/vid/ Video General

Why haven't you killed yourself already?

Is the GH4 the cheapest camera out there with a decent log profile? I use BM but was thinking about getting a B-cam which can do stills.

File: Mars-CREDIT-ESA-OSIRIS-Team.jpg (174KB, 616x616px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 616x616px

>>2932457
Can't be bothered tbqh senpai.

>>2932465
Seconding this because I'm also interested in upgrading to the GH4.

Also, this might be excessively advanced for an independent work, but how do I make some transitional space footage for a sci-fi short? I was thinking about starting off the film with a light pan across space culminating in the reveal of a Mars-like planet which would cut to a shot of an astronaut in a desert, but I have no idea on how to make it without looking incredibly fake. I suppose the most viable route would be starting in a black screen and panning to a high resolution picture of a planet, but wouldn't that just sort of like... well... a static image of a planet? Most films, like 2001 and Star Wars, sort of have the atmosphere visible around the horizon of the planet, would that add anything? Perhaps some film grain to lightly fake ISO noise could also help to make it actually look like a video?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	616
Image Height	616

Why is full frame irrelevant for video?

>>2932941
Because the only benefit in video is to capture more light. If you're working in a studio environment, you can (should) always be able to add more light.

This is why M4/3 is what is considered a highly versatile format. It doesn't capture a lot of light, but there is unending alternatives to lenses and mounts due to the small form factor.

>>2932947
I see, thanks

>>2932947
>bigger sensor captures more light

Really? There's no option in my light meter for SENSOR SIZE MEME

Whats the cheapest 3 Axis Gimbal that can support the GH4 with a sigma 18-35?

I feel like the Ronin m is overkill yet all the handheld ones I've seen can only support short lenses, there's no middle ground.

Where's a gimbal that's around a thousand dollars that supports 3kg?

>>2932972
You neanderthal. More surface area = more light captured.

>>2933019
which means absolutely nothing for exposure or image quality. it's a 90% pointless statement

the 10% when it does matter is when you are using a 35mm format lens with a speed booster (condenses all the light gathered into a smaller area) of a crop sensor for actual improved light gathering. However, this has nothing to do with a bigger sensor gathering more light for anything that matters, in fact, you'd want a smaller sensor to take advantage of this.

You're most likely conflating the properties of a larger sensor having better pixel pitch as a result of having to cram less receptors for any given area than a smaller sensor of similar megapickle count - and the fact that a larger sensor collects more total light (protip: this isn't the reason that larger sensors have better quality, it's the pixel pitch).

>>2933053
>which means absolutely nothing for exposure or image quality

There's less noise and less processing required to process the sensor information.

I work as a cinematographer, ask me technical or set questions if you wish.

How do I into professional documentary filmmaking?

>>2932465
panasonic g7.

>>2933161
What? G7 doesn't have a log profile.

File: lighting_question1.jpg (354KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1920x1080px

>>2933155

oh cool
i am interested in the specifics of how the specific scene was lit.

Any recommendations would be more than welcomed.

recommendations for cheap anamorphic lens for sony a7ii and/or panasonic gh4?

>>2933195

Well 2 things, that's a really low res image (nevermind the darkness) and it's got MS Paint drawings on top of it, but...

The orange light is probably a fresnel or some such fitting bounced into the wall, but not as low as drawn there, more like aimed at the wall.

Then given the reflections on the ramp and the border of the ramp there's probably a soft top light coming from above. Sort of hard to say because it depends on the budget. If you had a proper budget you might put up some kind of HMI through a silk and light it up that way if you could rig it.

And then there's definitely another source pointing at the wall on the guy's right, coming from the left and up to do the wall and glint off that metallic thing on the first floor.

Beyond that it's hard to say what the used because it depends on the camera, the grading could be very strong, etc. If I was told to recreate that on an Alexa say, I'd probably do a 650w tungsten fresnel with 1/4 CTO for the back orange splodge, maybe a 800w Joker bug through a silk frame + flags for the wall on the right and another similar thing coming straight down from up on one of the buildings to do the street, netting it off the right hand side to just lift slightly and leaving it stronger on the left to bring up the ramp.

And then bring stuff down in grading of course.

>>2933208
Cheap and anamorphic don't usually go together. Cheap, anamorphic and good definitely don't.

>>2933159

you start with making professional quality amateur documentaries

>>2933252
About what

>>2933253
>wants to make professional documentaries

>about what

>>2933253
Start out with whatever local stories interest you, there's a lot more in the mundane life than you might expect.

>>2933253

a good one would be a documentary about young people continually asking questions on web imageboards instead of taking agency in their life

>>2933254
Well you see for instance id very much like to make one about the far reaches of Russia
But I don't have the monies for that

>>2933258
Are you extremely knowledgeable about the far reaches of Russia?

>>2933258
Just stick your camera in your freezer and talk about the massive build up of ice and that 3 year old, half-finished package of frozen vegetables because you're too much of a lazy useless shit to clean it out once in a while.

>>2933259
Knowledgeable enough

>>2933268
What particular aspect are you looking to focus on?

>>2933269
what relevance does any of this being posted here have to my initial question
I'm not going to lay out my detailed plans here lest some cheeky bugger steals them
suffice to say that i would not be interested in doing it if i wasnt confident in it

>>2933155
How to into lighting on a budget? What's the best starter lights kit?

>>2933272
So do it.

>I want to know how to do something, not telling you what though

>>2933282
are you an investor whos gonna give me money?

>>2933285
Frankly, I don't believe you that you're knowledgeable about the "outer reaches" of Russia. If you were, you would be there on a regular basis, so you wouldn't need any extra budget to make a demo roll.

>>2933288
oh no, an anonymous poster doesn't believe me! boy oh boy what am i gonna do now???

>>2933294

not make any documentaries that's for sure

>>2933297
ebin

>>2933294
Are you 12?

>>2933302
would you like me to be

>>2933277

Well, it depends on what level of stuff you want to do. If you want to work on short films I would strongly advise you to talk to the production team and assemble a lighting budget with them rather than bringing your own stuff.

If you're more of a self-shooter and want to do a little interview here and there, or bring an extra thing to a small commercial, I'd recommend going the LED route, getting 2 LED bricks (I have the Newer version, very good and strong, takes sony NP-F batteries that last forever) which can be great as a kicker or backlight even in fiction. If you wanna do an interview or something like that, light a face, it's way too hard. Weirdly, the cheapest route I've found is to get 2-3 LED strings (find them in the hardware store) of the same color temp (5600K or 3200K) and make yourself a 1x1 or 1.5x1.5 diffusion frame (I made mine with plexiglass and actual diffusion material, but any semi-transparent or gauzy-like material can work, a thin bed-sheet for example. Then what you do is you basically stick all your LED strips around and around it which basically gives you a big soft source similar to a big version of an LED panel, nice and soft with good wrap-around ability.

If you have 5-700 bucks to spare I would absolutely get an actual LED panel as well, like the Astra 1x1 or something similar, as those things have endless uses.

File: 11081328_807543635993660_1965214773965847031_n.jpg (34KB, 400x447px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x447px

>>2932793
pls respond, I know this is more of a post VFX thing rather than the usual set-related stuff posted around here but it's still /vid/ pertinent and I want to know what the best approach is ;_;

>>2933354
So I understand you want to place a greenscreen/bluescreen/blackscreen something in the desert and actually pan away from it onto your actor?

If that is the case, you could add tracking markers to your greenscreen..

But assuming that you don't mean that, you can achieve a 3d vfx with cinema 4d or after effects even.
Its not hard, just find a picture, some particles and animate it a little

>>2933354
rent the hubble

>>2932983
also interested in this

>>2932983

Those China made gimbal from ebay are dirt cheap senpai. I think they can hold up to 3 to 4kg

File: Untitled-1.gif (5MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 640x360px

>>2933354
Well, just for fun I spent 20 minutes on a couple test runs. Here's gif 1

File: Untitled-2.gif (5MB, 570x321px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 570x321px

>>2933645
And here's one I made from scratch. Much more fun!

How difficult would it be to pull off a slow 360 pan while zooming in and out at different points and follow focusing?

>>2933670
Depends on your manpower and steady hands.
Easy for a team that already did all these things independendly.

What are you doing? with it? inspecting a landscape and its landmarks, following a person walk in a circle?
With a parfocal lens it would be MUCH easier.
You'd probably had to rehearse it several times.
but, is it WORTH it?

File: g80.jpg (52KB, 590x393px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 590x393px

So what do you think about the new Panasonic G80 / G85 ? The successor of the G7.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-g85-first-impressions-review

I was going to buy a G7, but now I hesitate

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto

>>2933861
I heard it goes for 800-900buicks body-only, which is a steep pürice increase. so it doesn't have the supercheap appeal of the G7 anymore.
It doesn't have VLog or 10bit or slomo of the GH5, but it does have the sealing of the GH4 and the IBIS of the GX85.
A good camera, but I wouldnt buy it for the same reason I'd buy the G7.
Let's see the price on it.

File: g81.jpg (76KB, 1185x306px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1185x306px

>>2933891
The price on a french shop
(it's called g81 because it came from Germany I think)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Brice
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2933909
Yep, that's it. no point upgrading to a G85. going straight for GH5 instead.
This price is insane, not even the most expensive G7 kit beats that price

Also, I would get the international version from now on.

>>2932941
Because rolling shutter and
>muh shallow depth of field
meme

>>2933354
Can't do it? Write yourself out of it. It will make for a good screenwriting challenge. Try to take different angles on the story to find the least out of reach approach.

>>2933645
Sharpness problems. When compositing images you have to be aware of the sharpness and adjust it accordingly to match all parts. Edge softness should be acknolwedged too.

