Landon D. Parks

When I shoot with my GH5, I use the 12-25 and 35-100 native lenses, with a matte box and 4x4 ND's. The larger glass 4x4 ND's are much easier to work with than built-in filters. You can stack them, for example. When shooting native M4/3, then Lumix constant aperture 12-35 and 35-100 are perfectly fine lenses. The lens stabilization combined with internal 5 axis is amazing as well.

My biggest concern with investing in older hardware, especially older Apple hardware, is lack of upgrade-ability. How 'modern' is the Mac Pro from several years ago really going to be? Yes, for the time they ran very good hardware, but does it have expandable PCI-e 3.0? Does it support the latest processor socket? I can't speak for how this might run on a Mac, but I recently completed an upgrade to my PC (Ryzen Threadripper 32-core, 2 x 1080ti GPU's, 65GB Ram), and I can say that I have experienced no issue playing back real-time. On this short I am working on for a colleague, I am editing DNxHR 444 4k footage. I'm currently, right now, playing back 2 streams of that in real time - not a single dropped frame. Could probably playback more without issue. Conceivably, you could build my setup from scratch for about $3,000 - which is about what you are going to pay for an older Mac Pro tower running older-gen Intel CPU's, and most likely ATI/AMD graphics. Not trying to put you off looking at Mac, but I'd also just as highly consider a PC-based system. For the price, the performance cannot be beat by any off-the-shelf Mac Pro. Many people will say 'choose a Mac - it just works', as if to assume a Windows-based computer does not 'just work'. Having used PC's for over 20 years now, I can say that I have never experienced the issues that most Mac-enthusiasts say PC's suffer from. The only real disadvantage in my mind is the lack of ability to export in ProRes on a PC (there are workarounds to this, but it's not pretty). But the reality of the matter is, no film was ever declined because it was not in ProRes format. You can just as easily export DNx format, and that can also be opened on Mac's. It's not as backward as it might seem on the surface. If you REALLY need to export ProRes, buy a cheap Mac book or something and export on that. Just some food for thought....

Or if you need a small form factor, the GH5 records 10-bit 4:2:2 internal.

Are you willing to consider anything other than Mac? With the new Ryzen Threadripper processors out, AMD is really putting Intel chips to the wringer, especially multi-tasking and video editing. With the new top-of-the-line RX Vega 64 GPU's coming out soon as well, an AMD hardware based Windows machine might well be a much better investment at this point. While Apple is nice for its plug and play ability, it also comes with issues like the inability to upgrade, and the increasing worse Apple support that now relied on replace rather than repair techniques. With a PC-based system, you can upgrade the system when needed, and repair parts as they break down. Oh, and the whole iOs vs Windows thing is long over - both OS's are perfectly comparable, safe, and reliable. I use a Windows based PC daily and have never so much as had a hard drive failure. But a core i5 is not going to work comparably to an i7 or even an AMD Ryzen 1800x chip. I believe i5 are 4 core max, where Ryzen is 8 core, and threadripper is 16 or 32 cores. The Radeon Pro 570 is okay, but it's a workstation class card - which sounds fine, until you realize that most workstation class cards are underpowered compared to their gaming counterparts - both AMD and nVidia do this.

I once AC'ed a small short film that was shot on a Arri 435. The reality is, you need more than 1 person to operate a film camera, especially a 35mm camera. These things are large, heavy, and fairly complex machines. Basically, it's like going to a tool rental store and telling them you want to rent a large crane. The first question they will ask you is: does the operator have experience with it? If not, why would they let a multi-million dollar piece of machinery out the door? Obviously, film camera's are very expensive pieces of fine machinery, and they require knowledge to operate. Unless you want to spend some time at a rental house getting to know these cameras, then your probably out of luck. In fact, I have a question: Will there be anyone on this set who has worked with film before? The important thing to keep in mind is that film is less forgiving than digital, since you can't see what your getting until it's already too late. Unless you know in advance how to properly expose film, etc, then you're setting yourself up for a nightmare. Why not shoot on a smaller format like 16/super 16? Not only are the camera's easier to get a hold of, but processing and stock is cheaper as well. It'll also give you a chance to practice with real film in a real film camera. And since 16mm is more of an indie format, more places are going to be willing to let out a camera to you. 35mm is basically the realm of large budget filmmakers working within the studio system, and is certainly not really a 'short film' format any longer. You'll know when you have the budget and staff to support a 35mm production: You'll have someone on set that knows how to actually operate the camera. Just my $0.02.

