/vid/ - Video General

I'm confused about choosing either Sony A7 and Canon 80D. Both are pretty much the same price here.

>>2993006
well this thread is normally packed with sony shills who will tell you to buy the a7
So in advance of that, let me tell you about the 80d
>great video autofocus
>canon's colour science
>weather sealed
>ergonomically great
It doesn't have c-log, but you can download an equivalent. It has a mic jack, 1080p/60fps, the usual shit. It's definitely a very viable camera for pretty much whatever you want to do for video. Having said that, it doesn't do 4k and some places are easily impressed by shit like that.

I don't know enough to tell you about the a7, but I'm sure someone will come along and tell you why it's the greatest camera in the world.

>>2993006
Here's some people discussing the sony a7 which coincidentally just popped up

http://nofilmschool.com/boards/questions/a7-filmmaking

looking for cheap, wired lavalier microphones, best in double pack, for interviews and reporting.
Also thinking about getting ones that work with smartphones. I only have one Zoom H1

can anyone recommend a good (shitty) DV camera? leaning towards the sony PD170 but I'm not sure. I want to shoot faux-documentaries that look 10 years old.

File: 416482-pentax-m-series-lenses.jpg (95KB, 624x462px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 624x462px

New to shooting short movies here.

If I shot with different lenses, for examples Brand A 28mm for a wider shot of a person and then I have a closer cut of the same character in the same spot but with a 50mm from Brand B (or alternatively the same manufacturer but a lot newer/older lens) will it make my shots distinctively different?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	EXIFutils V2.7.4
Photographer	John Riley
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2993599
Colour-wise, it shouldn't do
But the exposure will probably be different

>>2993006
Get the Sony
>2017
>Getting a Canon for video
>Getting a Canon without MAGIC LANTERN for video
lmao

>>2993601
Well meme'd friendo

>>2993599
It depends on what level you are regarding a difference. Since you seem to start with video and your workflow will suffer from bigger issues, it surely will not be a significant problem in the final product.

In terms of a high-tier and consequent motion picture design it can be a problem though, since different lenses from different manufactures (not necessarrily brands) have different characteristics. For example in color-rendering, sharpness, bokeh and uniformity of image quality.
When you recognize that visual design is a very fine and mellow balance of assembed light, you start to realize that the minor differences are crucial. But as long as you illuminate and grade with the slaughter knife it is hardly a problem if you use e.g. a pentax 24mm and an old olympus om 50mm, or if you use e.g. the zeiss cp. line instead.

As an alternative hint, when it bothers you nevertheless for some reason: Consider to use a zoom-lens. At least you won't have any problem with divergating image characters.

>>2993006
instead of 80d, go with eos m5.

>>2993019
downsampling 4k to 1080p will always look better than just straight out of camera 1080.

>>2993602
Why would you even consider a Canon DSLR for shooting video on 2017 if you can't get magic lantern working on it?

>>2993006
panasonic g80 is a better choice.
buy a canon fdn 50mm f1.4 and lens turbo ii.
you're all set.

>>2993616
>always
ALWAYS! AAAAALLLLWWWAAAAYYSS!!!

No.

>>2993666
>canon's colour-science
>native ef mount
>camcorder-like autofocus
I feel like I mentioned this before
Genuinely curious as to what the advantages of an a7 would be other than full-frame. Focus-peaking? It's nowhere near as good/useful as people make out
(s-log isn't that big of a deal to me since you can download profiles for the canon that do the same thing)

>>2993006
pretty much this
>>2993698
If you can wait, get the GH5.
The G85/81/80 comes weather sealed, with magnesium housing, internal stabilization and the new NMOS Sensor.
The GH5 will also have the 10bit 4:2:2 and V-Log.

>>2993738
>The GH5 will also have the 10bit 4:2:2 and V-Log.
I just looked it up... that's amazing
And 60 fps 4k at 8bit 4:2:0

The only thing is that it will cost close to £2000. Add lens adapters to that and you're not far off the canon 5dmkiv, which also records internal 4:2:2, albeit at 8bit (and only at 30fps). But it is dci 4k whereas I assume the gh5 is UHD? I couldn't find any clarification on that

I guess it comes down to the gh5's autofocus system for me

>>2993763
Panasonic never did real 4k, only UHD. But the GH5 will do downsampled 6k so no more 4k-crop (which kicked the cropfactor to 2,3). With a recorder, I think you could record 6k.

I read that it's actually 1800-2000.
It gets announced on wednesday and released April-May.
Panasonic always tries to cram in as many features as possible, other than Canikon, who strategicially withhold features for the next price-bracket

>>2993798
If it actually did 6k external (and from what I've read, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to), it'll be every indie-filmmakers' go-to camera

File: 1483375704512.gif (24KB, 210x200px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 210x200px

>>2993828

How much will the GH4's price drop when they release the GH5? When would it get discontinued? I'm thinking of waiting several months to get the best deal.

Do any of you use shoulder rigs for filming, I've been thinking of getting one, but the decision is between that or a 25mm lens, considering I only have a kit zoom and an adapted old 28mm 3.5.

>>2993703
>implying it's not

>>2993763
haven't you heard?
5d4 is shit.
4k cropped mjpeg.
softer images than a sony and panasonic.

>>2993838
>4k cropped mjpeg
1.7 crop isn't that big a deal

>softer images than a sony and panasonic
I know the video you're talking about. Here's why it's bad
"of course you will see the mk4 image blurrier as it is using the widest aperture. a 2.8 is not a 2.8 in apsc sensor or MFT one. you are not comparing apples to apples here .in sony you have to use f/1.8 and with the gx85 you have to use f/1.2 and with the xt-2 you should use f/1.6 (which technically you cant ) . that's why you will not see the same results . please be more subjective in the future . and do your home work right as the crop factor is the main factor in this comparisons."
"it is not just the depth of field . we are talking about the aperture here . as you know at f1.8 will look blurrier than f2.8 . that's why you see the gx85 sharper at f2.8 as in reality it is not f2.8 but f6.1x . what i wanna say is you have to match all the focal lengths and the apertures then you can see the real difference ." - from youtube comments

I haven't seen any actual proof that canon's 4k is soft. I've seen a lot of praise for its image quality. There's no technical reason why it would be soft since it's a direct sensor readout. What I do know is that it's internal 4:2:2 while sony and panasonic are both 4:2:0

>>2993832
How the fuck do we know? We're not Panasonic Corp, anon.

I got a GoPro hero+ recently so that I could start filming bike rides and make filming in general a new hobby.

Can you guys recommend me some books on editing and any information that could be helpful for a noob?

>>2993853

>moire
>fixed pattern shadow noise

>>2993853
aperture doesn't work like that, it doesn't matter what size the sensor behind is.
the lens will perform the same at the same aperture whether it's set on an apsc, ff or m4/3.

>>2993878
>moire
Link? I've seen no evidence of this. I've even seen people say the exact opposite, that there's no moire. There shouldn't be any moire since it's a direct readout
>fixed pattern shadow noise
I haven't heard of this issue with the camera, but I'm not denying it. Again, link for where you heard this?
>>2993885
>it doesn't matter what size the sensor behind is
you could have just said you didn't know what you're talking about
you know the lens on the new iphone has an aperture of around f/1.8? (and it still doesn't get natural bokeh)
Anyone who knows anything about cameras will tell you that one of the pains of full-frame is focusing because its depth of field is so much shallower

>>2993901
that's because the iPhone (or any phone camera) can't focus very close compared to its size, because it doesn't need to. If it was a full-Frame camera it would have a minimum focussing distance of at least 1 meter. can't get bokeh if you don't put the background far relative to the focus point.

>>2993915
what are you even saying? when i use a 300m to focus on something 20m away, I get shit-loads of bokeh in the distance
When I use a macro lens to focus on something 10cm away, I also get shit-loads of bokeh
Have you ever actually used a camera before? I refuse to believe anyone on /p/ would know so little about cameras so I must be massively misinterpreting what you're trying to say

>>2993923
>so I must be massively misinterpreting what you're trying to say
Yes.
Bokeh is created by the ratio of two distances:
1. From camera to Focus point
2. From camera to background/foreground

The further this ratio is from 1, the more blur you get. a wider aperture of course amplifies that.

The reduced blur does not come from applying cropfactor to the f-number. If you have a cropfactor of 2, then you lose ONE f-stop of aperture (because one f-stop means half the light), not DOUBLE the f-number.
This is what so many FFfaggots get wrong.

>>2993943
>The reduced blur does not come from applying cropfactor to the f-number. If you have a cropfactor of 2, then you lose ONE f-stop of aperture (because one f-stop means half the light), not DOUBLE the f-number.
I never said otherwise, I don't think what I quoted did either?
The guy said that, because the other cameras were using smaller sensors, it's the equivalent of using a slower aperture. Maybe that's a bad way to word it, but there's no way you could miss the point unless you were purposely being obtuse

[I've just re-read this entire conversation, are you nitpicking the exact values he used while ignoring his underlying point?]

Are there any Linux programs for color correction and grading for video?

>>2994123
Blender.

File: s-l1600.jpg (417KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1600x1200px

I wanna start filming skating. I've not had much experience in video before but I figured filming my bros and local skaters and editing it all together would be a good place to learn. I'm looking at getting a miniDV camcorder. The obvious choice would be the Sony VX1000 and I've found a few for around £300 (>$400) with fisheye attachments and stuff. But I figured the VX1000 is gonna be artificially expensive because of its history/popularity.
Are there any decent miniDV camcorders that are less popular than the VX and therefore cheaper?
Or should I just pic up a handy cam for £20 from a thrift shop?

>>2993877
Watch videos and copy what you like. Being spoon fed by literature will only lead to boring, uninspired videos. You should strive to develop your own style.

