/vid/ - Video General:

Now that Fuji can in to 4k video with xt2. Do you think Fuji will build a more video focused camera?

>>2879090
Fuji has never made acceptable video with their xtrans sensors, so my first impression is that 4k is just a spec to attract customers. If they actually have a half decent video mode I'll be surprised

My current video equipment:
>Lumix G7
>Vario G 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6
>rhode videomic
>Zoom H1
>Two FIll lights
>video tripod
>just ordered a cheapo 6pcs filterkit.

Should I get a new lens? I was thinking about the Summilux 25mm f/1.4 (500-400€) or the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 (200€).
Or should I save up for a better graphicscard?
Or invest in something else?

>>2879117
I don't know fempai. samples are looking bretty gud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp57Zg7FGBY

>>2879118
depends on what you're planning to do.

>>2879122
I wanna do videos, mostly non-studio. Going out on the streets, Filming street musicians,Walkaround stuff.

I am also currently planning a DIY Shoulderrig. I found some instructions that mostly use PVC piping

>>2879084
I feel like the last thread died prematurely
Oh well

I'm editing my short film at the moment and the runtime is around 16 minutes...
Will festivals be put off by the long runtime?
And fuck editing is a bitch, I love it but at times it feels like digging a hole with a spoon

>>2879127
That's why I chose blender, because everything can be done in one Pipeline. No switching programms, no exporting stuff
(Ok I do Sound externally, but maybe they'll introduce more sound editing soon)

>>2879125
If you'll be out only with daylight, then you'll hardly need another lens. Actually the wide zoom range will benifit you more than a larger aperture.

What you maybe could need is better audio - in case you use original sound. Consider an zoom h2n or better and a pair small membran condensor mics, like the oktava mk 012 series with cardiod characteristic capsules (be aware you need hard-material wind-breakers with cardiods, cheaper is to use omnis with soft-breakers, but the mics need more distance to each other), to get a decent stereo sound. Keep in mind that - especially for documentary stuff - 60% of the "professional impression" is audio.

The other thing is of course steady camera movement. Ofc a steady cam solution would be best, but a shoulder rig is a start.

>>2879127
most short festivals have a limit for shorts of 15min. Some 30min. Short it to 15 and you'll be fine for 95% of cases.

The edit tells the story. I don't see why you feel it a pain in the ass. Enjoy how the pre-work combines step by step and an actually understandable story appears. This is what you worked all the production long for.

>>2879129
Blender's editing tool is astonishing mighty. In spite of just being a very tiny part of a gigantic software, it is just as good as many stand-alone NLEs. Also for audio, but obviously mainly editing. Audio post-processing, foley, music and all must be done in other software.

Great for plain editing/cutting of a/v.

>>2879121
The footage is edited. Or not? How could you tell something about the quality when the stuff is edited? ...In case it is not, it's strongly prosumer-tier.

File: Screenshot from 2016-07-08 05-47-13.png (572KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 1680x1050px

>>2879136
I just wish I would get the UV/Image-Editor to:
1. Autorefresh the "Rendered Result" input. It can autorefresh a loaded file
2. Render a decent histogramm

>>2879133
Fair, I suppose something's seriously wrong if I can't cut a minute somewhere
Don't get me wrong, I do love editing. But it's such a slog sometimes. It just feels like no matter how much you do, there's always more to do. And if I can't think of anymore to do, I'm probably missing something obvious. I don't know if that makes sense

>>2879132
>Zoom H2n
Seriously, I heard from freelance journalists and friends at University that the Zoom H1 is as powerful as anyone needs unless you're doing Studio Recordings of multiple instruments.
Also, I just sank 100€ into that.
The Rhodes Videomic is pretty darn good for 70€ and I it in the 3,5mm category, 100€ seems to be the point of diminishing returns.

Some samples
https://vimeo.com/user53455283

>>2879138
there is an option to automatically update the render viewer.

there is a waveform display. that's way better than a histogram for motion picture. position value is more important than relative occurence.

>>2879139
pff, 2013 I edited my first feature film. 150000 frames, 56 scenes, ~500 cuts, 97min. Don't you complain about 15mins.

>>2879140
nah, I'm talking about professional audio. You need decent external mics and therefor xlr-inputs (shielded wires). the h2n is the cheapest option with xlr and an acceptable a/d converter.

But maybe you don't need the level of quality. Then your option is okay.

Motion pictures guys tend to underestimate audio. I originally come from audio and will never do this fault.

3 axis gimbal or 18-105 zoom? for my a6300.

I already have a 12mm wide and a the sony 50. Love both of them, but that G master zoom looks pretty cool.

I shoot music videos and sometimes live music events. The gimbal would be good since I can use the lenses I already have, but the zoom would fill the 12-50mm gap I currently have in my setup.

My plan, if I get the gimbal, would be to later on get a 30/35mm a little later when i save up again.

>>2879161
I think for music videos you want much camera movement. Same for live. So the gimbal and a 35mm / 25mm seems the way to go.

>>2879159
>Zoom h2n
>xlr inputs
are you absolutely sure?
Because I can't find a single datasheet that states that and can't find such a porton the device itself in pictures. I checked Amazon, Thomann and The Zoom homepage itself.

>>2879164
>>2879159

Actually, thinking about it: for roughly 20-40€ price difference, the H2n seems to be no option over the H4, seeing as it seems to be a buffed up H1 anyway

So for all others looking: dont get a H2, consider an H4 instead.

>>2879157
sorry, didn't realise it was a competition
(also, 500 cuts isn't very many for 97mins)

>>2879140
>>2879154
sorry, my bad. I meant the h4.

>>2879164
->
>>2879185

>>2879165
>>2879185
>>2879186
>>2879159
Currently looking at used devices.
I can get a almost-new Zoom H4n for 75€. I paid 120€ for my Zoom H1 WITH accesory kit (a cheap tripod, a bag, a cable, etc.)
Should I try to sell it all and buy the cheap used one?
I used it for like 2 things and still have most of the original packaging.
I could also try to return it.

>>2879405
Oh and BTW: I currently have no xlr-microphone. But I'd just keep using the 3,5mm port until I got one later on

>>2879154
I cant find it.
Looked everywhere. Think you might point me to it? Is it maybe a plugin/addon?

File: crot.jpg (329KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1366x768px

>>2879635
The update automatically option is in the uv/image editor. But I don't see why you need a render result window at all, as long as you don't mix your material with 3d render layer results.

The video sequence editor gives you a live view of your material anyways, even with the modifiers. For heavier post-processing you want to use the compositor tho (where you again use the image editor for previewing the render results).
The video sequence editor gives you the histogram as well as the luma waveform. If you are not familiar with the waveform, read about it. You will find it more helpful than the histogram.

>>2879165

this

>>2879668

Because the Spectrogramms of the video sequence editor really suck.They are inaccurate and don't properly scale.

suggestions for cheap but efficient 3 axis gimball for mobile phone and/or a7II?

thanks

What kind of qualities should I look for in a shoulder rig?
Found this cheapo thing here that seems to be very flexible
https://www.amazon.de/CamSmart-Rig-Shoulder-Schulterstativ-Video/dp/B007QJPJ4K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468157345&sr=8-1&keywords=super+I+shoulder+rig

Ahoy mates,

Here's my dileema. Bought a new Go Pro Hero 2014 back on a trip. Spent $160 on it. I can now sell it for 200, and get a new one. I don't give it a LOT of use, but I've been fucking grateful to have it when I did need it. I was thinking about upgrading.

Should I get a session? Is the quality better? I was thinking about getting a hero+, same body, same specs, it just has wifi.

>>2880445
>Should I get a session?
I hear the session is the same quality as the hero2, i have the hero2, its not the greatest quality compared to the 3.

should I go Red Raven or Ursa Mini 4.6k? dunno if I trust Blackmagic desu

>>2880755
raven for sure. also look at kinemini. insider hint :^)

What should I get for the 4000$ price range? C100 Mk2? Ursa Mini? What else?

>>2880868
Personally, I'd get a 1dx mkii
4k 60fps, ef-mount, 1080p 120fps full-frame
yeah...
one can dream

>>2880868
fujifilm xt2

>>2880880
It's called a 1dc

>>2880928
no it's not
a 1dc is still considerably more expensive than a 1dxmkii

>>2880928
1 dc doesn't have 60fps 4k
Also doesn't have auto-focusing in video recording mode
You're chatting shit m8

File: Blackmagic-Pocket-Cinema-Camera.jpg (149KB, 1500x854px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1500x854px

BMPCC or Panasonic G7? The 4K on the G7 seriously strokes my ultra quality boner, but I love how cinematographic things done with the Pocket can look.

Does one have any significant advantage over the other in certain situations?

>>2881184
The BMPCC has a MASSIVE crop factor and unless you really know all there is to know about video, you're not gonna get its full potential.
The G7 costs almost only half of the BMPCC.
It DOES sound tempting to get the BMPCC instead, but it's not worth it. SHooting in RAW video is only doable if you have really good software and skills with it, as well as massive data archives and really good processing power. Also the G7 is more general purpose, with 50p FHD, which can be nice for documentaries. But hell, if you want to spend the money, get the sony A6300 and do 120fps!


To sum up:
BMPCC:
>does RAW
>cropfactor of 3
>needs a lot of equipment to make it work
>needs a real lot of experience and Computerstuff to make it worth
>$995 / €950

G7:
>doesn't do raw
>is also good for taking pictures
>viewfinder
>does 50fps FHD and 25fps 4K
>cropfactor of 2
>said to have really good video-noise-perfomance
>you can invest in a lot good glass with that price advantage
>lots of lenses for MFT
>$545 / €550
>you will not get shat on by everyone for using Sony
>You will get shat on by everyone for using MFT

Sony a6300
>good camera for almost anything
>does 120fps FHD and 30fps 4K
>Sony E-Mount, LEL!
>cropfactor of 1,6>$998 / €1250 (WTF Europe?)
>you will not get shat on by everyone for using MFT
>You will get shat on by everyone for using Sony

But a final word:
4K is coming.
And going from FHD to 4K is a massive jump in quality.

>>2880880
>Canon EOS-1D X Mark II
>4000$
Nigga it starts at 6000$

C100 MK.2 or Ursa Mini 4K?
The C100 Mk.2 is the shit but starts at 4000$ and does "only" 1080p/60, not even in some raw form. It is a verid solid camera though with variable nd built in and cheap batteries / memory storage, but still 1080p/60 with no raw, meh.

The Ursa on the other hand has muh 4k/60 cinemadng raw, prores and all that jazz. The small problem is that the storage is expensive as fucc, so are the batteries and the camera is literally introvable (unless you spend 600$ more for "that site" who supposedly has it.)

wat do

>>2881221
A6300 is APSC isn't it?

>>2881359
Personally, I think you should go with the canon.
Blackmagic's sensors will just let you down, especially in low light. Their screens are terrible as well, and like you mentioned, expensive media.
It really depends if the 4K makes it for you, for me, it doesn't.
Just find out whether you need 4K, then selecting a camero will be a walk in the park.

>>2881359
Everything I've heard about the Ursa mini is that it was a massive disappointment, being buggy and breaking easily randomly
It used to be my dream camera
So I guess I'd say the c100 mk2

>>2881386
Yes
You could have just googled that.

>>2881386

why are you asking somethiung so fucking stupid you can google it? piece of shit

>>2881559
>>2881566
Thanks guys!

>>2880936
>auto-focusing in video recording mode
Every time this bait gets me without fail

>>2881725
http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/2800-does-4k-mark-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-manual-focussing
educate yourself
you have to be an elitist of the highest order not to recognise the value of good autofocus

So how do I into Blender for video editing? I've been wanting to switch all of my computers to Linux.

youtu.be/A1xSpl5I1RA?list=PLos23JBjgeQDcq4akPd49KXAESIEFxbZH

can I get some tips?

