Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/18/19 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    There are no easy answers here, but if you consider that sometimes movies are an art form, not just a product for mass consumption, then not every choice has to be determined by what the audience cares about or notices -- sometimes it is enough for the artist to care about something and then hope there is a receptive audience for their particular vision. I don't think when David Lynch or Andrei Tarkovsky made a movie, they spent much of their time wondering what clients and consumers were asking for. It goes way beyond choice of shooting format, after all if you build a set and sew costumes, you have to make decisions on color schemes, textures, etc. that go way beyond a typical viewer's ability to care or notice. I think to some extent, audiences don't care because they don't have to, they expect the filmmakers to care. The skills needed to make any complex product are beyond the average consumer, but the consumer hopes that someone cares about the details. So if you hire artists to make something, anything, then one shouldn't be surprised that these artists have certain tastes for how things are done. And some artists are sensitive to the origination medium. I mean, would anyone be surprised if painters had opinions about working in oils versus acrylics, or sculptors working in marble versus wood?
  2. 4 points
    Even greatly manipulated digital footage does NOT look like film, it just doesn't. There are extremely rare films shot on film that are so squeaky clean that they possibly could be misconstrued for digital, but honestly, I can't think of any off the top of my head. Film is obviously not just grain, it's the way faces, colors are rendered, it's the life in the frame. Prashantt talks about Benoit Debie, Debie himself said on The Beach Bum that he CANNOT achieve the colors he wants to achieve with anything else but film. There are so many films that would gain something if shot on film, so many films that need the grit, but are too goddam squeaky clean and it works against the film, I'm sorry but it does. It made me smile when Rodrigo Prieto said in a video that he thought Sicario should have been shot on film because it needed that grit, Sicario is gorgeously shot but I agree. Linus Sandgren has professed his love for film, and continues to do so every single time and is adamant he can do so many things with film that he can't with digital, and many others say the same thing. Deakins not seeing the difference anymore is his problem really, but hey, as much as his work with the Alexa is gorgeous, I still think it doesn't come close to his best work on film (independent of the fact that every movie is different) and something is missing. That's just my two cents. We fundamentally disagree here, there IS a magical quality to film, and if you're not willing to take the word of tons of highly respected directors and DPs on this, I don't know what to tell you. I tell you what I see, story is story sure, shooting on film doesn"t mean you're going to make a good movie, only a clown would think this. But it MATTERS, do you understand? I always see the difference and I've spent years training my eye for it, scrutinizing footage, sometimes up close, and it's also what the format evokes, and I said what film evokes for me. Also, keep in mind that I see most films on a 90 inch plus screen with a great JVC videoprojector, I'm lucky enough to do so. Now, if you're watching something on a TV and you're sitting far away, or same in the movie theater, you're obviously not going to see the grain or the texture of film much, unless it's super 16 or it was push processed, that's common sense. Even then, you still have all the advantages and qualities of film, but I don't see the point of sitting far away, I want to see and FEEL the texture of the film. And here we go into another film vs digital "debate" despite my best intentions. Sorry OP.
  3. 4 points
    you can offer them small shiny objects .. like Rolex watches.. alternatively large wads of cash.. don't get too close and never put all your trust in them..
  4. 3 points
    https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/the-beach-bum-cinematographer-benoit-debie-master-color-1202055726/ I don't know what the budget of this film - The Beach Bum but Benoit Debie has shot it on 35 with lots of in camera effects (varicolor polariser) and spent only 4 days in a grading suite.
  5. 3 points
    I don't think many DPs like the digital look overall, so many articles in AC or British Cinematographer or whatever you can find where anamorphic lenses are super in demand for digital shows to break the image apart a little, or grain is added in post or the ASA setting is pushed in order to get some kind of texture. And digital just isn't special, that's the thing, so many things shot on the Alexa or Red and it just becomes this shapeless, homogenized blob, nothing or very few things stand out. And those who shoot on film stand out and it is special. But the labs coming back is just a great thing, and more and more things (still a tiny number) films, indie films and TV shows are being shot on film these days.
