/vid/ - Video General

File: ytho.jpg (865KB, 1813x2111px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 1813x2111px

>Old thread isnt even maxxed yet

>>3057645
>what is a thread bump limit?

>>3057636
I've been looking to buy a new lens for my GH2 (which I eventually want to replace with the GH4 or GH5 in the future) as I only have the default kit lens with it.

I don't know a whole lot about lenses but the default lens seems to have very clunky focus and zoom rings. It's almost impossible to get a stable zoom and very difficult to focus quickly without having to completely turn the ring at least twice.

Has anyone got any recommendations as to what I should be looking for? I'd like a lens that has the ability to go decently wide but can also decently zoom and have a good focus ring for extreme close ups.

My budget is only $400 unfortunately. I'd like to eventually get a Metabones speed booster to give me a wider shot and allow me to shoot low light easier and a Sigma 18 - 25 in the future.

Additionally, what are some good resources where I can learn about all the jargon and technicalities of lenses?

I appreciate any help - thank you.

>>3057745
>only have kit lens
>buy some clunky shit
i suggest getting a panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 or a prime like 25mm f1.7.

>>3057745
Yeah the Lumix kit lenses have pretty shoddy build quality but the higher-end ones, though aesthetically similar, are much much nicer. It's a bit out of your price range but the new 12-60 they launched with the GH5 is great. I'd also recommend the Metabones/Sigma combo, I use it on my BMPCC and it's such a great lens, super fast, super sharp and really nice to work with.

>Additionally, what are some good resources where I can learn about all the jargon and technicalities of lenses?
What exactly do you want to know? The literal physics behind the optics? Or how things like aperture, crops, focal distance etc. work?

>>3057806
Unfortunately standard lenses with a low focal range and lower aperture than f3.5 all seem to be just slightly out of my price range for now. I've been researching primes since making this post and I think that one of those might be the right choice for me at this point - price wise. I'd like a decent wide zoom lens at some point though.

Thank you!

>>3057808
Thank you!

I am more interested in the latter as it will help me in the short term as I begin to shoot video. However, the former is also an interest!

>>3057912
DSLR video shooter
Wolfcrow.com

I have been debating over whether or not to sell my G7 and upgrade to a GH4, if it is worth it for the extra $300 or $400.

I am currently writing a short film that I hope to shoot this summer and I have a budget of about 3k. I will be converting the footage to black and white so I will most likley be relying mostly on natural light though I will get some lights. I am fine with the G7 kit lens at the moment.

I guess my question is, after having looked at many comparison videos, how big a difference is there between the G7 and GH4 in terms of just shooting an in doors short film?

>>3057947
Personally, I'd say that if you can't answer these questions for yourself then you probably shouldn't be dropping 3 grand on a short film
But it's your money so go nuts

>>3057947

If I had a G7 and money to upgrade, I'd buy nicer lights, stands or microphones.

>>3057969
I know what i'm doing im just indecisive when it comes to actually buying equipment. I'm very big on penny pinching.

I know the picture quality is not very different, I won't be shooting in 4k but 1080p at 60fps, I won't be outside in the elements so I don't need weather sealing for this project, I won't be using slow motion effects so I don't need higher fps than 60. I guess what is making me wan't it is the long term but I should focus on the here and now.

Though I am not a pro or anything like that I am trying to think of gear that will last and allow me to do other shorts as well.

>>3057970
Okay, thank you for the suggestion. I am currently looking into that stuff right now, its tough on a budget.

A hypothetical situation arises where you had the funds to shoot a short film on any 16/35mm camera/stock, what would you go for and why? Hard mode: no switching to digital.

>>3057979
What camera in this hypothetical? What amount of funds?

Just bought an FS7 + Sonys T2 lens kit+ 4k Sony extension unit And have shot a commercial for a local pizza chain,going to edit it this week.I feel so nervous tbqh fāms wish me luck.

>>3058002
Gl anon

Show us the ad when it's done

>>3057993
We'll say $10,000 with any sort of film and digital scanning covered.

>>3057328
Thanks my African American friend!

>>3057947
Honestly, you should go for a G85. If you're already comfortable with the G7, just go for the upgraded version. GH4 is old now and if you're just shooting in 1080, g85's got you covered and some.

>>3057636
how to get the color this person has and
wtf is this video some art school shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ZzY7I1KfY

File: 1488583564602.jpg (167KB, 589x570px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 589x570px

>>3058195

there's no post. it's a red light.

I need some help, I'm really leaning towards a Panasonic G85 for short films, music videos, and abstract art shit; I'm just wondering if this camera can deliver. I guess I'm just open to new ideas and wondering if this is worth the grand I would drop on it. I want this to last me for a while. Every spec about it is very nice for what I need.

>>3058223
k thanks

>>3058245

If you like this, watch Suspiria for colored gel action.

File: bronx mornin.jpg (130KB, 1770x955px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1770x955px

>>3058243
I have the G7, the image quality is fantastic. I wish I had the G85 for the weather sealing. The G85 will deff get you what you want, plus it has better iso and internal stabilization for guerrilla shooting. Buy extra batteries though.

I posted this is the last thread so it just seems like im fishing for compliments but in your case it is useful info. Here is a still from a video I took recently with the G7 in 4k.

One thing I hope you are aware of is that you need a good enough computer to edit the footage and color grade.

Placing a subject right up to a wall is generally frowned upon, right? Is it okay to have him sitting on a couch that's pushed to the wall?

>>3058620
well ask yourself this
>why is it generally frowned upon to push a subject right against a wall?
And then you'll have your answer

>>3058620
There might be a reason that there is not a single sitcom ever made, where the couch is not placed in the middle of the room. Inspite of I never saw a flat in real life with a couch placed like this.
Ofc the reason is simple: Firstly it gives more room for acting and secondly there is more depth in the view.

>>3058620
also: think about the pain in the ass to lighten a proper rim-light when somebody is sitting with a wall in the back.

File: IMG-20170415-WA0001.jpg (66KB, 776x640px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 776x640px

Made a short film for college, this was my first "serious" work.

I've been watching a lot of tutorials from film riot, dslrguide, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SPmDeOo_mY

Gear used was:

-Rebel t5i
-18-55 mm
-50 mm (looked like an 80) 1.8
-Rode NTG for audio
-3 Ikan led panels

What do you guys think? (About my shots, lighting, color grading & correction, etc).

Be harsh.

>>3058738
didn't watch the whole thing cause don't speak foreign
but why is everything so dark? i mean the colours, not the setting
when they're indoors, it's like you just put a black tint on everything

did you lower your max luma values or something?

>>3058746

I wanted it to look that way but yeah, i guess it's a bit too dark.

>>3058738
>Be harsh.
Alright bud, out of a goal to help you grow.

-Opening stuff is alright then it cuts to 0:52 which looks super armature. Bad framing. Very strangle angle, not exactly a high angle shot that would make your character look 'lesser' when he is dominating another person which would be a strange choice but it is somewhere in between which just looks odd. Would have been better to have it level or have the camera looking up at him to establish power.

-2:39, bad focus pull and shake makes it look armature.

-2:43, Bad focus pull, entire shot is out of focus and then the proceeding shots are dizzying due to closeness and changing focus. Practice your focusing. Go by the side of the road and track cars while pulling focusing. It is not pleasant for viewers to look at.

-3:21, weird framing. The shots empty space does not tell us anything and looks slightly askew. Viewers eyes are constantly looking for information every still, even emptiness should be made interesting with lighting or exposure or set design choices.

-3:44, you have the cereal box stay in focus the entire shot while the actor is the main point of information and the center of the shot. Watching something not in focus that is the main source of info is not pleasant despite artistic intentions.

-4:24, the sudden fade to black and fade out of music is awkward. Fade the music slowly in the black.

-4:28, handheld jitters.

-5:56, going from such a dark color grade to this color grade makes it feel segmented. Try and stick with a central look and pallet to your feature. Think of how the Matrix always had a greenish hue to it.

-6:02, handheld jitters, bad framing, too bright of a white.

-6:17, if you can't afford a tripod put it on a stack of books or get a gorilla pod for like $60.

-6:24, was Auto Focus on? It looked like it was hunting for focus. Never use Auto Focus when you are in control like that.

-6:53, what even is that angle? Also jitters and focus problems.
-1/

>>3058770
-continued.

