Help me for my first attempt at filmmaking

[David Mullen ASC]

An APS-C lens was only designed to project an image circle large enough to cover the rectangular APS-C sensor, so when you put that lens on a larger FF35 sensor camera, it might "work" but it will probably also not fill the sensor with an image so you get vignetting in the corners.

[David Mullen ASC]

Most live-action shoots have to manually pull focus to follow the subject. Yes, it's hard, that's why focus-pulling is a skilled job.

[Phil Rhodes]

At risk of self-plugging, I wrote a whole article on why I don't think the crop-factor approach to focal lengths is very useful, especially if you aren't an experienced stills photographer.

 

P

[John E Clark]

I was thinking 1500$ for camera and maybe 1000$ for lenses. But nothing is certain. If there's no better alternative than A7S I can wait or reconsider GH4 but I want to stick to FF. Camera part is easier than lenses. I have no idea what will be the price for a decent lens and their summed up price.

 

To me there is nothing 'magical' about a Full Frame 35mm Still format. Then again, I don't personally like extremely shallow Depth of Field, and these days, requiring Full Frame 35mm Still sensor sized does add somewhat to the cost of the camera.

 

The Wife has a Nikon D600, but I'm not allowed to use it much, so I've not tested it in various regards. I have however had a GH-1 since it first came out, and have 'upgraded' to a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, BMPCC for short, which has an even smaller sensor than the GH-1, namely a sensor that closely matchs Super 16mm Film film.

 

For either camera all I have for lenses is the Panasonic 14-140mm zoom, and with a 'cheap' adaptor I use a 45 year old 28mm Nikon lens (it's the Wife's, but she doesn't know that I'm using it...).

 

Over the last 6 months, I've participated in a couple of shoots where the cameraman has had a Canon C100, and while I think that camera is 'good' for low light, at least the situations we shot in... I'm not able to pay $5K for such a camera... I'll figure out how to effectively use the BMPCC at ISO 1600 and pay $995... ok I did get it during a 1/2 price sale of $495... but even at $995 I think it is a 'steal', and would fit nicely in to a 'student/learner' category.

 

Then if your budget is around $2600, you could spend $1600 on 'good' lenses, like the Wife's 16-35mm for her Nikons... again... a lens I can't use...

 

My philosophy is thus... spend some bux for a 'adequate' low end package, and try to shoot daily, along with testing for various parameters, then if ever the day comes where one needs high performance... rent it... Hence I would probably think about renting an Alexa and hiring an operator, should I ever come into enough money to make a 'real' film.

 

But for understanding Motion Picture filming, digital capture parameters such as 'proper exposure', and 'motion in the camera frame'... because we are talking about Moving Pictures, not stills... get enough of a camera to avoid embarrasment, and have sufficient technical capability, such as exposure and lens control... and so I think the GH series, or the BMPCC are fine for that.

Edited December 10, 2014 by John E Clark

[David Mullen ASC]

Technically, APS-C is the closest thing to matching the depth of field characteristics and focal length choices used in standard 35mm moviemaking.

 

On the other hand, FF35 has only a 1.5X size difference and depth of field difference with APS-C, and since most FF35 sensors have more sensitivity (except for those 36MP sensors) you can usually compensate by increasing the ISO and then stopping down to get back to the depth of field of APS-C / Super-35 cine. In other words, if you like the look of f/2.8 in 35mm cine, then shoot at f/4-5.6 split on a FF35 camera, you just have to bump the ISO up, like from 500 to approx. 1600 ISO.

 

You can use FF35 lenses on an MFT or APS-C camera, you just can't put most MFT and APS-C lenses on a FF35 camera without some vignetting, at least not the medium to wide-angle ones. So besides price, I think the main difference between a Panasonic GH4 and a Sony A7S is going to be physical size versus sensitivity / low-light performance, plus whatever internal recording codecs and output signals each offers.

 

Berker's budget is so low that I think he should consider getting a camera and a few starter lenses to learn how to use it before he invests in more equipment. I don't think there are any FF35 cameras sold for under $1500 except for used Nikon D600's or something like that.

