/vid/ - Video General

File: Shoulder rig.jpg (467KB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 4288x2848px

First for shoulder rigs.
What are your shoulder rigs, how do you like em, how do you use em, what do you put on them, do you prefer selfbuilt or prebuilt?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	299 dpi
Vertical Resolution	299 dpi
Image Created	2014:02:12 15:25:04
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4288
Image Height	2848

>>2896802
I personally don't see what a shoulder rig could do for me. Either I want a stable movement, then I use a dolly/slider/jib/crane, or I want a hand-held style for following movs, pov etc., then I just take it in the hand.

Shoulder seems only to be useful if you have to hold the cam for longer periods while moving around and shaking is not a big issue ... aka documentaries.

So I just bought a lens for £250
I know that's nothing for some of you, but for me that's a lot

>>2896802
I'm gonna buy a glidecam at some point in the next week I've decided. I think a shoulder rig will be too bulky

File: Epic_Optimo.jpg (372KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1500x1000px

cheap 1080p cameras 800 dollar max?
no DSLR PLEASE.
handycap or similiar. please

>>2896917
I dunno if by DSLR you also mean DSLM.
MFT cameras go for very cheap.
Sony A6000 also goes for very little.
If you don't want DSLM either, go Panasonic or Sony camcorders. If you want to completely use your budget consider the Panasonic HC-VX series or the Sony FDR-AX33

>>2896901
For me too. I haggled a lens down from 180€ to 170€ recently because it was a stage model. I also bought a cheap knockoff vintage lens for 50€
But I do like using a shoulder rig to walka round a lot as well as store some quipment on it. During nightshots I can't put verything on my cam.
I will maybe get a glidecam further down the line. I prefer to do events and festivals etc.

I wanna move to nyc and start working as a dop, of course I don't (and I won't) start that high, just a camera operator (or assistant, or assistant of the assistant) to begin would be fantastic.
The question is, do I need a high school diploma to get a job? It's not like I'm ignorant or anything, due to family issues I had to leave school early. I have a C100 MK2 and I have shot three small music videos for a friend so far, all of them "widely" (more than 600 views) appreciated.

Is a high school education really necessary?

>>2896939
>Is a high school education really necessary?

Normally I'm the first to say "fuck college degree, experience and skills are what count" but seriously, highschool is basic and not finishing it leaves a serious spot on your resume that will bar many doors for you.
Just do it. Even if just to prove you can bite the bullet and go through with it.

>>2896942
are there ways to do multiple years in one, and get it done quickly? I don't wanna waste time in nyc with education (I know, it sounds extremely ignorant, but I just wanna work)

>durr you can't work you're an immigrant
literally who uncle I just met lives there and can help me with the visa

I live in Spaghettaly, I'd be starting my 4th year of high school in September (there are 5 years before you get a diploma), is there any ways to finish those two years maybe in one (or less) in murica? I was studying Electronics and I wasn't even bad.

>>2896942
>Normally I'm the first to say "fuck college degree, experience and skills are what count" but seriously, highschool is basic and not finishing it leaves a serious spot on your resume that will bar many doors for you.
>Just do it. Even if just to prove you can bite the bullet and go through with it
THIS.

Yeah, the arts are a place you can make your own way without formal advanced education, but seriously, do not, I repeat DO NOT drop out of high school. You will fuck yourself for life. You've got plenty of time that waiting the little bit until you graduate won't hurt a thing.

>>2896942
Tbh I think a college ed, either 2 or 4 years is a good idea because you can parley that into a news gig and from there build experience shooting in the real world, if you can shoot great video of a hectic news scene then actors in a setting you have control of and can say to do it again is easy peasy. At least that's my current plan.

>>2896901
congrats! which Lens? (if you don't mind me asking, I'm always curious)

We all start somewhere - my first lens cost me $45 - I still use it.

>>2896917
an EX-1 is close, but the necessities (cards/reader/battery) will kill your budget

The cheaper handicams are there too, but aren't nearly as good as an equivalent DSLR/Mirrorless camera.

>>2896939
It looks bad on the resume. If you can - grab a GED or highschool equivalent if possible too (you never know, and it's not that hard to get done, doesn't take too long if I remember). I'd really recommend to bite the bullet and get one of these.

Most people I know hire primarily based off of experience/who you know/referal (say - someone you worked with can't take a gig and need to find a replacement - be that person they refer to the gig).

College is nice for many reasons, not just if you're going in for film/video related studies (though they can/will help - exercises where your work isn't harshly judged/heavily budgeted are a great learning tool) - doesn't need to be a masters degree or anything either.

Using a light body with a heavy, vintage lens. I get a lot of shaky movement in video shots.
Should I get an adapter with a foot for tripod-threadings?
I tested and the adapter is right behind the point of balance.
Will that improve shakyness?

>>2896961
you need some sort of gimbal, maybe a steadicam? Even something as simple as a dual handle would work.

Best video editing for Linux?
Currently using Blender, but its massively slow 32-bit float-point conversion is making me take hours.

Will DaVinci resolve ever be released for a normal Linux distribution?

>>2896966
Literally, I mean tripod. Not gimball, not glidecam. Tripod.
But even on tripod the camera is sent shaking even by the slightest touch, like adjusting focus or just a strong gust of wind and I have the feeling the heavily front-leaning camera combined with the soft material on the quick-release-plate are to blame.

>>2896969
There really isn't a "good" one. Gotta go OSx or Win for one that's not a pain in the ass, and honestly, if you want to do this stuff professionally, you need to do that anyway because one of your selling points will be your experience on the industry standard programs.

>>2896973
What tripod? Sounds like you have a cheap one
Maybe it's time to get a Manfrotto with fluid head

>>2896973
Is the tripod weighted?

Squishy shouldn't matter if it's tightened down well enough. Is your head tight in general?

>>2896975
Yes, I have a 55€ Hähnel Triad 60 lite, but the tripod isn't shaking, the camera is, the tripod is standing like an ace. The soft cork on the quick release plate is makign serious issues as far as I can tell.
NOTE: I'm talking about macroshots.

>>2896974
So your answer is "I dunno"?
Thanks for the post.
I know Linux isn't optimum, everyone that uses Linux knows it isn't optimum for most things.

>>2896978
>55€ tripod
there's your problem
it isn't about gear bragging, sometims you just need better stuff
If you really wanna keep that thing, get some better quick release plates, or some sort of wireless control system

Anyone use the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 to shoot video on the a6300? It's only like 250 so I'm thinking of making it my first non kit lense

>>2896981
There isn't a good one != I dunno and I'm not hating on Linux. I'm posting from my lappy running Mint. What I'm saying is that there just aren't good ones and not in the sense of "suboptimal, you can do better" but in the sense that there are not good ones. No matter which option you go to, you'll run into the same performance problems...it's all rooted in how shittily Linux in general plays with video cards and handles graphics drivers.

>>2896986
>graphics drivers.
Expanding on this, drivers are HUGE to performance in this stuff. They're so huge that companies like Adobe and Sony literally send their source code to nVidia where someone in house hand codes and optimizes their software to play well with the the hardware. Same goes for the makers of on-board GPUs made by like Intel. Open Source projects just don't have that kind of access and never will. They have to make guesses as to what will key heuristics in the driver to make the GPU behave how they want it to while the drivers are trying to guess what the software is doing and adjusting what it's doing based off of guessing. It's a fucking mess even on the paid side.

>>2896990
Is it true that the mac pro (the trashcan) performs better on Adobe products that a similarly-priced self-built windows desktop? Surely the desktop has MUCH better specs, but it seems that every "pro" (especially in the color grading scene) uses Apple.

>>2896993
>but it seems that every "pro" (especially in the color grading scene) uses Apple.
At this point, that's just a meme. Back when digital editing started to blow up, Apple went hard in the paint for that market and built specifically for it, and this along with their focus on design aesthetics drew the artsy folk to them to the point where it just became a sort of industry standard.

But pure performance-wise? There's not enough difference between the two now to strongly favor one over the other when considering comparably specced systems, but if you're wanting to be in the industry, you need to know how to use OSx.

If I dont plan on grading very much anyway, should I even use a custom flat, desaturated, decontrasted setting on my Lumix G7? Should I maybe go with one of the premad settings like "standard" or "natural"? Or should I use Cinelike D or Cinelike V, which I can only use in Manual Video mode, which i hate because no exposure adjustments or auto-aperture.

So, a few questions.
First, what is preferable as image quality goes, number of lines(AKA resolution) or information/line(AKA raw imagery)?
2nd, i will be recording a live session in a few weeks. Never done this and all i have in mind is to light the band brighter than the background, have a fixed camera on a tripod and another one roaming around for detail, maybe some movement, and a DR-40 plugged with two music dedicated mics. Should i think of something else as well? Any tips on what to look for/be aware?

>>2897029
It is okay to setup the image in-camera when you won't grade anyways. this is mostly done in documentary filming, news and broadcasting also. You can use which ever profile you like. Most (all) of them are optimized for TV, so nothing too bad can happen.

>>2897042
you will open most likely a discussion with your former question. I personally would always prefer an uncompressed smaller image over a bigger compressed one. But people here have the weirdest opinions. Because they don't understand what (lossy) compression actually does.

To the latter: Forget recording a decent sound with two mics. Unless you record in an acustically optimized room and place a sterephonic installation at a FIXED position. And they must be like real mics. Small membran condensor with omni or cardiod characteristic, preferably mbho, schoeps, neuman or octava when budget is small. Ofc + good pre-amps and a high-end a/d converter. And even then, it only useful for acoustic music, like a jazz band. If there is PA involved, forget it.
Don't they have to record their music on their own? Even if it is a live-microphoning and -mixing, everything will be better than you can record.

>>2896931
I kept going back and forth on a shoulder rig
I'm decided on a glidecam because it's a bit smaller and i would mainly use it for smooth follow-shots (like over the shoulder or down hallways)
Also I guess a shoulder-rig is a little more obvious than a glidecam. I know it's good to look professional but sometimes I fear looking TOO proffesional in case some cheeky cunt decides I might be an easy target to mug

>>2896955
>congrats! which Lens? (if you don't mind me asking, I'm always curious)
It's a tamron 28mm-75mm f/2.8
It's much better than I figured I could get for the price. I almost got the 17-55mm instead but I rarely use wider shots than 28mm and frequently use close-ups more than 55mm so I figured this would be a good go-to lens for me
(Plus it allows me to try and earn some money on the side doing event and nightclub photography)

BMPCC yay or nay? Budget is tight so I´ll only get the cam, a lens and a fast SD card for rawr.

