/vid/ - Video General

I nominate Kubrick-kun as the leader of this thread.

>>2762579

Right now, what do people think is the best well-rounded option for internal 4k in terms of features to price?

>>2762885
I don't know you pick it out. Just go find a camera you like. Probably rent it and then buy it. But just don't be a hipster and just try to be cool with a mirrorless Red Epic and start claiming you are better than everyone because of that camera.

Yes the RED Epic is good, but seeing fucking trees with piano music is shitty the 545th time when labeled under test video and not a short film title.

>>2762904
My bad I had intentions of writing A7s or GH4, forgive me.

test

sfcsdf

>>2762906
>>2762904

I won't be cool regardless of what I buy, I just need to figure out how to best spend shekels. Where I live there aren't a lot of cameras to demo, as there are few videographers and they are mostly canon txi users.

File: giphy.gif (1021KB, 250x190px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 250x190px

Just bought a Canon EOS 700D 18M + 18-55mm to make short films, did I fucked up?

any suggestions for a cheap follow focus mechanism for the sony a7II?

Thanks

>>2762953
Slightly. Ceratinly not the best cost/value ratio but you can learn the basics quite ok. Make sure you install and learn magic lantern.

What are some good starter cameras? I'm looking for a DSLR for narrative work.

The sticky was a bit barebones.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/Fuji-Film-HR-21-16mm-x-100ft-Microfilm-Negative-PET-125-Expired-2014-/121861315168?nav=SEARCH

Could I use this as a test film?

I have an EOS 70D, i've loaded the technicolor cinestyle on it. As long as I shoot it right the first time, I can make it look really good in DaVinci (otherwise I spend time getting the image presentable).

I have the stock lens it came with (18-55mm), but I would like to get the 24mm pancake lens. It's my understanding that with that lens I would get the equivalent focal length of about 35mm. I find myself not using the zoom much in what I shoot, and if I get to that point i'll invest in a nicer prime lens for that.

I found a Neewer 52mm Variable ND Filter on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0059BH85K
I found a Tiffen 52mm Polarizer Filter as well:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004ZCAU

For the price, are these filters good to get? Thanks

guys I got ~1000$ to spend on a camera.
Im kinda excited about the a6300, but the pana g7 is interesting too, but it doesn't have v-log.
Should I wait for some real world review of the a6300 or jump into the pana boat ?

What lens adapter should I get for using a Sigma 35mm on a GH4?

>>2763292
Well that depends on what mount the Sigma 35 is for, no?

File: Canon XL2 worse than 750D.jpg (43KB, 847x451px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 847x451px

>>2762953
No, not at all. The camera doesn't make the film. Remember 28 Days Later was shot completely on an XL2.

Reason people will start saying your film looks videoish is because you are using shitty lighting. Also the camera used to film Star Wars Episode 2 is probably close to or is on par with that camera. It is the Sony HDW-F900.

Put Magiclantern on it, put a VAF-TXi on it, put a vintage lens on it, put a HD/TV FX 1/2 filter on it, and lastly download Visiontech on it (If you do not want raw).

Right now I am working on the VAF-TXi for the T2i. T2i would have been a cheaper and better choice, well because: https://bitbucket.org/OtherOnePercent/tragic-lantern/downloads

Scroll down until you see 550D. 550D, T2i same thing.

File: img_f23_03-1.jpg (7KB, 270x152px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 270x152px

>>2763308
And you 4chaners need to know I double post or triple post to bring close to a point on what I'm talking about. Otherwise it is rude to mock me. Shows immaturity badly.

Now this is the camcorder: Sony HDW-F900.

Shoots on MiniDV tapes by the way.

>>2762885
A6300

>>2763312
why are you talking to yourself about yourself

>>2763423
This. The A6300 blows every camera out of the water when it comes to anything under 2,000. Then the sony A7Sii takes the cake for best camera for video under 20,000.

>>2763227
No get the A6300. Nothing compares to it, and nothing will surpass it for the next 3 years just like the A6000.

File: DSCF5369.jpg (1007KB, 3968x2484px) Image search: [Google]

1007KB, 3968x2484px

i shot a pretty awesome grafitti video for a friend yesterday, with an EM5 and an X10.
i didn't expect much, but once i graded it it turned out pretty alright, especially for it being my third time editing anything, and grading
for my first time ever.

do you guys have any tips for when grading for different cameras, like is there some way in premiere to label all the clips after which camera and lens, and then assign different color profiles for each camera, or should one just do every clip manually?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X10
Camera Software	Digital Camera X10 Ver2.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:07 16:03:39
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.10 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3968
Image Height	2484
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2763431
Sorry, can't help you there. I only know Sony s-log grading. Grading for a EM5 and a X10 sounds like a nightmare. I love my Sony, it's such a dependable camera.

I just buy a new camera (550D) and i have a micro SD with a SD adaptator can i use it for video or it's inadvisable?

>>2763471
Should be fine.

>>2763312
MiniDV is sexy as fuck and I don't care what anyone says. I've got dozens of hours of unseen footage I recently captured from my dusty collection of sexy little tapes, and I've been having a blast editing them into little 15 second clips for instagram. I only started uploading a couple of weeks ago, but I'll probably be able to produce around a 100 worthwhile little clips before I exhaust the footage. It's like stumbling on a treasure trove of 'found footage', except I shot it all myself. Might even see if my old camera still works and start shooting MiniDV again, being as I still have a mountain of unopened sony tapes. Interlaced SD baby, fuck yeah!

>>2763548
ok

>>2763300
speaking as a complete pleb, how do I find out the mount specifications?

and should I be using Magic Lantern on a GH4?
I understand it's used for bypassing barriers on DLSR cameras, is it as necessary or enhancing on a GH4?

>>2763558
>not being a part of the miniDV master race.

>>2763559
There are no enhancements for the gh4 because it doesn't need them
The mount is basically the type of camera the lens was for
What camera system was your sigma made for?

>>2763573
thanks for clearing that up
I haven't bought the 35mm yet, but the one I have been reading up on is for Canon, but I could get it for Nikon or Sony if it makes getting the adapter easier or cheaper, I dunno sadly

>>2763312
>Now this is the camcorder: Sony HDW-F900.Shoots on MiniDV tapes by the way.

You have to remember the camera they had on set was modified from the public release. I am absolutely sure they had uncompressed storage rather than plain dv.

>>2763564
>>2763548
Here's a neat trick. You can cut the dv tape to various lengths like an audio casette. You will still be able to recover footage and record newly.

Time for dreams and gearfaggotry: What's your ideal setup, if money is not an issue
Hard (reality) mode: also post current setup
for me, it'd be:
C500 + a couple zeiss lenses
Sound Devices 633
Sennheiser mkh 416
Sachtler tripod

I like to DIY without crew, so that would be ideal

>>2763599
Not quite sure I follow. Care to elaborate?

will something like this hold a sony a7ii with a baterry grip?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DSLR-Rig-Kit-Shoulder-Mount-Rig-with-Follow-Focus-and-Matte-Box-EM-12-/311464542786?hash=item4884bbc242:g:TigAAOSwwbdWHiBT


thanks

>>2763471
You just need to check the microSD write speed, a canon DSLR shoots in fullHD at 50Mbit/s or 6.25MB/s, that's what you need

>>2763627
do it faggot

>>2763610
yeah, like this gonna be surprising ..

>inb4 alexa, f55/65, dragon, varicam + ultra/compact/master prime, xenon, cinealta, CN/CK + 176gazillilion gimmicks like matteboxes, follow focus, ext vf, and stuff + 1million WH battery power + 656metric tons full hydraulic cameracrane/jib + 7655billion lumen 5200°k light + 40000km railing dolly and a neat case where the stuff actually fits in.

dude, this is all bullshit. The optimal setup is the one you have. Ideal is an illusion.

>>2763761
Le best is what you have gurl XD is not the point of my post

>>2763766
you can stick your post up your anus.

we should rather make a 'post your gun' thread (pictures of 'em ofc).

>>2763673
you can hold an a7ii with chinese chopsticks, dude

>>2763768
ebin

>>2763047
filters are cheap but they should be good

How do I get the Cineform codec?

>>2763427
thanks man, will get it when it comes out

>>2763903
what a brilliant question. HOW do you GET the cineform codec? like get it to what? to put it into your pocket? what are you planning to do? on which OS? which NLE? which version? what did you try already? what failed? where dud you get stuck?

your question is like: how do I money?

you stupid moronous fuckhead. go and piss yourself while sucking slowly and intensly on your shit-covered go-pro.

