/vid/ - Video General

>>3102630
>OP pic
Was Turin horse shot on digital?

>>3102634
according to imdb it was shot on 35mm on the Arriflex 535B
so no?

the film stock is at the back of the camera though so i think it's just hidden in the pic

>>3102639
Ah fair enough
Didn't take Tarr for a digital fiend

Is there a comprehensive guide to entering films into festivals? like what time of the year to submit, which festivals like certain type of films etc.

>>3103552
If only...
No, all there is is a list saying which festivals are scams and which aren't. It's outdated though cause as we now know, 99% of film festivals are in fact scams

Anyone know what editing/plugins were used to achieve the look in parts of this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B-wFx0aMlw

I'm interested in the part starting at 9:34, and the part starting at 10:36/37.

He probably used Filmconvert for the grain, but do you think he used a LUT for achieving the look or did he play around with the shadows midtones and highlights?

who else /cautiously optimistic/?
>looked at old short film script I wrote
>realised I love it
>know an actor of some clout who wants to help me as a filmmaker
>know a small-time producer who's said I can come on set with him
>both have agreed to look at my script and potentially help me make it
>also an opportunity to meet some local amateur theatre actors has just opened up
>if all else fails, hopefully I can at least meet some actors and produce this short myself
>am now determined to get this made before the end of summer

I have some faith in myself
>inb4 edgelord comments something edgy

>>3105741
show script, then let's see how optimistic you may be.

>>3105828
haha
>implying i'll let one of you autists steal my script or mercilessly shit on it just to be mean

>>3105862
>implying i'll let one of you autists steal my script
a bit paranoid but I can understand the sentiment
> mercilessly shit on it just to be mean
stop being a fucking pussy, if you can't handle literally anonymous people on 4chan you are gonna have a mental breakdown when anything you make gets bad reviews or literal boos at live screenings

>>3105862
I have a feeling I'd rather rip out my eyes than stealing your script. your """splendid""" script. you know.

>>3105864
>you are gonna have a mental breakdown when anything you make gets bad reviews or literal boos at live screenings
we will cross that bridge when we get there

>>3105876
i never used the word "splendid" and you know it

File: fmohn.jpg (66KB, 490x300px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 490x300px

Hey everyone, soon I'm starting an internship in a company that rents luxury boats etc. I'm going to be making content for them, such as videos, photos.

It's my first time working in this type of work in a, more or less, professional way, for a client. Everything before was me doing shit for youtube and hobby.

Any tips on how to deal with a client if you, yourself, are in the dark when it comes to the work you're suppose to do, and you're just learning?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:06:11 17:03:28
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3106093
if you do an internship in this company then this company is not your client but your employer. so you do whatever your boss tells you to do. .. you know, you just "row your boat".

how do I shoot digital without it looking soulless? I hate the idea color correcting unless you're inevitably going for a surreal or fantasy type film, because anything else and it wouldn't make a difference if you just opted for an Instagram filter.

Too shoot anything contemporary on film is to lie but to shoot it on a consumer level camera is to make your film worthless with how stale it looks unless you choose to lie through a color grade.

>>3106093

They tell you what they want
You find cutting edge, innovative ways to provide it.

Always keep them in the loop, and explain what works and what doesn't work. Always be organized with your thoughts and be communicative.

Say, if we shoot this at 60fps and slow it down, it will give a cool slow motion look. What do you think of incorporating that idea?

If you're in college doing this internship, make it your priority to raise the bar. Video can make a companies online presence.

>>3106325

>how do I shoot digital without it looking soulless

Get your settings right, and learn your craft? Lmao. What kind of question is this.

Everything you watch is shot on digital nowadays. Hell, even an iPhone can make an award winning film.

>shot a music video for a band
>they accepted it
>the private vimeo link has hundreds of views
>they haven't posted it on any of their social

What gives? Lol

>>3106325
grading != filtering. actually even color correction != grading, but we should keep it simple here. so, you pleb, your footage is not soulless because of the technical device you use to shoot it but because of you do not put any soul in it. got it? you are the problem, not the camera. it's simple.
coming originally from audio production, I thought audio people were the worst because of thinking it would make a difference if you use this or that microphone, this or that cables, this or that pre-amp, converter, recorder. they all told that bullshit and then you hear a bob marley song, and they recorded it with fucking electret-microphones. ELECTRET. and still the recording has more soul than any of that high-end audio-plebs productions.
but then I came to film ... and the natural seriousness with that people say sentences like 'my footoge looks soulless because it's recorded digitally' is frightening. ... you are the cancer.

>>3106335

The best microphone or camera is the one in your hand.

A camera is a tool. It's like asking what is better, a hammer or a screw driver?

>>3106334
>What gives? Lol
>What gives?
>Lol
>WHAT GIVES
>GIVES
>What?
>giveS?
>S
>Lol
>LLLLL

*sigh*

>>3106325
>because anything else and it wouldn't make a difference if you just opted for an Instagram filter.
I've been in these threads for a couple of years. This ranks as one of the stupidest things I've ever seen anyone write. At least you don't claim to be an expert I suppose

>unless you choose to lie through a color grade
What does this even mean? You're lying to your audience by making the film look better? Is all cinematography a lie? Should everything be filmed a single static camera with a wide angle lens?

>>3106334
one of them probably shared with a family member and in a couple of group chats
Change the password without telling anyone for banter

>>3106335
This is a good post. Nice one

>>3106344

You mad because people enjoy themselves?

>>3106338
I for one agree, but to be fair your comparison is retarded. If you need to put a nail in the wall whether you have a hammer or a screwdriver does make a difference.

To chime on the 'digital cameras look souless' thing, I think that, as usual, the truth is in the middle. A good camera will give you more options faster, and from a craft/business perspective that's very important. Shooting an ad where you have to dart around a city catching good moments and good lighting will be made 100% easier with a camera that has proper dynamic range, can hold the highlights well, etc. But given a studio / location situation where you can control the environment, the lighting, the contrast ratio, the camera becomes less important because you can work within its own parameters rather than pushing it.

>>3106335
underrated post

>>3106387
This entire "soulless" debate is kinda like the "50/60fps look plasticy and mundane". It's just based on conventions. I'm sure films could be done in 48fps in time if more people would make those films that way, not necessary SciFI or Fantasy movies. But I could see Horrorflicks being done that way.
How it works is that certain media or formats always carry certain "baseline"-message with them, or to be more basic: "the medium is the message". That's why actions scenes are shot on 270° shutter angle and standard Horrorflicks are done with a 90° angle and tinted greenish.
You don't try to tell a tale of travel and adventure via a stageplay. The stage simply doesn't lent itself to such a medium.
I am seeing more and more YT videos being done in 50/60fps, and most of them have a personal "my backyard" character.
And it's the same with Film. As technology moves forward, more and more people experience different types of media without ever seeing real film footage outside of documentaries. Soon, film will be like sepiatones and a piano in the background: merely used to emulate a specific time or era

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

140KB, 379x440px

>looking through gear reviews on YT and other sides
>"BEST CAMERA FOR VLOGGING?" keeps popping up
>always 4k cameras for $1000+

Someone should take these people's wallets away from them

>>3106410
Money is no issue with the power of B R A N D I N G

>>3106410
Maan, I want to see those pimples in 4k. ;)

>>3106330
Thanks! I guess I'm not bad when it comes to working with people or for them, but since photo/video is something I've never tried, but I'm passionate about, I get kind of nervous from the start. Guess I need to start focusing on working instead of scratching my head, looking for problems. Thanks again!

Alright lads, someone help me out.
I just read this
https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/4615-compressed,-uncompressed-and-raw-the-differences

This strongly implies (if not flat-out says) that there's not much difference between raw files and uncompressed video, other than the way it's recorded and the amount of space it will take up. My problem is that several mirrorless/DSLRs can record uncompressed video via HDMI out (eg. the 5dmkiii).
But recording uncompressed has always seemed to take a backseat in terms of excitement compared to being able to record raw.

So what's going on? If I record video on a 5diii with an external recorder, can I get results comparable to a bmpcc? Surely not right?

>tldr; is the image quality/dynamic range of uncompressed video as good as raw video? If not, what is the above article saying that I'm overlooking?

>>3106874
Hi,

If you are using the an external recorder with an HDMI output of a camera like the GH4 or 5dmkiii, there is still a number of colour science processes applied before the recorder saves it in whichever "uncompressed" format you choose. As such, you avoided basically all compression and loss of information while saving the video, but you have lost a lot of a lot of thing before the saving even happened. Such as colour information, dynamic range etc. (depends on the HDMI output)

With RAW, there is still some basic conversion to digital from the sensor happening, but you're circumventing most of processing, and thus you have more information in your shot, allowing more flexibility. This also highlights a lot of shortcomings of the particular sensor, such as noise performance, and that is why they don't allow you to shoot RAW on most prosumer cameras ( they have algorithms for noise reduction applied etc)

In your specific situation, there is no way you can reach the quality of bmpcc with 5dmk iii and an HDMI output. You can however, reach that quality very easily with Magic Lantern's RAW output of the 5Dmkiii.

I hope this helps, ask if you need anything.