-9:16, I remember this shot from the last thread. Good to see that you seemed to have solved your issue to get the film done haha. Only critiquing for your benefit mate.

-9:19, Again, what is this angle? Very psuedo avant garde college student stuff. Its shots like these that have no purpose that finger you as a beginner. NEVER do anything to not help the story and if it is for the story make sure it is explained in some way visually or thematically.

-9:39, that sudden fade to black again.

-11:27 bad audio and bad focus.

-11:38, that milla second he is out of focus. Practice focusing please, be more aware of it.

-12:29, obviously auto focus. Turn off auto focus and learn to pull focus.

-13:15, focus on the source of information not the hood of the car despite how pretty it is.

-13:35, boring scene to watch him slowly backing out of the driveway. I know you were working with what you have but work within your limitations. This was a yawn.

-14:45, what were you on a skateboard or something? The sounds of the car make it seem like he is going much faster, working the engine, then he actually is which we can see from the corner of the shot.

-16:44, was that zoom a blooper?

>>3058738
I don't want to discourage you at all, I am just trying to provide helpful tips, here is what I thought was pretty good.

-All the close up stuff was great. Very nice use of shallow depth of field and it was also graded well.

-2:26, cool shot inside fridge.

-5:07 to 5:51 was actually interesting. Like earlier anon said it was too dark, but I thoroughly enjoyed it for the most part.

-5:57, nice grading, looked dreamish.

-6:44, if that is how we learn his name it was clever.

-scene with the kid was fun.

-Forgot to mention the scene in the boardroom the main actor was cartoonish in his villain play. He was good for the most part though.

-15:11, best shot in the entire thing. Very visually interesting and is supported by the story, the scene being askew as his life is askew and the situation he is about to enter is strange.

This was a very good start to moving into "serious" territory. You have a lot of work to do but you are on the right track to becoming very good, keep working and your obvious talent will come through.

>>3058770
>armature
ahah sorry, my auto correct is shit sometimes.

What is a good site I can use to sell my editing services?

Is Fiverr any good?

If I acquire a VX-2100, what should I do with it?

File: 1459819671985.png (12KB, 599x605px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 599x605px

>>3058738
>2814
Good taste anon

Should I always shutter 1/50 for 24fps?

>>3059629
180° you pleb

>>3059634
Yes but most cameras don't do 1/48

>>3059629
yes.

GH2 or a6000 for a first timer? Looking to shoot some shorts with friends and learn the ropes of post. Planning to get cheap vintage primes to go with it.

>>3060089
You can Hack the GH2 to be even better, the film Upstream Color was shot with a bunch of GH2's.

However if you decide to go for the a6000 just chip in the extra $50 or so for the Panasonic G7 body. Overall it is a better video camera and an excellent starter camera.

>>3057636

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS1bFEE-EoE

How can i achieve this tipe of colorgrading?
I´m in love with this "neon noir" lighting i saw it first in the springbreakers movie and i loved it

I edit mainly with premiere pro

>>3060411
>color grading
nigger that shit is done with proper lighting, there's not magical shit you can do in post that will overcome poor lighting.

fast way: light using neons
expensive way: light using kinoflo or whatever the fuck it's called
hardcore way: light using available light sources that are preferably colored neons like in that video you posted and then up the saturation on certain colors you want to emphasize.

if you edit in premiere pro you can do it pretty fast with what you have, otherwise get davinci resolve since it's free on their website.

>>3059634
>not going wide open for Collateral style blur

>>3060411
Ugh. 80s nostalgia neon. Damn you Drive, you became the Dark Knight industry standard for indie douche tools, but instead of making everything bleak and depressing for all the wrong reasons and no purpose that serves the story you made it overexposed, lens flare garbage with LUTs galore and stupid blue or purple tint to everything. Damn you to hell.

>>3060600
*coughs8
yeah, who would ever be visually inspired by drive right? f-fucking casuals...
(only god forgives is different right?)

>>3060627
Being inspired is one thing, trying to copy and paste ascetic is an easy way to get fingered as a beginner. Think of all the overhead hand shots you've seen trying to replicate Wes Anderson.

Drive is actually the only Refn movie I like. Has not seemed to evolve past it and his movies have become lost in the sea of copy cats that he created.

>>3060642
>he doesn't like valhalla rising

>>3060661
Have not seen that, the trailer actually makes it look interesting. Will check it out, thanks for the heads up anon.

File: Stalker still.png (3MB, 1479x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1479x1080px

How do I into a post-apocalyptic look on a budget? I've been wanting to shoot a relatively dense project that's mostly set in an abandoned suburban area and, while it's pretty easy to cherrypick a few old buildings and empty industrial locations for most scenes, I would certainly love to somehow recreate the magnitude of a decadent and lifeless urban landscape in the likes of Chernobyl, even if just through some brief scenic shots.

There are plenty of commieblocks around my neighborhood, how do I shoot them in a way that makes them look convincingly post-apocalyptic? What about the streets, how can I make them look abandoned? I know shooting at morning can be a decent way to avoid any traffic or pedestrians, but that obviously isn't enough to actually provoke a feeling of long-time negligence, is there something else I can do in that regard other than littering them with trash like 28 Days Later? Exactly what kind of color grading could substantiate all of this?

>>3058738
First and most jarring, you've been studying through Film Riot and DSLR guide and yet have no idea about how important it is to have a consistent audio quality throughout your film? Because the sound recording and editing in this is awful, especially during dialogue where it constantly cuts to different levels of white noise that make it all seem disjointed and amateur-ish. The fast fades are also terrible, especially given how often you use them (eg, 4:25 - it would be far more effective if you just cut to black without any dissolve in the audio or video).

Other than that, your cinematography is quite solid, most of the shots employ some degree of creativity and the grading is efficient enough for some aesthetically pleasing visuals every now and then. You make a decent use of lighting in interior and night sequences and, while the brief day scenes looked a little flatter (excessive amounts of blue, perhaps?), the composition was still interesting enough to keep me invested. Unfortunately, I can't really say much about the narrative itself because my Spanish is pretty weak, but the acting appeared to be consistently good across most actors and I did enjoy the surreal, perhaps somewhat disjointed impression that the whole thing game me. Also, I guess you deserve an extra point for the Datsun, that's some /o/core taste in classics.

In general, this is a surprisingly solid effort for your first serious work, although certainly not a flawless one. As of now you clearly have the skills to produce a decent narrative, keep on making more stuff and you'll eventually end up with some potential festival winners.

And on a final sidenote, Joy Division fucking sucks.

>>3060600
Drive wasn't even the one that seriously put the "neon" in "neo-noir", Only God Forgives and Neon Demon have far more eighties lighting.

>>3061013
Go into the countryside like Stalker

>>3057636
would like to get some help. I'm trying to shoot footage of me driving at night. Solo touge footage. my idea was to shoot it during the day and turn it to night in post, but I'm trying to avoid the traffic time so that left me the time during sunrise. I don't have any fancy rig. the tools I have are
DSLR - 14-180 / 50 f1.8
unused dashcam
any tip on how I can shoot this?

Whats up guys, would love some help here.

I feel like audio is one of the most important aspects of a film. We will stand a bad picture but not bad audio but most of the film making guides online are about the look itself. Where is a good place to learn about budget audio recording? Pre, Post, gear etc. Are there specific books you have used?

Also I have a 4 grand budget, I am considering using $1000 of this for audio, $400 for lenses (im using canon FD lenses), and $1000 for lighting and the rest for ect. How does this sound to you?

>>3061216
fuck, I wanna film myself on the touge too!
it would've been better if you had like a go pro or something then you could've had a helmet and put it either on top or to the side of it.
I find that touge footage looks more visceral and shows a lot more of the speed if the camera moves more with your head than if it's in a fixed position like a dashcam.

Cause you know, when you just film from a fixed cam or shit it looks like you're going super slow even though you're reaching speeds of 100 km/h on narrow bends, and I hate that personally.

But seeing as you only have a DSLR, maybe you could put it between you and the driver seat SOMEHOW, open that bitch up down to f1.8 and expose for the outside of the car and not on the inside. If you're going on backroads with no street lamps it's gonna be even harder to get to see shit, but as long as you remember to expose for the outside you should be good.
IF YOU CAN, try and go near that golden hour around sunrise. I'd also like to see the footage t b h, what car you driving?