>>2881765
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?annotation_id=annotation_3213551981&feature=iv&list=PLjyuVPBuorqIhlqZtoIvnAVQ3x18sNev4&src_vid=UEIkIrYQYYY
Watch it from beginning to end.
Get proficient.

>>2881773
What's your equipment? What framerate did you record at?

>>2881773
I dunno, it's probably serviceable for whatever
But if you want to make it feel more professional you should work on your focusing and try to tell a story
Not a narrative, but there should be a clear start of the video, middle and ending - whether that's the journey through the convention center or the shift from good characters to bad or whatever. But there should be something

>>2881784
>try to tell a story

/p/leb

>>2881729
All this article does is re-affirm the theory I've been mulling over for the past year or so, and that is that ACs who have been working and grew up in the times of film and smaller sensor digital cameras don't quite have the eye for absolute sharpness that newer ACs who have been raised on 1080 and 4k, where missed focus is easily visible on the directors monitor(any monitor really), have. You'd be surprised how often shots are out of focus in Ugly Betty, which was shot initially on 35mm and then switched over to the Sony F35. I noticed that unlike film, digital is much less forgiving when it comes to missed focus, as it's easier to notice front or back focusing than on film. Sure autofocus is nice for consumers and maybe run and gun doco, but it's no replacement for a good 1st, which is really all it comes down to. Once the younger 1st ACs start replacing the older ones, I'm sure we'll see an improvement in shots with properly hit focus, and then this whole autofocus debate will be put to rest. Also, it's more ideal to have a human be in control of focus than a computer, because it's much easier for a human to learn the nuances of the actors, Director, and DP, so that when it comes time to shoot the 1st can pull focus as fast or as slow as the Director wants and can hit talent in the order the director wants. Much easier to simply hire a 1st and tell him what to do than constantly have to program the autofocus for each scene and add another point of possible technical complications and failure.

>>2881811
>can't read yet still feels the need to voice an opinion

>>2881782
>we'll need 8k 200fps
yay ... this dude knows his shit.

I always am amused by those people expecting everything will raise and grow without any limit. History is full of examples where developments (in regard to consuming) stopped at a sane level, in spite of technology would have provided more possibilities, which were redundant tho and therefore declined by markets and makers.
But some people never get over this "the more the better" mentality, which is incredibly rediculous.
They mistake the change of technology with the development of technology. These are two kettles of fish. While the change of technology seems to be often enough obligatory, the pure development of a specific technology always stops; in the end at its own limitations but way earlier in regard to its use and usefullness.

But who am I telling this? People who get a new camera because it has a global shutter, while they never ever shot a single scene in their life where a rolling shutter would had been a problem. Or wank off to 10/12bit while recording everything lossy compressed.

I originally come from audio production and it was one of my first major realizations about the branche, that most people are rediculously stuck in the tech-trap. What stuff they all need to make "the decent sound". And how convinced they are this would relate to their level of professionality and success. And then an album like bob marley's spreads the world, and they recorded it in some bambus sheet in a backyard with fucking electret microphones. ... Yeah. Better get the neef mixer for a half a million dollars. Makes the difference. Better get the 8k 200fps camcorder. Makes the difference.

Here is a rule I extrapolated: The more somebody weightens technology, the worse he or she is in realizing actual interesting content.
It's in no way different from the guy buying a lamborgini because he has a small penor. Ha.

>>2881729

but what happens if you go back and need to duplicate shots?

>>2881925
wrong reply, dude

But I'll play along as well

People want to create more stuff with higher quality, not just consume stuff with higher quality. Every technology has exploded once it got into consumer hands to produce, not just to consume: Writing/Reading, Computers, Photography, Videography, Broadcasting, etc.

I think the resolution wars will stop at 8k because we can't fit Screens that are big enough to make a difference any further into our lives. When we arrive at 8k, camera makers will need to get creative, because 8k is 33 Megapixels, enough to outdo FullFrame cameras. We can't scqueeze Pixels on sensors any further because of physics. So the arrival of 8k (if it will ever happen) will probably herald the end of small, compact cameras in even a semi-professional market. Unless they do something bold. Although probably, 8k arriving will be hindered by EXACTLY that. Maybe it will remain a Professional technology. Although I heard people discuss about "Z-axis sensors" that stack transparent sensor-pixels ONTOP of each other to increase resolution.

I think lightfield will come.
Watch these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qXE4sA-hLQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV_1XRWcgvI
It allows to have some crazy shit done with it and I think technology will WIDEN, not deepen in the next years. Processor speeds aren't that important anymore since most stuff gets made for phones, which seem frozen just around 2GHz and are currently interested more in catching up with PCs in terms of cores, features, peripherals, screens, etc. Transferspeeds seem to be more important, maybe we'll see cheap multicamera setup technology for consumers. Maybe we'll see some technology capable of linking ActionCams like the GoPro (which does produce rather good material) so people can do multicam movies easily, or 3D/VR.
But in the end, a shift towards lightfield will probably come. It can do 3D, it does away with the need of Greenscreens, it simplifies photography and Videography.

so i found this video
https://youtu.be/M0Ptb1A3n8s?t=1m40s
and I'm wondering if anyone has tried doing that double 85 filter trick before? It makes sense to me but I can't find any other mentions of this technique from a google search. Seems like a prety extreme Michael Bay-ish look but it could be toned down if shooting RAW.

>>2881954
since when is using a color filter a "trick"?

I'm considering asking for a GH4R for Christmas as a B-cam for my Blackmagic. Will I be able to match the footage if I shoot VLog? Also how is the low-light performance? I'll mainly be using Lumix stabilised zooms which are slow as hell.

>>2881184

I have BMPCC

wish I had G7

>>2881937
I... don't understand your issue

>>2882103
why not get a BMPCC for less money, if you're already shooting with blackmagic?

>>2882265
Because I want to start doing stills.

>>2882320
Are you using MFT lenses? then yes. If not, get a Sony a6300.
It's a good videocam and has a bigger sensor

>>2882427
Yeah I have an M4/3 kit lens as well as M42 lenses w/ speedbooster. Can Sony's video match VLog?

>>2882484
I must be completely honest with you. I had to check up myself I dont know that much about the ratios etc.
I found this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2hZXoEK1U
there are other comparison videos.


But I have to say how hard it is to search this topic without stumbling over obnoxious faggots with Vlogs telling impressionable idiots how to become an obnoxious fag with a Vlog.

anything out there now that will produce similar results to the 5dmarkiii without all the work around? it gets so frustrating sometimes when shit glitches. workflow isn't very fun either

>>2882553
>two different lenses

what's the point?

>>2882578
just get an arri amira dude

C100 Mk2 or FS700?

>>2879121
30fps high shutter speed

my eyes hurt

>>2882907
this is why I hope that 50/60fps will make a their breakout soon. Long, linear movements are so ugly in 24/30fps

Are there ANY dslr short films that don't look like dslr short films? starting to get convinced that cinema cameras are a necessary evil for quality

>>2883543
>short films
loads, check film festival winners and vimeo's staff picks
(check Kendy Ty on vimeo to see what's possible from a canon 550d)

For feature films, check out Upstream Colour
The entire film was shot on a mirrorless if I remember correctly

On top of that, a hell of a lot of films and tv shows use DSLRs as their b-cams including the Avengers

4000$ budget, which camera should I buy? I need something that is comfortable handheld, produces very good quality, possibly 4k, and MUST be Super 35.

So far the only ones I've found are the C100 Mk2, The FS700R (used) and the Ursa mini. Are there any other choices?

The FS700R is good but needs an adapter and is very old, plus to record 4k you need to spend 2000$ more on an odyssey.

The C100 MK2 is okay but jesus christ it only does 1080p/60. For it's price it should do way more than that. Doesn't even have sdi or decent codecs.

The ursa mini though is fantastic for the price but you need some more money for the battery, the cfast 2.0 and all that shit, I heard that the sensor is flawed though.

Thoughts?

>>2884166
A Sony A7rii? It can record with a crop-sensor at super35 if I recall correctly
It's like £3,000, I don't know the US price

anyone here use the Tokina 11-16mm? good for video?

>>2884206
No. 35mm equivalent at least 20mm for video

>>2880899
That's a meme though

>>2884206
It's a very popular moderately fast constant-aperture wide zoom lens for video. Definitely the best thing out there at that price.

Good morning /p/enises.
I´m looking for a good camera that with the right art college slaves can produce some "cinematic" results. Here´s the challenge, my budget is 600 Euro for the body only. If anyone can help that'd be great.

>>2881221

if i remember correctly, the a6300 suffers from moire. This alone can destroy some footage.

>>2881359
Buy 4.6k ver or don't buy ursa at all, 4k ver sensor dr is even worse than bmpcc

>>2880755
Red proprietary bullshit will make you invest bigger than it's cost into periphery like media, monitoring, cables etc, so make shure to compare whole rigs. i'd say go for ursa, raven sensor is not even s35 sized so you fucked with ultra wide shots

>>2884989
1.6x crop factor is more than fine

I'd say go with Raven, you're getting an actual Dragon sensor as opposed to whatever DSLR looking garbage is in the URSA 4.6k

>>2885066
>1.6x crop factor
1.87
>whatever dslr garbage
And now you simply baiting
Go on vimeo or youtube and see for yourself

>>2885074

not 1.87 anymore, it's a 4.5k camera. 1.66, see: http://www.red.com/tools/crop-factor

I've seen the results for myself, having rented and shot with both cameras. URSA 4.6k has mediocre color and poor dynamic range. there's a reason professional productions don't use Blackmagic cams.

if you want an example of what Red Raven is capable of (provided you can light), watch pretty much any Netflix original series. Blackmagic DSLRs can't do that.

>>2885078
Ursa 4.6k has 15 stops, that's more then in alexa
Color is subjective, so i won't discuss this in detail (but that's also why huge number of directors dropped red in favor of alexa while its inferior on paper -arri color science is much more film like instead of popping digital mess from red, and bm cameras is way easier to match to alexa as they very close to its rendering)
As for production, a lot of aussie recent shows have used it as A cam, and huge hollywood productions used BM cameras as B cam since 2.5k model.
Also, it's their first serious product and you can't compare it's usage with red dragon sensor based cameras that exist for years now and all of red infrastructure that were build starting from 2008. BM cams mass production usage as A cam is only matter of time

>>2885078
Also
>7000 for brain only
>5000 for base package to make it even work
Vs
>5k camera
>2k media + power for naking fully functional handheld rig
Top kek

File: image.jpg (33KB, 325x244px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 325x244px

Starting a YouTube movie review/comedy orientated show that will be stationary on a tripod filming a lit set.

I need a camera that's better than just my iPhone 6S (I use a wider angle lens adapter and Filmic Pro app) with support for a plug in mic. i used to own a Canon Eos M but sold it a year ago. I've been torn between the Canon 70D and the T6i.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	325
Image Height	244

Would any vx series sony be fine? Or an fx1? I need a cheap pro camcorder under £300, digital or not. I have a nikon d3300, with like 3 lenses but i need more controls and less rolling shutter

>>2885377
i would prefer a top handle and built in shotgun mic, and full manual controls, such as iris shutter, gain etc.

Would the Radeon RX480 be a good card to edit and render 4k material?
Also, I have an intel i5. Do the card and the processor get along? Or should I do a complete rebuild?

>>2885377
Neither of them can do 4k. I hope you know that these cameras aren't considered "futureproof"
Consider a Lumix G7 unless you also want to use the same camera for fotos.
If you insist on bigger sensors, look into DSLMs from sony.
DSLRs are generally a bit suboptimal for video because you throw away 100-200 bucks for a feature you won't use.
Other than that I can find no deciding factor between the two

>>2885374
If you are just starting out I would do some test runs with the iPhone to get used to the program layout. No need to buy something that you might not use in the future.