APS-C is 26.7 x 22.20, where Micro 4/3 is 21.6 x 17.3. So yes, the APS-C is slightly larger, but not by a large margin.

Focus becomes 'trickier' in several different cases. But yes, while resolution is not really a factor in keeping things in focus, a high-resolution image that is out of focus is much more noticeable than a lower resolution image that is out of focus. The size of the screen showing the image counts too... A high res image on a huge cinema screen will show more focus issues than will an SD source shown on a TV or monitor.

Why would you only want a DP who has theatrical releases? Television stuff (non-sitcom) is as stylish as anything seen on the big screen, and anymore the same techniques used in films are used in a majority of television shows. What I'm concerned about is your asking people to submit resumes without giving much information about the picture your shooting. Unless your a well known or connected filmmaker (I don't recognize your name), getting this picture off the ground is not going to be easy at all - and from the way you make it sound, it doesn't even sound like funding has been secured yet. Unless your hoping to get a name-DP attached who can help sell financing (probably the only one on here is David Mullen), then your best served to wait to hire the DP until your funding is in place. Last thing you want to do is string people along while you attempt to get funding, which will most likely never come. Before people submit resume's, it would also be best if we knew some information about you. What are your previous films you have directed? Do you have an IMDb profile?

I use to own a BMPCC, then owned a GH4 (process of selling), now own a GH5. My experience with the BMPCC was a little, ehh, lackluster. I mean, the image it could produce was fine (but not really any better than a GH4 with 10-bit 4:2:2 into an Atomos). For pixel-peepers there might well be a stop or two more dynamic range on the pocket than most DSLR-type cameras, but then you also have the tradeoff of being stuck in 1080p, which is not even a DCP format. If you make a film you want to take to a festival, your going to have to jinx the output to 2048 wide, or sidebox the 2048, which looks weird to me. The great thing about the GH5 is that it shoots 10-bit 4:2:2 in Cinema 4k format. Even if you don't need 4k, downsampling the 4k to 2k reduced artifacts and image noise by 4x, resulting in a clean, sharp 2k image which you can push higher in ISO since the noise is going to be reduced when shrinking the frame. Dynamic range is still an issue on the GH line of cameras, with my test of the GH5 with VLOG reaching 12 stops (only 1 stop less than the pocket). Some people don't like Panasonic colors, and think Blackmagic has a better color science; which is all up to personal opinion, and after post work probably amounts to nil. But the GH4 has a larger sensor, which means more ability to play with DOF. Plus, native M43 lenses are native, unlike with the pocket, where you have a crop factor for pretty much every type of lens except for a true Super16mm film lens (2-8x the cost of the camera). The pocket is a lot simpler than the GH line of cameras, having very few menu options - but it's not like you HAVE to use all the menu options on the GH5. Once the camera is set to C4k and VLOG profile, I don't need to really touch the menus at all. ISO and shutter speed are adjustable via button, and I have shortcut buttons active for most things like white balance set. Ultimately, its down to what you want out of your camera. Any of these cameras can produce perfectly fine quality images, and can mostly be matched in post. The reality of the matter is, a GH5 will not produce an image much different from an Arri Alexa. The real reason cameras like the Alexa are made is for the tough riggers of a film set, and a dedicated professional workflow. PS) The rack focus setting on the GH5 is amazing. If you are doing a steady shot with two actors you want to bring in and out of focus, you can nail perfect focus pulls every time. Other than that, the autofocus on the GH5 sucks, so it's pretty much manual focus only if you want quality results.

Having viewed both reels - it's good, but not great. A lot of blown-out shots. As Macks says, I'd try to explore some ND options for your camera.