New to /vid/ so if this has been beaten to death already then sorry but what do you guys think of Lightworks? Trying to go legitimate for a short film and I don't really care for the Adobe pricing. I'm very familiar with Premiere so Lightworks is a bit of a learning curve but is it worth putting the effort into learning?

Can anybody recommend a decent quality lighting kit between 200-400? 3 lights maybe?

Really need to get one for myself

>>2763771
true but i am very interested about the focus thing. So any suggestions?

thanks

>>2764071
You got troled senpai

>>2764143
Bump for interest

>>2764143
Yeah. Why not lightworks. Why not? Are you afraid someone will say: haha, you did not use adobe. you looser. your movie is shit then. haha.

since it is free (more or less), why not try it and then decide? what is it with you people not using non-mainstream shit even when it's free? are you paranoid? or just stupid?

if you want to go free then you have several options. from user-friendly to know-what-you-do. lightworks is somewhere in the middle. there are some even easier tools (from the kde project or the like) and some very advanced like cinelerra.

or if you want to be a real h3x0r make your grading with imagick. great fun.

btw, blender has a NLE and compositor which is astonningly on par with pure NLEs. the compositor is even one of the best. only dis is, it's quite slow .. in comparsion to cinelerra e.g..

so, find your software you are happy with. .. by trying. trail abd error dude. .. nit the opinions of otheres. right? sheep.

>>2764206
yeah .. halogen filament bulbs .. like around 18$ each .. + 30/40$ for a lamp.

why are you asking this bullshit?

>>2764216
since you call it a "focus thing" it will absolutely fine for your needs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDbzBsNg7Y

any improvements that could be made to this guys GH4 + Speedbooster + 35mm set up?

also, which Speedbooster is he using?
http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster
I assume a Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds, but which one?

>>2764443
as if I would watch this bullshit to figure out for you if it is the S, L or XL. One of them I don't care. Shut up. Most likely one x0.7 because 35*0.7 ~ 25mm on 4/3 = 50mm muh focal length.

>>2764453
lol thanks fampai

>>2763308
That's incorrect. The whole movie didn't use xl2. Select scenes only

File: onelmon-cassettetapegifttopper-03[1].jpg (317KB, 3333x2500px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 3333x2500px

>>2763627
You can PHYSICALLY cut the tape with scissors and each part of the tape will still be usuable once wrapped in a case. That's some great durability considering it's digital also.

>>2764415
>btw, blender has a NLE and compositor which is astonningly on par with pure NLEs. the compositor is even one of the best

Just go. Even Resolve's NLE is better, and that is trash.

>>2764426

just because i didn't use the "follow focus" word i am denied help? Srly?

>>2764244
did he? can u name one camera better than the a6300 for 1000 bucks?

>>2764635
G H 4
H
4

>>2764698
Or is it?
A6300 comes with Slog2/slog3 and crushes the GH4 in low light no question.

>>2764707
gh4 is more optimised for video and gives you greater flexibility

>>2764698
gh4 ? 1000$?
NO
O

>>2764749
Y E S
E
S

>>2764753
im not looking for 2nd hand market, only
NEW
E
W

>>2762579
So I need some suggestions. I've just bought the A7s and I only have 2 old manual focus not stabilized prime lenses: a zeiss distagon 35mm 1.4 and a zeiss planar 50mm 1.4.

Now, manual focus is ok but micro-vibrations are gonna be a pain in the ass as usual. Should I sell them for some newer stabilized lenses or I keep them and just fix it with a shoulder rig and some stabilization in post?

>>2764707
A6300 ftw. Nothing compares under 2,000. If you need a step up get the A7.

>>2764763
SO AM I

>>2764415
What the hell... dude I'm looking for better priced alternatives it has nothing to do with being "anti mainstream" what is with this chip on your shoulder. You're being awfully sour over trying to start a discussion.

>>2764764
stabilizing in post is always worse than in lens or body, because you lose resolution.

a stabilzed lens is cheaper than a sane steadycam solution. but maybe a gimbal is the right thing for you. (motorized)

i personally use tripods, railed dolly and jibs .. (no dslr tho)

>>2764779
yeah, whatever ... (wasted efford in you ..)

btw, why are you all working with lossy compressed recording? are you ignorant? stupid? or just poor? (what would be same as ignorant?
I'd never touch compressed material, you absolutely cannot work with thus shit. how can you expect to work with 100Mb/s while decent material needs good 1Gb/s, 10x the amount of data.

what I don't get is how you all run around and care about sensors and lenses and (the bit cleverer of you) lighting and so on, but then you hit the record button and your stupid cam is just destroying the whole performance. .. like "uh this cam is no neat at high iso .. but I only need 64Mb/s .. what? compression noise? what's that?" ..

really ..

File: tumblr_nzff9kEYha1rovfcgo1_1280.jpg (102KB, 953x652px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 953x652px

What is the eyepiece that I see in stanley kubricks hand in some shots of him behind the scenes?

Is it just a telescope? Does it have like a perspective thing in it?

>>2764084
by that, I meant "where do I find a download for the cineform codec so that I may use it intermediately in editing?"

DNxHD is 8-bit, ProRes is 10-bit, can't easily encode to ProRes on windows

It's my understanding Cineform can be 10-bit

>>2764899
I don't know what it's called but I think its so the director can see what the shot looks like from the lens. I think you can just mount a lens in front of it and see what it looks like.

>>2764841
Poor bait anon, 14 bit of full HD raw footage doesn't exceed 120Mb/sec. You get an E for effort.

>>2764899
>>2764928
It's called a Director's Viewfinder

>>2763610
>C500
>ideal
Heh.

>>2764764
Shoulder rig. That's all you need. Nobody worth their salt uses IS.

>>2765080
What's wrong with it
What else would I use

>>2765036
you claim 120Mb/s = 15MB/s ...let's see

14bit x 3 channels = 42bit per pixel

1,920pix x 1,080pix = 2,073,600 pixel

2,073,600pix x 42bbp = 87,091,200bit per frame

87,091,200bpf x 24fps = 2,090,188,800bit per second

2,090,188,800bit / 8 = 261,273,600bytes

<< = 2.1Gb/s >>

<< = 261MB/s >>

(even with a lossless compression, it won't get less than ~1.2Gb/s = 180MB/s)


well, that's the 17.4x of your assumption .. well done, dude, well done.

(gosh on what niveau people here are .. when will I finally vanish .. why am I even explaining shit .. sigh)

>>2764901
a quick look gave me the impression, that you don't download the cineform shit anywhere. the codec is implemented in specific software. like premiere e.g. so, you need a software which can handle it, since there is no standard library you could install on OS-level.
this may be related to go-pro being a shit company with .. ah c'mon, just forget it. buy some recommended software for cineform editing/transcoding and leave me alone.

>>2765124
it's okay. but a global shutter would be nice. anyways there's nothing wrong with it (.. well, maybe the design). but it is also not ideal. but as said: ideal is an illusion.

and duuuuude, you'll never be able to afford it anyways. so what's the point? buy an used red scarlet for 7000$ and you'll have more quality you'll ever need. .. btw, for what even? what are you doing? for equipment just rottening in your basement with the 'one day I make a movie' plan, you really don't need an expensive camera.

>>2765240
I was talking about an ideal scenario where I could have whatever I want, regardless of price
Chill

>>2765199
you using mega or mibi

File: blue-is-the-warmest-color.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>2765199
Your math does add up and indeed I have mistaken megabits with megabytes. While shooting magic lantern raw at 1080p-ish resolutions you need to have 90+ MB/s cards, the a7s also demands a 100MB/sec card for 4K so I presumed the bitrates are similar. It turns out it's the tenth of it, so probably it's using the card for caching the data and stuff. (I'm about to buy one)
This being said the fact doesn't change that with your attitude you are multiple levels worse than gearfags. Why all the fuzz? Yes, you got significantly more latitude for post color processing but you have to be
1»a cameraman/dp working for high level tv series/cinema
2»a professional colorist
to be obsessed with obtaining so much data.