>>2933651
Wrong background and foreground exposure. Take a look at actual space photos because that's what the common perception of how a planet photo should look when properly exposed.
Atm the background is too bright, the foreground is severely underexposed, it's not clear where the sun is or why does the dark side have a specular highlight even.
Small blured out spec floaters also don't make sense.

What camera can I get for £500-£800 for event videos (low-light probably) and that I could also use for stills photography
Will probably be using it handheld initially but I'll get a tripod later on.

>>2933967
Sony a6000

>>2933975
hmm I'm thinking either that or the 760D
Which lens should I go for?
Any other recs?

>>2934229
The canon can't do FHD at 60fps, which can be good for slomo shots. Also, with the Sony you can upgrade to the a6300 or the a7 or any other camera in the Sony E-Mount environment. The canon can, AFAIK, record in better formats.
The problem with canon for video in general is that there is almost no place to go, to upgrade to, unless you want the C100

>>2934304
Actually even the C100 isn't that good in terms of codecs, bit rates and bit depth. You need a C300 MkII for noticeable improvement.

>>2934339
I still don't get how canon does naming.
Like... is the c100 the ancestor of the c300? why do they use "mark" designations? Both cameras are in the same price category...
So much simpler with Panasonic. Even Sony, to some degree.

>>2934346
>So much simpler with Panasonic. Even Sony, to some degree.
No, it's really not. Go look at Nikon for what that shit'll look like in around a decade...and sony, especially with the A7s is pants on head retarded. Canon has one of the more sensible naming structures in the camera world.

>>2933891
It has unlimited recording time and 4:2:2 8-bit through HDMI. It also has HDMI while recording so you can use monitors with it. The only thing that it is missing to make it a serious contender is higher FPS. If Panasonic can patch in like 96fps or 120fps I think this thing would fly off shelves especially with the weathersealed body.

>>2934346
it's not quite in the same price category. it goes c100<c300<c500<c700. And the 'marks' are the generations as it were. so right now the c100 mk2 is about the same pricepoint and quality as a c300 mk1, since now you can get a c300 mk2

>>2934361
4.2.2 8-bit sounds like bullshit. 8-bit doesn't give you enough depth for 4.2.2 as far as i know, you need 10-bit for that otherwise it's not true 4.2.2

>>2934372
bit depth and chroma subsampling are two completely different things. 8 bit 4.2:2 is of course a thing

File: enough_to_be_dangerous_2__70756.1403028194.386.513.jpg (70KB, 386x364px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 386x364px

>>2934372

I wish DaVinci Resolve wasn't such elitist trash... I want to ditch PP and the 50$ a month Adobe shackle but it seriously doesn't support MP3 import? And 44.1Khz .wav files because they aren't "profesional" enough? What planet are these people living on. They can bitch all they want that no professional should be using mp3 and it's easy to convert but... What the hell is the point of converting? If the source audio I have is an MP3 or a 44.1Khz Wav file, I don't magically get more quality from converting it to the "Superior" 48khz wav format. I just get a fucking pain in the ass on every shoot.

>>2934395
what version are you on? my 12.5 does both that things just fine, on both win and mac

>>2934396
nevermind, mp3 actually won't work on win. 44.1 does, though
mac does both things

>>2934395
Had No Problem with mp3.

>>2934454
Are you on Mac?
>>2934398
I'm not sure of the 44.1. I saw people complaining about it. I converted my MP3 to 48K just to be safe and it did work but what a pain.

File: 1465078496429.jpg (96KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x720px

dear camera guy,

i know the run-and-gun thing in a crowded restaurant is really hard for you. you have to drop a rigged camera in and out of a crowded table for b roll and reactions.

but if you don't start picking a shot i'm going to cut your pasty throat open.

let me reiterate video 101 from high school: you decide your shot. if it is static, you record for at least 8 seconds: 2 seconds affirming placement, 2 seconds after the shot is completed. if you are moving, you start from a standstill for at least 2 seconds, then move the camera, then wait two seconds when the motion is complete.

if you do another "panning" shot where you move the camera back and forth with no pauses between movements I'm going to crucify your faggot children on your faggot lawn

also the lens wasn't clean throughout the entire video on camera 1. you're going to have to do more than suck the producer's balls after i tell him you ruined an entire camera's shots with that pedestrian effort. lube up.

regards,
the editor

>>2934376
funny enough to consider that 8bit 4:2:2 in yuv (or lab) actually results in 8bit v, 6bit u, 6bit y; so 20bit per pixel, while 4:4:4 gives you the true 24bit. when you sample each channel in 8bit but discard 0:2:2 subsamples you don't need the 4 bits in the xy-channels (since every second subsample (8/2=4) is wasted).
So-seen there is a relation between chroma subsampling and bit rate; but of course you are still right because you also could sample the 4:2:2 values with 16bit per channel (where you would lose 8bits again for x+y [40bit/p]).

>>2934372
so 8bit is not only enough for 4:2:2, it is even too much. 6.666bit would be even sufficient.

buuuut, just to mention it: even when chroma subsampling is obsolete nowadays due to way better compressing options than this, an uncompressed 8bit 422 stream is still way more useful (for post processing, not consuming) than any lossy compressed format. I find it funny that the people pixel peep all the time about resolution and sharpness and low-light performance, and then ... fucking h264! lol

>>2934599
the fault is to work for a shit company. pleb.

File: chickendance.gif (755KB, 221x158px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 221x158px

>>2934395
as much as I dislike bmd in general, from the software's developers point of view I have to say that you are an idiot.

that you don't want to work with uncompressed material in the first place is already enough evidence for this.

like "yeah, why pipe the stream directly to the hardware da-converter? let us rather put it through the processor beforehand. like every other thing, too." ... and then: "oh, my machine is just too slow. I need more processor performance to edit my a/v stuff."

I totaly support any developer who says 'fuck usability, pros should know how to work with stuff efficiently. I'm not programming a feature which is bullocks in the first place.'

>>2934599
>not being a one-man show and DIT on the spot

>>2934694
>8bit v, 6bit u, 6bit y; so 20bit per pixel

That's critically false. Bitdepth is global, not separated by channels as you imply. Matching half of bits required for a chroma pixel to one luma pixel in 4:2:2 is a way only to minimize calculations. In these simple calculations 4:2:2 at 8bits needs 16bpp.

>>2934872
yes, yes, my bad. I mixed it up with yuyv vs. yuv planar and actually was talking about yuv planar 10bit (v210). sorry.

yuv 422 8bit is 16bits/p.

File: Test2.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

Just sharing how the image comes out of the URSA Mini 4.6k with some grading. Was at 18mm, ~t.4

File: Test3.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>2934947
One more because why not

Where are people buying film cameras these days?


I bought a M2 from keh like 4 years ago, and stopped looking for cameras ever since.
Some of my friends are looking for cameras now though and the KEH selection is kind of garbage now compared to 4 years ago.
I never liked buying from ebay, so i try to avoid it.
Did people move on to different websites now?

>>2934975
oops wrong thread sorry!

>>2934947
>>2934949
I'm not impressed, if this is what you were aiming at.

>>2934949
>>2934947
I really like the look of that. Really considering the camera myself, but I'm worried the about usability and reliability issues I keep reading about. What's it like to work with?

>>2935019
I wasn't but thank you for your diary.

>>2935083
It's super easy to work with. If you point me towards specific issues I'll expand.

>>2935171
Have you every worked on an FS7? How does it compare to that? I'm getting ready to buy a camera for freelance work and those two are my main two options, but right now I have more experience with the FS7 and I really like working with it. How would you sell the URSA against it, besides the obvious stuff like shooting RAW and so on. Just in terms of ease of use, or reliability and such.

File: 1359233444937.jpg (15KB, 292x298px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 292x298px

>>2934396
>DaVinci 12 works perfectly on my PC
>DaVinci 12.5 is blocked out because it doesn't support some slightly newer Nvidia drive update

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2934395
>>2935749
What abut the fact it doesn't support audio for .mts video files? Literally a major "fuck you" to everyone that works with Lumix.

>>2935751
you shouldn't use a transport stream for editing anyways. .. what's wrong with you?

>>2934697
Because you never need to work with mp3 or other compressed stuff, right?
unless you only ever work with 100% all the time, you will need to work with suboptimal stuff.
But if you don't, hoorray for you, Mr. Scorsese.

>>2935751
Why aren't you Recording in MPEG on Linux to Begin with?
Offers way more Options and better quality. Especially if you don't like doing interlaced. Who the fuck still does interlaced these Days?

>>2935877
...you're supposed to automate the part of the pipeline that converts the sub-optimal stuff to optimal stuff.

>>2935880
>Linux
Meant Lumix, sorry. Dunno if it was Phone autocorrect or my own stupidity

sup, poorfag trying to shoot a few short films here. i don't have enough dosh to buy/rent a cinema camera but I have a smartphone with pretty okay video capabilities (Moto G3). what are some apps or techniques I could use to get better results? how to record in low light situations?

>>2936143
alright here's a technique that worked for the most successful people!

>1. get a job
>2. get money
>3. buy a camera

optional!

>1.look for other people who are into filmmaking
>2.approach them in a friendly manner
>3.seek their collaboration

>>2936288
don't even bother replying if you're gonna be a little condescending faggot. I'm asking how to get decent footage out of a phone camera (I know it can be done, just don't know how)

>>2935880
>Who the fuck still does interlaced these Days

Broadcast. Absolute majority of it.

>>2936298
> Decent
> Phone camera.
Unless it's sunny ass Fuck the entire time you're filming its going to be shit. Even then it'll likely still be shit.

>>2936298
Out of a Moto G3? No you fucking won't mate.