>>2993901
the iPhone's lens has a focal length of something like 2mm. or course it doesn't get bokeh. you need to try very hard to get any noticeable bokeh with something that wide. the small sensor affect the field of view you get out of that lens, (so you get an EQUIVALENT of 28mm of ff) but that's it. the sensor will not affect the glass. if only you actually knew anything instead of repeating bullshit you read.
>>2993915
>>2993923
focus distance is another matter, relevant to depth of field as a whole, but it does not affect the aperture mechanism. confused retards mixing shit up.
>>2993943
bokeh is created by:
>(close) focus distance (and far background) - like you said, but also
>(long) focal length
>(wide) aperture

>>2993736
first 4K over HDMI
focus fucking peaking
>canon's colour-science
just color grade your stuff and shoot log
also full frame, can adapt the EF lenses and whatever anyways so there's that too.
>autofocus in video
might aswell use my phone

>>2994123
cinelerra, lightworks, blender (as mentioned), kdenlive, for pure grading you also can use the image editors like gimp, gmic and imagick since they are executeable from commando line.

>>2994292
>the sensor will not affect the glass
Define "affect"
The sensor means that you'll record different results. To say otherwise is to be flat-out wrong

Using a 35mm lens on a full frame sensor will have a softer background at the same distances as using a 35mm lens on a m4/3 sensor, assuming the same aperture
Stop meme'ing and trying to act like an elitist fuck

>>2994123
Blender and Natron would be my recommendations, it's a bit overkill, but it WILL get you the best results. Natron is a bitch to use though. there are plugins to seamlessly blend Natron into any Blender workflow. Blenders node-compositor on its own is powerful enough tho.
>>2994345
I disadvice using cinelerra. they claim to be super professional but most of their shit only works with workarounds and the Interface is worse than blender (somehow)
KDEnlive is prolly the quickest and easiest way, but it doesn't allow for a great deal of control, like masks and animations and node-compositng.

>>2994294
>first 4K over HDMI
I admit that's useful. But I can't find anything that says that the original a7 records 4k over hdmi. And I know for a fact that it doesn't do it internally
For the price range he's looking at, I somehow doubt he can afford an external recorder

>focus fucking peaking
Shitty for what it is. I don't know a single-cinematographer who actually raves about this. For what is, it isn't nearly as good as one would hope

>just color grade your stuff and shoot log
less time grading is always a bonus
I grade all my footage extensively, shooting in a very flat profile, but the colours still come out much better with canons for me

>might aswell use my phone
You hype up focus-peaking and shit on camcorder-like autofocus? wew lad

I'm not shitting on the a7, from what I hear it's a very capable camera. But to pretend like it blows the competition out of the water is insane

>>2993334
Just do it in post, silly

File: 1481109827638.jpg (46KB, 720x613px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 720x613px

>>2994386
>claim to be super professional but most of their shit only works with workarounds and the Interface is worse
Don't assuming something's shit just because you don't understand it.

It is the same old story: Semi-pros throwing shit on high-tier tech, because developers expect the users to know what they're doing, instead of wasting an incredible amount of effort in useability. Then shit-tier companies come around and offer medi-core tech for a too high price for all those plebs, and what they are actually buying is useability instead of tech power. Which is okay, but then those poor amateurs run around and claim their choice of product would be based on technical reasons because they cannot admit or even see that they are just to uneducated to use the high-tier stuff. And that's unbearable. Stop that.

[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	720
Image Height	613

>>2994386
Also Natron is sweet but based on openfx, which is a pain in the ass. (therefore most bm soft is shit as well as vegas)

>>2993334
Yeah what this guy says makes most sense >>2994402

Just apply some noise, desaturate the colours, lower the contrast and blur the sharpness a bit. Or that might look too amateurish for what you want... experiment
It's easier to make good footage look bad than bad footage look good

>>2994405
>"don't assume"
>goes on to make nothing but assumptions
Oh how ironic.
>wasting effort on usability
I guess Apple and Adobe have been betting on the wrong horse all along. If they didn't focus so much on usability, these two companies could absolutely dominate the marekt.

>Cinelerra
>High-Tier
lol.
It's a rotting corpse of something that was considered appropriate maybe 1999 when everyone was still using the matrix screensaver

>>2994273
Digital Handycams are good. I'd look out for the upper end DCR-TRVxxx models that have a shoe mount and mic port if you plan on using external audio.

>>2994414
oh yeah, when you put it like that, then you are right of course.

>>2994405
lol this is fucking ridiculous

An editor's job is to edit, not be a software engineer. The only people who fuck around with your supposedly "high-tier tech" ARE plebs, because only plebs have the time and patience to deal with unusable bullshit.

>>2994273
Gopro on a handheld stabilizer.

This whole 90s DVcam fisheye trend is a stupid fad that's probably going to die soon and editing with DV is a pain in the ass. A gopro gives you a similar angle of view, vastly superior workflow and image quality, is easier and cheaper to stabilize, and is much less likely to get broken in the course of filming skate stuff. If you really really want the old-school lo-fi look you can do it in post.

If you really really want an actual camcorder I'd look at a used Canon G or XA series.

>>2994452
t. fad kid who does it for free


go pro is shit, you are shit trying to overcompensate for everything in your lfie through new technology, I know your kind. And you probably suck at skateboarding too.

>>2994452
>This whole 90s DVcam fisheye trend is a stupid fad
loooooooooool
Mate come on. DV is part of skateboarding history. Kids have been picking up cheap camcorders and filming their friends ollie shit for decades now. That's not gonna stop anytime soon.
>you can do it in post
my god you're a faggot

>>2994427
I'll check them out. Thanks.

>>2994455
>And you probably suck at skateboarding too.

well yeah, since I haven't been on one since I was a kid. My job is filming, not skating.

If there's any compensating going on, it's being done by people who use gimmicks to cover for their lack of skills. Obsolete cameras are one of those gimmicks. The only reason they're popular right now is because they're novel to millenial kids who didn't grow up looking at footage like that every day, and the novelty is going to wear off once youtube is totally flooded with the stuff.

Good footage shot well with contemporary equipment is always going to be relevant.

>>2994467
DV is part of skating history because DV is what kids could afford for a decade or so. It was Hi8 before DV and VHS before Hi8. Modern HD cameras are cheap now, you're actually proposing spending MORE money on a worse camera. Don't forget, BTW, that DVcams are mechanical devices that break down and are extremely expensive to fix, so you have to work that into the cost. Something like a VX1000 is particularly bad because it was a very expensive camera in its day and parts and repairs are priced accordingly.

There's no reason to use a DVcam except mindlessly emulating old footage. It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools, but a smart craftsman buys the best tools he can get. Stop trying to follow trends and copy old shit and do something original instead.

File: s-l1600-1.jpg (240KB, 900x1440px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 900x1440px

this is pretty kawaii

>>2994469
You're calling DV cameras shit and instead proposing GoPros. I don't understand, I thought you were a smart craftsman?

>>2994479
Have you ever actually shot with a DV camera? A GoPro is vastly superior in pretty much every way except lens, and you negate that advantage by putting a fish adaptor on the DVcam. The GoPro's image quality curbstomps an SD DVcam, it's more durable and reliable, and its workflow is easier to deal with. Oh, and GoPro batteries actually last hours too, unlike ancient camcorder batteries.

I also suggested some affordable used HD camcorder options, if you missed that. You can even snag a used Canon XF100 for not all that much more than that VX, and that's a real modern pro camera that's widely used in reality/documentary TV production. There are also a billion consumer level HD cams out there, you can even get a brand new camera that'll blow the VX out of the water for the same money.

Seriously, I get that the VX and old cams are hyped to hell in the skate community, but they're not magic totems that will make your footage cool. I know the VX well, as my high school had several and I learned to shoot and edit with them, and it's really nothing special. Hell, the footage isn't even that unique, unlike with film vs. digital, DV camera footage just looks like downscaled footage from a cheap HD camcorder.

File: Honey sweetsweet honey.gif (499KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 500x269px

>GH5 will record 400mbps after firmware update in late 2017
And just like that, I am drained

File: 41GFGDKQAPL.jpg (20KB, 500x219px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x219px

>>2994273
Panasonic DVX100b. hands down the best MiniDv camcorder ever made.

Don't even bother with a gopro unless you can get it for under $100 and with an LCD. Your better off with one of those newer consumer camcorders that have barely any manual settings

>>2994385
>The sensor means that you'll record different results.
indeed. never that it wouldn't. but it won't change the depth of field if everything else is the same.
>Using a 35mm lens on a full frame sensor will have a softer background at the same distances as using a 35mm lens on a m4/3 sensor, assuming the same aperture.
well, no. that's just flat out wrong. did you ever do the test yourself? the only thing that will change is the field of view you get.
unless you somehow mean; actual 35mm for the FF, but 35 equivalent for MFT, which would be actually a 12mm lens to have the same FOV. focal length being different, you can then notice the depth of field is shallower on the longer lens.

>>2994667
>12mm on MFT is 35mm FF-equivalent
Not part of your discussion but that's wrong.
MFT has a cropfactor of 2. In Panasonics cropped 4k-mode (which is currently going out the door) it's 2.3 and on the BMPCC it's 2.8
So on standard, normal MFT, 18mm would be a 35mmm FF-equivalent. Which is why you find so many fast 17, 18, 20mm lenses for the mount.

>>2994674
My bad, I'm not so familiar with MFT.
So 18mm it is.

>>2993763
>>2993798

I have a GH4 currently and it can do UHD at 24/25p and true 4K at 24p in 'cinema mode'.

So yes it does do 'actual' 4K as well, and I assume the GH5 will too, there's no reason they'd take it out.

I work as a freelance DP / Colorist in the UK. Ask me stuff if you wish.

>>2993763
The GH5 is so far above the MkIV it's not really a competition. The codecs in it are better, 60fps 4K, from what I heard up to 180fps HD (with presumably the same system as in the GH4 where you can dial it in frame by frame from 24-180, up to 96 on the GH4). 10-bit 422 and v-log is excellent and another thing Panasonic got right is that you can tell the camera what to send through the HDMI, meaning framerates and resolution, which I don't know if you can do on 5D's (maybe someone knows? I'm interested). This is great because it gives you more freedom with external recorders.