Or - and most likely - just someone jerking off to accurate digital noise patterns without actually producing anything of value, believing this is what makes or breaks a film.
see: "Blue is the warmest colour" from 2013.
A great movie with beautiful cinematography, won at Cannes, cashed 20 million bucks at the box office... and all shot on a C300 at 50Mbps. Why are you so butthurt anon?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:08:15 10:02:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080

why is everyone here praising the a6300 when it isn't even out yet? Specs mean shit if the camera doesnt follow through for video.

I say this because the a6000 would overheat when anyone tried to shoot 15 mins of video. It didnt even have 4k and it would still overheat. It seriously pissed me off at the time (i have since sold it).

If anyone here is seriously considering the a6300, wait a little longer after it is first released to read up on the reviews by other consumers and try to find out if the camera overheats or has problems with the battery (as the a6000 had).

>>2765267
for an "ideal" situation there are better options than the c500, indeed.

>>2765272
since I made the calculation in bits/bytes there is no difference. but yeah, for the shorts it's mega.

>>2765291
yeah, that's my point: people who mix-up bytes with bits doing digital motion picture. and I'm the last one gearfagging, I just find it funny how people whine about mft vs aps-c or 10bit vs 12bit or this lens vs that lens, and then they fucking record lossy compressed .. hello? in a digital signal flow bandwith is always the bottle-neck. and lossy compression is an END FORMAT. not a transport format. so if you broadcast then okay, compress it. but if you want to post-process, it's just rediculous.

and hey, there where movies sold millions of times, which were shot on vhs. how is this an argument? since when has quality ANYTHING to do with success?

but it's okay, people are stupid. what I don't like is the ignorance. this is going on my nerves. if you (for example) just can admit that ofc compression is a significant quality aspect, but you choose to do it anyways, then it's fine. there are no obligations. but if you delude yourself that you wouldn't do something stupid in spite of, then I fucking hate you ignorant fucker.

>>2765370
> It didnt even have 4k and it would still overheat.

dude .. sigh .. like when it would have had 4k then it would having fucking burnt.

.. technology does not work like that .. not anymore .. ah, just forget it, believe what you want.

and are you really recommending us to wait a little after the release of some random piece of technology, before buying it? really?

how convinient. .. btw, pro-tip: when you open a door (to the inside) always wait a little until the door is open enough for you to go through. otherwise, when you go too early, you'll bump against it. .. just sayin'

>>2765388
Such as

>>2765426
oh dude, i wrote it before .. for example:

> alexa, f55/65, dragon, varicam

could you know please stop this topic? what are doing? searching a setup you can phantasize about when going to sleep? .. jerk to? hm?

>>2765443
*now .. kek, i make many mistakes, but this is too stupid

>>2765443
Well he can always rent one of them for few hours once he'll have enough experience to know what the fuck to do with them. But yeah I suppose this is mostly about fapping to camera porn

>>2765443
You make have noticed that in my original post I wrote that I like to do things myself, no crew
Hence I need a camera that I can easily transport and operate alone

>>2763425
>ask me how I'm a benchracer and know nothing of real world use of video cameras

>>2765456
*may have

>>2765456
The cameras he named aren't any bit more difficult to use as one man band than a c500, not to mention their block/eng form factor makes setup, shoulder rigging, and adding of components much easier than the c500s.

File: Title 3.png (628KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1920x1080px

Sup /vid/ I'm back again to post OC in the midst of all this gear fagging. This is your daily reminder to also post OC, get critiqued, and learn how to make better videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pW2JKbwfgA&feature=youtu.be
Here is my most recent short film
and the short film I made before that (which I have posted here once before) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77UxMRdkBzY
Any way, critique it, tear it up, let me know what you think

>>2765518
would you have a specific question? what am I supposed to say? you know exactly on which level it is. so, if you can isolate a specific aspect, I (we) could provide you some feedback.

otherwise it all will end up in "horrible bullshit", "it's all green", "boring" or "I liked how he smashes the keyboard".

while people mostly know that you have to invest some efford in giving useful feedback, they underestimate how important it is to put some effort in ASKING for feedback. .. expect to get shallow feedback if you just fling your stuff in the ring and say "give it to me".

also your a idiot.

>>2765566
Am mostly looking for feed back on the first link
Mostly would Like feed back on the editing and pacing if that helps you, faggot

>>2765204
well I have the software, and there's an option for it, but it asks for the codec

>>2765612
well, you little piece of shit, the edit/cut is fine. at 2:15 I thought there'd be a continuous error, but when I looked again, it was fine (the face was, the body still did not fit to the previous dynamic, but it's okay). so good job with that. ofc you could vary a bit more / get a little more creative, but I prefer a well done classic cut over a stupidly made fancy one.

the timing on the other hand is quite saggy. you have the feeling to come not further. i think you assumed that but you don't know why. i'll tell you: the problem is in the dramaturgy. the observer has no possibility to anticipate, and therefore there is no expectation. when the observer cannot expect, he gets distracted. when he is distracted times don't pass and everything stands, no continuum is created and you get trouble following the story.

to solve that you have two options here: 1. get very, very slow in the beginning and rise tempo constantly. 2. be very fast all the time.

the third option would be to have a better script. if the pictures cannot tell the initiative plot then sopmething else must do it. either the protagonist or a voice-over.
don't compare your movie to a kind of short film where you get thrown in an unknown situation, because you will notice that those has a strong explenation in the short term - mostly by picture force. your movie explains itself only (!) by following the dialog, which is rich with redundant text, which may form character and atmosphere but does not help getting the initial environment/plot.

do you understand anything except 'good cut'?? .. because I believe your bit stupid.

>>2763034
Anyone?

>>2765640
Thanks for the feed back autist, very thoughtful for a mongaloid.
I have a habit of making things very long and drawn out so it's something I'm working on, on 1 hand I stylistically like things that feel painfully slow and monotonous, on the other I know the audience doesn't always respond well
To that. I did my best to combat that with this short (at least compared to the other one)
I agree that it is wanting in the area of establishment of story
Did you not like the dialogue?

>>2765645
it's best before 2014 .. and are you sure it's C41 .. or do you not develop yourself? .. I guess it'll look weird .. so, what to test with it?

>>2765651
there's your fault. you try to compensate your tendency to slow timing. then it's either this nor that and it simply does not work. if you tend to slow, be slow. really slow. do not try to find a compromise.

but - ofc - you shall not bore. being slow is no excusion for being boring. if you get frequently the feedback of being boring, then it is the very issue I mentioned. the dramaturgy sucks.

in principle the dialog is fine. but it is misplaced. it would work, if I am aware of the situation.
this is the reason why your movie gets better when you see it twice. and that's the reason you as the maker cannot understand the problem, because you know excactly your movie and cannot anticipate how it is for somebody who sees it the first time.

this is why you have to have a good script which introduces the observer to the plot and leads him through, playing with generating expectations, satisfaction, disappointment and surprise.

this sounds hard, but it is very easy actually. it envolved naturally when you consider the most important aspect of storytelling. and this leads to the actual problem of your movie, you didn't ask about: there is no punchline.

>>2765655
I know it's a little past its use by date but there shouldn't too much wrong with it. I was thinking of testing it with my buds soviet camera (forget model) and getting it processed through some sort of developer.

I don't develop myself though and I'm unsure about the processing type, but can't a bigger company like cinelabs do older discontinued films as long as they're somewhat relevant?

>>2765667
i guesd they can. no worry. i just wondered what the test is good for, when you can't be sure if a specific problem may be related to the film being out of date ..

>>2765665
This actually pretty thoughtful feedback, thanks, but God damnit you are either the most pretentious person I've ever talked to on 4chan or you the most autistic person I've ever talked to on 4chan

What does /vid/ think about GoPros?
I can get a GoPro hero 3 black edition for 200usd. Should I get it?

>>2765714
depends what you want it for

>>2765708
nah, I'm not sure you'll get something out of this. but it's only a little tine more trying. eventually (soon) you'll become a salesman or office-worker or what your "fallback" plan will be. so, try to have fun while it lasts. one day you will look back and think: damn my stuff wasn't that bad. but this one guy on 4chan was damn right .. I've never had something to say. good thing I'm in the fruitjuice branche now - for 27years. hell yeah .. these have been some fruity times.

too poor, too talentless, too lazy, too dumb, too unmotivated, too clueless, too uncertain, too boring, too delused ..

.. in short: a devastated loser living the I-could-have-when-I-wanted dream.

also your a annoying ass.

>>2765734
Mostly for pov.

