/vid/ - Video general

>>3080120

Silly anon, actors are the brushes

hello m8s
im /r/ing the link to a short movie posted here some months ago. i believe it was called "joy of creation" or something along those lines and was about an autist with a neon room that masturbated to a porly made scketch he hid under the bed.
ty

Is using LUT's to color grade the proper way to color grade? It feels amateurish to just load up some pre made settings, slightly twik them and call it a day. Nearly every tutorial on YT has this workflow but don't want to be meme'd.

How do professionals color grade?

>>3080567
>How do professionals color grade?
Depends on the project, sometimes a LUT is desired, sometimes not. LUTs simply put save a hell of a lot of time and can give great results. And time is money.

>>3080529
wat

So I'm trying to budget a bit for the future. i curently have a Lumix G7 and most of my equipment basics, now it's time to upgrade stuff.
My Tripod head is a bit shit so I want to look into a new one. What are good tripod heads for fluid pan&tilt. i want two, for monpod and tripod, so they shouldnt cost more than 75€ each. Also, they should use ARCA SWISS or some similar standardized plate.
On the other hand, i want to step up my collection of vintage lenses. Right now have 3 FD lenses (old ones from Dad) and a AI-S lens. I plan on getting a speedbooster so I have a better low light perfomance and because it improves my range for standard lenses, since it pushes most good 28mm lenses into the 21mm area for my MFT cam
What are good Speedboosters/mount-systems to invest into? most that I've seen say either MD or FD, though I'm leaning towards FD. Is it worth going for Metabones or are other, cheaper brands fine too?

>>3080813
Depending on what your needs are (cheapness, focal reduction, electronics, aperture control) I'd say get a Metabones or Zhongyi Lens Turbo in either EF or NF.

>>3080819
I wanna stay completely Manual, for simplicity and budget reasons, so no F or EF.

I got the opportunity to make a hip hop music video, it's only my second one so some parts of it are iffy but gimme some feedback /p/!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5B2HLBBc8&feature=youtu.be

>>3080826
I was in a similar position a while ago - I realised that there's very little if any good glass out there which is both fully manual and wide enough for M4/3. You need stuff which has been designed for APS-C or other crop sensors which is going to be electronic. You can still use a manual speedbooster to cut costs as long as it has an aperture control ring.

Just did a fashion video. What do you guys think?

https://vimeo.com/218355714

>>3080852
Some shots felt a bit awkward but I really liked the chroma key, a great and unique effect.

>>3080843
Some very cool shots at the beginning and visually impressive throughout; some of the interiors of the guy rapping felt a bit cheap and cliche (though ultimately it is a hip hop video so you've got to be a bit cheap and cliche).

>>3080852
looks good, even though some parts are really trippy. you should post it on /fa/ though, it's something they could like.

>>3080852
I liked it, cool effect and well-done
The Prestige rule-of-three didn't seem to have a point unless I missed something though?
Also it was maybe longer than it needed to be and I thought there were too many shots of clouds doing nothing

But good stuff

>>3080874
you can do it in the video settings from your profile.

>>3080843
All the building shots were nice but rather dull for a music video, the shots in the park didn't feel cinematic enough and took me out.
>>3080852
I kept giggling like a dumb ass because of /pol/

>>3080813
I've used metabones on the gh4 and loved it. I will admit that the speed boost still leaves a lot to be desired when shooting low light. Oh, I was using canon glass FYI

>>3081011
the joos paid me to use a healthy, strong black guy and an attractive, young, white woman.

>>3080737
t-that happened

>>3080529
https://archive.nyafuu.org/p/

when you find it post it again

>>3081015
>speed boost still leaves a lot to be desired when shooting low light

wtf do you people want, night vision?

>>3081015
you know man, they make these things called lights, c-stands, bags...

>>3081123
Believe it or not, there are some situations where you might not have an armada of fully-equipped gaffers at your disposal.

>>3080142

Anyone have experience using a 5d for shooting? I am investing in a new camera and was thinking of getting the Mark IV. Seems pretty solid; my only worry is dealing with sound direct in, but sound is always a bitch I guess.

Please take a look at my short film and tell me what you think, it'd be much appreciated

https://youtu.be/hcA8YJxDqXo

>>3081177
The 5D is a photography camera, it would be an awful investment if you want to shoot video.

>>3081177
all the footage I've seen of it is amazing and it's fantastic camera. Plus it's getting c-log in the summer.
But it doesn't shoot full-frame 4k, there's a x1.76 crop. While it shoots 4k at 4:2:2, 4k can't be recorded externally. Further, the 1080p is only 4:2:0 if recorded internally.
And the 4k file sizes are mjpegs which are good quality but absurdly large file-sizes

For about £500 (give or take) less, you can get the panasonic gh5 which records 4k 4:2:2 10-bit internally and also 8-bit at up to 60fps. It also has internal body stabilisation. It has more of a crop than the 5dmkiv but you can use a speedbooster on it to reduce the crop-factor down to x1.3

Personally, I think the biggest strength of the 5dmkiv is its amazing auto-focus that works natively with so many fantastic lenses, along with better quality 4k than almost all of its competition (save the gh5).
But the gh5 has better image quality and stabilisation at a cheaper price

As for dealing with sound, the gh5 is again a better bet with a sound add-on you can buy that lets you add xlr inputs. But it's not exactly 'cheap'. Personally I'd recommend recording externally anyway but to each their own
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304877-REG/panasonic_dmw_xlr1_xlr_microphone_adapter.html

>>3081175
What is this, some kind of non-union job?

>>3081177
One thing that pretty much no one ever mentions is that it shoots DCI 4k where most so-called 4k cameras only shoot UHD.
It's a difference of around 550,000 pixels. Nothing major, but worth bearing in mind

>>3081175
What type of filming are you doing? And the speed booster its doing its job, what is "leaving to be desired" is the GH4 and its low light capabilities.

I come for your knowledge /vid/.
I need to shoot a bit of video in about a months time. Nothing fancy, just a home video of a wedding.
Trouble here is the gear I have access to. Fuji xt1, pana lx100, sony rx100iii and I can use the bride's a canon 7D. Not ideal. The problem is the limited rec time on fuji and canon and the lack of mic input on the other two.
I expect that the church part will take about 30mins and I'd like it to be just one stationary take. I guess an external audio recorder with lx100 could solve this, but is there something I'm missing? Suggestions? Would be kinda pointless to buy a recorder to use it once. Although, I do have an old nokia 808 with its mighty audio recording capabilities.

Fuji xt2 with the grip can take 30mins of fhd video, and it can take standard mic and the video quality is adequate, so maybe I'm in for an update. I like how fuji operates, iq has never been an issue to me tho sharpening can be a bit tricky.
I thought about going a7ii but turned out video on it is as much of a joke as it's on the xt1...

>>3082155
Install Magic Lantern to remove recording limits. Audio-wise what do you need to record? Phone w/ lav mic in the pocket if you just need to record the bride & groom, or a Zoom H1 on a stand you can move around for speeches. Both incredibly cheap options.

>>3080852

What equipment?

So I'm gonna be coming into some money soon

I want to spend big on a short film but I have no idea where to start. I'm tired of making shitty DSLR videos with a few friends and Little Caesar's for catering, I wanna make something legitimate and professional. Who the fuck do I talk to to make this happen? Like, where do I find a producer who will put it together for me? is ~$50,000 or so even enough to make something that looks and sounds like a professional cinematic film/commercial?

I just want to focus on my vision and writing and let the DP/art director/crew do the heavy lifting for me but I don't know how much money I need to make that happen. Basically I want the same process directors of high budget films go through, where they communicate their vision and the crew just kinda makes it happen automatically without question of whether or not it'll look "professional". Does anyone have any experience in that kind of filmmaking world? Any advice? am I elucidating this properly?

also inb4 "just make a feature film with that money", I want to make something that's guaranteed to look and sound good. I want to worry about the fucking story rather than the technical elements, I want that shit to be guaranteed without even thinking about it. I don't want to be another failed fucking filmmaker.

>>3083370
look for filmmaking groups in your city, like facebook. See if any quality short films have been made in your city(search on YT), contact them and see if they are interested.