A lens adapter you can get for damn cheap, like 25 dollars and it'll be good and sturdy so that's not an issue.

>>2994411
>>2994402
that's inauthentic

>>2994869
canikon have the worst marketing strategy: brand loyalty and bracketlocked features.
Sony and Panasonic overtaking canon hard.

i wonder how long until Canon realizes

>>2994448
>An editor's job is to edit, not be a software engineer

These days editors should be able to write their own scripts to efficiently manipulate high amounts of footage and image sequences. Helps even more so when Avisynth, Vapoursynth, ffmpeg, etc. is involved. Any type of professional working with computers, including nle editors, will have to learn scripting or he'll be outpajeeted.

>>2994452
>and editing with DV is a pain in the ass

Editing it's just like with any other video format. The only inefficient part is having to capture dv footage to a computer at realtime only. After that it's all normal.

>>2994918

I'm sure Canon does realize it, but there is so much brand loyalty for them that it doesn't seem to matter. Basically all the products across the range that they released last year (5DMkIV, C700, etc.) are, specs-wise, 3-4 years behind what Sony and Panasonic are willing to put into their cameras, again across all ranges (A7SII to F65 for Sony, GH4/5 - Varicam35 for Panasonic).

I find it hard to believe that people would be willing to spend 28k on a C700 when you can get more or less the same features for 18k from a VaricamLT, or better, future-proof (for a while) features out of a RED for 25k.

And yet people will get it and say they love the Canon look or something like that...It's weird, wild stuff that their approach still works and people still buy into it.

how to remove black people from footage? i shot film today, and there are 3 black people in footage. i want to remove black people from footage.

>>2994940
compose something in front of them or mask them out and inpaint the background.

>>2994918
Canon has been realising. Everyone claims that they keep gimping their eos line in favour of their cinema eos, but I think their last few releases prove that they're trying to rectify that
They've finally started putting 1080/60 in their cameras.
Their 4k is internal 4:2:2
They've put a huge emphasis on auto-focus in video-mode
They still don't have c-log or focus-peaking though. And their 4k can't be externally recorded. Baby-steps though

>>2994940
realise that race is a social construct and that black people don't actually exist

>>2994973
But see the point is gimping is their strategy throughout the entire line if you look at pricing. None of their cameras are worth the money you pay for them, every camera in the C series is beaten by far in its price range, sometimes by cameras UNDER its price range if you look at the C100 Mk2 vs. various Blackmagics.

Gimping DSLR's cause they wanna sell their other stuff is one thing, but when your upper level gear is also a relative waste of money (up to their top of the line C700 as mentioned above), something must be wrong, either with them or, more likely, with their customer base who is supporting them.

Btw I'm not some Canikon hater or Sony fanboy or whatever, I use all kinds of cameras in what I do (cause I rent them), but the facts speak for themselves at this point...

What does "5x mode" mean for recording on Magic Lantern, does that mean the camera crops in 5x before you record? I see it mentioned when I search on stuff about magic lantern, but I never find any definition of it.

Magic lantern seems pretty shitty if that is what its doing.

>>2994866
Would be kind enough to go penetrate yourself with a cactus, you raging faggot?

>>2995031
I do wonder who their cinema line is aimed at specifically sometimes considering the price-range. But to compare them to blackmagic misses the point
Blackmagic make cheap cameras that technically perform but have horrible ergonomics. I've hold multiple stories of Ursa minis breaking down and failing, stupid design-choices in trying to get them to work and poor battery life

I'm not slagging blackmagic off, but canon have built a reputation as a manufacturer that builds reboust cameras that are easy to use and won't fail. So while the c700 seems like a complete waste of money, I can see why someone might invest in a c500
I dunno, I'd never buy a camera for over 5 grand, at that point you should be renting them anyway and I'd just stick with an Arri or a Red

>>2994920
I agree to this statement. But avisynth and ffmpeg are dead. Just saying.

>>2994940
>>>/pol/

>>2995148
no i hate niggers but this is a photography board

>>2995249
how convenient

>>2994920
Once again, that's ridiculous. Editors are artists, not technicians. They'll never get outsourced because they need to work face to face with directors and DPs and much of their job is done with a director standing right over their shoulder asking for real-time changes. Top-level editors are chosen for their sense of timing and ability to cut to suit the director's preferences without constant supervision, too.

Besides, they're union, and IATSE 700 is one of the most prestigious and protective guilds in the industry. Pajeet isn't much of a concern there.

Now, it might be a totally different story for people working outside the industry, doing corporate videos or something, but nobody gives a fuck about them. There are also people who just do stuff like turning the lead editor's low-res cut into full res and stuff like that, but that's a different job from what a real editor does. Those guys need scripts and stuff, sure, but actual editors don't.

You might be able to argue that an amateur doing everything themselves could use scripting and stuff, but I don't see that much of an issue because they're not working on deadline and can afford to do things more slowly.

>>2994922
Working with DV is also annoying because after capture you've got one clip for the whole tape, instead of nice separate clips for every shot. Software might be able to automatically fix that during capture now, though, I haven't fucked with DV in so long that I wouldn't know.

>>2995114
Canon cine cams have gained a bit of traction in the TV world. Documentary/reality guys like them because they have a long history with Canon camcorders and DSLRs, so you see them used a good bit for stuff like History Channel shows and the like. Some lower budget dramatic shows use them too, stuff like Amazon/Netflix originals, because they're a lot cheaper to work with than an Alexa or similar but offer a nearly comparable feature set.

>>2992989
So /vid/ is EBay legit for licking up DSLRS?
Found some Canons on there never bought a thing on eBay ever however.

>>2995307
Huh, interesting. I'm gonna try and work my way onto one of those sets in the next couple of years

>>2995393
Yep. Bought both my canons there. You can often pick up goods far below retail price brand new on there
Check amazon as well though. If the difference is only a tenner, probably stick with amazon. But when you're talking hundreds, which is frequently the case, then go for it

File: screenwriting.png (5KB, 831x289px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 831x289px

I'm learning screenwriting through some tutorials online. I don't have any special software, so I'm just using Word.
This is the right way of setting up shots, right? Is there a special way of saying, "a certain sound effect needs to play at this moment in the shot"?

Hey guys, I'm starting up a YT channel that will mostly be doing tabeltop reviews of small everyday carry items, mostly knives. (Some of you may have seen my previous post about lights BTW, I ended up with a pair of Neewer 480 led dimmable/temp adjustable panels.)

I'm trying to figure out what to use for a background. It needs to be about 2'x2' or so, non-reflective, and offer good contrast against knives that have shiny silver blades and handles that are often black or other dark colors. It shouldn't be distracting but something distinctive would be nice. I have ideas of my own already, but I'm interested to hear any suggestions.

File: 30_sexscene.nocrop.w529.h215.jpg (39KB, 529x203px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 529x203px

>>2995572
Get some screenplays from the net of movies you like from different writers and see how they do it. Shane Black's are especially entertaining, although I would suggest being more conservative if you plan on showing them to professionals.

>>2995572
Also is there an ideal way of writing titles? I want the very first thing the audience sees to be a solid color background with the name of the film on it.

>>2995572
>>2995623
My dad has a bunch of art department versions of scripts sitting around, and those have special annotations for stuff like this. I'll ask him about it tomorrow if I remember.

>>2995626
You can do whatever you want, dude. If you plan on sending them to Hollywood to be read by some pleb intern who reads only the first two pages, probably not a good idea to write anything like that.

>>2995613
again.

Also, what do you guys like for recording voiceovers? I have an audio interface and a good mic hooked up to my PC and want to use it for live commentary while I film with my camera, I just need an easy way to capture the audio. Or should I just forget about it and plug my mic into my camera? (Which has XLR inputs but an inferior preamp etc.)

>>2995115
Ffmpeg certainly isn't. Waiting for a GUI implemention of features is not optimal and using piping with other tools is just not possible.
Avisynth still has a load of filters and scripts written for it and while the official release is technologically dated with dubious multithreading and x64 support the previous stuff can still be put to good use. Of course Vapoursynth has more future potential as active development happens.

>>2995298
>Software might be able to automatically fix that during capture now, though, I haven't fucked with DV in so long that I wouldn't know.

That was always possible. New clips can be determined on ripples in timecode that's logged.

Kinda of a stupid question I guess..

But is audio recorded in a matter of frames per second like video?

I am externally recording my audio for video.

So I am unsure if there is a difference recording audio internally when I do 120fps slow motion video, than externally?

I can record internally with my external mic.

>>2995572
Try Celtx my fellow groid!
It's free, used it a few times myself.

Trick is, you actually use everything and it'll let you edit your already created documents before it expires.
Hence; you get to use it for your entire project for free.

>>2995572
just download celtx

>>2995875
No, it's recorded with markers indicating time and change
Most cameras that record 120fps don't let you record sound at the same time, that I know of

>>2995907
Hmm, ok. I'll read up on that.

My a6300 records audio with 120fps enabled.

File: IMG_0153.jpg (2MB, 1936x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1936x2592px

Is it possible to open a project file from Premiere Pro CS6 in Premiere Pro CC?

Long story short; made a whole project on CS6 with the intention of using the Lumetri plugin, but then I realized that CS6 doesn't have that feature so ideally I need to find a torrent of Prem CC and transfer my project over.

Thanks in advance!

>>2995887
don't. it became shit in 2013 and is since.

>>2995958
>not using old pirated versions
lel

>>2995916
Fair enough
All you need to realise is that when slowing your footage down (as I assume you will), the sound will become distorted and you'll need to correct the pitch

>>2995875
>>2995907
>>2995916
bad advice is bad.

here's some knowledge:

audio is recorded not in frames per second but samples per second (digitally at least). a sound wave is for example "checked" 44100 times in a second for how the wave develops. from this data the 'original' wave is extrapolated (for playback e.g.).
soseen it is the same thing: if you record 24 frames per second and playback it with 24 fps, you get /realtime/. if you playback it with 12fps you get 2:1 slowmotion. when you record audio with 44100hz (samples per second) and playback it with 44100hz then you get /realtime/. when you playback it with 22050hz you get 2:1 slowmotion or downpitch.