>>3061226
I'm thinking of using the dashcam as a stationary onto the dashboard to record it, and have someone beside me holding the dslr for the more action part
true, i've tried recording it only with the dashcam and its boring af even i hit 50 on a 35 mountain road. I might try to do something with my baseball cap.

sorry to disappoint, I'm only driving a hatchback version of corolla (matrix). a video that I've found a while ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8-STS8xOFI I'm actually going to take the footage the same place as this guy, but mine will be a lot different because its for my video class.

>>3061231
don't have a guy next to you film you, the footage will be mad shaky.
I've done this before, also for a class. We shot a car chase and had people in the passenger seat film.
It was terrible. the footage, while super shaky, still showed the cars barely moving, even though we were going 100km/h in a 50 zone.

The funny thing is, the guy with the camera was moving a lot because of the g forces and because he had nothing to hold him in place, but like I said, when you saw the cars in the footage you couldn't put the two of them together: the cars appearing to move so slow yet the guy moving around like crazy for apparently no reason.
Also, I'd recommend not showing this type of footage in class since it's illegal.
The teachers also gave us some shit about breaking laws and shit when we showed the car chase.

>>3061235
wow, I guess another way to have some face shots would be remounting the dashcam onto the bonet and record my face from there then. I'm not going very fast since my purpose is show my secret of sneaking out and have a fun drive on the mountain roads. won't be as crazy as that guy in the video. My professor is pretty chill on this type of things.

>>3061235
Sounds sort of like the Star Wars conundrum. Originally when the Falcon was flying through space nobody had any idea how fast it was going so they added asteroids to give an idea of how fast they were moving in comparison.

>>3061061
I'm definitely going to shoot some stuff in the countryside, but most of the film is set inside a suburban area and I really want to get some sick contemplative shots of decadent commie blocks :/

>>3061244
You're making life unnecessarily hard for yourself

>>3061013
My advice would be to avoid scenic shots and carefully push the viewer's imagination. What I mean by that is - find something abandoned that fits your bill, an old, rusty truck in the countryside or just a building that looks like what you need and put your characters there in a scene. You don't really need to sell the idea of a post-apo world with a wide shot of abandoned buildings.

>>3061241
is there a way I can incorporate similar idea into a car scene.

Which one should I get?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00139XOCI/
or
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IBI2SH0/

I know they're both shit, but that's my budget now and for the foreseeable future. At least they're a huge upgrade from a wobbly $20 piece of shit without fluid head I had before.

I like how the Ravioli one is heavier and seems sturdier, but people seem to have more issues with it.

I like the fluid head on the Neewer more, it has easy pan/tilt tension adjustments and is actually interchangeable (you can get it separate as VT-1510, I've also seen it on a few other shitty tripod models). But then the tripod itself is really light.

Anyone have any experience or advice between those two? I know you do, I don't believe you're all shooting on $500+ Manfrottos.

So I just read this story and it seems pretty huge to me

https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/4531-canon-confirms-c-log-for-eos-5d-mk-iv-and-launches-impressive-new-lens

>tldr; Canon is bringing c-log to the 5dmkiv
I know that everyone has a giant hate-boner for canon and probably doesn't care and is offended at the notion that anyone would care. But I care.

This is evidence that canon will finally stop gimping its dslrs. Now if they find a way to get 4k on hdmi out, then we're talking...

>inb4 "too little too late, the gh5 rules and the sony a9 has just been announced!"

>>3061460
Look into the WF717 designs (plenty of those) or even http://a.co/3fAQQMv - either of those designs is far better than the ravelli - the leveling is better, weight capacity, and they actually have *some* counterbalance to them.

>>3061216
Your best bet - cheap suction cup (used to life glass plating/granite etc) for about $10, a 3/8" bolt, and a ball head if you wanna get fancy. With the ballhead should only be $20sh total if you get everything off amazon.

This way you can suction cup to the window/windshield, and move it around the car as necessary.

There's always attaching it to a 2x4 and gaffer taping it. Think http://shittyrigs.com/

>>3061623
Thanks, the WF717 head looks very promising, but it's too bad none of the pods with it on Amazon seem to have upside-down mount option or don't spread wide enough. And I'd really like to have that option for low-angle shots, mainly stills but video too. But maybe I can't have everything universal if I want it even remotely good.

Also, are crutch-type legs a meme or are they noticeably better than telescopic?

>>3060600
found the pleb

>>3061317
I think the only way to do it would be to have slower moving objects around, I am not a car chase pro but maybe watch the Matrix 2 car chase scene for some ideas? Always a good idea to go back to reference points.


>>3061770
The irony.

>>3061619
This won't make the Mark IV a reliable video shooter. It will still burn holes through the sun if left on too long and its file sizes will be stupidly large.

In a way I understand the hate for Canon. Where other companies have smartened up and are using new, affordable, tech to make entry level cameras very high quality Canon is afraid that people won't buy their specifically made for video cameras. Hopefully this is a sign that they are smartening up, I would take a GH4 over a Mark IV even now.

>>3061851
>It will still burn holes through the sun if left on too long
I haven't heard that one. Does the mkiv have an overheating problem?

>>3061619
If you ever shoot with a C-series, you will see how this doesn't matter.

>>3061868
you saying that c-log doesn't help the image much? really?

>>3057636
My bosses are trying to make me come up with a weekly news report for our organization, but they want it too look like Vice news so it can "reach younger people". I tried to tell them it would be obvious what we're doing, but they're not having it. Not sure where to even start with editing a appealing news report. Any tips and suggestions?

>>3062701
>If
>it
>bleeds
>it
>leads

Anybody see the Da Vinci 14 announcement? More NLE tools + pro audio suite + massive performance boost, all for free. Trying it out on my iMac, this is seriously now rivalling FCPX and Premiere (certainly way ahead of the former in terms of functionality and the latter in tens of speed). I can't believe this shit is completely free, it feels wrong.

>>3063242
when's it coming out?

>>3063242
I saw that avid was free now, didn't see that though
I should probably get on resolve at some point but pp is just so comfy

>>3063242
When your computer crashes every time you try to bring clips into your timeline : /.

Resolve is very cool, awesome that is a free program that is probably the best color grading software for entry level film makers. Too bad my computer is too shit to color grade with it. Who has $1500 for a computer...

What's a good idea for cheap lunches for a crew on a first-year student film? I'm working with no budget here

>>3063398
Fast food or sandwiches.

>>3063398
not pizza

doughnuts should be included along with coffee but yeah

>>3063398
Shredded news paper clippings soaked in expired yogurt.

>>3063410
Thank you I'm gonna go with this

>>3063412
Serve it in a single trashcan, the entire crew must eat with their hands, one person is not allowed a meal. That person will be the best performer.

>>3063424
This

A good trick is to give them enough for only a handful to eat. This'll get them to fight over it, culling the weak from the group

>>3063429
He is correct, but don't waste your money with some high grade news paper. That stuff is for the dogs, get a few copies of your local filth and tear out the obituaries. Its a plus if one of your crews relatives has just died and they are forced to eat their obituary. As a director it is an ultimate satisfaction to watch them think, 'Do I abandon my moral compass or survive?'. Sexual, purely and completely.

>>3063410
>>3063424
>>3063446
Also, to finish my advice, if you have access to a gun with some rounds go ahead and kill one crew member a day, claim its out of old Hollywood superstition. Critics go wild for that sort of directorial behavior.

>>3063253
Unannounced, beta is out now and works fine for me.

>>3063290
My computer can barely handle 1080p clips in Premiere but this new version of resolve seems to be working like a breeze so far.

nah

>>3063529
hmm... Will look into it, thanks.

File: why.png (33KB, 868x700px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 868x700px

>clear cache files from within Premiere Preferences
>go to the relevant folder
>it is still 71GB !

How do I clean the cache? Can I reopen and work on older projects if I empty the cache?

>>3063757
Just delete the folder. PPro will regenerate whatever it needs next time you open something.

Is FCPX really the fastest when it comes to editing on old Macbook Pros?
It's really underspec'd

>>3063995
I use it on a 2010 iMac and especially with the newest update it's way faster than Premier in every regard. Say what you will about the magnetic timeline, it's an exceptionally well-optimised piece of software.

those new firmwares for the Arri Skypanels are absolutely HNNGGGGGG

>>3063757
>>3063875
if you don't see now what a retarded concept premiere has, and you still use it, there is no way anyone could help you to stop being a retarded pleb.