File: image.jpg (49KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x300px

>>2765735

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	300
Image Height	300
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2765708
oh, but do me a favour and tell that one actor with the glasses that he has some potential. in fact i would cast him for my next project, if you weren't living in some untermensch country.

File: pickup_artist.png (113KB, 540x931px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 540x931px

>>2765741

Got a question, i've started shooting and sometimes i will get screen tearing, is that because i am moving too fast?

>>2765746
Lol now I know you are trolling

>>2765752
then just do not .. i don't care

>>2765748
real screen tearing is related to your graphic card (or render software in rare cases), not to your filming. try on different devices to check. maaaaybe your pc is stressed with to much data throughput, try to compress and scale it .. but that's unlikely.

short: that's a playing issue, not recording.

>>2765758
Hmm you might be on to something. It's a 4k file at 100mbs using a AMD fx8350, the weird thing is that my computer is not showing that i'm using too much cpu processing. I don't think it's ram related as i have 16gbs of ram.

>>2765738
p o v ... ifyouknowwhatimean.gif

>>2765761
that's why I said it's graphic card related.

>>2765763
a 270x is low end now a days... yeah that might be it. As long as i'm not outputting video that tares i should be good.

One more question, i want to make a new timeline on premire at full 4k resolution but there is no format available for that. What do i do? And if i can't do anything, even by upgrading my version to the newest one, will AVID be that much more difficult to get into?

>>2765767
you won't. outputting a file on a screen does not affect the file at the slightest.

>>2765768
why not use a real software like cinelerra? (it's even open-source .. yay.avi)

>>2765774
I don't know, it would be nice but it's hard to break the norms in the industry. I'm a graphic designer so i have to be well
versed in the Adobe CC Suite because apparently Macs and Adobe is what everyone decided graphic designers need to
work in to be taken seriously. I'll consider it though, and use Premier for smaller things. What other options do i have that
are 'industry standards'?

>>2765778
"industry standard" .. there we go again. u know, i'm tiered explaining this shit in every related thread. just go ahead and slurp your industry standard down your throat.

File: 1454208665210.jpg (110KB, 552x364px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 552x364px

>>2765762
ayy lmao
kill me now

>>2765785
>>2765783
sorry anons. It's almost like going into a design firm for an interview that has all macs with Adobe CC installed and you tell them you work with Gimp, Inkscape, and Krita. I love those programs but i would get kicked right out.
It used to be that Adobe was the last thing you considered for video editing or desktop publishing, you had competitors like QuarkXPress and FinalCut (i know it's shit), now that they made an entire suite they slowly consumed
the market. So really, as much as i'd like to go for opensource i need job stability. I will give it a shot though, i will try cinelerra. What other options do i have?

>>2765794
Let the armchair "professionals" pontificate and wank over what color brush you use to paint with anon. Don't bother engaging them and keep on painting.

>>2764707
>>2764698
[spoiler] NX1 [/spoiler]

>>2765955
yikes

I preordered the a6300.

Anyone know any good SLog tutorials so I can be ready for when it arrives in March?

>>2766019
With how easy it is to shoot with a Sony, you shouldn't worry about it. It's perfection in a small body. I don't know why people complicate their lives with crappy cameras like the GH4 or RED cameras when the Sony does video perfectly.

>>2766019
Welcome to the Sony master race, brother.

>>2766019
>>2766030
>>2766031
plebs

>>2766034
Heh. Fag. Our features are both advance and numerous. It's the total package in form and function.

>>2765518
I really liked the lighting/grading of the scene, it looked neat. The two main actors were fine - the asian kid didn't contribute much, if at all.
The joke in the beginning was the peak of the story for me (I won't be sitting here with a 9 year old), I didn't quite see any direction after that, felt like there was much more to this than what you brought out.
As this gigantic faggot pointed out there is indeed a bump in continuity at 2:15, mainly because of the sound.
For the gameboy scene:
You show the earbuds hanging out from his sleeve for a way too short, give the viewer more time to register the info and less on the guys freaking out.
Also, why on earth would he put his headset into his sleeves? I never had a gameboy but this seems stupid.
In the end the final punchline was just meh, if you would have given some indication that this Elliot Roger lookalike is self conscious about looking young or something then I suppose it could have worked somewhat, still not a good way to close a short (after selling drugs for 3 minutes).
Also, the little fella did not pay for the goods.

>>2766038
pleb pleb pleeeeeb

>>2765735
Are you the guy who goes around swinging his dick about how e v e r y o n e should shoot raw video? Of course you are, please start a trip so I can filter you, cause you are literally cancer

>>2766043
in fact I mentioned it the first time here. and actually the more people don't work with uncompressed data the better for me. you ignorant piece of shit.

>>2766030
>>2766031
>>2766034
So, while I appreciate the level of Sony fanboying/hatred going on right now, no one has answered my initial question.

Does anyone know a good SLog tutorial?

>>2766039
>saying the exact same as me, but more plebish
>i'm the gigantic faggot

applause.wav

Can /vid/ help me out?
I'm in a similar predicament to this guy >>2764443
In that I have a GH4 but know little about speedboosters, I'm researching them but I'm still unsure about certain issues.

Mainly, I want to get one for Canon lenses - not just 35mm but others, I want to know of one speedbooster fits all Canons or do I need separate ones for separate lenses, regardless of the make/mount?
I'm assuming the latter but would love to have some assurance on the matter...

>>2766073
you can use a speedbooster for (almost) any focal length. the speedbooster has two mounts, one for the lens and one for the camera. the lens must be mountable to the speedbooster and the speedbooster must be mountable to the camera. that's it.

>>2766053
I don't get what you need a tutorial in specific for a pv-profile for, but:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=slog+tutorial

>>2766073
I think vintage canon lenses and modern ones have a different mount
There is also the issue of electronic connection

>>2766073
>>2766101
is correct. so the lens must not only be mountable to the speedbooster but also must be adjustable manually (aperture, focus, zoom), since you lose automatic features when using a speedbooster. (or is there any speedbooster which does passthrough electronics??)

>>2766095
So if I wanted to used two different lenses (say a 35mm and 50mm Sigma, both Canon mounts) Id still have to use two different speedboosters?
Sorry if I sound like an idiot, I'm finding it hard to put into words

>>2766107
I'm sure the restriction of automatic features wouldn't really hinder shooting video at all, or would it?
Am I still able to use a follow focus with a speedbooster between the body and the lens?

>>2766100
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=slog+tutorial
You know, All I wanted to know was if anyone here had a particular SLog tutorial that they found helpful. SLog is a much more difficult to work with profile.

>>2766107
Some speedboosters have an electronic connection
>>2766120
It will hinder it if your lens doesn't have a manual aperture ring and your speedbooster doesn't connect the electronics to your camera

>>2766112
No
You can have 20 different lenses, and as long as they're all the same canon mount, they'll work with the same single speedbooster

>>2766120
you can use a follow focus. why not?

>>2766121
u know, all i wanted to state out is, that there is no need for a tutorial in regard to a specific profile. what you seem to need is a general tutorial on grading. because if you know what you're doing while grading, there is no fucking difference how your original material looks like.

Is a follow focus necessary?

>>2766211
depents. mostly no. but when the lens is kinda unerachable, you have a focus puller, cam is on a jib/crane or you want to use hard stops, then yes.

>>2766184
> that there is no need for a tutorial in regard to a specific profile.
Confirmed for having never worked with SLog.

It isn't nearly as simple as other profiles. You really don't know what you're talking about.

>>2766211
For narrative work it really helps you get the right points of focus.

For other stuff it's much less useful.

>>2766217
kek .. ah, you're right, there is some magic happening when working with a higher-dynamic flat profile.

dude, the reason i'm telling you this is BECAUSE i worked with many different kinds of material. once you know what you do, it's all the same.

but you may believe whatever you want and go suck some slog tutorials till they spurt you their indiscriminate aknowledgments in your drooling face. sucker.

>>2766217
also, challenge me: post a png of your shitty movie and i'll show you how to grade the fuck out of it. .. briefly.

File: Lotus-SLOG3-Uncorrected.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>2766227
>>2766233
Man, you are just so full of yourself.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:01:19 15:14:38

You guys seem to know your stuff
As a complete noob, how do I into grading?

>>2766256
lynda.com

>>2766270
>paid

>>2766296
So? Fucking just use it for a month. It's well worth it.

Hell, iirc if you have certain software packages/items, you can get 3 months free.

