Archived Threads: https://fgts.jp/p/search/subject/video%20general/
Looking for advice on a broadcast camcorder.
I have a reasonable budget to choose cameras for my college's new studio. The studio will be used for talking-head interviews, and smalltime broadcast style news done by students. This will include green screen work.
what's a good broadcast camera i can get around $5,000? I'm interested in the Sony pxw-x180, but after using the HXR-NX5 for the last couple of years, 3X 1/3" sensors just don't seem good enough. Maybe they have improved since then though?
The "cinema" cameras don't do me any good because they don't have servo zoom, proper outputs (SDI) and other features needed for broadcast.
The recording format or cards don't matter as much as what kind of output because it will be going into a video switcher and recorder externally or streamed on the internet.
What is /vid/'s opinion on the new Super8mm Kodak camera coming out?
Will it look as nice as the footage in these videos?
In your opinion is it probably one of the cheaper solutions to teaching movie students about shooting on film?
I work in a video editing lab.
I just got picked up to shoot a commercial for a tech company. Not trying to give away too much info, sorry. I can tell you that the commercial is built to be simplistic- think 'hipster apple ads' with lots of ambient light and smooth camera movement.
My current plan is to use the DJI Ronin with the Blackmagic 4K Production cam, along with a RedRock Wireless focus, with two monitors for viewing.
I have not used the Ronin or Redrock wireless focus but am excellent at learning things quickly. I want to use the Ronin over renting a dolly and slider, since they'd only be used for two shots. My questions:
1. How is the learning curve of the DJI Ronin? Is is something I can pick up in a 1-3 days or does it require more time.
2. Has anyone had any experience mounting the BlackMagic 4K on the Ronin, and/or used the RedRock Micro follow focus setup with it
3. If you have used a setup like this previously, what did you buy/rent to build your rig? What do you think are necessities? I'd like any advice or visuals possible on this type of setup.
I usually shoot with a 5DM3 with Magic Lantern but we are now shooting 4K RAW to build a footage library that will last a long time.
If you think you can become a decent steadycam operator in 1-3 days, then you are an ignorant piece of subhuman.
To get on the level of a dolly, you need years of practice.
Also why dud you not sell your BM pc 4k shit yet? It has a construction error and everybody sells it at times. kek, you can get it now cheaper than the 2k shit. (BM is shit anyways.)
no worries. Ain't trynna become a steadycam operator in 3 days. Just trying to get a 90 second spot done without renting insane amounts of gear of small shots.
I don't own the blackmagic 4k. I know it's a poor investment. Renting through borrowlenses until I can get the company to buy a like a C300 for in house production. Just don't wanna use the 5D3 RAW for this. Too unreliable for professional use and the workflow requires a lot of space. Blackmagic's the only *cheap* 4K RAW body I know of.
i've used the xdcams a fair bit and am generally happy. you are really close to pxw-x200 price which is significantly better. to get anything that is really a modern broadcast or studio camera with those connections puts you into the 5-digit price range
I have a lot of framerate problems in my videos, I feel like everything is sort of "jumpy" when i'm panning across something. Can anyone help me understand what's causing this?
I looked at that and the 1/2 sensors and fujinon lens seem really enticing.
However I'm a little concerned about other features on the camera that were cut back compared to the x180. Like it only has 2 ND filter positions instead of 3, the screen is not as good, and it only has USB 2.0 instead of 3.0 for file transfer
Have you worked with either of these cameras, and are these limitations an issue?
I have one and I'm quite happy with it. Sometimes I wish I had a proper cinema camera, sometimes I don't. The 2x crop factor can be a pain and low-light situations are best avoided. Other than that, it's pretty solid and can yield some great results if used properly
mfw somebody not just delete frames (raise speed) in post
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:10:07 11:34:46 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 624 Image Height 352
I usually shoot 30/60p and interpret it to 24p for effect. To answer your question I probably hit 1/60th shutter speed sometimes in low light. Is there a hard minimum I should stick to like 125?
you shouldn't shoot motion picture with a too short shutter. quick movements become unfluid. you need the motion blur. the worst is to speed up slowmo shots. imagine the motion blur goes in a specific direction and then you delete 2/3 of the frames, then the movement can go suddenly in a different direction, which makes the move unnatural. never go with a shutter faster then framerate*2 (180°).
special effect studios which has to exposure ultra fast because of green screen i.e., invest much work in directional motion blur when the effect is done. to make the movement smooth and natural again ("The One" is a very good movie example for that)
Everything >>2742674 pretty much hits the nail on the head. If you're shooting 24fps, you really want to keep your shutter at 1/48 of a second, or 1/50th for a DSLR(180° is the same shutter speed but it refers to the physical angle of a cinema camera revolving shutter). For 30fps it would be 1/60 shutter speed, and for 60fps, 1/120(125) shutter speed. Try your best not to stray from these speeds and use your iso and iris to adjust the exposure. Try it out and see if that solves your problem.
For it's price, the GH4 has a lot going for it, and you don't lose the sweet spot effect because a speedbooster on a GH4 is effectively an aps-c(super 35) camera, which means you keep the sweetspot and get the look of super35. That said video doesn't benefit much from the sweetspot effect since even 4k is less than 10mp of detail. Only when you get to 6k and 8k do you start seeing the benefits.
Lads, help me out here
This is quite possibly a daft question, but anyway:
I'm shooting some footage tomorrow
I want it to have a colder look. Should I just do the white balance incorrectly in camera to get a cold look straight out of the box, or should i do the white balance correctly and then make it look cold on the computer?
and if i do shoot it with the wrong white balance but then i change my mind, can i fix that on the computer or am i stuck?
What camera you shooting?
If you're shooting something heavily compressed like a DSLR you're best getting your look in camera as much as possible, so blue up your lights and adjust WB.
If you're shooting log/raw you should do some tests today and load a LUT/Look into camera with blue cast you can monitor with.
Cheapest way to shoot actual anamorphic (no cropping or plugins, etc.) with a micro 4/3 mount?
I'm on a gh3.
I've been wanting to get a fairly portable 8mm or 16mm camera (if it was portable enough) to shoot b-roll with for my personal films and was wondering if anybody had any good recommendations.