>>3064106
you are an idiot

>>3064371
>>3064379
Go back to /tv/

>>3064371
The concept of a cache?

Looking to upgrade my camera, I mainly shoot music videos and promo for small business.
Coming from the canon T2i..
Where should I put 3.3k?
I have 3 cannon lenses (kit, broken 50 1.4 and 24-60 2.8) 2 led panels, shitty lav, rode shotgun and ronin m
Got caught up in the gh5 hype but now I'm considering gh4 to save a bit for lenses and audio.

>>3065436
exactly

>>3065466
GH4 with metabones speed booster Ultra for canon.

File: refn.jpg (141KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1200x798px

Just made this for a 48 Hour Film Project at my school.
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=LuKNtL5B3xM
Let me know what you guys think.

>>3066405
"no videos were found"

>>3066424
here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuKNtL5B3xM

File: 1485303463306.gif (140KB, 379x440px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 379x440px

>>3066611
Dude. It's first half PoV and the not. Dude. First half PoV. Then not. Dude.

>>3066649
Well the character focus changes.

I forgot to mention it out with rage/jealousy/distraction with the amount of work I have to do

I'm in a filmmaking/actors facebook group. I never post myself, but some director did and acquired a small crew to make a short film in a day or so
Great, good for them
It goes on youtube and I decide to check it out because I'm curious

Holy shit, it's terrible. Bad camera angles, shots out of focus, terrible sound, poor acting and a shit uninteresting story
Ok, whatever. I mean the director talks like he's hot shit but for a day's work (I hope it was only a day) it could be worse. (it wasn't edited in a day by the way, this was a few weeks later)
So everyone involved is all like "great stuff" or "awesome work!" and I'm a little jealous but whatever. Fair play, he managed to get people involved and make something even if it was shit. End of story

But no! A couple of weeks ago he posts to let us know that this film has been accepted into a film festival. This piece of shit actually made it into a fucking film festival some fucking how
And I'm pissed because my shit's never made it into a fucking film festival (not saying my stuff deserves to by the way)

Like, I'm pretty confident that everyone in this thread could make a better short than that shit
I'd post a link to it but I don't want to give it publicity
/rant

(he's just posted another short today and I'm trying to decide whether or not I want to see what he's shit out this time)

technical question

I have a bunch of DV tapes, but I do not have a firewire port nor a way to add a firewire pcie card.

Would it be better to just buy like an old ass ibook and capture the tapes from firewire onto a usb hard drive or are the usb ports in those too slow? (I'm assuming usb 1, not usb 2).

I'm a windows person, so I don't think there are any current laptops out right now that are thunderbolt because I know apple has a firewire to thunderbolt adapter. Would that work on a windows computer that has thunderbolt?

>>3066611
Anyone else got any opinons/advice on this?

File: Lazy Bones, Lazy Bones.mp4_snapshot_05.30_[2017.04.30_16.08.55].jpg (538KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1920x1080px

My first actual short that isn't me trying different techniques.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0JIrQxF9PQ

I can recognize and seem to be unable to stop myself from having long slow drawn out shots in which much isn't happening. Been trying to remedy this by having striking imagery but not sure if it works or is even interesting enough to hold the attention of people.

>>3066925
...but he made something.

Look, the biggest thing that anyone reading this board needs to take away (doesn't matter if stills or video or what the hell ever), you don't get anywhere bitching about what other people are doing. Go out and make something. Share it around even if it's shit. Once it's done, fucking go make something else. Keep doing it. Learn your lessons from each project and apply the lessons learned to the next. Keep at the fucking grind.

>>3066994
I get all that, honest.
I just wanted to rant. Surely you know how frustrating it is to watch someone else succeed ahead of you by making shit?

It's not that I feel entitled or particularly arrogant.
It's like watching your mate who's more of a loser than you somehow end up having a threesome with 2 models by acting like an autist. Fair play to him but for fuck's sake

>>3066996
>I just wanted to rant. Surely you know how frustrating it is to watch someone else succeed ahead of you by making shit?
Sure, but in a lot of ways, giving in to even rant is working against you. Nigga's living in your head without paying rent. Exorcise that demon however you can. If you can fold it into motivation, then go for that. But don't waste your time on what others do. That's just another form of procrastination.

>>3066996
How about this:

What if the festival that accepted that film is shit too?

In fact, what if even well respected films by real filmmakers are shit?

At the end of the day you have to be your own measure of quality. There's a great quote by, I think it was Haskell Wexler the cinematographer, who said that you have to keep your eye on your own goal throughout your career, because it's likely that both people who hate your work and people who praise it don't have your taste, they'll never really understand what's in your head.

If you look both at what's commercially successful and what's critically successful, it's a mixed bag, sometimes a mixed bag within even the same film.

Rather than worrying about how others are doing, think about what you want to achieve project by project (again, not in the 'i'm the best i'm always right way', but in the 'i've achieved this and failed that in my own mind' way). It's interesting to observe your own reactions to others' reactions once in that state of mind.

>>3066925
just post the video you cunt

>>3067003
>>3067028
Aye, thanks for the encouraging words guys. I've got so much uni work at the moment that I can't do any filming or editing, so I think this is how I'm dealing with that frustration

>>3066925
I understand and relate to this 100%. This >>3066994 anon is generally right in how to deal with it, but I totally get the frustration when you are doing something yourself, you know you put your heart into it and are objectively better at it than someone else, yet someone else's garbage gets recognized and praised.

And then you get hit by the realization that no matter how good your shit is, it won't sell on its own merit, but it has to be sold by you, and you have to sell yourself too.

The frustration of seeing how some literally talentless at art but great at networking and entrepreneurship and generally selling yourself cunt gets to reap all the rewards is fucking palatable.

As an introvert who's terrible at networking and all that shit it made me pretty much give up on all forays into making my shit get any recognition.

I know that at the end of the day it's my and only my fault for giving up and I have no excuse for that. But I am what I am and I'm done trying to be someone that I'm not.

>>3067114
>As an introvert who's terrible at networking and all that shit it made me pretty much give up on all forays into making my shit get any recognition
>I know that at the end of the day it's my and only my fault for giving up and I have no excuse for that. But I am what I am and I'm done trying to be someone that I'm not.

Well I know that feel, probably heading in that direction. This is why I have always being envious of brother/artist teams.

Going to at least try to follow the path of this guy
https://www.youtube.com/user/ponysmasher

Made some shorts by himself and animations due to lack of crew. At some point he got a gf and started making horror shorts in their apartment. Started submitting them to festivals and one then made Lights Out. first i need to find a gf though

>>3066925

Which film festival? Im surely its not Busan, Berlin, Brussels, Tribeca, SWSX, Sundance or fucking Cannes right?

Im sure its a some small obscured film festival that nobody cares about. His film is shit and its going to get worst if people see it in a festival instead and him as a director being there are going to get laughed at for his shitty work. Honestly just let it go he is probably a green director who is also learning to git gud.

All you need to do is make more and improve

Does anyone torrent Premiere or Avid?

I really don't want to pay either $1300 for avid or $600/yr for Premiere and After Effects. I'd lean toward Avid if I had to unless someone talks me off the ledge or I guess I could go on using my CS5 crack.

best filmic settings for iphone?

>>3067189
kys my man

>>3066955
a cheap/older machine with firewire (or room for a firewire card) would be fine. I'd say its cheaper to buy a firewire card ($20sh for a card) if you want to go that route. I'd capture the clips to the HDD then transfer to USB - this way you don't have to worry about killing your external drive.

>>3067189
So far I've had good results with 24fps, 1/48 @below ISO400 with my 7+, I usually choose compression based off of what I am shooting/what I am planning to do with it (sometimes I just shoot for giggles, no need to use 100mbit for that).

>>3066925
It's less about making something good, but making something when you are starting up. Not to say to make things badly, try your best - but make something even if you are worried about the quality of what you make.

>>3065466
It's hard to say since it's a matter of preference, I'd say beefing up your audio and lighting kit are a bit more important.

If possible, rent/borrow a few different options and see which one you prefer to use (note: for your canon glass - you'll want a smart adapter to adjust the aperture [assuming they are EF/EF-S]).