>>2766296
Youtube.

>>2766300
shill detected

>>2766311
Shillax man... He ain't hurting nobody. Just trying to help.

File: slogMN.jpg (560KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1920x1080px

>>2766250

>>2766317
This is why Sony is superior.

>>2766270
>>2766314
spam comfirmed

File: 4fc.jpg (26KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x610px

>>2766317

>>2766317
Ahh... That crisp Sony quality. Those vibrant tones. Only Sony can.

>>2766323
>>2766328
meh .. i don't know what cam the poster used, but while grading (the magic) slog for him, i recognized some real disgusting color noise (or rather hue/saturation noise) in the shadows.

but sharpness and color rendering is quite good ..

>>2765768
Set the format settings manually. The ones at the first screen are just presets.

>>2766317
>post a png of your shitty movie and i'll show you how to grade the fuck out of it
>i'll show you how to grade the fuck out of it
> i'll show you
>simply posts a picture with no explanation

Man, I had no idea the image could be graded! Bravo! I now truly understand how to grade ultraflat profiles!

>>2766317
>takes more than an hour to grade one image
You sure showed him.

>>2766361
is this your way of friendly asking how i did it? try again.

>>2766363
unlike you fool i'm not lurking here all the time. please go and slide you rediculous small fist in your way too loose anus.

>>2766366
I do not understand what drives you to even post here, anon. Do you just want to feel superior to other people?

I come to this thread asking a simple question. "Are there any good SLog tutorials?" You tell me to fuck off to google and that I don't understand how to grade.

Fine, I don't. I want to learn, hence why I fucking asked for a tutorial.

Then you ask me to give you an SLog image so you can grade it and show me what to do. You grade it and give no information whatsoever helping no one and effectively wasting your time. I know what a goddamn graded image looks like for fuck's sake. Now you want me to kiss your ass for some tidbit of information.

Well, fuck off and learn how to interact with humans instead of constantly searching to pet your own ego.

>>2766382
you fine little outragious bastard. consider the following: i get absolutely nothing out of helping random people in the internet. if you would e.g. be used to asking for help in IRC channels, you would understand, that the deal is that i help you and you pamper my godish ass for it. that's the deal. maybe that always has been the deal as long as there is no money involved.

so, i say you are the who needs to learn how to interact with humans. because since i responded i only get irony and resistance from you.

so, please fuck off and find somebody willing to help in spite of your arrogant attitude. (and ofc i'm arrogant too, but i may, because YOU want something from ME. moron.)

>>2765735
>>2765746
>>2766361
>>2766406

Kubrick-kun!

File: 2016-02-12-010729_1366x768_scrot.png (10KB, 330x146px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 330x146px

>>2766512
almost

>>2766406
i've never "graded" an image in my life but i was able to replicate what you posted in about 3 minutes with acr. what's the deal?

>>2766634
yeah .. this is ... like .. my original statement ...

sometimes i really don't know what's up with mankind ... stupidity. stupidity everywhere .. stupidity and ignorance. apes.

>>2766636
I love you Kubrick-kun.

>>2766637
i'm not gonna be a tripfag, tho.

btw, i've seen a couple of 'post your gun' threads on /p/ .. but no with video-gun. would this be something? some of you willing to share their setup?

Is it possible to build a film portfolio in about a year and a half? Completely from nothing, i have no footage and only marginal experience editing.

>>2766653
you mean like feature film or shorts/advertisment/clips etc.?

>>2766654
I need to build it in order to apply to a filmmaking school, so shorts probably.

>>2766658
for an application i would recommend to make one single short. put all the efford in this. then 1 1/2 years should be sufficient.
btw, i'd recommend to not underestimate pre-production. it should be at least 1/3rd of the time and effort. especially invest everything you can in a good script. the better your start is, the better the result can be. if you start weak then the result will hardly be watchable.

>>2766653
Yes.

Make a bunch of shorts - each one of them should teach or challenge you to something new (say, budgeting, lensing, lighting, casting, working with actors, writing etc).

Music videos are also fine in-between.

Choose the best films you've made (take them to someone other than friends/family to screen if you can - submit to festivals if possible too).

What >>2766662 says is solid advice, however I'd say for a short you'll want to spend 2x your shooting schedule in prep/prepro minimum (I'd even advise doing a bit more [say, 1 week prep for a 2 day shoot, or 2 weeks prep for a 4 day shoot]+working with the script).

The Script is the blueprint of your film, this means that it has to fall within your budget and possible just a little outside of what you think you can do (tl;dr - show don't tell).

>>2765768
https://youtu.be/jfwu2z9AC3Y

Though your performance may suffer, it is doable.

AVID is a bit tricky (and expensive [unless academic copy]) to get into but it's fantastic.

>>2765783
>>2765778
Industry Standard w/NLE's depends highly on which part of the industry you're working in (Premier Is commonly used by a lot of freelancers, AVID is used more in the TV/Film side of things, and FCPX Is used by Buzzfeed pretty much).

>>2765714
I like them for certain uses personally, and some impressive stuff can be done with them.

For $200USD what does it come with? (housings? batteries? cards?)

https://youtu.be/wv33e0TyL6M <--- seriously looking forward to seeing this.

>>2766073
It depends on the mount of the lenses you want to use.

If you get a Canon Speedbooster it will accept most all Canon EF/EF-S lenses unless specified by Metabones as not working. The EF Adapter has electronic contacts for the EF/EF-S mounts.

You will need adapters for vintage FL/FD lenses however. If you get the FD Speedbooster you can't use the EF Lenses on them.

>>2766211
Yes & No. Depends on the situation & lenses.

I want to start shooting video but my main concern is will what I make with a ~$600 camera always be inferior to what some college kid in film school can make with a professional level camera? Will whatever I make always look worse until I can afford one of those cameras?

>>2766782
no

>>2766782
yes, but what you lose on sheer image quality you can make up for big time with storytelling, lighting, composition, color grading, actors etc. etc.

File: fags.jpg (39KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x500px

>storytelling
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[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	526
Image Height	526

>>2766834
>storytelling
But anon, we want to film closeups of plants and cats at f1.4

>>2766834
I don't think he can afford much lightning with only 600$.

Storytelling for minimum budget is where it's at for anon. He should start with documentary.

>>2767058
>>2766782
Actually, a few 150W incandescent bulbs w/sockets are around $14/per (or $10-$25/bulb if you go with CFLs w/decent CRI) - it's not a ton of lighting, but it'll make a huge difference. Renting lights is also quite inexpensive if a rental house happens to be nearby (+you'll start a relationship with them, which will help in the long run).

The tools for using available light (sunlight) are quite inexpensive as well ($5 for some bouncecard/bounce board, or cheap photography reflectors can all go a long way, can even build gel/diffusion/'silk' frames if you want to).

I'd agree with >>2766834 - Image quality really comes from lighting and lensing/composition than the camera body.

Working within the limitations of your equipment may actually help you creatively to be honest.

I think someone with a $600 camera/lens setup could easily compete with things being made with professional cameras, it just takes you knowing how to use it.

For people in doubt, I really suggest watching Zacuto's "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012".

Link:
pt.1
https://vimeo.com/42806211
pt.2
https://vimeo.com/45757783

>>2767058
>I don't think he can afford much lightning with only 600$
Basic kit
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lowel-Light-Kit-w-Lowel-Omni-Light-Tota-Light-DP-Light-w-stands-access-/201447793957?hash=item2ee7396525:g:DtsAAOSwwbdWHCu5

And then you can choose to have either a large fill light,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ARRILITE-1000-w-Open-Face-Light-Arri-1k-Tungsten-Lite/221978682737?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D35314%26meid%3Deaf985b8257f4ea184b3d1eb60cc5ea0%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D172094770756#viTabs_0

or buy more small units,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Lowel-Pro-Lights-With-Lowel-4-Leaf-Barn-door-Set-Bulb-/322005889416?hash=item4af90bf188:g:DhAAAOSw~OVWvQXN

The leftover money can go towards expendables and light modifiers or buying another set of stands to mount your extra lights on. It's honestly not that difficult to get your hands on good lighting. My setup cost me less than 300 dollars and I've got an arrilite 1k, 3 650 open faces, 1 300w open face, and a 200w pepper fresnel.

File: Imagen 1.png (1MB, 1008x675px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1008x675px

>yfw James Benning edits his films in Final Cut on a Macbook Pro

>>2767844
You can edit your films on a piece of paper. It doesn't really matter when you're only putting shots next after the other.