 

One site that lists the specs for various cameras is:

http://www.dpreview.com

[Berker Taşkıran]

@David,

 

While A7S is expensive for me, it is the cheapest in a way. Even cheapest MFT's cost more with decent lenses, and a cheaper FF would be way too poor quality. I haven't seen a comparison of D600 against A7S but I don't think it can be anywhere near 'decent'. I rather buy an A7S at the first time than buy a D600 or something like that and buy an A7S later. I already stated that I needed experience, I won't go and buy an A7S before gaining some kind of experience even if I was sure to do great with it, which I'm not. If everything else fails I'll just go and experiment on those MarkII/III's at my school for a few weeks in there (Yes, they don't allow us to take them out).

 

Unless there's a magical solution waiting for me around the corner, I will choose A7S. I think this is the right choice for me. I may try to find a used one, or wait for its price to drop, or teach some English lessons or something.

 

As clichéd it may be to link a vimeo (my decision is not based on this):

I loved the first comparison. It seem to do wonders with AWB and stuff. And the small filesize with S-LOG can be very useful.

Great choice of music by the way, and the way the uploader expresses himself in both video and comments sounds like someone who can succeed in the industry. Nice to see such people.

[Berker Taşkıran]

I've been researching about vignetting and I started to think no cheap lenses (<$500) would give you clear image at Full Frame. I'm not even sure even the expensive ones ($500-1000 primes) are fully reliable. Even if they are I can't buy more than one $1000 lens and I can't buy anything else.

 

The question is would you get vignetting with an MFT lens aswell? By MFT lens I mean either a lens designed solely for MFT or a lens with an MFT adapter. IF vignetting is a nonexistent topic on MFT then it sounds appealing.

 

I would need to get at least a f/1.4 for shallow DoF on MFT to compensate crop factor. I would get f/2 with a speedbooster, if my calculation is correct.

 

I have started to come to a conclusion: I would have to pay similar amounts for equal quality lenses on both MFT and FF format. Is this true?

 

***

 

But I'm not sure about low-light performance/dynamic range about GH4. I've seen some videos and it felt kind of cheap, there were too little details on dark parts of picture. I specifically dislike that look. But Tom Antos on his YouTube review of A7S says two cameras aren't that different compared to cameras like RED Epic. But most professionals who shoots on RED Epic is probably using T1.5 lenses. Which is obviously better than f/2. Not to mention their lighting capabilities.

 

It seems like a wise choice to choose the cheaper camera but while I am fairly convinced lens prices aren't much different in similar quality, I am still NOT 100% sure about it. "Doubt" is what's bugging me.

 

Is it possible for me to get 1 zoom and 1 prime lens "suggestions" from you for me to make sure of their prices with absolutely equal IQ that can be decent enough (but still affordable with low budget) to shoot a film with absolutely acceptably-low vignetting for both GH4 and A7S, assuming GH4 possibly being used with a speedbooster (and wide angle filter if those are reliable?!).

 

I was looking at Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens that's nearly $800 but vignetting seems like a problem with that one on Full Frame. And I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use it on GH4 since it will be f/4 for shallow DoF even with speedbooster. f/4 seems too high for decent shallow DoF.

[Berker Taşkıran]

Back with another "I have made my decision" post. :D

 

A GH4 + A Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 + A knockoff Speedbooster from ebay sounds too good right now.

 

It all costs $2400 which is cheaper than an A7S body-only!

 

On 4K 2.3 crop factor with 0.71 on speedbooster I'll have a crop factor of 1.63. Makes it a 29-60mm lens. With SB, lens should be around f/2.8, can even be considered fast. If there's no vignetting and if it is sharp enough (which seems so) this is great. And I can use 18mm wide if I remove SB too! So a 18-60mm range with a somewhat fast lense. I may need to cover a longer range if I do outdoors but I can live with that. This should be all I need for interior.

 

With a bit of push, I can even buy this soon!

 

For the first time I feel relieved. I wasn't feeling right when I decided for A7S because it was expensive and I wasn't sure about lenses. I stated for a few times GH4 wasn't looking good but I think I was expecting too much from it, even TV Shows I'm watching those have dark, no-detail spots.