You can easily convert the samplerate if any audio to adjust it to the video fps change. but you hardly want to do that. but there are cased like e.g. you convert from 24 to 25fps for pal and then just adjust the samplerate 44100/24*25, then you cut down to a "standard" samplerate again.

>>2995962
in old times it was free to use you 12yo future redneck.

>>2995967
it's still free but freemium

>>2995968
I hate this bastards getting fame with free and open-source and then changing it to monetize the shit out of it. I immediately back off and disrecommend it to everyone.

>>2995966
So it's essentially 24fps if I record at 44100hz?

>>2996153
frames per second and samples per second are independant. you can record 24fps and 44100hz or 24fps and 48000hz or 24fps and 96000hz. it doesn't matter. as long as you playback the recordings with its same value, they are in realtime. when you change the one and the other equivalently, they remain in sync.

what you cannot do is e.g. record 120fps and 192khz and then playback 60fps and 192khz. audio and video will be iff sync because you playback video with 2x slowmo but audio in realtime. however you can convert the 120fps to 60fps (by deleting every second frame) and then playback it also in 60fps with 192khz and both are realtime.

>>2995733
Ah ok, it's been a long damn time since I've worked with MiniDV. (Like, there are people posting legally on 4chan who were infants the last time I worked with it...)

I was an assistant editor in the early-mid '00s and did a lot of capture and archiving but we mostly worked with 3/4"/Digibeta and HDCAM, and even those days are pretty damn foggy now. We were an ad agency so there were also a lot of burned DVDs of studio footage rather than tapes of stuff we'd shot ourselves, too.

Total noob here. Can someone recommend me a good tripod for recording video? I honestly don't even know what to look for.

>>2996305
You're looking for a fluid pan&tilt head one a study aluminium tripod.
There are cheap ones for 40-60 bucks but investing at least $100 for both total is recommended.
Also consider getting a monpod with a standfoot

>>2996311
Something like this maybe?
http://www.frys.com/product/8650050
Also, I was looking at sliders, but I've heard that noobs should stay away from them until they know what they're doing. Do you think that's true?

>>2996331
That tripod is a ballhead, not pan&tilt. You need these two Axis seperated to have smooth and controllable footage.
Try this.
https://www.amazon.com/Andoer-Hydraulic-Panoramic-Photographic-Camcorder/dp/B01N56JXKL/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1483674800&sr=8-3&keywords=video+fluid+pan+tilt

And yes, sliders, cranes, dollies, flycams, jibs, all those are equipment you should get later for when you know how to handle them.
I got a monopod for 45€ and a standfoot spider for 27€ which made a good combo with my fluid head. With those you can move around pretty freely and still have stable footage. movement in a shot makes everything look a bit more interesting and dynamic.

>>2996356
Cool, thanks for the advice.
One more thing: Do I need to worry about compatibility with these devices? There's a hole for a screw at the bottom of my camera, will it fit on any mount or do I need to buy a specific kind?

>>2996362
that's a 1/4" screw. There is no tripod that doesn't have those.
YOull have to fix the Quick-Release plate in that hole and then youz can just snap your stuff on and off.
If a screw shouldnt fit because it's just a wee bit too big, then that's a 3/8" screw, the only other screw used in videography and photography. It's the screw that tripodheads and clamps are fixed onto stuff like tripods, or, in some cases, microphones. My videomic has a coldshoe foot (the thing that goes into the flash-slot at the top of a camera) and and a 3/8" threading, but a quick adapter fixes that problem.
Audiogear uses 3/8" and 5/8" but sometimes also 1/4".
Needless to say, there are adapters for anything.

File: 1365458838000_944776.jpg (32KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x500px

>>2996305
How tight is your budget?

I like this style of tripod, not sure what it's called but the kind where each section is separate tubes instead of telescoping. You can get a real Manfrotto with head for $300 or a knockoff for around $150. (I have a "Dracast" knockoff and it's fine, they don't make that exact one anymore but I think clones are pretty much all the same.)

This should get you to B&H's video tripod section: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Tripod-Systems/ci/3909/N/3907816552

Pretty much anything there should be fine, as long is at has a fluid head, isn't super duper cheap, and isn't a "micro" or "mini" tripod.

If you happen to be in SoCal (which could be possible since you linked to Fry's) you can check out Samy's or FilmTools to look at stuff in person.

So in case anyone somehow missed it (like me), the specs for the GH5 have been announced. It's pretty fucking unbelievable
http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/4260-where-the-panasonic-gh5-excels-in-detail

Did someone say 6k recording internally in a sub-£2000 mirrorless camera?
(the author's being an idiot to put it in quotes. if people can shoot raw on the 5d3 and timelapses in general, they can shoot 6k here easily)

>>2996626
Can you shoot 6K internally? Sure, 30 min limit probably

Should you shoot 6k internally? Not really, considering the codec it's being compressed into, the bad bitrate and 420 subsampling.

Instead, you should be excited for the 4k 422 which will actually yield useful footage. You should be even more excited for the end of 2017 firmware update that will let you record 400 Mbps, finally making that footage genuinely usable in post with proper grading.

>>2996723
>considering the codec it's being compressed into
It's not being compressed into a codec

>the bad bitrate
there is no bitrate because it's a series of images

>420 subsampling
Haven't read this anywhere, but I'd be surprised

Did you actually read the article or did you just come along to shitpost?

>>2996737
buy a real camera you poorfag, dslrs are toys

>>2996803
great shitposting anon, you're doing us all proud

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

755KB, 221x158px

>>2996737
>there is no bitrate because it's a series of images
how stupid one can be.

>>2996961
Apparently less stupid than you. If it's not saved as a video file, then there's no bitrate in the first place, at least not in the way you're talking. Stop trying to spread disinformation you meme'ing retard

>>2996626
>>2996723
The rep at CES said it's more like 5.5k and is downscaled to 4k 4:2:2 for output.

I suspect the "6k" that the article talks is full sensor format, as with stills, and isn't 16:9.

Panasonic really has found themselves an impressive niche in video. I'm not sure why they even bother with the trappings of a DSLR-style camera anymore, if I were them I'd be putting the same guts in a camcorder body. It's not like that would stop it from shooting stills either, and when video is so obviously their focus they should design cameras around it. I'd be very interested in a compact Panasonic m43 camcorder with XLRs and all the other proper video stuff as a replacement for my Canon XA20.

>>2997102
>Panasonic really has found themselves an impressive niche in video. I'm not sure why they even bother with the trappings of a DSLR-style camera anymore, if I were them I'd be putting the same guts in a camcorder body. It's not like that would stop it from shooting stills either, and when video is so obviously their focus they should design cameras around it. I'd be very interested in a compact Panasonic m43 camcorder with XLRs and all the other proper video stuff as a replacement for my Canon XA20.

I reckon that, like sony and fujifilm, they recognise that there is very big market that's still not fully utilised in dslr-like video-cameras. If they put it in a bulky camcorder body, it turns a lot of that audience off. Myself, I know that the only reason I'm not planning on buying a blackmagic ursa mini is because of the size, for example.
People like small cameras that they can fit in a rucksack and stabilise on a glidecam. Plus, its familiar to them.

>>2997122
It wouldn't necessarily be bulky, though. It'd essentially be the same size as a GH4 but just with parts rearranged and maybe with a handle/mic holder on top. (Which could be removable like the one on my XA20.) It'd still easily fit in a bag (probably more easily than a GH4 with lens) and be fine on a glidecam.

Picture something more like a consumer camcorder with a lens mount and that's about what it could be.

>>2997147
Hmm, I see what you're saying. I think it's down to branding and necessity
As it is, they've got basically everything needed in the camera with a sound extension you can buy. But it's still also the successor in the GH-line, which are stills cameras

Releasing a separate movie-focused camera also seems pointless cause who would buy it? It would have to be slightly more expensive at least, but barely anyone would pay the extra few hundred for that. They could do a canon, and gimp the gh5 slightly to encourage people to buy this new camera, but that's bad for us

Maybe eventually they will. But essentially it's not needed I suppose.
(though I would pay £500-£1000 more for the gh5 if it had a super 35mm sensor or an ef mount)

>>2997147
>consumer

consumers are like retarded children

>>2996969
sorry to disillusion your tender self-confidence, but you are absolutely wrong. bitrate is not something like e.g. keyframes/b-flags which are only useful in a stream (at least as far as transport streams are not respected). this is because bitrate is not a stream parameter, but a compression parameter. when you render e.g. an mjpeg sequence, you get single frames (files) but still you allocate the encoder to compress each frame with a specific bitrate. it is even possible to let it calculate either an operation-wide cbr or vbr based on the fps parameter.

you little moron, listen: you'll laugh but for a computer it does not make any difference if data is sequential or serial. what you were mixing up in your amateurish blog-poisened mania is that today's codecs compress 2-dimensional and therefore have to dismiss the concept of sequencial motion picture, but you dumb kid cannot then just use the argumentum e contrario and claim all parameter needed for 2d cimoression are obsolete in sequence PER SE.

... gosh ... one thing is being stupid. another thing is being stupid and still running around and claiming to be the king of the jungle.

File: xa20-hd-professional-camcorder-3q-left-handle-d.jpg (56KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 675x450px

>>2997158
I'd buy it, at least. I shoot mostly run-n-gun kind of stuff and the traditional camcorder form factor is much more conducive to shooting handheld or with a stabilizer. Integrating the audio interface into the camera itself would also be a really nice thing and could justify a higher price.