I think the iPhone does support a wired mic, so do some test shots with that first, you will need a mic anyway if you get an slr so its no loss if the iphone doesn't work out.

>>2885482
The card drivers need to support open CUDA or OpenCL (nVidia/AMD), there should be some reviews and or videos online now of people using the new gen cards to render. A newer gen i5 should handle it all fine, a new gen i7 is probably only worth it if you are doing it for work.

>>2884866
Look at the Canon 5Dii with magic lantern, it does RAW video, but you will need a big and fast 1000x CF card.

>>2885751
>>2885751
>>2885751
>new i5/i7
My Machine is approx 4 years old. my Processor is i5-3570K CPU at 4x 3.4 GHz
I was more talking about whether Intel and Radeon components play nice with each oither.
I'll jump completely to AMD after this. The other two are getting a bit too enbroiled in ppolitics for my taste and nVidia is hinting that you might have to LOG INTO THEIR DRIVERS in the near future.

How do I deal with changing light-environments? Like going through a door into a hallway or going outside?
I would mostly do documentary footage. I want to go to an open festival soon and record a few people doing their exhibitions there for example.
I'm currently mostly recording (testfootage etc.) in Shuttermode so I can set my SS to 50/100 (twice the framerate). I set my ISO to 800 and the exposure control to minus one stop.
Already did the whole "Set contrast and sharpness to minimus, use flat curve profile" thing.
Any tips or pointers? I dont want to shoot in Manual or Manual-Video mode because exposure control isnt available in those modes. Should I even use exposure control? I dont want to touch my cam after setting everything up, I'm using a shoulder rig. Also set Autofocus to AFC (Continuous) the Lumix version of predictive Autofocus. It sometimes has problems with bouncing focus, so should I set to Flexible instead? I dont think I can do MF right now.
AFF mode: constantly adjusts focus
AFC mode: tries to predict where focus is moving in x- y- and z-direction

Additionally, I have a big problem is color consistency. Depending on the environment, the same wallpaper can look between blue-ish and pink-ish. Is there any way I can prevent that or undo it in post or do I require a proper controlled set environment for that?

>>2886097
>I dont want to touch my cam after setting everything up

Implying there would then be another option than setting everything to auto. Shutter, iris, focus, wb.

>>2886119
>setting shutter on auto during video
wat?

What does /p/ think about the Production Camera 4k?

>>2886179

... more info?

>>2886285
Blackmagic Production Camera 4K.

What's /p/'s overall opinion about the camera?

File: bm4k_fixed_pattern_noise.jpg (71KB, 640x300px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x300px

>>2886314

Look up fixed pattern noise for the blackmagic.

It ain't pretty.

File: More likely to read.jpg (118KB, 467x349px)

118KB, 467x349px

>>2886097
still looking for advice

File: editingontheroad.jpg (35KB, 520x288px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 520x288px

Will a used laptop work for editing and some After Effects (not 3D cgi)?
I am starting from 0 with equipment and I want to spend more money on a camera than a PC.
I was gonna get G7 but things like no headphone output won't cut it for me so I will go for a GH4.
I am trying to figure out if I can get away with editing on a laptop.

Or could I build a PC with the same money?
What would you say would be the minimum req nowadays?
I will edit live footage (downscale from 4K to HD), export in HD and maybe do some after effects.

(sorry for the autistic english)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3S
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto

>>2886652
Works for me, but its slow and painful
Rendering is the real killer. My 15 minute-short film took over 12 hours to render the other day prompting me to look for ways to reduce the time

>>2886657
what are your specs?

>>2886663
no idea, it's a laptop that can turn on and off in seconds and has windows 10 installed
it's pretty fast for most things, but i wouldn't even try editing 4k video on it

File: nat_ham-on-pancakes.jpg (195KB, 1124x1024px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1124x1024px

>>2886652
I am looking at £1700 for a GH4 and a Panasonic zoom lense..
Without counting the editing machine, tripod and other small essentials (sdcards, battery, etc)..

The camera though can last years and years if used right and taken care of.
The PCs will always break down. Seems like a better investment to give more $$$ for the cam.

>>2886673
I just need to shoot in 4K (maybe) but will edit and export in HD.

video i did few weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wXfMrC3BI

thoughts?

>>2886682

please upload all video shit to vimeo

>>2886691
i dont like vimeo anymore

File: nat1443100938791.jpg (116KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 604x453px

>>2886691
>>2886691
>mfw when i read this as "pls upload all shit video to vimeo"

>>2886682

Description:
You made a short video about an introvert whose phantasy to be dominated by a girl "comes true".

The stylistic device is borrowed from modern music-clips. We see fast cuts, strong colors and hear practically no original sound (sound on set), but different modern pieces of music underlaying the pictures, with intermittences of silence.

Critic:
The dramaturgy is inconsistent, without the hint in the video's description and without knowing the whole clip one has absolutely no clue what this is about.
>post-comprehension failure

The inscenation seems to be appropriate to the "plot" but lacks of aesthetic construction. The scenes in color-lights and the overall darkness do not compensate this.
>hyper-recognizable environment failure

Though the IQ seems to sufficient, the look is too divergent, video-ish and suffers from dead mourning.
>1st-pass grading failure

The protagonists seems to be fitting, but profit from low illumination and fast cuts. Unfortunately the girls performance in the end is not very convincing.
>fragmentary directing failure

Cast is ok. Flow, breath and rhythm is good. It is not too boring. It shows some artistic elements / use of the medium. Bonus points for le chicka.

... 3.75/10

>>2886720
armond white get out of my chinese image board

>>2886748
Dear Mr. Ching Chong,

it would be my very pleasure whether you would be kind enough to consider to refrain in future from generalizations based on the visual impression of the reflecting light-spectrum of (vivid or not) pigmentated dermis.
Futhermore your - hopefully ad hoc - proclaim to be the proprietor of whatsoever you called a central-asian board for digital pixel-arrays, is in all likelihood a flam, and it would again find my kindest appreciation whether you would distinctly distant from such behavior.

I wish you the brightest for you further future in your professional employment in that clothing factory or fish market - I'm sorry I don't know exactly what profession was again - and that you don't get sick from eating a bad dog.

My recommendations to Mrs. Ching-Chong.

Sincerely Yours
Mr. Almond

>>2886714

but I can't fucking watch it because youtube is blocked here at work but vimeo isn't

>>2886791
well you shouldnt browse 4chan at work

My sister fell for the vlog meme and is in a huge hurry to go out and waste her money. What's a good camera that can record for long lengths of time and has a reversible lcd screen so she can see herself? If it takes good photos that's a bonus.

Can anyone recommend a camera that records in anamorphic ratios (or just anything narrower than 16:9) with a vertical resolution > 2160px?

So far I've got the GH4 and the Ursa 4.6k.

Cost is not an issue.

>>2886844
I know the Lumix G- and GH-lines and the GX8 record long, in HQ and have fully articulated screens, but they are lacking in the photo-taking department. If you don't want to go above and beyond, price-wise, they are also the only option for 4k right now. And some used models like GH3 or GH4 already go for pretty low and I saw the first few used G7 pop up on the market for as low as 400 bucks, which is pretty darn cheap for 4k.
The canon EOS series has a few with fully articulated screens, the 60D and the 70D, but they are notorious for being one step behind in terms of video
The Nikon D5300 is a bit better in the video department than Canon, also fully articulated screen.
Stay away from sony for now. They have a good video cam (a6300) but all their screens are shit.

>>2886867
First off:
Isn't anamorphic a characteristic of the lens rather than the camera?
Second:
What difference does it make compared with just adding black bars in post? You are gonna lose some pixel-real-estate anyway

So I finally took my first shoulder-rig for a spin outside and patched a few video snippets together. I am using the Spider Shoulder Rig and a Lumix G7
https://vimeo.com/175619455
I already learned a lot, how to position the handles, how to hold the thing, etc. I think I'll try a close chest-to-belly stance next time, because the long shoulder-stance I was using was just too prone to moving. Also, I'll have to look into counterweights because I was messing with focus and zoom during shots and it just destroyed the shot, especially when zoomed in and a counterweight could improve the stability during one-handed use
In Post I turned the contrast a bit up, removed peaking and crushing. In some shots the ground of the lake was so bright the ducklings were like dark blotches. I didn't try to achieve any specific kind of look.
for Material such as this would 50fps be preferable to the 25fps I used?
Also, more pointers and general comments welcome.

File: nat1468839900462.jpg (8KB, 309x305px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 309x305px

should i get a zoom lense 12-35mm
or one 12mm and one 35mm?

will use mostly on preplanned shooting (not much run and gun).

what tangible advantages do studio lights have over clamp lights/halogen work lights, aside from reliability and build quality? assuming you have proper light control gear of course (scrims, flags, diffusion, gels, etc)

basically, is there an actual difference in visual quality or are you just paying for better build quality and ease of use?

>>2887035
light color, temperature, energy consumption.

But halogen is very good light, in regard to quality. The spectrum is perfectly smooth, yet to the lower reds. Cons are fixed light temperature and bad energy/light ratio. Which means heat and providing problems.

Fun fact: Daylight filters on halogen solves the light temperature issue, but makes the energy/light ratio even worse.

Future LED and OLED will make halogen obsolte in every aspect. Today the only down of LEDs is CRI and price.

Hey guys

What's a cheap camera that's good and modern in terms of support and feautrrs.

Will be my main camera as I'm starting to shoot indie music videos and day to day for a local artist

>>2887254
what's your budget

File: maxresdefault.jpg (271KB, 997x720px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 997x720px

Hey guys, I have a budget of $500 and want a video camera that will record in night vision with 60 fps and FullHD.

Could you also recommend me one of the same budget but can record 60fps in full HD?

I can cross the budget if I want to but don't want to spend too much since I'm new to video recording. I camp a lot and love recording at night! Good battery life to record atleast an hour would be a plus. Thanks!

>>2887500
you can use more or less any consumer-tier camcorder and a NIR-lamp.

>>2886996
bump

>>2886996
>>2887527
Personally, it'd depend on the specs
I'd imagine you could probably get 2 primes around f2.8 for around the same cost as a zoom at f4-5.6
But I've never look that focal length up, so I wouldn't know. If you can get a fast lens with the zoom, then that would be preferable since you would be getting all the focal lengths in-between as well and wouldn't need to change lens depending on which was needed

But I have mostly prime lenses myself
(Found myself using the kit lens more than expected on my last shoot because of this)

>>2887500
a7s ii + leica 50mm t0.95, shoot wide open at 512000 iso.

>>2886979
>First off:
>Isn't anamorphic a characteristic of the lens rather than the camera?
Yes, but the goal is not actually to shoot "anamorphic" but just to find a camera meant for it as it would provide greater vertical resolution. The desired output is a 1:1 square. A GH4, for example, shoots 1:1 at 2880x2880 which beats standard UHD 16:9's 3840x2160.

hey /p/ im a photographer shooting a D500, but I want to get into video. Should I use the D500 (and if so what do I need to grab accessory wise) or grab something like an A6300 that's more suited towards straight video

>>2887676
I looked up the specs of the D500 and it says under video it shoots Full HD at 20fps and 720p at 30fps, which is horrible.
If by "get into video" you mean "make a tiny little film to see what video is", then yes, you can stick with the D500 is sufficient.
If by "get into video" you mean actually making presentable projects, then get something else.
An a6300 is a pretty damn straight video camera and probably "futureproof" for quite some while. Also a big investment.
Other equipment that you absolutely need:
>video tripod (pan&tilt with fluid dampening to have smooth acceleration)
>a microphone
>polarization filters (you probably have that already)
>at least small static lights (there are these really cheap LED lights that cost like 30 or 50 bucks)
>maybe a shoulder rig
>audio recorder further down the line

>>2887561
the zoom i am looking at 12-35mm is 2.8
so it's as fast as primes.

>>2887713
Is that a 35mm equivalent or are you looking at MFT lenses?