  6. 2 points
    A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, regardless of the format it is designed for. You could put that Signature prime on any format from Super 8 to Full Frame. Its focal length does not change. What does change is the Field of View. On Super 8, a 50mm is a long telephoto lens, on s35, it's standard, and on FF it's slightly wide angle. Try drawing a circle. That's the lens image circle.The lens's image circle is everything the lens "sees". Now draw a FF sized box inside the circle. That is everything the FF sensor "sees". If you then draw a s16 sized box inside the circle, you can see that it "sees" less of the circle than the FF box, and therefore has a narrower Field of View. A super 8mm sized box would see even less. The field of view changes with each sensor size, even though the focal length of the lens stays exactly the same.
  7. 2 points
    Active 3D was the way to go, but it cost the theaters too much money. So they've all switched to polarizing OR the way less costly Anaglyph 3D. It's amazing when you go to an IMAX screening and they hand you polarizing glasses. I'm paying $22 dollars to watch the same technology I can get at home? Thanks guys, but no thanks. The problem is that people still spend a premium for those "limax" screenings and it kills me. AMC Burbank does not have an IMAX screen, they have a normal theater that has a big screen, with a very low-end build out. The only IMAX theater left that area is City Walk and they put in a metal screen years ago for digital 3D stuff and it ruins the image. Thanks IMAX. 😞
  8. 2 points
    There are also many cinemas that leave the polarizing filters on the projector (for 3D) even when screening 2D and this results in a quite dim image. I've asked the theater manager about this and they said that there was nothing that they could do about it. AMC Burbank, I'm talking about you!
  9. 2 points
    Few things... We don't need to see her being interviewed, that's a waste of time. The shot wasn't interesting and because english is her 2nd language, it's not helping the ad to have her talk slow. The echo also makes it seem very unprofessional. In this case, I would have her do the VO work in a quiet room. Get her to amp up her presentation so it's exciting and cut together best sentences into a cohesive narrative first. Once you have that, then you can go out and shoot what she's talking about. In terms of the B-Roll, for commercial, I would have shot stuff that was more active. You need around 4 - 6 setup's to achieve what you're going after. Show her outside doing multiple active things, jogging, maybe helping someone with directions, running up some stairs, few shots of the sun going through the trees, you kinda get the idea. Since she's talking about skin care, sun and brightness are critical. In terms of the product shots, the final shot is fine, but the bathroom scene was too dark to work. It needed a lot more light to give it some pop, it needed several beauty shots of not just the container, but also her applying, with excellent bright lighting and motion. I think the one thing lacking in the entire piece is motion, the camera should always be moving. Most people just use a slider for that sorta thing because it gives such nice subtle motion to every shot. A gimbal or steadicam would also help quite a bit. Over-all it felt under-developed, something put together in a hurry, rather then something that was planned out in advance. With commercials, quick cuts, fast pace, clean narration and a bright/crisp image are the most important things. You want to wow your would-be customers and sadly this didn't wow me.
  10. 2 points
    The close-up of her feet down the stairs leads nowhere. Instead try to execute a swing movement or a fast follow pam from tripod with a light wide angle lens. The apple purchase also leads to nothing. It can be understood that apples are something natural but that is not new. Basically in spring when trees begin to blossom all apples are a few months old. If one wants to point out freshness, apples are harvested in fall. A cultural lapse. Maybe a little more effort with her hair that could be pinned up outdoors. Decide on lighting, the interiors need more snap. Lots of light for cosmetics! Personally, I should not show the character straight from above lying on a bed but under two angles, sideways and in height, cuddled up to somebody (out of focus). I watched it twice, without sound.
  11. 2 points
    Yeah the grade could use a little more punch and when the interview audio comes in it immediately destroys the professional vibe you opened with. Also getting more angles of coverage for the main interview would really flesh things out, maybe even have the camera handheld on that portion too. This goes in and out between TV quality and youtube vlogger's student film. I don't believe you're clueless to this, I think the director just settled in the wrong areas. Let me know if you need an audio guy, I'm in the area.
  12. 2 points
    A couple of things, only since you've asked.... The color correction is a bit flat and low contrast. I guess that helps smooth the skin, but... it certainly doesn't catch the eye of the viewer. The sound quality is poor. Bad echo in the room. It would be worth rerecording the narration in a proper audio studio or just a better environment. The audio quality gives the entire spot the impression of "amateur" filmmaking. Lastly, the editing. Each shot seems to be on screen just a beat or two too long. Once we've gotten the idea, it's time to move on to the next shot. The spot is not "bad", but I think these suggestions could make it work a bit better.