>>3061641
It depends on the quality of the telescopic legs, but I find that a lot of them feel a bit flimsy to me unless it's a bit higher end (Benro/Manfrotto/Gitzo etc). On the cheaper legs like that, the locking mechanisms don't seem to last as long as I'd prefer, and the ability to level the camera with them is a pain (having to adjust the legs, rather than just the tripod head).

For lower shots, I'd probably just add a 3/8" bolt to a slab of plywood w/a block of 2x4 on it (pretty cheap) for a poor-mans highhat ($10sh vs $200 on that) and go for a more sturdy set of legs.

>>3067198
Why? I shoot stock on my phone with Filmic. It does Log.

>>3067224
I don't really have a way of putting in a firewire card though; no more pci or pcie slots on my pc available.

Or are there cards you can get for modern laptops?

Anyone know of any good international film festivals/short film festivals to submit a short film to?

I'm having so much trouble trying to get auto focus to work on my gx85.

I don't know if it's the settings I'm fucking up or or the lens I use or just the camera auto focus just sucks.

I want to make nature walking videos in forest and stuff I would like to get everything in focus while walking around. Is that possible?

The lens I have are 25mm 1.7 and 12-32mm kit lens.

For some reason the auto focus works alot better on the 12-32mm.

Also what ND fliter should I use? When I'm out side even going to 22 f stop it is still to bright.

>>3066611
I like the concept of it, being hunted by a street artist is pretty funny and a unique idea.

the running shots were coolish. Did you do that back pack pov set up with belts and shit?

The actor was terrible. Like real bad. Felt like you asked him to impersonate Clock Work Orange.

I like the up beat ending, subverted what I thought it would do.


Pay more attention it costume. I know that you only had 48 hours but the main actors shorts and un ironed white shirt stood out like a sore thumb.


Good try for 48 hour film, keep up the good work man you clearly have talent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRX71k5TSOA

>2017
>shoot video with canun
>1080p looks like 720p
lolololol

>>3067317
cannes?

>>3067663
any realistic ones?

Do people in here read scripts and give feedback of them?

>>3067663
we went through this earlier, cannes is shit for short films and not a proper festival

>>3067317
just think of the biggest city near to you and type "film festival" next to it in google

>>3067710
How long is it?

>>3067804
18 Pages, but i've already finished writing it in 83.
[spoiler]https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/67hm5e/neon_blades_18_pages/[/spoiler]

How do I make good quality video file out of VHS-C film?

>>3068066
Good playback deck and decent capture card, with both supporting RGB input/output.

>>3057636
Just shot some video of my car, edited the whole thing together and it's coming out quite nicely albeit looking a bit soft.That said; should I sharpen in post? I have a t5i with minimum sharpness on it.

Here's a short I improvised, and then I mean really just let the camera roll on the spot while my friends were talking shit about rappers and spacecake.
I tried making something of the material during editing and ended up with just something that was about the moment itself.
It's not in english, but the dialogue is not very important. Also, we just bought a stabilizer and didn't quite know how to use it, so it looks terribly wobbly at points, but not for the most part.
What do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iEjixnCXD4

>>3068247
Here's an earlier project, there's no dialougue except a few words in the beginning. Its budget was €10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6A37wkhy8U

Thought I posted this earlier but I guess it didn't go through.

What's the conclusion on the chronos 1.4? I'm not a /p/ guy so I haven't heard much talk about it, I assume it's been done to death here though so cliffnotes are fine.

>>3068248
In a few years you will look back at this and realize you were the real spackos. But that's okay. You can develop. Do this.

Does anyone have any examples of cinematic establishing shots/wide shots that was shot long lens?

>>3068520
Lots in Lawrence of Arabia, one at the end of Se7en

>>3068520
Badlands

>>3066972
Bone/10

>>3068212
pls

>>3068520
Big tele shots are like half of Michael Bay's shooting. If you suffer through and watch you'll see the compression

>>3068212
yes
don't overdo it though

Back in the early 2000's, I remember the Canon XL was all the rage for super low budget indie productions. What would be the modern equivalent of that?

>>3068894
There isn't really one, but I guess the most popular cheap indie shooters are the C100 and BMCC.

>>3068893
How do i know how much is too much?

>>3068941
Look at it. Make sure there are no glowing outlines and that the image still looks natural

File: E93 Film Linked Comp 09 (0-00-00-00).jpg (388KB, 1920x2160px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1920x2160px

>>3068941
>>3068950

bottom one is with noise reduction and unsharp mask. Should I go further?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:03 18:18:40
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1920
Image Height	2160

File: E93 Film Linked Comp 09 (0-00-00-00).jpg (561KB, 1920x3220px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1920x3220px

>>3068958
Sorry, even further.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:03 18:21:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1920
Image Height	3220

>>3068958
>>3068960
my untrained eye literally cannot tell the difference. don't worry too much about this.

>>3068958
I mean, the NR is noticeable on the ground, but no one is going to be looking at it.

>>3067322

never use auto focus

>>3057636
is it really hard to make a pov driving scene look fast?

>>3066925
Just post it, anon. I'm genuinely curious. Also, what was the filmmaking group? I've been trying to get into one for a while, actually.

>>3067364
That was shot with a D750

>>3069149
deleting frames can be tricky. if you have motion blur the motion will look edgy after deleting frames (because of a slight mismatch of the remaining frames' blur). if you have no motion blur at all the whole sequence looks edgy in the first place (still better tho).
the only solution is to capture without any motion blur and then render artificial motion blur on the up-speeded sequence. best results with a 3d algorithm. but 2d can be sufficient

Canon T6i
Cinestyle or C log?

>>3057636
>shoot 50fps
>hurr don't like this video game look
>select every 2 frames
>25fps
>no judder
why PAL is master race?

if you drop 60fps to 30, it will still look like a soap opera. your only choice is 120fps because no one makes a 96fps camera.

>>3069473
t7i.
cinestyle if lazy.

File: 51761730.jpg (172KB, 1024x942px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x942px

>tfw no longer able to appreciate art or music without exhasperatedly imagining a visual component to it
Photography and video ruined my life.

File: transferir.png (7KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 205x246px

>>3067114
>As an introvert who's terrible at networking and all that shit it made me pretty much give up on all forays into making my shit get any recognition.
>I know that at the end of the day it's my and only my fault for giving up and I have no excuse for that. But I am what I am and I'm done trying to be someone that I'm not.
Fuck you, anon. I don't come to /vid/ to find harshly relatable feelings.

>>3069489
>Le t7i is better for video maymay
Off yourself

>>3069522
>implying the dual pixel af is not better for video
lol.

File: 1458051941321.jpg (31KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x480px

>>3069559
>af for video

File: 1493800627384.jpg (125KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1280x720px

>>3069559
>af

>>3067114
This is literally the one thing holding me back from doing what I want to do and I can't seem to get past it. Holy shit, it sucks.

>>3069566
>>3069593
>sony and pana turds
not my fault your camera suck dicks at af.

File: [HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium S2 - 01 [720p].mkv_snapshot_32.03_[2016.10.06_06.53.21].jpg (164KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1280x720px

>>3069983
>>3069593
>>3069566
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW00tVj1wS0

File: Ruler.gif (2MB, 450x254px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x254px

>>3065466
Yeah the GH4 will teach you a great many things compared to the T2i.

Go for that and spend your saved shekels on glass.

>>3069659
>>3069500
>>3067114
Where do you guys live?

>>3070295
Poortugal :/

>>3065466
similar question but jumping from t3i. Should I go for gh4 or A6300? Planning to shoot a lot of dark videos and a6300 supposedly works better in low light. Have cannon sigma 1.8 lenses

File: 1371213742033.jpg (56KB, 794x517px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 794x517px

Daily reminder that, if this got awards for sound and cinematography, then you faggots can get the courage to direct something and submit it to a festival.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbTc81JmQTs

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3070941
we've been through this
it's not about the quality of your work, it's about who you know and how well you can market yourself

(not that I'm giving up any time soon)

>tfw kinda want to quit filmmaking but don't want to betray my former self

it's weird. I've been into this as long as I can remember, probably since I was 5 or 6, but at 23 I'm no longer feeling the motivation and drive I once did. I don't want to make shitty YouTube DSLR films anymore. I don't want to be a failure anymore. and i'm thinking I should just give up. but it's fucking hard to give up on a dream you've had in your head for decades, I feel like I need to stay true to myself but I just don't wanna do it anymore.

what do I do?