So I just watched this piece of shit
https://vimeo.com/groups/16610/videos/63868393

It literally does everything on a list of student filmmaking tropes to avoid
>starts with alarm clock waking up character
>montage of daily routine using extreme close-ups
>cringey attempt at existential dialogue
>obviously set in a student's dorm room
>terrible audio
>terrible colour-grading
>shots frequently out of focus
>shallow depth of field in 90% of shots
>a story about nothing

So why am I complaining about a random shitty student short? Because it got into a bunch of festivals and is apparently acclaimed. Someone explain

>>3106997
awards and festivals are only there to promote specific people's content and tastes. ESPECIALLY in the "Indy" industry
I noticed something similar with gaming and writing. Especially gaming since it's a huge industry. The people who grant funds to 6the indy directors often have connections to the jury.
As to why "normal" people like it: they like anything with an award sticker on it or if some self-important dipshit in the clique says it's good

File: st,small,215x235-pad,210x230,f8f8f8.lite-1.jpg (11KB, 210x230px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 210x230px

>>3106997
>>3107012
You have inspired me to throw some made up award icons in my next short. They will flash by quickly and one will say "Fuck You, It's Art"

So I just got myself a job as in-house video producer for an education company. Prior to this I’ve just done freelance but wanted some safe work for a bit. Any advice so I do t fuck up and lose my job?

>>3106996
Thanks, this is extremely informative.
So when recording uncompressed, is the colour-grade applied?
(ie. the picture styles that create an already-graded image that can be used straight out of the box)

>>3107036
Yes, precisely. You can record uncompressed with V-LOG, Cinestyle or any picture profile/LUT baked into the image.

Again, if you are shooting on 5dmkiii, i cannot recommend shooting RAW enough.

>>3106874
>>3106996
>>3107036
>>3107042
In addition: It can be helpul to see the differences between raw/uncomp/comp from the what-can-you-do side.

Non-destructive post-process possibilities on output material:

raw:
exposure/gamma, white-balance/color-correction, sharpening/denoising, transfomation/filtering

uncompressed:
sharpening/denoising, transformation/filtering

compressed:
transformation/filtering

in case you have uncomp/comp material with more than 8bit you have a little bit more room also for grading.

File: 1498971000218.jpg (25KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x480px

Should I get a Canon SL1 or a Nikon D5300?

>>3107228
SL2

>>3106325
Use vintage lenses
It adds some real character and charm which otherwise lacks from surgically clean digital footage

>>3105828
>your criticism must be more severe
>post it on 4chan
>then you have my permission to be optimistic

>>3107493
As a matter of fact: yes. If you can convince the horrible dogs in the manger on /p, you can be pretty confident with other people, who aren't frustrated wanna-bes.

>>3102630
Shallow depth of field is not a sign of an amateur using a DSLR. Shallow depth of field helps with creating good composition. Because of how shallow the depth of field is, separation of the subject from a busy or complicated background is easier thus giving a clearer picture.

>>3107515
>choosing a busy or complicated background in the first place
amateur, get lost

I've been seeing these customised cinema housings which are made by a Chinese company where the pretty much take a normal dslr and turn the lens into a cinema one
(geared rings and wider thread for a matte box)

Anyone had any experience with these, they look really cool

>>3107522
Kubrick shot "Barry Lyndon" at the shallowest depth of field possible.

Shallow depth of field is not amateurish, so you can take your deep depth of field porn video look somewhere else.

>>3107560
No he didn't, he shot scenes by candlelight, which required extremely wide aperture because high iso capabilities didnt exist back then

clueless millennial faggot

>>3107515
>>3107560
Shallow depth of field
>FOR EVERY SHOT

At least read what you're criticising. If you want to shoot everything at T/1.4, then by all means go for it. I'd advise against it because it will probably look stupid but to each their own. But it's a common trend for amateur filmmakers to shoot everything as shallow as possible because they think it makes the footage look more cinematic.

>>3107560
From the OP
> Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about.

File: barry.jpg (316KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1600x900px

>>3107560
Yep this sure looks like 'the shallowest depth of field possible'.

Idiot

>>3107543
As far as you are talking about lens-rebarreling it is to say, that they are so expensive that you can buy a cinema lens in the first place. I think the target group is rather not semi-pros who want a cheap cinema lens, but established pros who want to use a specific lens for cinema for some reason and who are willing to pay a extraordinary price for that .. for some reason.
body-rehousing I never saw ... link?

>>3107562
Are you a retard? A wider aperture will give you a shallower depth of field, that's why most of the scenes that are shot with candlelights the background is out of focus.

>>3107658
cheap bait is cheap. and bait.

File: Barry Lyndon 1.png (115KB, 640x399px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x399px

>>3107662
You think this background is in focus?

>>3107677
L i m i t a t i o n s

>>3107677
>>3107658
He’s saying that the shallow dof was a necessity because of the lighting style, and not an independent stylistic decision. The exterior shots are generally much deeper.

Anyway, it’s an amateur’s trademark to believe that shallow or deep dof is inherently better than the other - it depends entirely on the shot and what is being conveyed to the viewer.

>>3107699
>it depends entirely on the shot and what is being conveyed to the viewer.
Exactly.

Hey, i just wanted to ask if it's possible to record sound via a cheap lapelle microphone on an Android 7.0 Smartphone. Can I do it with any app or do I have to get aspecific one. Or are the 3,5mm ports on smartphones not able to recognize microphones?

>>3107835
You can absolutely do that. However, the 3.5mm pin needs to be Android-compatible; if it isn’t or you’re not sure, there are converter cables out there iirc. Also I’d try a variety of recording apps as some may work/sound better than others for no apparent reason.

Has anybody ever tried making their own dolly? I've got an old skateboard that I was thinking of modifying into a roller dolly. Worst case scenario it doesn't work and I haven't really spent any money, but I'm limited to 25fps so I need a relatively stable platform to do some slider shots from.

>>3108067
I built dollies, rails and sliders and jibs and cranes. A dolly is definitely the simplest. Be aware that dollies demand a perfekt slick ground. I'd recommend to use softer wheels than skateboards normally have. Also consider a more silent bearing, you'd be astonished how loud a cheap bearing is when you are not in a city with city noise everywhere. Pay attention also to the bearing for the Y-axsis (you want two-axsis rolls, believe me). Larger wheels lead to softer movement. Keep the center of mass as low to the ground as possible. That avoids shaking of the cam when slowing the dolly down fast. Try to build a three-wheel dolly. It reduces stress to be precise since a three-wheel dolly cannot dangle, even if the ground has unevennesses.

>>3108091

I was looking at fitting some nice big pneumatic mountain board wheels to dampen rough grounds a bit, and I can source high quality bearings no problem.

So would you say 3 wheel is definitely better than 4? Would 2 fixed wheels and a 3rd wheel on a castor be a feasible setup? I can make any parts to make it works as I'm an engineer with access to a pretty extensive workshop.

If things don't work out then I'll just buy one but I figured I might as well try and make my own.

>>3108091

Also, I kind of want to be able to shoot from a height of at least around 2ft, is that asking too much for a simple dolly?

>>3108098
2ft? (60cm in non-retard) is not that much. The higher your cam will be the more distance the wheels need. I'd say roughly for 60cm the wheel distance should be somewhere between 20-30cm.

>>3108095
fixed wheels can be difficult, but might work. Be careful with shock absorbing devices, when they are too weak they'll make things worse. Soft but slick wheels on slick ground is the way to go. Also thin wheels have less contact surface and therefore less potential to hit a bar.

The cheapest solution with best quality still might be a proper tripod with a low ground spider and optional wheels.

>>3108101

That's not bad, the wheelbase on the skaeboard is probably around 350mm.

>>3108104

I imagine pneumatic tyres with a decent amount of pressure in them should be a nice combination of shock absorbing but decent rolling.

That being said, a tripod spider does sound interesting.

>Amazon's prime day in 4 days
Is it even worth looking at? Will I waste my time for 30 hours waiting for a deal that'll never come?

New movie i made

feedbackk welcome

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

>>3108902
I wouldn't camp out the website like it was a job but it never hurts to give a cursory glance every couple of hours

I'm using a ZoomH1 to record sound and wanna know what a good setting for the WAV files is. I currently run on 48kHz at 24bit because it seems like a good medium for maxmimum record time

>>3109823
>logo title twice
wew

>>3109823
In the opening is the black not black?
It looks like a dark blue?
Is it my screen?

>>3110497
At 1:04

>>3110497
yeah its blue on mine too.

>>3110484
Without checking the facts I guess 48khz/24bit is the maximum quality the h1 provides.

File: boss-baby.jpg (194KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 640x427px

>>3102630
Any resources on how to keep a frustrated actor? How can I also convince an actor to try a different direction or follow through with my vision of a character in a script. All without sounding like a megalomaniac, or even getting walked all over. There has to be a good assertive balance that gets listeners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLJ8ILIE780

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:03 17:42:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	427

>>3102630

I'm a journalist/photojournalist, and I often have to make some videos in my line of work.

I have come to the realization that I use the viewfinder most of the time when shooting rather than the screen.

Now, mind you, I shoot on a sony a7 so I have an EVF with focus peaking, but I still put my face to the camera rather than hold it away from me and use the LCD screen.

I've noticed that this is strange among videographers. But it always just came natural to me.

I don't do this when I film interviews, but when I film an event or something that has me moving around a lot, I tend to go through the EVF.