  13. 2 points
    I drew roughly what a Standard (Normal) 1.78 : 1 area would be inside Super-35 1.78, whether 3-perf or 4-perf Super. I also drew what a projector showing the movie in 1.85 would crop from 1.78, as you can see, the formats are very close in shape:
  14. 2 points
    Again, in 2018 Kodak had it's best year since they filed for bankruptcy and people are looking to differentiate their products from everyone elses. So MORE people are shooting film, especially super 16, that has an entirely different look than digital. Nobody cares about what television doc's, corporate or industrial films are shot with, could be a camcorder as long as it tells the story. Television has such a fast timeline, unless you're shooting in a media city, it's hard to make film work. However, many TV shows have in recent years Westworld being one of them. Where it's true many long-term shows switched to digital for their 2018 season, a lot of that is just less viewership and budget reductions. Television is dying, so I wouldn't expect them to shoot film anymore, or do I feel something being watched once, has any value on being shot on film. Red is falling off the popularity chart. I know they worked out a deal with Panavision to make a special kit for TV, but nobody cares. The Alexa dominates the digital market, whether it's the Amira on doc's or Alexa Mini on TV, Music video's, commercials or features, the Arri's are more stable, have better overall integrated support and don't require dozens of add-on's to work. Where I do like Red Code as a codec, Pro Res from the Alexa's work much better for post production. Yea there are some Red die hard's, Soderbergh and Fincher to name two. However, those guys are all about experimenting with new stuff, they could care less about tradition. In my eyes, the only reason why Red has been popular at all is due to the over-sampling imager. Being able to shoot 6k raw for a 4k finish, has been great but now that Alexa has higher resolution solutions. Arri will enter into the 8k market soon and when they do, if they "sell" the cameras instead of simply only rent them, I think Red will be done. The color science on the Alexa is far better and they've proven to build a better more stable package over the years. Right now, the only people who use Red's are devotee's and people who own them. Sounds just like the people who shoot film to me! lol
  15. 2 points
  16. 2 points
    Go tell that to Spielberg, Nolan, Scorsese, Tarantino, PT Anderson, Snyder, Chazelle, JJ Abrams, Ponsoldt, Coen Brothers, Scott Cooper, Adam McKay, and so many others. This is ridiculous. It MATTERS, who cares if audiences know the difference (but they'll feel it), it's your intention, you, the filmmaker, and the DP, you want your film to look and feel a certain way. You might not miss it but plenty LOVE it because it looks and feels better, there is emotion with film, something happens, it's a quicker way to empathy than digital is imo, plenty will tell you the same, it can't be rationalized, it just is. It also looks more interesting and stands out. All my favorite films are shot on film, all of them, it's not a coincidence, it's not an internal trick, it just makes me feel in a way digital doesn't, independent of the emotion of the movie itself. Go ahead and call those master directors, or DPs like Linus Sandgren, or Masanobu Takayanagi, or Rodrigo Prieto and so many others that they're "tech hipsters". If you truly can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you, it's blatant, it's obvious.
  17. 2 points
    Love it. This is “Taxi Driver” all of the way and not the typical comic book movie. The marketing will be critical for the box office success of this picture since it’s not a “Batman”. Beautifully lit, shot and directed. G
  18. 2 points
    Do the same thing everyone else does = death too. Where I do think young filmmakers should be making content and not worrying about what's used to make that content, there is a certain satisfaction and look that film delivers, which digital has yet to achieve. Having the knowledge of what it's like to shoot film, it critical in my book. It's not like today's young filmmakers had ANY experiences with film at all, 99.5% of them probably never touched film before they made the leap TO film. Most will buy a still camera, but a few will buy movie cameras and it's that passion for the past, which will lead them to become great filmmakers in the future. Having the knowledge to shoot good film translates extremely will into the digital world and will make you a more efficient filmmaker.