>>3070941
Oh god a local film

Please no

The art students around here are full retard.

>>3070941
this is awful

File: 1452984999044.gif (2MB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 267x200px

>>3070941
is this a fucking joke

>>3071121
>probably since I was 5 or 6, but at 23
>it's fucking hard to give up on a dream you've had in your head for decades

Its only been a dream for A decade and at your age its literally on par with a kid who wanted to be a fire fighter or cowboy when he grew up. Either give up and move or keep it as a side hobby and then resent giving up on your childhood ream when you are in your 40s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVUyLAuPGhg

>>3071121
give up and make room for actual filmmakers. you just stand in the way with your redundant shitbull doodoos.

>>3071715
literally no one in this thread is an "actual filmmaker" though

>>3071827
you may speak for yourself.

>>3071827
define 'actual filmmaker'
the majority (i hope) have made at least a short film of their own
several people are professional videographers in some capacity
and then you've got dd and others who get paid to make films/tv shows

so... yeah

>>3071827
I'm a professional videographer as I'm sure many others here are.

I have a question concerning picture profiles on canon DSLR's.

What is better?

1. Neutral
2. Cinestyle
3. EOS HD C-Log

The first two I knew about but the third one I discovered today, however I have yet to find any color correction examples with the third one. Is the third one worth buying or has a kind anon uploaded it somewhere?

>>3072000
nice

>>3072338
>What is better?
I used cinestyle and it works great for me, if that helps

How do you focus when using a glidecam?

>>3072818
you don't
either get a 1st ac and a follow focus, or use a camera with decent autofocus

>>3072832
Will a focus whip work?
Where do i put the monitor for the focus puller?

>>3072818

Stop down and stay the same distance from the subject

>>3072836
It won't, any slight touch will make the camera move around especially if you're walking with it. You need a remote follow focus to REALLY make it work properly.

Also keep in mind that if you're not using cine lenses, most other lenses 'breathe' when you change focus, so it will also imbalance the glidecam slightly.

Best option is to choose a distance and hold focus there, or plan yoyr shots so that you can refocus when you're standing still at least ( for example if you walk in front of someone for a bit, then you stop and they continue to approach the camera, you can probably have your 1st ac refocus while you hold the glidecam a bit better.

We were talking about film festivals earlier, those fucking scammers who we give money to just for a fleeting moment of hope...
I just read this

http://nofilmschool.com/2017/05/film-festivals-submissions-actually-watch-your-movie

Even for the big festivals, it's about who you know, not how good your film is
Whelp

best video settings for a6300? slog 2 or 3? what picture profiles everyone using?

>>3059689
Shoot at 25fps then

>>3073124

eurotrash

>>3073109

>"Watch the first five minutes. If it sucks, throw it away."

So, like, don't make your first five minutes suck? That's a pretty basic film rule (at least in AMERICA!). Also not a whole lot different than a lot of college courses.

>>3070295
Philadelphia

>>3058002

What edit kit do you use?

>>3061244

Decadent<--------------------------------------->Commie.

Unless you mean like the ruling officials of the party.

>>3073159
Did you read the article? The point was that the first five minutes didn't suck, they just couldn't be assed to watch more than that. As soon as they were recommended the film, all the festivals were suddenly sucking his dick

>>3073473
But how come people are surprised by this? Because it's relatively easy to make films these days, festivals get thousands upon thousands of films sent every year, of course a personal conection will help. Otherwise your decent film and some guy who shot a feature in 4 days with his friends in the forest is theoretically given the same chance. Programmers have limited time to do this shit too, there has to be a way to sift through all the shit faster and a personal recommendation is a golden ticket.

It's not as if it's a 'cartel' or a 'boys club', it's human nature, you're more likely to help out a friend than a stranger, regardless of how objectively good or bad a film is (nevermind whether stuff can be onjecively good or bad).

Whether you work in film, finance, cooking, cleaning, serving tables, knowing people and being sociable always helps, which is why it's such an extra difficult effort for more socially inept people to be successful. Instead of complaining that it's not fair for your film not to be considered properly, be pragmatic and try your best to get it noticed, the way this guy did.

By the way it was a great idea to write this article for NFS under the guise of 'look at how festivals work' for him to actually further promote his film. The people in the commenta section have now heard of it, the people in this thread have, and so on. It's just another smart marketing move on his part.

>>3073489
The point is that films aren't given equal chances even though everyone pays the same fee (ignoring those who are given waivers)
What are you paying them for if not to watch your film? It's almost understandable that it happens at the smaller festivals who are just circlejerking their friends, but the bigger, acclaimed festivals you'd expect better from

One of the comments is even from a guy who works at a festival where they have to sign a form saying they'll fully watch every film submitted and judge fairly.
(But yes, obviously the article is mainly just this guy promoting his film but whatever)

It just seems that there's literally no point in submitting to a festival unless you know someone, and that's completely at odds with the concept of independent filmmaking

>>3072818
Avoid using glidecam.

I had to shoot a NO budget, amateur made shortfilm, and the director wanted me to use a glidecam he rented even when I told him that it wouldn't work right due to lack of equipment and practice time.

Infested mess of out of focus takes.

>>3073547
>It just seems that there's literally no point in submitting to a festival unless you know someone

There's plenty of shitty small fests that'll take your shitty shit short mi amigo

>>3073597
>your shitty shit short
the second "shit" seems redundant

Can strong black and whites be done during filming? or is it something done in post ?

>>3073611
It can be done during filming. But you should probably do it in post anyway

>>3073611
Never under any circumstance put any kind of digital modification over your capture. You want your rushes to be as close to raw sensor data as possible. By all means stick a LUT or preset on your monitor, but be sure to check the actual input for issues you wouldn't otherwise notice.

>>3073611
Better to make sure you don't clip the whites or lose the blacks on set and do it in post. Unless you're shooting film in which case use a light meter and do tests. On digital there's literally no point risking it by exposing on the edge.

>>3073547
>The point is that films aren't given equal chances even though everyone pays the same fee

Ye, just like in every other aspect of life, some people are prioritized for personal reasons.

If anything I'd say it's still worth submitting to festivals, but make sure your film is head and shoulders above the average, not 'pretty good' but industry standard good, something you'd expect to see in a cinema not at a short film festival. And, despite whatever any programmer says and forms they sign, that first shot and first scene better be fucking great because otherwise I've got another 150 shorts to get through by the end of the day and I'm not getting paid enough to do a proper job to start with.

It's weird that people don't realize just how important your first shot is. Whenever I'm given a script to read I always think 'ok but how are we going to make the first shot pop or attract attention?'

>>3073632
This is actually good advice, thanks
It just sucks but yeah I know, life is unfair and all that jazz

>>3073632
t. clickbait cunny

>>3068248

awful, especially the subject matter, don't you know how overdone people doing drugs is by now?

I recommend getting a crash course in film, sitting down for a week in your room and watching some good film makers, you're swedish aren't you?

Go watch Ingmar Bergman or Jan Troell you faggot.

can i post my short film here, or will festivals refuse it because of it being posted online

>>3074329
Technically you shouldn't because this thread will be archived (you should only post password-protected links where the password has not been posted anywhere the public can access), but I doubt any festivals would find it/care that much.

>>3074336
hmm maybe better not

File: IMG_2688.jpg (21KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 225x224px

>>3074336
>>3074341

[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	225
Image Height	224
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3074329
as a matter of fact: nobody cares about your movie anyways.

>>3074329
see
>>3073109

festivals don't even have the time to actually watch every entry you think they spend time trying to find if some rando has posted his video online?

The only reason why you should worry is if you actually believe you have made something that is real hot shit that would go viral by showing it to a small forum like /p/

If you can make something of that quality you probably aren't browsing /p/

Old sticky was better. WTF is this normie camera list urls?

Waiting for my BMPCC to arrive next week, what would you shoot if you had one?

Where can I get a Super 8 cassette developed and scanned in Australia? Preferably cheaply as well but I know thats probably not possible

>>3074701
Nothing right away, because first you need a script, a crew, locations, actors, funding, logistics, preproduction, a shot list, a storyboard, someone on board to do sound design and/or music, a place where I could get lighting and grip gear for cheap or for free, and time to plan a whole shoot.