You don't need $50,000 to make something look professional assuming you are working with people who know what they are doing. But I also don't know if your script requires elaborate car chase scenes, props, costumes and heavy CGI.

>>3083370
$50,000 is honestly a waste to spend on a short film.
I'd say don't go over $10,000 on a single short (but really you should keep it under $5,000). You need to find a good producer or else do it yourself (I wouldn't advise this, it will distract you from directing).

If you can't find any producers (and you should be able to, just post in a filmmaking group like the above poster says, literally saying you're looking for a producer to help make a professional short-film) then you can always google video production companies in your area and go to one of them.

You'll find that films, while expensive, aren't THAT expensive.
The majority of the cost you need to worry about is acting fees, then location/props/costumes, then additional crew. You can make something "professional-looking" on a dslr simple enough as long as you light the scene properly. This will save you money on renting a cinema camera along with the costs involved of hiring someone who can competently operate a RED
You can then hire someone who can effectively operate a high-end glidecam instead of a steadicam which will again save you buckets of cash

>>3083490
Honestly I'd say $5k is too much for your first 'proper' short. I'd only sink that much money into one if you've got a fantastic producer onboard and a guaranteed dynamite script, as well as at least a few low-budget shorts under your belt. All that budget won't count for anything if the writing and direction isn't absolutely top-notch. Money is seldom ever the thing holding you back.

>>3083370
that's not how it works you horrible pleb. if you expect to just throw around shekels and then you'll find a quality team to realize your vision then you are an ignorant ape. this way you only will find local profecals who will happily rip off your money and deliver some low-effort bullshit in the end.

you need years to find the proper people and a fine attitude as well as visions that inspire others.
it's one of the biggest illusions in life. money can't buy you any quality. not. at. all.

>>3083587
Says the salty faggot who can't afford to pay anyone

This is the right way to do filmmaking

>>3083644
Studios throw money at films all the time and that doesn't make them good.

>>3083644
He's right though. No amount of money will make you a good director or writer.

>>3083679
>>3083695

I think you're missing the point

I'm not spending money to make something automatically "good", I'm spending money to make sure my vision is executed professionally by experienced crew. I want the lighting and sound to be taken care of by people who know what the fuck they're doing so I can focus on what actually matters, the story

I'm under no impression that I can make something good without a quality script and skillful directing. but all this will do is give me more time and energy on those things rather than whether or not the lighting/color grading looks "professional". And I'm not interested in making something that looks cheap.

>>3083721
>so I can focus on what actually matters, the story
>what actually matters, the story
>the story

EL OH EL

>>3083738
so what matters then? the epic drone shots?

>>3083739
if you don't know, you won't know

>>3083750
;^)

>>3083721
that stuff doesn't cost anything close to fifty grand, but if you go out saying that's what you're prepared to spend, that's what you'll end up spending

>>3083721
oh, c'mon. don't be such a big ape-head. if your """vision""" would be really great, then you actually could find people who actually GIVE you money for realizing it. but your """vision""" is merely a joke, a redundant doodoo, a lame turd of disgust which nobody needs, noone asked for and not a single person ever will recognize.
But go ahead, jump in circles and waste your money. it will be the one and last opportunity for you to feel like the big visionary you wished you'd be, before you fall back into your pathetic existence in your soul-eating salesman job, always avoiding the realization that your mess of life is not because you didn't spent enough money or didn't find the right people but just because of you shithole attitude, which I can smell even all the way through the internet through every little sentence you write.
>And I'm not interested in making something that looks cheap.
OHHHREEEEAAALLLYY????? are you not interested in that???? REALLY??? in opposite to whom?

F U C K Y O U.

File: Untitled.jpg (88KB, 1054x448px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1054x448px

>>3083832
> in opposite to whom?

Well it is a good way to reflect criticism.

>>3083759
:^)

>>3083779
I'd be more than happy to spend $100,000 if I had to actually. but It's looking more like 15k or 20k at this point, crew isn't as expensive as I thought

>>3083832
holy shit

why am I being attacked for wanting to spend serious money on a film? is this just sour grapes or do you people really believe this shit? I didn't even say anything vitriolic I was just looking for advice. but clearly none of you people have ever made anything beyond $500 rebel t3i short films.

>if your """vision""" would be really great, then you actually could find people who actually GIVE you money for realizing it

this is pure fucking bullshit

if you want investors to give you money you need PROOF of your skills. and if you want proof of your skills the best way is to hire a professional crew to execute your vision properly. I'm not saying films can't be made cheaply but 99% of films accepted to relevant festivals are made with real crews and real money.

File: 1477701153734.png (136KB, 471x411px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 471x411px

>>3083937
>not being an octopus and literally operating camera, boom, light, reflector, clapper, focus pull, and acting with sock puppets all at the same time while shooting with your kino ccd panasonic dv camcorder

File: meme.gif (88KB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 10000x10000px

>>3083832
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3083937
As someone who's worked on 'serious' short films with semi-famous actors, they don't cost anywhere near the amount you're wanting to spend. Further, the production crew involved is always looking for ways to reduce the cost

On top of that, 90% of all short films I watch I have the incredible sense of "what a fucking waste of money" cause they've clearly spent a few grand to produce a piece of shit. They 'look' professional enough, but the story is shit and the dialogue is cringey and the concept isn't bold enough.
If you don't want to take anyone's advice, that's fair enough. But don't ask for it if you don't want it. And if you can't take advice when you ask for it, I can't imagine what will happen when your crew tries to give you advice or when you want to do something that just can't be done

>>3083937
>why am I being attacked for wanting to spend serious money on a film?
Because we all know it's going to be shit. Pro tip: if you can't make a good film on no budget, you will never make a good film on any budget.

>>3083943
I would much rather watch this than uninspired overproduced nonsense.

Are some programs better than others at stabilizing videos? I tried one free one called Movavi and it's not as good as I'd like.

>>3084369
>Are some programs better than others at stabilizing videos?
Yeah absolutely. I'd recommend you try several and decide which one's best for you. The Premiere default one isn't bad.

>>3084369
Mocha. Mocha mocha mocha. It's built into AE and it's fucking fantastic.

>>3084099
>I would much rather watch this
Here you go: >>3081196

When will we be in the age of the affordable high speed camera?

Are there any mirrorless cameras that can shoot at 1080 without any crop at 240fps? Its hard to search for because they all advertise high fps but have a crop or are shit in some way.

>>3085160
soon
there's one in the kickstarter phase (or just out of) that will cost around $1200 and shoots over 1000fps

>>3085307
pff, those kickstartet high-tech project always fail horribly. see the axiom. years over years and there is still nothing released and they need more money now. don't expect any of them to actually release anything.

free editing software anyone?

>>3085742
Da Vinci Resolve (does most stuff, great Grading and Tracking)
Blender (does everything. Have to do EVERYTHING yourself, infinite customizability)

Is there a hack for removing the European gh4 30 minute recording limit?

Is there any way to get rid of that crackly sound caused by the wind? Either by doing something while filming or by editing it out afterward? I'm just using an Android phone to record because it's a one-off project, I don't usually do videos.

>>3085742
kek
why not just torrent Premiere?

>>3086576
it's called a windsock
google it

>>3086576
tie a hamster to your phone with a rubber band as a deadcat

In case anyone missed it, Canon have announced the C200 as direct competition to the FS7
It has 4k internal raw, in a new raw format, and costs £7699/€9229 (presumably ~$11000)
https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/4633-canon-eos-c200-announced

Stick with my Canon 70D or go with a Sony a6500?