>>2936298
don't listen to those faggot cucks, they have no creative drive
just make sure the phone is steady on a tripod-like contraption and make sure your scenes are well lit
results won't be stellar but it should be decent enough

>>2936143
kek
do whatever you want fag, but imo if you actually wanted to work your way around shooting on a phone you'd try instead of asking, it seems more like you've given up on getting your hands on a semi decent camera (possibly before you've even tried) and want to use a phone as one, which it isn't

Anyone have suggestions on low budget cameras for video? 600 and under would be appreciated.
I don't wanna buy some meme shit camera for video.

jesus christ filmmaking is expensive. to actually get anything done at a professional level is a $50,000+ investment.

kill me

>>2937012
You can do it at an amateur level and still have success. Just find the right style for a low budget.

>>2937048

that's the thing though, most people's ideas don't merge well with low budgets. I'd argue that anyone with a higher IQ than 90 and a respectable budget/talented crew could make a decent film.

look at Xavier Dolan, 19 year old kid with $300,000 from his dad, got his feature film into Cannes. That could be me if I had some fucking money. I don't want to make little DSLR movies for the rest of my goddamn life.

>>2937004
If I were you I'd wait for the GH5 to come out and get a GH4 second hand or at a discount. I'm already seeing people selling theirs for 800 and you'd be getting 4k at 100Mbps, full HD slo-mo, all the good stuff. Sort of planning to do that myself depending on what the GH5 will retail for, since I already have a BM Video Assist so I'd be able to squeeze out ProRes 422 10-bit out of that thing.

>>2937053
>I'd argue that anyone with a higher IQ than 90 and a respectable budget/talented crew could make a decent film.

I'd argue you haven't been on a proper film set. It's not just about talent or budget, a lot of it is endurance, being able to work with actors 10-12 hours a day and keep up the pace, work night shoots without issues if needed, be clear and concise in terms of what you want from the HoD's. Maybe anyone could direct a film, but could you really direct a film properly 8 PM after working 11 hours when you have to make sense of a shot with main cast + 20 extras without going 'ah, ye that works fine, whatever' after seeing the first take?

What I've learned from film sets is that doing your job is one thing but actually thinking constantly about what you're doing, if there's a better way to do what you're doing, if there's a faster way, if you can delegate better before the 1st AD starts giving you the look. That's something you have to work towards from small productions to bigger productions, because if you were given 300.000 bucks and a film crew right now, i'll bet you those 300.000 bucks you'll fall apart at the end of day 2 of shooting, if not earlier.

Seeing as 4K is becoming more common are 1080p DSLRs worth buying or should I try to invest for 4K? I want a camera that wont be obsolete soon.

>>2937094
Or get a DSLR that does 4K obviously, like the A7sII or the GH4/5.

If you want a camera that won't be obsolete 'soon' you'd need to get a that new 8K RED. If not, even a 4K camera in the cheaper range like an FS5 or FS7 will become obsolete in 3 years.

>>2937122
G7 and G85 as well.

File: 0c26e5e156b12f651271b28cc61a4e.jpg (55KB, 800x374px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x374px

Should I get the Panasonic G7 or is there an advantage in paying ~200 extra bucks for the GH4? For how long will they look professional?

>>2937185
Both will look very professional. I'd probably grab the G85 over the G7 though. It comes out October 20th. Has IBIS and 8bit 4:2:2 out HDMI.

>>2937186
Yeah, but for how long until I have to replace them? Will they hold up for indie festivals throughout the next 5 years or so?

>>2937191
Asking that specific question makes me think you should just get a BMPCC and be done with it. I think that's what you really want.

File: 81WmAWjj_400x400.jpg (15KB, 364x364px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 364x364px

>>2937194
I've asked if a BMPCC was a good choice in a previous thread and everyone told me to get a G7 / GH4, the fuck

>>2937215
Do you want to create videos or do you want to create "art"?

If you want to create videos, wether amateur film, YT stuff, commercial or family get the GH4/G7/G85. If you are an "artiste" who must have his exact "vision" and whatever other fluff, get the BMPCC. If you're talking about wanting to enter indie film festivals it makes me think you are the second.

File: Nyoro~n.jpg (75KB, 500x446px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x446px

>>2937225
What if I'm an artsiefag that doesn't have all that much experience in the first place and would probably struggle to use the PCC to its full potential? My current camera is an old GF3 and tbqh I'm not sure if I'm yet ready to take in a Blackmagic.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2937215

if you have to ask why, don't buy one. gh4 is way more user friendly.

>>2937234
Grading flat log images is simple. Set black point, set white point, crank contrast until it looks good. Drag highlights to orange, drag shadows to blue. Presto instant Michael Bay shit. Be sure to add bars to get it to 2.35:1!

>>2937294
Yeah, I'm cool about grading, a lot of my free time is spent messing around with DaVinci 12. The problem is, how hard is it to actually get good footage from the BMPCC? Exactly how much mad skills will it take to get that sweet cinematic look you see on all the test from film students?

>>2937274
Hence why I asked the original question, but then again, the PCC has always been tempting to me simply because every piece of footage I've watched from it looks genuinely amazing.

>>2937094
Frankly, if you cared so much about image quality you wouldn't be buying a DSLR. 1080p is fine for what you're likely to be doing.

>>2937449
What about for videos?

Hey guys, I managed to get my first paying job in a couple of weeks.
How much should I reasonably charge?
UK here, was thinking around £20/h
Is that too high?
If I'm offered £10/h should I still take it?
The guy saw my reel and was satisfied. But I also think there weren't many applicants

I don't know the details yet, but I'll probably be editing it too. I'll definitely be providing the majority of my own equipment

>>2937494
don't calculate work hours (only with post production).
always put your offer in daily rate + expenses
depending on how long the work days will be, if it's on weekends and nights and most importantly what role you play and what kind of responsibility you have to deal with
I usually go with something like 350€ for 8-10h days on run and gun one man jobs if it's my own equipment

>>2937501
I probably should have mentioned, it's just one day, it's some type of event (a formal/awards-evening I think)
But hopefully this will lead to more opportunities

And I worry about charging post in hours because the employer will be reluctant to have me spend too much time on it for cost reasons, but I'll want to spend as long as needed to provide due quality
So I was thinking just a flat rate of like an extra £50 per minute of video I produce?

>>2937509
even when charging post production in hours you can still put an estimate in your offer and then decide afterwards how much higher or lower you want to go, depending on how much work it actually turns out to be

>>2932449

What are some decent gimbals for mirrorless cameras that are under $800?

File: monopod.jpg (64KB, 439x653px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 439x653px

How much should I spend for a monopod?
Is $160 a good price for a fluid head, 3-leg monopod?

>>2937550

Get the parts seperately. There's a monopod foot with Fluid panning for roughly 25-30 bucks from China. Get a monopod for 40-50 bucks. Get a normal Fluid videohead for 40-70.
Voila.

>>2937550
>3-legged monopod
You mean a tripod?

>>2937626
So fuck Manfrotto and such?
Are brands memes?

>>2937720
No, the little legs on the bottom. Some don't have them.

>>2937626
What do you think about this used for $70 ?

File: 3.jpg (161KB, 1500x972px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1500x972px

>>2937753

>>2937795
Depends on what you want/need/expect. Better than nothing, there's a reason they are very popular among hobbyist vidya shooters. I was disappoint when I got one but that was because I was stupid and thought it would solve all my audio problems. Plugging it directly into the shitty preamp on your camera (I presume you have a dslr or something) will result in a lot of noise = you need to be close to your subject to get a good result. But that's true with any mic.

If you have the money get a recorder like the Tescam DR60II/zoom f4 (don't get the h4n like people do, preamp is weak af and wont work well with a lot of shotguns) + something like a Sennheiser MKE 600/ Rode NTG2. Now you have a decent setup with much more control that is usable outside your room.

>>2937750
>Are Brands memes?
If I could ban Just one Word!...
But seriously, Brands only Go so far. They add Trust and accountability but other companies can also produce good stuff. I have a decent monopod from Mantona. It's sturdy but cheap. It maybe wont be handed down through generations like manfrotto, but for a starter it's a Solid pice of gear.
If I could Go back I would buy another Fluid tripod head than the one I have though because Mine uses a non-standard Quick Release plate.

File: 5529353140.jpg (494KB, 1152x2048px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1152x2048px

>>2937912
the thing is I am a one band man atm.
I don't have people are resources to have an external recorder..

File: MVM500A-D.jpg (146KB, 712x968px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 712x968px

>>2937626
>>2937912
This is what I found for $180 with a carrying bag.
Should I ?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:19 11:24:00
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	712
Image Height	968

>>2938132
I've had the chance to use one of those in a nearby photography shop, the head movement was pretty smooth. I'd go for it, anon.

>>2938142
Since it's used, do you have any tips on what to look for/check when I visit the store to have a look at it?

>>2938132
a ching chong brand will be cheaper.

>>2938155
delivery cost?
arrival time?
any safe store recs?
any ching chong brands to look for?

File: uuid-1800px-inriverimage_368986.jpg (59KB, 364x1800px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 364x1800px

>>2938154
How tall are you?
Finding a monopod is tricky if you are tall. Moreso if you are tall and ever intend to point your camera even remotely above horizontal.
https://www.manfrotto.com/neotec-monopod-with-safety-lock
Is relatively tall, and as fast as possible to extend and collapse. IMO more monopods should use this mechanism.

>>2938161
I am a manlet, I can use them.

>>2938081

>typical /p/ loadout thread

Trying to adapt my dad's old FD lenses and noticed all Adapters with a standfoot are fucking expensive. Why is that?
I only ever adapted Nikkor AI lenses and FD lenses seem to have some weird mechanical switches.

>>2938287
Sorry, wrong thred!

