical. What tricks do they use to pull focus?

>>4308358
>What tricks do they use to pull focus?
The camera operator doesn't pull focus on large sets. The first ac is typically in charge of pulling focus.
They have a special wireless external monitor with a focus ring attached to its side that lets them precisely adjust the focus without interrupting the camera operator or bothering the director.

>>4308358

The 1st AC aka focus puller pulls focus. Nowadays wireless transmitters & monitors are the standard so the focus puller pulls away from the camera with a wireless follow focus unit. All good focus pullers & especially old school focus pullers don't rely just on the monitor, they know distances just by looking/with instinct and they can nail focus even without looking at the monitor. Which is sometimes the only way to nail focus, even with a zero latency monitor you can sometimes be too late/your timing is wrong if you are not monitoring the action with your own eyes.

Operator/DP if he's self operating doesn't usually pull focus unless the production is really small. And really small productions don't usually shoot on Arris. From my experience documentaries are the exception and on those you often pull your own focus because the budget is so small. It is a shame that the EVF isn't very good, because form wise Arri Amira is a really good body that is made for handheld documentary work.

>>4308373
>>4308377

So on large sets the cinematographer uses the EVF to frame the shot not to get focus on the shot. Does the cinematographer even set up the lights to light the shot or does the director do that? It seems like they have specialists to do everything on larger sets.

>>4308406
>Does the cinematographer even set up the lights to light the shot or does the director do that?
Pretty sure the gaffer is in charge of that.
DP tells the gaffer and grips what to do. Director talks with the dp in advance about what they're going to do. On set, the director's main job is to guide the actor's through the scene properly. But they'll also converse with the dp, camera operator and 1st ad about shots and set ups in general.

>>4308406
Oh also, unions are a thing. So you're kind of right about the specialists for everything.
To give an example: because of unions, a hollywood production literally isn't allowed to have anyone on set playback any recorded footage except for the DIT. If you don't hire one, you're fucked because pissing off the unions will basically end your production in an instant.
And yes, I literally mean the act of pressing the play button on your camera or external monitor. An act that a literal child would be capable of performing.

>>4308410
DITs do a lot more than that. They're responsible for data management on set. It's an important role, if not very high up the ladder.

Rules are strict on set but for good reasons. It's not like forbidden for one department to help another necessarily, just isn't commonly done because everyone is on top of their shit. That said, there is the saying among gaffers and DPs, "the heaviest thing we carried today was... the art department."

>>4308377
What would you recommend for a documentary?

>>4308429
I'm not saying DITs aren't important. But that the director or DP literally isn't allowed to press the play button on the camera without the DIT's expressed permission (or at all if there's no DIT on set) is fucking retarded and a perfect example of why unions cause costs to balloon and impede production.

>>4308503
This explains why a film me and my friends could make for 10k or less costs 100k or more if Hollywood makes it.

I always thought it was the costs of permits but the costs of hiring union workers to press play also explains why costs are so high too.

File: 1712783477046730.gif (3.25 MB, 336x480)

3.25 MB GIF

How does this look for a beginner lighting rig for interviews:
1x Aputure Amaran 200x S
1x Matthews medium duty stand
1x Aputure Lantern 90

>>4308513
Blumhouse manages to do well shooting low budget union

File: 1256046354014.gif (942 KB, 320x240)

942 KB GIF

>>4308523
I forgot to mention that I plan on getting:
2x Amaran 100x S
1x Light Dome II
2x Light Dome Mini II
2x Matthews medium duty stands

for traditional 3 light interviews. Eventually.

>>4308527
How? Don’t Unions try to get as much money as possible from filmmakers.

File: 1584654851000.gif (1.72 MB, 666x716)

1.72 MB GIF

>>4308582
Yeah, I'm sure it's the grips dragging production down lol. Producer hands typed this.

>>4308503

This must be a Hollywood thing, there are definitely DIT's where I work but of course the operator, DP, or one of the camera assistants can push playback if they want and need to.

>>4308474

Recommend what? A camera for a documentary?

>>4308678
Yes.

>>4307885
I'm seing the Helios bokeh on literally everything I watch these days. It's a big meme.