If I want to flirt with videography (mostly for practice in editing, in the hopes I get better), but am also an avid photographer, should I be waiting for the canon mark III due out this year? I have never had a digital, but I really want to get into it after years of analog.
It's the nickname for the middle part of a lens, which tends to have the best optical characteristics such as higher sharpness, low vignetting, and low distortion when compared to the outer area of the lens. The problem with trying to apply the sweet spot to video is that one of the main reasons people do it, sharpness, doesn't matter that much in video because video only resolves about 2-3mp in 10800, and about 8 in 4k, so you never really see enough detail to reap the benefits. The distortion and vignetting are a different matter though. A good example is the Rokinon 14mm. It has terrible distortion on a FF camera, but on aps-c it's not nearly as bad.
just bought a redrock micromattebox ... this. is. fucking. huge. why da fuck do they call it "micro"? it's actually the largest mattebox I ever saw. it's a 1000$ bundle, which I got for .. really little money. now I have to put my 60mm diameter penor lens in that huge 142mm matte bagina.
how hard will people think I'm overcompensating when I keep it, instead of selling it and get a cavision 3x3 17x3cm aps-c matte box, which would be appropiate for my teeny weeny?
Hooray for deadtime...
GH4 is a good mix as are the A7s/A7sII - good for both applications, it depends somewhat though on your budget & preferences really (each has advantages/disadantages).
Also, you are getting a theoretically sharper image (as you are essentially squeezing 1920x1080 down to 1920x817 (essentially, your vertical resolution becomes closer to very sharp 720P).
Kranagorsk's are cheap and available for 16mm, could find a Bolex if you look hard enough. Ton of s8mm around too (most of them are tiny).
Depends on the lens, if it's a projector lens and you get yourself a clamp setup for it - it's fairly cheap. If It's a proper anamorphic lens it's gonna be quite expensive (as the anamorphic glass is integrated into the lens if that makes sense).
Nickname for the center of the image circle where most lenses are sharpest (most lenses soften, fringe, or vignette around the corners).
Technically either *could* be fixed, but it's much easier if you shoot the correct white balance and then cool it because you may want to maintain your whites & cool off specific parts of the image (say to separate/draw focus to your fore/mid/background or your subject).
I also suggest to light it with that cool look in mind.
7dmk II - 60FPS ftw (not a fan of either, but 7dmkII if I had to choose).
Oval vs Round/Circular-sh bokeh (more shapes depending on blades, don't feel like listing 'em all :P ). With Anamorphic it tends to exaggerate the bokeh a bit by elongating it (more oval rather than round-sh). Particularly when projector lenses are adapted this is even more common as they require longer focal lengths to avoid vignetting w/the projector glass (which means quite a lot of bokeh generally).
I personally feel it's not the biggest deal, but it's something to consider - and some people find anamorphic bokeh to be very visually pleasing.
It's only as good of an investment as you make it, like any camera body.
Once you learn to balance it, not that difficult depending on the complexity of the shots.
I would also be sure to lighten your rigging on the stabilizer as much as possible (makes it easier to balance).
Major thing you need on your setup is an external battery kit for the BM4K (vmounts are best but DIY works too) & fucktons of media (4kRAW 3:1 takes up quite a lot of space, and the internal BM4K battery isn't good).
BM4K isn't a bad camera, it is a light hungry bastard though, so be prepared.
>Also, you are getting a theoretically sharper image (as you are essentially squeezing 1920x1080 down to 1920x817 (essentially, your vertical resolution becomes closer to very sharp 720P).
what bullshit you are talking ..
you know what else has more vertical resolution than horizontal
and it looks really obviously stretched horizontally to make up for it
either scale everything evenly or don't do it
are -you- dumb?
shooting with an anamorphic lens creates a lens that looks stretched vertically.
you then resize it down back to normal, vertically only, to get a normal looking image. bokeh, flares and stuff will look oval from that resizing, and you get a sharper image because you're downsizing, instead of stretching anything.
on this same topic is there any serious advantage to getting the GH4 over the GH3? I'm not really interested in 4k or super high FPS.
Are there any other features that would make the GH4 outweigh the GH3?
Hey /vid/ - quick question. I'm getting a BMPCC and have the option of starting out with either a Lumix 14-42 f3.5-5.6 kit lens or 3 vintage Russian primes at f2.0 for slightly more money. Which should I go for?
In editor. The problem is you'll still be working in 8-bit and while 4:4:4 is good, 8-bit can get somewhat constraining for grading. If you can spare the change, grab an atomos recorder that'll allow you to record the 10-bit output from the GH4's hdmi.
Stick with the Ruskie lenses, you'll be in greater control with them and their overall build lends them well to cine use. Which lenses are you looking at and how much? You'll need a speedbooster to use them effectively.
oh, you almost got me. first I have to admit, that in theory quality improves when using an anamorphic lens, for the case you otherwise would crop the image to something wider.
I simulated the process with a 4k picture, which I downscaled to an anamorphic 16:9 1080p and a plain 2.39:1 804p picture. Then I streched the anamorphic to 2.39:1 1080p and downscaled it to 804p.
Then I measured the differences:
Sharpness of the anamorphic version is 0.0046% better. (Sobel difference method)
Colors are 0.0102% better. (Colorspace analyisis of unique colors)
So in total the improvement is below 0.01%.
In addition there is a downside, the noise of the picture (just like the bokeh) gets streched also, which can look quite unpleasant under unfortunate circumstances.
The whole anamorphic thing is PURELY just for the nostalgic look in regard to bokeh and flares. The image quality improvement is practically not existing and most likely killed completely by the anamorphic adapter.
So, please do not argue with the quality aspect in future. You've learned something now.
The extreme crop of the BMPCC will not only leave you with few wide-angle options, but it'll also strain the abilities of the lens in the sense that it's using a very small portion of the image circle and the lens' resolving ability. It's also easier to simply stop down the lens or use an ND than try and get more light in if you ever need it.