File: 1431506158352.jpg (111KB, 480x359px)

111KB, 480x359px

>>2887721
it's for MFT. That also changes the f equivalent doesn't it..

I am so conflicted on what to get for an MFT camera.. I don't think I can afford a metabones yet..

>>2887767
Yep, changes the f/ equivalent.

a 12-35mm will get you a wide-angle (almost ultra-wide angle) to a wide portrait-level. But you have to consider that the bulbing or fish-eyeingin 12mm is really noticable, so you shouldn't zoom in or out of that in a single shot. It makes a really weird effect.
15-20mm (or 30-40 in FF equivalent) are very good for standard shooting of "normal" scenes that are supposed to look like humans see the world.
Zoom capability is certainly good.
I'm using a 28-280mm lens myself (FF equivalent) and sometimes it's too much. THe biggest problem is that with higher zoom, you need VERY good stabilization. Even tightening your grip on the handles can send a 280mm zoomed images flying all over the place.

why you fucking nerds only talk about gear and technicalities and not the actual creative work? post the last thing you shot you fucking mongoloids DURRRRRRRRRRR WHATS DA BEST KAMARA TO SHOOT CINEWMAAAA

fucking waste of time

>>2887818
Do you know all these fagnuggets that discuss color balance and grain and contrast and vignette and framing as artistic aspects?
That's 100000 times worse in Video. Don't even go there.
Post or talk about grading a bit and maybe framing. Otherwise stay out of the cesspool.
If you want an example, go into the thread about "the best camera for cinematic effect"
It backlashed the other way around and turned into "HURRDURR ARTSY FILMSCHOOL MOVIE!"
Also:
>>2886984
Tried to talk about it here in terms of "what about my grading/contrast?"

>>2887818
lemme explain:

1st, motion picture is not photography. the few people here cannot have new creative stuff all the time.

2nd, you hardly can discuss art. asking for feedback will end up with "your shit stinks for reasons"-tier arguments. if something is bad, people will happily throw shit on it, due to feeling superior. if something is good, people will angrily throw shit on it, due to feeling inferior. (and I don't exclude myself.)

3rd, you also did not provide content. you are a good example.

what now?

>>2887835
oh, and two things in addition:

giving here feedback is not much more pleasant than asking for it. if you give helpful critic you either get ignored (not even a thank you) or someone geniously disagree with your hints, á la "your nigger, get out of muh board".

on the other hand talking about technology is at least half-way predictable. some aspects are measurable and some people have actual knowledge. it is lesser a question of opinion and taste - but still is, so actually we all just should discuss mathematics. ok?

>>2887818
>wanting to let the whole world know you browse 4chan and risk blacklisting yourself
wew

>>2887841
oh, good point also. as if I would like to reveal my person here. agree. it's easier with snapshits than with a movie to stay analymous.

>>2887704
I don't know where you're getting your stats but that's wildly incorrect. It shoots 4k 30p and 1080 up to 60p. My issue isn't with the resolution or framerate, its with the D500 not having the video specific features the 6300 has, like focus peaking.

>>2887896
oh, he looked up the 500D, which is some shitty rebel from olden times. explains a lot.

are there any way to remove black people from footage? i shot time lapse of chicago and there are black family, i'd like to remove.

>>2888196
make them white fagget.

>>2888196
For the record and anyone thinking I'm being ridiculous, posts like this even in /p/ are why I don't want to be associated with 4chan

Do you have any tips for building a budget/sweet-spot PC for editing?

hey /vid/,

i'm a bmpcc user looking for low cost nr software. most of the time i get it right and it isn't an issue, but sometimes on run and gun i get dodgy shots and don't want to crush the blacks in post.

recommendations?

>>2888363
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/r2Xmqk

>>2888398
An rx480 just for editing is retarded. Get any 960 for as low as 170 and you´re good even for 4k.

>>2888421
I have an Nvidia 660 and I hope by "170" you mean the RADEON line, because the 660 is horrible for editing. With lots of additions in terms of grading and contrasting and then maybe some transitions and effects, you are looking at 2.5 seconds of rendering PER FRAME.

>mfw people here discuss graphic card performances

everybody who edits and grades on volume instead of carrier data is retarded.

>mfw my whole company edits and grades on amd dual core with on-board graphics

you're not broadcasting. it's even more efficient to rent a server farm for the final rendering. ... kek ... investing money in real-time technology when doing movie post-processing ... *facepalm*

File: Screenshot from 2016-07-23 21-48-59.png (1MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1680x1050px

>>2888494
>>2888421
>when you really like working like this but your crappy PC doesn't let you do this at any faster than "handicapped snail"

I have the 14-140mm 3.5-5.6 for my Lumix G7
Should I get a faster prime? I notice that in video, especially at high FPS, the camera tends to struggle with light.
I also noticed I really like shooting at 25-35mm.
I looked into it and the Panasonic 25mm 2.4 comes to mind.
It has a cheaper alternative by olympus with only 1.8.
Also, there are some good 35mm but I feel like that would be a bit too much.
My main objective is unscripted stuff, documentaries, festivals, conventions.

>>2888398
>amd
>radeon

what are you doing?

>half the budget is a monitor

>>2888421
do you think a 960 can take it?
i thought a 970 was the sort of minimum.

>>2888505
could you tell us more about those things?

>>2888595
>what are you doing?

not giving money to nvidia or intel, duh

>>2888600
well, I can at least tell you how my company is handling it.

as the first step we get the shot data from the production teams. this is mostly 6.5k uncompressed yuv444p16, sometimes 4k lossless yuv422p10 (+ audio of course).
we use a lot of self-developed software, but all this is also doable manually.
the data gets transcoded in several formats to different locations. first the "volume" data gets transcoded, this is 5760x3240 tif (lzw) rgb48, and stored with a unique id on large hdds.
then the "carrier" data gets transcoded, this is 1280x720 bmp rgb8 (or 24) for editing and 1920x1080 tif uncompressed rgb24 for grading. into the carrier data the representing unique id is stored, in picture and in meta (which is valid for tif and a hack for bmp). the carrier data is stored on ssds.
then audio and some other stuff (syncs, transport-tables, previews and stuff) get transcoded.

the editor gets the ssd with the edit carrier data. he (or she) can load the image sequences in any editor he is fine with. since the carrier data is only 720p rgb8 (sometimes 24 when color is obligatory) and uncompressed bmp on a ssd, even a computer with a single-core processor and on-board graphics is able to play the material in real-time. audio (uncompressed wav) is ofc not the problem. so he makes the edit and renders in the end a new image sequence, which represents the edit. he then renders a new transport-table (since every image in the new sequence contains the original id) with a cross-id.

this transport-table is given to the first grader. he (or she) uses the other ssd with the hd carrier data and compiles the new sequence according to the cross-table. then he grades every single scene within the sequence. thereby he notes the grading steps for each cross-id (scene-wide). hd is absolutely sufficient to grade the first line and therefore any pc is applicable to check the results.
the grade list is passed to the second grader. he (or she) then double-checks the ...

>>2888649
...grading on the volume data (control samples). no real-time playback is needed for second line grading. he adds his overall second line grading and assembles all grading steps in a rendering control file.
ofc audio is managed in the meanwhile but differently ofc.
as a last step the editor adds cross-fades and stuff like intros/outros which were produced by others in the meanwhile also (all are output in control files ..).
in the end the IT-guy (.. it's always a guy) gets the large volume hdd and the control files. he puts everything in our sever-farm and this renders the actual stuff on the actual material. edit, grades, fades, audio edit, effects, surround mix, everything. it spits out the complete and final movie. changes then can be easily adjusted in the control files and only the regarded frames / passages are re-rendered.
after that the transcoding to a consumer-format can be done, like mjpeg for dcp or mp4 or whatever.

>>2888649
So it is like editing 4K video on a 1:4 'viewing' ratio. Downscale it to 1080p and in the final export if you like export it in 4K.
(not sure about the terms of this process).

That's what I want when I asked for PC configuration tips. Don't care to edit in 1:1 4K video in real time.
But would like to shoot in 4K and edit a downscale to export in 1080p.
The extra resolution is what I want, not the frame size.

>>2888661
yeah. the trick is to assemble every modification in control files which can then be executed on the original material. but ofc you also can first decrease the original material and work just on it. a prifessional company can ofc not do this, since we always must keep the maximum quality. but we also don't want rediculous strong and expensive computing technology, just in order to achieve both: keeping quality and working in real-time. .. it's just not necesarry, if you now what you're doing.

>>2888665
if you think about it from the IT-side, it is really incredible rediculous to work e.g. on 3840x2160 compressed material. the insane overhead on computing power just to decode the stream and disaggregate it into frames, while practically all compressed streams are (for good reasons) designed to be NOT a frame sequence. But even de-packing a sequence of compressed tifs (let alone mjpegs .. but also dngs or dpx/exr) to get like 24 or even more 4k frames per second is just insane. ofc it is possible .. but just why? .. overkill.

>>2888515
Blender is really slow for this type of work. It does a mandatory conversion to 32bit float and that really hurts performance. I seriously suggest to avoid it and do it in an NLE. For something simple as this use Natron, it should be faster.
https://natron.fr/

>>2888649
Is the transport-table similar to an EDL, AAF ? Does it get rendered out of the editor's NLE or is a custom application used that handles rendered video edits (i.e. by reading every image for superimposed unique id)?

Do you use a more localized database than just labeling everything separately within the files?

>>2888858
neat.

but I have my issues with openfx. but that's more a matter of taste. good project tho.

>>2888865
In our case it is a simple text-file with a whitespeace seperated table structure. E.g.

031500724 121459 057
031500725 121460 057
042800444 121461 057
042800445 121462 057
...

where the first is the unique ID of the original file, the second is the sequential number of the edit (frame poisition within the movie), and the third is the representative scene-number (which allocates even to the screenwriting).
in further steps more information is added to the table, like e.g. crop position, opacity (for fades), grading cluster-ID, and so on.

The editor (the person) generates this transport-table by using a (custom) script, which allocates the unique IDs to the position within the edit, which it can, because the carrier data contains the unique ID of each frame, in picture and meta (as mentioned before). In principle it is working like when you would take a pencil and write down every unique ID of every frame in the order of your final edit.

The dedicated localization is done in the initial transcoding process. The unique ID which is given the volume data, and stored into the carrier data (for redundancy even hard-coded), allows a stringent and all-time identification of the file, regardless where and in which way the carrier data gets modified/assembled or whatever.

>>2888873
Interesting. Thanks for replying.

File: Screenshot from 2016-07-24 17-37-27.png (807KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 1680x1050px

>>2888858
I know that Blender is inefficient in terms of processing for normal video editing. The only real alternative on Linux seems to be Cinerella and that shit is unintuitive as fuck. The interface is horrible. I used to use KDEnlive, but that is pretty amateur.
I like using compositing in blender (combined with the NLE interface, because blender can be used as an NLE as well) because it allows the greatest freedom of control.
When doing everything directly in NLE mode, blender is way faster (2.5 frames rendered per second) but also has less freedom and a suboptimal interface.
Generally I like blender because it's free, easy to learn and very powerful. You have to do more for special effects but technically, you can do ANY special effects if you know how and you want to invest the extra processing time.

Of all Video editing software I used (and I used a lot, especially Premiere Pro for college) I liked camtasia the most. Cinerella and Sony vegas were the worst. For some reason I can't get into the entire "multiple windows" deal and they keyboard bindings are all wrong. In blender any subwindow can be turned into any other by choosing so from a dropdown menu.
BUt I'd rather invest that money into equipment than shackling myself to a software environment.
I am tempted to dualboot windows to try out daVinci. Its Linux version doesn't run on Ubuntu.

>>2888494
By 170$ I mean a gtx 960 and believe me it´s enough. I use a 760 and I work with 4k all the time. Sure I might not work with insane bitrates but a 960 should power through everything with ease.