There are a few other things camcorders have that would be nice, too. A right-handed zoom rocker is useful and Panasonic already has power zoom lenses, so that would be easy enough to get working. A tilt viewfinder is a really nice thing, and I prefer side-mounted LCDs to rear ones as well. Camcorders also make it easier to mount a huge battery, since it's externally mounted.

I actually switched from Panasonic m43 to my Canon XA20 (pic related) after figuring out how much easier a proper camcorder was for the stuff I do. I'm not sure if a m43 camcorder would appeal to the filmmaking crowd but I think it'd find a place in ENG, reality TV, documentaries, corporate videography, etc. The XA series are popular for all of these things and I suspect a 4k ILC equivalent would find a market.

>>2997162
I'm talking about consumer camera size, not an actual consumer camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	675
Image Height	450
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:04:02 11:30:14
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	675
Image Height	450

>>2997166
>when you render e.g. an mjpeg sequence
good thing it's not a mjpeg sequence then you dumbfuck

File: olympus_tough-tg-tracker_5-970x647-c.jpg (96KB, 970x647px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 970x647px

>>2997102
You'd really only have to turn the Sensor+mount 90° to the left and get rid of the grip and you'd have a defekt enough Camcorder.
Hell, im surprised Pana hasnt done Something Like the olympus tough series

>>2997185
XA seris is popular only because low price and XLR input. ENG and small documentary people prefer Panasonic HC-X1000 and HC-X1.
If you don't need XLR input, you could go with FZ1000 or FZ2000.

>>2997166
Jesus christ you're embarrassingly wrong.

>today's codecs compress 2-dimensional and therefore have to dismiss the concept of sequencial motion picture

>bitrate is not a stream parameter, but a compression parameter

>>2997308
low bait is low

>>2997308
But you're actually wrong.

It would be a complete waste for a video codec to completely ignore temporal information. If you're referring to some fancy wavelet stuff then yes, you can still do temporal compression passes there also. Please elaborate.

As for bitrate being a compression parameter only, and not a stream parameter, that line of logic doesn't even make any sense. A video stream is a stream of information, measured in bits. The "flow" of the stream with time is measured in bits per second. If you have an NxM pixel sensor with K bits per pixel and you pull full frames of data every T seconds, then you have NxMxK/T bits per second of information from the sensor.

>>2997399
I am not sure to whom you are talking, but I said exactly the same. regarding the time is 2-dimensional compression. what is dismissed is the static sequence flow from e.g. mpeg2 and so on.

furthermore bitrate is a result of the compression and therefore amount of data for each frame. only when the concept of frames becomes obsolete you can see it as a stream parameter. but this does not make the opposite true as OP stated, that bitrate is not existend for sequences. .. what bullshit.

just to clear, when you were talking to OP then this message was pointless.

>>2997166
>acting this elitist
>being this stupid
you could stop embarrassing yourself if you just read about what you're arguing

>>2997404
>>2997399
was for
>>2997375

>>2997404
>his does not make the opposite true as OP stated, that bitrate is not existend for sequences. .. what bullshit.
I assume you're talking to me, and I never said that. I said that the 6k mode on the gh5 didn't have a bitrate

You can argue the semantics of what you think that means like the other guy, and make an idiot of yourself, or you can read up on it and understand why that's the case
I basically explained it earlier, it's not complicated. But watching some butthurt elitist act like an idiot out of embarrassment was too golden for me to explain it properly

>>2997440
>6k mode on the gh5 didn't have a bitrate
>6k mode didn't have a bitrate
>not have bitrate
>a digital output does not have a bitrate
>NO BITRATE

... yep.

>>2997467
I think he's talking about the 6k burstmode, that replaces the old 4k burstmode, wher ethere are just normal JPEGS taken. I think the new one allows to also take these pictures in RAW

>>2997469
maybe, but what does it matter?

I think anybody who says - even by accident - stuff like:

"this camera mode produces a digital output which has no bitrate."

should receive a order of mandamus to never be allowed again to touch a camera. Also to not ever speak about creating motion picture, especially among actual videographers.

>>2997469
this
>>2997467
so yeah, you could try reading instead of jumping to conclusions
there is no video file
>>2997474
except i didn't say that
maybe i phrased it badly and shouldn't have said no bitrate at all, but if you follow the conversation, you'd understand the context of why I said that
The guy I was responding to was an idiot who was trying to downplay the 6k mode without knowing anything about to pretend like he was some sort of pro
>Also to not ever speak about creating motion picture, especially among actual videographers.
Do you actually understand yet? Cause I can't tell if you're being retarded like he was. You sound like you're being retarded and trying to save face...

ITT:
>a bunch of "experts" fail to read up on the subject they're arguing about and then start insulting each other

never change /vid/

I love how much details you can get out of slog3.

I've been trying to take photos with it as well but once I load it into PS, it's shot as if without the slog.

How can I get a raw file keeping the slo3 magic?

>>2997504
hey i read up on it! that's why i was insulting all these dumbfucks

>>2997508
I might be missing something obvious here, but raw files are something pretty specific which retains all information that the sensor records, whereas s-log is a picture profile applied after that raw file has been compressed
So you can't shoot raw s-log? You can shoot s-log jpegs, but not raw files.

That's my understanding of raw at least. I never shoot it though so someone else might be able to correct any mistakes I've made

>tfw you see a bts pov filming of a porno shot with your dslr and the kit lens
>tfw you then check out the actual scene and it looks surprisingly well done and professional

i knew most porn was shot with consumer camcorders, but seeing it shot on a dslr without any stabilisers (other than the lens) was just mental. It makes shitty-looking porn all that more disgraceful

Worth recording audio in 96khz/24bit?

I got the storage for it.

But I'm just wondering if it's like recording in 4k when youre just going to output it in 720pp(not considering the downsampling phenomena).

>>2997665
Record and store in either .flac or .wav 24 bit is alright, 16 bit is enough
Never store your stuff in MP3

>>2997700
Yeah it's in .wav form.

I want to record some neat nature sounds.

>>2997665
>>2997700
>>2997705
bad advise is bad.

just as for video the bit-depth of an audio file represents its dynamic range. would you really prefer rgb 8bit over rgb 16bit? most likely not. so you should work in 24bit audio where possible. especially in digital cinema 24bit is standard due to the high dynamic range needed in cinemas (especially special-effects e.g.. there were even formats discussed which allowed to raise the bit-depth temporarily to 32bit or even higher in order to achieve very loud peaks without letting the rms niveau get too low). for consumer formats in the web and maybe television sound gets compressed anyways and 16 bit can be sufficient.
96khz for recording is also very needed. also when most end-formats hardly exceed 48khz. this is because of aliasing-errors in high frequencies can be avoided by higher sampling rates and remain non-existend when down-sampled to e.g. 48khz. best practice is to record oversampled with 192khz/32bit, work in post with 96khz/32bit and release with 48khz/24bit.

it is a cliché in the branche that video people underestimate audio in spite of audio makes a good 70% of the professional feel of a/v-material. please don't fulfill this chliché and start to regard audio in the same detailled way like video. for example: please buy finally decent audio cables and only use symmetrical connections, god damn it. I won't even start to talk about a/d-converters and pre-amps...

>>2997532
What you say here is correct. Raw is all the picture information your sensor can get out of real life, delivered all at once. S-log is a picture profile, meaning the camera takes the raw file and compresses it, but applies a 'flat' look to it that you can then pull in various directions.

Sadly I'm on my phone and can't post examples but you can see this if you compare, say, Redcode Raw coming out of a RED and Slog3 coming out of an fs7; Redcode looks almost already graded, all the colors and dynamic range is there, giving you the option to grade 'down', as it were, where you want to. Whereas Slog3 if very gray and dull, you have to grade it 'up'.

As a sidenote, i think (not sure) this is also why slog coming from an fs7 looks better and more full-bodied than slog coming from an a7sII. Since the a7 compresses the image a lot more (XAVCS is 8-bit 420), it cuts off more information overall to get to that flat look, so log footage there looks crap compared to the XAVCI from the fs7. I wonder if anyone else knows about this.

I have an amature question.

Why do so many use a DSLR to film vs. a purpose built camcorder?

>>2997987
It's generally retardation. The origin might be, that it was a cheap opportunity for indie-filmers to shoot digitally im HD, once the DSLRs got fast enough. But it was only a short period where a DSLR with HD function could outperform a camcorder in the more or less same price-range.
Today's hyping of DSLR for video is merely a relict of this short period, mainly because decent camcorders got cheaper and there is hardly any need to switch to DSLR.
People do though, because they are retarded and of course also because they are hirrible hobbyists with an actual main focus on photography and therefore - sadly enough - it all comes down to one simple yet pathetic thought: "Hey. Two in one."
But those apes will never admit and tell you something bullshitting about image quality, sensor size (also: muh same sensor as in xyz) and manufacturer experience. All jibberish to mask their amateurish soul abd the fact they mostly never worked 1) with a proper camcorder and 2) on anything you could at least name a half-serious project.

>>2997987
>>2998011
Because DSLRs have much larger sensors than consumer camcorders and have interchangeable lenses. It's pretty simple. They tend to have higher dynamic range too
For what you're paying, it's fucking retarded to buy a consumer camcorder unless you're shooting a documentary or home-movies

>>2998024
q.e.d.

>>2997987
Consumer-grade camcorders are a thing of the past - that's somehow - still alive.

>>2995937
Yeah, you can.

File: 1478923208866.png (587KB, 625x918px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 625x918px

>b-but it only shoots 29:59 minutes at one take
>b-but it has a 4gb limit and then I have to start again
Why do I see these complains so much? Do these faggots really REALLY need to have the ability to shoot for hours without stopping?

>>2998134
people like to commplsin

>>2998134
They think that event videography in 4k is the height of what they can achieve.
But even there you don't have 1 camera running uninterupted, you use an audio recorder and 2-3 different cams, at least one stationary and one moving.
that's literally the only reason I can think of. Because any other scenario where you need uninterupted 4k video-material, a GoPro is better suited.