Should I instead by using the LCD screen? Are there downsides to my way? I just do it naturally since I come from photography, but if it is hindering my abilities I'll transition.

>>3110952
Whatever you feel is most comfortable and helps you get the best footage is the best and most correct way to do it

>>3111025
Perfect.

how do i into videography? any tutorials/guides?

>>3111056
Well you can always start with the sticky if you can't be bothered to google literally anything

>>3110914
no, it records 96khz at 24bit

>>3110950
Tell him. Assert authority. You're the director.
If you struggle, convince him to try your way just once and if it doesn't work, go back to his way

>>3111070
The benefit of higher sampling-rates is that it minimizes aliasing-errors in high frequencies. In principle 22.5khz is enough to capture the 20-20000hz spectrum, of course, but you'll get artefacts in the higher end. Because, imagine you sample two values within a 1/20000 second. The sampler then extrapolates a curve between these two sampling points. But it cannot be sure what happend to the sound wave within the 1/20000 second between the two samples. The sampler could extrapolate that the waves phase was upwards. But maybe there was a higher frequency (>20khz) going between the two samples and the phase was downwards in reality. These errors sum up and in the end the high frequencies are more or less fucked up.
This is why one should oversample. Using e.g. 96khz the sampler can respect frequencies up to 96000hz and thus extrapolate a more accurate curve. When you then downsample to e.g. 48khz the degradimg algorithm can maintain the phase while cutting unnecessary (since unhearable) frequencies.

>>3111153
What is the point you're trying to make?

I'm saying one should always record 96khz/24bits, because you can always downsample in post. (which is beneficial and not the same as recording at the delivery freq range internally)

Sure go, 48khz/24bit, if you plan to do no/minimal post work on the audio, why not go 48khz/16? You'll be even more efficient and save even more space.

I don't know if it's you who asked the original question, most probably not, but it's a stupid question. You know what data you need and what the delivery format is,

Unless you're recording somewhere for days without the option to transfer data, don't want to carry spare memory cards, i don't see why you wouldn't record 96/24.

>>3111163
I was answering the OP's question and yes, that is more or less what I intended to imply. There's a good reason for oversampling, so one should do it where possible.
I elaborated because this sometimes helps people to understand why.

>>3111182
>>3111163
>>3111153
Okay, very nice, but what about bit-depth.
I get that higher frequency allows for "slow-mo sound" where sounds remain audible and clear even when slowed down, but since I only record at 50fps anyway, that wouldn't be that big a factor.
Also, I misspoke, I record at 16bit most commonly. But what I am thinking about is using compressors and noise reduction to get clear speech even in crowded rooms when interviewing people. Would a greater bit-depth allow more "cleaning up" of the sound without making it sound metallic and electronic?

>>3111185
You should read about some basics of audio and digitialisation of audio. your concept of whatever slo-mo sound shall be is false in so many ways. higher sample rates does not increase the quality of slowing down audio (not in a hearable way at least).

A higher bit rate may help you filtering out specific sound sources, but it is definitely not the way to go. Once you recorded side-noises and they are maybe eben louder than your target-sound you're fucked. You have to isolate the wished sourced BEFORE you record. Eleminate side-noise, go closer with thr mics or use narrow characteristics. When nothing works re-record. The possibilities of isolating e.g. a voice in a (already recorded) crowd are near to zero.

>>3111185
For slow-mo bit depth is more important, since what it means is how many times is the digital wave sampled - the lower the bit rate, the more blocky it is, and when stretching out, you will reach the point where it falls apart quicker.

24bit is much better for that as well. You simply have much much more information in the waveform, and thus any plugin or alteration you do will be applied more throroughly.

It's more important to record at 24bit than to record at 96khz.

>>3111163
>Unless you're recording somewhere for days without the option to transfer data, don't want to carry spare memory cards, i don't see why you wouldn't record 96/24.

The reason you don't see it is that you've never done any serious work with audio nor have you ever been educated in it. The answer of "record at highest possible quality" only is applicable in a handful of circumstances. If you're applying it all willy-nilly with no consideration of the final project, you're working inefficiently mismanaging your resources and time.

>>3111220
not that guy but you're a brick of dumb. in motion picture audio is the smallest data load. even in fucking SD picture rates are 90%. It literally makes no difference if you record 48 or 192khz in 16 or 32bit even in 16+channels when you record 4k uncompressed simultaniously.
i'm a huge fan of efficiency but recording 16/44.1 for data load reasons is a joke. just like you.

>>3107515
Dude fuck mise en scene and complex compositions lmao

What's the minimum number of mics for surround sound?

>>3111851
Not the number of mics that's important but the number of channels. Your typical stereo microphone has both a left and right channel. After that, it depends also on what kind of surround you're talking about.

>>3111853
Assuming you're using shotgun mics, how many channels/mics would you need
I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm an absolute audio amateur, but I loved the sound design on Homo Sapiens

>>3111880
to record surround you need at least 4 mics. they need to be set up in specific positions (several methods exist, some need more mics) to catch the left-right axsis as well as front-behind.

though, you normally don't record surround for motion picture, but record single elements in mono and stereo and then mix a surround sound in post. you anyways have a lot post-included sound like foley, effects, re-recording and music.

to replay surround you'd need in principle also 4 channels and monitors, but the dolby standards demand 5.1 or more, where 5.1 means 1 subwoofer and 5 full-ranges (center, left, right, left-behind, right-behind), so 6 channels total.

>>3112011
oh, I actually I remeber there is even a surround microphone setup which only need 3 mics, two caridiod in 180° near-ab setting and an eight-chracteristic orthogonal between them as the side (in this case front-behind) of an ms-setup. you then can generate left-right out of the delay and volume differences of the ab, and the front-behind out of the ms. .. but it's rudimentary of course, because caridiods in 180° is semi-good and you actually get a 3 channel output with a ghost-fourth.

>>3111218
>>3111185
these are great answers, thanks. I'm currently still reading up on the intricacies of video-journalism and documentation in general, haven't gotten to anything technical except clipping and crushing as well as the basics that apply to photography as well.

>>3111217
Sorry, left you out by accident. he're your (you)
>>3112107

>>3112011
>>3112015
Thanks for the comprehensive answer
Unfortunately atm I have just a couple mixed in a fixed XY mount and a separate shotgun mic
I suppose I'll have to record with those three and then some separate stuff to mix into surround

Ive been using the 24mm pancake on the 80d for video mostly but no zoom and no IS is kind of annoying. What is a good general purpose zoom lens for video for the 80d that isnt super expensive?

Where did you guys learn filmmaking?
I've been watching craploads of YouTube videos for a few months now, and I recently started using my DSLR camera to learn about composition, lighting, etc. I wanted to take some filmmaking classes at my community college, but they don't really offer many.

>>3102630
Allow me to ask you, guys. I've seen this TV ad, and I would like to know what makes it so appealing to the eye. Are they using some visual technique or something?

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

>>3113159
yeah the technique is called "2 good looking girls in a bikini"

>>3113161
Not really. It's the exact same feeling that when you see a burger advertising. The girls seem to have volume. You want to touch them or something.

How does one become a successful cinematographer? Does anyone here have any pro experience? Is the industry volatile/ risky to commit to? How do I get the proper gear when starting out? Thanks in advance

>>3113002
You want to learn technical stuff? Read Blain Brown's Cinematography book, it'll cover literally all the basics and then some stuff on top of that. And it's better than crap youtube videos from low-budget diy filmmakers.

Better to learn properly from the start rather than learning to light with shit people by from Home Depot. If you can learn and understand why big movies use certain techniques, lights, cameras, you can then decide yourself how the best way to scale down is.

So, read the book (you can torrent it), go to roger deakins' blog, listen to some podcasts maybe, Wanderig DP and Cinematography Database are run by smart people who know what they're doing for example.

Best stay away from youtube, it's mostly half-information and you'll build up a shoddy understanding of how stuff works rather than a solid base.

>>3113163
>you want to touch them or something
Made me laugh, thanks

>>3113002
Like the other guy said, stay away from YouTube amateurs

>>3113207
Depends what 'successful' means. If you mean working on big features, it's a mix of talent, skill, luck and time. Most of the best cinematographers are 'the best' because they've been doing it for 30 years and have stuck to it despite hard conditions at times.

I work freelance right now but I'm quite young so I DP as much as I can, but I have to AC or do other on-set jobs too to pay the bills. The industry, in the UK at least, is risky in the sense that you have to make your own luck and you have to communicate and network a lot. For example, I got a well-paid 6-day job recently by working on a low-budget music video where the main DP just happened to work for a big production company. He liked me so he called me up for more work. The problem is the best jobs never get posted or advertised anywhere because they get given to people through word of mouth. So you can get jobs from internet postings but eventually you have to get lucky, find an in to a production company, ad agency, something like that, otherwise you'll just keep working 10-hour days for £100 which really isn't worth it.

Also, the best thing i've found so far is to try and work (for pay) for the thing you want to do. If you want to DP try to put together your own projects if no one will give you a job to start with.