>>3086886
The FS7 is cheaper

>>3085742
Resolve is good like >>3085744 says, the only thing I haven't been able to do in it correctly is image stabilization if the image is panning or tilting

>>3086900
>Stick with my Canon 70D or go with a Sony a6500?
When faced with almost the same decision, I decided that it made more sense to keep my canon and save up for a more expensive full-frame

File: best-hairstyles-for-white-men-llfmubvjs.jpg (17KB, 288x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 288x400px

>>3086886
"""raw"""

>>3086900
yeah resolve needs to work on adding a couple things I still use after effects for

>image stabilization
>rolling shutter correction
>easier tracking and blurring of faces (unless im a dumbshit and there is an easy way to do it)

>>3080142
can I get a decent dslr/mirrorless for £150? Don't mind buying second hand

>>3080142
i'm on a budget and found some good deals (I think)
However I don't know much about cameras other than what i've learned here

Which of these should I get?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Panasonic-LUMIX-DMC-GH2-16-0MP-Bundle-16gb-Sd-card-2-Lenses-3-Batteries-/322537543706?hash=item4b18bc581a:g:Dc8AAOSwH09ZKtcu&autorefresh=true#viTabs_0

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CANON-EOS-M-Digital-Camera-c-w-18-55mm-STM-Lens-/322535371698?hash=item4b189b33b2:g:9B0AAOSw3gJZLHKn

>>3087024
should be able to
look for a used canon 550d on ebay

>>3087048
is it better than a panasonic GH2?
i'm this geezer
>>3087028
I have like £190 max to spend

>>3087049
>is it better than a panasonic GH2?
Probably not
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_550D-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GH2/detailed

I've never used a GH2, I can tell you whole-heartedly that a 550d is great for learning about cameras though and can get fantastic results. Factor in magic lantern and I would go for the 550d every time myself.
Up to you though

There are people who swear by panasonic in this thread who will probably tell you it shits gold so wait for them if you want a more balanced opinion

>>3087055
atm i'm stuck between the 2 deals I linked above
the canon guy said he'd throw in a hoya pro uv filter thing and the gh2 guy is reviewing my offer, do I bite the bullet now and get a mint condition eos m with some goodies OR get a gh2 with a minor 'cosmetic' (scratch on the screen but doesn't seem like it'd do any damage really) flaw and 2 lenses?

both basically same price...

>>3086886
What amateur has that kind of money?

Panasonic Varicam LT with Cooke Anamorphics, good combination?

Total noob question here. I have a video clip, and I want to add some glowing dots floating around. How can I do this? I pirated After Effects + Premiere CC.

>>3087147
varicam is top tier. anamorphic is a meme anyways. but cook makes fine lenses. does the cam support 4:3 recording or do the lens 1.33x?

>>3087169
Camera supports 4:3 recording.

>>3080142
>Please don't pretend to be an expert
So, YOU are?

>>3087174
that's good for lenses > 1.33x .. but if you think about it, it makes the whole thing redundant. you give up horizontal resolution (16:9 -> 4:3 ) in order to gaining horizontal resolution ( 4:3 -> 2.39:1 ). This way you'll lose resolution. If you'd use a 1.33x on 16:9 you'd win at least vertical resolution.

>>3087160
videocopilot.net

>>3087199
If your immediate response to being told not to pretend to be an expert is to question the credentials of the person making that statement, then you're probably the type of insecure idiot who spouts and defends nonsense purely for the sake of his ego.
>tldr; fuck off if you just want to roleplay someone who isn't a complete failure in life

damn it's so hard to find a cheap beginner camera with a lens for £200 or less
I just wanna make a kino ;;

>>3080852
BLACKED

What do you think about blackmagic cameras? Are they a meme?

File: 145437775477 - moodboardmix the fall borox 2 2013 david.jpg (416KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1024x1024px

Need a moderately priced dSLR cam for kino asf music videos.

Any recs? Read the sticky but I still have a lot of questions. Anyone have discord and don't mind me bugging them for a while?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:11 16:16:25
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2100
Image Height	2100

>>3083832
Hahah I love the projection here.
C'mon man, you don't have to get jealous over other peoples motivation. Just get off your fucking ass and start making shit. If he's willing to spend 50k he might make something cool.

>>3087057
this guy here
bought the GH2! fucking hyped lads

>>3087448
Neat, which lenses?

>>3087451
Tokina 50-200mm f3.5 and the Super Albinar 80-205mm f4.5. Came with the camera for £190, thank you based guy on ebay

>>3087428
Also can anyone tell me why they don't recommend Sony cams on the sticky site?

Are Sony DSLR meme for film?

>>3087484
Sony itself isn't a meme, but FF is.
ASP-C is perfectly fine.
Some people even like MFT because of 16mm
Also, Sony-jello is a thing, so get proper stabilization or stay away from Sony if you need to move a lot.
I do smallscale documentary shooting and decided on a GH4/G7 setup specifically for that reason. Cant wait to upgrade to the newer generation for double stabilization and all-around sealing.

>>3087416
No, they have some issues but if you're prepared to work with them they're a cheap way to get one of the best images on the market.

>>3087428
Canon 700D/750D/Rebel with magiclantern

>>3087492
mft is closer to super 35 than super 16, or if you want inbetween them. s35 is 21mm broad (with audio) mft 17mm and s16 12mm.

Advice for beginning filmmakers, write what you can film, because some movies look cheap on paper, but when you add in all the costs in the stunt work and all the precautions needed, then it gets expensive, and you may need to make the film apart of SAGAFTRA. Even in the smallest of details the film can get expensive.

Is there a windows/linux application similar to https://imageoptim.com/mac ?

I have to put a bunch of jpegs in a video project, and I figure that shaving half their size (tested with a couple) while maintaining their quality would be best.

File: 35-NEON-2-revoked-DP1-3.jpg (230KB, 1400x907px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1400x907px

Can anyone give me some pointers on how to light a stage like pic related. amateur here trying to study more on lighting.

Would uplights work on stands ?

>>3087690
Entirely unnecessary.

Anybody here ever illegally used copyrighted music in a short film they showed at a festival?
Did you get in trouble for it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA3E9B0zr_8
image quality looks terrible.
why slrmagic is still in business?

>>3087690
on linux you can easily get these features by re-encoding your files with e.g. imagick. if you just want to wipe exif data you can use the exif tools. since they are all cli you can easily batch your task on the files you want. .. as usual stupid mac tools only give useability to common jobs. things you easily could achieve yourself by investing a little into knowledge.

>>3086722
Thanks!

>>3088046
if it is a bigger festival, absolutely. if it is your local hipster we-are-kino circle-jerk cineasts festival then: no.

>>3088072
meme magic

>>3088072

I mean it looks fine until you have a human subject, at which point you can see just how wonky dis shit iz fo real

>>3088080
what counts as a big festival
something international?

>>3088046
Depends of the scale of it, there are no sure ways to know if anyone will notice but if you start touring in festivals you should simply buy a yearly licence to be honest, it'll be around $500 for most musics, sure it's annoying but it was avoid you a lot of issues that you don't wanna deal with.

>>3088266
a festival with people who may actually want to pick up your film for distribution or any one in the industry.

How are the chinese shoulder stabilisers that seem to dominate Amazon? They're leagues cheaper than even something like a Jag35. What are the drawbacks, and do they matter if I'm only running a GH3?

>>3088323
Depends, if it has good reviews, it's good. If the reason you're buying it for is 3 points of contact, it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't fall apart.

>>3088350
So speaking of stabilizers, has anyone figured out how to make a 3 axis gimbal using drone parts?

I mean you have torquey as fuck brushless motors, you have speed controllers that have gyroscopic stabilization...seems like it should just be a matter of putting it together and tuning it which could give you an awesome 3 axes of stabilization for less than $100.

>>3088357
I use a glidecam style stabilizer. Works perfect.

>>3088323
They're built cheaply and will fall apart quickly, I say from experience having had this shit literally snap in half. Most people who use them, especially with DSLRs) don't actually need them and just use them for appearances (which is ironic because they look like kids' toys). Proper shoulder rigs with handles and weights etc. are designed for use with large camera rigs with large lenses, matte boxes, batteries, monitors, wireless transmitters etc. Using one, even a cheap one for your light-as-a-feather DSLR is just kinda pointless and provides very little real stabilisation. There are much better minimalist rigs you can use - for example for r&g I have my BMPCC with a follow focus, one handle and viewfinder which is light, sturdy and gives me my three points.

anyone here do any work with super 16? thinking about using it for a future project, it's actually not that expensive compared to Alexa/Red

>>3088489
If you use it once.