>>2768218
your paper is going to get awfully hot and run awfully slow with certain combinations of those shots

Hello i am retarded and i need help

in FCPX i applied the 'trails' effect to a clip of mine which, though filmed at 24fps, i had play back 50% slower.
When it's played back at normal speed, the effect works fine.
But when the clip is slowed down, for some reason it gets halfway through and then reverses it, rather than going to the end
what is going on here and how do i negate it?

gh4 user here, if i could only have one lens, what is the most versatile one to have?
i have a range of primes that are all specific to their own purpose, but for when i go on holiday i've been thinking of getting just one i could take with me that could cover at least a few different situations
does anyone have any suggestions?

>>2766636
holy shit how can somebody be this full of themselves like damn bro I've tried and never gotten to this level. your head is so far up your ass it's unbelieveable. post some of your work here so we can make a call on whether or not anything that you have to say has validity, because you sure as hell sound like you're some sort of fucking academy award winning troglodyte who got best cinematography 3 times in a row you tremendously pretentious prick

can you teach me how to tickle the roof of my own mouth with my scalp too? you get your shitty opinions from a god damn webcomic and think to yourself "wow yeah, my opinion is so right! epiphanies are for the mediocre! it's not like epiphanies can be long and drawn out, they have to be instantaneous! I definitely don't have a narrow view of how the human mind works! holy shit somebody fuck me already!"

seriously though drive off a cliff, nobody will come looking for you anyway

Is there a mic that can capture a great deal of location audio?
Say I'm filming solo, and I have to do the audio by myself, so I can only have one, maybe two mic set up. What would be the best way to get as much location audio as possible? In a natural environment, for instance

>>2768735
I suppose a stereo mic would be a good start

>>2768350
12-35 lumix is pretty good

>>2768735
Zoom H5n can take four mics at once...

Unfortunately, the real answer is it depends on what the location is like, what kind of sound you're trying to capture, etc.

>>2768781
I have an H5, but setting up 4 mics is a lot of hassle
Locations would mostly be natural, forests, fields, rivers etc

>>2768791
environmental audio recording with two micros is best with two small-membran condensator mics. omni-directional or cardoid. either you make an xy-setup (cordoid) or better an ab-setup (omni), even better with a septum inbetween. xy (like those stupid recordes mostly have built in .. or some even worse: ms ..lol), produce the stereo impression by phase shift. xy also a little by volume. ab produces the stereo impression by volume and delay time. that is what you want for large environments. using a septum even adds a frequency shift/deflect, which makes the impression more natural.
be careful with wind (good jammers needed), get a low-cut (high-pass) before amplifying. i would recommend very good pre-amps and a/d-converter, but you already mentioned some horrible hand-held field recorder ... so ...

yeah .. motion picture people are mostly so retarted with sound. no, actually they are retarded with everything ..

>>2769040
ok thanks

>>2768379
>I've tried and never gotten to this level
i like your honesty. so, i tell you something i mostly wouldn't admit: what makes me superior to you is not actually/only the more talent, intelligence, hard- and soft-skills, creativity, motivation, persistence and ability to think outside the box, but a simple and at the same time brutaly important factor: time. i have and always have had time. i could master dozens of disciplines and made hundrets of hideous unsucessful and unsucessful and sucessful and very sucessful projects in my life - because i got the time for it. and i know most people don't have the time, which isn't even their fault (.. more or less).

so, i hope for you that you are satisfied with being a medicore whatever, but being nice, humble, reasonable, self-reflective, busy-bee, pleasant and useful for society and a charme for everybody around you. but i don't give a damn shit on that! because i hunt and always hunted the most valued resource which exists on this planet. and this is: time.

if you remember your physics lessons (you were at school, weren't you?): performance is work divided by time. and i think by now you have already noticed, that there is always someone who outruns you. in everything. and this one is for example: me. ... but hey, no hard feelings, life is competition...

.. which actually raises the question what the hell am i doing here .. wasting time .. but yeah ... you know .. i can afford it, aye

>>2769065
Lmao youre a sociopath, but I like it

>>2769065
Bravo!

>>2769065
>the more talent, intelligence, hard- and soft-skills, creativity, motivation, persistence and ability to think outside the box
And yet you disapopint.. where is "stunning good looks" and "amazingly chiseled body"?

How do you feel about shooting with a VHS camera in this day and age?
Hipsterish bullshit or a nice aesthetic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fijHLmqQxM4

>inna muhreen public affairs office
>we get gopro hero 4s and accessories
>want to shoot in 4k but our computers are dinosaurs

Goddammit.

>>2769065
lmfao come on now this is some top tier bait

m8 im far more talented than you will ever be, but sure keep masturbating to your reflection in the river. narcissus would be proud. post your work or shut the fuck up faggot

>>2769737
what is it you are concerned about? is it that you are afraid of missing the latest trend? or would you like to jump on the train but fear the stigma from others, who call you a pretentious prick?

for the video i for example think that the vhs look works great. the dude, the music, the language, the city, the cars, everything fits together and builds an atmosphere of a corner of the world being 20 years in the past. not voluntarily but forcefully. and this force reflects in the person and his expression; and while i don't understand a single word, i can guess by the tone and behavior, that there is some real aggressivity. an aggressivity you don't find in our world, which is in the middle of the zeitgeist's comfort zone. and so was 20 years ago. a comfort zone build on the betray of those corners of the world, which we allow to get on our level 2 decades later - if they are lucky. in this moment the vhs look becomes a statement towards the brutal reality of enslaving people to achieve a specific lifestyle, then rub it under their noses and then look at what they make out of something, we consider as only being trash now for the longest time.

so, if you are some middle-class boi, who grew up in some harmonic environment with enough resources to life in harmony, some decent education and the luck to be born at the right side of the world, then please:
1.) never ever use some old technolgy to produce some unmeaningful bullshit, like that drooling uncontrolled out of your pathetic brain, which was gently massaged by the television that actually raised you up, because you parents were too busy with making career and finding themselves.
2.) don't you ever dare to call someone hipsterish who grew up at the wrong side of the world and uses old technology because he either has no choice or intends to say something with it. not necessarily something educated or very thoughtful, but something unpretentious and honest. .. attributes you never will be even close to.

>>2770029
i'm sure you are more talented than me with SOMETHING. but what is it? general understanding? creative thinking? imagination and realization? logic? hardly. from what i read, i think you might be a decent work-/craftsman. if someone tells you what you shall do, you'll do a pretty decent job. you should work with wood. or metal. maybe even design. but you have no ideas, no visions and no original spirit. and if you'd be honest, you'd admit that these are things you actually don't even want to have. why? because you can't stand the responsibility. or the position being outside the frame. you are a coward who wouldn't ever dare to do something which the majority couldn't like for some reason. you just feel well, if you are pampert in the middle of society, doing what is expected from you.
and you know from where i do know that? because you don't understand somebody like me AT THE SLIGHTEST. you absolutely don't get it. "how can he be DIFFERENT? what is this shit? how can he say something i absolutely disagree with, and know everybody would disagree with?" your only explenation is, that i MUST be an ill person. like a narcisst or a psychopath. not knowing these terms are made for the purpose to classify people. yeah. that you like. classify things. be the norm. be like everybody. hmmm. dat feel. homogenous. yeah. i only can congratulate you to your complete assimilation.

in my eyes you are rediculous. so rediculous that you cannot even imagine how stupid you look to me. if you would know that, you either would drown into the ground in shame, or get violent to a level where you actually would kill me. it is a miracle that people like me do not flip out completely on the level of stupidness and ignorance in this world. dude, you.are.the.enemy. you are everything which is wrong is this world. because YOU are the arrogant. convinced of himself and anything he thinks and does, just by the fact that this is what most people would think and do. j u s t w o w!

>>2765518
Bump

>>2769737
It depends, if it's the look you're going for - then go for it (say, if you want it to look like the intros to Better Call Saul or to get the VHS look in-camera).

However, if you have a better camera/format that you can shoot on and use VHS for giggles - I'd consider that hipsterish bullshit.

>>2768735
well, what source are you mainly wanting to record? (birds? actors? nature sounds?).

>>2765518
Not bad.