>You've learned something now
That your testing method is absolutely flawed? Did you shoot a with an anamorphic lens and a spherical lens side by side or did you simply take one picture from one camera, use the anamorphic process for one, and then the 16:9 for the other? It sounds like you did the latter, which is the incorrect method of testing this out. The problem with that method is that you're digitally simulating the anamorphic effect, which will always be inferior to a native capture with a lens that is then desqueezed in camera or editor, and retains the resolution gain. If you want to effectively test this technique out, get an anamorphic lens, test it on a GH4 with anamorphic shooting abilities, and then capture a regular test shot with a normal lens and then downscale them both to 1080p. As of right now, nothing you've said is correct.
you're such a huge moron. the test I made is actually too POSITIVE in regard to the question if an anamorphic lens increases quality or not. by downscaling a 4k pictute to an anamorph and "normal" version, you get the most significant comparsion, with letting weaknesses of the anamorphot aside.
unless you're trying to tell me an anamorph adapter would actually increase the OPTICAL quality.
based on my test I can PROOF that an anamorphot will always be inferior to a "normal" setting, because even under optimal conditions the quality increase is so small, that nothing will survive under real conditions.
so please, you moron, please do not mix up isolated conditions with unrepresentative elabouration.
So you're telling me that a proper comparison between a spherical lens and an anamorphic lens would be pointless and not yield different results? Perfect, now I and the whole board know not to listen to your bullshit. Based on your posts I can PROOF that you are a total idiot.
I'm glad to see at least SOMEbody understand.
Anyways, I'd like to test my workflow with my new equipment before using it "in the field".
What do you shoot for testing? Who to find for that? Actors for a boring short? A stupid band for a music clip? Maybe find a perverted couple and make some privats? .. where's the best efford-to-testing-results ratio?
For anamorphic stuff consult the EosHD guide
In terms of lenses I'd say the Meteor that comes standard with the Krasnogorsk sometimes is very good
I also love the Helios 56mm that I have
the blackmagic cinema camera is like 4 years old now why does it still cost so much
all the 2nd hand ones are either EF mount or dreamers selling it for more than you can get a new one because they put a fucking cage on it.
Say I shoot a sequence at 24fps, but in editing I want to slow it down, have it play back in slo-mo at maybe 12fps or so. This will look quite jittery. Is it possible to add a dissolve filter or something before the frames to make it more fluid? Now I understand that that wont look like real slo-mo, but that is not my goal. I want to give it that kind of shifting, morphing look you see sometimes, you know what I mean?
How do I achieve this?
I'm guessing the car model is mounted on a stand that repeatedly moves forwards and backwards. The camera is set to a low shutter speed and moved around the model frame by frame stop-motion style.
This is my best guess.
Those are motion interpolation artifacts.
The more motion there is in a scene the more apparent they are. Usually slowing down 2 times you can get away with little artifacts. If you want more of them, I suggest to remove every second frame from your 24fps footage. That will turn it into 12fps and then you can slow it down 2 times.
Probably not. There is another photo of the scene with background lit on the project website where it's clear that the only thing moving is the car, rather than the background. You can try moving the car yourself, though I'm not sure how that will work out. I guess it could be done if the shutter speed is really low. Also, the model has to be shiny and lights set up accordingly so you get those white highlights.
I use only Nikkor manual glass, and they added firmware that includes p. solid digital stabilization in the NX1. No need for their shitty lens infrastructure, and the discontinuation will simply mean its cheaper.
adobe, its relatively affordable, its got a lot of really versatile plugins and features, and while Avid is the industry standard Adobe is what clients on a smaller scale most frequently use.
thats tough. You definitely Cannot torrent adobe creative cloud, its too unstable-- youd have to use an earlier version, probably CS6-- still great but you lose a lot of features. But I've personally *tried* torrenting avid and its never worked properly for me. In theory, I'd say Avid, but it's difficult to find a working one. Plus, if you use adobe, youll know how to more or less use it if you start doing pro work (can't emphasize enough-- dont use pirated software for anything you're paid money to do, Adobe is extremely litigious about that, and clients will also (understandably) freak out-- can be a breach of contract in some cases).
Well I already have the entire Adobe CC suite torrented and it works fine
I guess I'll just dl avid too and see which suits me better
Like I said, this is just for personal creative use rather than for paid work
...though if I submit a short a make with it to a festival will they be able to tell?
no idea, but there's any easy way around it-- if you're submitting to a festival, download the free trial of Premiere CC (or, hell, literally any NLE), just put the full video file in, and export it as is again through the legit copy.
Hi /p/, i'm thinking about starting a vlog and i've been thinking about choosing one of pic related.
Which one would you recommend? Also, if you have any suggestions, i'm open to them. I have a budget of around $800.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1280 Image Height 720
I don't know. I'm using cinelerra and wrote my own IF interpolator (voctor-based pixel morphing) with imagick and atlas3. It is limited to max 2 interframes (3x slower), but it's very smooth and without any directional change artefacts.
So I can record my 60fps and blow them up to 180fps .. the only downside is - as always with interframing - that you have to use fast shutter speeds, since motion blur is a problem for the interpolation algorithm .. But I'm not buying a fucking alexa or f65 just to get 180fps 6.5k native, rather than just shutting a bit faster and accepting some motion blur vector errors, which nobody will ever notice anyways.
That sounds awfully complicated
What exactly are directional change artifacts? I mean I can guess but do you have a visual example? I would like to get into this but don't really know where to learn about it
For photo, you probably want some typical portable speedlights. They work for most people.
For video, you'll have to find out what kind of light output you need.
You can perhaps make do with an inexpensive portable LED panel powered by a lithium rechargeable. Or maybe you need a big bulky HMI light for what you will be recording.
I wouldn't know.
The difference between movies (commercially inclined) and films (artistically inclined) is used by numerous serious directors and theorists, most notably Robert Bresson and Andrei Tarkovsky.
The curiosity is about the difference between "flick" and "film." So what's the difference there?
In regard to "film" and "movie," they're all movies. The difference is one word makes you sound like a pretentious twat when you start saying, "One is art and one isn't."
There are clear differences between what one person a movie or a film.
Generally the scheme goes that movies are pure entertainment for the audience. A film is generally seen as less for the audience and more for other filmmakers or cinephiles. The "film" is seen as more artful than the money grabbing "movie".