Otherwise it's just going to be more shit 'content' being pushed out onto the internet daily. Please think before you 'just shoot something'

>>3074435
fair enough

Give it a watch then, if you will, fellas

https://youtu.be/hcA8YJxDqXo

>>3074701
This >>3074712 desu

>>3074772
this isn't the completely final version btw, but almost there
need to add credits and will probably grade some more and maybe create a 2k master

>>3074779
>>3074712
>>3074701
>what is stock footage

>>3074823
>more shit 'content' being pushed out onto the internet daily

>>3074913
>I have no idea how the world works

>>3074712

So instead of practicing with a 1-2 min short I should pull a bank loan and go straight for a Sundance worthy film?

>>3074933
Don't listen to him, he's just bitter because he's never produced anything of worth. Shoot b-roll or stock until you learn how to compose, edit and grade, then shoot shorts, interviews and ads until you learn how to tell a story.

>>3074933
Duh
You don't hear about how PTA wasted time making shit, he went straight to Sundance
You don't really want to be a worse filmmaker than Paul Thomas Anderson do you?

>>3074937
Well maybe I came off too mean there. What you're saying:
>Shoot b-roll or stock until you learn how to compose, edit and grade, then shoot shorts

In my experience doesn't actually work that way, because if you shoot b-roll or stock footage, you're doing it in your own time, on little to no money and that makes it very difficult to assess 1. what you really know and 2. how you'd fare doing a short, nevermind an ad.

You can learn everything, little by little, trying to put together a small but well produced short. If you shoot stock footage and then decide 'ok i'm confident about composition, lighting and so on now, i'll do a short', you actually won't have any useful skills on set, where figuring out composition is only maybe 20% of your job.

The best thing to do is either take smaller jobs on sets and learn how it's run, or try to put together your own, make mistakes and learn that way.
You can spend 10 years shooting stock footage and once you're on an actual set trying to make something you actully care about you'll be lost.

>>3074933

Ignore the guy who listed a lot of shit. For your first short you can do it with just actors, if they're your friends and aren't completely shit. If not you need one guy to hold a light and one guy for sound maybe, but I would practice editing shitty shit sound out of your camera first to know what to even look for. If you have a friend who's into editing, even better. But if you can't edit half way decently (find the couple of seconds at a time your actors didn't suck) you can't make a decent film. It's an extremely stressful art form so don't feel bad if you absolutely can't do it. Enjoy your life.

Btw PTA made a shitty VHS short with his buds before he blew over 10 grand on his first festival short.

>>3075023

And learn about COVERAGE. This is a skill that takes a lot of studying and fucking up in real life to understand. It's also more important than talent in almost all situations.

>have all this camera gear
>friends have zero interest in doing anything
>no money to pay actors
>no locations
>post ads to find collaborators
>no replies or replies that don't follow up
why do i even carry on

File: IMG_2502.jpg (36KB, 486x412px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 486x412px

>>3075033

>not storyboarding to trick fools into thinking ur serious
>not making artsy crap starring only u in your place/public spaces
>not doing stop motion instead

[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	486
Image Height	412
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3074933
>>3074933
>>3074937
>>3074954
>>3075018
>>3075023
you're all potatos. blablabla. clueless blabbering. nobody of you morons has actually ANY clue how shit works. You are deluded little children who think they would come any forward, because somebody told em how stuff is or because they read a book or a fine blog. oh, you were at the local film festival which was hosted by the school? or the local film support community? you once got drunk with a friend and you discussed deepest insights of how buzzziness works and what not. all this makes you the real experts. yeah, yeah. you have to do this. you have to avoid that. market works like dis. consuma wants dat. BULLSHIT. I tell you what: ALL of your ideas how things would be are BULLSHIT. you don't have any clue.
man, you didn't even realize the SIMPLEST aspect. it's not even worth it, because you won't even get it when somebody punches you it in your face. but so that you have at least once have heard about it: It is not even a real market. All the """rules""" you seem to have realized so profundly are a joke. a hilarious joke. all your knowledge is a joke. it is void. you are just not intelligent enough to get beyond your own delusions. you WANT to believe all that bullshit which makes you feel so special. "oh yeah, I know how shit works. ot's a tough business, you know. but XYZ said in an interview you have to do ABC. and XYZ did blablabla. You know. I have experience. You know. I made X shorts and nearly a feature. Dude, I made a feature. It was gorgeous. But it didn't work out because .. bla .. market principle .. bla .. competition .. bla .. academy .. bla .. emp effect .. gay-bar .."
... you are so defunctioned and you don't even realize it .. it is SAD.

>>3075033
Sounds like me, where you live?

>>3075040
You might actually be autistic m8.

>>3075041
NJ/Philly area

>>3075043
hurrrrrrrrtrttttt. you make me vomit you ape

>>3075040
you're talking a lot about the business side of things here. what happened? sounds to me like you worked really hard on something and then couldn't find distro.

>>3075033
Dude. I'm lacking the gear, and I have essentially everything you need. And I'm out of the Philly/New Jersey area. I'm in Bucks County. Where are you at?

Posting

>>3074224
>>3073940

Here for a better chance of a response

>>3075033
>have money for expensive camera gear
>can't afford to pay a couple of theatre actors 20 bucks a day
what did he mean by this?

>>3075033
see
>>3067122

get a gf

>>3075018
Each to his own, that's the way I learned. You're never going to learn how to do an ad or a short quicker than just doing an ad or a short. But shooting stuff like stock for a while means that when that time comes you'll know the camera inside out as well as the rules and tools of composition, lighting, grading etc. which are always the issues I see with beginner footage.

>If you shoot stock footage and then decide 'ok i'm confident about composition, lighting and so on now, i'll do a short', you actually won't have any useful skills on set, where figuring out composition is only maybe 20% of your job.
I did exactly that and it worked out fine. Obviously you should work on other people's shirts to understand how everything is run, but the poster was just asking what to shoot on his BMPCC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0btY-irwawk

can slr magic make anything good?
the image quality looks like some 80s film lens.

>>3075247
The whole anamorphot stuff is massively overrated anyways. In regard to IQ there are more downs than ups. Don't let anybody fool you about that slight win of vertical resolution. It's completely lost in loss of sharpness and overall quality of the glass. .. Unless it'd be a rediculous well made anamorphot.
And those flares and bohkek .. well .. c'mon.

So, screw slr magic. they should start building decent 'normal' lenses first, before they do that esoteric stuff. .. well, u know, if Sigma would make an anamorphotic lens it would be a different stiry though ..

Does anyone else remember when vimeo was awesome a couple of years back before they decided to screw over basic users to pressure them into buying a membership?
Haha, what fun times they were

(I'm like this close to just using youtube. Vimeo clearly gives no shits about its users)

>>3075247
anamorphic is a meme

>>3075401
vimeo was always shit. and funnily enough: technological seen.
their claim to provide superior technology for professional clients is a joke. as a consumer I never felt like: oh, when it's vimeo than you can be sure image quality is high, it always streams fast and it works on all devices. nope. not at all.
they lost the fight with youtube. but to be fair: google is an unfair competetor in the first place, since they are not dependant to work economical, because it is not a real company but a government-supported data-kraken.

>>3075406
it pisses me off because there's this massive group of people who support vimeo by using it and uploading their stuff there instead of youtube; and vimeo repays us by gimping their performance for people who don't pay and taking away features

They're in the perfect place to be the defacto indie video site but apparently they're not content with that. Fucking greedy pieces of shit
Google should just launch an indie-video subsite of youtube at this point. I don't even know how it'd work but it'd still be better

>>3075451
well, dude, on the other hand this large group does not really support vimeo by uploading content, but produces costs to no end. do you think it is supportive to invoke costs? all the servers, storage and bandwith for some shitty ""indie"" hipster fuckheads with their unwatchable dslr vomit works.

google is rather the problem, because due to their nazi-jew money they give people the impression it would be some kind of GRACE to use a service for free.

if you not wanna pay then fuck you. use a gaygle service.

or - like a real pro - establish your own infrastructure. ape.

I just upgraded from canon to sony mirror less, usually with canon it was recommended that you turn down the sharpness, saturation and contrast.

I've seen multiple videos recommending to do the same for sharpness in sony but none mention saturation or other settings. Should I also be dropping the saturation?

>>3075746
Yes if you're not shooting log. if you are shooting log it doesn't matter it's flat anyway

I want to find a good resource for watching short films. At the moment I'm just looking at Vimeo groups and sorting by likes.