The only things that are irking me are :
1) Lighting Inconsistencies:
-the light behind them on the drivers side. In the first exterior shot w/the title I can see it being used to illuminate the shot (reflecting off of the car). When they are inside the car, it's really close and really bright & noticeable as it's color is completely different than the streetlamp, and because of how bright/noticeable it is - it becomes a bigger problem as disappears (the light has been moved further away so the kid can open door - you can see its reflection clearly after it disappears).
-the interior lighting in the car starts moody and dark (back seat is black), but in the shots after that the back seat is clearly been lit. This is very unnatural as the car hasn't moved & there is no practical source (If we had an shot/insert of the lights inside the car turning on, that'd change it a bit)


2) Grading
-The shots taken from the front of the car back are VERY red due to the traffic light.

3) I can see what looks like bounce board or a reflector in the rearview in a few shots.

>>2762885
Probably nothing in your price range. I work on 4K video related tech for a living and most of what I see, even from "prosumer" to "professional" cameras, is quite noisy and IMO adds nothing to the experience, and is actually bad if it makes you spend less on good lighting, camera w/ global shutter, better lens, motion rigs, etc.

>>2770247
>what source
see >>2768791
just the ambiance of those environments

>>2768779
i'll check it out
>>2768350
bumping for more recs

>>2768250
somebody pls, this problem is fucking me over big time and google hasnt been helpful at all

>>2770097
dude this is so simple, you're projecting all your anguish onto a fucking anonymous poster. nothing in my posts has led to a single inclination as to what it is that I do, or whether or not i do it well/incredibly. you're just a fucking moron with a god complex who thinks himself the ideal separation of the mediocre and the normal, while falling into the same pitfalls you claim to avoid consistently. it's fucking pathetic. the simple fact that you can't understand that there is no such thing as "normal" leads me to believe that your delusion is on a scale that surpasses that of lunatics like nietzsche. actually, you know what, you've got some fucking top tier b8 m8, im gonna save that one because hole fuck is that shit funny

>>2770655
Do not fuck with Kubrick-Kun.

How bad would my short film look if I went balls out and went 4:3 to 21:9 in any given video editing software? No anamorphic adapter/lens or option to change settings to a wider aspect ratio. Or alternatively, 4:3 to 16:9 then to 21:9.

i wouldnt even be surprised if this >>2770822 was one his split personalities.

>>2771009
Why would you do that

Shameless shilling:
https://vimeo.com/72521825

Any free editing software? Away from Uni for a week and need to get some stuff done. Premiere would be great, already used the free trial.

>>2771152
It would be great but unless you torrent it you wont get it for free.
Lightworks on contrary is free - although I think there is a 720p resolution limitation.

>>2771172
I have no problem torrenting if someone can point me in the right direction.

>>2771176
have you never visited a torrent site before?

>>2771067
I don't get it, what was the point? There's literally no structure or direction to this. It's just some shots of ants and music for a minute twenty

>>2771055
Really need it for a short film I'm doing.

>>2771067
how did you get your pans and tilts so smooth in spite of shooting macro?

Stills transitioning into video here, wanting to use my 5D mkiii as a base for a run and gun video rig. Anyone use a similar setup? I have my frame, lens, mic and sound covered but I'm stuck on an off camera screen, any suggestions? What are the pitfalls of using a kitted out dslr vs a conventional camera for documentary style shooting?

>>2771054
Shut up.

I've heard pretty polarising things about about Rokinon Cine lenses, but does anyone here have anything first hand to contribute?
It seems like that with the really low price comes manufacturing inconsistencies which would account for different people giving them very different reviews. Which I for one would prefer to avoid altogether if that's the case, but with things like smoothed aperture dial and geared focus it's very tempting.

I came to /p/ for the first time just going to lerk since I am looking at getting an entry level video camera and holy fucking shit, what is with the one autist in this thread holy shit. I've been on 4chan since 2005 and I have never read such autistic bullshit in my life. And I come from /pol/.

>>2771732
if you get a good model, theyre great. But quality control is poor, and some lenses are more consistent than others.

Avoid the 14mm 2.8/3.1 like the plague, it's horrible.

The 12mm f/2, the 50mm 1.5, and the 85 1.4 are all great- the 12mm is my favorite wide angle lens rn. havent used the 35, 24, or 16, but ive herad good things.

is sony vegas fine to use or should I switch to premiere?

>>2771888
Better to switch to Premiere.

>>2771888
pirate and try it out.

>>2771799
Yeah. Kubrick-kun comes in and shits on everybody.

I recall once he came in and p much declared himself as superior to everyone in the thread. I think he has a disorder (Cluster B).

>shooting porn with wide angle lens
why people do this?

>>2771732
It depends on what you're comparing it to and what you find to be most important.

If you're comparing it to name-brand stills glass, it's a little softer and there's no autofocus (duh), but the hard stops & declicked aperture ring are very desirable.

If you're comparing them to name brand Cinema lenses (Zeiss Cooke etc) the build quality isn't as good, not as sharp or precise and they don't come in PL mount ( as I'm assuming you aren't talking about Xeen lenses).

I personally think that they are great for what they are and their price point. You get hard stops on focus, an aperture ring that's declicked (even on EF, which is nice), various mounts to choose from (EF, F, MFT, Sony E etc), lens gears (both on the focus & aperture rings), a variety of very usable focal lengths and speeds. Some of them are better than others.

I'm not a fan of some of the fisheye & ultrawide lenses you can't use screw-filters on, though they are some of the better options out there at that budget.

Haven't used the Xeen lenses yet, but the tests seem somewhat promising (though, if they had interchangeable lens mounts - this would be a HUGE advantage).

>>2771799
I wouldn't use that particular terminology, but yeah there is some bullshit happening in this and the last few threads (it's usually not this bad ).

>>2771888
Vegas is ok-sh (used for a lot of youtube-y/gaming stuff), I'd really suggest to switch to Premier if you as it's much better down the line (not a lot of jobs looking for Vegas editors [more for AVID or Premier, except Buzzfeed who uses FCPX]), and interfaces very nicely with speedgrade & afterfx.

>>2771960
because they don't want to have to pull focus (or want to distort things to make them look... bigger... hehe ).

>>2771230
One I installed just tried to get me to sign up for registration agin.

>>2771347
Just showing off what >>2771546 is asking me about. And showing a glimpse of an ant colony in a nearby forest. It's more about the feeling than actually telling a story.

There is some structure though. I first show the environment where it is taking place, starting from the top (peering through the leaves of a tree). Then you have a downwards camera motion towards the forest floor. You then see glimpses of ants scurrying across it, followed by viewing the ants up close in full view. It ends with the camera leaving the colony again.

Its was shot on a whim, and meant to give the feeling of passing by an ant colony when you're having a stroll through the forest.

I used a tripod with a fluid head. The three legs were set flat on the floor and the middle beam was set horizontally. I can then do a smooth pan on a very low level.

Getting my first Video DSLR on Friday.

What are some good tutorials for Magic Lantern?

>>2772099
enjoy your cam broseph
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqCXMARQgU8

>>2772237
Thanks!

>>2771799
idk about that, There are some Aussies on /pol/ who'd put that to the test

>>2771172
>>2771230
maybe next time you could start recommending an actual software like cinelerra, instead of supporting adobe's babby's first NLE. at least you mentioned lightworks ... like .. yeah, you have to be thankful for someone not being COMPLETELY stupid .. by accident.

.. you know .. since he asked for FREE software. not pirated, not trail. free. there is free. do me that favour, hm? won't hurt you, i promise.

>>2771067
i actually like the grading. unpretentious. decent. working. i can tolerate that.

but dude, 2.39:1 .. why? no, okay, it's not my business. maybe you tested cinema scope for a dci projector. i can live with that good-will illusion.

.. or, in the end, is the format decision pretentious?? no, no .. let's stick to 'good grading' ..

>>2771952
>and p much declared himself as superior to everyone
you misspelled: and p much declared him as superior to everyone.

.. as this would be my fault .. pff

also you are a degenerated envier dickface. that i'm 98,5% sure .. (gonna be fair).

>>2771960
the question is rather why they go so close. oh no, this isn't a question .. that's self-explenatory. damn.

>>2772634
i love you k-k

>>2771732
The mechanics are great, but their optics are a little eh. I dislike the way in which things fall out of focus. Anything right outside your plane of focus that isn't sharp enough to be "in focus" is kind of smeared and doesn't just fall off the way it would with a nicer lens. Their aberrations are also much uglier than I've seen compared to old Nikkors or FDs, certainly less than those of true cinema lenses. But again, for the price they're hard to beat, but only so much so.