3D, rather IMAX or RealD, sucks in my opinion. If your story is not good enough to draw people in, you need to rework the story.

Netflix is most certainly not the problem, nor is their model unsustainable. Never did really like Nolan, and I never got into any of his films. The few times I have read about him and/or saw interviews with him, he comes off as a snob who thinks the entire film community owes him a free license to do whatever he wants. The problem, as others have said, is with the theater experience itself. I use to love going to the theatre, back when they actually put out movies worth watching. Now, I find most of the good stuff is television-bound, or has got lost in between the Superman and Iron Man releases. Look, I understand that Hollywood wants to cater to the lowest common denominator, who seems to eat up these pointless blockbuster action movies with glee - but when I go to see a movie, I want a story. It wasn't that long ago, where they would sneak in a few gems between the action blockbusters - now all I see are these huge action and/or superhero films one after the other. The reason I don't go to the theater much any more is two-fold: First, the movie selection sucks - I have much better movie options at home, many I don't have to pay $15 for since they are a part of my subscriptions. Second, I have a 170" screen with 5.1 surround at home now, which provides enough of the experience of the cinema that I see no need to tread out across town, just to pay $15 to sit in a box with other people on their cell phones, fight for good seats, deal with uncomfortable auditoriums (either too much AC or not enough) - and I have to pay for the privilege. So, Nolan can continue on the theater rant, but the reality is - unless the experience improves a lot more than it is now, I don't see services like Netflix going anywhere, except maybe expanding. I respect his opinion, and I'm glad he can keep 'shooting for the 70mm platform' - but the reality is that mainstream 70mm platform is dead and will not be returning. It's a niche market he is shooting for. I quote him from the article: “The only platform I’m interested in talking about is theatrical exhibition,” he said. That is all fine and respectable, except for the fact that only caring about theatrical marks will not land you with any success, unless you happen to be Mr. Nolan, who for some reason keeps getting free reign to do whatever he wants. Theatre alone as not been the biggest money-maker in Hollywood for a long time, and in fact is mostly used to build up hype for the eventual home market release where the real money is. Meanwhile, while he refuses to work with Netflix, many other talented directors and producers ARE working with them, and producing top-notch material that beats pretty much anything Nolan could dream of. *Nolan rant over*

I have a friend who is a military historian, and I sent him the picture you posted. He does not believe them to be military, as he said they would have some sort of acknowledgement of that on the magazines themselves - either a stamp for the appropriate branch, or as JD said, a number for identification.

I mean, I'm not arguing that film doesn't look good - or maybe even better than digital. What I am arguing though is that digital films are the new norm, and you don't see the general public, in their reviews, complaining that the Arri Alexa footage looks more 'washed out' than it would have if shot on film. They just don't care, as long as the story is good they can hear and see it ... As far as economics is concerned, this one has puzzled me a bit actually. I can see a low budget filmmaker opting for digital - easier on set, less post production cost, etc. What I cannot see, though, is why studios believe they are 'saving money' on large films by shooting digital over film. I mean, lets look at the reality - the camera and stock budgets on a blockbuster film make up such a small portion of the budget as to not even be worth mentioning, and the cost to scan to DI is also pretty marginal. Honestly, I think from a producer-prospective, film as seen as more expensive because in theory it can be. Yes, filmmakers can control cost by reducing their shooting ratio, or opting for optical rather than a DI workflow (is that even done any more?). BUT, with digital, it relieves the production of these potential burdens. Hard drives are cheap and reusable every day, and the 'film' is already in a digital format. But the real reason why a lot of digital is being shot nowadays is because a lot of younger filmmakers (like myself) where raised on digital and not film, we shoot what we know.

The reality of the situation is: most films are made for the consumers, not for pixel-peepers. Film is still shot on occasions like this because the filmmakers like shooting on film, and they have the power to dictate it. The reality is, after digital intermediates, compression, and DCP - I would challenge the average consumers to tell me which of two identical shots was film vs digital. 98% will not be able to effectively guess short of just a lucky guess at the correct one. Film is nice looking, and I'm not trying to throw a wrench in that arena, but the reality is film is nice looking to other filmmakers - the public, in general, could care less. Because digital is more efficient than film, and in a heavy-vfx film more cost-economical, of course the studios are going to opt for that route.