>>2897389

good variable nd + external sound is mandatory for that camera

File: night1.jpg (75KB, 537x352px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 537x352px

I have a friend who's looking to shoot night art installations, and needs a good low light camera for video. Can anything be found in a $700 budget?

I'm thinking about suggesting the a6000 with a vintage 50mm 1.4 lens, which used would run her exactly about $700. But she's new to DSLRs so a manual lens might be too hard for her.

Any suggestions? Thanks!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

You will never be a great director.

>>2897086
Thanks for both answer, pretty clueless when the subject is audio beyond basics.
Its a dude with a guitar plus some guests playing his compositions, everything acoustic. He was the one that suggested this set up, so i was just trusting his judgement. You think dr-40 + some good akg mic isnt enough? Still need tô think of pre-amps for the mic?

>>2897437
I will, no one else here will though.

>>2897713
i will

check my masterpiece

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wXfMrC3BI

>>2897734
What's your setup? Good stuff

>>2897743
gh4 with booster
sigma 18-35

>>2897690
I don't know the dr-40 but maybe then the build-in mics are the better option, since they are a decent sterephonic XY installation. Also, depends on the AKGs you have.
Well, like I said, it's tough. I originally come from audio and it took me years to develop and combine a proper setting for stereophonic recording of bands/orchestras. I can tell you if you have just two mics the room is damn important. And it's sensible: room a little shit (too wet, many 90° corners, low ceiling), mics not high-end, pre-amps average, cables long and cheap, converter meh-tier and the installtion not exactly adjusted: and the result is horrible.
But maybe you don't need sound in audio-production quality. Idk what your plan is. E.g. in documentaries they often record a live-band with their on-cam mics .. it's a awful sound, but for the sake of the doc it's okay.

>>2897437
Depends on what "great" means.

>>2897734
you again. did you take my feedback from the last thread, or were you actually just promoting?

>>2897963
armond white? i said get out of my chinese image board

>>2897964
oh, the swamp rat is here. didn't I told you to refrain from being edgy? hm?

>>2897734
DUDE i love this

>>2896793
So how is the canon XA-H1 for a basic 1080p/720p camcorder. It uses DV but it generally seems like an all around great camcorder (no interchanable lenses but the only one in that class for sub 1000 that does HD seems to be the sony full frame one)

>>2898104
thanks
>>2897967
hey dont call me names

So here's the thing: we all know that R.Oliver predicted the SPI on digital visual backdrop. In fact he talked to Schmidt on the IFFS and they agreed to combine resources among their companies. Funny enough I talked with Schmidt later at the university meet-up, and he stated that Oliver has developed the psycho-visual component for SPI. What he didn't know was that ARRI was producing the subchroma backdrop with the university's department for visual aesthetics years ago. I told him and he had the weirdest look at me. Later when we were at the studios he illustrated me the compositatory aspect of SPI. Wow, I didn't know how strong the image composition does affect SPI.
Well, Oliver is surely a technican and his achievements for the industry are undoubtable. But in regard to the deepness of psycho-visual image transfer his position seems to be at fault. And the academic awards give Schmidt's company credit.

So, I was fiddeling with SPI and was able to induce the underlaying transfer. But in comparsion I felt like the emotional density could be more present. I decomposed the picture and analysed the auto-correlance (or rather the cepstrum) and I had the wished repeating impact on a 21.4ms period. But the backdrop was decreasing to rapidly and the harmonics seem to be too nervous.

So, is there a way to harmonize the cepstrum without losing the interference with the backdrop? I mean, it's not like my composition wouldn't allow the density. I just might do something wrong with getting the concept...

>>2897389
Nay unless you're a moviemaking pro. Go for something cheaper and more capable, because with that camera, everything needs to be done on a professional level.
For same compactness, go for Lumix G7, GX8 or Sony A6000 in the same price-category. If compactness is not an issue, consider going for a used DSLR or maybe, if you're lucky an A6300.

I was wondering.
Do you think that we will see something like an MFT camcorder/cinema type camera?
The format seems to have a massive array of lenses by now and is very popular for small video productions.
With a decent body that has a really good EVF, inputs&outputs and a good form factor, it could work I think.

>>2898937
There already are a few options.
Other than the BM2.5k/MCC/PCC

There's the JVC GY-LS300 & the Panasonic AF100 that use the MFT mount.

>>2897389
You need A) a second fast SD card [so you can dump 1 while rolling the other] B) external audio [the internal audio isn't great] C) a tripod D) A Variable ND Filter/ND set E) A computer that can handle Davinci F) Shittons of hard drive space

File: Spider rig.jpg (33KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 650x650px

So a lot of people know about this rig here. it's been going around as a decent cheap shoulder rig.
Well I have been experimenting with it and I found something:
Removing everythign except the hind grips/shoulder-rest and the baseplate makes it a decent enough shoulder rig already.
If you hold your camera by the Lens and body a lot, using just the hind part is already enough for like 90% of applications.
Seriously, just having a shoulder rest is enough to stabilize most video material. It also folds to be really compact.
Why isn't there a "shoulder-rest-only" shoulder rig which is also hella compact like this one? I think with a small adjustement this could be almost as small as the camera:
>3 instead of 2 grips
>thinner padding and rods
>all 3 grips extendable
>no 90° locking

File: 610elP5esIL._SL1000_.jpg (78KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1000x1000px

>Speedboosting the lens 0.71 + 1 stop light
>also wireless controls for the lens
>cheaper than metaboner Speedbooster

What gives? What is the deal here?

>>2897431
how are manual lenses hard with focus peaking on an a6000?

>>2899393
I was actually talking more about budget options like the 200-800$ camcorders, just without an inbuilt lens.

File: Cheeto Fingers.jpg (85KB, 1600x1069px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1600x1069px

Anyone here has experience with Panasonic shooting?
I try to get a colour-profile that needs NO grading and still look acceptable with little crushing or blowing.
I had problems with over-orange skin and while Cinelike D does completely away with this, It looks too flat ungraded.
So I looked into Cinelike V. it still has some hefty orangeness but when turning down saturation completely, it seems fine. Does anyone have any other ideas?
Should I maybe go with desaturated natural or portrait and shoot in Shutter-priority instead of using Cinelike?
Pic related. it's how non-desaturated Cinelike V makes skin look.

>>2896946
Here in Brazil you can get high schools deegrees just by getting a high enough grade at the ENEM (National exam that works to get you on public universities) if you're past 18.
I did it myself, though now i'm on arts school.

I'm planning on getting a old used Canon 60D, a rode videomic, making a PVC steadicam and using Magic Lantern.
Is this still worth it nowdays? I'm obviously not making anything big.
Also i'm Brazilian so camera prices are pretty different and as i'm on a tight (2400 reais) budget i was wondering if a GH2, T5i or others would be a better choice.
Usually most video people i see are on Canon but i might shift to Nikon if thats better for the budget.
I'm currently on a Sony system which could give me advantage of having lenses but i'm not sure getting a A77 is the best choice and other Sonys are either too expensive or too shitty.

cheap dslr stabilizer? I want to shoot some dance cover videos and stuff and don't want to use tripods

File: 2_144555-1147x2000.jpg (19KB, 367x640px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 367x640px

>>2900442
Sevenoak Cam Stabilizer is great, but it only supports up to 1kg

>>2897734
Every time I see those widescreen bars added in post I get a bit mad

>>2900369
Skin color (hue) is way more related to wb than matrix. Also you need to curve the mids down. Pro hint: push mid/low-mid saturation and hue it to the left (magenta side). If you won't grade at all wb is the only option you have.
Skin is generally to light. We are albino-potatos. In any steady gamma curve skin will result as too bright. So you want to lighten very clever and/or break the curve. Most cameras won't provide non-steady gamma dustribution on-the-fly, because it is senseless if you don't know where the grey-point sits.

Any zoom lenses you'd recommend for video on an a6300? Doesn't have to be AF because I nearly always prefer to MF. I've been using the kit lens just to get acquainted with the camera but in a month or so I'll be wanting a different zoom lens for it.
I should note that I can't imagine I'd need anything over 400mm. So something that covers a decent amout of length without costing an arm and a leg. Or am I asking for the moon?

>>2900502
->
>>2897128

>>2900489

First off, the cheetos-effect is at least partitially related to the contrast setting. The Panasonics tend to create this effect with contrast set too low.

I currenlty run highlight -4, shadows +1 curve. On this camera, the gamma curve always goes through the centerpoint. (Is it even technically a gamma curve then?)

I also edited my automatic white balance to Amber2 Green4. I don't think Magenta will do very much there because then everyone looks like a british sunbather.

I don't know what you mean by "to the left (magenta side) in my setup, magenta is down, amber is left.

Also, what do you mean with "break the curve".
And also: "non-steady gamma dustribution on-the-fly". WTF?

>>2900474
I actually wanna make my own glidecam and this design seems easiest to do, since I see many of them with ballhead-grips rather than 3-axis gimbals,w hich are WAY more complicated.
Can I just grab any cheap ballhead for tripods and use that one? Or am I stuck with using gimbals?

File: Schwebestativ.jpg (30KB, 367x640px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 367x640px

>>2900646
>>2900474

I just realized: WTF is that?
Why is it there? is important to the way the camera stabilizes or is it just there to create distance for fixing that screw into the camera?

>>2900680
Top is for camera mount
Handle is for handling you manlet

>>2900644
there you have your problem: auto-wb. make a proper wb and the skin hue will be fine.
if you then don't find the skin too bright, that's it then.

otherwise you need to understand what gamma is and how it is related to the human eye. in short: we resolve luma information logarithmical to the benefit of darker values are resolved finer than brighter ones. a display tends to be linear in values. so the gamma corrects the linear to logarithmic difference to adjust the screen to our common way of seeing. therefore gamma is always a steady, "non-broken" curve. while gamma is (simplified) e.g. an "exp(x) | x>=-3&&<=3" representation, a break would be for example "exp(x)+sin(2x) | x>=-3.1&&>=3.1". so you break the steadiness of the increasing curve. ofc you have to break it at exactly this point where the luma of the skin sits. you damp the skin tones.
this is mostly done manually, since an in-camera preset couldn't know where the value is due.