>/tv/ shitposted so hard that people on /p/ are genuinely trying to claim there's a difference between films and flicks
So guys, my film's going really well but I'm afraid it's only a cinèma and not a kino
What steps can I make to ensure the final product is the kino I desire?
in the easiest case an interframe interpolation algorithm with vecor-based pixel morphing uses two frames inbetween the interpolated frame shall be generated. based on that two frames a pixel-based vector matrix is calculated. this easy algo will assume that the pixel-change is linear. so, when it comes to e.g. some pixels which form a moving hand, the algo thinks they will move linear the whole time. this is not too bad, because there are many frames and the pixels just move a little bit. in this case a linear morphing is sufficient and one wouldn't see any flaws.
but what if the frame has much motion blur? imagine a circular hand-movement: the motion blur will be radial in every frame. but the algo will morph the pixels linearly. in this case the actual smooth movement will look flawed, because the edges will sort of "jump around". the more morphed interframes the worse the artefacts.
a complex algorithm will not only use two frames for the calculation, but e.g. 10 or 20. instead of just morphing the relative linear pixel change, it will try to set automatic tracking points and get an idea if a specific area is moving linear or wavey or if it can be described in bezier curves or a combination of all. and after that it will generate the interframe.
the problem is here again, that motion blur does not provide significant areas which survive long enough to make a sane motion tracking. so, even with complex algos motion blur is still a problem.
so, for flawless results there are two options: native high framerate or a complex algo working with frames with hardly to no motion blur.
or you just don't give a fuck and do 24fps and for slow-mo good old framedoubling and everybody who doesn't like it can just fuck off.
Well you see, I actually want the motion blur
So basically I'm gonna shoot at 24fps, drop every second frame, and then use the simple algorithm? Is writing it DIY the only option or are there such presets in some NLEs, or dedicated separate programmes for it?
actually the best free and open-source IF interpolator I came across is in the MVtools for avisynth. You still have to script, but not the algorithm, just the routine.
Really good, like on that level, but "user-friendly" interpolators most likely won't be part of a NLE, but you surely can purchase them as a plug-in or stand-alone software, for a shitload of money.
Where can I find decent and free film grain in 2016?
Some of the sites I tried were either down, or hosted the file on rapidshare (which no longer exists).
Usually the free clips are 5 second loops, is there a way to fool the viewer into not noticing it?
meh, repeating grain is shit, unless it's a several minutes loop.
but why would you want grain at all? since photographic imaging exists, every development tried to avoid grain and noise. and now the hipsters come along and add it on purpose. and for what? it reduces sharpness and color-definition and produces a huge overhead of unnecessarry data, which will only load and stress compressing algorithms, which results in longer processing and larger data. the ONLY use for additive noise would be to fight banding. or - okay - if you do cgi, than it is a helpful tool, indeed. or in audio processing it can help by making a sound level carpet.
and this stupid workflow logic. for example: will you add the grain before making fades or after? if you do it before you will have faded grain and solid blacks, which looks unhomogenous. but if you do it after, you get noisy blacks, which reduces total contrast and looks completely stupid.
there were generations of post-processing people trying to deal with the problems if grain and noise, and then YOU come round the corner and say " hey, where can I find some footage of pure grain (data mess) which I can mix with my 100years-development-state-of-the-art material?"
dude .. sigh ..
there have been Kronos for After Effects, butit's discontinued. It's based on Furnace algo, which is one of the best .. natively useable with Nuke .. but I'm not sure you wanna purchase any of this ..
I've used Nuke before, but I only have Fusion, doesn't Fusion have a plugin for grain?
Also, I've read that it's possible to use Fusion and Resolve together, but I have not figured it out.
Sold all my cameras (a7 and a6000)/lenses except my vintage nikkors and my trusty EOS M. Looking to consolidate to one good camera body, planning on staying entirely with my vintage primes except for one stabilized zoom in whatever system i get.
4k is good for clients, but colorspace and DR are more important for me, as is low light as i shoot a lot of concerts. My budget is $1700, lighting/audio/stabilization/media/lenses are a non-issue as I've got those taken care of already. The no-brainer would be the c100, but as much as I'd like to do it its probably not the most financially intelligent decision right now/I still do *occasional* photo work.
I'm personally leaning towards the NX1-- i know its a dying system, but its colorspace is great, Premiere now supports H265, does 4k/good 1080 120p, and it has surprisingly passable digital stabilization from what ive seen. Plus, i figure once they pull the plug, that 16-50 2.0-2.8 zoom will get cheaper.
Another contender is getting a used A7s, but while it kills in low light, I only like the result I get out of it when grading in SLOG2 (ive rented it a few times)-- the baked-in options arent great, and sometimes I do journalism work that requires a near-instant turnaround.
Finally, there are the three panasonic options-- either the GH4, The G7 + Speedbooster, *or*-- someone is selling an AF100 for $750 on craigslist, and with a speedbooster and an external recorder it might be an ok option. GH4+ VLOG would obviously be best for DR, but I'd have to choose between the YAGH and a speedbooster (probably the latter). Further, I don't see too much of an advantage over the G7-- I don't need DCI 4K as I'll be delivering in 1080 anyways, dynamic range on both sucks, and the G7 has some flat profiles even if they arent Log. In any case, I'm worried about the low light performance even *with* a speedbooster, and I dont know how I feel about panasonic's look in general.
Any recommendations? anything i missed?
If increasing the speed by 200%, then losing every other frame is fine. But if, for example, you shoot 25fps using 1/50 shutter and double the playback speed, you get an equivalent shutter of 1/100 (in this case, 90 degree shutter) - the perceived motion blur will be halved, which looks unnatural. Unless unnatural works for the shot.
Moreover, specifying any arbitrary playback speed is a bad idea. When this is done (say playing 25fps at 125% clip speed on a 25fps edit timeline) frames are skipped in a pattern that causes noticeable temporal aliasing - the motion cadence will look jumpy. Never looks good, ever. Forget about that "film-like motion".
