/vid/ - Video General

>>3121743
>finally ready to move on from making short films with my friends to hiring actors and being "professional"
>set up a company
>find out I need insurance - no biggie
>have 2 companies I need to talk to again after talking to both of them today, a form I need to fill out and who knows what else administration crap
>all before I can even hire any fucking actors!
Christ, just kill me. I just want to make films without compromising myself or sucking up to some dickhead. Why are there so many hurdles!?
I swear this is all in place to stop just ((anyone)) making films.

>>3121767
If 2 phonecalls and a form are stopping you you might not be ready for proper projects my man.

60-70 percent of filmmaking is either preproduction, planning, or figuring out licences. The actual shoots are a piece of cake once you actully know what you're doing.

>>3121772
This is it though, I want to write and direct and edit films. I want to make films. I don't want to run a business but I basically have to just to be able to do so for legal reasons. It's fucking frustrating is all

>>3121767
what kind of insurance are you even talking about?

>>3121777
I'm in the UK. So employer's liability and public liability.
On top of that, I need to decide whether or not I can be assed to insure my gear for damaged/lost equipment

>>3121776
It's bad yeah. But keep at it enough and you might be able to hire people to do that for you eventually. If you do something that makes money that is, like ads. Otherwise it's self-producing shit all the way.

If I want to make a feature film
Do I need to have a production company associated with it?
Either my own or someone else's?
That is, do I need to start a production company in order to make the film?
I'm UK based, but the film will be made in another EU country, if that counts for anything.

>>3121813
You don't NEED to, as far as I'm aware. But, err, it will be messy without one.
Who owns the finished film? Who gets sued if someone gets injured while filming? There are a lot of legal issues that you want a company established for to deal with. And I assume you'll be paying your actors? It's illegal not to have certain measures taken care of

The more money involved, the more liability there is (this is a general rule for all legal matters).
But if you find yourself with a completed feature-length film and no production company involved, there's nothing that prevents you from releasing that film, if that's what your question is asking. (As far as I know, this is all correct. But probably talk to a lawyer or a business manager or someone who can confirm this.)

>>3121826
well it's a low budget feature length documentary, so there's no actors (except for potentially one guy reading VO) involved
so I guess in my situation a production company is not essential at the very moment, but maybe useful afterwards for distribtion and royalty etc stuff?

>>3121776
Welcome to the wester bureaucracy. If you don't want to go through all of the official steps, you can just move to uganda and do movies like "Everyone in Uganda knows Kung Fu!"

>>3121827
That would be my advice, yeah. Having a company behind the project is as much for protection against you as it is for handling all of the affairs.

>>3121834
alright, thanks

>>3121779
bullshit. who on earth would found a company in the creative industry and would hire actual employees? even medicore companies outsource 60 - 70% of workforce to freelancers. I really doubt you will contract staff.
and without knowing the law in the UK I cannot believe a company (as a juristic person) is obligated to insure public liability. that's why you are a limited. so that the company's responsibilities are limited to the company's capital contributions.

also, caring for your gear properly instead of insuring it, is cheaper.

>>3121897
At the very least you'll be asked to pay insurance for any equipment you rent from a rental house in the UK.

Unless you wanna buy everything you use in which case do whatever. And in that case I would insure it anyway because any little thing on a proper camera will cost an arm and a leg to replace/repair.

>>3121897
Public liability is necessary in the UK. Think about it, if I'm filming a street chase and one of my actors accidentally runs into a pedestrian with heart problems who then suffers a heart attack, the family will sue me. That's an extreme case, but it applies to all sorts of ridiculous situations that you can't foresee.
Employer's liability is the weird one. I've heard conflicting things because theoretically my actors should all be contractors and thus be covered by public liability. However the insurance company I talked to earlier today said it sounded like I needed it (before you ask, they're not taking me for a ride, it's a long story but I trust this particular company). There's a chance they're assuming I'll actually employ people though so I'll have to make them aware of the situation.

I'm considering dropping over 2 grand on a camera. That's what makes me consider insuring my gear. But I only ended up considering it by accident while looking for the insurance I actually needed.

File: 1470667565181.jpg (135KB, 1406x1063px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1406x1063px

Gimme the basic gestalt on the G7.
For $500 (waiting for a sale), is it a good camera for a beginner?

I'm back (the guy who was complaining about having to run a business).
The insurance company has sent me a 16 page form to fill out to get a quote. ffs
/blog

File: vlcsnap-2017-07-28-18h37m41s805.jpg (3MB, 3328x2496px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3328x2496px

colour grading noob here
how would I give the barley in pic related a deep golden hue while making the blue/purple of the flowers really pop in fcpx & resolve?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3328
Image Height	2496

Newbie question:

I've got a camcorder with a 43mm lens. Does this mean I can use any lens filter or attachment as long as It's 43mm? Or are some threaded differently or what? I'm new to all this.

Store pages list stuff as FOR CANON [model] or whatever but is otherwise the right size. does that mean it's only for that model?

File: ffake orson.png (520KB, 750x400px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 750x400px

I often see in these threads people asking questions about aspects of film that aren't necessarily related to gear or editing, because /tv/ is a shithole where no one actually discusses film so they come here.
I used to make long posts on /filmmaking/ generals back when those were still around, posting links and books I've compiled over the years. But the generals stopped and I had to put those links somewhere where other people could see.

So I made a pastebin compiling them, and I think some of you might be interested in it. It's a dump of links and books related to all aspects of filmmaking.
https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ

If you think it's lacking or that I should try adding something else to it I'd do it.
Otherwise I hope you can make good use of it.

>>3122782
thanks brah

>>3122782
love that movie, Orson was special

>>3122378

The problem is you're trying to make the bright element, the wheat, into the dark element, and vice versa. This is tricky and kind of counter intuitive to making the image look like "real life." But, if you insist, this is what I would do:

There will be 3 "steps," and you need to do them one at a time, i.e. get each step right so you don't have to go back.

Do your baseline connection in one node, but do it backwards: instead of increasing the contrast, try to make the blacks whiter and the lights darker.

Then try parallel nodes, one for the wheat and one for the flowers. Limit the flower node to purple so you're only affecting that part of the image, and over-saturate it (within reason) to make it stand out.

Finally, bring it all together in a 3rd node. Play with the contrast here, and try a lut to smooth it all over / make it fit with the rest of the material.

I don't use FCPX, so this is for resolve.

>>3122599
For the right fit, you're gonna want to look for the 'filter size' of your own lens, which has to do with the circumference of the lens front element, or at least the threaded part, instead of the focal length of the lens itself.

>>3122782
Thanks dude, good list of links and resources there.

>>3122378
>>3122876
Another thing, you may want to split the 1st step into a parallel node, use one to make the purple come out so it's easier to key - if you make the image too flat (contrast-wise) you'll have a problem keying the purple for increasing saturation later.

>>3122876
>>3122880

how do i do any of this
i literally know nothing about the program

Hey guys, I need some camera advice. (yes I read the sticky)
I currently have a d3300, which is a decent camera. Its a little awkward to hold because of the size, and I HATE the low light performance. I've been considering the blackmagic pocket and the pentax gh4. the pentax seems like a fantastic updrade (i love the ability to film in 4k) and the improved low light recording. blackmagic seems great too, and I've heard most of the issues at launch were solved with firmware updates. With a budget of just under 1K, would one of these be the best for me? low light performance is EXTREMELY important. I'm not asking for something perfect, just something much better than the d3300's

Hi /p/, I am not a photographer but I want to create a project that involves short still shots. I am just using my Android phone and the shaky cam effect is way more jarring than I thought it would be. Are there any computer programs that are really good at correcting this?

>>3122943
>pentax gh4
You mean Lumix, right?
Get a Canon 750D or a used 70D, put MagicLantern on it and you're good to go.
4k isn't that important tbqh
You could also try to get a very used Sony a7S for under 1k, but you won't get a decent lens with it.

>>3122782
Thanks man

Spent all day meeting actors
Just dropped £200 on costumes and props
Woo!

No backing out now...

I have a 1920x1080 video with a very smooth frame rate. I want to decrease the file size and don't care about the video's dimensions, but would like to keep the same smooth frame rate. Is that possible and how can I go about it?

>>3123115
Changing a video's resolution shouldn't affect its frame-rate. Any nle can easily handle this by choosing to render in a lower resolution
I think even windows movie maker allows you to export an hd clip in 480p

>>3122943
I hate people who come in and say "save a little more and get X instead", but you're asking a lot to get something in 4k with a decent AF lens... however it's not terribly far out of reach.

An A6300 used would run about $750-800, and if you're willing to do MF lenses then you're set. However the best AF lens for video I've used on the E-mount is the 18-105mm G. Just a very good, very versatile lens. Not going to be great for low light, but honestly going below f/4 presents some DoF struggles anyway.

>>3123117
Oh... so how do I do that in Premier? I went to Sequence then Sequence Settings to decrease resolution and the result had a lower frame rate.