>>2888596
Nah. a 960 can do it all if you don´t mind waiting a few more seconds for shit to render.

File: NEB5jUgh61cHEB_2_b.jpg (31KB, 600x315px)

31KB, 600x315px

>>2888665
So you be sayin that if you have a good system that can edit 1080p you are fine with editing 4K too as long as you decrease the original material first.

Do you do that on the editing program or another one?
What is a good way to do this without losing quality?

>>2889035
(of course I am mean a way to decrease the material as a way to make editing faster and smoother and then have the option to export in full rez).

File: 8_scrot.jpg (266KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1366x768px

>>2888932
I really don't see what your problem is. I wrote now half a book in this thread about dividing volume and carrier data. with blender it is even the easiest job ever. pic related.

>>2889189
You realize this still means taking around 18 hours for rendering a 15 minute clip, right? It just makes working with less excruciating to work with.
And though I never heard the terms "volume and carrier data" i assume it means:
>volume
The actual volume of data to be processed
>carrier
The data that contains the same attributes as the volume data

>>2889049
yeah, having the option to operate the edit which you made on the small version afterwards on the big version is the crucial point.
As said above with blender for example it is easy, because you always can exchange the source material, also in the NLE for editing. With "normal" NLEs it is more often a problem, because you cannot exchange the source without major trouble (like changing it for every damn cut you made etc.).

This is why in our company we developed a general solution with own software.
In regard to editing, we handle a movie like a sequence of images (which it is ofc) and we seperate the operation steps on it in text-files, which then can be executed on whatever source material.
Unfortunately I cannot offer you our scripts. And if you are not a programmer, this is hardly an option for you. But maybe your NLE gives you somehow an option to repeat editing steps on a different source in any way. From my point of view a good NLE should allow this, and if not, you definitely should work with another (unless you have the option to program an own solution, which makes you independant from the NLE in this regard).

>>2889201
who cares how long the rendering will take? also you can easily raise computing power with blender, by connecting further machines.

The annoying part is to wait for each little change while you do the creative part .. the grading.
When your PC then renders the actual results even for days .. who cares? you don't have to watch it while it's working ..

or - ofc - rent a server farm and get the results in a few hours. (maybe even minutes)

>>2889217
I'm not gonna explain blender to you here. but ofc it works like a charm. most likely the fault is that your image sequence is not numbered properly and/or you did not set the correct offset, in case your sequence does not start with 0001.

You really can find this out and get it to work with a little google. it's not that hard, believe me.

also, you can also switch movie-sources .. but the compositor will be always much slower on video files than on image sequences.

File: tv1469234690420.jpg (1MB, 1920x2457px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2457px

>>2889212
i understand that Premiere has the option to import 4K files on a 1080p timeline. you don't need to edit in 4K.
not sure if in the end you can export in 4K though. but who cares now for 4K viewing..

so you keep the quality on a smaller frame.

>>2889230
I see. Don't know if you can export then in original quality or if it is more an oversampling feature. Ask le manual.

Well, we do all the stuff to keep the original resolution and quality. In the end we have a full feature in >5k uncompressed. But we don't work every step on this quality. For efficiency reasons.

Funny enough in spite of we also transcode the results to 4k dcp, 2k dcp is way more often delivered to cinemas.

>>2889235
Alright dudes, how do I make a good, workable dolly on the cheap. I don't want to use sliders because those have limitations to how far they can move where with a dolly I can just lay down more tracks. Problem is, doorway dollies like the Matthews round-d-round are expensive as hell. I could just make a pseudo-dolly with skateboard wheels, but I want something that I could carry my equipment around with as well.

Thoughts?

Anyone tried the Zoom F8? Looking to upgrade my recorder/mixer, can't quite afford a Sound Devices yet.

>>2889371
Why don't you just use a steadicam? Much more versatile, quicker too if you're doing run and gun

>>2889230
A10 V10 Thanks YIFY

>>2889372
the f8 is a pro-tier field recorder. nothing to criticize.

File: sldr.jpg (943KB, 1315x1011px)

943KB, 1315x1011px

>>2889371
when you think a dolly on tracks would be cheaper and easier to extend than a slider, then you didn't think this through. i constructed both and the slider is the more practicable option. and my camera rig weights ca. 7kg, so for your (most likely lighter) rig a slider is definitively the way to go.

tracks are so complicated. remember that you have to level the ground and/or underlay a lot of sleepers (like 4-5 per meter), where every single one of them needs to be adjustable in height.
on the other hand you can construct easily a stable slider which only needs to be placed between two statives per 2 meters. you can install them even in a forest without any efford.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	GT-I9506
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:07:25 13:37:18
Focal Length	4.13 mm
Exposure Time	1/33 sec
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
F-Number	f/2.2
White Balance	Auto

Sup people...

Any resources on how to color grade? Honestly, most of the time I just throw some instagram tier filter onto AE. I want to learn how to color grade properly.

>>2889372
I use the F8 every few days. It's pretty good, the noise floor is low, but not as low as I'd like it to be. Wipes the floor with all lesser Zoom products though.

>>2890050
>youtube.com
>type "How to colour grade?"
>press enter
>marvel at the results

>>2890050
http://juanmelara.com.au/basic-resolve-node-structure-and-order-of-operations/

File: WRH-Resolve-Color.jpg (418KB, 1920x1058px)

418KB, 1920x1058px

>>2890050
Get DaVinci man, totally free. Start learning about the steps to take to grade footage correctly. Learn to read waveforms and how to shoot your footage more flat (unless you already do that) so you're setting yourself up for a good grade off the bat

First thing, you never ever start by targeting a specific colour and blowing it out, or overlaying a gradient to dark or lighten a certain area of your shot. Start with basic stuff like balancing exposure and colour.

For workflow, I usually start with an exposure pass, balancing the waveform between 0-100 and lining up the colours so you can start from a flat blueprint, then go into targeting your colours, bringing them up or down, adjusting temperature, saturating, then apply a lighting pass with power windows and masks, then skin tone (if there's a subject), re-expose blacks and highlights, add one final layer of overall saturation/temperature whatever to solidify your look, and you're good to go.

DaVinci works in nodes, not layers like Lightroom or Photoshop, so it's a bit to get used to at first but overall it's a much better system, for grading footage at least.

>>2890354
>using LUTs

>>2890354
>the order is apparently important.
How important? in blender I always went Curves - Color Balance - Hue correct - Brightness/Contrast
But now I switched curves and colorbalance around and it delivers a much smoother, less "blotchy" video material that doesn't have such hard edges on transitions between colours and brightness. Meanwhile, it has a bit less contrast.
Did I do suddenly right by mistake?

File: gradingtest19010.jpg (399KB, 1920x1080px)

399KB, 1920x1080px

>>2890403
Sorry, forgot to attach the image. This one is with curves first, my "old way"

File: gradingtest29010.jpg (388KB, 1920x1080px)

388KB, 1920x1080px

>>2890405
and here's the one with colour balance first, the "new way" that I kinda like more, because it seems to preserve more details.

quick q:

I'm setting up a RAID 5 array for a 4k/5k editing terminal. Is 7200rpm going to be fast enough, or will I experience bottlenecking? Can anyone link to an optimal array for what I seem to be looking for?

>>2890720
Drive RPM isn't really what matters here. Look up benchmarks for the specific drives you're looking at and punch the numbers into a RAID calculator to get an estimate of performance.

How fast is fast enough depends on your files and the rest of your system.

I just got a dslr that can into video.
I have been handling photo stuff for quite some time now.
But I'm really not sure what video accessories to get 1st.
So far my idea was to get a fluid head, a decent mic, and something for shoulder carry.
The list of possibilities is obviously endless, so what would be the best order?

>>2890779
here's a good tute on mics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxV6F1jDV_4
A good shoulder mount and tripod should help you shoot steady.

>>2890791
That's not a tut on mics per se, more on ADR.
Thy this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_519697&feature=iv&index=2&list=PL4082F9820AFEC888&src_vid=_ZmxG_2q4A0&v=P99bZakCN_g

>>2879164
don't listen to that guy, the h2n has no xlr inputs, the h4n does, i use it a lot but i heard it has a mediocre amp and yes, i usually hear quite a lot of noise.
but it's one of the cheapest combo mic-recorder on the market and it has so many functions, it literally is the swiss army knife you'd always want when there's something to record.

>>2890860
Thanks for answering. But we resolved the issue. he fucked up and didn't check the name previous, meant the H4n.
Currently still using my ZoomH1. It does good work. i work with a Rhode Shotgun mic for my hotshoe.
I get decent results, recently did a festival with it. WOuld really like to post here but am Afraid of the 4chan stench if someone finds out.
Then again, my current work isn't portfolio material.

>>2890369
It doesn't mention anything about them.

>>2890403
Generally you want to start with whole image adjustments before moving to isolating color and working on that. Also prioritize working with luma first before chroma. Let's say, adjust exposure first and afterwards hue, saturation. Correct looking exposure is by far the hardest to get right.

The way you do this may be different than in the article but it's generally the best way to go about.

>>2890891
Thanks, makes a lot of sense.
I generally have to adjust the red-spectrum too to make human skin look normal in my shots. is that normal? I usually step down Saturation a bit and step up hue, to push it towards yellow.
Otherwise everyone looks like they are covered in cheetos.
It could be because of the bright light I guess.
The two provided shots are an example of adjusted human skin.

>>2886867
>cost is not an issue
Get a Red Dragon

Thinking about getting a phantom 3 or 4, wondering if anyone has experience with how the footage will mesh with a GH4's

better for video?
Sony rx100 iv
vs
Panasonic gh3 lumix

ideally a potential youtube channel and a short film I'm working on. also, do any of these shoot raw?

kind of need fast advice, they are for sale used, I'm stuck at work with a shitty 2g Internet on my phone. difficult to do research.
thank you, thank you

I made a thread, realized this is better

>>2886867
Scarlet-W

>>2890848
The information in this video is worthless to anyone that dealt with a regular (d)slr before.
I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

>>2890791
Neato

I guess I will get a fluid head 1st.

>>2891419
Depends what you're filming. Any event or run and gun stuff will benefit greatly from a monopod.

>>2886652
PC > Laptop for serious work every single time. You'll get more oomph for your budget and the ability to upgrade over time which laptops typically don't have.

logicalincrements.com < follow this and build one in your budget.

What's a good full one person build for documentary type stuff?

Can anyone offer input on this?

>>2891535
Let me rephrase...entry level build for a one person crew.

>>2891536
>>2891535
From ground up?
>Lumix G7
Cheapest good camera with 4k, many adaptable lenses. get without lens, body only OR with the 14-140mm kitlens, which is amazing for it's price. A bit slow though, since it's a f/3.5-5.6
>Panasonic 25mm f/1.7
Good 25mm all-purpose video lens for under 200 bucks. OR
>used, adapted lens with a big aperture
No autofocus though. There are some old lenses which still perform stellar. You'll want to end up with a 40-50mm FullFrame equivalent lens. Ideally prime, because primes are cheaper
>fluid-dampened pan&tilt tripod
Many cheap options. if you get a decent head (50-80 bucks) and put it on a cheap tripod, that'll. I use the Hähnel Triad 60 lite, which cost me 55€, but it's not available on Amazon USA
>shoulder rig
there are many cheap ones:
https://www.amazon.com/ePhotoinc-RL01-Shoulder-Camcorder-Cameras/dp/B005NJCF7E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469721635&sr=8-1&keywords=spider+shoulder+rig
https://www.amazon.com/Morros-DR-2-shoulder-Stabilizer-Camcorders/dp/B00E57JRNA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1469721635&sr=8-2&keywords=spider+shoulder+rig
https://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-Shoulder-Support-Camcorder-Camera/dp/B0036NMQ7S?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0036NMQ7S&linkCode=as2&redirect=true&tag=dslrvideoshooter-20
>polarization filter
For having more natural colours. Cheap ones start at 15 bucks.
>Zoom H1 audio recorder
High quality, for 100 bucks, can even function as your microphone if you don't want to get. There are alternatives though. You should start at the Zoom H1's level
>shotgun mic with coldshoe mount
Look into Rhode's collection
>decent headphones
No need to go into the expensive range. Look at the portable selection of Beyerdynamics or AKG. You'll need it to plug into your Audio recorder

That is more or less my setup, which so far has set me back roughly 1,3k€ over a 3 month period.
I'm no pro, but I'm slowly working up, taking every chance I get at shooting and learning something new each time.