Being able to, say, shoot at 20fps and play back at 25fps is hugely preferable if you want 125% resulting speed with smooth cadence.
don't get insecure just because somebody gives you some indiscriminate personal opinion. especially when even not giving a single argument.
the af101 provides the minimal requirement on a cine camcorder (10 stops, 1080p, 20bit per pixel). it is a solid and reliable tool, which expects from you that you know what you are doing. "we'll fix that in post" is no sentence to say when working with it. for something like that, buy a cam with 16 stops DR, 6k and 48bit per pixel.
people are stupid and markets do not promote the best products in all events. Often enough bad (worse) products get more success, due to marketing and weird caotic market behavior of the consumers. funny enough "professional" consumers are even the worst. so let me say this: 750$ is an insane good price-value ratio, for a piece of technology in the 4k$ range, without having any construction or design flaws (like some well known products of other fancy companies) or stupid/missing features.
In fact I shot my debut cine feature on an af101 and it played in over 300 cinemas and got sold >50k times. I never heard anybody saying "yeah, but the cam .. dude ..". it's always the question if somebody can handle a tool. if you use e.g. this, but you're an idiot, it does not help that it is a good tool. nor would it help to have an even better tool. (btw, with some knowledge and frickling you easily can tune the af101 firmware and get some straight 2.5k, 30bit out of the 12mp sensor, and you can push down the noise level by good 50% .. but that's a different story .. just sayin' .. in the end you want the basic features due to stability and workflow, believe me.)
so .. I'm not saying go and get it. I always say: go get knowledge. knowledge makes the difference.
Yeah, I mean, I had already scratched off the list before that comment just because i really didn't like how its noise came across in test footage (i shoot in many situations where i dont have the option of controlling light sources), but i gotta say the af100 seems like a nice streamlined solution. That said, I've got a bid in on a c100 on ebay that might sell for under 1700, which would be the best of all worlds for my personal style and needs
Need some advice,
Bought a BMPCC some months ago, want to start building a rig for it. My budget is around 900, what do i need so that I can start doing some freelancing?
Should I buy a 5d Mark ii?
I would have to second the guy who said the "AF100 is garbage." It's not very good desu, the image is insanely noisy in any sort of slightly challenging lighting environment, even with an external recorder.
But as >>2749240 sagely points out, gear faggotry will be death of us all, I also did my first popular short on one with a 10-bit recorder which screened at a few festivals and looked pretty good as a 2k DCP. It's a solid camera for $750.
Also, if you are thinking about a GH4, the V-Log profile is completely useless without an external recorder.
You tried it using V Log with internal 8-bit? Hideous magenta blocking everywhere, it renders the footage unusable in my opinion. I tested it in daylight at various different exposures.
Most consumer camcorders will have relatively small sensors. Bigger sensors are preferable
DSLRs are stills cameras with video capability. They tend to have relatively large sensors
(Also, having removable lens that you can change is a bonus)
I need some advice/new eyes here. I picked up a slider and fluid head this week and shot some test footage but it seems jittery or like it's dropping frames while moving:
I'm using a t3i, 1080/24fps 1/50 shutter. A little sharpening added in post but I even see the jitter in the raw video.
Is that how 24fps should look or does it seem off to you? What can I do to correct it?
It depends which option you go for, but they're more likely to have the options provided by cinema cameras like external mic/heaphone ports (in my head at least, do some research before you take my word for it)
The biggest draw is for documentary filmmaking. If you're doing so then you don't want to be fiddling around with different lens and rigs, you want to grab a camera, put it on your shoulder and be confident in capturing your environment
So pretty much all consumer camcorders will be attached to a zoom lens that's normally fairly decent and the body itself will be much more ergonomic for carrying on your shoulder
But their small sensors mean that they won't perform especially well in low light and, combined with a fixed lens that often won't go below around f3.0, you can normally get a much better picture from a dslr and a decent prime
But this is all a generalisation. If you're trying to decide what to buy, do some research and figure out how much you're willing to spend.
These days, any video camera that outputs at 1080p and above can get pretty decent results - consumer camcorders included
Hell, people are making films with iphones now
Got a Canon 6D + (full frame) zoom lens for video. is it worth putting Cinestyle on it? I already done some research on Magiclantern and it seems very useful.
How much writing speed does the SD card need to be to film RAW at a decent resolution?
>LEXAR SDXC PRO 64GB 1000x UHS2
>max. reading speed: 1.200 mb/s
>reading speed: 240 mb/s
or is this overkill?
>LEXAR 32GB SDHC 2000x UHS-II
>max. reading speed: 300mb/s
>doesn't say writing speed
Read that the 6D has a diminishing return after a certain speed because of hardware limitation when it comes to writing.
pls recommend a good place to send my 16mm film for develop + scan
Straight to the bin would probably be fine.
It's cheaper, and it means nobody has to look at your terrible film.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:05:29 10:07:03 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 715 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Center-Weighted Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
somewhat OT, but anyone know/remember what's the name of the guy who shoot's videos for fashion events and clubs in denmark? he had a bunch of vids in vimeo, really liked his style, b&w and some weird clips in between the actual shots
Do you already have stock?
In the UK Kodak have started a scheme called the Independent Production Package where they will tailor a stock/process/scan package for your film and budget. Might be a good idea to contact them directly to see if there's a similar scheme in US happening.
If not they should at least be able to give you processing advice.
I cant find a decent field monitor. Wtf. I'm searching a 5" display with at least HDMI-in, 1024x600px, 1080/60i and 1080/24psf compatibel, underscan and a 16/9 - 2.35(/9) switch. Histogram and stuff would be neat but not necessarry.
The ONLY monitor fulfilling the criteria is the smallHD 501 (which seems to be a real masterpiece of technology), but this costs ~1.200$.
I also considered a selfmade solution by setting up a raspberry or red brick with some decent monitor and linux with vlc running. But even if you would use a tablet or versitile laptop, there is NO way to get a propper HDMI input via usb. For this I'd have to use e.g. a blackmagic intensity interface via usb3 or thunderbold, but the lack of support for linux (especially with thunderbold) is cruel. So I'd have to buy some shitty mac and shit and then have to use the BM software, which is for recording and not monitoring, and would end up at 1.000$ again.