"to the left" was in regard to the most common way of displaying emws as a hue spectrum: magenta reds are on the left while orange reds are on the right. which is radial and not linear ofc, so no representation of the wavelengths. I did not mean you should make the skin magenta, but you should hue it to the left side. just a little. it won't be magenta. imagine it in LAB space: when hueing to the left you decrease A and increase B at the same time. what will this do to a light yellow-redish color? yeah .. find it out.

>>2900704
My question is: why are they seperated. what is that extra bend for? why arent handle and bount on the same "thing"

>>2900733
Adjustment and manufacturing.

>>2900734
If it's not important I have a kind of genius way to replicate this:
>get flat aluminium bar (30 x 2mm)
>drill several 1/4 holes along the way at each end
>bend it like in picture
>attach a shitload of washers on bottom end
>get cheap ballhead mini-tripod
>put the tripod through a top hole
>attach camera
>???
>profit

Would this work? I would probably get a macro-plat to adjust the balance of the camera.

>>2900739
People make DIY PVC "Steadicams" all the time. I wanna make one too, it's not very hard.

>>2900739
>>get cheap ballhead mini-tripod
Don't. Just use a 1/4" 20 tpi bolt. You don't want a head on something like a glidecam, it's a point of instability.

Instead of a shitload of washers, get a piece of threaded stock (1/2" would probably work pretty well) and some fat bolts for it. Drill out some hunks of metal (since you're already drilling shit) to use as weights. Use two bolts on each side to keep them from creeping once you get them set. A regular nut+a wingnut would probably be easiest for making sure you can adjust by hand, but regular nuts will work too.

>>2900745
>1/4" 20 tpi bolt.
Oh and I said a 1/4x20 because that's the size of the tripod lug on most cameras.

>>2900745
>no ballhead
>rather a solid bolt
WHAT? Then how the fuck will the entire thing stabilize?
To further describe what I mean: get a pistol grip and a small, cheap ball-head. Then screw the pistolgrip into the ballhead, the ballhead THROUGH the bent arm into a 2way quick release system.
To illustrate, here some links:

https://www.amazon.com/Haoge-Subtend-Bidirectional-Double-Release/dp/B016IOGYCO/ref=sr_1_88?ie=UTF8&qid=1470874238&sr=8-88&keywords=quick+release+rrs

https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Handheld-Stabilizer-Panasonic-Samsung/dp/B018LQEFL4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1470881533&sr=8-2&keywords=pistol+grip+camera

https://www.amazon.com/EXMAX-Tripod-Camera-Camcorder-Bracket/dp/B012FTXOW4/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1470874354&sr=8-8&keywords=ball+head+camera

File: no head needed.png (16KB, 633x681px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 633x681px

>>2900763
You just attach the camera directly to the glidecam thingie via the bolt.

There's no point in having a head. See attached CAD drawing.

>>2900733
So a stick with a camera mount with loads of additional counter balance connected to the same stick and a camera mount on top? wot m9

>>2900771
I don't think you know how a glidecam works. the camera needs to be able to move in order to counteract the movement of the handler. There needs to be a grip. There's no grip in your drawing.

>>2900774
>I don't think you know how a glidecam works.
That's a possibility...am I thinking of just a steadicam then?

>>2900775
Steadycam, glidecam, flycam, hand stabilizer. all names for the same concept. Steadycam is actually a registered trademark.

Speaking of glidecams and steadicams, I kinda want to buy this
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Handheld-Stabilizer-Release-Cameras/dp/B00NJKJ1IA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1470919622&sr=8-3&keywords=glidecam
or this
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Handheld-Stabilizer-Release-Camcorder/dp/B01ASNEIS8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470919622&sr=8-1&keywords=glidecam

Anyone have any experience with Neewer? Is it worth paying £20 more for carbon fiber?
(I've never used a glidecam before, but I feel like I'm ready to learn)

>>2899640
Any thoughts?

>>2900775
>>2900774
Oh, then no, the camera doesn't have to be able to move. These things work by increasing mass and moving the center of gravity which increases the moment of inertia required for movement while putting the center of gravity in a location that's not as tiring for the operator to hold.

I guess some might have some kind of movement involved in them, but that would be more on the order of a fluid head which to my knowledge works a lot differently.

>>2901049
>every single glidecam on the market and in tutorials has some form of motion-absorbment system to prevent shaking
>"It's not actually necessary"

No seriously. the contraption needs to be able to tilt freely around the grip. So you either need 3-axis gimbals or a ballhead.

>>2901070
>No seriously. the contraption needs to be able to tilt freely around the grip. So you either need 3-axis gimbals or a ballhead.
No seriously, it doesn't.

Yes, you can get more stabilization that way, but it doesn't "need" it. More to the point, you only get more stabilization with damn near perfect balance around the pivot points. You can actually introduce more motion if you don't get that shit right.

Here, read up on static stabilization in another and more highly demanding field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabiliser_(archery)

>>2901049
yes, it most definitely has to be able to move.
No, adding 10 lbs of stationary weights to a camera doesn't make it a "glidecam" even if simply being heavier means it can't accelerate as quickly. If it doesn't have some sort of gimbol, it isn't one at all.

>>2901049
>moving the center of gravity
you're also 100% full of shit here too.
Holding camera in your hand, center-of-gravity = your hand.
A balanced steadicam mechanism has the camera above hand and a weight below hand in order to have the center-of-gravity = your hand.

The difference has nothing at all to do with center-of-gravity (which is at hand-level in both systems) and everything to do with the low-friction gimbal that works to reduce the connection between body movements and camera movements.

Increasing weight, rather than using a gimbal, will simply tire out operators arms and give shakey footage, with nothing to compensate for bumps from footsteps and other motion.
In short, you're an absolutely retarded inventor-wannabe.

Trying to film something using digital trickery and was wondering if you all had any ideas

In essence I just want to put a book in a frying pan that the audience believes is on and full of grease, I don't want to set the book on fire so obviously practical effects are oit of the picture but in my head it goes like

Shot 1: medium shot, flat angle, of me putting fringe pan on stove

Shot 2: close up of knob turning on

Shot 3: over head shot of oil being poured in

Shot 4: close up of oil bubbling like it do

But when I get to actually putting the book in the pan and having it be believed I just don't know how to do it.

Any suggestions? I have a green screen and am decent enough at chroma and rotoscoping if that is needed.

Thanks!

>>2901153
Nigga, if you think that the center of gravity for a handheld camera is in your hand...not saying other guy is right, but you really have no clue when it comes to physics.

>>2901170
I was thinking a shot of me holding the book then a shot at an angle where you can't see over the rim of the frying pan lIke on the side, then I can put the book in while the pan is off but they won't know that.

>>2901177
Hey white trash person who doesn't understand any physics whatsoever.
The center-of-gravity of the camera-system is what's being discussed, obviously.
The CoG is identical (it is at hand-point) for both devices.

Obviously if you clamp the camera onto a boat or a human, the overall vehicle's CoG which isn't being discussed is different, but you being surprised at all shows you're a fucking inbred retard.

File: steadicams_for_mentally_feeble_kid.jpg (24KB, 320x228px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x228px

>>2901177
I have heard that pictures are helpful for explaining things to the mentally challenged, here is a diagram for you. (Oops, diagram is probably too large a word)

In both situations, there is not a substantial imbalance above the hand nor below the hand.

File: bmpcc.jpg (4KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x168px

>>2901222
Because the center of gravity using this camera is right behind the grip where the hand is and not a little above the centerline of the lens and to the front.

You really have no clue what you're talking about here.

File: tele.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>2901222
And the center of gravity is definitely where the hand is on this setup

>>2901226
INFIDEL!!!!!!!

>>2896793
Can I have help here for a second?

>Shot huge two hour interview
>Have several clips from my 5D and my T2i

Now, they are mostly in order, but my audio guy -still learning- messd up, so instead of having one long audio track, I have several clips.

What would be the proper workflow to edit this? As of now I'm thinking of:

>Import audio and video into premiere
>Sync every clip to every video, usable or not.
>Export every clip
>Start editing the docu

Would that be alright? What would be the best way to export to avoid losing quality, as to be able to color correct later.

>>2901367
Convert video in a lossless format if you have the space for it. I personally would just edit the video and simultanously dub the audio. In the process it can happen that bigger scenes will be deleted anyways, so you save time by editing and syncing parallely.
For syncing without having a timecode or marker it is very helpful to display the waveform of the audio. Look out for a significant peak and sync it with the respective frame. Remember: Light is faster than sound. In doubt place audio behind video (later). You have 20ms buffer in behind but even a few ms before and the sound appears off sync.

Also be aware what your actual framerate is. Sometimes 24fps are actually 23.98fps. If you then edit with 24fps audio gets off sync after 6-7mins continuity at the latest.

File: DSC_0043.jpg (493KB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 6000x4000px

newfriend to vid here, need some advice

I've started to do some band/party photography at my uni and i've been asked to start filming live performances, however i use a nikon d5300 and am looking to upgrade to a better low light system + mobile audio. is it worth getting an entirely new body + shit shotgun mic? or can i skimp by using a better lens with my body and use the extra money to get a decent mic? budget as of now is $1500 (pretty low, I know), but as usual i would not like to use all of it. if anyone here does this sort of thing on the regular all advice is welcome as well. thanks senpai

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:28 15:12:55
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2901226
wait... what is that?
What's with the doohickey attached to the lens?

>>2901442
Depends on what you want to achieve. Have you been using nothing but the body mic on the d5300? Literally any external microphone will be better quality. As far as low light goes, you would need a better camera body to notice any sort of low light performance difference.

That being said I personally have only used dedicated video cameras and a shotgun mic to record live bands.

>>2897933
Ayyyyy I have that same setup. If you need a telephoto at any point I would highly suggest the sigma 150-600 C

Thoughts on this tripod for my flat angle shots and slow pans?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Professional-Heavy-Duty-DV-Video-Camera-Tripod-Fluid-Pan-Head-Kit-w-Handle-Case-/231987733424?hash=item36038be3b0:g:lroAAOSwbYZXaltr

>>2901448
what do you use currently/what did you start out with? the goal right now is more to get decent audio synced with footage of the bands rather than make it look pro. i'm kinda just looking for a starting point really

Inb4 film meme but would using an Arriflex S really be any different from using a H16(lower end)/K3/Etc? 400 extra feet appeals to my dong.