>>4308523
Seems fine, you probably could've gone another cheaper brand because the chinese cine lighting market is flooded and they're all basically copying eachother.

Same with the stand, really, I gambled on neewer light stands and they're incredibly solid.

Stick with Aputure at this point so you can control them all with the app.

>>4308999
it was all over dune 2

>>4308474
Depends on the budget for the documentary, and how large the crew is. Can't go wrong with Sony FX line though, there's something at every price point basically.

>>4308523
>>4308528
Those lights are a little anemic if you're planning on shooting in/around natural light. If it's a closed set or only ever indoors, that could work.


Why the lantern over a softbox or octa? Lanterns are typically used as overhead sources, like if you're shooting a dinner table type of scene. The skirt can only prevent spill if it's rigged like that. You can slap a cloth grid on an octa or a softbox, and they're easier to flag off.

post piece of art cinematorgraphy pics

>>4308685

Depends on the style of the documentary and budget. Pick the best tool for your specific documentary and what it requires. Demands of a "stereotypical" Netflix talking head documentary are different from a documentary that is doing run and gun style shooting in middle of a riot or a warzone etc.

I would also argue documentaries are the kind of films where most audiences are very used to and receptive to all kinds of different visual approaches and varying image qualities. Most documentaries back in the day didn't have budget for 35 mm film, many were shot on 16 mm. Then lots of great documentaries have been shot on tape or casette and other kind of "low" quality recording materials.

But to roughly recommend some cameras:

>High budget

Arri Alexa Amira:
Good ergonomics for long takes, XLR for audio, internal ND's. Arri built quality = can take a beating. Downside is that the EVF is not great if you are single pulling focus, isn't as big of a problem if you are using an external monitor, but that also means you'll most likely using a Easyrig or Cinesaddle or something similar, so you lose the shoulder handheld method of shooting. Amira is also pretty heavy which can be gruelling if the documentary is doing long takes and is otherwise physically demanding.

Arri Alexa Mini:
Same technical reasons as Amira. Different body, lighter than Amira. Depending on style of documentary and operator preferences, the Mini might be preferable for some people. Big downside compared to Amira is that no internal XLR, no preamp, no gain control or phantom power etc.

>High to mid budget

Canon C300 Mark III:

Internal ND. Good audio ports. A bit odd design but still ergonomically quite good even out of the box. Good build quality, though not Arri level obviously. Good codecs and flexible overall. Workhorse.

File: 3885280715_dfb159d773_o-bf5.jpg (344 KB, 1024x576)

344 KB JPG

>>4309019
I try to shoot with natural lighting whenever possible, but I need to be capable of shooting a standard indoor interview. I thought that lanterns are good for giving indirect light for an entire (smallish) room. Things might change, but I should only be able to afford the 200x S, stand, and lantern for the month of May. I need the proper light diffusion for a single light setup. Would I be better off with a softbox or octa if I want to mimic a 3 light interview with only a single light in a purely indoor environment?

>>4309041

>High to mid budget continued

Canon C70:

Basically a mini C300. Depending on shooting style, demands of the production etc. the smaller footprint might be beneficial in some situations, but also can be a pain in the ass. Depends on the style of shooting and demands of the specific project.

Sony FS7:

Was a staple of shit ton of documentaries, ENG stuff etc. for almost a decade for a reason. Was very capable camera for its price. Surprisingly durable also despite all the plastic. Pretty good ergonomics even straight out of the box. The most obvious downsides are bad low light and Sony's earlier not so good color science, which needs a good colorist in post to make it work. XLR ports, internal ND etc.

Sony FX6 and FX9

The ones that followed FS7. Improved color science, better lowlight, internal ND, XLR. Very good workhorse cameras with a terrific price to quality ratio.

There is also the FX3 which is basically Sony's C70 equivalent, except I think the FX3 is worse, especially lack of internal ND sucks and the boxy design is not good. bUt yeAh they sHot The Creator on it, so obviously it works if you want to.