>>3123124
You do it when you export the video to be rendered
Changing the sequence settings won't change the clips themselves

>>3123140
That's what I tried first but the resolution is grayed out as the resolution of the source video. OH fuck me, there's a check box that says "match resolution of source video" right next to it. Okay well thanks for the help.

looking to get some sort of vhs-c cam, you think goodwill would have any?

>>3122897
watch some tutorials on youtube

What's a good lavalier microphone for a n00b?

>>3121743
Are there any novel applications for using video cameras to shoot still photography? For example you can find these very fast Canon VL series lenses on ebay for less than $50

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-AF-VL-15X-8-120mm-F-1-4-2-1-CL-Macro-Video-Lens-Overall-Great-Cond-/112494162027?epid=101718536&hash=item1a312cb06b:g:HYoAAOSwHLNZTX1g

The camcorders to fit these lenses are inexpensive. You'd be limited to slightly above SD resolution (assuming these cameras overscan), but you could always stack and stitch.

>>3123253
There's a shitton of reviews on YT on cheap lav mics. Go watch any
I went with the Jk Mic-j 044.
But be careful when you pic the version, because not all are suitable to be used with a smartphone. If they are, they usually say so.

is it actually possible to make a hollywood level film with cheap equipment and little crew? i'm talking in terms of production value and sound quality etc

every DSLR film i can find that actually looks like a 'real movie' has a professional crew and tons of money behind it, even Shane Carruth spent $100,000 on Upstream Color, the fucking iPhone movie Tangerine cost like $100,000 too... so am I going about this the wrong way? is this like trying to build a skyscraper on your own or is it actually a realistic goal?

basically i don't want to spend years and years of my life trying to make no-budget films look and sound professional if it's not even remotely possible. do i just have to hire people and do it the traditional way?

>>3123255
>not all are suitable to be used with a smartphone

I have a DSLR camera, but it doesn't have a 3.5mm slot. I also have a Zoom H1.

>>3123262
actually perfecting a cinematic style and having something interesting to say is more important than anything else.

If you can't think of something you want to make that isn't hollywood level or requires a heavy budget then I don't think you really care about cinema.

>>3123262
>is it actually possible to make a hollywood level film with cheap equipment and little crew?
Absolutely it is.

Watch these two videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTRxxrNJOEI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=610YWw6-DUQ

Don't these look very "real movie" to you? And they are just dumb test videos. Nailing the technical aspects of screen ratio and depth of field goes a long way towards making something like like a motion picture rather than a home movie.

>take short still shots with android phone
>watch video
>it's shaking all over the place
Are there any programs I can use to fix this?

>>3123262
The thing that costs money above all else, when it comes to a feature film, are actor fees, location costs and props.
In terms of crew, it's definitely possible to find a couple of friends/like-minded people who will help for very little [though I've yet to find them myself!]

This will all become a lot more obvious if you try being ambitious with a short film. It will quickly become apparent what you can do for no money versus where you can't cut corners without it looking like shit.

>>3123262
Part of what inflated those budgets is post production, mainly editing/color grading and sound production. Which shouldn't be expensive but looking into behind the scenes you can see they highered industry professionals and they have much higher rates.

>>3123262
I'll do a small breakdown for you. I'm about to work on a fairly low budget feature in October in the lighting department. The producers arranged it so that everyone on the crew is paid the same rate, a low but decent £100/day for a 24 day shoot, not includig actors of course. On set we will most likely have: 2 people on camera, 2-3 on lights, 2 on sound, 2 art department, director, dp, producers, hair and makeup. Then after you have the editor, the colorist, the sound designer and the composer. In total let's say about 20 people. That's about 48K just to pay the production and post crew at a very low price considering 'normal' rates. As a comparison this month I worked as an AC on a commercial and was paid £300/day for a 6 day shoot. That or higher is the 'normal' rate.

Now add catering, locations, preproduction, equipment rental, actors being paid, transport, storage, distribution costs, marketing, etc.

It's a miracle that shit gets made for 100K and I bet several people on those shoots worked for free or for a symbolic sum of money at best.

Movies cost a lot of money to be made properly and you have to be very careful about where and how you cut corners. Especially when talking about locations and actors. Nothing will give a movie away as cheap shit more than those two.

>>3123371
yeah, like putting a 2.0x anam. lens on a 16:9 sensor and getting a 3,000,000:1 aspect ratio makes it instant profesionel. you hairy ape.

>>3123462
>comparing retarded semi-pro productions to either top-tier or low-tier.
>did nobody tell you that you medicore companies are the cancer of the industry and there is a reason neither top- nor low-tier people want to work with you?
>you are like the 30$ prostitute; if you want to have fun find a 3000$ one or a bitch who makes it for free. but you only lie there and make your nails hoping the John's getting finished already so that you can count your 100-300£ per day fuck shekels.
but instead of being ashamed of your mediocrity you open your disgusting sperm and ass licking polluted whore-mouth and vomit you "helpful advise" in the world. "look at me, I cost 300 pfounds a day. lickilicki fuckifucki. and that's how you is professelnel. oh wait, theres some ass juice on the floor .. gonna slurp it."

please just keep your stinky advise in your rotten mouth next time. thank you very much.

>>3123443
Warp stabilizer in After Effects

Does anyone think a cheap drone like the DJI spark or DJI Mavic Pro would make a good piece of gear to get for aerial shots?

>>3124744
Do you shoot weddings? If not, do you really need aerial shots? The answer is no, but should you say yes, ask yourself: Why?

Why drop money on a gimmicky insert/cutaway shot?

I need a shot of the sky, but I think I might not have the right lenses. Whenever I look at the sky, it comes out white and overexposed. It helps a little if I try a lens with a higher f-number. I also tried using a faster shutter speed, which helped a little, but obviously I can't get a good looking shot if my shutter speed is too fast.
Wat do? Do I just need to buy some nicer lenses?

>>3124969
lower iso > smaller aperture > shorter shutter > nd filter

>>3124979
>changing shutterspeed to accommodate exposure needs in video
out!

>>3124969
Get a variable ND filter

>>3124969
wtf buying lenses to get less light? Just buy an ND filter lmao

>>3125008
did some kiddo saw a youtube video where it says muh 180° ? ... surprise: you are a sheep. try building an own opinion. it's neat.

>>3125114
>set SS to 1/2000s because you're not a sheep
>movements look choppy and weird and not fluid
>"at least I'm not a sheep!"
Congrats, you're dumb.

>>3125118
>>3125114
now now, children, there's a time and a place for every shutter speed, you just gonna know when to use what

>>3123674
It goes a long way.

>>3124969
>Do I just need to buy some nicer lenses?
lol no
The sky is really bright which is why it comes out white. Learn more about controlling exposure

>>3125118
oh kiddo ...

steady landscape shot in bright sunlight, for example.

or did you ever shot anything in a bluebox? of course not. ... but yes, you little youtube graduate know wuw little stuffy goodly, righty? :3

File: HK8Q2_AV3.jpg (475KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 2000x2000px

what the fuck

https://www.apple.com/us_smb_78313/shop/product/HK8Q2ZM/A/red-raven-camera-kit-final-cut-pro-x

>$15k in the US
>£15k in the UK

what kind of bullshit conversion is that???

>>3125336
The kind where 90% of customers will rent the camera, not buy it, and where the only people that will buy it are idiots and camera stores who are prepared to pay the extra.
/shit sucks

I have a D3300 and I need a monitor for it. Im just getting started in filming and I have very little money. Whats the cheapest I can get that will still be clear enough to focus, and not super laggy?

I have a d3300 and need a monitor for shooting video. Are there any under 100 that would be clear enough to let me focus and not have a total shit viewing angle?

>>3122782
>>3122874
I never really liked it, and I've seen it a few times. It's more an art film than anything, even though it's labeled a documentary.

File: wild alaska live.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

Thought you guys might want to lust over these that I saw on tv.

$70,000 lens
1/2

File: nature's great race.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>3125359
Probably the same lens but I'm not sure.

2/2

>>3125359
>>3125361
and .. what now?

i can only shoot 4k at 24 fps. i do not want blur in my video. like none of it i also want none of the ugly bs a high shutter speed can cause. i also want to maintain most of the detail so what would be a good shutter speed to use? 100?

Where I work uses a 5d mk iii for video. I'm used to using a monitor with focus peaking, waveform, and the works.

How do I make sure my video isn't over or underexposed and is in focus when all I have is this tiny 3 inch screen?

Is a field monitor useful when filming? I found a few videos that show how to convert an old tablet into one and it seems relatively inexpensive

>>3125420
48

>>3125454
histogram

>>3125530
dude ... behave.

>>3125454
Measure with a meter or use the histogram. You shouldn't really be exposing off the monitor anyway, but I know many people do it these days.

>>3125586
What did he mean by this

>>3125279
nothing of that post made sense
Doesn't matter if in one specific case you "can" adjust SS to meet exposure needs, it's still dumb as shit in 99% of cases. In Video SS should be adjusted for the scene/style you shoot, not the exposure.
You suck and never will create anything of value. Get over it. There's a reason why people shell out upwards of 150 bucks for variable ND filters, so thery can get EXACTLY the exposure they need without adjusting SS or Aperture, both can be very important to shoot specific imagery.