It's a real pain in the ass that you can't find small monitors for a decent price and that HDMI inputs are intentionally (!) not easily available for the 'consumer' market. (It's not accidentally that you won't find ANY laptop with hdmi-in, unless dell's alienwear which is expensive af and don't even support HDCP.)
So, does anybody know of a field monitor with the mentioned features I might have not seen yet?
they are horrible. The spectrum is fucked up and the CRI very bad. Also 110W is really not very light.
The only way to get sane light for really low money is like 3-4 halogen bulbs with 1000w each. They have a perfect spectrum and CRI, but ofc 3200K and high power consumption and heat.
If you planning to mix daylight with artificial light then only a better LED light will do the job for affordable money.
sure, for close-ups even 2x500w can be sufficient. .. and in this case color temperature is not an issue, so absolute best results for lowest money with halogen. .. and since they are cheap get 2x1000w or so, you'll see: the more light the better (light>aperture>shutter>iso).
also most camcorders have a 3.2k°K preset, which is a wise thing to use because normally with this setting the blue-channel has the best noise distance.
I hate /vid/ and wish it had another board to live on, however I just saw this film clip and thought it was pretty /p/core, and this is probably the best place to share it without making a new thread.
ok seriously, what framerate? 24? 25? 30? 48? 50? 60?
Ofc 24 has this cinematic look, that I personally consider as to appear 'professional'. But I think more fluid framerates (>=30), which look somewhat horrible amateurish to me (because everything is just "too real"), are more and more common and people get used to it. at some point people will most likely dislike the 24fps look and find it exerting to watch.
what's your opinion?
ffmpeg -i file.avi -acodec copy -vcodec rawvideo -pix_fmt rgb24 -vf "scale=1920:1080" out.avi
or instead of vf:
.. when you're working with uncompressed video.
If not ... THEN FUCKING TELL US WHAT FORMAT AND PARAMETERS YOU WORK WITH. .. retard.
Well, he already has it now. So it would make sense to ask advice on what card to use on it than on a camera he doesn't have.
He probably bought it for photography too, and now just wants to spread to video.
Or maybe not? Who cares, it's his money.
here are the video specifications
it's from a gh4
there are sub menus in a lot of these with more options
So you convert a h264 mp4. The parameters you should pay attention are:
Scaler: set to bilinear or cubic
Resolution: set to 1920x1080
Constant rate factor: set off to enable bit rate mode
Bit Rate Preset: set something which sounds like good quality
Bit Rate: should be then something around 3000
Leave everything else as it is. This should result in a decent quality.
what standards? DCI's DCP supports 24 up to 96fps. Web does not care at all.
Please tell me you're not talking about DVD or Television . I mean, what is Television?? Does this shit exist anymore?
argh, mov is also an container, not a codec. and it depends on what you'll do with the converted video. further processing? rawvideo. publish to web or bluray? h264. prepare for dvd? mpeg2.
then covert to something uncompressed. rawvideo in a mov container with yuv420p format would be sufficient. or ofc use some more pro solution and generate an image sequence. like tiff or dpx.
orientate on what your NLE can handle at best.
I'd like to start on photography and also on video so I read the sticky and I saw the sony a6000 .
It was performing really great but i also saw the Canon 700D who were performing great on video and photo and also had a diversity of lens that the a6000 doesent had.
Wich one should I pick /p/ ?
oh wait, if you're downscaling from 4k you can use a yuv444 or rgb24 format to blow up your 420 subsampling in the original file .. but yeah, since it was compressed lossy in the first place it won't help that much ..
Get the a6000.
Use adapters and legacy lenses. If you want to use Canon EF(s)lenses, get an adapter which supports auto focus and aperture. It'll work fine on the a6000 (source: myself, had this combo for quite a while). Plus, the Sony offers way better video than the 700D.
they do, however, have a couple (overpriced) mic options from sony that plug directly into the hotshoe, and work surprisingly well. I had the small stereo shotgun one and the bluetooth one, and both were super useful.
I miss my a6000, I recently sold it to finance picking up an NX1
that said, the NX1's only flaw for me is it falls apart after ISO 3200, otherwise I've never been happier with a non-cinema camera, a7sII included
Standards the whole video hardware and software industry must hold upon to make it all workable.
>Web does not care at all.
Excep the devices you want your web videos to be seen care. They care what types of video they can decode, what set resolution and framerates they can play back, what bandwith you are getting. Adding more features means the manufacturers has to pay more for technology licensing fees. And once you stop caring so does the viewer because he won't be able to see anything.
kek .. are you retard? .. or like 65yo?
AS IF ANY software decoder would care if a stream is 24 or 50fps. The most excert software decoding has, is with actually decoding the super-complex compression (think of h264 or jepg2000). the framerate is the smallest problem.
And the times of pure hardware decoders are over anyways. You saw them last with DVD.
So there are no devices supporting a specific framerate or what anymore. There are devices with software which does support specific CODECS. And no state of the art codec I know of has a framerate limit near to 24 or even 60.
We live in times when, in regard to motion picture and fps, the bottleneck is purely the screen itself, but with smth around 120hz you don't get in trouble so soon.
So, by "standards":
digital cinema (DCI): 24 25 30 48 50 60 96fps
web/pc/mobile: principially ANY
bluray: up to 60fps
> because the viewer won't be able to see any difference
... ? you wanna tell me you wouldn't see the difference between 24 and 48fps? .. dude, I have to ask you: did you actually ever SEE footage in 48fps? Because if not this would be the only explanation for your absolute ignorant statement. Of course you see a huge difference. But a higher framerate does not look necessarrily BETTER.
And this was what I was asking about.
But you really can't get any sane response on this board. I'm always helpful here, but literally 9 out of 10 questions I ask get answered by a random moron having the I'm-amateur-but-I-know-everything disease. Which regularly ends in me informing the moron about BASIC facts and knowledge, but everything I get for this in return is "hurr durr muh many clue. yoz misspelled 'extraoriginative', lrn2english".
It's all about the light.
I consider buying 3 Aputure HR672.
Are they really worth the price (700$)?