 

Now my question is: Let's assume I bought those 3 items. "Can I really shoot a successful film with those?" I'm not asking about technical details. Do you think it's possible? Do you think someone professional would watch that thing and actually like what they see artistically, think it is on par with works of the more experienced? I know it all depends on how you use it, camera can't make you what you're not, I'm just asking if it is possible with such a gear? That I won't be blocked by technical limits of my gear? I wish there was a (very) successful movie/short movie made with GH4.

 

Hopefully I can stop researching 24/7 now, I want to stick to my decision and buy these items ASAP. I am actually feeling a lot more close to my goal than ever. This didn't seem possible a short while ago. I feel... "sane" again.

 

P.S.: Please don't change my mind. :P

[Berker Taşkıran]

Sorry I made a mistake above, I can't use 18mm as crop factor is 2.3 w/o SB. It is 29-81 instead of 18-60. Which is even better in terms of range, except lack of a very wide angle, which is acceptable, again.

[David Mullen ASC]

Shane Curruth's "Upstream Color" was shot by himself on the GH2:

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/panasonic-gh2-shane-carruth-upstream-color-musgo

[Phil Rhodes]

Low budget people have never had it so good have they. Er. We.

 

P

[John E Clark]

Low budget people have never had it so good have they. Er. We.

 

P

 

When I was young, ca. 1970, I was looking at Bolexes and wanting to 'make movies'... At the time a windup watchworks Bolex was $300 (that may have even been a used price... I can't recall), and while I can't recall the specific prices for motion picture Film+processing, it just seemed 'too much'... so I went in the stills direction...

 

When I compare that $300 Bolex to current digital cameras, the $300 1970 dollars seems to be about $1800 in 2014 dollars... so, even on the point of The Camera, for $1800 one can buy not only an image capture device, one need not worry about 'winding it up'... and one can have 'sync sound' (albeit somewhat crappy sound...), for less than just a 1970 Bolex.

 

Add in the comparison between getting memory cards for 'film' (reusable if need be...), a computer for 'processing', and the Internet for 'projection', the 'modern' entry level filmmaker is in a far better position than days of yore.

 

One can argue about the influx of 'many', the 'democratizing' of Filmmaking, but I am definitely in the "Let everyone go for it" camp... whether I personally like the resulting films or not.

Edited December 13, 2014 by John E Clark

[Bill DiPietra]

One can argue about the influx of 'many', the 'democratizing' of Filmmaking, but I am definitely in the "Let everyone go for it" camp... whether I personally like the resulting films or not.

 

That problem with that thinking is that very few also learn the theory and history behind the technical aspects of filmmaking. Which is a big reason why you have such a mediocre product out there these days.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you have a lot of product these days, period, not just mediocre product. The biggest problem today is simply standing out from the thousands of people posting video on YouTube and Vimeo.

 

Most people who want to learn, generally start for the same reason -- they look at their stuff and say "why does this look like crap?" and start to break things down from there.

[Phil Rhodes]

That's more or less my approach. And I'm still looking at my stuff and thinking "why does this look like crap."

[Afolayan Dammy]

Berker, I read through the comments and your reply to them and I discovered you still have a lot to learn about sensor size and crop factors. Try to google that..."Camera sensor size and crop factors". Its very simple and its the last thing I expect would confuse anybody. That aside, I think you are concentrating so much on technical aspects, camera, lens, gear, technology etc but then you are beginning to forget that this things no matter how good you handle them wouldn't make your film appealing to the audience than the story itself. You can shoot with a very expensive cinema camera with very expensive lens and end up annoying your audience who feels what you just shot is crap and you have wasted their time watching your film and you could shoot on just Canon T2i and your audience get so in love with the movie... The secret is your story line and how you handle the very small tool you have. When I was starting out too, I have always thought too much about technical details ignorantly not knowing that that isn't what makes the film. Check out Philip Bloom website. He has many written articles about this. There is this article too on the site... "Working with little gear". Really can't find the link but its on the sight,