>>3088467
Post pics of your setup

>>3088837
I've got a shoot in a couple of days so I'll do it then

I made two music videos for my own songs ever since I got a GH4:
first one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBu636qoDUM
second one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upbYPgeB78g

I would appreciate some feedback from you anons if you have the patience to watch them.
for both of them I used the gh4 with that 14-42mm vario kit lens, but for the second one I had time to buy a shoulder rig and one of those chinese glidecam rip-offs.

>>3088894
Take my opinion with a grain of salt:

The first don't really have a theme, it's just what appears to be random shots of the city, the cinematography is a bit weak sometimes, like you randomly shot scenes just to fill the gaps and it's not telling us anything, they're just pretty pictures on top of the music. The character isn't going anywhere, no goals, the cuts at 1:11... I don't know what's going on here. Also your character (you?) is trying too hard.

Second one is much more interesting in my opinion, still trying a bit too hard but I actually feel like I'm following him somewhere, I feel more engaged in the "story", the composition is interesting.

Overall I like the color grading, lighting could use some work sometimes (it's not highlighting what you want us to see, my eyes aren't attracted to what I feel you want me to look at, maybe too much camera shake and cuts.

File: 1488622102779.jpg (9KB, 262x206px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 262x206px

>>3088902
thx for the feedback anon
the character is not me, it's a friend of mine. I did all the filming, editing, etc.
it's also pretty much guerrilla filmmaking if you wanna call it that since I shot everything on location that I didn't have permits for. it's also just me and the guy in the vid (and another friend to play the demon in the second one), I didn't have any lights and only tried to make do with what available light I had in any given situation.

the first one was more of a test of what the camera can do so it feels a bit disjointed like you said, no real theme, just shots of the guy in the city, mostly to capture the feel of it a bit.

the second one I had more time to do it and think about it a bit, but again was limited by what I could achieve on my own and with the locations I could find. So I just made a fairly simple story and expanded a bit on the exploring in the first one.

>it's not highlighting what you want us to see, my eyes aren't attracted to what I feel you want me to look at, maybe too much camera shake and cuts.
agreed. I need to plan my shots better. thanks for the feedback

>>3088894
I only watched the second one because the first one looked boring.
Having said that, I quite enjoyed it. The opening shots felt a bit uninspired and there was a lot of nothing happening
But I really liked the general look it had

Only real thing I'd say needed improvement was the stabilisation at times was kinda wonky (and not just in a hand-held way)
Also you had a lot of shots of the exact same thing happening

The end was definitely the best part but yeah, nice one

>>3088921
thank you anon, I'm surprised people like the visual aesthetic of it.
might be because I've spent a few days working on it what with the filming and editing and everything but I come to hate looking at what I make immediately after I finish it. for these videos in particular I feel that they don't look pro and that the picture quality is fairly video-ish/amateurish.

I'll consider what you and the other anon said about some of the shots and try and go either with a tripod or work on my framing so that the subject of the shot is clearer to the viewer.

Why aren't big-budget film studios using any form of truly digital recording for their cuts? Where does the bottleneck lie?

Will we ever leave magnetic tape behind or will it continue dominate?

>>3089042
I'm confused. Are you talking about the way that most masters are printed on 35mm film?
That's only done because it's the best method of ensuring long-term storage.

Otherwise I don't know what you're referring to

I bought a cheap GH2 to mess around and film with but whenever I attempt to film video everything on the display is running in like 2FPS. Why is this happening? And how do I fix it?

>>3089078
Have you checked your shutter speed?
>inb4 "I put the settings on auto"

>>3089120
I'll have to check once my camera is working again, it came with these cheap chinese batteries that die even when not being used

What's a better use of my money. £150 for a F1.7 25mm MFT lens. Or £120 for a Lens Turbo II to mount my existing OM mount lens. (f2.8 28mm, f1.8 50mm, f3.5 135mm). I currently have a kit 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 which is really shit.

>>3089152
What camera do you have?

>>3089171
GH4

>>3089174
not the guy you were replying to but I'd say just save up for a speedbooster with your prefered mount (EF, nikon, sony or whatever) and get proper lenses for it.
I can't imagine MFT lenses being any better than the kit vario 14-42mm lens, and it's not worth the money for only a minor improvement.

>>3089174
I used the LTII with a legacy mount and found it impossible to get wide enough. You need a speedbooster and lenses designed for crop sensors. Sigma 18-35 and Metabones is the classic combo.

>>3089174
get the aputure dec lens regain = a wireless follow focus, full electronic control ocnverter for EF and EF-S lenses, and a speedbooster in one.

I want to make a thing that involves a bunch of brief still shots that will include:
>abandoned buildings I don't have permission to be in or film
>buildings I was allowed in for work but not allowed to film
>residential streets and alleys and the backs/sides of businesses
>no people or names visible
I know it is unlikely that it will be popular enough for anyone to notice, but if I release it on the internet do I have anything to worry about? Will I be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life?

>>3089994
it's ok. nobody cares.

>>3090004
Thanks anon, you always know just what to say? :)

But... suppose I monetize it to some degree. Yes it's nigh-impossible I will make a significant enough amount to draw attention, but humor me.

>>3090017
>>residential streets and alleys and the backs/sides of businesses
>abandoned buildings I don't have permission to be in or film

you are fucking stupid? have you not wacthed vlogs? they go to china or japan and walk around do you think they get everyone to sign permission forms and find building owners to fill out permission forms?

youtube is so full of shit in saying you need building owner permission to film building and shit and then monetize it.

>>3090026
if you need on video of just one building then yeah if it was just about that fucking building other then that no. as for pictures of abandon buildings no, plenty of ghost sighting videos on youtube with abandon buildins shit even tons of video of people exploring abandon buildings

File: IMG_1897.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>3088837
>>3088864
Listed for rental so here you go

Does lightworks still suck?

>>3090092
I am a massive poorfag with an aversion to piracy/theft and Even I still prefer Blender over Lightworks, because of how bad the UI and functionality are

File: muppet horror show.jpg (260KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1920x1080px

Can I get some feedback on how this looks? Been trying to grade it for hours and messing with the lighting. Does it look enough like a horror movie?

>>3090267
Lighting/grade is good but composition isn't very 'horror movie'. It's too objective.

>>3090267
it's too "warm" for horror. it's almost cozy.

>>3090026
>>3090028
Okay yeah, good points.

>>3080142
Anyone use a D810 for video at all?
Also anyone hear anything about Avid MC | First - i'm really excited to not be cucked by adobe anymore.

>>3090063
How do you hold that, do you pin it against your face?

>>3090882
Pretty much. The centre of gravity is quite far forward so it gives me as much stability as a shoulder rig with less sway.

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-07 15-29-47.png (743KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 1920x1080px

In my Ongoing quest to turn Blender into my (Linux) video editor for poorfags, I discovered LUTs.
Now I wanna know a bit:
Are they better than using strip modifiers (I primarily use curves anyway)?
What are some good LUTs to use? WHere can I get other ones?

>>3090994
these are not luts in the sense of an nle. these are post-render luts which are executed on the whole result. you cannot use them scene specifficially. the strip modifiers are handy for a rough adjust, but you shouldn't use them for demanding products. use the video editor for editing and for grading use the compositor. the compositer is damn mighty.

>>3091115
>you cannot use them scene specifically
They are literally listed under "scene properties"
What you mean is they can't be used CLIP-specific

Does the EVA1 pretty much guarantee that the AF100 will probably never get an upgrade?

>looking for jobs in video production
>see a position for a studio assistant
>needs knowledge of RED, Arri, Varicam, etc
>needs knowledge of Linux computer os

wtf do they use linux for in a professional studio

>>3091200
Servers
Davinci Resolve has a Special Version for CentOS/RHEL for File Management and ressources, because Studios dont have the videofiles on the same Computer as the editing Station is connected to

>>3091202
fair enough

>>3091136
yeah .. you know what i mean, c'mon. scene in film-scene.

>>3081175
Photography is capturing light. If you have no light, you are capturing digital noise.

>>3081177
If you are going to primarily be shooting video, the 5D is about your worst choice.

>>3091411
My point was that we often don't have the lighting resources we'd like, especially on ad-hoc/journalism style shoots or events. In these cases it's better to have a camera which copes well with dim or ugly lighting.