File: gimpball.jpg (188KB, 1515x825px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1515x825px

Anyone has experience with pic related or similar stuff? I have used a DJI Osmo before, I imagine it's like the Osmo just a bit bigger. I have some worries about battery life and reliability it being a chink shit and all, but I dont want to spend more money on something I will not use more than 4-5 times a year, but I need it in some projects. It would be used with a D7200.

What is a good entry level camera for film and photography. in the sticky theirs a camera for 450 but someone has deleted the name. I cant really shill out 1000 bucks on a camera. any recommendations?
I'd go for the g7 but since the Canadian peso is shit its way over my price range.

best mirrorless for video? hear it's a7s ii. can anyone confirm? mostly want to use it for run and gun travelogues. might do some actual projects with it.

(asked this in the gear thread and someone pointed me here)

>>2938469
yes it's the best

>>2935355
I'll be honest, right now with the minis its somewhat of a luck of the draw situation, in terms of getting a good sensor. I got lucky, and have seen the camera shoot a variety of things now, and it performs almost flawlessly.

Other cameras I've seen are not as lucky, and one had bad FPN at 800 ISO, even in properly exposed images. Mine only shows FPN when it's being unnaturally pushed, but throw an S-curve on it and it'll be back to normal.

Otherwise, I've had no problems at all. Nothing wrong with the hardware, nothing wrong with the footage, nothing wrong with the cards, nothing wrong with the firmware, it's simply performing great right now.

>>2938753
BTW by "unnaturally pushed" I mean shooting at 800 ISO in a situation with low light (i.e. no artificial lighting [kits], with only on site candlelight)

>>2938753
I see. Well, too much of a gamble then.

The more I thought about it I realized it's a strangely designed camera, to the point where I'm not sure how useful it is. It's got that huge monitor on the operator's side on top of the separate viewfinder on the same side, which is kind of a stupid design choice similar to the old Sony F3, especially when you could definitely use that monitor on the focus puller's side so that you wouldn't have to put another monitor on top of it.

Native ISO is supposed to be 400 which is so-so, but it falls apart quickly above that, which makes it somewhat inefficient for small shoots or docs and may prove problematic for shooting high contrast scenes if you prefer to expose at a higher ISO to preserve highlights.

The strangest thing is not having its own batteries and shooting on CFast cards.

Strange hybrid of production camera and documentary camera. The accessories you need to make it work cost an arm and a leg. Internal RAW is nice but if you can afford the workflow for RAW you might as well rent a RED.

Anyway, glad you're happy with it, I guess it does the job for some people at the end of the day.

I want to make videoclips.

Do you think the IBIS system on the G85 is useful if I'm filming with a tripod and a quite cheap stabilizer ?
Will I get better results than a G7+tripod+stabilizer ?

File: 1_came-single-gimbal[1].jpg (145KB, 750x1100px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 750x1100px

>>2938464
I use the CAME Single with my a7sii and it works well after some PID tweaking with the FE 35mm 2.8. If you've got a lens in the same sort of weight class, your body weighs within ~20g of mine.

I don't have any experience with anything higher or lower end, but my gut tells me that something like the Single will be the lowest acceptable end.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3648
Image Height	5472
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Created	2015:07:04 14:38:23
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	1100

>>2939193
IBIS won't really do anything on sticks. I turn mine off when I'm using a tripod.

What do you mean by 'stabilizer'? Are you talking about a shoulder rig or a steadicam or gimbal or what?

>>2939584
Thanks
>What do you mean by 'stabilizer'? Are you talking about a shoulder rig or a steadicam or gimbal or what?

I don't know yet, I've tried a shoulder rig and it wasn't comfortable enough for me. I was rather thinking about a gimbal.

I'm thinking now it's more clever to save 300-400 € (buying G7 instead of g85) and buy a really decent gimbal.

File: Blackmagic Pocket.jpg (91KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x640px

Can the BMPCC also be used as a decent camera for still photography or is it exclusively made for video?

>>2939614
I don't know what you're going to be shooting, specifically, but I recommend against that.

I've been surprised at how useful IBIS has been, I think it's worth springing for. I can film in a car on a monopod and get really smooth footage.

Again, without knowing what you're doing this might not be the case, but I really consider my gimbal to be a specialty tool. Even if I wanted the smooth flying look in every project I do, I wouldn't want to use it but for a few shots in each. It gets old pretty quickly, like a really wide lens will do.

That besides, the gimbal is fucking annoying to use. You've got to balance it every time you do a lens change (I can get it close enough in about 10 minutes, but I need a sturdy tripod to do it). It's heavy. Way heavier than you'd think. And then when you're not using it you've got to lug it around with you. To get it to work well you're going to have to tune PIDs for each lens/camera combination you'll be using . . . I dunno.

If you want my honest advice after going through all this shit trying to find a good stabilizer (shoulder rig is heavy, cumbersome, not useful in as many situations as I'd thought; gimbal is very cool but has issues I've listed above; steadicam takes a lot of practice and really tears up your wrist), it's this: Buy a good video monopod.

Everything else is good for specific stuff, but the monopod is always relevant. You want to run and gun? Monopod. You want "handheld" looking footage without shaky bullshit? Put it on a monopod and move around a little. You want to get stability approaching a tripod without having to carry one around and set it up with a big footprint? Hold the monopod carefully enough and you can make it work. With IBIS, I can get really solid footage on mine.

>>2939621
If you have to ask this question you don't want to get a BMPCC. Pick up an a6000 and spend the money you save on lenses.

>>2939623
Many thanks for your answer, your experience is very instructive.
I've just watched a lot of videos of the ibis system and this is really good even if it has some defaults sometimes (image deformation and shiftings).

For the moment, I want to make a videoclip with a quite big piece of art, and I will need to turn and move all around that thing ; I'm imagining very smooth movements. I think I will rent a gimbal for a weekend a see for myself.

Now it's time to watch all "best video monopod" videos on youtube. Do you have recommendations on video monopods ? I already have a good and solid manfrotto tripod (for photography) but there's a lot of times I didn't bring it with me because of the weight.

File: manfrotto_mvm500a_pro_fluid_monopod_with_945109[1].jpg (119KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 2500x2500px

>>2939732
Yeah, if you only have one near-future project you want a gimbal for, renting one is 100% the smart decision. At least then you can choose to buy or not based on experience.

I have the Manfrotto MVM500A tripod, and it's well-suited to video. Very sturdy, good fluid mechanisms, and hefty enough to really be useful for video. I don't know if I'd take it hiking or whatever unless I was planning to get really bitching footage.

This uses the 501PL plate, which is big and long, so I don't think it'll be compatible with your tripod (I'm still planning to match mine up. When my budget video tripod dies on me I'll do it). It does have a very nice release mechanism, though. You slot one side of the plate in all at once and push the camera down into the head, where it locks against sliding all the way out in either direction. Release is about as easy, too. (Throw the included strap in the trash, though. It kept loosening itself and falling off. I wouldn't trust it.)

That all being said, I've not had much experience with other video monopods; there may be a better option out there for your intentions.

Post back with your findings, I'm always looking for stuff to recommend to people.

>>2939623

Wait how does it take you 10 mins to stabilize it after a lens change. I don't mean it as a diss but once i get mine initially stabilized, lens change adjustments take no longer than 4-5 minutes at most.

Also I would argue it's not true that it's heavy. I've used my light one even with a C100 and it's still easy to do 4-5 takes no problem before taking a break.

I think more than anything it requires practice. When I got mine I spent a lot of time just putting the camera on and taking it off to speed up my balancing and then walking around the house to get the movements right. Once you get it down it's like riding a bike, easy to do even if you don't do t for a while.

>>2939732
>i will rent a gimbal for a weekend

Don't do this, it's a bad idea because you'll spend 3/4 of that weekend trying to learn how to use it. Either go to the rental house beforehand and ask them to show you how to use it and let you play around with it before renting or, even better, buy one and spend a few days getting a feel for it and for how you need to move to make it work.

I bought a light gimbal for my dslr shoots and it's honestly one of the best investments i've made because you can't replicate that kind of movement in any other way. And while it can look low-budget in terms of movement, it gives you all the movements you really need to shoot whtever you want, most importantly a jibbing motion which is incredibly useful when covering fiction, even if it's down and dirty.

You can get a Neewer flycam for about 100 bucks and it does the job excellently for that weight class. Or if you have $700 to spend, glidegear does a really cool stabilizer + vest + spring arm combo that you can put a caged dslr or light camera on (C series canons, FS5, that area).

>>2939004
>may prove problematic for shooting high contrast scenes if you prefer to expose at a higher ISO to preserve highlights.
Is there some wizardry in video that makes this the exact opposite of photo?
Because on all my DSLRs, high ISO = blown highlights and low ISO = preserved highlights.

And it's much easier to subtract excessive light from a scene by tossing on an ND filter (cheap and easy) compared to adding light (expensive fast lens or external lighting)

>>2939876
Well, for one thing in video I expect to have external lighting as a given.

About the ISO thing it's not wizardry, it's how the good video cameras function. Think of it like this. You have a camera with 12 stops of dynamic range. When set at its native ISO for which the camera's sensor is optimized, you will have the best sensitivity to noise ratio and will be able to retain information 6 stops over and 6 stops under the stop at which you are shooting (this is in ideal conditions of course).

By turning up the ISO on the camera so as to gain 1 stop (so from 800 to 1600 for example), what you tell the camera to do is set the midpoint higher, so effectively you will now have 7 stops for overexposure and 5 for underexposure instead of 6 and 6, but this tends to also mean a slight loss of dynamic range, so it's more likely you'll have 7 over and 4 under or something like that. Since the camera isn't optimized for that ISO it is less efficient, but there are situations where you need to protect your highlights knowing that you can throw in a light to lift the shadows if you need to.