>love davinci resolve for SLOG material
>it cant handle 120fps material

Welp.

I guess I'll just stop shooting in 120fps slog.

>tfw just got my film's first festival-rejection email
welp, it's gonna be a fun January
It was a small festival with no entry fee for students only. I figured it was a sure-thing

At least I can watch the globes and take comfort that some of my favourite films from last year weren't even nominated, nevermind the winners

>>2998200
>checked
can you post a one time link to your film here brah? like a vimeo link with password and you can change the password after a few hours.
Would love to see it

>>2998266
Nah, I could get in trouble and I feel way too insecure right now to deal with "constructive criticism" from /p/

I'm drinking and writing a new script in my head instead

>>2998282
I don't wanna give constructive criticism. I just like seeing what others do, believe it or not.
can you give a synopsis at least?

>>2998286
I didn't mean you, but there are always lurkers and trolls around

I can indeed give a synopsis. It's a neo-western homage to Leone and Refn. It's a straightforward revenge story, with each death being purposely blunt and more violent than the previous.
Having said that, the final is a bit underwhelming because of it. Though people said they really liked the ending.
There's little dialogue and a focus on cinematography. It's not festival-bait.

Oh well, there's always next time

>>2994940
lol best post on /p/ i've seen in a while

File: 1477354336887.png (177KB, 367x321px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 367x321px

>>2998297
goddamn it now I want to see it even more you fuck

>>2998297
c'mon, post a link. we will be nice to you, I promise.

>>2998302
well bear in mind that I'm effectively a one-man-band behind the scenes and I just got a festival rejection email from a small, low-key festival
So it's probably not really that good...

>>2998303
Even if I got over my insecurity, I don't want to risk getting the film disqualified from other festivals

>>2998308
can you post a few stills from it though?
you said it's focused on cinematography, I'd love to see SOMETHING from it

>>2998308
lol, yeah. showing it to some faggots on /p/ is a release which will disqualify you from the Berlinale. Too bad.

How do documentary filmmakers:
1. Get money to make films?
2. Make money from their films for living costs?

>>2999595
nat geo?

>>2999630
Do they give grants or what?

>>2999633
Maybe
Look into it

>>2999729
I will
Can't be the only thing there is though, can it?

>>2999733
Documentaries are kind of like short films, unless someone's paying you to make it or you plan on a successful festival run, there's not really much money there

I suppose if you make a feature documentary, you can try and get a distributor to buy it.
For the record, I don't make documentaries. Perhaps there's places that love supporting documentary filmmakers. But since there are just as many, if not more, documentary filmmakers as narrative, I imagine it's probably quite competitive to get funding

I watched Tickled last year. They were funded by their tv company I think (?) which meant there were certain legal restrictions in what they could do. But the guy was also a journalist for that company, hence the funding. Your best bet is probably to try and find someone who wants a documentary made

>>2999748
What if I make a documentary that's self-funded and it ends up being quite good
Can I send it off to festivals and try get a distributor?

>>2999750
Yes, you can indeed
There are several festivals for documentaries specifically. On top of that, most festivals have a category for documentaries. If it's good, you can make a fair amount in prize-money
I would have no clue how to get a distributor though. Outside of one approaching you, contacting Nat Geo, BBC and random networks may be your best option
I fully admit that I have no idea though

It's a competitive field, and festivals tend to have certain "styles" that they like from my experience in narrative. If I was doing it, my plan would be to make some documentaries that I was passionate about, self-funded, then see if I could sell them. If not, I'd then go into business as a contractor as an editor or a DP or even a director and try and get hired, using your documentaries as a resume.
I feel bad answering though because I'm sure there's someone with more experience who can give you better advice

Not even meme'ing, reddit is apparently quite good for this sort of thing. Try r/filmmakers maybe

>>2999769
ok thanks, I'll have a look

File: btfo.png (1MB, 1919x1079px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1919x1079px

Why is even the higher budget pornography shot like absolute fucking dog cum

>>2999835
porn doesn't care for aesthetics

>>2999835
orly? yeah? for sure? then firstly, mr. top-tier director of photography, explain us what is so 'dog cum' for example in your screenshot, and then secondly please enlighten us with an example of your splendid work, which is full of aesthetics and incredible geniousness. I beg you. pretty please.

>>2999858
Are you arguing that porn is generally shot well?

>>2999864
there is well shot porn.

>>2999835
people good at their job rarely become directors of photography for porn

File: question.jpg (19KB, 296x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 296x320px

Is there a reliable ressource on the web that lists all MFT-lenses? i tried four-thirds.com but they don't include newer ones by smaller companies and discontinued ones

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Miyomo
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3000203
http://www.hennigarts.com/micro-four-thirds-objektive.html

but these are still not all. there are brands missing like veydra for example. and also some specific models are missing.
what lens do you search for?

Are filmmaking classes in college worth it?

>>3000458
no
But make friends with them and steal all their contacts

Are there any bodies in the <$3k range that have a CCD/global shutter??

I've just about had it with every consumer video camera out on the market right now, regardless if they are mirrorless or not, the rolling shutter and choppiness they produce makes it really hard to do quick pans or handheld work.

The Digital Bolex seems to be the only thing that satisfies my needs but shits impossible to find anywhere!

>>3000564
Global shutter is very rare, even in high quality camera. Hell, even the Alexa has a rolling shutter, it's just a matter of getting a camera that has software that can handle it (you can't feel it in handheld/quick pan shots on the Alexa for example). I suppose IBIS can help too, especially for handheld.

Sup /p/haggots.
I just bought a Sony FS100 and I want to adapt my Canon lenses too it, should I buy a metabones speedbooster or will a chinese knockoff for half the price do the same trick?

>>3000755
worth bearing in mind alot of the cheaper non-brand adaptors don't have electronic control, so you can't change f-stop of the lens, if you use vintage lenses with external aperture rings its fine but worth bearing in mind if you use electronic lenses with internal/camera controlled aperture.

>>3000755

chink adaptors ive used definitely got the job done, but just barely, lens would have a tiny bit of wobble/play and the metal was a pretty shit quality, I'd shell out the extra 60$/70$ for the peace of mind that my lens isnt going to fall off in the middle of a shoot.

>>3000659

I see, I've been eyeing the GH5 and the shots seem decently smooth. Also, do you know if 4K downsampled to 1080p would alleviate the effect any?

>want to make short movie for practice
>only have camera, nothing else
>also no one to help me

What sort of movie can I make that stars myself and has no camera movement?

>>3001023
vlog

>>3001023
existential drama about a guy who kills himself
it's cliched for a reason

it won't be good, but that's unavoidable

>>3001023
monologue seems like your only option friendo

>>3001031
Excellent idea, will consider.

>>3001029
>>3001036
I figured I could use things like my pets, action figures, or any random inanimate objects and make something goofy, that way I could be behind the camera. Unfortunately I have no idea how to be funny.

>>3001023
mockumentary is relatively easy to do, and effective. Make up a story about a place or an event and voice over it.

>>3000875
The GH5 is going to be more or less the best DSLR for video when it comes out so would definitely recommend that. 4k wouldn't alleviate any motion related stuff unless you shoot wider than you need and stabilize it in post (which can be iffy imo). The only thing downsampling helps with is better detail and a 'cleaner' (fewer or no artifacts) picture at 1080p.

If you're getting a GH5 and want smooth video I'd say just get a small flycam/glidecam to use with it and you're set.

>>3001216
How do I into perfect downsampling from 4K to 1080p with my GH4?

>>3001241
Whaddaya mean. Depends on what you're trying to deliver. If you want to put stuff on youtube/vimeo it further depends on you upload speeds.

Technically if you just want good downsampling put your 4k file in Premiere/Media Encoder, set your h.264 codec to max bitrate and tick maximum render quality and that other option can't recall the exact name but it's basically slowest/most thorough downsizing and leave it to do its thing.

If you want Prores or whatever else codec put that in instead, but since the 4K in the GH4 is compressed into a sort of h.264 anyway you're just repackaging it

>>3001216
Get a GH5 with a stabilized Lens and you barely need any flycam etc. At all, thanks to the dual IS
At least thats what the G85 people are saying

>>3001303
You'll end up at the mercy of your lenses that way. What if you want to use different lenses? you can get a decent flycam for like $100, no reason not to get one

Thinking about buying a gh5
Few questions
>what lens mount does it use/does it have a decent selection of native lenses?
>Is there an equivalent of my 28-75mm f/2.8 that I can get for less than £300?

>>3002017
>>Is there an equivalent of my 28-75mm f/2.8 that I can get for less than £300?
There's the 12-35mm but you wont get that for less than 600$

>>3002017
It's got an M4/3 mount (micro four thirds) that can easily be adapted to various others.

I use my GH4 with a set of old manual prime lenses with m42 screw mounts, so I got an adapter to that. If you wanna be fancy and spend money you can get a speedbooster instead.

Not sure about getting that lens for under 300 though.

>>3002017
1)Micro four turds.
2)Less than 300 pounds? probably not. Though there are definitely some goodies at that price point that are very well worth getting (12mm 1.4 or the 25mm 1.4, both excellent lenses). The equivalent of your 28-75mm would be something like the Panasonic 12-35mm 2.8 or the Olympus 12-40mm 2.8. Unfortunately I don't think you could probably get them for less than 300 pounds (maybe used?).

Like >>3002059 mentioned, part of the fun of m43 is adapting lenses because of the flange distance. You can get some really good old glass with a bit of luck.

>>3001037
What kind of pets do you have? I'm in the same predicament and was thinking of making a short with my dog. Try making it cinematic, since you'll be behind the camera. Basically, give it all you've got.

File: black-magic-pocket-camera-xl.jpg (91KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x640px

Is this camera a
MEME
E
M
E

>>3001031
Has this really been done that much?