>>2772631
I'll admit it was pretentious, I mean look at the title.

The reason for the aspect ratio was mainly for a try out. Like I said before, the whole video was shot on a whim and was me just basically trying out some new stuff. Majority of the footage was shot on a hacked GH2. Still amazed at the quality it produces. I mainly work with the GH4 now. It's really light weight and easy to take with my travels and film some stuff I see that I find interesting.

I can get a Panasonic G7 and a bunch of extra stuff for ~$600. Is it a pretty good multipurpose camera for stills and video or am I better off trying to find a dslr? I'm not a huge fan of the a6000 or a6300

>>2762885
GH4

>>2763596
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JYWNVpnGZE&list=PLDC9DF0527A71C0C1&index=1

3:00 min mark. proof they used tapes

>>2763548
Post your instagram i do some stuff with a PD-150

>>2773485
Well okay but that's Episode 2.

https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/cinealta/docs/FV_StarWarsReprint_5-05.pdf

>Episode I was shot in film
>Episode III was shot using the latest generation
of HD equipment: Sony HDC-F950 cameras and Sony
SRW-1 and SRW-5000 VTRs running 4:4:4 RGB using the SQ
recording rate of 440 Mb/sec (with additional hard disk recorders
built by ILM). Compared to the earlier 4:2:2 format, the SR
4:4:4 format made a significant difference for the ILM crew.

As for Episode 2, the characteristics aren't really clear. The technical directory mentions 1440x1080 8bit 4:2:2 as a previous technology step, but doesn't explitictly explicitly attribute it. However it's clear that Episode 2 had a lesser quality format than Episode 3.

Anyways, the point is the tapes they used, the formats they offered were far beyond 1 hour long miniDV tapes that could at best have 24PsF 1440x1080 footage encoded at 25mbps MPEG2.

I have a Canon 1100D I bought second hand never used. I'm looking at setting it up as a filming rig, I'm after some good quality rigs but nothing to expensive (I'm a wagecuck lol, and keep in mind i am only just starting out). Can anyone recommend me anything.

I'm looking at getting a RODE Video Mic GO too...

>>2773513
you want a supercheap shoulder rig? Google "cowboy shoulder rig", it's like 20 dollars and has a chest and shoulder pad, you can fold it to make it smaller and portable. Modify it with an additional metal baseplate with holes for rods, buy two rods in some random stores that sell metal parts, avoid video gear stores because they cost 10x their price, fucking jews.
You can find very cheap handles on amazon that will work fine. I suggest buying new metal screws for the cowboy rig because they're more precise and solid, the default ones may not be the best.

If you want follow focus there are cheap units on amazon but I don't know if they're good enough, I wouldn't go too cheap with this but you can surely find something decent for 50$.

If it becomes too front heavy, just make a hole in the back and put metal weights, or even better a big battery for your camera.

>>2773167
why aren't you a big fan of the a6300/6000? formfactor?

Is Premiere good enough for grading, or should I use something else
I'm pretty new to this whole thing, how do I into grading in general?

>>2773914
Dwell into Resolve if you want to learn to grade. If you just want to do basic color correction and you're not a perfectionist PP is fine though.

>>2773927
this. Resolve is free and it's the best grading software out there.

>>2773578

Pretty much. Not a fan of how the viewfinder is all the way to the side, and just generally it seems less ergonomic than the G7.

>>2774221
Your nose though.

>>2773927
>>2774079
Are there tutorials etc out there for it?
And how do I approach grading? Do I grade the finished films after I've edited everything, or do I grade individual bits of footage before I edit them together in an editor?

>>2774288

http://www.amazon.com/Color-Correction-Handbook-Professional-Techniques/dp/0321713117

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5VSdbzNKyGx6bwS1caq3jY9cFZHqTHNN

Also, actually Resole is not only a powerful color correction / grading tool but has transformed into a NLE over the years, so as long you are doing basic editing you can do it all in Resolve as well, or to make a draft there at least. Obviously it makes sense to process footage you are most likely to use, otherwise you are wasting your time.

I'm thinking about getting either the a6300 or the 70d (which I have tons of glass ex. 40-70mm , 24-70mm, 50mm, 100mm macro, etc etc, and i can get the 70d for 800 bucks)

Does the 70d has any moire issues?
thank u

>>2774748
>Does the 70d ha[ve] any moire issues?
Yes, but they're considerably less than the rebel series or the 60d

I bought one cause I already had canon glass, but honestly I'd recommend the a6300 for the 1080p/60fps

Also the 80d was literally announced earlier this week

>>2774763

I really like the a6300, but having so much canon glass is kinda stepping me back.
I know i can get metabones but I'll lose some features right?
I'll wait for some real reviews of the a6300...

>>2774808
>but I'll lose some features right?
Yes you lose autofocus, but for most video jobs / shooting styles it's completely unnecessary anyways.

TLDR; External HDMI capture device for D7100; yay or nay?

So I'm trying to make short films with my D7100 + 50mm 1.8D, and I've tried every setting and every format possible, but every video that comes out is horribly compressed and looks terrible. completely destroys dynamic range so that at normal exposures, anything black or close to black all merges into each other, so someone wearing a black shirt and holding a black object in front of them, you can't even make it out in the compressed mush. It seems to be worst at higher framerates.
But anyway, the D7100 has a raw HDMI output that I've used just as liveview on my monitor and just that looks so much better, so I'm thinking of getting a HDMI capture device, like an Atomos Ninja or something, but that's just going to be an extra thing to try and mount onto the camera so I'm not super convinced.
Anyone else shooting video with Nikon having similar problems?

File: 00aale-480677684.jpg (97KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 700x500px

>Maybe this belongs in a SQT or even a gear thread but I figured I would try here

Why is it if you do 30 second long exposures with a DSLR you can get hotpixels all over the image but you can record video for a while and it seems like you rarely get hotpixels?

What gives?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3X
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Photographer	Robb Williamson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2012:07:08 20:46:13
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.79 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2775417
Because the real exposure is per frame. So at 60 fps its 1/60th of a second. 24fps it would be 1/24th of a second.

>>2775430
but the heat buildup doesn't linger? Sorry, I know nothing of thermodynamics

>>2775404
you are concerened about an external recorder is "an extra thing to try and mount onto the camera"? are you retarded?
"hey, i want an external thing but it's gonna be an external thing, so i'm not sure if i want an external thing."

dude, if you want to discuss if an external recorder is worth the quality win, then just ask that. and to answer this: yes. i'm actually not sure how "raw" your shitty dslr's hdmi output in fact is, but the recorder will store the data with a higher bitrate than your cam does internally. most likely. and as you observed correctly, compression is the enemy. unless you want broadcast the data as-it-is.

and no, a dslr from a different brand is not the solution. investing more money could be a solution. but maybe you should invest your hard-earned money in something more reasonable. like bananas.

>>2775436
temperatur is not the cause of hotpixels. temperatur just amplifies the effekt. the cause are sensor points (pixles) which do not react proportionally (linear) on incoming light. this is why dark images help removing the hotpixels - they are always at the same spot (more or less).

so, then understand: the longer a not-linear point is exposed to light the more it differs from "correct" points. and in the end (if the exposure is long enough) it has the maximum amount of light information for the regarded channel. then it is "hot".

so, for video you don't get hotpixels, because the exposure is too short. the temperature is not relevant in this case.

Spillover Sony Shills from /v/ are pretty active here.

>>2775486
thank you very much for this post. it was nearly as useful as a sony shill from /v/. thank you. good boy.

File: 28439069.jpg (11KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 275x183px

Is there any way to remove flicker from an led bulb? I can handle the /diy/ aspect if need be

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Picasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:02:19 12:58:13
Unique Image ID	7e4e2161d588d0400187cf17cedeb384

>>2775800
There's post filters that kinda do it.

NEW THREAD:

>>2775806
>>2775806
>>2775806

>>2775800
I dont know about doing it in post, but you can always just align your shutter speed (if running Canon look into the fine fps control options of magic lantern, note that you wont be recording audio in this mode internally)

>>2775800
Bigger filter caps

>>2762579
Just looking to jump into 4K, am thinking about the A6300 what would you all suggest? I like that it is only like 1100 which gives me wiggle room for more lenses and lighting and accessories.

>>2777188
Good choice.