I do not have enough experience with Nikons to recommend anything, from what I understand they do not have a "dedicated" cinema line, which is most likely why they just bought RED. Speaking of RED, I would actually not pick their bodies for lots of documentary work. They still have problems with expensive propretiary equipment that isn't as reliable as Arri's. The cameras still are slow to boot up, the bodies need lots of rigging etc. V-Raptor XL has internal ND but the V-Raptor doesn't etc. I am not just a biggest RED fan, not in fiction, not in documentary context.

Don't know enough about Fujifilm to recommend anything from them. I think that is pretty much most of the big players. In all honestly like I said, the camera you choose for a documentary is based on mutltiude of factors.

>>4309049

Continued

PIcking a camera for a documentary is about the style of the documentary, the style of filmmaking, budget etc. I honestly would not fret about it too much. There are so many terrific documentaries that have been shot on absolute potato cameras and I know it is a cliche to say it, but story triumphs everything. And now you can actually spend quite a little of money for a really good camera with 10 bit color etc. that absolutely mogs most cameras that docs were shot 20 years ago for example.

>>4309052

Oh and one more thing, this might cause some butthurt, but I personally stay away from Blackmagic because of quality control issues. Brands like Canon, Sony etc. are much more reliable with their cameras in the same price range. Image quality on Blackmagic is good, build quality isn't and most of their bodies aren't so good for doc work

>>4309044
4' Octa up close is real nice and the eyelights will be more circular. Invest in some white and black vflats, whether that's buying new, used or diy. You always need negative fill, and a white v flat can double as a fill source in a pinch.

what's the digital equivalent of film? meaning color depth, luminance, etc

>>4309053

Actually sorry for spamming, one more reply, if anyone is interested about Sundance documentaries of the last couple of years and what they were shot on.

>2024

https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/sundance-2024-cinematography-documentaries/and-so-it-begins-bruce-sakaki-cinematographer/

>2023

https://www.indiewire.com/feature/sundance-documentary-cameras-lens-equipment-sony-canon-1234801323/

>2022

https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/film-cameras-documentary-sundance-arri-canon-blackmagic-1234693570/

>2021

https://www.indiewire.com/feature/sundance-documentary-camera-lens-cinematography-1234612955/

post pics you absolute subhumans

>>4309077
Of what? Spiderman?

>>4309078
kek, spidermans are fine too, but make them cinematographic

I finally got the used arri alexa studio camcorder I ordered. That thing is built like a tank. It looks like it can be used for shoulder mount because it comes with a shoulder pad. It’s so freaking heavy. Who could carry that camera on their shoulder for a whole shoot day? Hercules or He-Man!

>>4307828
I just looked at the users manual and the image you see in the viewfinder is not the image that gets recorded to the sensor. You see the image in the viewfinder when the shutter is closed and when the sensor is open it records to the sensor. Genius design! Does Roger Deakins really love this camera or is it just a YouTube meme that this is Deakins’ favorite camera.

>>4309155
lol the dp doesn't have have to deal with the foibles of the camera, the 1st ac et al deal with it.

>>4309291

Deakins self operates, which is something not all DP's do, especially in Hollywood

>months spent trying to convince myself to download and learn blender so I can do the vfx for a film
>can never get over the intense pain and anxiety associated with trying such a thing, spending tens (if not 100s) of hours only to know that the results would look worse than the shittiest vfx shots from something like Sharkboy and Lava Girl
>look for a tutorial/stock effects on youtube to achieve the result with compositing
>zero help since all the tutorials are geared towards "content creators"
>have a think and decide to experiment if I can do it with just basic 2d image edits, tracking and compositing
>it fucking works
Jesus christ. Is there a greater editing feeling than finally solving an issue you'd been scared about doing for months?

>>4309326
That’s why I respect Deakins. He always cares about image quality. That’s why I pay attention when he recommends lenses and cameras. That camera looks as boss as fuck. Given that YouTube compression killed quality I could get away with a Blackmagic or gh6 but you look like the fucking boss of it all if you are rocking an arri on set.

>>4309388
Deakins is a visual genius and one of the best working today no doubt. But I'm honestly more impressed when someone like Greig Fraser can jerry-riga few fx3 cameras on a relative shoestring budget for the sake of quick and effective production while still producing a gorgeous image that's imax ready.