File: furry.jpg.png (490KB, 1197x1103px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1197x1103px

I want to be great but I feel hollow inside. There is no inspiration to be found in my words in everyday situations.

There is a place for the greatest filmmaker in history and that is what im going to become.

WHICH CAMERA SHOULD I BUY

>>3125648
a canon powershot

>>3125618
>There's a reason why people shell out upwards of 150 bucks for variable ND filters, so thery can get EXACTLY the exposure they need without adjusting SS or Aperture, both can be very important to shoot specific imagery.

I was wondering about this recently, why not adjust the exposure using the ISO instead of an ND filter? Because you want consistent image quality throughout your shots or something?

What range of ISO do filmmaker's typically use in a film?

>>3125675
Cinema cameras tend to have a thing called native iso, which is normally around 800.
This is the iso at which the sensor captures the most dynamic range.

>>3125618
elaboration? where? no? ofc not.

using fast shutters in a bluebox is NOT optional, you moron. but to understand this you should have keyed at least once in your life such material. once you dealt with blue color shining through motion blur you start to rethink your ass stupid nazi community college blabbering. stop repeating every bullshit some indiscriminate idiot told you and start to use your own brain. .. even if it might be a pathetic shrunken walnut.

>>3125694
Thanks anon, do digital still cameras have the same property? With a lower ISO probably?

Hey, so I've gotten tasked with buying a video camera for my student organisation, since I'm the only one with some experience of shooting movies. Anyway, I was wondering what a good hobby-level camera would be? And should I even look at dedicated "traditional" film cameras? It seems like everyone below professional or enthusiast level just use normal DLSRs nowadays.

I'm currently considering the Sony RX100

>>3125830
Okay, shit, I didn't read the sticky. Please ignore unless you have some specific input on the choice of an Sony rx100 m3 (have a good offer on a second-hand one)

>>3125810
Yes, but it's a lot less important relatively. I have to be honest here and admit I've looked into it before but ages ago and basically deduced that it didn't matter in stills cameras as long as you stayed below, say, iso 1600. But I think it does still technically exist. But I can't remember enough to really elaborate.
I remember reading an article a couple of weeks back critiising the new 6dmkii because it performs worse than the original 6d at low enough isos.
http://nofilmschool.com/2017/07/more-bad-news-canons-6d-mark-ii

(Bear in mind that this is for a stills test though.)

When it comes to iso, an important rule is to always try and keep to hard stops and avoid artificial ones. (ie, keep to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc)
And that's because of the way the cameras change its iso

File: Screenshot_2017-08-02-10-56-15-1.png (213KB, 1080x1195px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1080x1195px

Is this a good deal for a beginner videofag?

I am currently on Lumix and don't see a necessary (but a possible) upgrade to the G85 in the future. I truly do like the idea of IBIS, both for the Panasonic Dual-IS and the stabilization with manual/adapted lenses
But then I see Sony getting better at Ergonomics and the a6500 has both touchscreen and mic-input and suddenly the reasons to not jump to Sony go down to "shitty company", "no dual-IS" and "still not Panasonic -levels of handling"
I also initially thought that my desired works wouldn't need cinematic/bokehwhoring styles, but more and more people look at the soft background images and say "I want that, do that!"
I am kinda torn. Pay 200€ for a switch to the G85 or 400€ for a switch to a6500. Most my lenses are adapted anyway

I got in on that B&H deal today for the Zhiyun Crane. Shipped earlier. Can't wait.

>>3125963
Also about to pick up this camera so I can finally stop making videos with my phone camera.

File: Untitled.jpg (198KB, 1132x1070px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1132x1070px

Any know techniques and gear needed to film chase scenes. Both from low to the ground shots and mid shots.

>>3126086
Golf cart?

>>3126097
midget on a skateboard. also a Sony user who likes it up the bum.

>>3126086
use an inverted glidecam for low to the ground...regular glidecam for regular shots

Why do I like my Canon 7D footage better than my A7s ii footage? is Sony just garbage?

>>3126160
Canon's colour-science is basically unrivaled (outside of cinema cameras at least)

>>3125492
Bump

>>3126229
don't let you be tricked. a larger monitor only is useful when it also provides a larger resolution. .. I laugh my hole of when I see some wack using a cam with an external 7" 480p monitor; where most in-device monitors provide more resolution than that.

Has anyone here done crowdfunding and have any hot tips for somebody considering doing it soon?
Are crowdfunding donations on Kickstarter etc usual from friends and family or also from random people who visit Kickstarter? How do projects manage to get tens, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of €$£

>>3126235
you need to be a handicapped bulemic gay director from the middle east who wants to make a documentary about how little girls with big eyes and crippeled pets are suffering in the islamic world due to their inhuman and patriarchic way of living.
or ofc, you need to be a 19yo white girl from a western country who just finished high-school and wants to make a film about how a 19yo white girl from a western country loves her grandmother and fullfils her life-time whish to travel to Paris so that she can visit once the flower-store of her grand-parents who owned it before they were exiled by the nazis in 1942.

File: 1487782530974.jpg (26KB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 320x287px

>>3126072
>tfw Filmic Pro doesn't work on my S5

>>3126280
epic, very epic - I like it!

>decide to hire some actors
>post casting call
>get much higher interest than I expected
>eventually narrow it down to the actors I want to hire
>suddenly it's impossible to get hold of them
for fuck's sake
i'd change my casting but there are reasons why that isn't as simple as I would like

tldr; actors are fucking shits
(actresses are alright because they all give you fuck-me-eyes to try and convince you to cast them)

>>3126394
dude, a casting is bilateral. it's not only you checking the actors out, they also check you out. just because they appeared at the casting does not mean they are already convinced of your project.
if they are unreachable ever since, you most likely fucked up to present a decent project they would like to be part of.

also, many actors have attitudes that you have to pamper their asses. some acting schools even train them to do so and consider it to be professional. if you don't follow this unwritten rule you disqualify in the eyes of these acors instantly.
.. but that's a discutable topic, I personally do not think this would be very professional or a good working base and I refuse to play that game .. but I have the luxury to choose .. do you?

>>3126423
Oh no, I know all that.
These are the actors who I've met and said were really interested to be involved, that I've had conversations back and forth with since.
There are 2 guys that are annoying me. One has just told me that he's gonna be busy basically every day until filming (in his head this didn't matter really). The other hasn't gotten back to me.
The second I might still replace cause there's another actor who would kill for the role (but he's not as good unfortunately).

>>3126504
In general I would intantly fire everyone who protracts the production. From my experience people like this have a high chance to cause more and more trouble the more you are dependant on them. And once you started shooting with them you are fucked. If you then don't have a bargaining chip, like his or her manager who can put pressure on them or financial/contractual threads, they can literally do with you and your whole production what they want.
I'd always prefer a motivated and reliable actor over a better one who spoils your workflow.

>>3126544
This is good advice, thanks.
I've gotta keep the busy one cause he already accepted the offer and he's a pretty decent actor. I trust he'll show when he says he will.
The other one I'm probably gonna replace which will be a shame. But this way, there'll only be one actor on set who's ego annoys me (and that will help prepare me for bigger productions anyway). Everyone else on set will be there because they're passionate and that manifests itself into a better product.

[Unrelated, but if I was less professional I'd love to post one of the audition tapes one of the girls sent me. Making a dramatic scene sexual is quite a feat.]

>>3125359
>>3125361
When will zoom cucks learn

/r/ feedback
I can't seem to shake off making everything I do look like some low budget 90s alt rock music video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNPkhgD2jYg

>>3126853
Ehh, it was alright.
It's quite abstract and most of the noise is the music in the background. This is why it seems like a music video. And it seems low-budget because it is. But not offensively so.
Image quality's alright. I'd say you could light your scenes better

But if you want your videos to stop seeming like music videos, make a video with an actual story unfolding.

>>3126853
it's neat. you've got potential.

Sup guys, relativity new to video, have a few editing questions.

So it seems like I can edit on my laptop just fine but the moment that I change or apply any coloring the playback instantly becomes a chugging mess. Is there a way around this besides getting a better computer and when I export it will it also be a chugging mess?

>>3126853
Would have been a lot better without the cuts of you, or your actor, waving the flash light. Don't put people, or yourself, in something if you don't fit. bad casting ruins low budget stuff and in this case the video would have benefited from never showing a face,

Everything else looked pretty good, sort of Tim Burton ish.

File: FreeSpace_1_WebReady_7fc20291-dc1a-46c2-826b-ca7f56a84447_grande.jpg (18KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x400px

Has anyone here used these
Might they be useful for surround sound?
Or are they just a 360 video/VR gimmick?

>>3127359
Holy fuck. That looks like something Mad TV would make in a VR parody sketch.

>>3127359
anatomic mics have a conceptual as well as a prtactical flaw: the practical is, that the benefits in sound-source localization etc. aren't working when the recording is replayed on speakers - it only works with headphones.
the concepual is, that on which replaying device ever, you always have the process of sound getting delayed, diffracted and distorted at the auricles TWICE. first when you record it, second when you hear the replay.

btw, they are no surround mics and not useful for such a purpose.