>>2901375
Oh no I'm not worried about syncing. I have already synced everything. Problem is I would like to export everything as to "fix" the new audio to the clips.

I already have a good tripod. However, it's quite a bit too bulky and heavy to take with me if I'm traveling and not going by car and bringing my whole rig for a full day of shooting or something like that.

Does anybody know a good tripod (for video) that is also good for traveling (to take with me on the train for example)?

>>2901442
That budget is just BARELY enough to get a decent 4K camera like a GH4 or A6300, but then you won't haven enough money over for decent audio unless you buy used. The Panasonic G7 is currently the cheapest 4k option that isn't an action cam, but MFT has non-ideal noise perfomance. Funnily enough, many tests show the G7 to have better noise-perfomance than the GH4.
And no, just plugging a shotgun mic into the cam wont do. get a ZoomH4 or another recorder with XLR, an omni-mic and put it in front of the band on the stage if you can.
If you HAVE to stand at the back, yes, shotgun will do.
Video is already 35-50% sound and for music it's probably 60-75%. You can use noisy, shaky, overblown and crushed video material and still pass it off as artsy. You sell bands on the sound and that's what bands will want you to do: sell them to your audience.

>>2896802
>>2896886
On this note. I have a Sony AX53 and, while the stabilisation is the best I've ever seen in a camcorder, it still can't accommodate for roll. Can a shoulder rig help prevent this or do I have to go full active gimbal rig? I can just about afford a DJI Ronin but it seems silly to have a camera in a rig that costs almost twice as much.

>>2901569
I use this without the monopod section when I'm motorcycle trekking:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B014QWNRSY

>>2901663
A shoulder rig is good when you don't move alot but still need to be able to. Also, to put stuff on.
if it's just the camcorder, go ahead, get a gimbal or maybe a monopod.
Also, a shoulder rig has minimal setup time and you can swap lenses and zoom.
Maybe the gimbal is enough for you.
Also, a general rule of thumb is: you can invest as much as you want in either GlideCam or Shoulderrigs. Makes no difference.

>>2901620
>That budget is just BARELY enough to get a decent 4K camera
And it's still years before that makes even the slightest difference.

Hell, he probably doesn't have enough computer or storage to do post on 4K.

>>2901671
Thanks, by 'gimbal' I mean an active gimbal. I've tried passive ones and have been nothing but frustrated with them. I have a Feiyu for my GoPro and love being able to run (albeit, weirdly) and still get silky smooth shots but there's a world of difference between 4k on the Hero 4 and 4k on the AX53.

>>2901672
Dude, you can get 2TB externals with USB3 for like 50 or 80 bucks.
Also, the Radeon RX 480 is like 250€ and absolutely enough to do a decent job with it.

For SOME people, FHD is enough, but now is the time to futureproof for 4k. It's coming and will be a new standard for a while.
Nonetheless, when preparing for video, you should rather buy one lens less and get good audio from the start.
I wish I had known that earlier.

>>2901375
>Sometimes 24fps are actually 23.98fps

Unless it's a cinema camera it won't shoot true 24 frames per second whatever is advertised and even if written outright "24fps".
23.976 (24000/1001 to be exact) is a compromise for easy conversion to ntsc standard 29.97fps (30000/1001). True 24 frame film footage would get slowed down a little bit and then converted. Digital cameras just shoot at 23.976 from the start.

>>2901680
Yeah? .. As if I wouldn't know this. Why are you telling me?

>>2901178
This seems good. I think the sound is what'll sell it. The tssssss noise when it gets dropped and then maybe cut back to the side angle to show it boiling more intensely.

File: image.png (375KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1334x750px

https://youtu.be/iw8-Ai3K96M

Thoughts?

>>2901781
Well, it's experimental film. So I guess you don't seek for technical feedback but for artistic.

There are two things I liked: The piano which played repeatedly that tonica-subdominate and sext-terze sequence, so like C-A-C-A-C-a-C-a. The switch on the subdominate from major to minor is very, very strong and known as something you really can't do in music. Tho there are some artists who did it nevertheless. Ofc on a much higher level, but I appreciate even only the try.

Second: The creepy face afterwards. I liked the situation where you couldn't say if the motion stopped or it's still moving but just standing still. Somehow I liked this.

But: I couldn't find any deeper meaning. It seens to be completely random. Which is ok for art in general, but for me personally it is too less. I wouldn't accept you on art school, but still

6/10

>>2901781
Creepy nonsense
Absolutely meaningless shit whatsoever

>>2901752
I'm sorry cut back to which angle?

Unrelated but has anyone ever used the Sony SEL 55-210 on an A6300? I'm looking for a rather cheap but usable zoom lens for video.

File: snapshit.jpg (190KB, 1000x735px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1000x735px

Hey, do anyone know how to make a distorted sound effect, like when it sound like the audio file is broken. commonly used in horror movies. Like the sounds that would go along with the camera flickering and video distortion

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5500
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	858
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4508
Image Height	3315
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:21 22:50:33
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	735
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2901869
well, a noise generator (oszilator) would be the best start. the rest is so fuzzy combination of gates, EQs and compressors with to harsh attacks.

But mostly people will use pre-made samples. Search the internets. Sound effects etc..

Absolute n00b here.
Just downloaded Lightworks and I'm having trouble with delayed audio.

My video is a Canon 60D, with camera audio.

How do I work to fix this? Tutorials don't teach shit!

>>2901664
thanks famalam

>>2901903
What's your issue exactly? The audio is already delayed or you want to delay it?
Either way, disattach the sound from the video clip and reposition the audio where you want it

>>2901914
The first time I imported the files, audio and video were synchronized, but then when I opened it again it was out of synch. I decided: Hell, lets start over! and destroyed the project, then re-import the videos and audio and video were out of synch again. Then restartit all over again and audio and video were synched again.

Do you guys think it has to do with my hardware?

I'm entirely new to all this, so I know next to nothing about it. I'm still working through the tuts and just downloaded audacity to learn a bit about audio.

Sorry if this is a blogpost, though thanks for responding!

>>2901781
tryhard bullshit. Watch some actual experimental shorts.

>>2901972
what are you doing???

Play the files in your video player

in sync? then it is not the camera

>>2902040
Pretty much this, honestly that he said they were synched the first time means his settings are fucked up somewhere in his editing program.

Did I fuck up by buying an A6300 for a vlog + projets that are less serious and more kinda static? Like I know I can't shoot 4k and run and gun but for a beginning set up did I fuck up? Be honest with me /vid/ I can take it.

>>2901796
Thanks for the feedback my dude
>>2901831
>>2902030
Okay. I had been awake for a long time and I really had an urge to make a little vignette but I have actual plans for future videos and they will be better

With what would /vid/ shoot youtube bushcraft videos on a around 300 dollar budget? Would handycam suffice?

>>2902255
What is bushcraft? Minecraft? I used fraps whenever I'd share videos of games with friends. Don't both to record in hd though.

>>2901444
don't say you see powerzoom in the first time

>>2901698
I want everyone to be clear to not expect "true cinema 24" with non cinema-tier cameras. It's just additional information everyone should know.

>>2901869
Audio dropouts?

>>2902361
I see. But speaking of it one should also mention that the difference is of course marginal. Like 0.1%. So there is no recognizable difference when working with 23.98 as 24.
But: remember to also adjust audio. People tend to forget and then wonder why their audio is off sync when e.g. cutting out the first minutes of a shot and working with the remaining material. And this also have to be done when audio was recorded externally! Think about it .. :^)

>>2902223
Anyone?

>>2901444
servo motor, that's a TV lens. Lately it's been getting more and more popular to use them on cameras like the bmpcc because of the image you get.

>>2902370
>>2902223

Yes, an A6300 is overkill for that. The A6300's screen can't even flip out for selfies!
If people want introduction 4K, the general answer here is either a Lumix G7 or a GoPro/actioncam.
The A6300 is kinda expensive and has barely any lenses, so you need to bite the bullet and buy new lenses or get used to adapting non-native lenses, at which point autofocus goes out the window. The advantage over all other cheaper 4k cameras is its low light and ISO perfomance, so you can shoot in non-perfect light conditions or even at night with just streetlamps. But it does have bad moire and rolling shutter, albeit rolling shutter isn't an issue with static shots.
If you dont want to sell and re-orient, I suggest you make the best out of it. The A6300 is still a superb video and photo camera. If buying brand new, i would have gone for a G7 with a lot of equipment like tripod, flycam and several lenses. My advice is: just make your "gearing up" a part of your vlogs by presenting your new gear to your audience.

>>2902418
Okay and what if I am considering doing pre planed stuff that isn't a blog as well, hardly films but like RLM style almost "shorts" so to speak, did I still over gear?

>>2902418
Also can't moire be avoided by avoiding certain patterns? I should also note I'm not ending my camera life on the A6300, eventually is like to move to a camcorder of some sort for video but after I get some hands on experience with the stuff I want to do.

>>2902537
No, for that it can be a good camera, but to make such stuff work, you need decent gear like glidecams, tripods, dollies, ect, or get used to shaky, amateurish footage.

>>2902541
It's hard to avoid some pattern. just folding cloth with a striped pattern can be enough. Or two fences at different distances behind each other.
If by "camcorder" you mean these things with no interchangeable lenses, stay away. You should be able to build on your camera system, especially with lenses, Changing to a system that can't use your previous lenses is ill advised. And from the A6300, there is no real way to go. It is more or less the best video camera fro ASP-C sensors right now.

>>2902592
Yeah gear like the tripods and such will be a gradual process of upgrades, I have a decent enough tripod for still shots and also got a hand stabilizing unit. As for what I mean by camcorder I mean something like say the Panasonic AF100 just to throw a name out there. Something like that seems to be the step between a mirror less and a like a red scarlet which is gonna be out of the price range for a looooong time I bet.

>>2902611
Though I'm never sure if it's better to get a tripod where a fluid head is already built in or one where you can remove it to add a fluid head and possibly a glider. Tripods and equipment are so confusing and no one ever seems to have like a beginners guide.