>>4309400

>80 million
>a relative shoestring budget

Also it wasn't Fraser personally who rigged the cameras, it was his AC's and grip team

>>4309409
For a hollywood film of that scale, $80m is absolutely tiny.
Also, saying Fraser didn't personally rig the cameras is like saying Spielberg didn't personally set up the machine guns in the beach scene of Saving Private Ryan.

Got me a GoPro, gonna get my happy ass outside and make a short film. Fuck me.

>>4309533
You are lucky. I have so many lenses and cameras but I can’t make shit now because my wife is sick. Hopefully when she is better I can go out and start making stuff. Having too many lenses makes it hard to make stuff because of being too worried about choosing the right lens. Just go out and make stuff and it will probably look better then what most of the gear-autists on here make.

>>4309541
>my wife is sick
What's her affliction?

>>4309326
>Deakins self operates
that's just code for being handed the camera once it's set up. sure, he decides aperature, exposure, lighting, etc. he's not menu diving, swapping batteries, his time is too valuable for shit like that

>>4309591

I know, but he specifically wanted Arri to build the optical viewfinder because he self operates and he doesn't want to use the EVF and he doesn't like operating from an external monitor.

>>4309595
So basically Arri built the optical viewfinder into a digital cinema camera because Rodger Deakins asked them to do it; I wish more camera companies would listen to the people who used their cameras. I love the optical viewfinder because it looks so cool—analog+digital—it is super awesome and super sweet.

>>4309561
Just typical nagging stuff. She doesn’t want to eat and is wasting away to nothing. I think it’s anorexia and a cry for attention. So until she is able to get by w/o all of my attention, I won’t be able to film anything unless I like through my teeth and make it sound like it’s all about her when it’s really not about her. As long as she thinks it’s about her she’ll let me film stuff. I just want to be able to film stuff w/o needing to be deceptive.

>>4309631
>is wasting away to nothing
Better than being obese I guess.

What does she do when you go out anyway?

File: 3328f9b0-79ce-11ec-ae0f-0(...).jpg (199 KB, 2100x1286)

199 KB JPG

Is the r5c worth it? I heard it has shit battery life. I mostly shoot 1080p tho so should I get the r6 instead?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 23.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5000
Image Height	3750
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2022:01:13 10:42:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2100
Image Height	1286

>>4309595
it's because EVFs are gay

>>4309666
I haven’t found a high quality usable EVF yet. From what I hear even arri doesn’t make one. I guess using a Flanders on set with a sun hood on it is probably better then using an EVF.

>>4309657
Yes?
Great cinema cam but if you're only shooting 1080 then it's pretty huge overkill

>>4309657
the i/o on this is horrible, it must be for wedding photogs

How overkill would it be if a wedding photofag videographer wanna be cinematographer showed up to a wedding rocking an arri alexa mini and some cooke mini s4 and super baltars?

>>4309786
That wouldn't be overkill, it'd just be bad optimisation. The alexa doesn't even shoot proper 4k. You'd be maximising image quality while significantly lowering ergonomics and usability for a one-man-band, while also risking a very high investment, for a an output where they probably wouldn't appreciate the added image quality.
If you want really decent image quality for a wedding, use a canon c70.
As for lenses, using expensive cine lenses without af for a wedding is just stupid to me. But to each their own.

Is anyone else just constantly frustrated with a desire to film something?
I keep flip-flopping between wanting to shoot basically b-footage of a punk/goth girl against a cityscape backdrop at night with neon lights, and wanting to shoot a historical epic scene with a huge scale. It's the weirdest frustration.

>>4309831
Any photos of said punk/goth girl model?

>>4309835
There's not a specific one. There are girls I've shot in the past, ones i see on youtube/films and then artwork associated with that general vibe. I guess like Billie Eilish but more heroin chic

>>4309807
>replying unironically to low-effort shitpost b8
cmon anon

>>4309845
>There are girls I've shot in the past
How about photos of them?

>>4309627

Arri and Panavision listen to the high end cinematographers who use their cameras and lenses.

Deakins got the prototype Mini LF's for 1917, Arri and especially Panavision (and particularly Dan Sasaki of Panavision) detune and tune their lenses based on the wants and needs of cinematographers.