>take still shots on android phone
>they're all shaky because I was holding it in my hands
>try a few programs with free trials, but none get rid of the shaky cam totally
>try uploading to youtube to try its video editor
>fixes shaky cam 100% except for some reason it slowly zooms out

Are there any programs that work as well as youtube for fixing shaky cam, but where I can prevent the weird zoom-out think?

>>3127770
why are you shooting anything on your fucking cellphone?

>>3127913
I am not /p/, I just have an idea for a project that requires a bunch of still shots.

File: fuck.png (55KB, 182x271px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 182x271px

Sony a7s2, slog2, detail set to -7. yet I see this weird sharpening smudge around the highlights. Tried to google it, but I seem to be the only one with this problem. Any idea how to get rid of this?

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-06 at 16.20.12.png (2MB, 2880x1590px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2880x1590px

I don't understand if Resolve 14 is just a glitchy piece of shit or if I'm doing something wrong -
quite often when i switch from one clip to the next, the main viewer will still be stuck on the previous clip - even though the colour information on the scopes and waveforms etc changes to the next clip
the only solution seems to be to restart the program
Has anyone else experienced this? Is there a fix?

>>3128225
me again

Does anyone have experience with sending an XML file with colour graded information back into FCPX? I tried doing it, and something got fucked up
As this is Resolve 14, there are no guides for this online
fuck me

>>3127295
Change the view quality to better performance rather then better quality. What Rez are he fillies?

>>3128225
>>3128396
one more question
when grading in resolve from an xml imported from fcpx, is davinci editing the original media files?
after the shit described in >>3128396 ,some of my files have gone missing
im gonna tear my fucking hair out

File: 1475889296411.jpg (138KB, 1480x1079px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1480x1079px

>25 and have absolutely nothing to my name
>keep telling my parents that I'm going to kill myself if they don't give me a thousand or so dollars for my short but they're not giving in.

File: file.png (113KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 300x300px

the apple of filmmaking

>>3128569
no, Apple's software is usable.

>>3128559
good film

>>3128570
>Apple's software is usable.
Apple is the KidPix of OSes

i'm honestly stunned by the amount of talented people I've been able to find on Craigslist for relatively low rates.

like, I'm getting the cinematographer of the FX show Baskets to shoot my short film for only $350 a day with his Arri Alexa, and I've been able to find seasoned gaffers and key grips and sound mixers and shit for even cheaper. And post production will only cost around $4000 (and that's hiring TV quality mixers/colorists).

I would seriously recommend selling your camera gear and saving a few thousand to do this (assuming you live in a big city where professional crew live). It's way way WAY cheaper than I thought to hire professional crew/graphic designers/actors etc. So cheap that I honestly don't know why I didn't try this before.

>>3128676
Lightworks is the uncompiled Arch-Linux without a DE of video editing software

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

140KB, 379x440px

>>3128679
>350$ / day, just the dop.
>dop, operator, gaffer, sound guy, director, runner, tec, a few actors
>all of them for lets say 10 days (for your pathetic short film, you horrible pleb)
> = 35,000$
>yeah, very cheap, why didn't I thought of this earlier?

>>3128680
I'm not sure you understand either the word 'compiled' nor 'arch-linux' nor """"DE"""" nor what a 'video editor' is, my friend. your statement is just sensless blabbering from what you thought it would sound cool.

>>3128808
Considering what they're bringing to the table? Yes, extremely cheap, but I'm not surprised considering how things are. To get a DP with an Alexa for $350/day is a wonderful dream, especially if he's good as well and not just a guy with a camera.

>>3128811
consider also to hire a cocksucker for 350,- a day. getting a faggot with an amira super dildo is a dream.

>>3128813
At some point people just have to accept that making movies properly costs a lot of money because professionals working in the industry actually do have a lot of skill that's worth paying for.

But some continue to either pretend or genuinely think that anyone can be a good operator or focus puller or gaffer. Not really the case.

>>3128810
>he does not know what a video editor is
>he posts in /vid/
>he accuses others of technobabble instead of actually knowing shit
Woah, you really set the bar low, don't you think?

>>3128808
10 days? Lol, no. 3.

And the budget is not even close to 35k. It's more like 12k (Production Designer's working for free, we have free locations, free equipment, free access to costumes etc)

If 12k is a lot of money to you for a short film you probably shouldn't be in this business. The minimum cost to produce a releasable feature film is probably something like 50k. So 12,000 for a short makes sense.

>>3128843

Also, there's a huge amount of people who spend $12,000+ on film equipment purchases alone. Some of those people are in this very thread. So it's not as massive a number as it sounds.

Say you're starting from nothing and you want an A7S II with four lenses, a tripod, a shoulder rig, follow focus/mattebox and a mountable monitor. That's like 6k right there.

Then you wanna throw in some sound gear? Let's say a shotgun mic, a hypercardoid, 4 lavaliers w/ transmitters and receivers, a boom pole, a blimp, a Zoom F8 (which isn't even that great of a recorder) and the accessories required to make it all work? That's gonna be another 5k.

Oh wait, your laptop sucks? Gonna be another $1.5k to get something you can edit and do color work on. And then you're gonna need to plop down $1000 to get a set of studio monitors so your sound mix actually translates in some capacity.

So let's say you make your short film for $500 after all these expenses and somehow, miraculously, get into Sundance. That's gonna be $5k for the DCP, pal. And $4k for a publicist.

There is NO WAY to get around spending lots of money in filmmaking. No fucking way at all. So instead of spending your money on worthless equipment and toys, spend it on ACTUAL PRODUCTIONS. This is how it works in the real world. And you'll actually be able to network with pro crew this way too. So stop fucking around and start making films properly.

>>3128843
>>3128679
>post production will only cost around $4000
Why would you need to higher this? Why do so many indie filmmakers refuse to learn as many hats as possible? I can understand for a feature film but for a short? Why not actually learn how to to edit, color and sound mix so you can save money and invest it into other short films?

>>3128859
I'll be editing the film on my own. But color work and sound mixing are entirely different beasts.

I would say it takes 10 years to make a good colorist and 10 years to make a good re-recording mixer. So it's not something you can just "learn".

And as far as gear goes, you're gonna need to spend probably $4k alone just to get a proper monitor and rig for grading. And audio post setups can easily cost upwards of 10k, and that's only for online distribution.

It's faster and cheaper to hire someone else to do it, assuming you want pro quality.

>>3128843
>paying money to make a shortfilm
>paying up to such ridiculous amounts as twelve thousand fucking dollars to make a 10 minute short film
maybe you should go ahead and kill yourself you absolute faggot. if you can't make a 10 minute short with zero budget and not make everything yourself (writing, filming, editing, color grading, sound design) then maybe filmmaking isn't for you.
what the fuck do you need money in a short film for? what the fuck are you going to do? have explosions? have massive sets and props? what could you possibly cram into fucking 10-15 minutes that you need an entire fucking team with you?
I'm tired of seeing all these bullshit student films on youtube with cheap effects and bullshit stories about people getting shot or crashing cars or what have you. fuck off. as a filmmaker that's just starting out you should try and express yourself with as few resources as possible. make a short that's not overly complicated because no one is going to be impressed by your fucking youtube video with some practicals, after effects gimmicks and fake gunshots.
learn to express yourself visually through film. learn to block, to edit a scene, to light with minimal light equipment, even go so far as to light only with natural light. forget about your bullshit story that I've seen a million times before. learn to make a film first, then worry about hiring a crew to make Transformers 20 or whatever the fuck you want to me.
and don't tell me it's some drama/psychological/thriller bullshit, because you literally need zero money to make that because it's gonna be just actors interracting AT MOST. and if you're gonna say good actors cost money then fuck you again. learn to direct even non-actors. you're not going to be making an oscar worthy scene in those 10-15 minutes you have (and btw, anything over 15 minutes is not a fuckign short film and no one will watch it).
so, let's recap
>tl;dr kys, learn to write, direct, block, light with available light

>>3128865

You're vastly underestimating the amount of skill and money it takes to produce even the simplest of narrative short films, just a few people sitting and talking.

If you don't care about production value and only value story, sure, you can get away with a lot. But as far as producing something passable for a television or theatrical release it's a very expensive process with a lot of moving parts.

The best you could probably do on your own is The Puffy Chair (Duplass brothers' first feature). But some people have higher standards frankly.

File: Untitled.jpg (135KB, 1440x916px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1440x916px

>>3128864
>I would say it takes 10 years to make a good colorist and 10 years to make a good re-recording mixer. So it's not something you can just "learn".


You don't need 10 years of experience for a short film.
https://vimeo.com/222688948
You just need to make your shit not look like shit. You are gonna try to argue otherwise but the fact is that plenty of short films that garner attention and kick start careers didn't have professionals with 10 years of experience working behind them in sound mixing or coloring.

All you are doing is dumping money in the hopes that it will elevate your work to some higher level. To make your stuff look as good as most award winning films all you need is to spend a couple weekends learning how to color grade. Most directors will tell you that you should at least have an understanding of every field so there is really no reason why you shouldn't be doing all of this shit in some of your films.