  19. 2 points
    I think point 3. was a major factor everywhere. It was the experienced DPs and directors who'd known too many sleepless nights on location worrying about the day's footage getting lost or damaged in transit, or whatever, or obsessing over whether that particular shot worked out and will they have to shoot it again. When digital came along it was an easier life for these very experienced people. And yes, some people prefer the look of digital: that clean, clinical, plastic, glassy, metallic perfection. They want a world that is like that. It's their aesthetic preference. Go to their homes and see what art is on their walls.
  20. 2 points
    At the beginning of last year, just before the prices shot up, I bought an Arricam LT and an Arriflex 235, both 3perf. I decided to shoot a short film to test the cameras. The idea had to be simple, a couple of actors and one location. We shot on Vision 3 200T using Master Primes. Every single shot was storyboarded, we didn't shoot one foot of coverage. Happy to report that the cameras are working...I'd like to share the result.
  21. 2 points
    Watch movies, look at the works of great painters and develop artistic vision. Don't worry so much about what camera or what lens or the other technical stuff, it will come if the passion is there and vision is clear. Conrad Hall once asked an assistant to get him a certain lens and the assistant came back proudly with another lens that he thought was better. He explained to Conrad that it was a better lens and would produce a better image. Conrad didn't use it of course and didn't want the "better" image. He wanted the lens he wanted for a reason. It's what the artists wants to accomplish. If you have the vision and the passion to follow through the tools will be found to make what you imagine. Learn to use your imagination. That is the most important tool any great Cinematographer or artist of any salt has. Without it all the tools and technical know how is not worth a great deal.
  22. 1 point
    In the end I did buy a 25mm Zeiss CP.3. I left my house to walk around Camden Town, just to see how easy it would be . Just me, the Arriflex 235 and the CP.3 with an LMB-25 and a camera bag. Great little lens. I look forward to the summer.
  23. 1 point
    Those mpeg cameras are impossible to edit without transcoding. You'll have to transcode to DNX or Pro Res before editing.
  24. 1 point
    The workflow may vary form N:E to NLE, but Lightworks automatically selects the highest resolution for your final export when working with proxies.
  25. 1 point
    The biggest problem but no one gives a poop, ugh.
  26. 1 point
    I personally chose to switch from Premiere last year to Magix Vegas for almost the exact opposite reason. If you aren't running an Intel/nVidia rig, the optimization for premiere is terrible. I prefer Ryzen processors because of the sheer "bang for your buck" difference between them and the Intel offering. That said, Premiere runs poorly on AMD so I made the switch to Vegas which has better optimization for my hardware. I don't really recommend Magix Vegas because it doesn't have the same codec support that Premiere, Avid or Resolve has. That said, I do recommend at least installing and testing Avid on your system as it is similar in price to premiere (if I'm not mistaken). Resolve is a bit resource heavy, if I'm not mistaken so that likely won't be a good choice to switch. If you don't need raw support, Vegas may work for you (as it does for me). As Aapo mentioned, it might be best to just try working with proxies if you don't already.
  27. 1 point
    Hi Bob. Thank you greatly for your response and tips. Noted. Looking forward to implementing your pointers on our next project. Sincerely, Thaddeus and Clyde
  28. 1 point
    Hi Sebastian, Thanks for the message. I'll keep the package together for now, but I'll drop you a line if I can't sell it all
  29. 1 point
    I mean .h265 is the best, with the highest quality compression, but a lot of streaming sites can't take them yet. So I'd use .h264 for compatibility reasons. For 1080p, I generally do 15-18Mbps .h264 files unless a client wants higher quality. Most BluRay disc's (which are the same codec) are 25-30Mbps by contrast.
  30. 1 point
    I thought they taught this concept in middle school? Writing an outline for any long paper?
  31. 1 point
    Welcome to the forum, I've been to Bulawayo but it's been a very long time. We didn't go west very often, we mostly used to take the train from Salisbury to Umtali and then on to Beira for vacations. Wonderful times, now long gone! It's great to see someone producing film over there! 🙂 I'm really happy to hear from you! What are you shooting with?