Here's some weird shit I did a while back.

https://youtu.be/hQ5Qq7HC3bE

>>3091692
Disclaimer these people aren't actors and I just had a t3i and sometimes audio and can lights.

>>3091161
the af100 is officially discontinued since the last (hardware) update with that pseudo-10bit sdi output. I doubt there will be any update, neither soft or hard. i guess they had difficuties placing the cinecorder in that price-range because of the mft sensor and all the plebs demanding for muh sensor size. though it is a gorgeous cinecorder - a little demanding but after all a real insider tip because prices on 2nd hand dropped rediculously.

>>3091200
what kind of a horrible pleb you are. high tier studios not only demand working on linux but programing own filters etc. but you little amateur don't even know ad hoc how an unsharp mask is build from scratch. .. but yeah, you're "searching for jobs in the branche". lol

>>3091768
Oh I meant like an AF200, an upgrade to the camera line, not an update. EVA1 specs are really nice, and while it has a lot of things people have wanted from a hypothetical successor to the AF100/AF101, it isn't M4/3.

File: 9936a06153195.56b4608c9a4b8.gif (428KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 350x200px

Hello, i'd like some advice from the experts here...

I've posted here sometimes, i'm a 23 yo guy who studied communications and i work in a studio as a video editor (mostly motion graphics, 2d animations and filming tv commercials and shit).

Recently i made my first shortfilm ever (i've been studying Dslrguide, Film Riot, etc. for some time now) for my last career class and i liked some things about it but it has obvious flaws (the story is not even finished).

My city is literally a shit hole and i really hate being a wageslave here, i want to move to one of the big cities from my country (which has bigger studios than the one i work (which is the biggest of the city)). But this agencies have works like these: https://vimeo.com/217701319

And my short film is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SPmDeOo_mY&t=1052s

Am i really that far from working with people like this? What can i do? Should i build a demo reel with the best shots from my short film and motion graphics? Or should i wait and do more short films for building a better reel?

Thanks in advance.

>pic not related, but i'd like to animate thinks like that kek

>>3091773
>what is getting started
>what is learning

unironically kill yourself

>>3091869
wow, now I am hungry. thanks a lot ass hole

>>3091869
get better, study more, don't get hired into being the social media guy in studios, not that it's bad being the social media guy but, it's gonna hold you back from doing what you want.

make more short films, you are decent desu do more

Picked up a gini shoulder rig with a secondary rail and follow focus for £134 second hand. Did I do good?

Would something like 'atmosphere in a can' be thick enough to project an image onto through a projector?

I have an effect in mind but $10 is $10, don't want to throw away cheeseburger money on something that might not work at all.

>>3093179
hardly..it makes light beams in a dark environment visible at the most.

If I'm making a funded film
With a minimal crew
Do I get a salary out of the film funds?
Say if it's like a grant or something

>>3093179
Dude, just get glycerin, mix it 1:3 with water, and heat that shit up.

>>3093225
a low budget fund practically is 100% artists' fees. the higher the budget the more money is available for tech and props, location, logistics etc. .. a high budget even has stocks for marketing.

what do you do when you are a kissless virgin with no friends and don't know anybody(including family members) who can help

how do i practice shit like, setting up shots, have people say dialogue for sound ect...

I should mention that I live in the midwest and there aren't any film groups around me

>>3093246
a) make friends
b) make your own family
c) make professional contacts
d) pay people to pretend being a/b/c

correct answer? right, it's e) do neither and blame autism for being a loser.

>>3093252
>a) make friends
>c) make professional contacts

reeee, but seriously though , there are no professional contacts to be made where i live

not to mention not everyone can actually help me with these things even if i did make friends

>>3093226
Dude, ey dude, ey.

better be careful with that shit. if you overheat glycerol will produce acrolein which is a quite dangerous poison.

aye?

>>3093237
so, hypothetically speaking, if i was shooting with a crew of 5 people, including myself, and i got a 10k grant from a private investor or govt arts fund
that money would go to crew salary, including mine?

>>3093246
where in the midwest do you live? I am in a similar position so making a horror short with a puppet >>3090267

>>3093299
private funders may have different conditions, but govermental money will most likely be bound to pay people, because this is how they think a professional work is done. .. but you won't find 10k gov shekels anyways; it is not enough money. most gov fonts don't support with less than approx. 1/2 Mio. At least in a not too poor country. Ok, I'm talking about cinema features. .. If you do a docu or something then you could find such an amount.
And yes, you fees are included. .. For docus money is mostly bound to fees and travel.

>>3093379
yeah in my case it's a docu in a european shithole so they dont deal with mils

anyway, thanks

>>3093382
what will the docu be about?

>>3093387
It will be a look at the changes in life and community in a Baltic village told through the diary of a peasant I found
kind of in the style of stemple pass and three landscapes

Seriously the lack of pre-multiplied alpha blending in most NLEs is disgusting. Even the keying filters spit out source-alpha. I've nothing against building overlay methods from base but how can I can I multiply the texture components with the alpha component manually, if I cannot even latch the result before masking it on the destination layer? As if I would render a temporary file every time for that. .. Is there a different method to pre-multiply the alpha values just with base overlay tools I'm not aware of?

Hey guys, I'm currently in the process of preparing for entrance exams for film school. Regardless of wether you guys think it's worth it or not, I'm having a bit of a problem. Got ran over by a car about 2 years ago and almost at the point where I'm mobile again after multiple surgeries.

I've being doing alot of technical exercises in both shooting and editting and I think I'm going to start the education with a bit of a foot ahead. The main problem here being is that most of them require a finished project (between 2-4 minutes) but that I'm still limited to a radius of 250 meters surrounding my white suburban boring town.

Hence, I've been having real trouble in coming up with a project I can do during my immobility. Already have a few other projects storyboarded and ready to go once I get mobile again, but once that's the case, those entrance exams will be long over.

Help me come up with something I can do from a bed / on crutches for maximally 15-30 min, please. It's been very frustrating. It can be simple and highly derivative even, doesn't really matter.

>>3093936
Do you have any friends that can help?
Make a dialogue-focused short, ie just one long conversation. Make it somewhat interesting and do all the technical aspects perfectly and you'll be fine
(Just having sharp video with audio that isn't full of noise will make you stand out leagues above the other applicants)

>>3093809
You can simply multiply the alpha-layer with itself. Though you will lose some luma this way. You can compensate the loss with a gamma correction. In case your source-alpha is a result of a mask, try to apply the mask directly on the destination, instead of keying it. I am aware most NLEs do not support mask-shifting, but this is the correct way to do it. Keying should be the last option when no other way is possible. You always lose applicative data while keying.

Why doesn't having a full frame DSLR matter for video?

>>3094264
Because FF is a meme.
even MFT is close enough to Super35.
The cinematic look consists of more than just BOKEH. It consists mainly of lighting, composition and cut.
But "athmospheric" shorts with lots of BOKEH and focus travel and a nifty premade grading on Final Cut Pro draw lots of attention from the artsy crowd.
Most startup producers/camera teams are better served with a fully rigged and pimped out BMPCC than a 5D or A7

>>3094265
Fair enough, thanks

File: best-selling-dslr-cameras.jpg (75KB, 455x342px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 455x342px

Hey fellas
Need some help
Looking for a camera that is capable in both video and photography
Around £1000, open to used cameras as well
anyone know anything that might fit the bill?

>>3094264
It does?
It depends what look you're going for, but getting a full frame cinema camera is extremely pricey so going dslr/mirrorless is one of the only practical ways

>>3094265
If you don't understand why people would care about full frame, you shouldn't be answering questions here
>inb4 hollywood is full of meme cinematographers who don't know their shit, but you clearly do

>>3094264
Pretty much >>3094265
But it's worth noting that if you have existing FF Lenses then you'll be better served by lack of crop.

Also FF Gets a bit more light in, is it huge? eh. FF > Super35\APS-C > MFT >>> the rest. and this is only in terms of size. Really no discernable difference in quality. Also some of the Lower Res FF Sensors do fairly well in low light because of le larger pixels

If you like shooting full frame Pictures and have the equipment, Go FF. But don't go out of your way to buy FF if you're just doing video.