>>2902627
If you can't screw off the head, it's not worth its money.
Just get a tripod and a head separately. spend 60 to 80 bucks on each.
In terms of camera: if you are a one man show, stick with a DSLM. big camcorders are only a real option for actual crews. many people will scoff at it, especially here on /p/, but autofocus is not a shame if you know what you're doing.
Plus, the A6300 has Phase detection, which yields amazing autofocus behaviour, especially for videos. So you might be able to rely on native lenses and glidecams for a while. Doing glidecam with manual focus is a pain in the butt.
What you should also consider is professional grading. A shortmovie, no matter what genre, is not going to leave an impression if it isn't graded properly. Get yoursoftware and knowledge.
Videography is 10 times the work as photography

>>2902675
Okay so I shouldn't get say the VT 4000 like the stick article says? Do you have any recs for a tripod base and head? If not I 100% understand since we aren't in the gear thread.

>>2902720
>Do you have any recs for a tripod base and head?
Absolutely not.
Some people swear on certain brands, others say you shouldn't spend more than 50 bucks on each.
If in doubt, go with manfrotto, others go for other brands.
The VT 4000 certainly is a good system, but it costs a lot.

>>2902727
Hmm a lot to think about. I think I'll ask in the gear thread. I really just want a rig I can put a slider on eventually if needed and I don't think the vt4000 has a removable head so maybe I should get legs then a head.

>>2902734
>the VT4000 has a removable head
My 40€ cheapo crappy tripod has a removable head.
It's not that special. It's like saying "the Canon 5D MkIII has a removable lens"
>I really just want a rig I can put a slider on
Considering that almost all baseplates have a 1/4" threading themselves, you can put anything on anything. I can put my minitripod on the handles of my shoulder rig, because all video equipment uses the same 1/4" threading for everything!

>>2902739
I said I don't think it has a removable head. But you are probably right about the rest of that stuff, sorry.

Wait a second I've been thinking about this wrong. Sliders sit on top of the head of a tripod, you don't have to take the head OFF the tripod, you just need a separate head for the slider. Someone call me a faggot if I'm wrong it goes

Camera
Head
Slider
Tripod

Connected with the normal tripod screw right?

>>2902812
So in theory I could attach a slider to the VT4000 with the normal screw then attach a second head to the slider!

anyone use a fluid head for a tripod? considering it for when I do any panning, and I want to know if it's worth it to get one

>>2902842
Hiya! I'm actually the guy above you and use a fluid head all the time at work (I'm a news photog) and when doing a pan it makes a HUGE difference. Even if you can't adjust the resistance any resistance makes your pans a lot more smooth.

>>2902843
neato, thanks

>>2902844
Yeah! I don't know what tripood you are thinking of getting, I'm kinda bad at figuring out what to buy on the consumer end but I'm glad I could help.

>>2902845
well I am look at manfrotto tripods because they look high quality for the ones that run in the $100+ range

>>2902857
For just the legs or for the fluid head?

>>2902858
for the legs and fluid heads

>>2902859
Really? Can I ask what you are looking at?

>>2902860
https://www.manfrotto.us/290-xtra-kit-alu-3-sec-tripod-with-3w-head-mk290xta3-3wus
https://www.manfrotto.us/502hd-pro-fluid-video-head-flat-base-m-size

>>2902861
We have a similar head on some of our tripods at work, they are nice or I can telly they WERE ours have been through the ringer but that's news life.

>>2897128
You'll probably needs something wider for event photos, 28mm on a crop body ain't gonna work in a crowded club

>>2902592
>And from the A6300, there is no real way to go. It is more or less the best video camera fro ASP-C sensors right now
You're talking out of your ass right now friend.

>>2899640
Speedbooster is smaller, has af and is much smaller

>>2900440
Id go a gh2. M4/3 lenses are really cheap and good and the hack made that camera so good

>>2901676
Id shoot 4k because of the stronger codec too, don't get 100mbits 1080 on the g7

>>2902915
Then what ASP-C camera is better for video right now?

>>2902927
Of course you do, if you scale down from its 100mbit 4k mode. Which creates a sharper image anyway.
Scaling down from 4k is generally the more sensible choice if you want high Image Quality but low space requirement of the finished product. You don't have to keep 100mbit on 1080p though. generally, 30-35mbit is the highest you'll get out of 1080, and that is already pushing it. 20mbit is enough.

>>2902972
>30-35mbit is the highest you'll get out of 1080

What is this supposes to mean? uncompressed 1080p/24 yuv444 is 1.2Gb/s.

>>2903108
Maybe he is speaking of 1080 thats actually uploaded to a video host. 1080 on youtube is somewhere around 20mb

>>2903108
I mean that beyond 35mbits, you wont see a lot of improved quality.
You can encode every single pixel with its own gigabite per second, but it won't do much good.

>>2903129
Then how come people get such good results on hacked GH2s running at 172mbps? Genuinely asking not trying to be a smart ass. I know they also change alot about noise handling and all that, but if what you say is true, why do they keep pushing it higher?

>>2902968
Any dedicated video camera sensor. You could get real technical and argue that it's not APS-C but rather super-35, but anything like an FS7, FS5, C100, C100 mkII, or Blackagic cinema camera would be a much better sensor option than the A6.3k. Sure you could say that it's not in the same price range but they aren't exactly super expensive either, especially the Blackmagics and the C100 since it's older and used examples will be much easier to find.

>>2903140
They also usually know how to light, expose, grade, and tell a good story, which no amount of data rates can compensate for.

>>2903150
But why the need to keep hacking the bitrate higher and higher if it won't yeild any better results. There is a hack that takes the GH2 to over 200mbps

>>2896984
I used it for the a6000, its a solid lens.

>>2903156
There's a difference between recording and encoding bitrate. If you have a low bitrate recording, you wont be able to get more quality out of it in Post.

File: tv1471147646587.jpg (531KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 2560x1536px

What are your editing machine specs?
I will build a system for editing downsized 4K to HD videos. Any tips on what parts are most important?

>>2903214
What software? Some software works mostly on GPU, other works on CPU.
FInd out which your target machine does and adjust to that.

>>2903194
Oh, you're talking about encoding bitrates, this whole time I thought you were talking about recording bitrates. Yeah it is kind of pointless above 30mb especially since Youtube is max 40mb with 4k.

>>2903148

What body would you buy with a budget of about $3000? I'm looking at a used c100, or new BMCC, or possibly a7s II.

>>2903238
a7s II is definitely the choice over a BMPCC. THe BM sensor is tiny and it can only record cinematic style 30fps 1080p, so the moment you want to do a bit of slowmo or 4k, even if just for cropping or downsampling, you're shit out of luck

>>2903238

Whoops, I meant the BM Ursa Mini not BMCC.

>>2903246
>>2903238
Well the 4k and 60/120fps argument holds true for C100. in the end with filmmaking, the statement stays true that you can only work with material that you can also record. So the smaller your range of recording is, the smaller your possibilities to create.
The URSA certainly is a big boy, but be sure that you can work with what it shoots and you have the necessary equipment. but I fail to see how you want to get one on a 3000$ budget. Even used that would be hefty lucky find.

>>2903215
Premiere
Ableton Live
and start learning After Effects

>>2903258

The URSA Mini 4k? Isn't it $3000 MSRP? Most places are out of stock, but Amazon has it in stock for $3500.

File: 1432760641976.png (95KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x497px

>1 SSD for system, 1 SSD for scratch disk/project files AND 1 3TB drive for backup
or
>1 SSD system/scratch disk and a RAID 1 system for online backup ?

>>2903366
I am building a video editing system and was wondering what to do with storage options.

>>2903366

Option 1 is more reliable

RAID wont protect you from most things

>>2903418
I forgot to mention the 3TB to be internal. And will add another external one later.

File: L2343.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

I fucking love 4k recording.
That being said, 8k is 33 Megapixels, isn't it? That means only FullFrame cameras would be able to do 8k with decent sharpness because of hardlimits on sensorpixeldensity.
Do you think 8k will ever become a widely used standard if we are already exceeding retina-levels with 4k?

>>2903430
>Do you think 8k will ever become a widely used standard if we are already exceeding retina-levels with 4k?
Yes because money
Also because it gives greater malleability in post. Any shot can be reframed and re-scaled in 8k without worrying about quality
But I doubt 8k tvs will become a norm anytime soon

Im just getting into film and I guess Im going for a DSLR since I hear real film cameras are pricey as fuck.

Can anyone give me some brief info about entry level cameras ?

>>2903448
Buy a (used) canon t3i/600d

File: tv_nightstalking.jpg (34KB, 680x478px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 680x478px

Alternatives to GH4?
(I do want a headphones jack).

Anyone try the VariCam LT/35? Heard the image is fairly close to Alexa. Not much footage online.

>>2903436
With "standard" i mean like veryday for everyone, with 8k phones and shit.
Nobody except the professionals and the autists care about "malleability in post"
Personally, I belive technology will take a sidestep when it hits the resolution ceiling too hard with stuff like sensor-stabilization for phones, better ISO perfomance or Lightfield photography and videography.

>>2903448
Used Canon Rebels/Ti
Sony A6000
Lumix G7

DSLRs have a feature that, compared to DSLMs, is counterproductive to Video
The mirror prevents proper liveview and using the EVF during recording. Also adds size and reduces adaptability

>>2903497
phones will eventually just for the sake of advertising
90% of people with 4k phones won't use the video for anything other than recording the odd drunk moment or their kid's first steps, stuff that 1080 would definitely be fine for if not 720

But as it gets cheaper, the phone companies will include just to set their phones apart
After that, it will be interesting because I've read that 8k is completely pointless at 24fps as the motion blur ruins the image

Depends on how willing we are to accept higher framerates I'd wager

>>2903497

Standard 8K will happen by 2030, if only because people will be buying new TVs and 8K will only be marginally more expensive than 4K, just like it is with 4K/1080p now. Most people don't give a shit about 4K, but buy 4K TVs because "might as well, it's only $100 more".

>>2903464
Pick any good 4k camera, get decent sound via an audio recorder. no headphone jack required.
Also, by splitting output signal, you can plug feed the audio recorder into the micport and record the sound on the camera anyway.

Anyway, A7IIs is the only one that springs to mind. According to datasheets, the A6300 doesn't have a headphone jack.

>>2903123
>1080 on youtube is somewhere around 20mb

Make it more around 5mbps.

>>2903418
>RAID wont protect you from most things

What most things? Most common thing is hardware failure. RAID 1 copies the same data over two drives. That's more reliable than having one drive for all your backups.

>>2903366
>>2903422
Make sure to have some backup for your current projects.