  32. 1 point
    Well think of it a different way. Kodak farmed out their still business decades ago to a Chinese company. So the only thing made in Rochester "film" wise, was and is motion picture film. Their R&D business was also loosing quite a bit of money, but again that has nothing to do with motion picture. The bankruptcy was the best thing they could have done because they demolished most of the old buildings and now rent the property and have a lucrative real estate business. You've gotta think, the failure of Kodak was not motion picture film, but not selling their technology sooner. When I say Doc's, I don't mean History channel. I mean feature length doc's in the theaters. I don't mean talking heads and interviews, I mean cinematic filmmaking, which is the style of most modern doc's. Anything going on Television is being shot with broadcast style cameras, using broadcast codec's; Panasonic and Sony make those cameras. For the rest of us, it's the Amira or Alexa, with a sound guy, locked timecode and 12 bit 444 Pro Res deliverables at 3.8k, which is fine. I know two dozen people with Red's and they all rent Alexa's or film cameras to make THEIR products. In fact, the DP using my camera right now HAS an Alexa that he's selling to get out of digital. Yea you heard me right, the guy has an original XT and is selling it so he can buy a 16mm kit and he's using mine to get acquainted before he puts his money out there. More competition for me, but man that's great news for "film" in general as he shoots A LOT of high profile stuff. Owning high-end digital cameras in his and my mind is futile because the technology changes so fast, it's undoubtedly a loosing proposition. You'd have to rent your camera every day of the week to justify buying. If you already have big clients and they're never ending, it's worth the investment, but you aren't making money off it.
  33. 1 point
    I only have the first version of the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, but it's been bulletproof! The only weak spot is the flare in the back lit subjects. The mark ii has fixed this problem. I haven't shot with the mark iii yet. It's worth the money in peace of mind as well as resell value.
  34. 1 point
    I think also that the two articles were not totally fair. They compared top of the line Alexa camera with Super 16. Not exactly a fair comparison, and the Red cam they compared came in cheaper than the Super 16. The filmmaker article also said the total film cost was $16,000.00, when the camera equipment alone cost him just over $7,000.00, and failed to mention film to digital transfer. The other article mentioned that on a digital shoot you need technicians for color correction and all that, while if you shoot film you just need the camera and the cameraman. Whenever I see behind the scenes shots of big movies being made, the director is always watching a TV to see the shots, so they use them for films shoots as well. Again, a little unfair. Unless I missed something in the articles. As far as what the director wants to shoot on, that is a different story altogether.
  35. 1 point
    It's hard to make money on any equipment in an environment where there is no support. In Europe and the US, there is a lot of film being shot because the support still exists. Where I agree, it's hard to get kids interested in shooting with a BL, my Aaton's were not any bigger than a fully decked out Alexa, so my students were pretty happy with using them.
  36. 1 point
    Last 2 perf movie I saw that was done photochemically looked like complete crap. I don't know where they did the blow up work, but it was bad. I mean if you're after that 1980's soft look, than I guess? If you watch David Mullins "Love Witch" on 35mm, it was sharp as a tack, looked exactly how it's supposed to look. Frankly, I don't think you can do a photochemical finish from anything but 4 perf and have it come out good. The reason is quite simple... you can make prints directly off the camera negative with 4 perf. With 2 perf, you're having to make the image anamorphic. So you're going through the optical printer and doing your color timing at the same time. Theoretically, you could strike an answer print right then and there, but you can't add the soundtrack layer. So you're having to make an IP no matter what, then adding the soundtrack onto the IN and striking prints from the IN. The process for 3 perf is much the same since it's a WIDER image. You'd be doing an optical pass, then making an IP and IN to strike prints with soundtrack from. If you do 1:1 4 perf to 4 perf, no matter what aspect ratio you choose, the prints are going to be exactly what the negative is. Scanning your film at 5k (which is pretty standard these days) doing the entire post process in 4k and lasering it back to film at 4k, gives you a beautiful internegative, that's super crisp and the prints could possibly retain around 3k worth of information, which is quite good for 35mm. The blow up's talked about above, they're around 1200 lines of resolution. The best way to watch films shot on 35mm is actually with a photochemical blow up to 70mm. Since the format uses digital audio and only needs timecode put on the rolls, it's easier to do a 35mm to 70mm blow up and then add the digital data in since it's not between the sprockets. Thus, you can actually make a limited amount of theatrical prints from 35mm masters to 70mm without these issues and have nearly equal quality to the original 35mm camera negative. The losses with 35mm blow up's are nearly non-existent.