>>4309807

You can blow up the Alexa 3.2K to 4K and it holds up & looks great on a movie screen. Resolution is one of the biggest midwit things in cinematography. I blame RED.

>>4309864
>and it holds up & looks great on a movie screen
That's because 1080 looks good on a movie screen. That one of the supposedly best cinema cameras on the market (and still stupidly expensive) can't even do native 4k is kind of pathetic.
>Resolution is one of the biggest midwit things in cinematography
Going from working in 1080p to 4k was such a ridiculous leap in quality that I can't take this opinion seriously. Additional resolution gives you so much extra breathing room and produces a much sharper picture.
If my computer could edit it properly, I would be all in on 8k if not 12k, even though I'd still only deliver in 4k.

>>4309867
I think arri cares more about a high dynamic range and not as much about resolution or k because images can be upscaled in post but you can’t add more dynamic range in post.

>>4309870
>because images can be upscaled in post but you can’t add more dynamic range in post
This is honestly one of the stupidest things I've read recently. How do you think upscaling works? Do you think camera sensors just secretly have all this extra resolution stored in the video file that you can extract with a good program?

Will the Helios 44-2 hyper die out soon? I'm tired of seeing all the circle jerking. The prices have skyrocketed on eBay and everyone has *rehoused* or *cinemodded* theirs on eBay as well

File: IMG_2817.png (947 KB, 1600x1344)

947 KB PNG

Trump’s Special Child just used a really special lens attached to a bmpcc 4k to make a new video for y’all. A arri master prime 32mm with the typical 2x crop that a bmpcc 4k gives that lens was used and it was shot wide open at t/1.3; enjoy the video, anons!

https://youtu.be/YRzderhXk84

>>4310098
Why does it look like the aspect ratio is screwed up?

>>4310098
The person in that video looks like she's going through a lot. Did the person who videoed her took her to the hospital like she asked?

>>4310107
No! Because she never wants to do. She just wants to whine and complain about going, but she never actually wants to go.

I don’t know why the aspect ratio fucked up so badly. I edited using the Resolve app on my iPad and the new Bluetooth color controller that works with that app. I was focusing on color grading the braw footatage, not on the aspect ratio of the footage.

>>4310113
Does it at least look correct in the app if not Youtube?

>>4310122
It looks awesome on my iPad color wise. I don’t know why it has black bars. I was playing with a vazen anamorphic 1.8x lens and a Sauri 1.33x an anamorphic lens on my bmpcc 4k before I made it. Maybe I forgot to turn off some setting in resolve, but the image still looks great. I love the grain but YouTube probably killed off the grain.

>>4310143
The lens was sharp and clean because master primes are fucking as awesome as fuck but I passed it through the cst into rec709 in cineon film log and then used a Kodak lut to make it look like film (resolve has film look luts that turn stuff in cineon film log into cinematic magic) and then i used the resolve grain plugin to add 16mm reversal grain because I love the way that grain looks.

>>4307835
>>4309725
>arri viewfinder
I just saw this on r/cinematography. https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/52914823044/
Basically the arri's viewfinder's advantage is that it has "looking room". Everything outside of the blue square isn't actually being recorded but lets the camera operator know what's about to come into shot (booms/props/personnel) and manoeuvre their movement accordingly.
(Yes, it's basically just saying that the arri slightly crops the image and the viewfinder shows the uncropped image. Yes you could easily do this in post by applying a 1.x zoom on all footage and plan your shots around that in advance. Camera departments are fickle though. They like using what they're used to)

>>4310204
So basically if you shoot opengate you’ll get what the viewfinder sees so you can reframe your image anyway you want but if you do the full sensor you get a crop into the sensor to make sure you get a sharp image because you are just using the middle of the sensor. Or something like that. I can understand cropping into the sensor in camera because doing that in post on a lot of shots can get very very annoying.

>>4310221
>but if you do the full sensor you get a crop into the sensor to make sure you get a sharp image because you are just using the middle of the sensor
That's not a thing unless you're talking about a 1:1 cropped readout versus a larger aspect ratio having line-skipping - different to oversampling (taking a high res input and producing a lower res output with a complicated algorithm) which would theoretically just provide the same quality. Arri's are doing the opposite of oversampling; they're upscaling a lower res input into a higher res output.