About proper gear, it's a catch-22 situation. if you have gear you get jobs, but the easiest way tonget jobs is to have gear and so on. You either have to bite the bullet, spend 10k and get a proper setup for small to medium projects (like an fs7-lenses-stabilizing kit-camera accessories) or decide you'll always rent and try to go for lower level positions (cam assist, trainee, gaffer, spark) to make money. And remember, employers are often looking for meme cameras, like even if that new Panasonic EVA1 is great, nobody will hire you cause they never heard of the camera. They heard alexa and red they'll hire the guy with an alexa or a red, so keep that in mind too.

>>3112982
either the kit lens 18-55mm f3.5 - 5.6.

If you have more money, the sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is amazing.

Both have great IS, i personally can't stand the kit lens characteristics, but it's very good for how cheap it is.

>>3113161
>>3113163
>>3113207
I see two details there. The scenes are taken from below (low angle), and there's a subtle shadow play.

>>3113224
Do you have a throwaway e-mail i could contact you with?

>>3113236
I do now. [email protected]

Ask away

File: s-l500.png (196KB, 422x500px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 422x500px

>>3102630
I've seen this gimbal on ebay for about 20 us dorra. Is it worth it? It's supposed to be able to support a dslr, what do you guys think?

>>3113306
you can give me an alternative, but my budget is not much more than 50 usd anyway

File: 41avsa70v7L.jpg (19KB, 315x500px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 315x500px

>>3113306
>>3113309

If you want cheap shit get one of these, at least it'll help you learn how to stabilize a camera if you ever get a bigger glidecam or god forbid, become a steadicam operator.

>>3113351
>100 usd

god fucking dammit

>>3113306
>>3113400
I'll share my experience with you.

These cheap ones aren't worth much. I had one off of amazon for 50, it was a nightmare to work with, because the gimbal wasn't calibrated and the oil in the bearings was too thick. So on a shoot, i would repeat a shot dozen times hoping one of them would be passable.

I know people who got a unit with good oil, but still - you're limited in looking in one direction - otherwise you go out of balance and lose your horizon.

Honestly, i wouldn't bother if you don't want to spend money on it.

LAING P04s is the only glidecam alternative i suggest, even surpasses the glidecam in a few things, but it costs around 200 USD - so still out of your budget - but it is amazing.

But for 20 dollars - why not try?

https://youtu.be/U49oUM3tcpA
Why is this video so great? I love everything about it. Reminds me of Kiarostami.

>>3113478
Looks like this video might actually cure my insomnia... I love it

>>3113478
I-is this kino?

>>3113231
Yeah i avoid using the kit lens if possible. Ill look into that sigma, $365 isnt too bad and thats a pretty good range and nice constant aperture.

>>3113466
I'm a photographer who wants to dabble a bit in making videos just for fun, so you'd rather try the 20 dollar one than the 100 one?

>>3113757
Depends. Watch some test footages on youtube.

The 20 dollar type - it will makes your footage less jittery, but it won't ever be the smooth/cinematic flowing motion you're looking for.

I explained what's wrong with the 100 dollar one
>>3113466

If you're willing to change the oil in it, it's usable. Otherwise no.

Check the test footage and decide for yourself.

>>3113968
not him but what's the name of it so I can check it out on YouTube? Would it make a difference if I used it with a compact instead of a DSLR? (also video newbie)

>>3113976
the more expensive one is the flycam nano

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

96KB, 1280x720px

Hey /p/.

Sold my dad's car a bit back, made him a fathers day video.

https://vid.me/dN4DN

Anyhow, some people are asking me to do the same for them. (Charging for my time, this time) And I'd like some feedback on it, just to know where I can improve.

Camera is a t5i.

>>3113673
It has some serious artistic qualities to it. Very simple, but beautiful in both image and sound.

Post your cage-setup!
(I dont have any because I'm looking for one!)

What would you guys consider "success" in filmmaking?

I've come to the conclusion over the last year that all I really want to do is direct films like Inland Empire and Escape From Tomorrow and hopefully attract a moderate but relatively stable audience online.

I'm not trying to direct big commercials or studio films. I don't care about mainstream success or money. I just want to make something I consider good and get at least 50,000 people to see it.

Does that make me an underachiever? Is it worth aiming higher when even someone like David Lynch can't get a big budget anymore?

>>3114468
When you are finally able to make films for a living.

>>3114468
The problem is that there is no inbetween. And that's not only a problem of the film branch but arts in general. 90% of all returns in creative media industry goes to 1% of participants. You are either a big shot or a complete loser.

In an ideal and functioning market your plan to assemble 50k viewers would not only be realistic but even the norm and even more a source for a stable income. However the truth is, that the market is extremely distorted and we are far away from a just only fair market.

Why? Because infra-structure. Sure, the internet provides at least a platform for distribution, but at the end of the day it is not even more effective than spreading vhs-tapes (where sucessfull examples exist) - only the number of potential viewers is higher; but only IF you drop the lucky punch in the first place.
The infra-structure for offering art products to the majority of consumers is completely ruled by the view leading companies. When you ever heard e.g. the sentence "if it'd be good it'd be in the cinemas" then be aware it is a lie. Fact is: "if it's in the cinemas it gets audience". Of course people consume what is offered. It's a huge disinfomation that consumers would decide what is to be offered.

Well, there is no mid-range sucess for art. ... you have to think outside the box.

>>3114468
When you can live only on making content you want.

>>3114108
pls

>>3114479
this
>>3114468
Personally, I'd rather be Bela Tarr than Christopher Nolan.

>>3113231
>>3112982
In looking into this lens more it seems like the auto focus isnt great and is kind of noisy which is unfortunate

>>3114662
Eh, I'd say Nolan has it down:
Huge blockbuster that keeps money flowing
Then
More artistic, philosophical, challenging film
Then blockbuster
Repeat

We can talk all day about whether his more cerebral works are worth a damn, but that's beside the point. He has the track record to get huge budgets and the best of the best to work on them.

just tried making a lut in photoshop for the first time, put it on a 15 second clip in premiere and now my computer is shitting itself to render it.

what kind of gpu specs do i need to work with luts and have the render times be reasonable?

>>3114802
Absolutely unfair comparing Tarr or David Lynch with Nolan and saying Nolan 'has it down'.

Nolan is one of the lucky few who genuinely seems to like making a certain kind of film that also happens to be extremely appealing to a mass audience. But if your tastes are different from the mass audiences you won't be able to get any money (see Tarr and Lynch). Nolan doesn't make 'artistic, philosophical, challenging' films, he makes fun popcorn films with engaging scripts, if anything it goes to show how low the standard is for mainstream cinema. His movies should be the average (or 6/10) type films, not the 8-9/10 some people consider them right now.

Nevertheless the point is many of the middle budget or off-beat american directors are struggling. See: Lynch, John Waters, Michael Mann, Cronenberg, Coppola (partly his own fault desu). Scorsese is one of my favourite examples because Wolf of Wall Street was a HUGE hit precisely because it worked so well for the mass audience, while people seem to have already forgotten Silence, even though Silence is a much more interesting and in my opinion better put together movie. Not even an oscars nod, it was bizarre.

Conclusion: You better like what everyone likes (Nolan), don't care and make trash because it sells (Michael Bay), OR bitch and moan that you can't get 30 mil for your film (Lynch and co.), OR try to make a Sundance movie for 5 mil. and hope it does well on the festival circuit (not relevant whether you believe in the message of the movie or not).

>>3114831
Why did you make a LUT in photoshop and not in Resolve, the logical place to make a LUT?

Second question, why make LUTs at all? I hope you're just trying to apply it on set so your director or the client can see something nice, and not trying to slap a look on whatever footage.

>>3114493
It's nice man, it's too long though I'd say if you wanna practice commercials try to sell it as a 30 sec video and not more. And you have enough footage in there to make a nice 30 seconds.

There's some technical problems (or they look like that anyway) like some of the wonky movement with the camera swaying left and right.

It might be nice to give it more of a narrative sense and direction, like start with some of those details shots of picking up the keys, the gearbox, the details etc, then some day shots, then night, end on some other details, end, don't bore people repeating stuff as you have it now.

And as usual with car stuff, you probably need better lighing especially in the night scenes but that's not doable at all without a budget.

Ah and I know this is hard, but if I'm watching a BMW commercial I wanna see some shots of the car being fast, not just cruising around, some nice slomo wheel details, some following shots taken from another car, that kind of thing.

Keep it up you might be able to get something out of spec work of this kind.

>>3114861
???

Using a lut to convert LOG footage into whatever you want is very convenient and gives you a good starting point.

When talking about "look" LUTs, again, why not? They give you a good middle point to grade the footage around, especially if you have a multi-cam/several day shoots with different weathers, and give you time to refine the footage even more rather than getting the technical correction of every clip.

>>3114861
because i have photoshop and not resolve and i wanted to try it out without downloading/learning an entirely different program. as for second question... i dunno, i'm just more comfortable in photoshop, so i decided to try out grabbing a screenshot, processing that, and putting it as a lut into premiere. this is all just for my own fucking around, i'm nowhere near the level of having directors or clients

>>3114860
blablablabla you are retartod

I just ordered a Yelangu s60t cause I'm a cheapskate. But when this hobby isn't making you any money, it's hard to justify spending a ton.

I've seen some good results with it so I'm convinced it can be very good with practice. anyone else use it?

>>3115006
Hi.