>>2903238
If I could somehow pony up the extra grand I'd pick up a c100 mkII, much better body for shooting in all kinds of situations and the sensor is more suited to video than the a7s II. It's also bulletproof and can take a beating, something I'm sure the other two aren't quite as capable of doing. In all honesty you should be investing in lighting, I can guarantee that a well lit scene shot on a bmpcc will look better than a scene with no light modifiers shot on an a7s, irregardless of sensor size. Not to mention the deep focus look of super 16 is quite nice, especially if you know how to exploit it.

>>2903509
>Depends on how willing we are to accept higher framerates I'd wager

I not too sure on how likely that would be because 60fps doesn't look natural in the slightest. Don't want to bring up the whole "our eyes can only tolerate so many frames per second" argument but the further we push for this type of standard the sooner we'll realize some things aren't meant to change even with some odd way of saying it was for the better.

>"Hey InternAnon here's a brand new piece of equipment we just got"
>"ok mr producer sweet Cool lemme finish setup with the gaffer here"
>5 minutes later
>Hey anon that piece of equipment I gave you? Yeah were gonna start shooting soon and you're gonna use it
>ohshitohshitohshit!
>"You idiot hvent learnt this properly fucken amateurs with no passion these days"

Later

"we used to shoot this client's ad with a crew of 40 but since you guys are here its been helpful"

File: wolvie.jpg (69KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x768px

Are Canon Rebels/Ti the same thing as the 70Ds, 60Ds ?
I am confus

File: 1275725743926.png (12KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x400px

>>2903759
Backup of the project files/scratch disk?
It is a good idea. All the metadata of hours of editing will be there.

I think this is one of those black and white guys who talk about theft, fire, natural disasters. Then a RAID 1 won't help.
I am still pondering about it.

>>2903813
>60fps doesn't look natural in the slightest
That's only because you're used to 24/25fps though
You know those framerates were chosen completely arbitrarily right?

The more 60fps footage you watch, the more you grow accustomed to it and then start to prefer it because it's so smooth

>>2903854
No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS
Scroll to the very bottom and there's a chart that explains it to you
(the 550d is the european name for the rebel t2i - this trend continues)

The 70D is the next tier up from the 700D (the t5i)

>>2903854
many of them share the same sensor but have different (slower) processors

>>2903813
>>2903880
To clear that 60fps issue:

Ofc with 60fps movements are smoother than with 24fps. See a fast camera movement on a low distant and broad objekt (e.g. wall) on a large screen and you get eye cancer with 24fps.

But on the other hand this smooth movement leads to a 'hyper-realistic' impression of (also and especially) body-movements. And this mostly looks like the actors were really bad acting. It is just too realistic and looks video-ish. You immediately get the insight of there is a set, camera, lights abd stuff and those people are just pretending.

As a matter of fact many cinema producers were complaining about the same problem even with 30fps (for television) and refused to give up 24fps due to it's better look for body language. It is the so-called 'cinematic feel'.

So, technically there are arguments for higher framerates. But there will always be a league of professionals insisting on 24fps. Also when consumers will be used to 60fps, because the psycho-visual impression of 24fps (or rather the relatively working impression of lower framerates) will remain effective nevertheless.

Funny enough in times of film there had been a discussion about higher framerates already. Because it was not the very big problem to replay a film faster nor record it faster. But for the same reason 24fps was surviving, and it will survive in future.

In a previous /vid/ thread it was already said so wisely: quantity != quality. more does not mean better. just more.

The Arriflex S shouldn't even be a grand.

>>2904521
Interesting. And its so true how 60fps looks unrealistic. Doesnt make sense why.

File: 2016-08-16 16.24.39.jpg (367KB, 1074x468px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1074x468px

>>2904536
Yes, but that's the wrong (or a misleading) term. It is >too realistic< ... hyper-realistic.

And that can be a problem indeed. For example I persobally dislike also a to high resolution. It is just too realistic. E.g. in porn (which is mostly a good example for everything): Who want's to see this horrible details? Yuck. ... Good old times with low lights and soft pictures ... :^)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 10D
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2006:08:22 15:17:54
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
ISO Speed Rating	100
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
F-Number	f/8.0
White Balance	Manual

>>2904569
Yeah like someone else said its probably just a matter of not being used to it. Still 60fps looks weird AF tho

>>2903813
>because 60fps doesn't look natural in the slightest

That's quite subjective. There are multiple factors leading to a "real life" look.

In my experience, high framerate footage looks more exciting, the movement it provides makes static scenes where there's little motion more engaging. It definitely has place in TV production and conference shooting.

>>2903856
Then 2 backups at different locations. You won't get away with just 1 drive.

>>2903880
>You know those framerates were chosen completely arbitrarily right?

That's incorrect. 50hz and 60hz home mains were a great synchronization source for first TVs. Film conversion had to go through some adjustments for broadcast playback. Film framerate was deemed the most economical at 24fps.

>>2904521
You shouldn't state opinion as fact
You only think it looks unrealistic because you're used to 24fps

>But there will always be a league of professionals insisting on 24fps
No. Just as with film, there will be those who refuse to move with the times. But the mainstream will head towards higher framerate to avoid the jittery movement that makes fast pans unwatchable

>>2904632
>That's incorrect. 50hz and 60hz home mains were a great synchronization source for first TVs. Film conversion had to go through some adjustments for broadcast playback. Film framerate was deemed the most economical at 24fps.
That's literally not true, stop making shit up
24fps and 25fps were chosen far before tv's were commonplace in households

>When sound film was introduced in 1926, variations in film speed were no longer tolerated as the human ear is more sensitive to changes in audio frequency. Many theaters had shown silent films at 22 to 26 FPS which is why 24 FPS was chosen for sound. From 1927 to 1930, as various studios updated equipment, the rate of 24 FPS became standard for 35 mm sound film.[1] At 24 FPS the film travels through the projector at a rate of 456 millimetres (18.0 in) per second. This allowed for simple two-blade shutters to give a projected series of images at 48 per second, satisfying Edison's recommendation. Many modern 35 mm film projectors use three-blade shutters to give 72 images per second—each frame is flashed on screen three times.[8]
-wikipedia with sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

Don't bullshit on here

>>2904658
>24fps and 25fps were chosen far before tv's were commonplace in households
That doesn't even contradict his statement.
It's about buying film for cameras, for studios that are on budgets etc.

>>2904663
Film framerate was standardised long before they dealt with synchornisation for tv, based on audio instead.
Read the whole post, it does contradict him
It had nothing to do with synchronisation for tv

>>2904657
Where does this come from all the time? I did not say 60fps would look unrealistic. I said even the opposite: It looks hyper-realistic.

And as I said the whole discussion was made already years ago, and - economics aside - higher fps were denied. Just as well all 64mm film, btw.

Your misunderstanding is that while it is true that >new< technologies are developed which replace older ones, it does not mean that an >existing< technolgy would develop limitless or rather further developments of it (improvements) are accepted, practicable or necessarry.

That's a common misunderstanding among prosumers. You're the only ones expecting 8k 120fps in future.

So, what's taking Panasonic so long with their GH5?
And will they introduxe sensor-stabilization like with the GX85? PLEASE YES!
I also just read that the GH2 had a variable sensor, that allowed better crop in videomode. Why not do that no more?

File: g70_silver_1442ii.jpg (122KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1000x800px

Is this basically the go-to camera for entry level 4k video?

>>2905157
Yes.
Unless you want shitty GoPro footage.
Also, get the silver-grey version. it look pretty damn sweet.
If you know what you're doing, get body only and adapt lenses. or get the 25mm 1.7. Damn good lens for its price.
If you want maximum flexibility and don't know what you're doing, get the 14-140mm. One of the better Kitzooms. Many people buy the package, sell the camera and keep the zoom because it's so cheap as kit.

>>2904670
Shouldn't have mentioned 25fps then. Once you mention that then everyone will think you're talking about broadcast.

>>2904796
>higher fps were denied

A lot of things were "denied" for various reasons. But in the end they still made it.

>You're the only ones expecting 8k 120fps in future.

These type of specs would be perfect for displays in video game competition arenas. 30fps 1080p looks like ass for that.

>>2905295
>what is 'resolution to distance interrelation'?

but I agree in principal to cgi stuff.

>>2897431
>filming with just an 75~ equiv
kek please stop giving advice

Do you think one could make a cameraslider based on the 15mm railes?
I am thinmking about doing it, especially since I found 15mm piping in my local hardware store and I could make a design that uses screw-in sections to make the guiderail any length I want and portable.

>>2905326
75mm ff is not too narrow. sure something around 50mm would be practicable for more situations, but better 75 than 25 e.g. too wide is worse than too narrow.

>>2905350
>the 15mm railes
>the rails
>the

which 15mm rails? do you mean 15mm rods? ofc you can build a slighter on whatever (potato). but if it is wise? .. depends on your engineering genius.

>>2905411
why, would it be rough because they aren't optimized for friction?

>>2905446
actually the main problem will be to build a wheel construction on that small rods.

why would you want specifically 15mm rods? where's the benefit?

>>2905473
No, it wouldn't.

The cheap goto for building something like that is to just make a pvc pipe track. Shitton cheaper than using round stock of any size.

>>2905473
>wheels
wouldn't it enough to just pull the camera on the normal plate itself? just loosen the screws, maybe put some cloth in them to reduce friction, and that's it.
The benefit is that I already have most of the stuff I need.
All I need is a plate with a 3/8" threading for my tripod head and the cloth to make it have less friction.

File: sldr.jpg (943KB, 1315x1011px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1315x1011px

>>2905477
>>2905507
lol, no. you cannot thrust the carriage over the trackage. you need a bearing. I experimented with different systems and thrusting unavoidably leads to vibrations which either result in shaking (when on low frequencies) or scratching noise.

My final solution (pic related) is a spheric bearing which is locked in bottom and top direction. the bearing surface is as small as even possible: just the two edges of the sub-trackage. limitless extendable. super-stable and cheap. the best solution I could build. only difficulty: finding 100% silent spheric wheels has been a challenge.

[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

>>2897734
Not bad, not much money to be made in Indie art films though.

I'm looking at getting into video. I love film. Not a huge fan of photography. (I love a great photograph, but it's not something I'm interested in spending much time on).

What would be a good cam to go for? I like the idea of a modular setup, the thought of slowly investing in a range of lenses then having to sell them if I ever upgrade the camera isn't appealing.