This technique is especially efficient on something like a RED which shoots raw anyway so you still have tons of latitude. But even when I shoot on an FS7 which compresses the files i do this. The native ISO as Sony would have you think is 2000, in reality about 1600. In day scenes i expose for 1600 and for night scenes 800 because if you expose higher and bring it down in post you also help reduce noise.

So, tldr: To preserve highlights it's more efficient to bring up the ISO and put on an ND filter to get back to whatever you want it to be than to shoot at a lower ISO when you don't really need all the stops available in the shadow areas.

>>2939621

t. BMPCC question

>>2939908
except that's not in the slightest how ISO works in digital.

Higher sensitivity only adds noise, it does not reduce noise.

Higher sensitivity increases the exposure at all brightness, which means that you have less stops before highlights are lost to overexposure.

>to "preserve highlights", add noise with excessive sensor amplification and add a ND filter to retain the noise, without actually gaining information in the shadows or in the highlights
Today I learned, people in the /p/ cine general don't know a fucking thing about digital sensors or exposure.

File: 1.jpg (132KB, 753x733px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 753x733px

>>2939937
Well, I can only say you're wrong, at least when it comes to shooting on RED, Alexa and some Sony cameras. I will explain again, but in short look at the picture here taken directly from RED's website explaining how their sensors work with REDCODE Raw.

>Higher sensitivity only adds noise, it does not reduce noise

Correct, I never said it didn't. What I said was some cameras like the FS7 are set natively to a pretty high ISO (2000) and shooting at that ISO gives no apparent noise. If you crank up a 100 ISO-native camera to 2000, you will have noise yes.

>Higher sensitivity increases the exposure at all brightness, which means that you have less stops before highlights are lost to overexposure.

This is true on low end cameras and DSLR's, in the sense that the ISO setting is a simple boost in electricity passed through the sensor, more or less, which increases what the sensor 'sees' and thus adds noise. But, as the picture here suggests, RED and Alexa ISO settings are actually mistakenly labeled ISO, as in fact the camera always shoots at whatever native iso it has, the correct term for them should be EI, Exposure Index. Remapping middle gray higher and lower DOES in fact give you more stops in the highlights the higher you go with the EI, as middle gray is pushed down.

So, again tldr: on DSLR's and most consumer/prosumer cameras, what you say is true and you shouldn't bump up the ISO like that, BUT on actual cinema cameras, as long as they function by the EI system, what I said is true. If you want a full explanation of this have a look at RED's site here: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/exposure-with-red-cameras

File: Yunteng-VCT-288-Camera-Monopod-font-b-Fluid-b-font-Pan-font-b-Head-b-font.jpg (5MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 1000x1000px

Could you recommend to me any good chink monopod brands?

[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	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:16 17:34:28
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

>>2939937
>>2939960
Oh forgot one thing, about
>Higher sensitivity only adds noise, it does not reduce noise

The point of that bit was that if you have a camera that shots natively at a very high ISO, like the FS7 (2000) or FS5 (3200), it's safer to shoot darker scenes at a lower EI, thus overexposing the image. For example, on the last shoot I did on the FS7 I had some night shoots and exposed for 800, so about a stop and a half over. I can then take that footage and pull it down a stop and thus reduce noise (especially in the dark areas) by a stop and get the image at the 'correct' exposure that I wanted in the first place without having to crush the blacks and have an ugly, thin digital negative.

>>2939865
>weekend
>bad idea

>buy one and spend a few days
>great idea

I don't get it?

>>2940064
If you buy it you can practice as much as you want. if you rent it and intend to use it, you won't have enough time to get used to it AND use it.

So either rent it for yourself to practice and only then use it on something or just buy one and be done with it.

>>2939966
>>2939960

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation, but I'm not sure I totally understand. If the REDs will capture at ISO 800 regardless, why does it all matter what iso/ei you use? Since the raw image data is the same, isn't the EI simply metadata and thus something that might as well could be done in post?

>>2939961
mantona
Get the standfoot seperately

File: phfx_REDWeaponTest2015_HighlightRollOffCompare.jpg (261KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1920x1080px

>>2940207
Well for one thing it's so that you have a general idea what your final image will look like with the settings you're at once graded (which is also nice if the director/clients are looking at the monitor, which is always). If you're exposing for, say 1600, it's nice to say how the various light values will fall in the final image.

Technically yes, with RED you can change ISO in post, but the image will be affected to some extent depending on what compression ratio you're shooting at with the Redcode, as the image here shows. If you're shooting 3:1 compression ratio, fuck it you have basically all the possible information anyway, exposing 'correctly' is just a way to save time in post. But if you're shooting 5:1 - 9:1 which is what most people will shoot so as not to have ridiculous file sizes, something's gotta give, that information will get compressed somewhere. Putting the EI where you need it to be tells the camera to save more information in the highlights and not worry about the shadows so much; the dynamic range always stays the same, it just shifts a bit to where you need it to be so it doesn't throw the important information out the window.

>>2940269
And picking up from this, if you're shooting on a camera which uses actual compressed codecs, like the FS7, this becomes even more important since a lot of information is being thrown away so if you clip the highlights you're done, it's gonna be a white blob.

I haven't heard a lot of people do this with the Alexa though, partly because 4444 should be good enough to save most of the information, but probably also because the sensor is so nice. I've talked to DP's who say that they prefer to blow the highlights sometimes cause the roll-off of the Alexa is so pleasant (add a diffusion filter and it's gonna be even better). Plus it's a camera that is so good at reading the shadows and so clean in terms of noise that it's pretty easy to expose for the highlights and just lift the shadows in post if you need to, since it won't look like shit.

File: afmg2.png (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>2940232
>£172
>same as a manfrotto which has better legs

Seems too expensive. The whole point to ask for chinese is to get away with prices on Aliexpress.com.
What do you mean separately?

>>2940280
Buy the parets seperately, the monopod, the foot and the fluid head.
I got myself the foot and monopod seperately, because i already had a fluid video-head.

File: ball-tingler.gif (923KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 500x200px

>>2940282
sounds too much of a hassle. Can you save $$ this way?
Looking into this one now an exact copy of the Manfrodo however it says 10KG weight !
If this is true it won't cut it.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/MILIBOO-ally-aluminum-video-monopod-for-video-camcorder-Fluid-head-Portable-travel-15KG-bear-mefoto-dslr/32631956064.html?ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_2_10056_10065_10068_10055_10054_10069_10059_10073_10017_10071_10070_10060_10061_10052_10062_10053_10050_10051,searchweb201603_4&btsid=24a090b1-6c91-4b97-a602-e96b80d2e3e9

File: Quenchiest.png (430KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 720x480px

>looking online for budget video fluid-heads
>come across one video
>"best evar for lowest price!!!"
>click on link
>115 Dollaridoos
>not even a standard QR-Plate
Are these people shills or are the 20-60 Dollar things really THAT BAD?

>>2939004
Here's the thing about the mini - I agree that the monitor should have been designed differently, having to go in between the screen and viewfinder in terms of menus is really not practical. However, they're fixing that in the 4.0.

Native ISO is 800, btw, not 400.

Shooting on CFast is actually better IMO, allows for bigger workloads on ProRes 422HQ et al, which is pretty good, the fast reading rate also allows for fast transfers and easy workflow from the card. It's about 75% as fast as a RED 4K dump, while in 422HQ UHD.

Accessories are not too worthwhile. You're better off getting a wooden camera shoulder kit, I'll tell you that right now. The mini shoulder kit is nice but it needs a second arm, and it doesn't go very far forward, which kills the monitor usage.

The batteries are actually an upside. It shoots on par with a lot of big cameras, and it is a super 35. It is by all means a cinema camera, and as such the batteries allow for further accessories that would not be powered so easily otherwise.

I've also flown it on a Ronin, and while it barely cuts the size, it's good and works on all three positions.

how do I get this sort of effect?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iC14QbRbJQ

>>2940375
background with fancy colors, well lit. a spot from above and behind spotting on the lens. lens without hood. the person's head should cast a shadow on the lens. and most likely there is some softglow and vector blur filter.

which frame rate (if any) has a more cinematic/filmic feel, 25fps or 30fps? also what are some techniques to make digital footage look more like film?

>>2940686
that's a whole science itself. but to cut it brief you'll get some results with 24fps and compressing values into the mid-tones. especially the slope in the darks is important. noise and stuff is overrated. an also crucial aspect is sharpness. avoid sharpness filters and use a very sharp lens and at its best values. my personal pro-tip is to slope shadows, compress mids, drop gamma and raise ab-saturation in lower mids while keeping values away from 0% and 100%.

>>2940726
thanks senpai. what's ab saturation, though?

>>2940746
saturation calculated on the (l)ab channels instead of rgb.

>>2940726
While I agree with avoiding sharpness filters
> use a very sharp lens and at its best values

Many DP's would strongly disagree with this statement, especially when using digital cameras. The sensors capture very sharp images anyway and good, new lenses (zeiss etc.) are extremely sharp, and on top of that people are shooting 4,5,6K these days and downsampling to whatever they need (1080/2K usually). If you combine all of this you get crazy sharp images that bring out all the imperfections in people and make images look very clinical. This is why many DP's will stay away from sometihng like the Zeiss CP2's. They're technically good lenses, but they are so sharp, clean and well designed that anything you shoot on them looks like a commercial for a medical practice.

That's why there are so many people these days shooting on vintage lenses, rehoused Panavisions from the 70s, Kowa Prominars, rehoused old Cookes are some of the most expensive lenses to rent and almost impossible to buy because they are so in demand. Technically they have flaws, the coatings are old , they flare and they are significantly softer than new lenses, so in combination with a RED Dragon shooting 5K you'll get a very nice image, clean but film-like.