Yes and no. If the gimbal is well oiled, yes, you can certainly get good results. If the oil inside it is too thick, do not worry. Most chinese ones come with thick oil, fortunately you can take the gimbal apart on the Yelangu S60T, clean it and spray some PFT inside it instead. This will make the gimbal produce very good result.

The thing to look out for is gimbal calibration. Chances are it will not be well calibrated, so once you balance the steadycam, you'll have to keep the handle in the same position. Moments after moving the handle to a different angle, the steadicam will lose it's balance. This is a bit of a problem for panning shots etc, but can be worked around by just not doing those shots.


Hope this helped, good luck, hope your unit is good.

>>3115016
>can be worked around by just not doing those shots
lol aren't those like half the reason people buy those kind of things?

>>3114863
Thanks for the input, wish I had more from others.

Yes, I get where you are coming from. There was very little planning, so most of the shooting was done when I could-- late in the day, a couple of hours, into the night, seeing if I could get a couple of friends for helping. There was no time to rent lights, or anything like that.

I also didn't have a nice setting, so the video is mostly cool shots, with no sense of direction.

I wish I could've had the car going fast, but I didn't trust anyone driving it fast, and I had to be behind the camera.

I won't be doing ads, though. It's just videos for people that put a lot of work on their cars, and want a video instead of a photo session. Got my first client already, for around 300 poverty tier bucks.

>>3115021
I don't think so. Even with a bad gimbal, you can move forward, backwards, left and right, run, do whatever, as long as the handle stays in position. This is the case if the gimbals calibration is TERRIBLE. It might go just a little bit off axis - depends on the unit.

So no, you won't be able to spin the steadicam around, if you want to turn, you'll have to turn with the device. This is what i meant.

>>3115024
That's good, useful finding a niche market like that where people are willing to pay.

If you can't rent lights follow the usual natural light rules of shooting with the sun at the back, maybe try to get some golden hour shots for the wides (like the one you had on the cliff or whatever, but sun behind and/or later in the day) and use the rest of the day for details.

And you never know, you could be doing ads if you get good at this and if you tried to.

>>3114860
This is a good post
>>3114802
To be Nolan, you either have to be an idiot that genuinely thinks they deserve the praise and label of "intellectual auteur", or else you have to live knowing you're a fraud whose films pale in comparison to true artists' works

>>3115283
But see I don't think Nolan's an idiot, the same way great commercial directors aren't idiots. Some people's tastes genuinely lead them in that direction of advertising, blockbuster entertainment etc. I've read and heard many interviews with Nolan and, despite disliking his movies, the funniest thing is he himself says he's making big fun movies not 'art' like some critics and some audiences think. He's very self-aware and I think in many ways his movies are more 'honest' than a lot of Oscar bait (see Tom Hooper's entire career).

What's bad is that people look at Inception and they think it's some amazing art film when it's really a fun puzzle film.

File: bravo.jpg (141KB, 1332x1017px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1332x1017px

>>3115353
>He's very self-aware
Pic related. And that's for Interstellar
Have you seen him talk about the dark knight rises? He describes it as a war epic, "the biggest anyone's done since the silent era" and says it's very in the vain of Fritz-Lang.
Nolan is possibly the least self-aware director working today. Or else, he's very good at pretending to be a pretentious idiot

>>3114662
>>3114802
>>3114860
>>3115283
>>3115353
>>3115376
that retarted and childish fan-talk is disgusting. stop being so poor minded. I really can't stand your cringy attitude. you think you'd be real experts but talk so stupid non-sense and that is so embarrasing that it annoys me. go away.

>>3115408
>Ugh, I just can't even

>>3115201
Thanks! I'll keep it in mind! DO you know where I could post this videos as to get more exposure?

I'm gonna get called an amateur for this statement, but I stand by it completely knowing its benefits.

On camera lighting. Yeah if you don't know what you are doing the lighting sucks, BUT if you know how to use an on camera flash like an on camera light then you may stand a better chance at making good looking videos.

There are plenty of bad examples, so what? My camera light has been able to help me in times when the subject's face was underexposed to where no one could see the eyes or face, so where's the fun in the image? Flash and on camera light is good. /p/ is gonna call me a dumbass for that because of the idea that on camera light is going to make the video or picture flat and not dimensional. True, but that is if you don't know how to properly use on-camera flash.

What I'm going to do is rebel against the no camera light/ no camera flash rule and read up on how to use on-camera light so that I can prevent the issue of not getting a shot in a low-light situation.

>>3115542
Being a skilled photographer/videographer involves knowing how you're "supposed" to do it, but being confident enough to ignore that and do it how you know it will look better.
Much like the 180 rule or the shutter angle, they're rules for idiots who don't know what they're doing.

Good luck

>>3115376
Oh he talks a lot of shit, but I think there's an element of wanting to sell those movies he's making too. But i still think he's aware.

>>3115521
'Exposure' doesn't realy mean anything imo, build up a portfolio, make a vimeo channel or a website and put stuff on there. Then if there's an opportunity you send that to your potential employer to check out. Other than that take stills of the best shots and put them on Instagram, it's bizarre how many people get jobs through it these days in the creative industries. I dislike social media in general but have to keep and Instagram channel up for the film work i do.

>>3115521
>exposure
Lel.
What you need is not just some unknown video Channel. Work for or with people that have a bigger or radically different Media Reach than you.
When you want to make more videos like the posted one find people who would want their product put into the light like this. Go to founders-fairs, expos, conventions, where people appraise their product directly to the market. Or find people that are making a product. Look at universities for gradstudents that develop sell stuff, listen to when friends tell you of their friends that just started a company. Or check kickstarter for stuff in your area.

I had the privilege and pleasure of shotting with amazing cameras (FS5, C100MK2 and even a Red Scarlet) once, for friends and whatnot

The FS5 was mine, I bought it because I could, but thanks to family issues I had to sell it and use the money to help my family. Now things have settled but I have nowhere near enough money to buy such a thing anymore.

But that doesn't drag me down at all, I love this job and I would like to start over again, think of it as a clean slate. I have very little budget (maybe 1000€ stretched) and I need to get geared up to start from the bottom and work my way up. Something versatile that can work in most situations and isn't super retarded (like those canons with fixed lenses or cheap sony camcorders).

Aside from the massive shit on I'm probably gonna get I'm looking for that guy who can help me decide on my gear

I plan on organically increase, start with very little and work my way up, as expected. Optimistically I'd like something that has interchangeable lens (possibly canon, which I have used in the past), makes decent video (by decent I mean anything a little bit better than your-average-canon-dslr-sub-3000$ quality, that is heavily compressed and really uninspiring, and perhaps one or two accessories that will help me, maybe a lens

I'll probably be shooting things like events, parties and such, where there's lot of chaos, what they call an "aftermovie" here so I'm guessing I need something that works well in low light (so I don't have to shit on everything with a fast lens or blind everyone with a led panel)

What's your suggestion? Again, budget is not much (maybe 1000$ if the idea is really good)

>>3116980
you are an annoying liar. what a pleb you must be to ask for a poorfag recommendation but starting it out with swinging buzzwords and making the big ape. fuck you. try again when you overcame your inferior complex.

>>3116987
Great start, let's wait for someone smarter.

>>3116980
>budget is not much (maybe 1000$ if the idea is really good)
> anything a little bit better than your-average-canon-dslr-sub-3000$ quality,
You're fucking retarded.
Read the sticky and come back when you have a real question that isn't just idiocy/newfaggotry

>>3116990
>he thinks anything that Canon shits on their dslr below 3000$ is decent quality
I mean, I know you've never worked once in your lifetime and you're just shitposting, but gets your facts straight

They're all the same, kiddo. Unless you go super35 or 4K Canon video is trash, it's objectively known.

Next.

>>3116991
Are you illiterate or just pretending to try and save face in the most retarded manner possible?
Either way, fuck off and do your own research

>>3116993
>hurr durr I have no arguments so I'm just gonna insults

Back to your g7 and let the adults talk.

>>3116994
Jesus fucking christ.
Why does this keep happening? Some newfag waltzes in and demands esaily-available information, as if we have nothing better to do but help them sort their shit. And in the process, in an attempt not to sound like a newfag they spew off a list of bullshit that makes anyone even somewhat knowledgeable spit up their coffee with laughter/confusion.

And when they're called out on it, instead of checking their ego or admitting they were chatting shit, instead they get defensive and pretend to be some fucking expert and accusing everyone else of being an idiot. DESPITE ASKING FOR HELP ON THE MOST BASIC FUCKING SHIT LIKE 5 MINUTES AGO

It was funny the first 50 times it happened. Now it's just annoying.
Most of the people in this thread actually do this professionally and you're not fooling anyone.
Now once again, fuck off
/rant

>>3116995
>Most of the people in this thread actually do this professionally and you're not fooling anyone.
Youre not fooling anyone either

>>3116995
#preach

I want to get the Canon 35mm IS USM lens and the Sigma 24-70mm Art lens, are those great for video?

Using a 70D

>>3117469
I am beginning to notice that the industry, your actors, friends, and family do not take you seriously as a videographer if you own a DSLR with a photography lens.

If you want your talent to stay with you and your boss to keep you as a camera man, then get an expensive camcorder.

What upsets me the most is I got diagnosed with a mental illness, and my friends and family think I'm nuts for filming with a DSLR. Possibly they may think that the DSLR has zero video functions, but is instead only a photo camera.