>>3128874
>The best you could probably do on your own is The Puffy Chair (Duplass brothers' first feature). But some people have higher standards frankly.
Why not Following by nolan? A budget of 6,000 because he was his own cinematographer and lit many scenes with natural light and didn't higher a tv DOP that highered 3fucking50 a day.

You don't need an Arri Alexa, imagine if every indie filmmaker from the 90s wasted money shooting on 35mm instead of 16mm. The reality is that people don't have the high standards you think they do, look at the video quality 28 days later or the 360 quality of those thai insurance commercials.

If you can't make a short film with 6,000 that captures peoples attention, no amount of money being dumped into itto make it "professional standard" is gonna help. Invest that money in buying a book about writing.
https://vimeo.com/222688948

>>3128874
there is no doubt that if you throw money at the problem the production value will rise exponentially.
that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you don't need thousands of dollars to light a room. I'm saying you don't need thousands of dollars to rent a black magic pocket camera with a decent lens for 3 days of shooting. I'm saying you don't need thousands of dollards to make a short film because as ambitious as you want it to be, the timeframe you have at your disposal is simply not enough to tell an elaborate story that relies on production value (i/e. props, set design, costumes w/e). You will build a scene that will cost you two thousand dollars and it will appear in the film for a total amount of 10 seconds at best.
beginners always try and focus on MUH PRODUCTION VALUE and MUH CINEMATIC LOOK and believe that by throwing big money at it they will get a decent product. they don't. they never do. because real filmmaking is not about money.
sure, it helps to have a budget. but to limit yourself to money is ultimately pleb-tier. pick up a camera, film a person next to a field reading a letter and have a dead body next to them. build a story from that, with NOTHING. just you, the sun as light, and a camera. figure out how to work with natural light first, then worry about elaborate lighting setups to light a fucking room. figure out how to visually represent an idea first, not how to get the best costume designer just in case someone notices the attention to detail on a piece of frabric that appears on screen for one frame.
I legitimately can't take you seriously when you say
>some people have higher standards
those people belong in television and not in film.

>>3128881

There's a time and place for your no-budget films about people reading letters next to dead bodies, but once you get into your late 20s and early 30s isn't it time to stop making YouTube videos and actually do things properly?

I think what you're trying to convey is helpful for teenagers and film students, but for people who have been working for years upon years and are fully grown adults I don't think it's useful information.

Put aside pointless money arguments and help a nigga out who's tryna do it on the cheap

>>3128225
>>3128396
>>3128425


...pls... ;_;

>>3128882
it was a simple throwaway example mate, basically meaning, turn something something as simple as one or two characters into something worth exploring in a film format.
>once you get into your late 20s and 30s
so you're in your early 30s and decided to try your hand at filmmaking, and you said to yourself: I'm gonna throw 10k+ dollars at a shortfilm and make it great.
my dude, I...

>>3128884

No, I'm in my early 30s and I've been making films since the early 2000s.

>>3128885
be so kind and link us one of them, please.

>>3128887

Haha. No.

>>3128843
Please stop posting this retarded shit on /p/, there are way too many posts like this. No one cares about your high budget short film.

Yes, we get it, production value costs money. That's not what these threads are for. You don't need to ask /p/'s permission to spend your fucking money.

>>3128888
nice digits, a shame they're wasted on such a gigantic faggot like yourself.
might as well say you built the eiffel tower as well mate since you have no intention of backing up your words.
nevertheless, this just proves what a huge cock you, coming into the thread talking about making shortfilms for thousands of dollars then bragging about making films since early 2000s.
we already know you're a fucking reject for posting on a taiwanese basket weaving forum in the first place, but to have the nerve to out yourself as a failure and still be a smug piece of shit that can't amount to make a fucking short film for zero money with ALL THAT EXPERIENCE MAKING MOVIES.
kys.

>>3128892
Sour grapes.

>>3128559
Wait, is that actually what happened?

>>3128569
Not really. Apple is trendy, overpriced shit that you can find much cheaper if you discard the brand. But really you're paying for the brand
Red is almost the exact opposite. A lot of people still haven't heard of RED and will choose an inferior Arri just because it's Arri. But their image quality is unbeaten

>>3128843
Hi, I just wanted to reply to this
>If 12k is a lot of money to you for a short film you probably shouldn't be in this business. The minimum cost to produce a releasable feature film is probably something like 50k. So 12,000 for a short makes sense.
While feature films are very expensive in general, 12k on a short is on the more expensive side. If 12k doesn't seem like a lot to you, then you're probably wasting money in several areas.
At every level, producers like to spend as little as possible. If you can't even make a short without dropping 12k+, why would they ever trust you with a few million? A budget of that for a short film really needs to be justified; whether it's because you have a boat-load of extras, a big setpiece (like a car chase or an explosion) or an expensive actor, it's ridiculous to imply that short films all should cost that much

I'm looking for a fluidhead below 100€ that accepts ARCA-Swiss. I recently bought a dirt cheap one for 23€ but I wonly use it as a backup. But I still want to keep my ARCA-Swiss system, so I can quickly switch tripod/monopod without having to unscrew anything

did avid go free? I remember a friend talking about then giving out a basic version of it.

just got hired by a real estate investor to do videos for him. He's willing to put money into equipment cost but I was wondering how to get some good lighting since it'll require a lot of run and gun.

M

Do any of you guys have experience with documentary work?

I have an urge to try it but I feel like I'll be giving up my creative vision if I do. Like, if I'm just shooting real world events, I'm no longer a storyteller or something. Is there any truth to that?

>>3129410
You can still be a story teller with documentaries, watch The Imposter (2012) or Dear Zachary. DON'T read their wiki articles or anything else, just go watch them.

>>3129414
I'll check it out right now man.

>>3128888
You'd guess within 17yrs you'd have produced SOMETHING you dare to show. No? Ahhh. That's a shame.
>inb4 Im so profesionel I show not muh moviz to peeee

File: when-i-get-into-my-car-thats-been-sitting-in-degree-weather-and-accidentally-blast-the-heater-24156.gif (1MB, 210x198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 210x198px

>>3121743
>tfw wanting to upgrade your t5i (to which sortoff-upgraded from a t2i) so considering either a Panasonic G4, or a sony a6300, but there is also the first gen a7, and it's nice cause it would have a full frame sensor, but the a6500 has great low light performance and 4k, but the g4 can output 10 bit video to an external recorder, but maybe you should stick with canon I mean their video is shitty but their photography is better than the other two and you are getting into car photography but you can't afford multiple bodies and also if you leave canon you have to buy new lenses and and and and

I want to kill myself. I should have picked up a sport.

>>3129884
stick with Canon if you already own Canon lenses. For as much shit as they get they still have the best color science of any cheap DSLR type cameras.

So I'm going to buy my first camera and start to shoot some videos and short films. I have to buy something within the price limit of 2.000 $. I don't need to shoot at 4K Ultra High Definition, in fact my computer can't even handle this stuff without crashing.
I've been suggested these models.
>Nikon Coolpix B700
>Canon PowerShot
>Canon EOS Rebel

Which should I pick ?
Or should I go for some other model instead ?

>>3130124
>Coolpix
>powershot
FUCK NO!
They are bridge cameras with non-interchangeable lenses. Also, they aren't even camcorders.
Read the sticky, but by your requirements I guess your best option would be a used Canon 70D, 80D or 750D, put MagicLantern on it, buy a set of decent Primes (24mm, 35mm, 75mm) or the 1.8 18-35mm, then sink the rest into monpod, tripod, flycam, whatever,a s well as Audio equipment
Also, punch whoever recommended you these.

Looking to use my d3300 for filming more. I only have a kit lens, and need to upgrade. Are there any cheap lenses that you'd recommend? I have 150 bucks for one, which I know isn't much. But Im willing to go used and off nikon by getting an adapter. I was thinking of starting with a prime lens, but any recommendations are welcome.

>>3130189
35mm 1.8, it's about 160 sale rn I think. Perfect lens, great deal, it's essential.

>>3129912
Yeah but their video is horrible.

>>3130146
Are these my best options for shooting video ?
I've been told that cameras that are good for shooting video aren't good for taking pictures, and vice versa.
I don't have much money to spend.

>>3130211
put magiclantern on it

>>3130244
>I've been told that cameras that are good for shooting video aren't good for taking pictures, and vice versa.
Not entirely true. You wont take good pictures with a camcorder and the cameras you listed are even worse at both. They are made for vacation snapshits and maximum zoom.
Canon has good video and good photo (if you put magiclantern on it), so does mirrorless Sony. Panasonic Lumix has good video and abundant features but mediocre photos.
The TV-Series house has been shot entirely on Canon Rebel cameras. Stills cameras are more and more entering the Video market.

>>3128108
anyone?

>>3130211
I don't think it's horrible honestly. Maybe it's "horrible" if you value 4K but as far as color goes it's the best you're gonna get. And if you need all those epic video features just get magic lantern.