I shoot with a Panasonic GH5, and most stuff is shot in V-log external to 10-bit 4:2:2 on the Atomos. I still have a light meter, but I rarely use it. The Atomos has great built in scopes, zebra patterns, etc - that really make it much easier to get proper exposure from. Most higher-end cameras have these scopes and patterns built in as well. Plus it helps you can actually see what is being recorded. My fear with relying only on a light meter is that I'm gonna 'eff something up, and it can't be recovered in post. As others have said, film is a lot more forgiving (I have only ever shot still film, but its the same difference - I still use a light meter for stills). When you are exposing video - especially some flat profiles like unprocessed or vlog/slog/, you're really running with a fine margin of error on exposure - even more so if your shooting to a 4:2:0 and/or 8-bit format, where noise, artifacts, and banding will come into play. Recently, I have been shooting some promos for a personal film project using a lot of green screen - and I find that the camera and/or recorder based exposure scopes and zebra's are a lifesaver in this area - makes sure your green screen does not have any dark zones that will interfere with keying. If you have the experience with a light meter, and you are happy using it, and you are getting good results from it - there is little reason to switch your work flow. I only caution to make sure your playback looks good on tricky shots. That is one of the great advantages of shooting on video formats - you get instant gratification of seeing what your final output will be. It kind of defeats that advantage to ignore that in my opinion.

Wait, so Resolve allows you to work in DCI P3 but display in Rec 709 with a LUT? Is that option in the output card settings? I use the monitor card delivering 10-bit HDMI to a Rec709 Calibrated projector.

I mean you can skimp on the color-calibration, and if your project is mainly web-based it's probably fine to grade on a standard computer monitor - just keep in mind that you might not be seeing accurate colors. When this means is that what you see, and what others see might not be the same. As long as you're willing to work within this constraint, then go for it. You don't need a setup like mine, but if you're planning to do color work at all, it's best to invest in a monitor capable of at least '99% sRGB', and then buy a $150 probe to get it as close to sRGB as possible. Once you have it as close as possible, you can deliver the project in pretty much any color format by utilizing LUTS. A LUT is simply a look-up table of colors. For example, playing a Rec 709 file on a DCP will look like crap - the colors will be slightly off and contrast will suffer. Basically, its goal is simply to keep the image looking the same in different color spaces. If you're planning to try and sell this, or enter it into film festivals and such, then a calibrated grade WILL make a difference. It's just up to you to determine how important that is.

I do post color work, so I'll chime in here: First, Rec/BT 709 and sRGB are practically the same thing. There is no visual difference between them. Second, you should only grade a film on a monitor/projector that is not only RATED as capable of 100% of Rec/BT709 and/or sRGB, but you also need to get that display calibrated to ensure its actually displaying that. You can use probes for this, which run several hundred dollars. Third, there is not really any monitor out of the box (especially consumer TV's and displays) that I would say are 100%REC/sRGB compliant without being calibrated. Just because the box says '99or 100% sRGB" does not mean you'll get that out of the box. Fourth, No need for two separate grades. As long as your first grade is done on a properly calibrated monitor in rec709 or sRGB, you can deliver the project in that format for home video and streaming. If you're doing a DCP for cinemas, you'll need to do a LUT conversion from Rec709 to P3 color space.

One thing to note: If your using HTML5-specific tags, the only way to guarantee they work is to ensure your webpage has the correct HTML doctype for HTML 5, otherwise the HTML features you implement on your website might not work even on an HTML5 browser. I have never heard of the <video> tag other than on some forums, so I can't speak to that tag directly. I can say however that the correct method would be to implement a real HTML5 back-end player, and ensuring your page doctypes are correct for the version of HTML you're using.