I can tell them it has video features, I can show footage taken with the camera, tell them the camera has been hacked and modified for professional video, and more, but still no one wants to take me seriously with a DSLR.

Even this site would not take me seriously. I wish I could take video of my cat all day long.

Want to know my camera?

A Canon Rebel T2i.

The worst camera for video by /p/.

Don't get a 70D. Go get a camcorder, or at least film with you smartphone since everyone knows what a smartphone can do.

>>3116070
>>3116101

Well I wasn't so much about Exposure in the sense of views in YT or somthing. I was most about where to post the video -other than p- to get some useful critique.

Is a Canon HF R72 or R700 decent enough for entry level youtube shit? 120ish secondhand seems like the cheapest I can find for a 1080p 60fps camcorder that isn't an action camera but if there's something better in that price range I'd love to hear it.

>>3117558
When people ask me, I explain it quickly and simply. They then looked a bit confused and sceptical, so I explain it in-depth and properly. They rarely, if ever, follow. But this is enough to convince them that I know what I'm doing and they don't have a clue.

People care about results more than method. If you have a reel of videos that look much better than the average camcorder shit, they don't tend to give a fuck. On top of that, most professional videographers for events like weddings, graduations, opinion-polls etc will use a dslr/mirrorless.
I've never seen anyone use a consumer camcorder for a professional gig (ignoring extreme sports) except maybe as a b-camera in the background.

how to achieve moonrise kingdom look?

>>3117558
>A Canon Rebel T2i.
If you can't make something that looks decent on a t2i, you shouldn't be spending more money on expensive gear; the problem is you
exposure, lighting and composition can not be blamed on equipment

File: sink_still_1.11.2.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

Wanna see some quality schlock?

https://vimeo.com/204301145/c543ea5dbd

My film class in community college decided to make a 90 minute feature in the span of one month with about $1000 budget. I mostly did grip stuff and filled in for other roles, and like most of the crew I was also an extra here and there.

I personally think it's schlocky as all fuck, it features the hero beating up little kids, beating up teenagers, staring angrily at people in the dark, and being a master detective who magically knows everything. I'm proud of what we've done though it was a good time.

>>3117558
the TV show House shot on 7D's

>>3118102
And just to clarify, a T2i has the same guts as the 7D that was current at that time. The $500 difference in price was because the 7D had a titanium body, and the T2i had a plastic body. I have worked on hundreds of A list music video's and commercials that used a 7D as an A camera and T2i's as B and C cameras. The footage cut together seamlessly. Granted, If all you do is shoot video in a studio, and you have the $, get a C300. But no one who knows what they are doing will look down on someone for shooting with a T2i

How do you properly use stock footage?

Any advice?

How much do you guys usually spend on your shorts? Is $4000 reasonable? I wanna hire a sound recordist and get someone to take care of my audio post

>>3118277
$4000 is very reasonable for a short. BUT there are some things to bear in mind.
That price is reasonable for someone who knows what they're doing with a fair amount of experience and an independent producer.

If you're just messing around, try not to spend money you don't need to.
Also, how did you get to that figure?

>>3118290

I've been doing no-budget shorts for about 5 years and I'm pretty happy with the results so far. I just feel like it's time to up my game a bit.

The $4000 is made up of fairly low but reasonable cast and crew rates, as well as food, costumes, and $1k for audio post. Fortunately I have a cinematographer friend who will help me out for free, so we'll be using his Arri Amira.

But yeah I've definitely thought this through, I don't wanna waste thousands of dollars obviously.

>>3118292
Fair play, I only ask because I'm sure you've seen the amount of newbs who've never made anything and ask for advice on making a short film which they've budgeted at $10k

I'd still say to make you sure get a producer though, even if you still act as a producer yourself. Takes a lot of the stress off and lets you focus on directing.
$1k for audio in post seems like a lot to me; I wouldn't spend that much. But to each their own. What is it you want to be done to the audio in post?

>>3117805
Shoot with a yellow filter and make everything centered/symmetrical
Also earthy/pastel costumes/set design

>>3117558
Just get a cage for the dlsr, some rails, and stick a matte box on the lens
Normies will think it looks professional

I need £10k for a low budget documentary feature/essay film
I have all of the equipment I need already, with the except of maybe slightly better audio setup
Most of the cost will go to transport and accommodation
Is this a realistic sum to try to crowdfund?
Should I aim lower and hope to overshoot?

>>3118318
>Should I aim lower and hope to overshoot?
Yes. Much lower

>>3118319
How much lower
Why, what does the success depend on
I'm not asking for 100k

>>3118321
>Why, what does the success depend on
Actors people have heard of / can look up
A director/producer with a visible and impressive portfolio
Realistic goals
An entertaining concept

>>3117844
This is okay for a beginner, who is just messing around. Maybe it was okay 5yrs ago. I bought mine, learned a lot, had fun making videos, but now a days, shooting with even a t5i for work looks kinda awful. I think it's not the camera itself, but canon's codecs or sth. Video is horribly compressed, color correction is near impossible and the video is as soft as four-ply tp.

>>3117576
Honest or even useful critique on the internet is hard to come by sadly. No idea where you could actually get something useful.

>>3118334
canon DSLR's shoot amazing video. If you are having problems with them, you are doing something wrong.

>>3118547
no we all hate canon and use every opportunity to shit on them, don't you know?

Hey guys, I want to get into producing my own content big time, mostly as an advertisement for myself (wanting to work in reporting/documentary/journalism)
Some acquaintances of mine founded a acharitable organization and I want to do a short documentary/image film for them.
I don't take any money for that, I don't feel comfortable with that. But just to be safe I want to have them sign a contract so I am guaranteed to be able to use that documentary on my profile and my portfolio.
Is there some place I can get a template for such a contract?

>>3118097
It's really, really, really, really boring.

Also the dop is shit, as well as the lightening, grading, inscening and acting. But one could live with that if it wouldn't be that incredible boring.

>>3118097
>community college
>90 minute feature
Film students should never be allowed near a runtime over 10 minutes long. They need to learn how to trim the fat, and if there's one thing film students love it's making fatty, boring-ass mjavascript:;ovies.

>>3118671
google release forms and use those as a template
go to a lawyer if you want them to be legally binding
if you think they really might screw you over, just get it on camera you asking them if it's okay for you to use the footage for your portfolio

File: 175x175bb.png (10KB, 175x175px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 175x175px

Guys, am I the only one who can't download DaVinci Resolve from their website? I am trying to get the v14 Beta, but the links don't work.

>>3118909
Might be hood to wait until it's out of beta anyway, i've had trouble with 14 on some file formats. Stick to 12.5 for now imo

>>3118671
if no money is exchanged, it will be almost impossible for them to legally challenge you using any footage you shoot
write out a simple document (literally "Anon grants charityX permission to use documentaryY in whatever way they see fit; but this does not grant them ownership of the film"), something like that as long as it's clear what you are trying to say

the courts aren't robots. unless they tried hiring really expensive lawyers to fight it, they'll side with you unless the charity can provide any proof that the opposite was expected

>>3118919
>>3118851
Thanks, these helped a lot. I'll take those into consideration

>>3118914
In fact, I am having the same problem when I try to download the v12.5.6. Something seems wrong with the download button on their website.

Thanks for the answer.

>>3118947
Ok, it seems to be solved. It must have been a problem with their web, but it's working now.

Should I get plastic surgery before I start making films so people will take me more seriously?

>>3119096
obviously

Could anyone give me advice on audio equipment? I'm shooting 'Man on the street' type interviews, where I'll be filming an interviewer talking to people outside.
I was looking at getting a VideoMic Pro to capture some of the sound of the environment, and the interviewer would have a Zoom H4n connected to a handheld mic. Is getting both a Zoom H4n and a VideoMic Pro overkill? Is there a cheaper/simpler for the interviewer's microphone setup?

File: Sleep_Has_Her_House.jpg (73KB, 700x970px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x970px

Has anyone here seen pic related?
It's incredible.

I refuse to believe it was shot on an iPhone though.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	700
Image Height	970

File: exolens.jpg (49KB, 600x335px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x335px

>>3119138
looking at some stills now and I don't see why not.

Also now that there's shit like pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:14 15:13:12
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	710

>>3119142
Nah you wouldn't get anything from stills
There's a great deal in the movement that makes me doubt the camera origin

>>3119102
Yes, a bit overkill
I use a ZoomH1 and use it as a microphone directly with the pistol grip and the popfilter from the accessory pack. You won't get proper XLR inputs tho.
Speaking of the Zooms, what's the point of the H2n? It's in the same price category as the H4n but doesn't have XLR inputs. What is its niche?
A videomic Go is also sufficient for on the street.
I recommend getting a supercheap lav-mic too. i use the Mic-J 044. It's top notch for its price. they're mono, so you can get 2 and then feed them seperately as one track each on a Stereo clip. They enable you to make absolutely great interviews with perfect audio that has barely any distracting background noise. Lav-mics are also very resistant to gusts of wind.

Of course, investing a lot now can save you money later when you expand, but first: the bigger setup will need bigger batteries and second: I like keeping the cheaper starter gear as backup for later.

>>3118547
Been using a t2i for 4 years, and a t5i for two. Have also shot two short films with a 5dII and one with a 5dIII. If you expect to do any kind of color correction, Canon is shooting yourself in the foot.