>>3002731
yeah
mainly by edgy teenagers trying to get into film-school, but yeah
complete with lots of close-ups of ordinary household objects with a shallow depth of field and a shot of raindrops falling on the window
And, probably to show their deep inspiration from Malick, the whole thing will probably be narrated with whispers

>>3002725
No.
I've never used it myself, but I've seen several graded clips - it can get phenomenal results. Maybe it's because only professionals use it due to its difficulty of use. But raw footage in a sub $1000 camera without having to hack it isn't a meme.

>>3002761
Where have you seen these? I've been looking at student/festival short films and they're all about social media and Facebook

>>3002766
Youtube mainly
They haven't been festival films for probably close to a decade because it's such a cliched concept. I'd link you one but I haven't seen any in a couple of years now

how is consistnet metering achieved

File: c.jpg (117KB, 1280x694px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x694px

>>3001023
Making a horror movie is the best advice I can give for amateurs. Even if it's trashy making a horror film gives you good filmmaking habits by forcing you to constantly consider the audience. Their perspective, what information they have, if the cuts flow, how to give them information, etc. It can also be super cheap to make and personal style is welcome as long as it isn't overpowering the rest of the film.

More advice is to not take it all too seriously when you're starting out. Your first work will suck and if you're holding what you made up with complete reverence being shown how shitty it is will feel like a gunshot to the chest. Learn to take criticism but, more importantly, learn how to improve. There's nothing worse than someone who keeps glaring flaws in their work because "it's my personal style."

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2014:02:06 13:50:48

>>3002885
What do you mean specifically?

The general answer would be: get a light meter and learn how to use it. But conditions vary wildly so it depends what you mean exactly

File: uzi.jpg (49KB, 500x638px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x638px

Lads, I am in desperate need of a torrent/crack for Adobe Premiere CC & Media Encoder.
Any ideas where I can start looking?
All of my usual sources have dried up.

Should I be posting this in /t/?
It didn't seem to fit with all the JAV porn... so I came here instead.

File: Blackmagic Micro.jpg (709KB, 2362x1842px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 2362x1842px

I'm going to undergo a huge film project in the next couple months that involves me filming at 1080p pretty much all day.

I have a Blackmagic 4K and two 900GB SSDs which gives me roughly 20 hours of recording with 1080p Prores HQ. I also have two 3TB external hard drives so I don't foresee space as much of an issue. But I was considering picking up the pic related Micro Cinema Camera, since the bulk of the Blackmagic 4K can wear on me and the second camera operator and all I need is 1080p.

What do you guys think? Is the URSA a better workhorse for this project? I'm trying to stay within the realm of Blackmagic partially because it's what I'm familiar.

I'm also considering picking up a Gopro HERO Black 4 or 5 for some of the shots that would endanger the camera.

>>3002722
Two cats, a large dog, a small dog, and some really annoying birds.

Noob here. Anything I need to know before recording during rain?

What's the point in being a filmmaker if only like 50 people are gonna see your work on YouTube?

>>3004337
protect your gear. don't forget rain often comes with wind. realize that rain will hardly be visible on film. forget audio.

>>3004392
What's the point of coming on here and posting your stupid comment?

>>3004392
a product alone has no value. it must be marketed. if you would e.g. build neat lamps but you just let them stand in your garage, there would also be no point in building them.

marketing is a whole different topic and it is incredibly ignored in this thread. some months ago a wild filmmaker posted here some very helpful theories he found about marketing. but ever since nobody even touches this topic.
but this normal for creatives, they just want to do their shit and when it comes to marketing they just put their fingers in their ears and sing 'lalalalalala'.

so, when you belong to them my best hint is to find people who will invest time and effort in marketing for you.

>>3004403

How do you know if your product is even worth marketing? I mean, there's probably tons of great shit on YouTube with no views, but there's an endless amount of fucking garbage too

>>3004400
kys you insecure worthless "artist", you'll never make it

>>3004404
that is very true an well spoken. one more topic which is consequently ignored on /p/; how do one choose the good content?

I think most problematic is that you are too close to your product. so you don't see correctly how it works for others. on the other hand, there is always somebody who likes something, regardless how good or bad it actually is.

so in many marketing theories you see the quality of a product as independant to its marketing. hypothesis is: you can market anything regardless of its quality.

in the field it seem to be easier or more difficult to market a specific product though. there are products which are very convinient. roughly spoken products which hit the zeitgeist. more anachronistic products - classical or arty stuff e.g. - is mostly a bit harder.
alao one shouldn't forget the concurrence situation. making the 1mio'th docu or short movie will be a challenge for the marketing. an original content can lead to misinterpretation of the audience though.
so in the end it is a question of finding the best marketing solution for the best product you can produce. and a genious marketing can push the stupidest things, so there are ways for everything.

>>3004406
It's sad to be trapped in mediocrity. Think bigger one day

>>3004404
>>3004407
I just go with the assumption that my stuff is probably shit. I enter the odd festival here and there, but outside of that I leave it.
Everything I make is better than the last, and I've managed to get the odd freelance job out of it. When I'm confident that my short's are actually really good, then I'll focus on what to do with it - which will probably involve exhausting every contact to get investors to watch it so that they'll finance a bigger-buget short

>>3004715
Any film festival tips?

>>3004855
Considering that I have yet to get into one, not really. I'll find out if my latest work has gotten in any over the next week so if it has, I'll update you
From experience, I've found that film festivals tend to like certain types of films

This isn't me making excuses for my work, but if festivals are your focus then it's worth looking into what festivals like
(one or two scenes with technical mastery, a soliloquy or just long speech, and themes that explore homosexuality or the creative arts - if you're going for a drama)(they tend to show more diversity with comedies)(again, just from my experience and not a criticism)

Hello everybody I'm gonna shoot a music video for myself tomorrow
almost all of it will be a badly and casually dressed 20-something y/o guy singing and looking depressed/sad/angry/pissed/down on a couch, shot from fairly close up in front of a dark screen so only the couch and the guy are visible, rest is black

now if you were me would you use a 16:9 or a 2.35:1 aspect ratio for that, considering I'm shooting 1920x1080 and would simply crop the video to get to 2.35:1?
also why?

>>3005049
If you're shooting with a cinematic aspect ratio you need to consider that when shooting. Obviously it crops out a lot of footage so you need to be conscious with your framing.

>>3005049
Personally, I'd shoot 16:9
It's a music video, and a low-budget one at that. It's not an anamorphic theatre experience

What computer hardware do you guys have? I'm on extremely old components (amd phenom black x4 ii and asus 6850)

>>3003456
thethingy has the 2012 version which is what I'm using

I want to start making videos using my phone. It's a Samsung Galaxy S5. The "advertised" video bitrate for 1080p is 17mbps. I bought an app called Cinema FV-5, which lets me change the bitrate up to 34mbps.

My question is: is this actually going to record past 17mbps if I select anything above that? It gives me a warning that it might not work, but it does record just fine.

probably a newbie question but when you shoot at an angle (looking left or right) should you care about the horizon line?

thanks

>>3004337
If you want the rain to be visible then you must light it from behind

>>3005344
It may work. Why are you asking us , just try it.

If your microSD card can handle it , that is.

File: highres-vanguard-263at-spirit-level_1345473495[1].jpg (1MB, 3348x2511px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3348x2511px

>>3005410
Best is to set your fluid head using the spirit level. Horizon may be obscured by buildings, trees, terrain or you maybe in an interior altogether.

However if the subject matter you're shooting seems angled even with a correctly set tripod then you should alter the angle of the fluid head manually so they appear correctly. Usually a case when shooting distant subjects while zoomed in.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-30
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3348
Image Height	2511
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:08:20 14:01:47
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3348
Image Height	2511
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Borrowed the Canon 5D Mark III with a 50mm APS-C lens for a (no budget) wedding video from muh school.

I thought this camera had continues auto-focus. How do you turn it on? It won't turn AI-servo on in the menu.

>>2995572
>>2995623
>>2995887

I agree get celtx. There should still be a setup file on the internet somewhere, because I think its no longer a free download.

Also if you wanna talk screenwriting, post some work, and get some feedback then you could join a Skype group.

https://join.skype.com/IR718GCXNU4M

You can't really write in a vacuum and feedback works best on improving your drafts.

>>3005793
If I recall correctly, it doesnt have continuous AF, but if you press the autofocus button while recording then it will find focus

>>3005616
can be still insufficient. big prods do articial rain because natural drops are just too small.

whats the thing directors have on set sometimes its a monocular. but it specifically has like a ridiculous neutral density filter to see the light pattern better?

>>3006519
you mean a director's viewfinder? it's for previewing focal lengths for framing.

>>3006526
is it a thing to put a 3 or 5 or 10 stop nd filter on it to see the lighting situation better. i saw it on a youtube video and i cant find it.

>>3006532
You might be thinking of a "gaffer glass"

Usually worn by the gaffer or cinematographer, not the director. It assists with focusing lights and allows you to inspect the filament or arc of a lamp while it's on.

Note that it won't protect against the sun, better to use a dense welding glass for that--or just watch the cloud cover move in the reflection of your sun glasses.

File: tumblr_o0fk8qgjMm1ttk21ho4_r1_500.gif (2MB, 500x274px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x274px

>>2999864
>>2999835
>>2999858
>tfw can't afford benoit debie to shoot porn

File: 03c4dbe6991df31d7505d2df53f0bc91.jpg (189KB, 735x490px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 735x490px

what kind of super8 camera is Jimi using in this photo?

>>3006555
no its just viewing filters. they 'compress contrast range' helps you see what the camera sees better.

>>3006971
Kodak

>>3007226
what model

>>2996305 I'm just gonna leave this....

>>2993237
try on aliexpress, who know's what the quality will be. But /g/ has a chink shit thread for you to muck around in and see if you can get an answer. I know the guy making the guide pic has a lapel mic on the image so SOMEONE must know.

>>2994896
so is asking a indian corn husking forum dont you think.

>>3005754

i was contemplating both options you mentioned (subject vs tripod).
You have been a great help. Thank you

>>3003456
if you're still looking for it, rutracker has that and more

Can anyone recommend a good gear-bag?