>>3130248
>>3130401
Already did. The sharpness in the t5i as well as low light capabilities and compression is absolute dogshit. Great for stills though.

>>3130252
>The TV-Series house has been shot entirely on Canon Rebel cameras

What? Where'd you pull that sort of horseshit out of? Multi million dollar hit tv series filmed with bargain bin garbage cameras?!?!? :DD
Five seconds in google will tell you otherwise, or you know, just use your brain.

>>3130429
The Sundance movie 'Like Crazy' was shot on a 7D. Git gud.

>>3130456
Not him, but House used a Canon 5dmkiii as their b-cameras. So did the first Avengers
There are loads of examples, especially of the 5diii because it can do 1080raw and is full-frame

People always say "you need a mentor"
I can't find one. I can't find someone who has the time or will to drag me along. Meanwhile I try to do my own thing. i want to end in Documentaries and Videojournalism. So I go around my City, film musicians on the street, interview people handing out flyers or stuff like that. I recently scored a proper documentary with several shoots and a script, can't wait to get started.
But I still need that voice that tells me the finer things. Is there a book that really well captures the essence of videojournalism and/or documentaries?

>>3130703
failure will be your mentor

>>3130477
I do give you that. I need to git gud. That said one thing is shooting a film/movie where you can control the lighting conditions. Other thing is ahooting as a videographer when controlling lighting sometimes escapes you, and having usable ISO 6400 would come in handy.

Why the fuck are these threads always so inactive? And why are there barely any good advanced film forums on the internet? It's almost always 16 year olds asking for advice on their first camera purchase.

>>3131210
There's plenty of places if you want to talk specifics, but if you're just interested in 'film' that doesn't really mean anything.

>>3131210
I only just discovered /p/ had this threads when someone mentioned them in /tv/. Always assumed this board was for photography, which it is.

File: 00002.m2ts_snapshot_07.57_[2017.08.11_16.44.24].jpg (250KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1920x1080px

>1d something for a video shoot

File: 00002.m2ts_snapshot_08.32_[2017.08.11_16.45.12].jpg (196KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1920x1080px

>>3131241
>60fps instead of cinematic 24fps

File: 00002.m2ts_snapshot_10.23_[2017.08.11_16.50.08].jpg (567KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1920x1080px

>>3131243
>ii ne, ii desuyo
>thinking it's a jav shoot
>the city of nip film makers.

>>3130667
5Dii&iii's sure, that I know. But he said the whole series was shot on fucking rabals.

>>3131210
because /p/ is mostly for gearfags and photofags, which is pretty much the worst type of person you can be.
/tv/ is an absolute shithole with children discussing their favorite films and shitting on anything and everything just to be contrarian and fit in. They used to have a screenwriting general but even those were slow as all fuck and generally got derailed or had very few people actually posting their works. Every now and then I see one of them pop up and they get a couple replies then either get derailed or deleted.
if you want to discuss film and filmmaking you're better off just making a shortfilm on your own and try and get into some festivals to have people discuss shit with you, but even there you'll bump into faggots who only want to talk about THEIR shit and nothing else.

>>3131241
>>3131243
>>3131244

Holy crap, WHHHHYYYYYY.... this is physically painful to look at.

Why would you shoot video at 1080p these days especially on a (((canon))) DSLR?! If you use canon DSLR's seriously for video work you should die.

This man needs to be fined and Jailed. I'd be surprised if he even new how to use manual ISO or how to set shutter speed.

>inb4 using shutter speed and not shutter angle

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to bed with my GH5 :)

>>3131336
Jesus christ you're insecure

>>3130727
Just found out about a guide book called "run&gun documentaries - the lone shooter" and it is only available as an Amazon Kindle ebook.
Fuck I want a physical book with proper pages

Whenever I pan my camera too fast, the subjects and backgrounds becomes so blurrry.

Is that because I didn't use high enough frame rate?

>>3131701
yes, monitors can do over 144hz now

>>3131704
It's just that the playback becomes so slow when I use 60 FPS for example.

And the audio won't synchronise with the video.

>>3131707
what? get a computer that can handle it then

>>3131708
No I mean if you play a video with high frame rate, you just get a whole bunch of slowmotiion effects.

I want detailed panning, without the slowmotioning.

>>3131710
make a timeline with the matching framerate

>>3131707
You can always manually sync it, though I don't know why it wouldn't sync at 60fps

"Yeah, Nolan pioneered method directing on the set on Dunkirk"...
I feel sorry for actors who don't understand my stupid sense of humour derived from this site. I don't think they even realised I was taking the piss
/reasons why spending all your time on 4chan can sometimes be detrimental

>>3131210
This.
I just came here to ask where the fuck I have to go to find a good "advanced" film forum that I can lurk.

I'm supposed to shoot professional footage in the field for an organization I volunteer for but I'm not experienced in the slightest and all the forums I find are for 70 year old retards. They're either filled with (dead) threads about shit consumer cams and homevideos, or they're focused on cinematic film/studio recording.

>>3131210
>>3132124
While I don't use them myself; based on some light browsing the blagicmagic forums seem pretty decent for that type of stuff.
But it's a proper forum which means you have multiple boards for every little thing and it's even more gear-faggy than here if I remember correctly.

>>3132125
Seems fine, best I've seen so far anyway.
Thanks.

Guys, i want to get a handle like this my g85. http://www.promediagear.com/HB70QR-Handle-for-Bracket-Plates_p_78.html

Am i right in thinking this will help take stable handheld shots? Also i know you can get cheap l bracket handles on ebay. The reason i like this one is that you have a handle and an arca plate on the bottom so you can put it on the tripod without taking the handle off. Are there other alternatives that achieve this? Thanks guys

>>3131701
I feel like the other people misunderstood your question. I think you are talking about motion blur. If you want to reduce it, you can shoot at a higher shutter speed (not to be cofused with frame rate)

>>3132158
>motion blur
Yes, that's pretty much it.

I'm not sure how to do this though. I thought frame rate was video's equivalent to Shutter Speed in stills.

>>3132158
If you shoot at a higher shutter speed to reduce motion blur, you end up with really jittery footage that doesn't look smooth. It can work if done well, but it's by no means a solution to motion blur
Higher framerates are an actual solution on the other hand (since you effectively have the same higher shutter speed but the footage stays smooth by having more frames)

>>3132164
>I thought frame rate was video's equivalent to Shutter Speed in stills.
...
read the sticky

>>3132164
Frame rate is gow many pics the camera takes per second. Shutter speed is how long each of those pics is exposed for. You should be able to set them seperately

>>3127359
Wait, do these actually have a use aside from ASMR videos?

Why is it so hard to find funding for even tiny films?

It's nearly impossible to make anything for less than like 100k and no one is willing to put up the money unless you've already made a feature, but your feature's going to look like shit if you didn't spend tons of money on it. So what the fuck do I do?

>>3132304
>100k

nigga I'm tryna get 10k baka

>>3132258
no

>>3132304
If you're in the stage where you know people who would invest if you had a feature film under your belt, then personally I'd make an ultra-low-budget feature for that exact purpose.
Edgar Wright made A Fistful of Crap with no money. Shane Carruth made Primer and Upstream Colour with basically nothing. Even Nolan made the Following as a no-budget.

Write a simple film, no more than 3 principle actors, confined to 2 or 3 easily-accessible locations (an apartment, a car/car-park etc).

File: Panasonic-G85-vs-GX85.jpg (88KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1024x576px

Guys, is G85 worth it? Am I better off with GX85 + some nice lens? Or should I go Sony A6300?

I used to shoot on Canon DSLR years ago, now trying to get back into the hobby. Don't own any gear at the moment, so any advise is appreciated.

>>3132350
this is good advice. I work with budgets between 1-500k and more money definitely doesn't mean a better film. I often advise directors to scale down and concentrate on making the script better. Spending more money runs a higher risk of failure on the return and can often distract from what makes the movie good. so many directors complain that they cant get funding, prove you can make something worth investing in, prove you can create quality material regardless of the budget

>>3132355
You again with your a b s o l u t e made-up bullshit. You're going on my nerves.

>>3132352

did panasonic update the gx85 with vlog?
because the normal profile has no dynamic range.
go with g85.

>>3132376
>>3132352
cinelike d is now available on gx85.

>>3132375
?? I never post here.. what part do you dissagree with

>>3132156
Get a follow focus instead.
It also acts as a handle. Two handles that are parallel don't do much for stabilization because they both ignore the same axis.
Holding by the lens is a weird way to grip something the size of a camera.

>>3132376
Panasonic puts VLOG only on their video flagships (GH line) and I doubt any camera of theirs that does cropped 4k will do VLOG. The fact that the G85 can't do a full sensor readout in 4k also implies it can't do VLOG. It's a processing power issue. It's a trade-off for better battery management and cooling.