Sorry in advance for the gear questions.

>>2906007
Buy a camcorder or a fixed lens DSLR
Otherwise you'll have to invest in lenses
If you buy a camcorder, you also don't need to worry about pulling focus

>>2906014
I don't mind investing in lenses, I just mean I don't want to invest in them and find they're all redundant when they don't fit other cameras. For this reason I'm under the impression Sony's are a bad choice?

>>2896969
kdenlive

>>2906007
Get a used Sonmy A6000 with a decent range zoomlens, like an 18-55mm or a new Lumix G7 with the 14-140mm kitzoom.
Those systems will last you A LONG time and you won't need to invest a lot into them either.
The A6000 doesn't have a microphone jack, which is a big down and it can't do 4k. But it has a bigger sensor and is cheaper.
A camcorder will only delay the moment when you gear really starts adding up, because you wont be able to upgrade the visuals much.
Get a good mic and if you're using the Sony, also a recorder. The Lumix can go a bit without an audio recorder because it has a microphone jack.

File: Consider the following.png (210KB, 532x405px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 532x405px

People beware, I'm opening the framrate discussion again.
I looked atdifferent footages, both recorder and animated/rendered.
I also took into consideration how our eye/brain processes images.
When we blink we don't see dark and when we move our eyes we don't see blur. Because our brain has a remarkable trick:
It shuts the eye off and repeats previous images. it so to say "holds on" to previous frames.
And similar it is to standard image processing. We might not get information from the eye 60 times a second, but we do see in around that frequency (which is why good fluorescent lightbulbs and monitors are faster than 50Hz, we still see the flickering).
And when talking about VR, I think 50/60fps is important. But when recording, the 24/25/30fps is still ideal because of shutterspeeds, it also imitates how we actually SEE movement: blurry.

I realized that when I was recording at SPECIFIC apertures, so I set the shutterspeed to 1/200 for some of the footage and in one clip, two guys on a motorbike where driving past right in from of the camera. While slow movements, like people or trains in the distance seemed normal, this fast movement seemed hella unnatural, because the bike was in the clip for only a few frames, but hella sharp.
Similar, in the 48fps Hobbit, slight camera-jittering was really noticeable and gave a cheap, home-made feel to the motion, while the 24fps material looked smoothed out.

So I think for VR, RL-Video needs to record at 60fps, somehow blend the frames to downsample to 30fps to get a smooth blurr, and then write the video at 60fps.
Animated Video can just render at 60fps and add motion blurr to objects.

Thoughts?

>>2907114
Well of course you need motion blur. cgi-artists invest a lot of rendering time in artifical motion blur. But to be honest the motion blur which occurs when shooting 60fps and a shutter of 1° will be sufficient long in any case. 24fps is shot with 180° where possible, so it is mostly 1/48 anyways.

I am a "fan" of 24fps, but shutter-speed is not the main argument against higher fps. physically there are good reasons for 60fps, but psycho-visually most things tend to slower rates.

So, nice litte research. but I have a feeling there is something bothering you with high fps and you want to find the crucial argument for slower at all costs. .. why?

>>2907056
I have good mics already, and an audio interface. Is there an advantage to recording externally? Poor mic pres on the camera? How do you line up audio with the video? That sounds like it could be a painstaking process if there's lots of it. The bigger sensor is pretty appealing.

>>2907199
>Is there an advantage to recording externally?
depends. Some people actually plug the headphone out of their audio recorder into the mic input so there is no syncing necessary. but that just means more volume control that you need to fiddle with.
>How do you line up audio with the video?
Syncing works via lining up the soundspikes of the internal and the external mic.
Alternatively you can use something like a clap to line it up, that's why they have these black/white things with the scene and take written on it for movies.
>The bigger sensor is pretty appealing.
Note that it also causes more rolling shutter, or at least for Sony, because they had problems with rolling shutter for ages. The first generation of A7 was notorious for it.

Inb4 "HAHAHAHAHAH 30 FPS LMAOOO PEASANT"

>>2907264
When I have to chose between 50fps FHD and 25fps UHD I'll always take the UHD.
The framerate just looks acceptable for more things, i can reuse the footage and the jump in visual quality is more important to me.

>>2907260
>plug the headphone out of their audio recorder into the mic input
that's a horrible thing to do. just don't. you fuck up noise distance by this.

>Syncing works via lining up the soundspikes of the internal and the external mic
well ... actually you wouldn't want to sync audio on in-camera reference. if the external mics are just a few meters away from the internals, you have to correct the delays. which can be a pain in the ass when the camera moves. always sync on picture. not reference sound.

>>2907199
so, reconsider.

furthermore the main advantage of recording audio externally is that the camera and the microphoning are independant to each other. often enough you need to position the mics on a complete different location than your cam will be placed. if you then have to wire the mics to the cam, the cables can cause major problems. especially when the cam moves.
the pro way to sync is to record both with a timecode. you can sync the timecode before recording (wired) or also wireless 'on-the-fly'.
if no timecode is available the before mentioned clap is a good way. you then sync the peak in the audio with the frame which is the first in which the clap is completely closed.

not sure if it is the right forum but does anyone know where can i find free muzzle flashes and shockwaves for after effects or similar?

thanks

>>2907521
I record mainly concerts and other events, so syncing on reference audio is the more or less only way, especially, when doing bands at live concerts and I place my audio equipment and my video equipment somewhere else, there is no other option. Most times I even get to plug my recorder into the sound system itself. Just ask the crew and they are super supportive.
Then again, I have a cam with decent internal mics.
I made the experience that using an external mic plugged into an external recorder is not much different from using an external mic plugged into the camera directly for most purposes.
Only when on-scene Audio is SUPER important, like bands playing or interviews, then I use my recorder.

>>2908094
Then always get the sound from the mixer and sync picture on sound instead sound on picture.

>>2908166
Lining up two spectrogram spikes like from bass in software is way easier and more accurate than trying to wing sound-picture sync

>>2908250
It's also easier to jump off the sky-scraper than walking down all the stairs, but that does not make it a good idea ..

>>2908416
there's literally no difference.
There is no reason to not sync with reference sound unless you have terribad camera that cant encode properly.
Whether yopu sync up the waveform with a frame or with another waveform matters exactly zero.

>>2908631
-->
>>2907521

What's a good lens system to adapt to MFT for video?
>low flange distance to minimize bulkyness
>lots of cheap vintage lenses
>not c-mount

>>2908771
Leica M, or some other mirrorless system. Sony A or how it is called. But regard to lots of lenses and cheap you won't come around ef, nl and m42 and such stuff.

Anybody here recommend motorized gimbal? Thinking about picking up a Beholder MS1. Doesn't seem to be a smaller/cheaper alternative for steadicam footage

File: pta.jpg (25KB, 564x339px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 564x339px

can anyone id what this camera is?

>>2908826
Yes, buying an unpowered steadycam for like 50-100 bucks. Unless you are an idiotic spastic or jumping over rocks at 10 mph, you don't need a motorized bimbal

What's a good focal length (35mm equivalent) for video? One that gives a natural feel to the image, gets lots of the surrounding scene into the frame and still has a visible background seperation? I want to invest in a fast prime.

>>2908883
something between 35 - 75mm.

>>2908883
42mm is approximately what our eyes see and so comes off looking really natural
This is normally rounded up to 50mm which is one of the most common lenses available
35mm is really common for this reason too

If you're shooting on an ef mount, the nifty fifty is great
50mm f/1.8 for £70/$100

>>2908890
I actually shoot MFT. It has a large selection of fast ~40-50mm lenses. Most of them cost around 350-200€.
I also thought about adapting a 50mm 1.8 as a portrait/tele lens, but the AI-S adapter I have is already massive and huge by itself so I'm looking for vintage lenses with low flange-distance. >>2908771

I hate what zooming does to video material so I'm fine with teleprimes.
All I need is an 8-12mm wide-angle prime, for which there are no adaptable options.

File: videographer2mini.jpg (32KB, 447x446px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 447x446px

I shot my first wedding and i want to show the work off, also to show future customers ( maybe to get payed a buck this time ) but my problem is COPYRIGHT! the songs that the bride and groom requested was copyrighted so i cannot upload to youtube (tried and got a strike, and they deleted my video). where can i upload the video without it getting remove? also will i get in trouble? i do not intent on making any money on the video or anything.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2006:09:26 00:02:01
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	447
Image Height	446

>>2909284
Normally the artist still retains all copyright for self-advertisement purposes. But you should check your countries specific copyright laws.
Gotta write a letter to the customers and youtube, because youtube is a dumb bitch that will gladly let its copyright system be abused as a tool of censorship, so it always blames the uploader..
Try vimeo or host it on your own website if possible.

>>2909284
And that's why you make proper contracts.

>>2909284
The other alternative is re-doing the soundtrack for youtube or just putting together a highlight reel from it with different music

Is the 70d worth it now that the price has dropped to around £600 used with the 18-55 kit lens or should I be looking to buy something else in that price point?

>>2909308
>>2909370
bullshit. this is neither related to contract issues nor can the client help when you send them a letter. what are you even talking about?

OP did not specify if the soundtrack (which is obviously a famous original by some 3rd-party artist) was played during the ceremony, so is part of the original sound, or was added in post. in either cases the copyright belongs to the artist and including it in a further work does not neglite it. at the most a short part of it could (!) be accepted as a quotation. the video will not generate enough artistc depth that you could claim for new work.

So, in regard to respect law, the only option is to remove the music track, like >>2909377 said. easy when it was added in post. if part of the original sound it can be more problematic.

BUT: there is a simple solution which is also law complaint. the moment the work which includes 3rd-party copyright protected material, is not presented publicly, it's not a problem at all. so, uploading it e.g. to vimeo (like mentioned before) and setting it to private (maybe password-protected but this is not obligatory) will solve the problem in regard to the law.

if you want to publish your video with the copyright protected parts publicly at all costs, you have to accept breaking the law. ... but, to be honest, the chances somebody will charge you are very low.

some guy on reduser posted his popular rap music video and was viciously attacked for "glamorizing violence"

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?148428-Last-minute-DP-job-10-million-views

this shit made me livid

>>2909429
Umm, ok. Thanks for sharing, I guess.

>>2909432

I don't see how that isn't video related

would you have preferred another entry-level DSLR recommendation? or a post about "the best lenses for $100 or less"? kill yourself

>>2909438
kek

>>2909438
It's a post about someone getting butthurt over the reaction to someone else's work.