Does anyone have an interesting link for me?

>>3076405
https://www.shortoftheweek.com/

>>3076405
http://www.ubu.com/film/

merry christmas

>want to get a camera mainly to record
>get told to get an DSLR

I thought these were designed to take photos. Should I really get a begginer one like the Nikon D3400 instead of a 100~200€ camera? The Nikon is 469€ in my country.

>>3077846
>not reading the sticky

>>3077852
>reading it and still being confused

?_?

>>3077889
what are you confused about?
Mirrorless/DSLRs allow greater control and provide better image quality than camcorders at the same price

>>3077846

general rule of thumb is if you're gonna be wiggling your shit all around documentary style and don't want to worry about focus than get a camcorder. If you want dat cinematic look go dslr.

>>3077978
Well, a camcorder is like half the price or less than a DSLR. It's just that all the people I know who have DSLR always used them to take photos, I thought they were just for average video, like a phone camera or whatever.

>>3077993
>from a guy who claims to have read the sticky
why lie?

I've seen cinematographers mention shooting films at a t2.8/4 split. Can someone explain what exactly this means?

>>3077993
Camcorders suck shit for video, they're completely outdated. Your phone can do better video. The cheapest non-DSLR cams worth their weight for video shooting are the A6300 and BMPCC.

>>3078095
'split' just means the aperture of the lens is open to between f2.8 and f4. The F stop measures how much light can enter the lens and the T stop is measured at the rear of the lens, it's the amount of light that actually filters through. So a (bad) lens could be open to f2.8 but actually be T4, which is why professional cine lenses have their measurements written in the T stop because as a DP you need the most precise measurement of what you're actually getting in camera, especially on film.

>>3078116
t. apehead

>>3078116
There's going to be a place for camcorders until the little cameras get decent sound and storage capabilities.

File: 1340800362206.png (3KB, 222x211px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 222x211px

Hi friendos, last time I was here must've been two or three years ago when people were still wanking over Depressed Director and the Pocket Cinema camera, so what's changed? Thoughts on the GH5, Canon a shit, anyone actually doing projects?

>>3078601
>Depressed Director
Don't remember this

>pocket cinema camera
Still my A-cam and proud

>GH5
Fantastic, add ProRes and you've got the ultimate filmmaking camera.

>Canon a shit
Even moreso now

>actually doing projects
Yep. Did a long corporate shoot yesterday.

>>3078601
hey that's around about when I first came here
DD popped up for the first time in months like 3 weeks ago, it was great

A lot of people love the BMPCC but, from what I've observed, it seems it's divided people between those that want a proper video camera for relatively cheap that's small and those who want nice-looking footage in their low-to-no-budget short film
RAW video is basically a meme (not actually, but effectively)

GH5 is pretty recent but pretty much everyone accepts that it's a beast and probably the best bang for buck

Canon have great lenses and fantastic autofocus and are finally introducing c-log into their DSLRs so... everyone still shits on them
I like them though

I just finished a music video. I have an exam (in literally an hour) but i've got some shorts written

File: SP1301-2.jpg (63KB, 263x501px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 263x501px

So I bought a puppet for a short, once done with it I won't really have a use for it. Any ideas for a short that would only work with a puppet? Don't really wanna destroy it but using a puppet does give me the option to do stunts I otherwise wouldn't be able to

>>3078819
A man trapped in a room starts cutting off limbs and cooking them to stay alive

>>3078116
camcorders have;
>better internal mics than phones or dslrs
>long-range, constant aperture zoom lenses
>no half-hour recording limit
>controllable servo zoom speeds
>ability to take fuck-huge batteries

until phones can do all that there'll still be a market for camcorders.

>>3078841
>better internal mics than phones or
dslrs
But a DSLR with an external mic is smaller, cheaper and better.
>long-range, constant aperture zoom lenses
True but unless you're covering sports events/news there's not much point.
>no half-hour recording limit
No good video cameras have recording limits (and even Canons have ML)
>controllable servo zoom speeds
See above
>ability to take fuck-huge batteries
Also applies to other cameras. External batteries are cheap and incredibly efficient.

>>3078886
t. youtube vlogger

Tell me what you guys think about my short film shot on the BMPCC

https://youtu.be/F8dy-Yfh2Os

Looking for good critiques.

Anybody have any luck easily installing DaVinci Resolve 14 and/or Fusion 8 in Ubuntu?

The installers appear to be .sh files. I tried installing it on my OS but in doing so I think I broke my OS and I will have to reinstall.

I also tried the CentOS .iso that Blackmagic offers and that didn't do any good either.

Should they release like an AppImage or a snap?

How do i do the credits for a short film where there's just one actor and barely any crew?

seems odd to put 'starring x' just for one person

>>3079362
Just don't do credits. Or put them all on a single slide in two-column format.

>>3079367
should i just leave it as it is here >>3074772

>>3079191
Visually needs a bit of work. You're shooting on a body capable of amazing images but your lighting and grading makes it look like it was shot on a cheap DSLR. Exposure is all over the place but the main thing to work on is framing - it's really quite awkward and seems like little thought has gone into it. Soundwise some parts were alright but some not so much. Lots of noise, camera sounds and even your CO's footsteps on multiple occasions. I don't know what your setup is but invest in good kit, get a boom and get close. Record foley separately if needs be and use wild tracks.

>>3079191
Opening 2 minutes are dreadful. If you're gonna do slow-motion, do it properly with higher framerates
Don't rely on warp stabiliser to stabilise your footage
As the other guy said, this looks like it was filmed on a cheap dslr. Read up on how to light a scene properly

The gunshot sound effects from the silenced gun were terrible. It sounded like a balloon popped quietly.
The editing around the people reacting to being shot looked bad/
The acting and shot composition wasn't great. Having said that, I liked the dynamic camera movements; when the second guy was shot and crawls up the stairs was probably the best part of the film (until he dived over the sofa in an exaggerated manner)

"God Bless This House" - should've been better, came across as forced

The concept itself was interesting enough and with more experience this could've been really special. Well done on making something though, that's better than half the people who want to be filmmakers

>>3079362
I did a film like that once
The end was literally
>cut to black
>"starring [actor]" appears for a few seconds
>"written and directed by [me]" for a few seconds
>end

It's a short film, don't overthink it
I just checked out the ending you linked. Are you the actor? If not, you need to credit the actor. If you are then it's fine
(also, for how long the credits are, I would advise some end credit music or making it much shorter)(but that's just me)

>>3079362
Long, drawn out credits at the beginning and end with "fin"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXFq-1DaeA

what a noob.
if you want less motion blur just shoot 1/100s at 25fps and not look like a 60fps sperg.

>>3079371
Go for it.

Though I've always felt 'a film by X' or 'a X film' is a bit egotistical. Each to their own.

>>3079860
well i did everything excepr for the acting
would seem a bit odd to have
directed by me
written by me
DP me
etc

>>3079864
Then put 'written, directed and edited by'. A film is never 'by' one person unless there's literally nobody else involved.

>>3079860
>>3079971
This person is wrong

>>3079973
Yeah you sure showed me up.

>>3079975
I'll bite. Is a painting not by someone if they had an assistant cleaning their brushes? A song not by someone if they didn't produce it? Only filmmaker I can think of that follows your silly philosophy is Eli Roth.

If you wrote, directed, shot and edited it (not to mention paid for it), it's by you. Give all involved proper credits though. If you must you could just put written and directed by and forget the rest.

what kind of computer do you guys edit with? I plan on upgrading my computer and debating whether to go the i5 or ryzen route. I'm on a tight-ish budget of 400 dollars and use Premiere.

>>3080051
>Is a painting not by someone if they had an assistant cleaning their brushes?
No, but it is by anyone who has creative input and can affect the product in a meaningful and significant way. That absolutely applies to actors.

>>3079859
This cuck unirocnially came in Ken Rockwell's defense so theres that.

>>3080142
>>3080142
new thread
>>3080142
>>3080142

>>3057975
Do you even °180 shutter rule bro?

>>3075451
>>3075451
I use Vimeo Pro and prefer it over Youtube a million times. I don't upload to Youtube anymore at all.

>Don't want to use a shit stock song at $50
>Not in budget for a $300 license from musicbed
>using Youtube so pick one.