  37. 1 point
  38. 1 point
    It is allot of work to run a lab and keep film processors in working order and fed with the right bearings, motors and especially chemistry. It is a full time job and if you do it right people don't necessarily notice but when you mess up they want your blood... 😉
  39. 1 point
    The tripod hole at the bottom of the handle wouldn't be the most ideal place, but the camera is solid enough, and well balanced, that i don't think that makes much difference in the long run of you have a good fluid head. The general breathing of super 8 will out-weigh the potential issue with the tripod connection. Final Cut Pro X has stabilization, that I've been playing with, and it has done a surprisingly good job on breathing. Even on hand-held shots. At the end of the day, I never found a camera that did everything I needed. They'd be great at one thing, and lack in something else. The beaulieu 6008 had my favorite lens (Angenieux 6-90) but too finicky , and faster shutter often made footage look more strobe-like. Nizo 6080 was the quietest and 220 degree shutter for low light , but it's top heavy and too fancy for its own good, with electronic gizmos that eventually broke. (even my back up one eventually broke and wasn't worth fixing) Leicina Special is most compact with Schneider 10mm prime, but Leica M mount lenses aren't cheap, and the pull down claw has a tendency to not grab the perfs without a couple of tries(probably just mine) and i always forget to turn it off resulting in running out batteries. Nikon is the camera I can grab on the way out the door and know it'll work great, even though it may not be #1 in any above category, it'll be great in EVERY category. I haven't shot with high end Canons as much but those feel similar to me to the Nikon, but they're so much more expensive for whatever reason.
  40. 1 point
    It also depends how/where you want to use the drive. If you are backing up on location or backing up in the studio/editing suite and or archiving. I use Synology NAS in my studio to back-up footage and archive the work. I find a 1-2 TB SSD for back-up in the field and then use it on the desk-top to move the footage into the system -- this has proven to be a stable field back-up and also faster way to edit. Once in the studio ...we back-up the entire unedited project to the NAS as well as all the working project files we we cut on the SSD. I use a RAID 1 configuration for the NAS creating 2 back-ups, then back-up to Amazon Web Services from there to have a third off-site back-up. For super critical work I will also retain a backup to a single external hard drive and store it off-site.
  41. 1 point
    Hdds in raid boxes can be configured in numerous ways. One of the common configurations is raid0 which is pretty common in 2 drive boxes (shows as single drive, capacity of all the drives combined, almost double the speed compared to a single drive, if one drive breaks you will lose all data) and the basic common configuration for multi drive boxes is raid5 (capacity of the combined capacity of all the drives minus one drives capacity, high read write speeds, you can lose one hdd and still restore all the data). There is also possibility to for example do multiple raid arrays from the same box's drives if the control software allows (for example 2 hdds in raid 0 and four hdds in raid5 showing to the operating system as two separate drives) or you can also just use the drives unraided so that each physical hdd shows as a separate drive and the raid box is basically just acting as a very expensive hdd dock. The short answer... Yes they can show to the operating system as separate drives and they can also show as one single logical drive or multiple logical drives. It just depends on how you configure it and how much redundancy and speed and capacity you need. I recommend having a raid 5 array as a basis for starters. Using the raid box just to host multiple single drives for backup purposes is not very useful I think, you would like to have instead one of the copies on the raid array for speed (working version) and another copy on completely separate drive elsewhere which is just for backup.
  42. 1 point
    Put Star Wars on the telly, DVD or Blu-ray. You know, the original one. Have a look at the shots of R2D2 and C-3PO as they walk along the corridors, and go into that other section of the spacecraft where they encounter the Princess. Especially note the closer up shots. Digital will never look like that. Never. Film has an earthy, 'etched', slightly gritty yet saturated, 'fat' sort of look. That would cost millions of bucks to generate entirely digitally, trying to cook up an organic photochemical celluloid image look from number crunching CPUs. It won't ever happen. Maybe not enough people out there care enough. But I think they do. Do common garden variety audiences note the beauty of oils and the European masters? My friends...yes, oh yes....they do.
  43. 1 point
    Congrats and well done on your choice. Sounds a wise decision to me based on your reasoning.