>>2891547
Would you mind sharing anything you have made with this setup?

>>2891559
Eeeeh.
Sting of 4chan.
I slapped my name on almost anything. maybe I'll export some as soundless webm to show you video material.
Mostly I'm going around fesitvals and doing stuff there, then cut them together.

I have a T3i/600D with Magic Lantern.

So far I've only been testing but I'm interested in knowing how would a serious post-processing workflow look like.

Right now I'm splitting the "video RAW files" to DNG sequences with "raw2dng", then using Adobe CameraRAW to semi-grade/correct the files, saving them as JPEGs and then exporting them as AVI using VirtualDub. I learned this from the Magic Lantern forum.

Is there a better way to convert the "video RAW" to a DNG sequence? Do I need that at all in order to color grade the images? Should I be color grading after I make the edits? That kind of stuff...

Thanks in advance.

>>2891587
I didn't know the 600d could shoot raw. It can't be particularly good quality? The 70d i know can only do it at sub hd resolution without sound for like 8 seconds at a time - so it's not even slightly worth it

When I used to shoot with a 550d I just used a really flat profile and it graded fine (enough)

>>2891649

There are many examples around: https://vimeo.com/99964513

I don't think Kendy Ty shoots raw, but check his stuff, it's all shot on a T2i/550D: https://vimeo.com/kendyty

I think the quality is good enough. Also it's the camera I have with me so I'll squeeze as much as I can from it.

You use RAW at a low resolutions (960x450 or something like that, but you can play with the aspect ratio and then upscale it, that's what I see/read people do) in order to shoot continually.

I don't really know but from what I've heard profiles are irrelevant when shooting RAW, although I've also read some other people saying otherwise.

But I'm just learning about all of this so take it with a grain of salt.

File: Gulsort.jpg (2MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6000x4000px

Hey! i have a couple of cuestions regarding low light video. are anyone in this thread?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5500
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	762
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	54 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:26 19:03:29
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	36.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2891689
Kendy doesn't shoot raw
I didn't mean the camera couldn't be good quality, like I said I used to shoot with a 550 myself. But I'll take the hd resolution over sub-hd raw
especially with the other drawbacks i mentioned that are certainly the case for the 70d so I imagine it wouldn't be any better for a 600d

Also, if you're just learning, I really recommend not shooting raw since it really complicates the workflow when you should be focused on composition and editing. Also it takes up SHITLOADS of space
(though I've never shot raw myself so do what you think you need to)

>>2891707
Best low light camera
>sony a7s

Best low-light solutions for a camera you already have
>shoot in as much light as possible (making a bright image look dark is relatively simple, the opposite not so much)
>buy lights to increase the amount of light available
>buy a faster prime lens

>>2891384
bump

>>2891535
can't be fucked to type out an entire build right now, but I'd say go with an FS7 if you have the cash. perfect for documentary work

>>2891707
a7s ii + slrmagic 50mm t0.95 lens

Is the Blackmagic pocket cinema cam worth it?

>>2892193
Only if you really know how to handle it.
Also, no 4k, which will hurt it massively in the next years.
Get a sony a6000 or A7s or Lumix G7

>>2892218
>sony a6000
Doesn't this have overheating issues while shooting video?

>>2892221
The entire Sony lineup has problems with video, especially moving footage and moire, but people will still gush about its low light performance, while the Lumix Cameras handle video like a charm and get better sensor with every generation.
Pick your poison. Either bad handling of video in general or bad low light performance.

>>2891183
they're 16:nein

>>2891396
Thanks

>>2879084
3 years shooting news and I'm finally going out for a more creative job shooting commercial and internal video for a hospital, anyone with that kind of experience here whose brain I could pick?

New A6300 user here, I know about the rolling shutter and I am about 99% sure I can work around it but I read that the 1080 shooting modes are a bit fuzzier than other camera's shooting 1080 but that the 4K is of course crystal sharp, Is there anyone here that can shed light on that? Should I basically ONLY be shooting 4k on the 6300 or is the 1080 not that bad?

Thanks!

Canon - EOS Rebel SL1 Camera with 18-55mm STM and 75-300mm III Lenses
Salr Price: $599
vs
Nikon - D3300 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm VR II and 55-200mm VR II Lenses
$699

I just want a good vlogging camera, are either of these going to be it?

>>2892464
Sony a5000, mic is pretty good or just get an external.

also has screen you can move unlike those two.

>>2892450
I heard that the 4k had more moire problems thpugh. sony is known for mad video movement tho. people hope that the good low light performance makes itup again.

>>2891535
>>2891536
you have 2 ways:
you get a camcorder (dslr, mirrorless, stuff like blackmagic) and all the stuff that must come with it like >>2891547 said, you have a lot of equipment for cheap but trust me, it's not that comfortable. you have a good quality from the sensor and lenses (and usually not that good with codecs). if you start with no money this is a better option since it's scalable, you buy what you need, you could buy a camcorder for 100€ (canon 1100d, used it yesterday with magic lantern and i have to admit if you can live with 720p it's a pretty good toy)

or you just get a single professional camera with a 1/3" sensor or more, good zoom lens, equipped with everything you'll possibly need and you learn how to use it. the image quality is lower, in particular the dynamic range is a shit but trust me, if you learn how to use it you won't be disappointed. usually this kind of cameras start from 1500€, add a decent tripod and some mics and you're ready for everything.

>>2892464
>EOS Rebel SL1 Camera
I honestly have no clue who this camera is aimed at. It's basically identical to the t5i but not
It's like the space between that and a 1200d, but that space is so small that you wonder what the point of putting a new camera there is

If someone could let me know, I'd appreciate it

>>2892498
Well damn, always a hang up huh?

>>2892537
it's a damn small dslr. smaller than a normal rabal.
you guessed it. casual women buys it. in white.

>>2891384
anyone?

>>2890779
Decent tripod/head, shoulder rig etc is nice but save your back/body and use a tripod.

>>2891384
no raw on either of those.

GH3 personally over the Sony (I consider interchangable lenses a must).

>>2891535
It depends on the documentary, they *can* be shot on damn near anything technically. What you want to do specifically changes what camera setup you use.

I'd say a C100mkI or an sony EX1 would be good to look into.

>>2892193
If you can handle the post process, learning curve, and acessories to turn it into a full camera system - yes.

>>2891587
What I'd do instead if you can:
raw2dng-->davinci resolve 12-->export as dnxhd/prores (prores if you are on a mac)-->edit--->export xml/aaf-->import to davinci and re-link to source files-->grade

>>2887676
Use your D500 until you find yourself needing something more video oriented. It'll get the job done certainly.

>>2892464
save your money and buy a used t3i and a used 18-55

>>2892450
haven't tried the a6300 personally - However, from what I know the reason the 4k is crystal sharp is that it's actually taking in a 6k image and downsampling that to 4k (UHD if I remember), and the 1080P is just 1080P.

(correct me if I'm wrong)

>>2892903
>However, from what I know the reason the 4k is crystal sharp is that it's actually taking in a 6k image and downsampling that to 4k (UHD if I remember), and the 1080P is just 1080P.
Surely this can't be right or else wouldn't it be able to record 6k with an external recorder? (I don't actually know so if someone could tell me why this wasn't right, I'd appreciate it)

>>2892965
It is, but it won't record 6k to external recorder for 3 reasons I can think of:
1) there is no 6k distribution format yet [to my knowledge at least]
2) processing/bandwidth requirements
3) Sony wouldn't want to overshadow their higher end cameras [to be honest though, Sony is doing great other than their support/ecosystem currently]

What is the best mm range for night club videography? Currently using a tweeked 600D with a 18-200 f3,5.

I'm switching very soon to a Sony a7s, need absolutely a new lense for FF.

Prime or a good zoom lense?


Any ideas?

I have a Canon 600D - does 720p30 or 1080p60

Do I need to use magic lantern and get RAW before I should even bother, or is it powerful enough to do post on the .mp4 1080p30? Little bit worried about using a firmware hack

do you guys have patience to answer some noob questions
i read sticky

>>2893682

why didn't you just leave your questiosn you fuckin piece of shit making us lose time

>>2893418
a T3i can't get you cinematic results regardless, just use it for practice and buy a real camera when you're ready

>>2886097
What you'd want is a cine lens that let's you change the aperture smoothly on the spot

Alternatively, you can get a vintage lens and declick the aperture ring

File: sony_hdr_ax33v_4k_ultra_hd_1109387.jpg (108KB, 1000x1000px)

108KB, 1000x1000px

FDR-AX33 sony handycam
cheaper videocamera ever???

no shitty action camera allowed

>>2894009

yes it fucking can

what the fuck are you even saying?

Noob question, but how does one get into shooting live music? I was thinking of putting together a demo reel and contacting concert promoters, but other than that I'm completely lost.

>>2894400
the t3i doesn't have enough dynamic range (or good enough color science for that matter) to deliver cinematic results. it's good for practice, learning the basics of photography/cinematography, but if you want results buy a cinema camera

>>2894518

and before you send me some vimeo bullshit here's a feature film shot on a 7D (same sensor as T3i): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ZV-bwZmBw

this is the best case scenario with a DSLR and it still looks plasticy/amateurish. skintones are one flat hue, wides are low detail, motion cadence is very video-ish. Just not an attractive film at all. And again, this is with the assistance of a professional DP and $250,000. If you want results, buy a cinema camera - after you understand the principles of photography of course.

cinema cameras aren't expensive these days, $10,000 - $15,000 can get you a fairly professional kit (Blackmagic vs RED). If you "can't afford it", you just don't care enough about filmmaking. Take out a fucking loan or get a second job. Ask your family to pitch in.

>>2894518

that stupid feature looks like shit and makes it evident that just throwing money at it is not enough. i've seen more professional and cinematic looking content from that and worse cameras being shot by inexperienced dipshits than what that "professional dp with 250k" just did.

tangerine was shot on a good damn iphone and people couldn't even tell before being told so

i'm sure a t3i can do enough

>>2894520
The only thing I had a problem with was the jittery-ness of the video, which has nothing to do with the camera.

>>2879118
>superzoom
if you need the borkeh or the lens is soft and dark,
yea, get a lens.
find something with ois.

>>2894551
That has long since been resolved. i got the Panasonic 25mm 1.7 it was on sale for 170€.
Has no OIS but is super bright and standard focal length.

>>2879121
doesn't look too good.
the lighting guy messed up.

https://youtu.be/vUPxVYAnz_E?t=741
this really shows the great fooji colours.

>>2881184
g7, gx80, xt2 or a6300.

>>2894549

just read this interview:
http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2012/3/29/case-study-like-crazy-shot-on-the-canon-eos-7d.html

“I had never shot anything on a DSLR." lol

he didn't even have experience doing it, and probably didn't shoot RAW so the footage is nowhere as malleable.

>>2894518
>>2894520
>how to instantly lose all respect from everybody in the thread

>>2894564
>"LOOK, LOOK, DSLRs CAN DO VIDEO TOO!"
>Canon has invested development and marketing money to create the camera equivalent of a sports-supercar with a Two-Stroke engine
Yeah of course they "CAN DO IT!" but by investing money into refining this ability you waste ressources on the wrong end for customers who barely care anyway and has a smaller market to begin with. Nikon and Canon should just create a dedicated DSLM line or they will forever be outdone by Panasonic and Sony on the video sector. Especially because people that want to move upwards in the video-gear will want to stay in one specific ecosystem.