Looking for a (preferably not too expensive) bag for a Ursa mini w viewfinder, 2-4 big V-lock batteries, 3-4 lenses, shotgun, sound mixer, ff, monitor ++. Should I get two smaller ones or a huge one? Hard case vs soft?

I need recommendations on a entry/budget/best bang for buck video camcorder. I am in charge of making highlight and promotional videos and I feel I've reached my limits with a GoPro. Thanks in advance.

>>2992989
Where did the video sticky go, been looking for it for ages.

>>3008559
It's in here but it's a Google doc with blocked permissions

http://pseudosticky.wikia.com/wiki/Pseudo_sticky

File: scoopic.jpg (28KB, 188x195px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 188x195px

Any /film/bros around? I just upgraded from my crappy Krasnogorsk to this baby

File: 71NJ2QXcmVL._SL1500_.jpg (161KB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1500x1200px

>>3008424
How much are you willing to drop? If you want to go good at once you should consider the Canon VIXIA HF G20. I own it myself as a back up and it's probably your best semi-professional entry video camcorder on the market.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AWZFHG0/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=marketorder-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=B00AWZFHG0&linkId=d14c37410d878cd8934d2f221a0db357

If you want to save some cash you can also buy refurbished version.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MDV2I3L?ie=UTF8&tag=marketorder-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=B01MDV2I3L

>>3008559
We stopped adding it to the OP because it was shit and inaccessible
It's literally in the OP

NEW STICKY
http://pastebin.com/6U6kvK3K
>http://pastebin.com/6U6kvK3K

Can people give feedback? I've probably made a ton of stupid mistakes (I wrote it quite fast)
Also, is it missing anything important?

>>3008790
Add an FAQs

>>3008756
i want to get into it so bad but its just a hobby and im poor.. been looking at the Kras 3's and short ends but processing is still pretty pricey. How much does it cost you for 20 minutes of video all said and done?

>>3008795
http://pastebin.com/Em6590ry

>>3008396
You'll only get happy with a hard case. Order a customized flight case with seperation walls and foam inside.

>>3008790
>>3008801
That's no good. The sticky shall give a general overview about cameras and the crucial aspects of videographing. In a neutral and distant view.

E.g.:
A list of knowledge resources without long comments and descriptions.

A list of cameras ordered by price and/or in categories like RAW-recording, interchangeable lens support, usage purpose (broadcast, tv, cine etc). (A good list surprises also with unknown brands)

An FAQ with actual directions to where find more knowledge. Humour is fine but only in combination with actual information.

>>3008873
>A list of knowledge resources without long comments and descriptions.
>A list of cameras ordered by price and/or in categories like RAW-recording, interchangeable lens support, usage purpose (broadcast, tv, cine etc). (A good list surprises also with unknown brands)

I figured that linking articles was easier than researching prices that were ever-changing. You can't make grids in pastebin either
Most of the info is in the linked articles, of which there are probably better ones out there. But explaining an entire article in the sticky just seemed pointless

The joke FAQ-answers were semi-serious
If you've a mate who knows everything, go ask them, we don't give a shit. All the relevant info is the doc I figured

But what specifically would you add? Or change?

>>3008873
>>3008889
>A list of knowledge resources without long comments and descriptions.

I just realised that I barely responded to this.
I added the comments as ways to explain what the article would tell you but simplified and short. I didn't think they were long descriptions, but I guess you disagree?
It's no use just having a list of articles because that's extremely off-putting. There would be no way of knowing which article applies to your issue. It's helpful to let the reader know what the article says.
I agree that maybe there should be more resources linked though. Recommendations?

Updated sticky
http://pastebin.com/SjKPtgCj
>http://pastebin.com/SjKPtgCj

Again, criticise, add to, whatever

I've got 2K to set up streaming for my church. The budget sucks ass and I don't know what to do. The stage is around 60 feet away from where the camera needs to be. 1080p is the only other requirement.

Any help is appreciated.

>>3008922
Do you have to buy all the equipment for that much?
Do you have a streaming platform or a media server ready (youtube, wowza, etc.)?

Imo you best bet is a 18-20x zoom fixed lens camcorder with a HDMI out connector and a set of XLR connectors for a wider range of audio inputs. For restreaming content get DeckLink Mini Recorder (145$). Use that to connect camera output to a PC via HDMI. Then restream to whatever service using ffmpeg or OBS. The PC doesn't have to be anything amazing, a 9 year old dual core should handle this provided you don't run anything intensive on top.

You can get a modest tripod for around 130$.

The problem is the camera, the only ones I found that fit the bill cost around 1600$
Canon XA30
Panasonic AG-AC30
There are cheaper ones with XLR and HDMI ports but the optical zoom is only 12x at best. You could try searching for those I listed used, they go cheaper.

All in all you're probably left with slightly over 100$ to go with cabling. It would help if they have some PC laying around for streaming, else you'll be going over the budget buying everything new.

>>3008777
I was thinking 500 or less. I was also thinking used. I was thinking of going a DSLR camera and record but heard they overheat? I'd be doing 90%video recording but would also like to be able to take pictures. Any other recommensations? Internet recommended a used t3i or t4i. But that is a DSLR and not a camcorder. Sheesh this is confusing.

>>3009043
Some DSLRs overheat, but not all.
I've never heard of over-heating issues with a t3/4i

DSLRs are great. But they're better for narrative work due to their (largely) bad or lacking autofocus. You also have to buy lenses for them which is more good than bad, but is costly
But they do double as great stills cameras whereas I would never take a photo with a camcorder

Camcorders have smaller sensors than DSLRs which means that they perform worse in low-light situations and it's harder to create shallow depth of field.
They tend to have more video-y features though, such as histograms and xlr audio inputs

Personally Id never even look at a camcorder for the price range you're talking because a t3/4i will massively outclass it in image quality. And the t6i has usable video autofocus and should still come in under $500. But to each their own

>>3009183
>autofocus
That's why DSLM/MILCs are so big in the video-scene. They get rid of that split-image autofocussing and as a result have pretty damn good AF, even during video-recording. Best example is Panasonic with its DFDF-wizardry

File: The.Young.Pope.S01E05.720p.BluRay.X264-REWARD.mkv_snapshot_28.55_[2017.01.25_19.16.31].jpg (131KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1280x720px

been watching this show.
my first impression was,
>muh leica glow

>another day, another festival rejection email
what do you guys do to distract yourselves from the notion that you might never succeed?

>>3010247
show us your short movie and let us tell you why it sucks.

>>3010251
i already know why it sucks
>some of the acting is very bad
>the sound isn't always perfect
>the guns are made of plastic
>the story is 1-dimensional about revenge
>(also, it's not festival-bait)

(before you ask, it's basically an art film where the story and characterisation plays 2nd fiddle to the visuals and the atmosphere)
it's just disheartening for now

>>3010264
dude, if you know it's crap, why are you affected by a rejection at all?

>>3010270
It's complicated anon
I'm actually kind of proud of it. Normally I hate everything I make within a month of finishing it, but I actually feel like I accomplished what I set out to with this
And I wanted to be recognised as a no-budget indie auteur, however ridiculous that idea is

That's why

>>3010296
>i already know why it sucks
>I'm actually kind of proud of it
choose one

>>3010346
It sucks in a certain way, but I like it in a different way
If you expect a festival drama made by film school graduates with emotional characters whining about their narcissistic non-issues for 15 minutes, it's not that
But, in my opinion, it's a fun homage to certain films and looks nice

I'm not trying to justify it by the way, I understand why it's been rejected. But that doesn't mean I can't feel disheartened that they didn't see it the way that I saw it

Advice please,
GH5 or A7SII?

To be used mainly for short narrative films

>>3002725
I use it for all my professional work. If you're not an idiot, you can get RED-quality footage from it (albeit in 1080p 30fps max - if that's an issue they're coming out with a Mk II soon with 4k and 60fps). Paired with a speedbooster and a fast zoom like the Sigma 18-35 it's absolutely the best value camera on the market.

>>3010854

GH5

Don't believe the Sony meme

>>3010247
You're dumb if you're doing filmmaking to "succeed" in any respect. I make films for myself, because I enjoy it. Don't care if anyone watches it, that's just a bonus.

>>3010935
>You're dumb if you're doing filmmaking to "succeed" in any respect.
So most of the greatest directors of all time are dumb? Sure, no, you're definitely not talking out your ass.

>>3010854
GH5 will give you better codec, which for Post is worth a lot of money.
Also, The bigger the gear (and E-Mount lenses are massive compared to MFT) heavily reduces setup and takedown times.
And the E-MOunt doesnt have a 24-70mm constant aperture stabilized lens, which EF and MFT both have. It's my "I dunno, just roll with whats one the camera"-lens

I made the experience on a G85 that a double-stabilized system also kills the need for a flycam in most situations (maybe not action shots) and with IBIS, you can use old lenses or CineLenses easily
For short films, convenience is king, especially if you cant afford a crewmember for every task.
I did some shoots in special locations (hangars, bases, trainyards, factories) where time is a key negotiation factor, for example: "If you're not done with your shots by the end of the break we'll kick you out whether you are done or not!"

>>3010936
I think he meant, don't plan on making it to a big star. Do it to achieve great art.
Most of the "greatest directors of all time" only became that because their taste in art aligns with what the general people, or at least critics, want to see.

Anyone else want to watch RedShark fuck up epicly as they livestream the GH5?
https://livestream.com/accounts/23117056/events/6929892

Shit sound and dark/underexposed picture quality
Ironic for a video-gear online magazine

>>3010951
that's how dslr looks like. like better webcams. deal with it or get a real camera for adults.

>>3010953
>implying you're not posting in a thread full of people who shoot on dslrs and know you're chatting shit

bump limit reached, new thread:
>>3010961
>>3010961
>>3010961

>>3010957
No, it's true. Go away.