This is also why many people use diffusion filters in front of the lens, like Tiffen's Black Pro Mist, Pearlescent, Glimmerglass, etc. They take the edge off a bit from digital sensors, they help smoothen skin and halate highlights so you can mask some of the issues with digital cameras (extreme sharpness, ugly highlight roll-off, etc.).

>>2940842
It's easy to decrease information afterwards, but impossible to increase it.

I'm sure many fancy filmfags do fancy stuff with fancy old equipment. But this does not mean this must or even should be the way to go.
And it sounds more like a defense for not being able to afford some top-tier glass.

There were incredible sharp lenses also years ago. And they were just as today incredible expensive. And big budget productions used them. There are some astonishing clear and sharp works from the film times.

And most of all my original statement was related to that you absolutely can see if a footage was sharped digitally or if it was just shot with a good lens. And the latter is what you want for whatever you might call a 'cinematic' look.

File: lensflare comparison.jpg (519KB, 847x1500px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 847x1500px

>>2940904
Alright, I'm just saying film, as in motion pictures, has never been super sharp, and it's a constant issue with cinematographers that cameras and lenses are so sharp these days. From all the way back in the 20's you had people putting shit on the lens to diffuse it (see Dreyer's 'Vampyr'), and it's more of a problem than ever now. Sharp images are a characteristic of video, not film, hence why people want to avoid it, it looks video-y. In focus, yeah, but not super sharp.

While it may be easy to decrease information in post, this mostly applies to light levels and color, not so much optical effects. For example look how different these 3 lenses flare, in terms of color, shape, effects on the overall picture. Each has a different personality and the problem with newer, more optically perfect lenses is that by definition a 'perfect' lens will have no personality (they're often closest to the Leicas in that comparison picture, but cleaner).

And although there have always been sharp lenses, celluloid is naturally softer as a medium, sharp lens + film works great cause you get a lot of detail while still keeping that nice look. In fact many huge projects shot on film are actually shot on new lenses (see: Spectre, The Force Awakens).

A good lens usually doesn't mean an optically perfect lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	900
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:05 23:33:20
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	847
Image Height	1500

File: django-unchained-jamie-foxx-franco-nero.jpg (646KB, 3000x1395px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 3000x1395px

>>2940926
>implying django isn't shot on film and sharp af

also you can't compare lens flares to sharpness. if the flare is wanted it is a specific kind of information which might be hard to reproduce.
decreasing information by lowering sharpness however is very easy.

and film wasn't a softer medium per se. a 64mm film has more lines to resolute than most aps-c sensors.

I think you misunderstand de facto sharpness with sharpness impression. this is exactly what I was talking about. the 'cinematic look'(tm) contains actually a lot of information. but it is not pulled out by psycho-visual sharpening filters which give the impression of sharpness while actually destroying information. tho this filters are still needed when the footage is swamp. so to get the real look you need very sharp lenses to get the level of detail without the need of working around. .. remember that 'cinematic' is made for cinemas. you need crisp details on such a large (and kinda washed) medium.

your claim zeiss primes wouldn't be used by top-tier dps is lacking evidence anyways and I don't believe a second that these and other 8k >20k$ primes are made for hobbyists who does not know better.

>>2941005

yeah, but conversely look at something like The Neon Demon shot digital, but with vintage glass and all sorts of on camera diffusing to look more flattering shooting the models.

File: Hudson .png (3MB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x816px

>>2940926
>film, as in motion pictures, has never been super sharp,

the mid to late 90s was the exact right amount of sharp

Anybody else hate drones?

I really hate drones, if I see another static dollying wide angle aerial shot I'm gonna hit critical mass.

>>2941083
well, there are always people who are intimidated by new technologies. it's mostly about the fear to be left behind because they don't want to learn new stuff and then get angry when others use them ... that's normal.

>>2941025
to offer a consensus I'd say that ofc sharpness is not what makes a good picture in the end. and it is part of the artistic decisions whether to use sharper or softer lenses to create the wanted look. and generally I support every decision which does not feed high-price brands just for the sake of even the last bit more technical perfection.

on the other hand there is a competative pressure on the market to hold up with current possibilities. as terrantino said in the 90s he would prefer to shoot everything on super8 because he loved the aesthetics. but he didn't for obvious reasons.

so it is a permanent act of balancing between artistic decisions, competition and budget. and it is every's filmmaker task to find his way to achieve the compromise which will support his artistic expression while offering contemporary quality and for an efficient economy.
there are many ways and the more individual the way is the more significant the result will be.

>>2941211
>>2941083

I don't agree with that guy in that I don't hate drones, but I do agree that drones are very limited right now. Almost all the shots are the same, and it's rare to see someone utilize a drone in a new, creative way. Even with cheap drones and the ability for people to share their shots on the internet, we still see the same shots on like 90% of videos out there.

That said, on the technology comment, I don't think he's afraid or anything that ridiculous. New technologies have to be proven useful by creative DPs in order to gain traction, especially if the tech doesn't fill an inherent need.

For example, the current VR craze. I am really curious to see where that's heading. Lubezki is doing something with it, and I personally know a damn good DP who just did a project with that tech. Some say it's the next step, some say it's just a gimmick, and to be honest I'm leaning more towards the ladder. I can't remember who, but someone even said that with VR, "acting is cheapened, people don't have to act much anymore" I mean, what the fuck is that about? Is VR a medium for teling stories? Or is it simply to provide people with pretty pictures? I'm curious to see what someone like Lubezki does with it.

Going to try some nightclub video work tonight again /vid/.

What do you of think of va Canon EOS 6D, Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, GSS LCD Loupe and this https://www.teds.com.au/glanz-led-98a-video-light for lighting?

I tried it last week with just the lens and camera and the gain noise and shakyness of the it was horrible, but they still posted it.

>>2941419
I was able to do club stuff with a 7D and a monopod. 1600 ISO footage was pretty noisy, but Neat Video cleared it up almost magically.

>>2941552
We had an actual videographer on site with a 5D Mark IV and an a6000, but they didn't use any of his footage. I would have imagined he would have gotten some better footage...

I was also considering installing Magic Lantern, but I don't really want to shoot RAW and have to deal with the memory issues.

>>2941643
Magic lantern is great, it's not like it forces you to shoot raw

>>2941643
Definitely install ML. You don't need to bother with RAW, there are so many other great features. Metadata recording, zebra striping, and waveform display all come to mind.

If the a6500 has lower rolling shutter than the a6300 I just bought a few weeks ago I will literally kill myself, screencap this post.

>>2942100
The level of stupidity increases here with every post. .. Now we will kill ourselves because of a technical aspect with which nodody here ever had the slightest problem. The situations in which a rolling shutter becomes a crucial problem are so rare that you will rather win the lottery. What bullshit are you talking about?

Please stop being so retarded. It hurts.

I'm trying to get a 60 second clip into webm down to less than 5MB to post on here. I'm using online-convert dot com to convert from MP4, but it always changes the bitrate to 128kpbs, making the clip 15MB big, no matter what I put into the conversion settings.
Can anyone help?

I'm trying to get a 60 second clip into webm down to less than 5MB to post on here. I'm using online-convert dot com to convert from MP4, but it always makes the clip 15MB big, no matter what I put into the bitrate settings.
Can anyone help?

File: do_it_for_her.png (47KB, 1400x1000px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1400x1000px

Best Steadicam/Rig/shouldermount/whatever-else-can-be-used-stabilise-videos for a Canon DLSR?

Nothing too fancy, Budget: £100 ($125)

Thanks in advance!

>>2942241
There is one being produced by a dozen different companies for that price.
Buy it from Neweer.
Generally, Neweer and Andoer are your best cheapo-brands.

>>2942122
you must not own an a6300. the rolling shutter is attrocious. way worse than most any other.

>>2942238
Download ffmpeg from Zeranoe if you're on Windows.
Extract the archive and navigate to .../ffmpeg/bin/. There you will have ffmpeg.exe file.
Then Shift + Right Click on the empty space in the folder and select "Open command window here".
Once the window opens write without quotes but with spaces
"ffmpeg -i "
Then drag your input file over the window and release. It will write the file name there.
Then continue the command line like this (be sure to separate each command with spaces)
"ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vcodec libvpx -b:v 396k -an output.mp4"
"output.mp4" signifies the end file name and its location. If you write only the name then it will be placed in the current directory the command line is located at, in this situation it's ..ffmpeg\bin\ .
If you're not hitting right target size try decreasing the bitrate number that goes after "-b:v". Letter "k" in "396k" means kilobits so don't omit it when changing the number else the number will mean bits.

Good lukc!

>>2942595
Thanks anon, I settled for the NEWEER shoulder rig. It should do the job for now. Hopefully get something better in the future.

>>2942944
You gotta know what you need. A shoulder rig that doesn't work with the 15mm rail System isn't worth buying since you can't Upgrade it.
A monopod is good for stabilization too and can add some movement to a shot. Shoulderrigs are only good for long Event shoots where you need to move a lot and need a shitton of Equipment like lights and monitos on there too.
Flycams are for when you don't need to Zoom or Manual Focus.

how do i get a job as a video editor?

>>2933909
way to expensive for me.

File: IMG_20161009_125754_processed.jpg (269KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1080x1080px

>>2938464

got the crane 3axis for 450pounds and it is quite good but it needs some tweaking such as some weights in order to balance pancake lenses. Not the best but a good choice.

>>2943266
editors are actually quite wanted. so if you don't mind to edit stupid stuff you easily should find enough mid-tier companies where you can apply.

>>2943707
do they need a full-fledged skillset?