>>2894528

Tangerine looks like shit man, it's a great movie but it doesn't look "traditionally" cinematic, just like 28 Days Later doesn't look traditionally cinematic (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but people are trying to make these cheap ass cameras deliver Alexa/RED/35mm results and it just won't happen)

send me those "cinematic" DSLR-shot films, I really doubt you'll be able to convince me. Upstream Color looks decent but pretty much every shot is close and shallow. very few wides and very little depth.

>>2894564

that's kind of the point, though. If you want DSLR footage to shine you have to light/shoot to its weaknesses, and ultimately you'll still never receive a traditionally cinematic image. If you're going for a cheap, raggedy, video-ish look (like 28 Days Later or something) you'll do fine, but if you want pro-tier visuals you'll need pro-tier gear.

>>2894565

I don't mean to discourage anyone or come off as a jerk, I'm just tired of people expecting pro results from consumer cameras. Maybe in 2026 it'll be possible (professional digital cameras were like $150,000 ten years ago) but not today, you still need to invest pretty heavily. Although like I said, $15,000 isn't much if this is your passion. People drop $15,000 like it's fucking nothing on unnecessary junk, just take out a loan or save some money. It's not much at all. If this were 1996 you'd have to shoot 16mm which is fucking absurdly expensive in comparison.

Always remember though, pro-tier gear + amateur talent will get you nowhere. That's why you practice on DSLRs. Use a T3i or 7D or whatever for 3-5 years, and when you're ready to step up buy a Raven, Scarlet, Ursa Mini, etc.

>>2894674
one more thing: there's always the option of renting. If you work at fucking mcdonalds and $15,000 is incomprehensible to you, renting a Raven with Zeiss CP2s isn't drastically expensive at all, in fact it might even be preferable to owning depending on how often you shoot.

>>2894674

Good points. I appreciate the advice.

>>2894009
>>2894518
>>2894520
>>2894674
>>2894683
Hehe. Wow. So pathetic. Dude, you know, just because you failed to produce anything worth to be seen by more people than your few friends, it does not mean that it is correct (nor wise) to blame the equipment for it.
What you meant was that YOU are not able to produce a 'cinematic look' without an alexa. You. Not one. But inspite of accepting that your talent is insufficient, you start to furiously criticize the image quality of actual sucessful films. Hilarious.
Furthermore your use of esoteric attributes of IQ like "motion cadence" displays your lack of technical understanding of a thing you claim would be callable a 'cinematic look'. You, dude, are a joke.
But I'm impressed by your shameless confidence to just spread a premature opinion like yours to anyone. I recommend to be a little in worry that some people might recognize your amateurish nature ... Maybe this is the reason you always get such a bad feedback for everything you do. Not because it is amateurish .. because of you being an arrogant ass about it. "Oh look, that sundance winner film was shot on a XYZ. It looks so bad and amateurish. Blabla .. muh skintones .. blablub .. plastic .. hurrdurr .. flat hues." ... Gosh, I wished people like you would be able to see and hear themselves from the outside just once. You'd be so emberrassed that you'd wish earth would swallow you up.

So, please go and wait till 2026 when the good cameras will be affordable. And then make finally your brilliant movie with the brilliant cinematic look you fap all day to. Or maybe consider to follow all your useful hints you gave here and produce something now? Hm? No? Aww, that's a pity. No sundance festival for you? Awwch, that's a shame. But at least YOU know what a cinematic look is and how to achieve it: with money.

Congratulations. :^)

(funny tho ^^ .. really a funny kid you are)

>>2894674
Kendy Ty's videos disagree
Shot on a 550d, and most modern dslr and mirrorless cameras produce better images than a 550d
https://vimeo.com/94390460

>>2894791

>wah I can't afford professional equipment, I have to use consumer and prosumer toys for the rest of my life

I own a Scarlet-W and work professionally as a freelance cinematographer. I know what I'm talking about. DSLRs are good for practice - not professional use. If you don't know what motion cadence is, or why Like Crazy's skintones are flat and unimpressive, or if you don't understand the importance of dynamic range, that's fine, but don't talk down to me as if I'm making these concepts up.

I know, I know, newbie filmmakers want to hear things like "anyone can make a beautiful movie with their cellphone or DSLR!", but it just isn't so. You still need to spend some money. I have never seen a truly impressive DSLR-shot film (in terms of visuals) and likely never will. Again, if you want to "prove" otherwise, go ahead and try, but I doubt you'll be successful. There are limitations in these cameras that cannot be overcome by any degree of talent.

Here's a 5D short film, shot by Shane Hurlbut: https://vimeo.com/10570139

That is the BEST case scenario with a DSLR. Still looks cheap. Sorry to disappoint you. I've been doing this for 20 years and I've developed a good eye for quality, as well as a distaste for "cheap workarounds" and shortcuts. Your job is to entertain an audience, not "become a filmmaker". No one gives a fuck who you are. Audiences demand a certain level of quality and a DSLR will not cut it, no matter how skilled you are. Use a cheapie camera for practice and upgrade when you're ready. These things take time and money. My goal has never been to discourage new filmmakers, I only seek to provide realities and hard truths.

>>2894805

I've seen Kendy Ty's work before. Masking the imperfections of DSLRs with severe grain and low-contrast in post is not the same as creating visually pleasing, eye-catching imagery raw. His T2i work is "ugly in an interesting way", but not truly attractive or cinematic as far as I'm concerned.

However, again, I will say this: if you can't do what Kendy Ty does on your own DSLR/cheapie camera, don't bother buying an expensive one. Pro gear + no talent is an embarrassing combination. Learn to shoot first, upgrade to pro gear when you're capable of making it shine. But DO NOT let yourself sink into mediocrity; when you're ready to move up, you'll know it, and you can't let money discourage you. $15,000 is achievable at any level.

>>2894815
>>2894819

I understand your perspective (and agree with you for the most part) but you have to remember where you are. Most people posting in these threads are very green, and very sensitive (can I really do this? is it really possible to make a career out of film?), and any slight discrepancy to the "filmmaking is possible with zero budget" myth is enough to really set off some fumes.

>>2894815
It's the year 2026. Alexa released finally its latest cinematic camcorder with motion cadence turbo (tm). A new aera of cinematography is born. The cinamatic look (R) is finally affordable for everyone. At this time all consumer demand for a specific level of quality are fulfilled.
The specialist industry is relieved. And we all remember that horrible times in the past where bad skintones and flat hues caused eye-cancer in millions of innocent watchers of low-budged films. Happily enough, the law from 2019 which banned low-budget cinematography due to its health risks, is now obsolete. We all expect that US president Schwarzenegger will soon change this law and that we soon can enjoy the independet cinema again.

Special thanks must go to Anon, who was a proud and lucky owner of a Red Scarlet in 2016 after being 20 years in the film industry. He never got tierd of warning the stupid people of those past times about bad hues and unimpressive skintones. These were the real heros: the ancient professionals who understood the importance of dynamuc range and developed the good eye for quality (c)2016 which saved the life of so many people. Thank you for the realities and hard truths without which we couldn't have survived.

Furthermore we wish Anon all the best for his 22th birthday. What a great present for his special day. Good bless Amerika and goid skintones for everyone! (And it's not like those concepts were made up, I swear!)

>>2894834
>US president Schwarzenegger
please, don't you mean president West? President Kanye West?
(Schwarzenegger wasn't born in the US so can't legally be president)

>>2894834

If you want to have a constructive discussion, show me some DSLR footage or make genuine arguments. I'm only trying to help. Basking in mediocrity and chintzy equipment helps no one, in the long term.

Here is what I mean by "one flat hue": https://youtu.be/rvL9gn-wbTQ?t=142

Putting aside dynamic range, if you can't see a difference in color detail you're either inexperienced or in a stage of denial.

>>2894836
This law was changed by president Trump in 2020 even before it came out that he was actually born in Uganda and is genetically closer to an Oranguthan than to a homo sapiens.
West is now known as Kayine West after she transitioned to a woman and initiated the 'Mrs. Broad Jaws of the Universe' Award, which she have won since then every year.

>>2894837
You want a constructive discussion? AND based on your interpretation of footage? You think your personal flavour and interpretation would make a valid base for a rational argument? Really?

I can shorten this for you: I say "look this". You say "It's shit". You say "look this. I say "It's shit". Great. Marvelous. This is what you understand under a constructive discussion.

Nono. You kid have first to understand what the difference between an opinion and an objective criteria is.

And I have a feeling that it won't be worth the time to try to bring that even close to you. You are so full of yourself that you actually think that your point is indiscutablely right and everyone must be your opinion - unless he's an idiot. I know people like you.

But to be fair I will at least offer a sane entry for a discussion. The problem starts with the definition of what a 'cinematic look' might be. Most likely you actually talk about a 'professional look'. Which means nothing more as the look you have seen in major productions (or rather in major productions you personally like). There we have the first misconception. Firstly there is no common look or standard or reference look or any of such thing. You personally connect specific attributes you think you see in several productions. And your tries to reproduce them with specific technology failed. Okay. Then - maybe - you suceeded to reach your prefered look with different technology. Stunning. But how can you then come to any perspective that your pov would be universal?
What if I tell you that expensive technology just eases work for you? THAT is what you pay for.(CONT)

>>2894856
(CONT)
Professional equipment just reduces time and efford. It is no superior technology, since it is the same - in principal.
Compare it with software. Useability does not make an algorithm better. Just easier to use.

And okay, you seem to be dependant on a high usability to make whatever you think a good look is. But must this be necessarrily be also valid for everybody else? Maybe there are people being fit with workin durectly on the algo. Dude, they say there are even people writing those algos ... duuuude. Insane.

So, what you think would be helpful - to say (maybe unexpirienced people - that it would be impissible to make the look(tm) with cheap equipment, is actually misleading, ignorant and simply false. It is not about money. It is about knowledge. ... So in case you have any, share this. Not some random flavoured opinions.

>>2894860
You should stop taking birth control ... indeed.

>>2894856

>that your point is indiscutablely right

There is no 'objective' quality standard for an image, no, but there are general ideals (if we're trying to appeal to an average audience). Again, take a look at the image. Whether or not you *prefer* one shot over another, the Alexa's color representation is objectively more detailed/accurate. This is fact. Higher detail color representation is generally expected from audiences, whether they consciously know it or not. This is one small sliver of the "professional" look, which is absolutely definable. I don't think it's illusory or relative at all.

Apart from isolated art styles/color pallets, there is a consistency to major productions which can be calculated given the prerequisite knowledge. And, because of intrinsic limits, DSLRs (cheap cameras in general, really) cannot achieve this "illusory" goal. I believe you can objectively quantify whether or not an image is "cinematic", or "professional", whichever word we're using to describe it. To explain these intricacies on 4chan would be absurd, as it's taken me 20 years to garner the knowledge I have now. But it's not an impossibility and it's certainly not wholly dependent on perspective.

>It is no superior technology

Well, this just isn't true. There are flat-out, unchanging limitations in these cameras that aren't going away. Dynamic range; not just how far it reaches, but how it rolls off. Color science. Motion cadence. Bit depth. And so on. Again, DSLRs are good for learning the principles of cinematography. But when it's time to shoot that feature, or start getting paid, whatever the legitimate goal is, you're gonna want a cinema camera. Those limitations are absolutely crushing, and I'd say it's horribly misleading to preach otherwise. There's an entire generation of filmmakers believing they can coast by on iPhones and GH4s - and it just isn't so.

>>2894520
>Ask your family to pitch in.
Reminder that /p/ is a playground for trust fund babbies.

>>2894944
... sigh ... well, if it is true that this is what you reached in 20yrs of your 'professional life' then I really pity you. Then you are in the complete wrong branche and you rather should work in a financial office or so.