>>3094310
>the same rules that apply to Hollywood apply to all video in general
Lol, what is reading comprehension, amirite?
Go home, Tarantino. Buy another 2 gallons of fake blood and jerk off with it.

>>3094272
Everyone will shit on Sony, but
Sony.
A6000 kicks ass at both especially for it's current used price. the modern replacements are nice too.

>>3094316
>says full frame is a meme
>backtracks when he realises he's being a dumbass
Fuck off

>>3094322
>Person A and B are talking about Video
>Person C comes in and makes it all about Hollywood

Look, a retard

>>3094326
>person A: why doesn't full frame matter?
>person B: full frame is a meme
>person C: that's an incorrect statement, unless you think hollywood cinematographers are idiots
>person B: REE! Stop talking about hollywood! That's entirely unrelated!

Look, an idiot being called out

Can i use a D7100 to film a music video?

I mean, a friend of mine pretends to be a rapper and i just want to help him for fun. It won't be something serious, furthermore i am completly new to /video/ but not to photography.

Or moght it be better, to borrow a video camera from somewhere?

Im not planning on doing a serious music video,it just shouldn't look as horrible as filming with my smartphone

Tl;dr
>is the D7100 good for filming a shitty musiv video?

>>3094330
If you don't want your things to look amateurish prioritize on learning how to light scenes for film.
lighting > lenses >camera

>>3094331
I actually have a friend who does this lighting stuff for stages as a hobbie, seems like i'm not completly lost at least

>>3094329
>guy literally asks about video
>some dipshit brings in sloppy wet Hollywood cock
Get a fucking grip of yourself before you suck someone's dick off.

>>3094329
>person A: why doesn't full frame matter for video?
>person B: because other things matter more and people turned FF into a meme
>person C: that's an incorrect statement, unless you think hollywood cinematographers are idiots
>person B: Why are you bringing Hollywood into a discussion about video in general?
>person C: [stupid comment that makes person C look foolish]

>>3094310
dude, you're talking bullshit indeed. hollywood is not shoving FF in their anuses. you forget that smaller sensors have the benefit of providing more depth of focus (less bokkakeh) with more light (same aperture = more dof), which is wanted in motion picture. .. who da fuck is so stupid to think that the more shallow background the better? .. even in photography this isn't true, but especially for cinema, where pictures are thrown on large screens, you don't want too much destroyed background (not to speak of when shooting 3d).

so, you horrible amateur, estimate your how-hollywood-works bullshit not before you've shot something you have seen at least ONCE on a cinema screen.

does diffraction limit effect video since it's getting compressed to 1080p anyways?

>>3094403
the diffraction limit is proportional to the wavelength. roughly said an optical system can resolute max. 400nm. a pixel on a sensor is around 10µm. roughly 20x the theoretical limit ...

your question is non-sense also for other reasons ..

>>3094438
like what? you lose sharpness going above a certain aperture for photos, why is it nonsense to ask if this applies to videos as well?

>>3094330
I do my really shitty time-lapses and event videos on a D7200 and they turn out really alright-ish.

>>3094441
it has nothing to do with the diffraction limit. roughly said this is related to poor bulding of the lens. and it happens for stills as well as video.

and you see a soft lens also in 1080p, of course. related to the size of displaying of course. you see it also on xvga when blown up.

>>3094400
>strawmanning this hard
I never said that more shallow background is automatically better. There are a myriad of reasons to choose full frame including, at its simplest, purely for the wider look
Be less retarded in your basic assumptions

>>3094358
>hurr
>>3094357
>durr

>>3094474
I assume with "wider look" you mean the larger image circle. and out of all the "myriads" of reasons you picked this? interesting. because you fooled yourself again. the broad tendency in serious productions is to avoid wide angles. simply because of the distance distortion which is especially unpleasant for faces. thus wide shots are an exception, mostly for landscapes/areas or when the location demands it for some reason.

the road so far:
>hollywood do FF because bokeh
no, bokeh is shit on large screen
>ok, then they do because wide angle
no, wide is shit on faces
...
to be continued ...

>>3094488
>hollywood do FF because bokeh
quote me where I said this

>>3094531
are you going to tell me that bokkakeh is not one of your """myriads""" of reasons you think mornigwood is using FF?

>>3094576
>backtracking again
whatasurprise.jpg

Anyone here use sound devices?
What might be good for an all-round documentary setup?

>>3095418
Depends of what kind of documentary. if you're doing interviews then a lavalier microphone is usually the go-to, learn how to set it up properly (there a many things that can go wrong, check a Youtube video or two about that), a shotgun microphone is great and can be used for interviews as well (get something to mount if though), one more thing regarding interviews: get something to record YOURSELF, I can't believe the amount of interviewers who just don't have a sound reference of themselves, we can't barely hear the questions asked because they're behind the shotgun mic, deal with it in post-prod must be a nightmare.

Also, get a clap.

>>3095458
It would be more monologues from interviewees rather than straight up interviews, without questions, so for that I would probably use remote lav mics, but I need to get good atmospheric sounds of nature, a soundscape of sorts to go during and between the monologues

>>3095726
>>3095458
Sorry actually I confused my current project with my next one
The next one will be as described, the current one I have will be without interviews, just a Voice Over that will be recorded in a studio, but it will have a lot of natural environment sounds throughout

>>3095729
are you doing high-quality docus for cinema or rather gap-filling stuff for TV?

File: 1468755539772.jpg (97KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x800px

What is the video quality difference between standard and professional Mini DV tapes? Specifically Sony's DVM63PS and DVM60PR, and by extension DVM63HD. I'm using a VX2100 and I'm using the regular DVM60PR tapes, but I want to know if it's worth spending the extra money on the "professional" or HD tapes

>>3095732
High quality for cinema

Why is 4k such a meme?
I've seen claims that its what you need to stay competitive in this new landscape
>if you make shit vlogs they still be shit in 4k.
>if your audio sucks, shit'll be more apparent in 4k

>>3095917
yeah, you're right, let's all record in VGA. Who needs increased resolution anyway?

In all seriousness, stop calling things "meme". It has absolutely no meaning other than "i don't like people talking about it" and makes you sound like a massive retard
There are reasons to use it, there are reasons to ignore it.

>>3095920
It's a meme when people get peeved that a new stills dslr lack it. imo What's the point unless you produce good content that requires the resolution.

>>3095920
>flagship canon doesn't support 4k yet
>people get up in arms about how canon is falling behind everyone else
>while most flagship cameras that natively support 4k have the feature limited in some form
No anon, 4k IS a meme

>>3095926
None of what you said makes any sense.
GH4/5 and A7/9 dont "limit" 4k, or whatever you mean by that shitty phrasing.
Stop being retarded or leave this board before you unironically start shilling for Cine lenses.
Canon is purposefully gimping their DSLRs in terms of video to sell more C-models and camcorders

File: 1457755737572.png (502KB, 878x842px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 878x842px

>>3095951
>Canon is purposefully gimping their DSLRs in terms of video to sell more C-models and camcorders
I thought I was supposed to be the retarded one in this situation

>>3095917
4k isn't a meme, it's a marketing gimmick a lot of the time, but it's legitimately great if you need to crop your video
Plus, downscaling from 4k to 1080 provides a sharper, better image

>if you make shit vlogs they still be shit in 4k.
true
>if your audio sucks, shit'll be more apparent in 4k
not true, if your audio sucks it'll be just as apparent in any format (though maybe this is subjective)

>>3095926
>>flagship canon doesn't support 4k yet
Which canon are you talking about? The 5dmkiv, 1dxmkii and c200 all do 4k internally (and proper DCI 4k, not this UHD shit)

>>3095857
I somehow doubt that, since you seem not to have an idea about how to record audio. But for starters forget about what the other anon said. Lavalier and shotguns are crap anyways. Well, actualle shotguns can be helpful, but not that "shotguns" people buy for their shitty DSLRs. The capability of a shutgun mic to narrow the direction of sensitivity is proportional to the length of the interference tube. A short shutgun can only isolate very high frequencies. I use tubes not under 80cm length, and even those isolate "only" >= 420Hz. Though, in post processing you can use the high frequency narrowing as a reference signal to expand the lower frequencies by proximity (sidechain triggering). But this is not how you get high-quality audio. This - and same goes for lavalier - is an emergency tool, for situations you have no other choice. You can frickle for ages on a shotgun + lavalier recording and it will still sound crappy in the end.