Does it make sense to sell my C100Mk2 for a FS5?
Aside from 4k and slow mo, C100 looks better

>>2943790
mostly they want you to be fit in avid & co. I guess a show-reel with some fancy editing (decelerating slow-mos, split screens, fast and rythmic cuts etc.) can be helpful. try to use the word "industry-standard" as often as possible.

>>2944031
the fs5 has way better options for catching the raw signal in way better quality. .. so if you need raw go fs5, if not the approx. 2k$ more are not necessary at all costs.

I'm part of a new project in Karlsruhe, Germany from November on. It is a TV-Show in a SitCom format. We are half finished with the pre-poduction and now going to build the stage. We still have plenty of jobs for the crew open (as well as full cast), and I wanted to ask in /vid/ if someone here is in the south-west of Germany (or north-east of France, maybe Luxemburg or east Belgium) and would be interested in a position. For example Executive Producer, Production Manager or Studio Producer (based on accrual attendance). (Camera-Ops, DoPs, Gaffers, Cast etc. we'll search on common sites for jobs in the creative industry, but producers I rather search more personally to be desu).

I'm just a Production Coordinator but would be happy to suggest interesting people to the CEO of the producing company.
It is a quite unusual project with very unusual people (and I'm really honest in regard to that).

Feel free to reply. Or don't. I don't care.

>>2944043
For reasons I gonna tripcode my identity temporarily.

>>2939565
how does the TV single go for long takes?
i've heard it can freak-out at times and shudder/shake around?
I'm looking to use one with an a7s2 like yours for a 12-15 minute single-shot film and want to make sure it's dependable before buying/renting one

File: 8.jpg (29KB, 720x508px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 720x508px

well this has been my day
cne 50-1000 + sony f55 + live fibre back

>>2944057
>cn-e 50-1000
madman

File: P1110785 TWO.jpg (2MB, 1619x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1619x1000px

>>2944043
>Karlsruhe, Germany
I live in Karlsruhe, study media at the University and have a G70. I'm on here regularly

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G70
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:08:18 14:19:32
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1619
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Manual
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Unknown
Focus Mode	Unknown
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Off
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Audio	No
Flash Bias	0.00 EV

>>2944114
That's interesting. Which uni is it? In case you are in the first semesters of a BA degree and need an obligatory traineeship I can offer you one. (Technology we don't need ofc.)

>>2944120
7th semester. the KIT, subject is called WMK. Did an internship doing technical translations for medical companies.

>>2944057
Why do you need all that useless crap? You're not going to make anything worthwhile anyway.

>>2944120
If you can give me any new info on the offer, please let me know.

File: IMG_20161011_012749223.jpg (3MB, 2340x4160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2340x4160px

Wanted to buy a wide ARCA SWISS setup with a dualscrew plate to Make a new light Setup when I realized I can just use my Ultrapod like this.
Shoot mosty documentary/Event stuff

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	Moto G (4)
Camera Software	athene-user 6.0.1 MPJ24.139-63 64 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:11 01:27:50
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	Unknown
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	Flash, Auto
Focal Length	3.64 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2340
Image Height	4160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84

File: 1476150171027[1].jpg (58KB, 350x320px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 350x320px

Filming on a go pro for non action movies.

Thoughts?

>>2944406
Practical, not ideal at all.

>>2943707
any examples of such companies?
>>2944032
>avid & co
what's "co"?

>>2944054
I just did a ~10 minute take on foot and it seemed to do fine.

Before I tuned the PIDs I had shaking at certain rotations, mostly of the yaw axis.

>>2944485
>co
Compagnie

>>2944515
sweet

>>2944209
filming a national sports final is not useless and i would definitely call it worthwhile.
btw we kitted up 4 f55's like this.

>>2944131
That sounds more like popular science & journalism. Maybe you are better off in Marketing & Communication?

I'm in KA today to view a potential location for the studio & stage. I'll have a coffee at Cafe Emaille (Europaplatz) at 16:00h. I'm the one with the Lumix cam on the table. Stop by or don't (actually anybody who's in the aera and interested may stop by). Cu or not.

>>2944582
forgot to tripfag

File: intel-core-i5-6500-processor-300px-v3.jpg (28KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x300px

Can you redpill me on editing PC specs? Specifically about CPUs ang GPUs.

I don't believe that an i5 6500 or even less can't edit downsized 4K video.
However all the gearfags jump on me and go like "an i7 is an absolute minimum for video editing and you just CAN'T edit with an i5."

I dunno, I used to edit full HD video in 2010 with no problems or even an i5.

2) Just how much does a GPU affect editing? Can I get away by buying a $170-190 card on the editing rig I build?

>>2944612
gpu can help a bit with applying effects and such, but it's 99% down to the CPU for rendering.
I would definitely recommend an i7. an i5 will do, but rendering times will be much longer and you'll struggle like hell if you ever want to move to 4k.

>>2944612
I can only speak for my experience with premiere, after effects and blackmagic's resolve
where cpu doesn't make too much of a difference from what I feel. I ran that software on a lot of different workstations at uni and on my computers. of course having more cores does help, but the software seems to be efficient enough with only the 'physical' cores, hyperthreading doesn't seem to make much of a difference with my kind of work. maybe that's different for people who do complex compositing, but that's just my 2 cents on the i5 vs i7 thing.

gpu does makes a huge difference for adobe products and resolve, that blackmagic shit won't real time preview anything without at least a 390x, which I found to be a really suitable gpu. good opencl performance and the amount of vram is what counts there.

the most important thing is storage, spinning drives will bottleneck the fuck out of your editing, especially with multicam work. striped disks or even raid10 is the way to go, or just go all ssd for the projects you're currently working on if you have the cash. especially samsung 950pro/sm961 m2 ssds are a dream, but don't forget factoring in enough backup storage.

ram is also important, I think 16GB is the minimum so you don't need to heavily rely on caching too much stuff on the disks which in turn slows down scrubbing in adobe programs.
resolve wants all your ram anyway

on that note: I did a 24 part multicam edit (just synced music video overdub takes) in premiere the other night just for shits and giggles on my laptop to preview it right after shooting and it actually worked and previewed in real time with only a bit of lag while scrubbing, specs are: i7 4710hq, 32gb ram, all ssd, quadro k4000m, files are fhd 25fps prores 422.
premiere seems to become more efficient everyday, shit's magical

>>2944630
>>2944646
Thanx famm. I absolutely don't have the cash so I will have to go SSD for windows and 7200 2TBx2 for storage maybe raid them for back up too.

>>2944676
an internal raid is not a backup, it's just redundancy at best

howtogeek.com/219197/youre-not-backing-up-properly-unless-you-have-offsite-backups/

just keep that in mind if you're doing work, loosing data will basically end your business

I need to make an aftermovie. I've never done this before.

>Sony A7s (borrowed from school)
>50mm F1.8
>18-35 cinelens

OR

>Olympus OM-D EM5 (mine)
>M.ZUIKO 12-50mm weather sealed EZ lens
>Fujian 35mm F1.4 (manual everything)
>Fujian 25mm F1.4 (manual everything)
>Panasonic 25mm F1.7

I also have a gorillapod with panoramic video head.
Which camera should I use and why?

>>2944819
What's an aftermovie? What are you going to be filming, for how long? Will you be near power? Do you have enough spare batteries for either of them?

Beginner filmmaker here. Is wolfcrow.com any good?

>>2944917

A personal but still very professional looking recap of a 2 day design event.
I can only charge my single battery at night. I do not have spare batteries for either camera, but I am thinking of getting a second one.

>>2944681
what bullshit. with backups we're talking about probabilities. the probability that one hdd malfunctions is low but existent. the probability that two hdds malfunction within a period too short to re-backup the data from the remaining disk is practically zero. unless we're talking about the building burning down. .. in which case you really seem to have different problems at all ..

File: photography-insurance.jpg (37KB, 600x250px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x250px

I need to insure my stuff (editing PC at home + camera equipment for outdoors shoots. non business use yet).
Do you have any recommendations how to go about it?
How much should I expect to pay?
I am in the UK.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:08:08 14:51:45
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	250

>>2945176
no, you don't need any insurance for your private pc and your snapshit camera.

File: 000362.png (93KB, 628x878px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 628x878px

>>2932449
I need to film myself, quarter plan, in various setups, mostly outside or non-ideal lighting conditions

Setup : tripod, 2400 lumens flashlight with DIY shit softbox or beauty dish, lavalier, 24mm f2.8 @ APS-C

The problem : I need to try various setups, then take a pic with a remote to ensure correct focus and exposure, then film the sequence, and so on ; also, the depth of field is short and the hyperfocal too long (pic related)

Wat do ? should I get a tiny-sensored device to ensure good DoF ? or am I stuck like this ?

>>2945201
get lights with decent output so you can stop down
hmi, kinoflo or at least potent leds like rotolight anova

>>2945239
no access to line power

File: eosm.jpg (42KB, 614x352px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 614x352px

is this still the /vid/ recommended best quality budget video camera?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2945244
there are many led lamps like the anova that run on v-mount batteries

>>2945258
No.
The Lumix G7 does 4K@30fps and FHD@60fps for 2 thirds of the price (body only)
The Lumix G85 also has weather sealing AND IBIS for the same Price (body only)

File: tfw1475536101150.png (90KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 384x384px

>>2945176
Bump
Ignore the hothead >>2945180
he doesn't have a clue abouty situation or equipment or the city I live in.

>>2945544
wait till you know what an insurance especially in this kind of city will cost then, and you'll change your mind all of a sudden to "hey, actually I don't need an insurance. lol"

File: image.jpg (115KB, 1160x1500px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1160x1500px

This may be too specific of a question but fuck it I'll try, does anyone have expirience with the Roxant Pro stabilizer and a Nikon d5300 (roughly 1.5 lbs with lens).