  44. 1 point
    if you haven't done it already it is good to check how well your viewfinder markings align with the camera gate. there is a nice trick to do this by projecting the viewfinder image and gate aperture to a wall or paper using the taking lens: 1. put the camera on a tripod directly facing a wall where you can place a piece of paper for drawing the markings. remove the magazine 2. with the lens on, rotate the shutter to the viewing position. you may now want to reduce lighting in the room to see the projection more clearly... 3. shine a very bright flashlight to the viewfinder of the camera and adjust the takeup lens so that it projects the viewfinder markings clearly to the piece of paper on the wall. hold the light there and draw the lines to the paper with pencil 4. keep everything locked in place including the camera, paper and lens settings etc 5. rotate the shutter to the taking position with the magazine removed and attach a small piece of translucent material directly over the aperture on the film channel so that it is fully covered. a small piece of paper will do. try to keep the material flat against the aperture. 6. shine the bright light to the translucent material on the gate and draw the projection on the wall showing the aperture edges. Using a different colour pencil will help a little 7. now you should have a paper where both the actual aperture and actual viewfinder markings align and you can evaluate how much there is difference between what you see vs what you get and where the actual aperture edges are compared to the framelines seen in the viewfinder.
  45. 1 point
    An unsharp mask type plugin may appear to help a little but there's simply no substitute for proper focus. The data is just not there.
  46. 1 point
    I don't think so - but ebay.fr tends to have several of them for quite cheap. (I've purchased both my Webos over a little more than a month ago for around 120eur/body + posting fee.)
  47. 1 point
    bmpcc speed booster probably does not work with the GH series. the GH5s has for example v-log already enabled in factory and dual iso capabilities. the original GH5 is not as versatile due to the older sensor. the price difference is not that much when starting to calculate it further. purchasing a separate recorder (for example atomos) complicates the choices further because the memory card costs and internal bitrates don't matter then that much anymore. The lens mount thing is very challenging because most of the adapters lack full electronic controls (for example there is no EF to NikonZ adapter which enable electronic aperture adjustments even when normal fully muchanical EF to NZ adapters are common and very affordable) which is why it is easiest to switch camera bodies when you have fully mechanical lenses with aperture rings and mechanical focusing. For example Nikon AI-S lenses are pretty versatile, you can use them with almost any camera with adapters so that you never need to purchase new lenses unless needing certain wide angles or PL mount ones. Sadly the metabones ef boosters with full lens control are pretty expensive and it may make economically more sense to sell the EF lenses and purchase completely new lenses than to spend lots of money to the booster to adapt the old ones. The Chinese speed booster copies may be actually pretty OK for normal uses but they don't have electronics and are thus worthless with electronic EF lenses
  48. 1 point
    I think the Z6 is best for uses where you need a documentary camera for very low light shooting (iso 6400, 12000 and 25600) and have possibility to use the external 10bit prores recorder with it. For general indie use the GH5s with a cheaper speed booster would be more practical and versatile and much cheaper. Or the Pocket 4k if you can wait the camera for half a year
  49. 1 point
    My focus puller, Kostya, on my last film. He did quite well with this method :) 2nd Assistant camera, Slava is amused...
  50. 1 point
    Hi! I'm a AC/Operator from Finland. Next month my flat will be going through pipe renevation, so I thought it's good time to take a vacation. And since my girlfriends sister is studying in Barcelona, we'll come there for some time. I'm very much work oriented, so taking a 1-month holiday is not ideal for me. Probably I'll want to do something after a few days :-) That's why I'm thinking about a chance to meet local film crews and work in some projects. In Finland I've worked 5 years as 2nd and 1st assistant and operator in features, shorts and documentaries, and some shorts and music videos as a DP. I'm not looking to earn money with it, more about meeting filmmakers from different areas and getting experience. I'll work for free/food/etc. I'm coming around 5th of April, and will spend 4-5 weeks there. We (my girlfriend and I) are coming by car (my camera-van, which also works as a camper). Unfortunately I do not speak spanish/catalan, but I've worked a lot with english language. So if you are a 1st AC and looking for a 2nd for some geeks during that time, a DP and looking for a 1st AC, or anything else, please be in touch. Thanks! Mikko
×
×
  • Create New...