Some people will recommend you cardioid or hyper-cardiod small membrand condenser microphones. In a XY-setting most likely. But especially for outdoor ambient recording this is wrong. Cardioids are extremely sensitive to wind and the only way to get rid of that is to hang up the whole microphone (membran + housing) in a calm surrounding like a cage. Then you need fabrics around to break the wind. Now imagine this on a cardioid mic with a 60cm interference tube. These are those large mics you see filmteams carry around which looks like a dead animal on a stick.
But also these handy audio-recorders with built-in microphones use cardioids in a XY-setting. Same problem. These stupid companies sell simple foam-windshields. Which is rediculous for cardioids (when there is no calm surrounding environment, they are useless).

Also the XY-setting is semi-optimal, because due to the 90° angle in which the microphones are positioned and the cardiod characteristic, you get slight phase shifts on specific frequencies. And the idea (cont.)

>>3096077
(cont.) of a XY-setting is to get the stereo impression by the difference of the level of the channels, not the phase position.

So, here is what you should do for high-end audio: Get small membran condenser microphones with an omni-directional characteristic. The building-style of omni-directionals have the benefit, that they are less sensitive to wind an you can totaly calm them with foam-windshields. Place then either in an AB-setting or - even better - a close AB with a Jacklin-disk divider inbetween. (In case you need a downward-compatibility to mono sound, consider a MS-setting with an 8-characteristic as S and a onmi-directional as the M instead a cardioid. It works fine, in spite of what some people might say to you.)

Of course the basics are necessarry: Symmetric cables (frequency synchronizied in the best case), 12AT7 tube pre-amplifiers, high-end D/A-converters with 192khz oversampling and 32bit depth. ... oh, and don't overdo post-processing.

File: 1412483932851.jpg (74KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x500px

Need a camera for stills and video.

It's gonna get wet a lot (Vietnam, gonna be on my backpack straps while I'm riding a motorcycle)

Video needs to be decent. Stills need to be good

Interchangeable lenses are a plus but I'm not too bothered.

Input for external mic is a plus too

Let's hear your recommendations. ~$1000 aud budget

>>3096291
GH4 or A6300 if you want FF.

>>3096647
>A6300 if you want FF
Sony a6300 isn't full-frame

File: IMG_1375.jpg (31KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 450x450px

No response in gear, better luck here hopefully:

My shock mount didn't make its way back into my pelican after a shoot. Should I just get the same one or do you guys have a better reccomendation? Ntg-1 on a run and gun doc kit, going into a Juicedamp if that matters. What do you guys use?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	450
Image Height	450
Scene Capture Type	Standard

how do you stop juddering when shooting from a moving car? i was at 24fps and 1/50th, should i go faster for either or both settings?

>>3096760
Actually a slower shutter speed would be better than a faster speed but that's missing the point.
Invest in some form of a shock mount

>>3096766
i have a handheld gimbal, so i don't think that's the issue. the footage was reasonably smooth in terms of bumps and vibration from the car, just looked kind of choppy at times when we were going fast

>>3096077
>>3096083
Thanks for that, it will be useful for sure
What about the actual recorder though, which my original question was about

>>3096772
Is it not the rolling shutter

>>3096943
sound devices builds decent field recorders. the mix-pre 3/6 uses class-a pre-amps and 32bit a/d-converters (end format is 24bit though). The interface feature and that blutooth bullshit is redundant but I guess a good deal for the lower price-range. I'd prefer a more minimalistic recorder with a stronger focus on output quality, but these are harder and harder to get.

>>3097063
I'd prefer a more minimalistic recorder with a stronger focus on output quality, but these are harder and harder to get.

Any examples of these?

>>3096945
what is it then? it looks like the examples of rolling shutter that i looked at

>>3097077
the older roland field recorders are superb. but with the new generations they started also to include that audio-interface non-sense.

>>3097084
Your camera's sensor doesn't get refreshed all at once, but procedurally
When filming fast moving subjects, this becomes evident in choppiness
You can avoid this by getting a camera with a global shutter

not that I really would expect it, but does someone here have experience with daylight filters on tungston lights? regardless the loss of light, how colour-proof will the setting get when mixing it with actual daylight?

Holy shit /p/, is the c200 the best cinema camera under 10 grand available on the market?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE_wMyoZYrA

>>3097187
Overpriced
Not as bad as the C700 of course, but still

>>3097187
It's a step in the right direction for Canon but after working with the Ursa Mini Pro, I find it hard to believe that it would be better. It's twice as expensive and the Ursa does 4444 and RAW if needed. Right now I'd say that's the best bang for your buck on the market. In fact it's better than most cameras one or two tiers above it at this point, the only downside is that the button placement is a bit off and the body feels plasticky when you compare it to a RED or Arri stuff. But if we're just talking quality of footage, it's hard to beat.

As usual with Canon, if they put the C200 out 3 years ago it would have been amazing, now it's just one of many, and not even the best one of many.

>>3097238
lulululululululu lablablablabl hurrrrrrrrr please tell us more please biwiwiwiwiwi tell us more abour ursas 44444444444 please please mr image dictator pfffffffffffrt

>>3097240
man, before I started browsing /p/ I always thought this was one of those niche boards with chill people. Like /po/. Quickly realize this is the worst aspects of /v/ but instead of vidya its gear.

>>3097510
Ye people ask a question and if they don't get the answer they want they freak out, it's strange.

anyone here have experience crowdfunding for video work - shorts/features etc?

>>3097539
is that a question? like >the< question? your question? if somebody here has experience with crowdfunding? when now an anon answers "yes", what in particular would you get out of this? will you be like "ah ok, this is what I wanted to know. thx"?

File: MikeStoklasa.png (1MB, 441x603px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 441x603px

My dudes
I've a 600d kit, lowepro backpack, 2 90cm 5in1reflectors and a tripod.

Thinking of getting one of those spydersteady shoulder rigs but not sure if its a dece investment.
Figured if I got myself a H4N later, I could chuck it on the rig for quality audio.

Question really is, I've about $250 AUD. What should be my next purchase?

pic unrelated.

>>3097621
A microphone.

>>3097621
obtain 250 shekels more and get this:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00MOTE1Y6/ref=mp_s_a_1_4_s_it/132-1291750-2268910?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1497805160&amp;sr=1-4&amp;refinements=p_36%3A1253522011

>>3097630
^ This, to be quite desu. Every serious filmmaker should invest in a moby.

>>3097625
Anyone have recommendations for mics?

>>3097695
rode video mic pro

>>3080843
What equipment did u use and how did u make those wipes?

>>3097562
then i write a follow-up question

>>3080567
It is pro when you make the lut from scratch, not buy from xXLuTsXx or some youtubers pack.
Typically, you balance or 'normalize' the image first then apply the look afterwards.
The look is something that you and the director have thought and planned of before the shoot during camera tests. From the tests you fiddle and fiddle with looks until youre both happy then either use that as a LuT or as knowledge on how to achieve it come the final grade.

>>3083721
No you stupid fucking retard.
Stop.
you're about to blow 50k on something you have no clue about.

Do you have any experience at all? Like ever? Have you ever been on a real film set?
If your writing is worth a 50k budget for a short film, then you're not the one who spends the 50k, you get hired. Do you seriously think your story is worth $50,000? Someone with no existing credits or experience?

Heres the upside.
The story is key. You absolutely need to face the fact that maybe your story isnt amazing.
But thats ok, make it anyway. Find some local out of film school crew who are still amateur and youll be amazed by what they can do because theyre driven by passion and are looking for real experience. Pay them minimal and be sure to feed them.
As long as everyone is happy and driven youll make a good film. If theyre using a gh5 or a Ursa mini then you are absolutely golden.
If your story is as amazing as you say, youll get the recognition and professionalism you deserve. The 'image quality' will have nothing to do with it.
The next few films will just get more and more high quality

Think like this, credit is given when credit is due. Nothing else will matter

>>3098004
how convenient

File: 18915209.jpg (22KB, 296x475px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 296x475px

>>3098009
>If your story is as amazing , youll get the recognition and professionalism you deserve.