What kind of combination do I need? W+S+C?
yeah well, don't expect too much from them. They are quite dark and only one of them can adjust color temperature. also CRI of 95 isn't THAT good (and they lie tho).
But I doubt you will have use for them outdoors anyways, since they aren't bright enough.
So for some indoor lighting, like an one person interview, they will be fine. And having them will be better than not having them.
Don't expect to get an on-set useable LED light for under 1.600$.
But why LED in the first place?
for example: look at OP's picture, that's an Arri Skypanel s60. It costs 5.000$. And it's just as bright as a 2000W halogen bulb for 18$. And the LED's CRI is worse, halogen bulb is perfect. (but the LED panel has adjustable color temperatur and comes without insane power consumption and heat, of course.)
Think if you really need LED tech.
>And the times of pure hardware decoders are over anyways
They are more relevant than ever as h265 requires significantly more processing to decode and that draws more power. Energy efficiency is very important and without a dedicated chip mobile devices will fall flat. Many new devices already carry dedicated decoders.
>digital cinema (DCI): 24 25 30 48 50 60 96fps
Good luck getting most of them to play natively on a digital movie projector.
>web/pc/mobile: principially ANY
Good thing video engineers are actually strict about the matter and don't allow just anything to pass through.
>> because the viewer won't be able to see any difference
That's not even a quote of me. Who are you even quoting? You just go on a rant for no reason.
Hate to be that guy, but anyone know what is currently the best release of cc master nowadays? Just discovered the one I torrented more than a year ago is broken, as dynamic link doesn't work as it should between premiere and ae. Tracker and distributor's name would save me a lot of time. My current project is stalled until I can find something reliable, and I really don't have time to mess about downloading and testing different releases (project needs to be ready by Monday and means a lot to me).
>I already have the entire Adobe CC suite torrented and it works fine
Mind sharing where you obtained yours?
Color shouldn't be much of an issue, even if you find the flattest profile it has you can still usually crank down the saturation and contrast even further, and it's still going to have the largest sensor in its price class, which will give a cleaner image and better low-light performance as well as better control over DoF
You know what it's like when you're deep into a project, and you've achieved a perfect state of mind for editing, and you don't want anything to disrupt that good place you've reached...
I was selfishly hoping for a quick fix to my issue. Oh well, onto wading through the endless sea of comments on trackers to determine what's worthwhile. With any luck, I'll end up with some malware which will render my system unusable.
Why do people use zoom lenses which have focus rings towards the end of the barrel rather than at the base for video? Do they enjoy adjusting the follow focus position every time they change focal length? This baffles me. Can someone please explain.
This sticky recommends Sigma 18-35 1.8, which doesn't have the focus ring at the base of the barrel. I wonder if the person who compiled that information has any practical videography experience.
Could use anyones help
Can anyone tell me what type of gear would be used to achieve this sort of video
you can have a look and find out how much a real video zoom lens costs. 'real' means here that the body does not move a bit. everything is internal, focus, zoom, everything. you will be surprised that there are only a few companies producing them anyways. like zeiss, kreuznach, p+s, .. and yeah canon has one or two. .. go ahead, see what they cost and then wonder why here nobody recommends them.
Would this be a good starter stabilizer? I've seen reviews and all that, just wondered if anyone had experience with this as well.
Thats around the max im willing to spend for this atm as well.
I started learning Lightworks a few years ago, stopped, and now wanted to get back into editing, but apparently it's dead?
Where should I go from here, Resolve? Also, for paid software, how does Premiere Pro compares to Avid?
>mfw I find out if my short film's been accepted on Friday
Fuck, this is intense
It's even worse because they're judging it based on a version where the audio was kinda fucked... balls, I won't get in will I? I really want to but... shit
A friend of mine once told me cinestyle would give clips a lot of banding, but I don't know if it's true. Try it and see which one gives you more details without fucking up other things
I thought it was finished! I didn't know how to properly fix audio, and then I learnt the other day on an unrelated project
It's fine, Im not resubmitting it or anything
Im just annoyed that it could've been a better submission so easily
Not really, I've only submitted one film before this and I only submitted it to one festival because I didn't expect anything and surprisingly enough it didn't make it
Since we're on the subject, how did you find out about the film festival? Did you just Google film festivals in your area, or what?
If anyone would like to talk about their experiences with film festivals, I'd love to hear about that, too.
Well Im currently living in the city so last year when it was on there were a few pamphlets about it and I figured I might want to give it a shot.
Outside of that, check out
If you sign up to them (free) then they won't stop emailing you about film festivals.
Other than that, pretty much every city will have at least one festival at some point. London has about 20.
Google film festivals worth the money
That's about all the advice I can give you though
I'm sorry that this is a fucking dumb noob question, but i simply cant find the right word with google
what is the cable called that goes from the line out of an audio recorder to the line in of a dslr?
and should i be looking out for anything in particular when getting one of these?
what is gamma? what is black point envelope? what is colour matrix? what is calibration? what is audio expanding?
dude, I can't see a thing, did you ever researched ANY basic of image processing? .. or - for beginners - did you ever see your clip on a second monitor? .. I have to dissapoint you but some bokeh bubbles is not enough to talk about good (or even functioning) imaging.
also bad acted and directed, boring etc. etc. .. but this was expected.
to answer you question about the lars von trier brainshittery first: this pathological depressed fucker shall go fuck himself and of all of his stupid cock-slurping fellows. everybody making or following any rule for art can just lick my ass and keep their brainshit in their anuses where it belongs to.
so .. said this I have to relativize my statement in regard to your car-scene. so, did you intent that the pictute is so dark I hardly can see a thing on my screen?
if not I recommend to double and tripple check your grading on several different monitors. then you quickly can get an idea of potential problems.
in regard to the problem the picture appears too dark on some screens, it can help to correct the gamma value and to raise the black-point (before! grading). then work the blacks that their dissemination does not tend too much to the dark (left) side. "pull" them a little to the dark greys, and let only areas with really no information be straight black.
this helps because most monitors are more reliable in the range from dark-greys to light-greys. blacks and highlights are often fucked-up, or rather you cannot expect the screen is good enough to resolute the whole range and is calibrated correctly. but in the mids it's somewhat reliable (in regard to luminance, forget colour). it's like working with audio: work that the mids are good, then bass and highs will follow easily.