Does anyone know of any good resources to know about the more technical aspects of editing?
The likes of codecs, formats, colour spaces, technical jargon etc

>>3119599
the pre-amp matters more than the microphone

>>3119257
Ok this makes sense, thanks alot ma

>>3107228
d5300

>>3119428
are you high? I do color correction on Canon all the time. It works great
We shot this on Canon and you can see by the making of in the 2nd clip that it is heavily corrected
https://youtu.be/W2i237xj2Mk

https://youtu.be/VhBV87GMBqo

Looking for a lightweight linux (fedora) video editor because I want to get into video don't care about quick render times or anything just want something that won't overload my pc - I usually use photoshop so naturally went for adobe for video editing but couldn't get it working so now looking for software designed for linux

>>3119702
And googling "video editing programs for linux" wasn't possible because...?

>>3119737
because I'd rather have a persons opinion on something than someone who's just made a top ten list and never actually used the programs

Beginner videofag here, should I wait for a Panasonic G7 to go on sale, or should I go for a used T2i/T3i?

>>3119511
Editor for a living here. It's kind of an issue of "where to begin?"

Basically you can group codecs roughly by their intended purpose (but there is crossover):

*ACQUISITION CODECS*
IDEALLY, this is your simpler, larger files like ProRes, AVC-Intra, DNxHD, etc. A lot of cameras record in H.264 (synonymous with AVC), but this doesn't mean every camera that records in this format is equal. I'll explain more in a bit.

*EDITING CODECS*
With today's software, you can edit straight off the camera footage, but some people prefer to transcode everything to easier-to-edit formats (H.264 to ProRes, for example). This can also be to a *lower end* ProRes variety (ProRes Proxy), with a reduced resolution and bitrate. Editing should be fast and smooth, and lighter codecs are definitely a big help in post. This is why the Alexa's ability to record straight to ProRes is huge. It's a flexible, high quality format, that's easy on the processor (but in its acquisition bitrates, still fairly large). No one usually chooses to transcode to H.264/AVC for editing, but they can, as I said before, edit directly off this codec if the camera shoots that way, and your computer can handle it.

*DELIVERY/MEZZANINE CODECS*
When the video is complete, you'll export to a high quality mezzanine format, which can be considered the "master" copy that all others derive from. Usually this is a ProRes HQ 422 or better format, depending on your destination, with deliverables ranging the gamut of MPEG-2 for broadcast HDTV delivery, to H.264 for web delivery.

>>3119747
Continued...

I said earlier that even if two cameras record with the same codec, that they may look vastly different (and this is putting aside sensor, lens, color, etc). This is because one camera's *implementation* of the codec may be vastly inferior to another. Did you know that Canon DSLRs were recording nearly 50mbps H.264 going all the way back to the 5DII? It looks and grades like shit because it's a poor implementation of the codec. Compare that to Canon's own C100, that hits 35mbps H.264, while still looking much better. The C300 (orignal version) shot 50mbps MPEG-2, and it looks great. This is why resting straight-out-of-camera footage is so important, rather than looking at shitty recompressed test clips on YouTube or Vimeo.

>>3119750
Continued.

Formats are weird in the professional world. You can have *containers* (MP4, MXF, MOV, etc) that hold different codecs (H.264, MPEG-2, ProRes), so it's important to understand the distinction. If someone tells you "it records in MP4", then they are likely implying H.264, but even more accurately, they don't know what they're talking about.

Color space is pretty difficult to explain in simple terms. Color space refers to the total gamut of colors captured by the video. For most people, they're either look at sRGB (computers) or Rec.709 (HDTV) color spaces, which are almost identical. If you've ever edited photos in lightroom or photoshop, you'll have come across AdobeRGB, which is a wider color space than sRGB.

It gets really complicated when you think about the fact that color *space* defines the total range of colors, but color *depth* defines how accurately you represent that space... Even more confusing is color subsampling, which defines the resolution of the color channels in relation to the luma channel.

>>3119744
The G7 right now has nothing in particular to offer over the GX85 except a microphone jack.
Canon has the better lens selection than panasonic unless you need their dual stabilization, which the G7 doesn't have

>>3119813
>Mic Jack
>Nothing
I NEED MY HIGH QUALITY AUDIO REEEEEEE

>>3119738
cinelerra, lightworks, kdenlive, blender to name a few.

File: 1420629304178.jpg (62KB, 400x489px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x489px

>Have my sights set on a G7 for $600
> It's the same price everywhere for weeks
>Suddenly $800
>every other place that sells cameras did the exact same thing
Why?

>>3120184
because God doesn't want you to buy a shitty camera

File: 1496679910249.png (116KB, 341x310px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 341x310px

>>3120185
>G7
>Shitty
How?

>>3120187
shitty codec, shitty colour science, rolling shutter (not as bad as sony), shitty terrible 2x crop so you need to spend half the cost of the camera on a speedbooster.

The only thing it has going for it is 4k.

File: 1498093505748.jpg (35KB, 583x439px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 583x439px

>>3120189
Ok, then reccomend me a video camera under $700 new, with a mic jack.

>>3120191
canon 700D if under 700$ or blackmagic MCC if over 700$

>>3119747
>>3119750
>>3119757
Thanks for the comprehensive answer
Where did you learn all these things though
Where can I learn them

File: image.jpg (24KB, 416x353px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 416x353px

Hey, any advice for using the BlackMagic Production cam? Picking one up soon. Experiences? Thoughts?

[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	416
Image Height	353
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3120244
I started video production courses in high school, and have never stopped either learning for myself or working in general. That said, my background is in live streaming content, so I'm very familiar with the technical side compared to most editors.

>>3120256
I see, must be nice

>>3120264
Sorry, I realized my answer wasn't too helpful. Ignore places like nofilmschool for the most part. Get yourself some books on filmmaking and video in general. Lynda.com courses are good for learning how to use certain programs, but styles are learned best through simply doing it. You can watch videos to get an idea of how things are shot, but you won't really be able to appreciate what goes into a shoot until you actually make stuff, no matter how bad it is

Most places online suck, but sites like DVXuser and BMCuser are still, believe it or not, pretty good if you stumble into a thread with working professionals.

>>3120268
If you're really curious about the extremely technical side, I suggest hanging around Doom9.

>>3120268
>>3120269
my response may have sounded sarcastic, but it wasnt
as for the shooting, im quite clear on that all, really just looking into the technical side of editing

>>3120271
How to learn to be a film maker:
Read books on how to be a film maker
Watch Making of documentaries about your favorite films
buy a camera, and editing software
shot stuff and edit it.
(while editing, write down all the things you wish you would have done different while shooting, memorize that.)
repeat until you make something good.

>>3120359
Like I said, I'm not looking 'how to be a filmmaker'
I want to know just specifically about the technicalities of digital editing
Not learning it through trial and error etc, but actual just properly learning it
My initial question was just whether there were any good online resources to do so

>>3120410
editing is easy if the footage shot is good. You slap it together, and watch it. Change anything that doesn't feel right. A good cut you don't even notice. A bad cut draws attention to itself. If a cut isn't working at all (major continuity flaw, production crossed the line, etc) then cut away to an insert.
As far as online resources, try creative cow

>>3120189
literally none of this are true exclusively for the G7 or Panasonic in general. Try shilling harder.

>>3120248
Old. Don't use in low light.

>>3120511
Are you retarded? Where did i say these are problems only on the G7 or Panasonic products?

Fucking retard.

File: 1405176956306.jpg (24KB, 270x298px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 270x298px

>>3120534
>>3120193
>Recommending a DSLR over a mirrorless for video

>>3120193
>Common Rabble T5i
Aren't Canon cameras shit for color correction?

>>3120539
Look, do as you wish, i recommended the BMMCC which is the only worthwhile jump you can make from a t5i.

>>3120540
Yes, the native codec is terrible, but with Magic Lantern and its RAW capabilities this camera becomes worth twice its price.

>>3120539
also why the fuck would mirrorless be better than a DSLR for video.

I have a 6D and want to get into video work. Is installing Magic Lantern worth it and what advantages does it give me?

>>3120546
Magic Lantern is free, so not sure what you mean by worth it.


It gives you spotmetering, focus peaking, focus zooming, zebras, audio metering, display and overlay options and all the features you'd expect from a video camera.
Also the ability to shoot RAW.

>>3120543
Better autofocus performance

>>3120542
Would a T2i be worth it with ML?

>>3120635
panasonic has shit AF, sony has good AF on some of their cameras.

Canon DSLRs have great AF.

So no, not really.

File: 1330044434016.png (29KB, 180x180px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 180x180px

>>3120641
Proofs?

>>3120641
> >30 AF Points on a Canon DSLR
VS.
> Literally hundreds of AF Points on a mirrorless
Did you eat a bowl of stupid for breakfast?

>>3120652
Not him but this is pretty blatant anti-canon shilling. Whether or not you like them, it's pretty much universally agreed that the dual pixel af in the 5div, the 1dxii and 6dii is revolutionary

I don't understand, are you literally paid to make sure no one ever considers buying a canon? Did they hurt you?

>>3120648
How about proof for this first
>>3120635

>>3120550
hmm isn't there an issue that I can only use my memory card with ML on it with the camera then?