Literally who gives a shit?

Now, there is almost a kernel of a good post here, but a good post would have been something more along the lines of:
>why is this video being read by the audience as glamorizing violence?

But as it stands, it's only a mediocre facebook post because the shit is so vague we can't even tell if the poster is butthurt because he thinks people are misunderstanding the video (i.e. it is not glamorizing violence) or if he thinks that these people have no right to get so upset over a video that does glamorize violence.

Protip: just because it's not "how can I film something on the level of Barry Lyndon for $20?" doesn't automatically make it a good or interesting post.

>>2909448
it's the most interesting post in this thread so far though mate

>>2909455
Maybe from an analysis of why it's a shitty post, yeah, sure.

Otherwise? Nope. Come on, you're talking about the quality of the post and not the content. Not exactly solid ground to mount a defense.

>>2909459
find me a single interesting/insightful post in this entire thread. I promise you, mine outweighs them all.

>>2909464
How exactly do you think that matters?

Making a shitty post in shitty posts is still making a shitty post.

>>2909469
but you admit my post is better than the rest though

>>2909475
Nope. Stating it's a different style of shit is not the same thing as saying it's not shit, or even a better kind of shit.

>>2909477
got a strawpoll going in case anyone else stops by

http://www.strawpoll.me/11062923

>>2909389
>the copyright belongs to the artist and including it in a further work does not neglite it.
Depends on country m8. In many countries, if the soundtrack was part of a scene, an event, and was recorder there, it voids any copyright claims.
in the end, most countries (that aren't corporate run shitholes) automatically reserve copyrights to artists for advertisement use.
And even if, that's why you include an advertisement clause in the contract.

>>2909505
>Depends on country m8. In many countries, if the soundtrack was part of a scene, an event, and was recorder there, it voids any copyright claims.
That number is very close to zero when considering the first world.
>in the end, most countries (that aren't corporate run shitholes) automatically reserve copyrights to artists for advertisement use.
I'll take the oligarchies of the first world over the dictators of the third. Thanks though.
>And even if, that's why you include an advertisement clause in the contract.
You eliminate every bit of gray area you possibly can in any contract. That's the purpose of contracts: to unambiguously spell out what the roles and remunerations of the involved parties are.

>>2909510
>That number is very close to zero when considering the first world.
Almost all European countries.
>I'll take the oligarchies of the first world over the dictators of the third. Thanks though.
I take it you live in the latter, like the US or some African country?
>You eliminate every bit of gray area you possibly can in any contract. That's the purpose of contracts: to unambiguously spell out what the roles and remunerations of the involved parties are.
Why you telling me?

>>2909505
>>2909519
>Almost all European countries.

Name one.

>I'm from Europe and never heard of any country having a law like this.

>>2909603
This. The one big difference between EU and US copyright laws (really, the only two areas that matter when it comes to copyright) is that the EU is stronger on Moral Rights and Fair Use is more strictly defined.

But yeah, the region that tried to make it illegal to take pictures of landmarks definitely is the more progressive and protective of sensible copyright law.

>>2909603
Germany

>>2909284
cut segments of it into a reel and overdub it with music you're allowed to use.

>>2909669
Sad ... really sad. You are one misinformed untermensch.

>Es gibt hier kein Veröffentlichungsrecht von Werken mit Fremdmaterial zu Werbezwecken. Welcher Schwachkopf hat dir diesen Mist erzählt? ... Und bevor du jetzt rumspastest: Paragraphen im BGB her!

File: s-l225.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

I need to do some filming for a documentary I've been tasked with. I bought one of these stabilizers and the threads are quickly becoming stripped so the weights move and the camera can not be stabilized.

My mistake was probably buying a cheap ebay one, but they are all the same down to the colour.

What other cheap stabilizers are out there that I can get? This one worked well until the threads all stripped which was after around an hour of use..

>>2909830
the Tarion one for 80-100 bucks.
The advantage of the central-pole design is tha
t you can put it down on a table

>>2909815
Direktes resultat aus KunstUrhG &22-24
Lern lesen du affe.
http://www.rechtsanwalt-werberecht.de/werberecht-nach-themen/der-fotograf-und-sein-urheberrecht/

File: s-l500.jpg (13KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x500px

>>2909833
Youtube reviews seem promising. I wish I had seen them earlier. Do you you have experience with it?

>>2909848
Minimal, only used it borrowed for one project.
It is really easy to properly balance because the plate has proper controls.
Also, if you have problems with the screws moving around on the rails, consider glueing them into position.

What's the difference between different stabilizers? Assuming a cheap one stays in working order, how is it inferior to an expensive one?

>>2909880
Precision machining and material, resilience to fatigue.
Some have adjustment screws you don't need to open and tighten each time but rather just turn a little bit and the gears move the camera and weights around by increments.
Generally the designs with a central pole are to be preferred. some of them have tiny tripod feet to help them stand up when put down.
Designs that use ball-bearings rather than ball-heads are more precise and run smoother.
Generally, all flycams are utter shit till you hit the balance point, at which point you believe you are dreaming because it behaves like fucking magic. there is no "easy-mode" only simpler ways to get to the balance point. if you want foolproof idiot gear get a motorized gimbal.

>>2909840
... Dude, I read all the shit and there is not a SINGLE word which would even vaguely imply that 3rd party material can be published within a new work for advertising purpose.

Das Wahrscheinlichste ist wohl, dass du irgend 'ne Art Hauptschüler bist, der Sinnzusammenhänge in Fließtexten nicht ganz collagieren kann. Irgendwer hat dir wohl ein paar Schlagworte hingeworfen und den Artikel verlinkt. Und du dann: "Jaja, genau ... zu Werbezwecken darf ich Schutzrechte verletzen." (LOL)

>>2909968
>3rd party material
Dude, Ig he takes videos/photos that's not 3rd party material.
If you are still on about the song: if the song was part of the scene, then it does not fall under copyright protection. Otherwise you'd have to ask Coca Cola for permission every time someone in the shot is holding a can.
How retarded can one single person be? Are you taking stupidity-enhancing drugs for this?

>>2909978
Not the guy you're replying to, but I'm pretty sure he's right. The 3rd party material is the song, not his videos/photos. Coca Cola is not copyrighted, it's a trademark, they're two different things.

>>2909978
>being on /vid/
>not having the slightest clue of production

you'll be astonished, but as a matter of absolute fact you may not place ANY copyright protected material in a staged scene. ofc if you shoot in public it is a different thing. but when staged you may not include 3rd party work without permission/licensing.

I tell you an example because I know you are an ape-head: there was a case about a documentary about a museum. the doc was shot when a contemporary artist exhibited his paintings in this museum. the video art-director made an interview with the owner of the museum and placed him in front of one of the paintings.
after the documentary was aired the painting artist sued the producer because he used one of his paintings in his work. the (German) court decided that the painter was right and the producer of the documentary infringed his copyright. the main argument was that inspite the exhibition was public, the video producer decided to use the painting as the background and so 'staged' the scene. he was not obligated to use the painting as the background but specifically decided to do, so he took benefit for his work from another work.

fun fact: this is also valid for e.g. brand names and logos etc., since they either produce copyrights (due to the design) or are registered trade marks. at least in principle; till now there haven't been any case where a court decided if a brand may be shown in a film or not, simply because no brand ever sued a filmmaker for placing his product (or rather logo) in his work.
however the consensus among media lawyers is that one have to expect that a brand would win such a case. and this btw also my source, I visited a symposium for trans-media business at the international film school cologne in 2013. the media lawyer who held a lecture about this advocated the producer in the example.

so. go. fuck. yourself. if you have no clue, try being quiet in future.

>>2896793
How was this shot done?
>>>/gif/9154320

I've got a dilemma with my G7... It has a horrible fucking problem where the mode dial just flips shit and changes modes on me randomly. It does it constantly when I'm recording video and it just stops the recording so I've been losing shots left and right. Contacted Panasonic and they said to ship it to them to investigate. Well before shipping it I wanted to record a video of the issue and send that along with it. I guess since I moved the mode dial back and forth so many times trying to recreate it I "fixed" the problem. Maybe it's a contact oxidation issue in the rotary dial or something but now it isn't doing it and I was going to ship it to them tomorrow... Not sure what to do here. Warranty is up in September.

Also every single day I wish I had ponied up the extra cash for the GH4. This thing is not ready for lots of use.

What does /vid/ think of Caleb Pike or Andyax/Eskild? Do they know what they are talking about / teaching or is it all bs?

Time for a new thread maybe?

>>2910353
A good question. I saw this before and wondered. But I let it go. Now, I had to think about it again.

I was hoping to find out a genious practical way of achieving this effect. But then I saw the arm opening the mirror-door is not the same as in seen in the mirror. And after I researched the effect (the movie is "Contact") it showed that it is simply a blue-screen trick. So the mirror is actualle a blue-screen and the follow-camera is layed on it.
But well done nevertheless.

>>2910039
Holy shit
I always thought showing brands was fine as long as you didn't imply affiliation or defame them.
Is the law the same in the UK or is this US-specific?

But shooting brands in public areas is okay? How staged are we talking? Like, if you section off part of a street with a permit, does that make it count as a staged scene where brands aren't allowed?

>>2910458
This is German law to be specific, I cannot claim the same for other countries.

'Staged' in this sense means any situation where you had the choice to show this or that. When your movie (script) however plays at a public place, like e.g. Times Square, then you didn't have the choice to show an advertising running on a big screen or not. And the decision where a plot is running is NOT a act of staging - this is the creative process which must be free, as long as public is involved.
In other words you can say that everyone who places a work at a public place implicitly agrees to that it may appear in other works. But he did not necessarrily agree to that his work may be used in a staged situation, like a studio.

Ofc it would be interesting to let a judge decide if in case of a product on which the brand is visible (often enough as eye-catching as possible) one actually also have to assume an implicit agreement to re-use, since obviously the brand tries to be seen as much as possible.

If you look movies under this criteria you see that interiors are mostly without any brands. even books are plain requisite. but in public brands are visible, like cars for example. but some producers are more or less strict ofc. I personally also think those companies putting their logo on every free space they find can go fuck themselves. (... tho hopefully they never will complain.)

NEW THREAD
>>2910467
>>2910467
>>2910467