Samuel Berger

$60 a 100' roll.....groan.

A year later: I was right.

You'd have to be a spazopotamus to spazz out over that.

It looks like that button removes format from selected text, but doesn't actually compose the post in plain text. Here is how I got to this point. I quoted Tyler's post somewhere on this thread: On his original post he had a link to a vimeo video and when I quoted him, I was unable to remove the video. Highlighting the video and clicking remove format didn't affect it. Now I just noticed that my hyperlink on this very post turned into a preview of the post I'm referencing. And there doesn't seem to be a way around that. Interesting. Again "remove format" doesn't work on it. Hm...

Hi Tim, I don't see it. This is what I see.

Unfortunately no one can buy one at the moment or i would have. By the way, I meant to edit the Vimeo clip out of this quotem but I can't find a way to remove it. It would be nice to have the plain text option back

Is it no longer possible to edit my posts in plain text?

Coincidentally, I ran into a pair of documentary filmmakers at Seattle City Center yesterday, they were using of all things a Canon 80D. So yeah, I guess a lot of doc makers really don't care what it looks like.

Pretty sure they all came back when they realised you can't get a usable image with a Sony.

You know, that might be it. The shows they're trying to emulate are usually shot on 2/3" broadcast cameras and have deeper DOF. Shooting wide open is giving it too somber a look for comedy.

A few people are successfully using the Godox SL-60 because they can't afford the Aputure 120D, and it's working well for some, but I've seen two occasional complaints. One is flickering, the other is a green cast. I'd still buy it it, but I'm saving up for Aputure 300D.

If anything I think there's probably not enough money to light the backgrounds and that's what's making it look more like a drama show.

YAP (Young Actors Project) from Canada regularly outputs content on Youtube shot on a Canon C200 with Canon lenses, mostly a 70-200 2.8 and a 24-70 2.8. Latest from them is this: I can't help but feel there is something wrong with the lighting, that doesn't quite measure up to what they're trying to do, which is Disney Channel style sitcoms. It could just be there's too much contrast. Maybe not enough fill?

What's his name, what does he look like?

Did they steal a car with it? Because that sounds like a lot to just swing on your back and take off. What kind of French guys? Descriptions?

Looks like Netflix allows the C200 in some cases. https://ymcinema.com/2019/04/18/canon-c200-is-netflix-approved-only-when-shooting-raw/

I'm wondering about IBIS, does it have any? Never bothered to look.

It's not, I'm trying to get $1400 for it because it cost me more than that and I sent it to Bernie for service, etc. So even if I magically got my asking price, I'll still be losing a lot of dough. But like you said, sunk cost is a fallacy.

Yeah, it's pretty much useless for me, I'm never buying a PL mount camera again.

Yes, that's how I used it with the Ursa Mini and Arri 2C. I also had the lens serviced by Bernie O'Dougherty.

But it is PL with the adapter. That footage I shot with my Ursa Mini PL was shot with it. Works perfectly.

Like the title says, Should I sell my Angenieux 25-250 by itself or with my Eclair NPR kit? I think it would add value to the kit, but I also know that I could probably sell it faster by itself. I have an Eclair NPR Ultra 16mm package that I need to sell as soon as possible. It was easy to sell the Ursa Mini 4K but this will be a harder sell. The zoom is actually for 35mm cameras, has an Arri B mount, I used it on the Arri 2C and the Ursa Mini with its PL adapter. So I could see folks being interested in buying it by itself. Just wondering what anyone thinks.

I think it's not necessarily cheaper to film digitally because there are so many variables involved. You have to know what project and what budget and you have to have good business sense, which I think a lot of artists seem to lack. When you say "shoot digitally" you could be talking about shooting with a smartphone or an Arri Alexa. When you say shoot film you could be talking about using a Kodak Instamatic Super-8 or Panavision cameras. Right now I think you just need to use what you need to get the product done. My biggest regret was investing in film gear for a project that could have been done on a first-gen BMPCC. The film didn't get done and now it never will be. For my next one I'll start planning on shooting digitally from the beginning, using my Canon EOS R. If I ever make any money then I can move back to L.A. and shoot film all I want, but since they closed down Alpha Cine here in Seattle, it's just not realistic to work blindly with film.

Sharp came out with an 8K instead. Experimental, however.