>>3132457
there is cinelike d on g85, no log.
gx85 came with none stock, cinelike will install with a simple hack.

cinelike + lower contrast will do wonders.

vlog is just a color profile. no extra processing.

i mostly shoot with a canon 70D with a canon 24-70mm IS USM L ll series, and some rokinon cinema lenses a 14mm wide, 35mm, and 85mm

>Sunny outside
>ISO 100
>Need to use large aperture for this shot, however
>Don't want to use ND filters because it degrades the image (even good filters)

What can one do? I find it so restricting that increasing shutter speed is frowned upon, and this leaves one third of the exposure triangle stuck on being super bright because 1/50s is rather slow.

There should be some other internal method of affecting exposure for video like there is with photography. Pisses me off that such a major component is unusable.

>>3132698
if there's not much movement then a faster shutter speed is fine
personally I'd just use nd filters though

>>3132698
Wtf? Stop using shitty NDs.

>>3132698

>>Don't want to use ND filters because it degrades the image (even good filters)

The fuck. This >>3132706
Get over your ideas about NDs. Nobody will notice the difference in quality at 4k, let alone in stills. Then compression for whatever medium you're delivering for. Good NDs have zero perceptible drop in quality.

>>3132698
You realize the industry standard is to use ND's in this situation right? Any minor shift that an ND might bring if it's bad (like a slight green tint) can easily be removed in color grading. But any Tiffen/Schneider filter you'll get is gonna be fine.

You'll get a better picture than changing the shutter speed for sure anyway. Unless you're changing it for a reason

>>3128810
Get a load of this dude

>>3128843
I only spend like 10 bucks in audio rentall, ntg2, zoom h5, boompole and some shit. That's how much I spend on my shorts. 12k budget would be a dream

>>3121743
Hey poorfag here any idea what good thing (used is ok) I can get for 250€ max. ?

>>3133617
Used canon 600d (maybe 650d, I haven't checked prices in awhile)

>>3133648
okay thanks! going to search for that one

What's everyone working on?
I shot my first short with paid actors over the weekend, and am fucking shattered now. When I look at the footage, all I see is something quite boring. Like, as far as I can tell it's gone pretty well. I loved the script, the actors all did a mostly fantastic job. But... it's just talking.

I think (and really hope) that other people will like it. But why am I not loving it?
Maybe I'm too tired and too close to it.

>>3134168
Documentary on a small charitable organization that just founded itself. Doing everything myself, so aiming for 15 minutes with 4 main protagonists

>>3134168
that's a common effect which is evoked by the gap between vision and reality. the more you produce the smaller the gap gets, due to the vision comes closer and closer to the reality and the realized work comes closer and closer to the vision.
it's the same effect some people dislike themselves in a mirror or on pictures or whatever. solely the discrepance between inner imagination and outer stimulus causes the problem. regardless whether the imagination had been better or worse than the reality.

>>3134181
wtf are you a psychologist or what? Not >>3134168 but you described perfectly what happened to me. As I entered the first year of college my shorts were utterly crap, and nowadays what I envision is usually what I get. Probably because I learned some tricks of the trade or maybe because I got gud, but that shit you said that with practice you come closer to what you imagine is true

>>3134168

Nothing, even though I desperately want to be. I'm in a place geographically and mentally where I have zero inspiration, which is depressing me, which in turn makes it worse.

I'll snap soon I'm sure, and force myself to make something to get out of this rut.

>>3134181
This helps, thanks. I like to think I'm at the point where I can capture what I imagine; but when an idea, a script, becomes something tangible, it loses all that potential to be anything. I can't just watch a trailer for some random film from the 60s and think it'd be nice to use some of those shots anymore.
The more I make, the more I can manage my expectations.

>>3134251
For what it's worth, I was pretty much in an identical place before I snapped. I just moved home from uni, back to the countryside. So I no longer had my uni friends, and all my school friends have moved away to the city now.
Sitting, wasting away your days when you have all this free time... It became unbearable.
[But producing this film was probably the most stressful couple of weeks I can remember. Exams didn't come close]

File: 71BDm2YKGhL._SL1500_.jpg (198KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1500x1500px

>>3121743
Is there any point to buying the cheaper (~120USD) sliders on amazon?

https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-17-5lbs-Capacity-Stabilizing-Photograph/dp/B019F64ZQ4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1502980936&sr=8-4&keywords=slider

What about the neewer glidecam like stabilizers?

>>3134487
I dunno about sliders, but I bought a neewer glidecam. It's a bastard to balance properly. But it has made my handheld shots so much better.

When I'm walking on uneven surfaces, it doesn't help much. But walking down a corridor or just dynamically filming a conversation looks a million times better.
I haven't been able to match the sort of shots you'll get with a steadicam, but I don't practice as much as I probably should and a steadicam costs upwards of 20grand.
But it's definitely not a run-and-gun device. You need to setup and you need both hands. As far as focusing is concerned, you'll need set a deep aperture or else have decent autofocus (or a 1st ad to focus for you).
Hope that helps. Personally I'd recommend. But it depends what you need it for

>>3134493
Have you tried a legit Glidecam? I've had good experience with them, and I'm wondering how it compares.

>>3134487
>>3134487
Be careful with sliders. There are some inexpensive bearings-based sliders out there, but a lot are friction-based. That is nothing rolls, so the entire time you're moving the camera, you're having to push or pull just enough not just to move the camera, but to overcome the friction. It easily introduces jitter and jerkiness into the footage.

>>3134514
I haven't, no. Soz

>>3123115
look into handbrake and lossless compression settings

https://medium.com/@edmooredop/100-things-ce2bdac7f878

>>3129414
>Dear Zachary
That was a bad documentary, incredibly biased.

Just got my Lumix G85 and was super excited for the IBIS/Dual-IS
And HOLY MOLY, it did not dissappoint.
I can take images as 1/8s exposure time. I can use my massive soviet 200mm lens in video without constant jittering. The IBIS alone is amazing. But Dual-IS is just the absolute killer. No need for a monopod, no need for a shoulder-rig, no need for a glidecam, no need for any of that stuff. Just whip out the camera and start shooting. It has a built-in "4k-Crop" that moves the frame slowly from one point to another across the 4k video image, so it emulates a slide as well.
Hint: No I'm not a cinematic filmer, I do mostly documenting, reporting and journalistic videos.
But the comfort of the Stabilization, especially at long focal lengths, is worth it.
One thing that annoys me: It has a double-jointed pop-up flash and normally they can be pointed upwards with a finger to bounce light off the ceiling. But this pop-up flash wont flip anywhere. it can only move up and down in a linear fashion.
Why does Panasonic do this? They got it right with other cameras!

Sorry for the gushing.

>>3135153
is the focusing really that bad as with the g7?

>>3135163
I dunno, I do mostly Manual Focus. Never really noticed a problem with the G7 either.
In video I sometimes use the touchscreen to focus on specific points but that's it

>>3135164
I'd like to get into making small journalistic work (interviews, documentaries, etc.) and am really digging the g7 but I've heard its not that good with focusing (specially if you use the kit lens which I would because poorfag).
That's why im also thinking on purchasing the SL2 instead, because of the nice Dual Pixel AF

what do you recommend?

>>3135191
TBQH, autofocus in Video looks amateur as fuck. You think you'll use it early on, but later, nah. Especially because even documentaries should have a sort of cinematic feel to it nowadays.
Canon is not a bad pick however. I barely use 4k anyway, and even if I mostly just scale it down to 1080p anyway. Put Magiclantern on a canon and it's a capable video camera witha VERY rich mount to get a lot of different lenses for, if you wish. Plus you'll have a bigger sensor, which, in turn, helps with the cinematic feel as well.
I really only got the G7 because of the size and price factor and upgraded to the G81 because of the IBIS and weather sealing. You simply won't get weather sealing, IBIS AND 4k video for that price anywhere else, and Lumix makes solid, well-thought-through cameras, even if they have mediocre-and-below sensors.
Some people are gonna recommend you the Sony a6000 or a6300, but Sony's ergonomics are horrible. You should handle a Sony for quite some time before committing to buying it.

last but not least: a microphone jack will probably be your best friend on a camera. Get a video-mic from Rhode and slap it on there. It is good to get a small audio recorder too, but being able to use just the camera and nothing else will in most situations be king.

>>3135201
thank you so much for the honest answer anon

Just a possibly silly question but I insecure about this:
I just got my first follow focus and with it the gear-ring.
However, when I wrap the ring all around my lenses, there's a lot of annoying overhang.
The gear ring is roughly 33cm long and I could cut 7cm off and still have a small overhang on my very thickest lens, a massive Jupiter 21M
Should I do it? Or should I for some reason not?

>>3135447
You're supposed to cut it to size

>>3132543
This is not true. VLog-L, as it's called on the GH series is actually a direct port of the Vlog mode on the Varicam line, minus the two stops of the DR. This presents an interesting workflow, because the Vlog LUTs as provided by Panasonic will actually work on the GH series, but on the waveform monitor, the profile will clip at around 80% IRE, as opposed to 100% on the normal Vlog of the Varicams. The tone values map the same way, but it cuts off sooner. If you expose up to 80%, you can theoretically match the cameras very closely using the exact same LUT.