>>3103590
> It's outdated though cause as we now know, 99% of film festivals are in fact scams

Elaborate?

>>3102630
thoughts on the Panasonic GH5?

>>3120725
Many essentially make you sign away the rights to what you create "for exposure." They'll charge the audience an arm and a leg to see it and pay you scraps in return.

File: 1464755455369.png (509KB, 795x991px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 795x991px

>>3120657
>MUH ANTI CANON SHILLING
>Proceeds to shill for canon

Are there any good guides to sound recording and editing out there? Feels like I've spent a ton of time learning how to make my shit look good and not enough learning how to make it sound good

>>3120756
hold mic close to actor
use external recorder
use software to remove any excess background noise
voila

>>3120731
Not OP, but it's the best value you can get at its price point.

>>3120731
Best value for buck. If you can get past the horrible fact you won't be shooting nighttime wildlife documentaries with it.
Also has the most hard- and software-features.

I wanna up my colour grading game
Previously I just did the basics in my editor
I wanna get Resolve now
Should I get the 14 beta or 12.5.6?

I've been waiting and saving money for 7 months now to buy a Panasonic G85. I feel it's probably the best camera for my needs (shorts, youtube junk, music videos)

Anyone have experience with a G85? Should I aim for something better? It seems like the best camera for the price and what it can deliver, from what I've seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SgyFaBS7WI i love this hipstertrash look, and i just fail to replicate it in davinci resolve, any ideas?

>>3121161
From initial glance, put saturation on like 70%, slightly raise your blacks and lower your highlights
I dunno, I'd have to see the initial footage

I think it's underexposed as well

>>3121161
>>3121172
Oh, also make sure you sharpen your footage heavily

>>3121172
I only have the free version tho, by raising blacks, one tutorial said to first crush them, by adjusting the curve i guess, and then in second node raise them? Or is there a more professional way :D? Thanks alrdy tho!

File: blabla.png (630KB, 978x433px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 978x433px

>>3121173
This is my first test with copying, the colors look bad in comparison :)

>>3121174
In general you should crush your blacks. For some reason, no one seems to do this though. It's very easy to see whether or not people have. I find in 90% of modern "cinematic" music videos that they didn't.
I don't use davinci myself, but open up the RGB curves to do this. Simply raise the bottom left point up a tiny bit. (This is still just me hypothesising on how to get that look so I don't know if it will work)

>>3121176
So from that, it looks like your midtones are too dark. With your curves open, try making a slight upward curve in the middle? (So grab a point in the middle of the line and move it slightly up)
I'm split on whether or not increasing contrast would help or hinder the look you're going for

>>3121180
how do i crush the blacks in fcpx?

File: 1474309625430.png (2MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x900px

>>3121174
>by raising blacks, one tutorial said to first crush them
>/pol/ begins film production.jpg

>>3121182
There's like a hundred ways to crush blacks. For the record, I was advising to do the opposite to achieve the look in that video because they haven't crushed theirs.

I don't use fcpx myself but this video should tell you what you need to know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQu-6zYrcUU

>>3121227
thanks, friend

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 00.22.06.png (459KB, 1044x614px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 1044x614px

I always shoot in 4:3
I imported some of my clips as a timeline from fcpx to resolve as xml
when i grade a clip, for some reason the grading is also applied to the black bars on the sides of the clip, as you can see in pic related
how do I stop it from doing this

>>3121282
I can think of two solutions
1. You should be able to change your settings so that your workspace is natively 4:3. Thus the edges should naturally be clipped off to the side
2. Literally just draw black bars and place them over the top

Sometimes the best solution is the simplest and quickest (ie no.2) even if you want a "proper" solution

File: IMG_20170726_210207.jpg (522KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 2048x1152px

Would this audio recorder work well with shotgun mics and the like?
I'm a cheap ass and the T5 is only $340 new, so I'm looking to get around the lack of Mic jack

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G900V
Camera Software	G900VVRS2DQD1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:26 21:02:07
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	F16QLHF01SB

>>3121346
Get a t3i instead and save $100 and have access to magic lantern and a mic jack

>>3121352
Nobody around me sells used T3i's

>>3121069
Might as well try 14, since it'll be the future basis of all Resolve releases.

>>3121117
It doesn't have a headphone jack, which would prevents audio monitoring in camera, but if you can live with waiting to dump to your computer to hear what clips sounds like, Panasonic does a great job with quality internal recording and image stabilization, and there seems to be a good feature set for video work in the price range, making it a solid choice for the kind of stuff you mentioned.

However, you could get a GH4, which is a superior camera in every way from the same company, conditioned-rated used from B&H for $829, but I don't know how much you're getting for a G85. I love my GH4, and even though it's price got cut after the GH5 was released, it can still be compared to other, more recent cameras in terms of 4K quality, feature set, and versatility.

i want to get a camcorder to record street video / home videos. i like the practicality of it, but they dont seem to compare to even a basic dslr like a nikon 5100 in terms of image quality.
any tips???

>>3121346
That depends on the mic you're using. If its jack will fit the plug, then that should do, at least to start. If the mic has an XLR plug, then you'll need at least some adapters, and after buying all of that, you'd have been better with a more expensive recorder.

>>3121380
Most consumer-grade camcorders will be similar to using a point-and-shoot camera for photos. That is, they won't necessarily be terrible, but they do have their limits. But their footage can be absolutely usable, depending on intent and application.

Your best cost-to-quality ratio on the consumer market will likely be a Canon Vixia.

>>3121375
The biggest reason why I'm leaning towards the G85 instead of the GH4 is low light. IBIS is nice as well. I'm mainly going to be doing night shoots and horror shorts with the camera. That's one of my goals anyways.

Any tips/books on directing actors?

This video kinda made me hate them if this is their mentality, except for the line reading part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_pUaq4zbJI

>>3121400
be empathetic. Thats the most valuable skill a director can have imo. Also take acting classes so you can understand their process.

Don't use result directing and put a shit ton of time into casting. If you don't cast right you won't have a good movie, and the acting won't be what you want it to be.

File: 1499467625283.jpg (186KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1280x960px

Gimme the basic gestalt on the G7. Is it worth getting for $500 on sale?

>>3121394
Makes sense, and it does look like people with the Sony a6300 managed to feed the audio out of the HDMI, which you could do with the G85. Even if not, and though I haven't shot with it personally, it looks like a solid mirrorless for the job you have in mind.

>>3106997
dead link!

I want to shoot a cabin in the woods type film, 10 minutes long, something easy with a few people could get the footage in an hour.

The ending is going to be some sort of falling into an abyss, because that's like the best I can do. I have a big drain pipe nearby that with camera angle and filters will look like an abyss.

Any spooky stories I should read to draw inspiration from? Thanks :)

>>3121183
heh

>>3104838
why dont you ask him?

he has an email

>>3120754
To be fair anyone who falls into this would not make it in the long run

Festivals can be good but you gotta play them right

>>3110950
You never tell him that he's doing it wrong.

You guide him away from what he's doing wrong and tell him that your successes in direction are in fact his doing.

I do this with all performers I work with either as a director to crew/actors or as a composer to musicians. It boosts their ego while you get your way, and they will always work with you again because you make them feel good.

Also helps if you make good work

https://youtu.be/F8dy-Yfh2Os

My first short film attempt. Let me know your thoughts.

>shoot video with $50000 6k camera
>Digital intermediate at 2k
>put it on 4k bd
why jewlywood are so dumb?

>>3121550
>muh saturation
>muh yellow tint
>muh purple tint
shit / 10

File: 1464078878470.gif (3MB, 950x511px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 950x511px

>>3121550
Get a better script, it's really boring. Give them clear goals and motivations, have them be in conflict with something (i.e. one wants to get it done quickly, because the lady will be home soon, the other wants to steal as much as possible. Now there is tension and your audience is interested to see what will happen.)

Visually it's uninteresting. Use good composition and lighting to underline your story.

There is no rythm to it. Not only should the story have a certain rythm to the events and the dialogue, you also want your shots to flow into one another. A lot of your shots last way too long and I found myself skipping forward. This is the worst case scenario. If a shot does not add to the mood, flow, or story, don't put it in. You also don't have to show full motions, the audience is not dumb: If you cut halfway through the motion to the next action, the viewer will not be confused. Keep it tight.

Unify your film look. You have that Hotline Miami vibe in your title, but then you cut to two people walking slowly in the woods, with overcast lighting. If you want to go for something like 'Drive', then light your scenes in that neon look, dress your characters accordingly, etc.
The theme is what creates the cinematic reality, so let the theme dictate all of what is in the reality you are presenting. This will tie everything together nicely.

Don't be discouraged by people shitting on your thing. Know why it's shit, and learn from your mistakes. Make your next thing better.
Good luck.

>>3121400
Yeah, actors are egotistical shits. Ignore a lot of that video is my advice, though not all of it (you need them to believe in your vision). Just talk to them like they're human beings.
>"Alright, I liked the way you did X but Y felt a bit off. So can you try doing that a bit slower and with less emotion?"
That's how I do it anyway. But everyone does it differently.

>>3121550
Did you post this before? I feel like I already saw this and critiqued it a few months back

Bump limit reached
New thread
>>3121743
>>3121743
>>3121743

>>3121561
Cba with 4K render times for that shit