Just a side note: There is not a universal code for embedding MP4 videos into a website. MP4 videos still require a player of some sort to play. When you upload to Youtube and embed into your site, you are not just embedding the video - you're embedding Youtube's HTML5 video player, which happens to also play MP4 files. If you're not willing to use Youtube and/or Vimeo and embed the player, you'll need your own video player to host on your site. You can make these (overkill) or you can buy an HTML5 player from a marketplace. The problem with this method is that it's more complicated to setup, in that you need to upload files to your web server, and configure the player itself. So much simpler to just embed a Youtube or Vimeo player. In all honesty, I'd say 99% of websites do this now anyway; the only sites that should be focusing on their own players are those who host a large multitude of videos that require features not available in an embeded player like Vimeo or Youtube.

I do web design, so I can probably be of some assistance here. The <video> tag is not the best option here. The easiest method as others have said is to upload the video to Youtube and/or Vimeo, and use the embed code in your website. The only two others options are to use Flash (which is no longer supported as a web-based technology), or buy/program your own media player back-end (which is overkill).

Youtube's editing tools are Windows Movie Maker-lite quality. Only the most basic of transitions, cuts, and title creation are available. Fine for a home movie maybe, but not something you'd want to use for creative content. Given the number of FREE software available for editing - many of which offer super-professional tools like Hitfilm Express, there is little reason to wait and use Youtube's editor.

I only ever had one 'virus', which was actually an adware program. That was about 12 years ago. All my PC's are connected to the internet, and none of them run any antivirus software either. Frankly, I think this whole 'Windows virus problem' is a joke. Yeah, if you go opening spam emails and/or visiting obscure porn sites you are likely to install a virus (or more likely, adware or hijackware), but the solution to that is not to get a 'dumb-proof' computer, but to stop being dumb in the first place. And the only reason Mac has less viruses than Windows is because there are less Mac's out there, and as such it makes less sense to write a virus for the platform. Same with Linux. It's not because Mac has some magic-code that prevents viruses. I've said it before on other sites, and I'll say it here: Mac is for people who like 'plug-n-play-n-forget-it' computing. They don't want to deal with any technical jargon. They just want to turn it on and it work for them. Mac is great at that, but it's also a limiting factor in that it prevents a lot of the customization available to those who WANT to tinker with their computers to get more power from them. Not really criticizing Mac's here at all. They are fine computers and will work just as well as any Windows machine in pretty much any circumstance, what I'm criticizing is the stance that Mac is the only professional option out there - and that Windows PC's are a bloatware, virus-ridden joke. It's simply not true, and spouts a lot of the old "mac v. windows' debates that might have had some substance back 3 or 4 OS generations ago. PS) Why rewrite a perfectly functioning program to 64-bit if it works fine in 32-bit? Small kernal files don't require access to more than 4GB or ram, so it's redundant to do extra work for that. Trust me, if the performance increase was that great - Microsoft would have made Windows 100% 64-bit. Another problem with Windows is that making some things 64-bit would screw with older software titles. Mac has the luxury that pretty much anything released (software-wise) has to follow strict guidelines and be QA'ed before release. Windows and Linux are more open alternatives, which means the OS needs to try and keep a neutral ground. That is why most new Mac programs only work on the latest version of the OS, which is annoying. Look, I'm not saying Mac's aren't fine computers. If you like Mac's and they work for you - get one. However, you can do perfectly professional work on a PC Windows or Linux platform without any of these so-called 'issues' - professionals do it every day. Contrary to popular belief, Mac does not hold a 100% market share in professional media. If there is one professional out there using Windows-based PC's without any issues - you can too.

MFX-wrapped DNxHD/HR files on a PC are not 32-bit limited. The only 32-bit limitation that applies on the PC is the Quicktime server, which Apple in all it's greatness has limited to 32-bits on the PC. MFX does not use Quicktime, and as such does not suffer from the limitation. The only limitation is in PC programs that don't nativly support MFX-wrapped DNx files, which means you'll need to use the .MOV wrapped files which ARE 32-bit limited do to the Quicktime server. So basically, DNx being 32 or 64 bit is determined by the program, not Windows itself. Can't speak for ProRes on the PC - since I don't use ProRes.