>>4310248
Then why does the image quality coming out of their cameras look so good if they upscale the image.

>>4310033
As soon as some vlogger does a video about a cheap lens that’s awesome. People see it. Buy that lens. The price goes up. Another vlogger does another video on a cheap and good lens. Rinse, Repeat!

>>4310376
Because 3k is enough resolution that you can't see any aliasing unless you blow it super large on a super sharp screen.
(Theatre projectors aren't super sharp. You can watch 1080 on a cinema screen and it will look fine)
The advantage of higher resolution isn't that we need to view in higher resolutions. It's additional sharpness (which can be faked in post with decent sharpening) and the ability to crop and reframe without losing quality.
Arri cameras have insane colour science and dynamic range. They're unbeaten in terms of image quality (and it's even more ridiculous since they developed their sensor over a decade ago). But it's a lower resolution image because of how long ago they developed it. And that means that you lose all advantages of shooting higher res.
Almost everyone in hollywood has moved on from the alexa classic now anyway to the alexa lf or the alexa 35 (both 4.6k)

>>4310493
I am just a hobbyist so I can’t justify buying an Alexa LF camera nor can I afford to buy one. I am just barely able to afford the classic. I got it because it was used a lot of films I admire and it was used by a lot of directors I admire. Right now I am buying expensive lenses. Once I get all of the lenses I want—I will think of upgrading my body. Hopefully, the price of the Alexa 35 or Alexa LF will go down within the next four years once they hit the used market. It might be even longer then that because arri keeps their value forever. I am guessing that 3k would be more then enough for YouTube videos.

>>4310497
Buying an alexa as a hobbyist/youtuber seems like a tremendous waste of money to me but you do you.

>>4310504
I am a colorist and all of the people talk about how amazing arri’s color science is and they sell lut packs to turn footage from potatoes into something that looked like it was shot on an arri. So, I just wanted an arri with arriraw so I could see what all of the hype is about and I can now tell my clients I graded footage shot on arri. They don’t need to know that of the arriraw footage I graded is videos of my cats playing. Hopefully an ad agency will be dumb enough to hire me—hopefully they’ll think I’m a pro because I graded arri and arriraw footage.

>>4310107
She gets angry because nobody will take her to the hospital, but when anybody offers to take her to the hospital, she gets angry at them and says she doesn’t want to go to the hospital. I can’t figure out woman. I am using these videos as a journal to help her vent, and I’m also testing you my cinema cameras and cinema lens so it is basically win win.

File: ocdp4g6t3s8b1.jpg (128 KB, 1080x1271)

128 KB JPG

Apologies if I don't use the right terminology here. I need an overhead light. I need a boom of some kind that can hold a 9 pound light plus whatever diffusers I toss on it. I'll need counterweights too, right?

>>4310930
I forgot what type of effect your achieving is called. It's an on going to infinity effect. Pretty interesting to look at.

>>4310945
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droste_effect
also deeply related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_feedback

File: 1_2J5QVeHv8Y88icBQe32WaQ.jpg (32 KB, 960x720)

32 KB JPG

I plan on trying my hat at making some short films being director and cameraman, are there any good practical books on cinematography that looks at great shots from classic film and explains how it was created? Does that exist?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	960
Image Height	720

File: 42_.jpg (17 KB, 312x445)

17 KB JPG

>>4310976

>>4310976
the catch with old school classic studio films is that they were often lit like the surface of the sun and you will have to take a different route and experiment a lot to reproduce similar lighting styles

File: IMG_4157.jpg (1.57 MB, 2592x1944)

1.57 MB JPG

I got this for free. What can I do with it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G5
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Lens Size	7.19 - 28.81 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 2.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:07 10:25:16
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	20.69 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1944
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Focus Type	Close-Up (Macro Mode)
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Full Auto
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Single
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Superfine
Macro Mode	Macro
Subject Distance	0.510 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	128
Image Number	141-4157

>>4311160
Make a Jackass film.