Got this thing a day ago and I feel like I'm somewhat close to getting the ideal balance but my camera still wants to sway from left to right and still moves kind of crazily when doing the "move the arm all the way up and see if it stabilizes smoothly in roughly 3 seconds". So I'm mainly just wondering if anyone who has/had this stabilizer has any experience with setting it up on a camera with similar or exact weight.

My specifics are

Camera - roughly 1lbs
18-55mm lens - .4 lbs (kept at 18mm)

Currently my settings are with the handle at the same spot as the picture and the knob that holds the weight arm is at the second hole almost fully extended down. Finally, I'm using just the 2nd 1st most heaviest weight.

And before this gets suggested, I am very aware of the "techniques" required such as smooth walking and arm movements, I'm just asking about settings.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1160
Image Height	1500
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2939741
the sirui p204s is very appreciated, there's a lot of videos on youtube

>>2946431
So it is. Thanks.

Does anyone have any experience with aerial videography? I might have some questions . . .

>>2946431
Tabarnak!

I'm looking for a camera for /vid/. new to this shit, making pretty varied stuff, just making short films solo, so something very versatile.

i've got it narrowed down to buying a Sony a6000 and Nikon d5200. My budget is around 600. (i'm getting shit off ebay)

between those two, what do you think is better/worse, what are the big differences?
also totally open to suggestions on other cameras to consider

File: IMG_4051.jpg (43KB, 564x384px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 564x384px

Hey /vid/, me and my pals are shooting some prank "/vids/" on this new camera we got from some old company and what we were wondering was how in the heckeroni do you change the ISO on this?

Thanks everyone oh and sorry the photo is so bad my Nokia is a tad old!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	564
Image Height	384
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2946764
RTFM !!!

>>2946673
D5300(the version after d5200) has 1080/60p video, whereas the d5200 only has 30p. The D7200 has a mic input, I'd recommend that over either of them.

Best option (but much more expensive) is D500, with rather snazzy 4k video and a touchscreen for picking AF points. I wouldn't recommend the A6000, apparently it doesn't have a mic input. This is fixed in the A6300.

So A6000 < D5200 < D5300 < D7200 < A6300 < D500.

For video, D5300 is the best option with your budget. If you can stretch to the D7200, that has more nice video features you'll find useful like headphone jack and flat picture profile.

hey guys, working on a video right now in Filmora and I can't find out anywhere how to ken burns pan/zoom. any tips?

>>2946764
you have to drills into the side of the white thing so that the film gets more exposure
>source: I'm Roger Deakins

>>2946812
where would you place the Lumix G7 on that ranking?

>>2946812
I've been doing DSLR video for 7 years and I've never used the mic port on a camera as anything other than a backup/scratch. Nikon bodies are such ultra-shit for video; you can't change aperture without leaving live-view.

An EVF is the single greatest thing that's happened to me. Get an a6000 body and some old manual lenses. You'll spend less and you'll enjoy it more.

File: Ravelli_Tripod.jpg (81KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1200x1200px

I have a Ravelli tripod I use with my 70D.

The metal piece on the mount part (not the screw) fell out of it. While the 70D doesn't have a second hole, I do have an older vixia (like HFR10 I think) camcorder that I use as a secondary angle camera. It seems like a rather generic piece of metal (I see it on almost every tripod) that I assume I can order a bag filled with them on amazon, I would like to know what to look for though.

>>2947054
I know it's an anti-rotation pin, I just don't see where to order just the pin itself

>>2947055
You don't need the pin. Mine all came off years ago.

>>2947064
i'd still like to have a spare pin, it's driving me nuts

>>2946812

I would get the a6000. It's compatible with more cheap vintage primes and doing video on Nikon bodies kind of sucks if you don't have a d7xxx/d7xx.

>>2946812
thanks for the post

i'm really not worried much about a mic jack. using that as primary audio is fucking dumb. It's good reference audio, but I record everything onto a Zoom separately anyway.

d500 sounds great but it's literally like 3x my budget for the body alone. i'm actually finding some really good deals on the d5300 so that's my contender to beat.

>>2947075
How do video on Nikons suck? ive just been comparing the numbers and features and they seem to have the edge there compared to Canon. No clue on actual usability since i'm new as fuck to this.

>>2947130
Numbers and features are secondary to ease-of-use. Take it from someone who's worked with Canon, Nikon, and Sony bodies. When you're talking about video at the price range you're talking about, go Sony.

The a6000 will save you money on lenses, which means you'll get to have more of them. The a6000 has an EVF, which is seriously incredible when you want stability or you're outside. It's a lot easier to focus when you can cut out all distraction and have the thing right up to your eye.

>>2947136
I figured. Not knowing shit about cameras means i've mostly just had to go off specs.

So what, with an EVF i can just see what my shot will actually come out like more so than on some dslr?

I'm mostly liking the a6000 now anyway. only reserve is it doesnt have a tilt and swivel screen, which since i'm the actor and cameraman it makes shit leagues easier for me

Also side question, how is the kit lense on the A6000? Is it shit and I need to upgrade right away? How are those ebay bundle things, any good?

How hard is it to get good handheld footage on bmpcc without OIS?

Currently doing video work -fiction, and videography- on a t2i. I think that an a6000 would fit me on style (portability, light) but I love my rebel and Magic Lantern way too much.

Will I miss functionality if I switch?
Would I like a 5D better?

Plus, I don't see Sony as a camera company and its hard for me to start investing in their glass.

>>2947138
Yes. The EVF means you will see your shot in the viewfinder exactly as it will be recorded. On an SLR you will have to flip the mirror up to get into video mode, which means viewing from the back screen only.

The a6000 should have remote capability from the smartphone app, which will let you view (albeit at low quality) through the camera wirelessly.

The kit lens is usable, and it will autofocus nicely with the body, but if you're serious about video I'd buy a body only and get some manual primes. I'm a huge fan of the super takumar 55mm and 135mm lenses. Both are m42 screw mount, and can be had for ~30 off ebay. The cheap <$20 adapters will do fine, since there are no optics involved.

tl;dr probably buy the body only, use the money you save to get two or three lenses and a tripod if you don't already have one.

>>2947508
why would you invest in sony glass for video?
do some research

>>2947508
any decent glass branded as sony will be made by ziess, so no issue there.
and sony as far as a camera company is concerned are far beyond nikon, perhaps even canon, particularly in the broadcast world.

canon has the entrly-level video segment pretty much cornered with offerings like the rebel series and cheap ef glass.

sony take it a step up with the a7s and stuff like the fs5/7.

personally, you'd do better investing in some cheap 1x1 bi-colour led panels and stands. they'd set you back about the same as a new sony body and lenses and are much more critical to your final image than the camera you have.

>>2947484
unless you're michael j. fox,
get a gimbal.

>>2947484

if you want to minimize the amount of warp stabilizer applied in post, you'll need to use a pretty wide lens and have a very stable grip. it is not easy without using some form of brace.

File: 20140908_222326_Android_proc.jpg (118KB, 1296x728px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1296x728px

>>2947484
I'm using it a lot on the shoulder, with some practising and good balance on the rig it behaves just like any other camera that way
full handheld is basically impossible with that thing, even with a better grip/cage and a speedboosted 18mm because it's completely unbalanced
I'd get a basic shoulder rig like a tilta, a viewfinder and a v-mount battery plate to balance it and you're set

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	XT1039
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:09:08 22:23:26
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	Unknown
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84

>>2933155
You think it's better to go into the pl lens mount system or stick with emoint. I'm a sony guy with an a7s2 looking to go into full cinema work. I want no tolling shutter

>>2932449
Ok so I'm basically cool with my decisions so far but I want to run it by you guys first just in case.
I got a Bmpcc, small rig, follow focus ect. Battery solutions (Astro pro gen2) everything seems good but I've been cheap and only been using the zuiko 17mm f/2.8 but it's got its limitations (mainly handling desu) and for doing a project I need something else. I've found that the best way to go might be the bmpcc meta sb + Ef mount glass but that is gonna cost $1400~cad and I can't find an Ef zoom that's a good focal range and f/ range, and parfocal. But I've found a vicon 12.5-70mm f/1.4 that has slight vignetting but is set up with follow focus gears, has a good focal range and f/, + parfocal. So what's you're guys weigh in? Is the vicon usable, is sb only way? Are there other options? Should I just get native mft mount glass, (Rokinon, slrmagic ect.)

>>2948159
don't expect too much from other lenses. the zuiko 17 2.8 is decent and results in a quite useable fl on the small sensor. if you want less fiddeling you can buy one video optimized lens from mitakon, slr magic or samyang. speedboosters are overrated. larger apertures than 2.8 for video also. wider angles than 35mm (ff equiv.) also.
so maybe a zoom can be useful. but it's fiddeling again.
my tip: get a sigma art lens in your prefered fl and that's it.

What a good camera that is weather proof for newbie film student?

>>2948590
How weather proof? What are you going to be doing?

Poorfag here trying to get into short film and shit

Bought an a6000 now I need a lens. Can only afford one so I'm looking for a cheap (under 200 on eBay) lens that's a good all-rounder.

I don't know shit about cameras so I don't know what would be good. I was thinking of a 50mm f/1.8 but again I got no clue

The crop factor of the a6000 is 1.6 not sure how thatd fuck things up

Looking for a microphone to stick onto my d7100. My mate wants to use it to record his band. Obviously not looking for studio quality and whatnot, I know what the limits are concerning one microphone in a room with a full band.

The built mic didn't do bad considering, was just kissing most of the lowend so I'm guessing I need something with a larger diaphragm. Is there anything below £50? Cheap & cheerful will do. Thanks lads.