I gonna provide you some actual knowledge (or rather for somebody else here, because I can anticipate your stubbornness, since you seem only to repeat your favourite buzz-words so far).

All shallow opinions about what a consumer might expect aside:

Quantity != Quality.

Normally this should be nuff said, but I will elaborate: This means that more of something does not make it better. It is just more. Not better, not superior. Just more. Dynamic range, bit depth, resolution, fps, number of channel (3d) and so on. You can have less information or more. Okay. Of course you need a specific amount of information >at least<. How much might this be?

>Dynamic Range
The human eye has a very wide dynamic rang - when you consider the adjustment of the iris to dark and light conditions. Under stable lighting however (and you'll laugh: a film scene tends to have a constant lighting) the dynamic range is merely up to 10 stops. A foggy day e.g. can even need not more than 5-6 stops. In case you film a situation whith a higher range than 10 stops you have three options:
1. use a recording technology with a wider range
2. discard one side of the spectrum
3. lighten the lowers, damp the highs
Nr. 3 is the prefered way since ever. This is what you use lights and sheets for. You adjust the scene so that the dynamics fit the recordable range.
So, q.e.d.: Having a wider DR makes things easier, because you get more information with less efford. But it does not make things BETTER.
Think about what DR a consuming display has. Any! Hardly 10 stops. Cinama projecter? Not even 8 (despite what the manufacturers claim). You will have to reduce (compress/map) the range anyways in post. Having more information just gives you more room for variating. (CONT)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChPan4CbWgM

>>2895142
Hi, I'm a toral noobie and not who you were talking to, I'm just trying to gather knowledge and am trying to understand if what you said coincides with what I've learned, essentially the benefit of newer technology (4K, HDR, etc) is always so you have more to work with in post and don't have to kill yourself to get it. Right? 8k Cameras aren't so we end with 8k video it's so we have a lot to work with when we make it 1080p, a camera with 12 stops isn't so that the end result utilizes all of that, it's so the editing is easier and looks better.

Right? Sorry I'm a news Photog so I've always shot for practicality and the art was secondary so my views areally weird as I try to put the art first.

>>2895142
(CONT)
But things are not better b/c of this.

>Bit Depth
The bit depth is the room for digital information per sample. With 8bit per channel you get 24bit per sampel (pixel), with 14bit/c you get 42bit/p. 42 is more than 24. True. What do this information represent? It is the gradient of the relation of dark to light subpixels for the specific range of light spectrum. So you can say you "mix" the colors out of 3x8bit information clusters. These are 2^24 = 16Mio possible colors. With 42bit it's >4000Billion colors. Great. What do you think this is good for? Do you think the human eye would be capable of differentiating 4000Billion colors? Do you think the any display or projector can display these? .. Ofc not. Again it eases the post-production by mainly giving you more room for pp-lines; you can easily concat hundrets of filters without the image starts banding and other shit. Again you can variate more. Again you will downsample to 8bit anyways. Again more did not mean better.

>resolution, fps, and shit
It's the same story. More, more, more.

But more can also have disadvantages. E.g.: A high DR can induce a lazyness in regard to lighting your set. That's no good because a well lit set is always better than a post-corrected mapping.
Or a high bit depth can lead to too heavy post-processing, just because it is possible.
Or a higher resolution (>=4k) makes it necessarry to compose more background, since e.g. close-ups get just too giagantic (on screen), so more efford for sets is due.
Or higher fps makes movement hyper-realistic, which is more challenging for actors and directing.
Or 3D enforces to avoid shallow DoFs, which leads to either small apertures or sensors etc.

Ofc the advantages are mostly preferable.

I'm not claiming you can make any look with any technolgy. Way not. But the moment your recording technology meets the display tech, you can produce an in any aspect sufficient picture. With more or less efford.

>>2895151
In principal this sums up my prior statement. You get more possibilities in post which also means more efford.

But everybody who works with technology which does not allow heavy post-processing should always keep in mind, that then all the work is to be done in pre-production and production. It must be nearly perfect when you catch it. Don't forget that. Then there is no "we'll fix that in post". No, no. You fix it immediately. :^)

>>2895170
Right I didn't mean to say that tech means no effort has to be put into it just that the reason we expanded from the old crank to shoot on film cameras from the 50s is so that it's easier to shoot and easier to edit in post.

>>2894856
>>2894858
>>2895142
>>2895159
wow, literally BTFO
good job

>>2895159

I'm the one that started asking about the T3i and I appreciate this a ton. Thank you.

Could anyone give me crit on these two videos I made?
Just starting out, but I want to get more serious about videos.

https://vimeo.com/176641333
https://vimeo.com/174216500

>>2895366
I like both of 'em quite much.

You could try to set the gray-point in the 1st not so neutral. Give it a little flavour/tint .. it's brutal accurate. And from my point of view the black-point in the 1st is too low/deep/dark. Generally try to raise blacks more organically, like log(x) for x>=0 and not like tan(x) for x>=0 && < pi/2. (not kidding)
Also would have been fun to also see some undercranking in addition to the slow-mos (which are not too much, I appreciate).

the second is overall quite fine, which is due to the fog and overall diffuse light. try to get that look also for "normal" material (check the histogram and recognize the high and organic black-point etc.)

Edit a.s.o. is okay. Not bad. Not genious but nothing flawed.

Sum: You seem to be an accurate technican. That's a good starting point. Now start to dare some creativity and experiments with flaws on purpose.

Ok /p/eople I've almost saved up enough money to upgrade from my T3i, and I'm looking at either the Canon 6D or Sony a6300. I have more experience with Canon and can use the lenses I already own, and I like the full frame sensor, but I like the 4K capabilities and 120fps slow motion on the a6300. Any thoughts?

>>2895434
>log(x) for x>=0 and not like tan(x) for x>=0 && < pi/2. (not kidding)

we /sci/ now?

>>2895452
give me a better way to describe a curve with words and I'll refrain from formulas in future. Promise.

>>2895456
>posts on an image board
>wants to describe an optical representation of a formula to someone
>using only words

>>2895470
valid point. but I'm not painting curves nor searching for respective images on my phone. .. maybe on pc .. ok. my promise.

>>2895159

I'm assuming you haven't shot on anything above a DSLR. Limits are limits. I never said low-budget cameras were incapable of shooting *good* movies (I loved Escape From Tomorrow), I said they were incapable of shooting traditionally cinematic images. Which I've already established is not illusory or wholly relative by any means.

If you think you can somehow (magically) work around those innate limits - which aren't "buzzwords" or pure fiction - you can try. But so far I haven't seen anyone do it. Upstream Color is one of the best examples I've seen of DSLR cinematography and it's pretty shallow visually. Literally. Zero wides and zero DOF. Playing to the GH2's weaknesses and ultimately providing a rather bland image.

Cheap cameras can achieve "interesting" looks. But not traditionally cinematic ones. I've already established why and your only response is to deem my arguments "buzzwords" and parade around "quality over quantity" (which makes zero sense, because in this particular equipment domain, quantity IS quality). A lack of quantity will limit your options severely and in most cases fail to provide proper results. If you haven't shot on a cinema camera I guess you can't understand. If you want to shoot exclusively shallow images and brick walls, go right ahead.

>>2895215

Sigh. Please don't damage your potential career. You'll learn this lesson eventually: you get what you pay for.

File: tumblr_inline_nsiqv6OvZw1rm8mui_400.png (5KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 400x400px

>>2895551
"Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain."

>>2895568

i wonder how would the other /sci/ faggot would describe this joke

>>2895568
Coming from the 19 year old film student. Get some experience first and then we'll talk.

>>2895551
anon, stop trying to convince young filmmakers of anything. they'll learn on their own terms

>>2895577
I know they're stubborn, but I wish *I* had proper knowledge resources when I was coming up.

>>2895571
uh, you play the "experience-card". brave, brave. and that on an anonymous board without even knowing who I am. Wild guessing when standing in the corner, aye? .. this gets better and better.

okay, let's talk about experience. what is it that you say here? because of you think you would have more experience, you are right in the end. well, that is one bold statement.
but what is the logic behind this actually? what could be the justification that a wrong (or not existing) argument is suddenly valid because it was said (or somehow implied without giving any structure) by someone who claims to have more experience? wow. all of the sudden it is right. regardless what it is.

by this logic you could have said that a lens is sharper when painting the front glass completely black. and because of you might have more experience the counter-argument that this will stop it from gathering any light is suddenly wrong.

yep. this is exactly how the world functions. when you have nothing to say anymore you call "experience" and everybody knees to your wisdom.

I tell you what, old man. You just missed the train. All this new technology is a enigma for you. and the only way for you to feel like you would be able to keep up is to fall into the 'professional equipment' trap and let yourself rip-off by companies which promise you great success and hot bitches if you just give them all your money.
I can see that you simply did not understand half the things I said. you are happy that you somehow have a vague imagination what dynamic range may be. but what it means in a digital context is like a dark nightmare for you.

Here's more: I originally come from the audio field. and as a greeny I believed all that stuff the big pros told. and the audio industry is there very strict. if you don't have a studio with schoeps/tlm/neumann mikes, monster cables, spl pre-amps, rme a/d-converters, a fat neef mixer and the latest computers + a shitload of analog effects, then it is (CONT)

>>2895551
your argument is that DSLRs can't provide 'traditionally cinematic' images. Your own words.
Traditionally cinematic images are purely subjective and essentially non-existent. The image in Barry Lyndon looks nothing like the image in Transformers. There is nothing remotely similar in the way footage is graded, the lighting, or the scenes. But no one would claim that one of them wasn't really cinematic.

Stop preaching bullshit

>>2895593
(CONT)
simply impossible to produce the so-called "decent sound". IMPOSSIBLE. and yeah, I admit for a while I believed that. because I was young and had no clue and respected the big pros.
but after a while I obtained something stronger and more impressing than the opinion of others: Knowledge. and things started to look differently. you know, bob marley. bob marely, dude. they fucking used electret microphones ... okay, forget it, I can't explain what this here now... did you ever hear of endorsement? ... yeah .. no .. forget it too ..
okay, you see, there are millions of examples of famous and not famous sounds which are just BRILLIANT. some of them were made with high-end equipment and some were made with a tin and a cord. and all of them have the decent sound.

funny was to see that some people never get over their believe that they are on the safe-, on the winner-side as long as they have a neef mixer. why? because in a branche with not-measureable qualities, they necessarrily need a number to hold on; and since there is none they found their little solution which calms their small and wild minds, and that is: the price.


so, you damn fucking annoying piece of square shit: THIS is how you argument with experience. but not even this you are capable of.

>>2895594
(and it would be neat if you would let me first finish my statment before interrupting with your ever repeating blabbering.)

>>2895603
(maybe I barked at the wrong guy? was >>2895594 even for me? wrongly referencated?? not sure ..)

>>2895593
>>2895599

Substance trumps production value, always. I'm not disputing that. You can shoot a beautiful movie on a DSLR - I've seen plenty - just not a traditionally cinematic one. My initial point was this: young filmmakers want their films to look like 'real movies' (though they don't quite know what this entails or really means), and they expect to do this with sub-$1000 equipment. I'm stating the obvious: they can't. It's impossible. If you're okay with the gritty, low-fi, videoish look, go right ahead and shoot a serious production on a DSLR. If you want a film look, shoot film. If you want an Alexa look, shoot Alexa. Same goes for any other camera system. You cannot make your piece of gear emulate another piece of gear. Especially not when there are so many destructive limits involved (low dynamic range, poor color science, jittery rolling shutter, blocky bitrate, saturated highlights, etc.).

Again, my goal is not to discourage anyone. I'm just trying to make people understand they can't emulate "high production value" without high production value. There are no workarounds. You need pro gear. You need absurd amounts of experience. You need to give a fuck about your audience.