>credit is given when credit is due

being that deluded, omg.

>>3080142
so i'm using a manual lens for a bit of flavour but i'm having trouble keeping stuff in focus or knowing when it's truly in focus tb.h, any tips? here's an example
https://vimeo.com/222399120

>>3098848
a proper camera has focus peaking

>>3098849
I have no idea what that is, i've literally just gotten into the hobby

>>3098851
Ignore him. Focus peaking only works for a rough approximation when you need to quickly move between focal points. When your depth of field is this shallow and what's in focus is changing this fast, it won't help
>>3098848
So with this video two things are going on, you have an extremely shallow depth of field, and this is causing you to keep adjusting your focus despite being a mostly static shot

Use a slower aperture. For a shot like that, the cat's head doesn't move that much and should be able to stay in focus without adjusting it (if you use a deeper depth of field)
Don't fall into the meme of always using the fastest speed aperture available.
In terms of initially finding focus, most cameras have the ability to zoom in on the picture letting you see more clearly whether or not your subject is in focus

What kind of headphones/monitors do you guys use while editing? Would you use different headphones/monitors while editing video then you would working on music or listening to music?

>>3099604
monitors for editing are different from monitors for consuming. end-user monitors are equalized contrary to the human ear, means mids are softer, lows and highs harder. a monitor for editing is flat and ideally does not weight any spectrum. end-user always dislike an editing monitor due to they find the sound to "thin". especially headphones.

music and video editing is different in the number of channels. while stereo is enough for music, you need at least 5.1 for motion picture. which means 5 clear channels and one sub. I use 7 genelec 1030a and a db S09 for 7.1 surround. more than 6 sides is redundant in my opinion, but some people appreciate the extra stereo fronts in 9.1. and for headphones I swear the Sennheiser HD 280 were the flatest heads ever. you mostly use headphones to adjust the single elements and channels.

if you don't do cinema or high-end tv you can work with stereo though. but in amy case: be advised that the best monitors are useless if you don't damp the room they are used in. especially monitors in corners or blank walls are completely stupid. damp the room, break the corners (90° is the enemy) and place the monitors away from walls.

>>3099604
mdr v6 and 7506 are industry standard. have lost count of how many behind the scenes videos I have watched where I spot them.

>>3100152
these shitty sony heads fall apart after a few months. also they pronounce to much bass. the only thing is that they're loud as fuck, thats why so many djs use them. and then buy a new one every half a year.

>>3100158
I've had mine for 4 years and they had with stood me dropping them over 100 times. Not even exaggerating, am clumsy as fuck and have dropped them countless times and they are still holding up. Only thing I had to replaces were the pads. Who cares what meme DJs use them for, they been industry standard for decades because of their sound quality not for just being loud.

I want to shoot both video and photo and I'm heavily invested in the Canon FD mount so I'm considering buying either the A7R ii or the A7S ii.

Which is more balanced? The A7R ii seems to be slightly cheaper and I'll be selling my a6300 to partially fund this purchase.

What do you think, vid?

>>3100835
a7rii is more balanced. (Disclaimer, I've never used either, this is all based on what I've read)

a7rii works decently as a stills camera as well as for video.
The only real advantage of the a7sii is its insane low-light capabilities. But photos are only like 12mp
Both cameras have poor battery life and atrocious rolling shutter effects.

Having said all that, even though /p/ hates it, the a7sii is basically the defacto budget filmmaking camera (by that, I mean that it's the one everyone will recommend as the best available unless you're prepared to invest in an actual video camera (and for the sake of this, the bmpcc counts as an actual video camera)). But that was before the gh5 released

Do your research and figure out what features are important to you
(Also, pretty sure you can easily adapt canon fd to mft no?)

for a low-budget feature length documentary, what are my best funding options?
Grants, crowdfunding, slef-funding? Is there anything I'm missing?
More importantly, does anyone here know about the tax implications for film crowdfunding in the UK? I've began looking into it and it's just one giant grey area

>>3101082
what's wrong with you amateurs? are you so deep into the aid abscess that you don't even think of getting money by demand and supply? how about your "feature length" documentary is actually bought-in by a tv-station or a distibutor for cinema?
oh, nobody will buy your stupid project? then do me a favour and think at least a second about if the world really needs your docu, if nobody ever asked you for it.

... why is it that so many plebs in film think they are detached from basic economic principles? if nobody pays you for your work then yes blablabla things are unfair blabla, but look at yourself and be honest: are you really doing a project which is relevant in the slightest way a.k.a.: someone asked you for!?

>>3101095
very helpful, thank you

>>3101100
actually it is helpful, you just don't know yet.

>>3101191
i just said it was helpful

>>3100840
>Also, pretty sure you can easily adapt canon fd to mft no?

Given the prevalence of FD lens reviews done on MFT bodies I'd say yes
It's just that the Focal lengths ar enot very fitting unless you use a focal reducer to create a pseudo-APS-C

>>3101193
ah ok then. thought it was muh irony. board is full of muh irony.

>>3101095
retard

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

755KB, 221x158px

>>3101263
no you

File: 47e9c4664a2da4972053ad660b0a7111.jpg (455KB, 740x1110px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 740x1110px

I am trying to make a low quality live music video for one of my songs with a Canon Powershot G11 and a Tripod.

How do you edit together different camera angles like in the video below? Do you need multiple cameras?

Also, are there any decent free camera editing softwares to adjust contrast and put filters on the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IQa05Z1QZ4 [Embed]

>>3093936
I would encourage you to write something from this unfortunately and sucky situation you find yourself in.

What frustrations are you going through right now? What do you wish you could be doing? Anything funny or weird happen while you're stuck at home?

"Oh boy, this situation sucks!" is the premise to a ton of interesting, funny, and even heartwarming films. Use it.

Technically speaking, it'll be tough no matter what and it sounds like you are looking or more of an idea than tech help, so mull over what I said above.

Good luck! Film school is not worth it, speaking as a soon-to-be-grad, but it's not useless.

>>3097130
Conversion filters are a solid thing. The loss of light is actually marginal. And a camera is not that sensible to minor temperature shifts. Use pro stuff tho. No cheap filers. Best is glass of course. Also from my experience if your cam says 5600K, go with a 4300K filter. Most CTB filters tend to be a little bit too blue in my opinion.

>>3101471
>free
Davinci Resolve or Blender
Yes, you either need multiple cameras or multiple takes.

https://youtu.be/W6scSi1z-J0

>>3101829
My first time using a drone let me know what you think

>>3101829
>>3101834
Boring but technically competent, a few more hours of drone time and I'm sure that'll change though. Good work.

>>3080142
Writing a script is free, but making a movie costs you money, time, and psychologically.

>>3101943
no shit, thanks for that nugget of wisdom

File: zoom-h1.jpg (58KB, 900x465px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 900x465px

I wanna use my Zoom H1 as a standard microphone for walking around events and interviewing people, but the handling noise is just too fucking much. The rattling sliders on the back are annyoing too. Is there some kind of sleeve I can use or craft myself?

File: Large_046023_Zoom_H6_Portable_Recorder_Audio_Kit_inuse.jpg (199KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 900x600px

>>3102418
the only thing that will really work is suspneding it on a rycote style shockmount.
If you're a crafty guy you can build something like that out of a cheap shock mount for a large dia condenser microphone

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 600D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
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	2014:01:16 12:16:07
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/29.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/28.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	36.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Filming some fast paced Instagram/social media videos for a Michelin starred restaurant tonight and the week

Anyone got any tips?

>>3102577
Shoot inf aster FPS (50 or 60) so you can slow it down to half speed to give it that "in the moment" feel or whatever these kids with their yoyos and skateboards call it.

>>3102603
Good call, I'll shoot at 96 for slomo pouring and pan flipping

>>3102418
did you buy the accessory pack? i found the pistol grip worked pretty well for cutting down on handling noise

Bump limit reached
new thread:
>>3102630
>new thread:
>>3102630

>>3080843
wipes and the flares were super effective, really liked the haze.

City shots were good - agree with the other poster saying the park shots weren't as strong.

Good work though.