I see it fine on my monitor but on others that I've seen it does get a tad dark. Great stuff to keep in mind, I'll go through it once more to see what I can clean and if what I have now is insufficient then I guess I'll have to reshoot it in better lighting conditions.
In regards to your statement on Von Trier and Dogme, I chuckled.
What's the best steadicam with a fairly short length (probably not too short) for sweeping between low and high shots, without touching the floor?
like this basically:
Just buy three spots and daylight balanced. You lose too much with the variable temp ones and the wide model can't be made to spot where as the spot can be softened and made wider quite easily. Invest in a softbox etc
kek, you may believe what you want.
but you could be aware (or not, don't know how your intellectual situation is) of the accumulating effect. As everything begins with light (technical seen), you open a chain:
let's say you got 95% of possible light quality (which is a waaay to high estimination for the LED panels in question), and you got a lens with say 88% of possible imaging quality, a sensor with 80% possible sampling power, a signal processor with 90% accuracy, then a stupid compression algorithm (and chroma subsampling is also a lossy compression, don't talk rubbish (so is de-bayering .. but different topic)) which reduces quality to maybe 72%, then let's hope you got a signal-transfer of 99%, 92% trans-coding quality, followed by a post-processing environment hopefully with 99% also (unrealistic but ftw), and then in the end force the whole shit again through a compression algo ... what do you think then might be the reason your shit looks amateurish?
hm? you end up with 39% total quality AT BEST. why? yes, the flaws accumulate. and the accumulating effect says that the farer to the beginning of the chain the flaw is, the more the end of the chain gets affected. BECAUSE IN SIGNAL FLOW QUALITY GETS ALWAYS WORSE. never better. every single percent you loose in the beginning will be a heavy duty in the end.
so, my dear fellow, you may use whatever fine 200$ LED panel you want. But if you then wonder where all the quality disappeared, you might be the "retarded".
Some lenses zoom by moving as a unit within the body of the lens, which means that the rings never change position. If >>2756004 knew what he was talking about he'd know that the rings on the body of the sigma never change position, so your FF will never need to be adjusted unless you swap lenses. This isn't rocket science.
>actually paying attention to the sticky written by bedroom Kubricks from a Sri Lankan cryptogram autism board.
>thinking any of you will be able to afford that shitty "cinema" camera
>Thinking any of your shitty ideas are worth buying equipment for, instead of just renting or borrowing from your friends.
At least your naive hopes are rather admirable. Have an eyeline. Also, fuck stripped threads, of any sort.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Bottom, Right-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448
>Says it's all about the light
>Posts overpriced and relatively crappy LED panels
I have yet to find better bang for your buck lights than tungstens. "But muh power draw", plan ahead and rent a genny if you need to. For 700
I could get my hands on 3 650w fresnels and they'd be more versatile for just about everything than those LEDs.
Outdated and stupid to own and autistic right? A customized T2i?
>comparing film grain to digital noise
>using a shitty artifact filled stream and not a blu-ray rip or uncompressed source
What's your point? This post and the one above it prove you're more pleb than anyone on this board.
Shooting a live action cat drama. Cats are the new human actors
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:04 17:49:40 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1920 Image Height 1080
Still don't have a tripod
Found this on sale for $50. Is it any gud?
Dolica LA600 Pro 60-Inch
For technical know how in premiere.
He shares lots of useful tips about editing craft in his videos, although his channel is not devoted entirely to editing.
Documentary about editing, covers the history of editing, and talks about all the key editing techniques.
>thinks calling people niggers will help him fit in
>doesn't provide any information about what model steadicam
>asking something which can be easily googled
Hope you trip over on Sunday, smashing your glass and making an idiot of yourself.
Takes years to become a Steadicam Op, if you're asking this question it's unlikely you're going to have a good time on Sunday. Without telling us the Steadicam model you're using and camera + lens system no-one can help you.
Let the production know now that you are going to deliver them some unusable footage with seasick horizons.
Was on a production recently where they hired some guy who said he was a Steadicam Op, he turned up and fucked about for 4 hours and didn't shoot a single frame of usable footage before the DOP told him to just stop and go home. The whole afternoon was written off.
What is a good camera for aroudn 1.500€ for making awesome looking videos as well as photos. Also I would prefer a small sized camera. I'm currently using the Pentax Q but for videos this camera is pretty shit.
Hello friends, I have a problem with After Effects
i shoot 4K in 4:3. Then i downscale it to 1080p, maintaining the 4:3 aspect ratio. This has never been a problem.
Now, when i drop the the downscaled clip into AE, it stretches it out to 16:9 for some reason, How do I stop it from doing this?
Oddly enough, it doesn't stretch the original 4K clip, and no other video editors or video players stretch the downscaled one
whats going on here
There's a little button in the comp window called something like 'preserve aspect ratio', try uncheck that. Sounds like AE thinks you've given it anamorphic footage and it's trying to unsqueezed it.
where might i find this button?
dude. DUDE. DUUUDE! I hate you and everybody like you.
could you - please, because i have to beg you, since i am the one who wants something from you .. and not you would want sonething from me .. - so, please please be kind enough to support me with a little bit more information. .. just in case you have time for it. please. i would be so glad. you'd make my day. sorry that i have to bother you with that.
... you moronic ass. i show you how a not idiotic help request looks like:
"I'm downscaling my 4k material to fullHD by using ffmpeg and the following command/parameter:
ffmpeg -i bla.mov -s 1440x1080 -vcodec rawvideo -an blub.avi
The original material is also in 4:3 aspect ratio. When I open the converted file in XY it is fine, but when I open it in YX it is shown in 16:9. Other 4:3 files are opened fine in YX.
Here's the metadata of the file:
ffmpeg -i blub.avi
aspect ratio: 4:3
pixel size: 2.0:1
What can I do?"
... so that I can say then: "dude, ffmpeg converted the video with an anamorph pixel size, and YX seems to respect that metadata. add to your command:
and that's it."