What editing software would you recommend for a beginner? I have some experience with Premiere from my college days but I'm eyeing Davinci Resolve atm

Anyone know how to best replicate the look here especially at around 30s in? I like the sparkles.

https://my.mixtape.moe/uxcsef.webm

Right now I live stream kids sporting events with my iPhone. Is there a way to do this with a budget camcorder, like a canon hf r?

Hello /p/, i'm a rookie videographer and filmmaking fan and i've been wondering...

I got a T5i and i've been thinking about installing Magic Lantern but i really don't understand how shooting raw video works and i know it's kind of forcing my camera, i literally don't understand what is the difference between shooting full HD compared to raw video.

Anyone?

>>3136750
[Disclaimer: I haven't tried what I'm about to recommend myself]

Most camcorders and cameras these days have wifi functionality allowing you to view what's being recorded live on your phone.
Theoretically, it should be possible to use this feed and live broadcast it from your phone.

I say this because live broadcasting on facebook/youtube/twitch is relatively straightforward from your phone (I think). But live broadcasting from an actual camera tends to be much less simple and will require a computer of some variety
Google it. I'm sure somehow has tried my suggestion before

>>3136762
READ
THE
FUCKING
STICKY

>>3136764
ALREADY
DID
YOU FAGGOT

Sorry, i'm not really experienced and english is not my first language so i kind of miss up some things.

What's the maximum of quality i can get with my t5i using MagicLantern? Raw 1280x720 24 fps?

Is is impossible to get 1080 with good framerate? I've seen some guys using the same camera posting their ML videos and they are 1080 or even 4k, but i really don't know.

>>3137071
>I don't understand the difference between shooting raw and shooting fullHD but I've totally read the sticky
>Also give me a full update on what magic lantern is doing these days cause fuck google lol
Fuck off

>>3136420
Da Vinci resolve is probably best, since you can select several different key-shortcut presets and it has a lot of features. the only thing the free version locks you out of is rendering to 4k (can still downrender FROM 4k tho). It doesnt even slap a watermark on there.

>>3137129
Can I export an XML after grading into fcpx and then export in 4k?

>>3137132
not without the full version

>>3137133
How does davinci manage to control what I do in fcpx?

>>3137135
oh, i thought you were going FCPX -> Resolve, not full roundtrip

>>3137140
No no
Fcpx , edit - davinci, grade - fcpx, export

I recently got a G81 and now want to make use of that little plug in the battery-door. I was looking around for a lot of dummy batteries but they all plug into a wall socket, none of them plug into a Micro-USB port like a powerbank, at least not with a super-complicated workaround.
Are there any options for this?
I heard that the G70 had a workaround with a dummy battery directly into a powerbank because there was no batterygrip, but I have my camera in a cage and cant attach a batterygrip that way

Is wet transfer for 16mm worth it if you don't have any post production editing software? Think I have some half decent B&W eclipse footage from my K-3 but won't know until a later date.

File: Untitled.jpg (539KB, 1708x996px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 1708x996px

>>3122378
If you're looking for something like this I left the settings on the left side of the screen. Its in adobe after effects but you should be able to find tools that are pretty much the same in your software.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.17
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

Got another feature next month lads
AC reporting in

>>3137365
Where do you live?

>>3137355
Nice, thank you based anon

File: BIGFaderComparisonTWO.png (3MB, 1942x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1942x1200px

Just went to a fotostore and got a 80€ ND fader, from 2-1000x
The only other available was 250€ from B&W and I originally wanted to get a Hoya fader for 75€ from amazon, but it would not have arrived on time for my next trip.
I never heard from the producer, B.I.G and couldn't find anything online about them
Went home to ckeck it out and I gotta say, it's damn good. Slight yellow cast, no signifcant loss of sharpness. The exposure times were 1/60s and 1.3s on the Lumix G85 and the 12-35mm 2.8 at widest aperture.

>>3137365
max landis pls go

File: bru.jpg (17KB, 480x472px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x472px

>>3125345
>owning a red means you're an idiot
How fo I know you're an underage cancertard with a shitty mirrorless who has never worked once and the most popular video you "shot" is a shitty 2 min blurred poorly edited fuckfest of an aftermovie for your cousin's party?


Just like everyone else in this shithole, there's not one real videomaker here, just pretentious children with no skill or knowledge that pretend they know all.

Kill yourself.

>>3137520
You're both retards

>>3137558
Mongoloid children

Is Canon DSLR video really that shitty? What should i get for some basic short films / training with about 1k budget?

>>3137567
No it's not that shitty, as long as you put Magiclantern on it. Canon has a solid mount system and cheap entry-level cameras as well as options to upgrade. Also their Colour-Science is kind of a big deal
It's mostly brandfaggots that hate people using any other system than their chosen one that tell you brand-X is shitty. Don't listen to them. You can't really do that badly unless you pick Nikon or Pentax, which really aren't made for Video at all.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-21 at 12.54.56.png (3MB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2880x1800px

I shoot exclusively on vintage glass, and recently i've noticed that theres quite a bit of dust way inside some of the lenses
Should I take it apart myself and try to clean it, or is that too risky? What would I need anyway, some pressurised air or would just a regular rocket blower do? Or should I take it to a professional cleaning service?
I've taken each of my lenses apart before to declick the aperture (one of them i completely fucked up in the process, but five others were fine)
pic related

>>3137567
No, it's fairly decent. It's more a combination that you can get better quality elsewhere, that their higher-end cameras aren't much better than their lower-end cameras and that they COULD provide a lot more very easily

But their colour-science, autofocus, ergonomics and lenses are God-tier

>>3137582
Professional videographer here, and I would never use or recommend a Canon DSLR. Their cinema line is solid, but I personally dislike the ergonomics. Some people like the modularity, but I find that it works against the out of the box approach they aim for.

File: Lyndsy Fonseca.jpg (126KB, 438x640px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 438x640px

>>3137663
>professional videographer
>implying this makes your opinion worth anything

>>3137670
It does. I get paid to make videos unlike 99% of the posters in these threads.

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

24KB, 210x200px

>>3137673

File: Y tu mama tambien.jpg (279KB, 1904x1626px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1904x1626px

How does one make outdoor scenes in play daylight feel cinematic without filming on magic hour?

>>3138188
slap on piss filter in premiere.

>>3138188
framing, composition and white balance

>>3138188
Controling the light. A wide shot daylight exterior is arguably the most difficult thing to light, practically speaking, because you need huge diffusers, bounces and flags, requiring multiple people to rig and make sure shit doesn't just blow away.

The way you'd do it would go roughly like:
- try not to shoot right at noon when the sun shoots straight down, either shoot around the morning or in the afternoon so the light has some direction
- make sure you use the sun as a backlight / side light, not coming from the front
- shoot into shadow if you can. for example if you're in the city, you can find a street where you can shoot into the shadow side of buildings. if you're in a forest/park, shoot towards the darker part of the trees where the sun isn't hitting.
- hard sun as a key light may or may not look good, the problem is the wider the shot the bigger the diffusion you need to soften the light, up to 20x20 foot silks and so on
- contrast is always going to be an issue, and again to control it you need large bounces (at least as big as in your picture, where they're creating an 8x4 bounce), or flags/floppys of that size. Again depends on wide your shot is

Realistically on a small budget your best bet is to choose a good time of day for your location and try to shoot into shadow, because you won't be able to control things much.

It's one of the cases where having a good location will save your ass more than anything else.

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

19KB, 296x320px

When recording sound with an audio recorder, what is more important for quality: Hz or bits? What's the reasonable threshold for standard recording people talking on a convention or in the streets?

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

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

File: Upstream_Color_poster.jpg (18KB, 250x370px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 250x370px

Just watched this. It was alright, but I think it's really cool how the whole thing was filmed on a cheap DSLR.

>>3121743
>>/tv/

>>3138325
that's actually comparing apples to oranges. but to knock it down: sample-rate > bit-depth. it depends on the use-case tho. for speech I'd rather have a 16bit 192khz than 44.1khz 24 bit, but for ambient recording Id'd prefer the latter.

24bit 96khz is normally reasonable. but you still can work with 16bit 44.1khz. everything below that is mostly useless. and: do not compress lossy!

>>3138223
>the wider the shot the bigger the diffusion you need to soften the light

what bullshit. the softness of light is not relative to the angle of a lens. it is somehow to the distance of the observer. but I think what you wanna say is that you need a bigger shadow the more background is visible.

>>3138675
Ye that's what I mean. The softness of the light is relative to the size of the light source versus the size of the object it's lighting. The bigger the source relative to the object, the softer it will seem. But ye I meant in order to COVER the space of a wide shot you need big silks

>>3138404
what about it?

>tfw trying to decide what camera to buy next and waiting so long that another camera comes out which completely interrupts the process and forces you to start again

Bump limit reached
new thread
>>3139090
>>3139090
>>3139090

>>3138444
Thanks.
That's something I can work with.

>>3137397
South Africa
2nd assistant and have had 23 commercials so far

>>3137488
LolNope

>>3137520
Lmao
I used to post here before I got into the industry but 2 dozen commercials, 50hrs of live broadcast,1 drama and 3 features don't leave you enough time to actually post ,just lurk