Landon D. Parks

Do you have previous experience with composition? Green screen work is hard to pull off effectively unless you have practice with proper compositing techniques. Trying to explain it through text is rather hard, and how you need to approach the scene would depend on the setup of the scene itself. What software are you using? The BEST software for compositing on a budget is Blackmagic's Fusion, which is free - and very powerful. Based on your description: If the prop inside is meant to be a screen that displays something, you might not even need to greenscreen it. The correct way I'd handle it is to corner pin the 'replacement' over the green, tracking it through a program like Mocha. In fact, I probably wouldn't use green - I'd use matte black with 4 tracking markers in each corner. But yes, you certainly can treat multiple green screens differently in the same scene - mostly through separate masks.

A LUT is simply a means of color grading or correction, it will not help much with the original exposure. It sounds as if the background is over-exposed compared to the front lighting. The reality is, unless you can find a way to either dim the back light, or add more front lighting, it's not going to look correct. Camera's don't have anywhere near a humans level of exposure control - so what looks good or acceptable to us is probably not good enough for the camera. IF you can do a session where you are recording them without an audience, you need to adjust the back-lighting or bounce more light to the foreground.

With me, it's probably because I have never used smaller monitors. I started with a 7" Atomos recorder/monitor and have used them every since. When I went SmallHD, the 7" seemed like the go-to to me. For some reason, 5" monitors just seem tiny to me - they are only about an inch larger than the LCD screens on the back of the DSLR. While you can get framing on those, getting good focus is hard. Then again, I am always camera oping and pulling focus and directing at the same time, so the bigger monitor helps me to keep framing, focus peaking, actor marks, etc. all in one go. If I was just oping/trying to get framing, I could probably work with a 5". But to me, the 7" is usually not more expensive than a 5" monitor. The bigger monitor allows me to pull myself away from the camera body, so I can still focus on the actors and not just the camera.

Tiffin makes a plugin suite called DFX that can replicate nearly all the tiffin filters in post. I use it a lot for stylistic filters like diffusion, promist, etc.Of course, while I think it has ND filter and polarizer options, you need to use real ND's and polar filters on set.

I agree with this. I have actually already sold the pocket and am going to be purchasing two micro cameras. The 60p is important to me, and the form-factor works better. I can see some people missing the screen, but that is really the only down-side; and it's not really a down-side. You get longer battery run-time without the screen, and I NEVER work with a camera when it doesn't have a 7" monitor attached anyway. I have settled on 2 micros, 2 Metabones .58 speedboosters, and 2 SmallHD 701 monitors. I already have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8, and am going to buy another one - and dedicate those to the cameras. In cases where super low-light, or fine control of the focus is needed, I can throw my CineDS lens set on there. Also going to purchase a couple of JTZ-based rig (matte box and follow focus), and a smallrig bmmcc cage. I use a full JTZ rig on my GH4, and I have never been so impressed with camera support.

Bottom line is that there is no way record players outsold TV's - so the statement cannot be true. It may well be that record players were the number-one seller on Amazon in the home audio field for the Christmas season, but that is a pretty narrow category anyway. What do they define as home audio equipment? Surround sounds and stereo receivers, and record players? If so, I can see it. I can't imagine what else would fall into 'home audio' category. 'home electronics' is a much broader category that covers everything from TV's and PS4's to Amazon Echo's and bedside alarm clocks. Reminds me of the time my book hit #1 on Amazon's best-selling book chart for the middle-grade fantasy category... No way I would have construed that to mean my book was the top selling book of the year, period. It was #1 for about 2 weeks and then fell, and then only #1 is a sub-category of books, not books in general.

The follow focus I use, the JTZ, includes multiple sized gears for just this purpose --- to adjust the lens throw. Despite using Cine DS lenses, I almost always find myself using the largest gear to get a shorter throw. They just pop on and off the drive wheel on the FF.

Have you told Resolve to use the Shuttle? When I installed my internal mini-monitor, I think I had to go into the preferences and check a box.

Lets remember that the current most favored camera in Hollywood right now, the Alexa, is not 4K. Resolution is not the be-all-end-all (unless your making a Netflix Original series -- don't ask). So many other things, like dynamic range, color reproduction, sensor noise, and color science are all more important. I mean, feel free to get a GH5s if you like. The GH5 is a fine camera, so is the GH4 (I still use mine). I bought a GH5 when it first came out, then sold it after I realized it really didn't do anything my GH4 + my Atomos didn't already do. The 5s should be a nice upgrade, just keep in mind that it lacks some of the key features that even the GH5 has - like intra-frame recording and image stabilization. It's also using a new sensor, so only time will tell how well it produces cinematic looking images. So far, I've only seen a few test shots from it - and to be honest, none of them struck me as looking even as good as the base GH5. I recently made the move to the Blackmagic Pocket cameras well... Buying 2 of them. I'll still be keeping my GH4 with the vlog and atomos recorder, but the more I shoot with the Blackmagic, the more I love it over the DSLR format. The GH5s is still going to be recording no more than 11-stops DR, to a highly compressed i-frame codec that is not yet standard... So you'll need to transcode in post. Even once the codec is ready to go in post, i-frame codecs are CPU-resource hogs and will chug along - trying to reconstruct the inter-frames - so you're probably still going to need to transcode to something like DNx or ProRes. PERSONALLY, If I were you - I'd go with a GH4 with an Atomos Recorder. It does pretty much everything the GH5 does, only you get the advantage of ProRes and DNx Codecs, and an amazing monitor with all kinds of helpful scopes. And it'll cost you a lot less money. Not to pitch here: But I have a B-Cam GH4 vlog w/ Ninja Flame I'll sell ya if you decide to go that route. It's in great shape.

Pulling focus is basically as easy or hard as you want to do it. If you want a lot of shallow DOF shots in your movie, you're going to have to make sure your getting the focus marks 100% spot on, or it'll look like crap. I currently run a GH4 w/ Speedbooster which brings the FOV to basically that of Super35 film, and I always pull my own focus. Pulling focus yourself will be easier if: a ] You attach a large 7" HD monitor to the rig that has focus peaking. b ] You have a follow focus that allows you to move to marker toward the back of the camera, so you can actually see the marks. Of course, its going to be harder for you, since you have to pay attention to not only the framing and the focus peaking, but also your marks on the follow focus. Hard A/B stops are really desired here. Large format films, large sensors, and/or fast lenses will make pulling your own focus harder. However, with a standard Super35 format, it shouldn't be too hard - considering you have the right tools and understanding.

No, I mean finding them in general. IF you can find one, most are probably in good shape. As for what could be wrong with a used camera - any number of things could be wrong with it, at least in theory - it is a piece of electronic equipment.

From an owner of the GH4, at one time I'd have told you yes... However, the GH5s is pushing $2,500, which is a lot for no more than it really offers, and is starting to get into the territory of where you can purchase REAL, entry-level cinema-grade cameras like the URSA 4K. Honestly, I'm probably done with the Panasonic line of cameras after the GH4 is either sold or retired. While they make great cameras, they also have a lot of issues that hold them back from being really great. Unless you NEED 4K, I'd strongly suggest looking at getting a used BMCC or such. It's still a workhorse, and with a few accessories can be made into a true cinema-grade camera.

The only demand is that created by the TV manufacturers and their hype departments. If you stick the average person in front of a 1080 vs UHD TV, and they are standing a typical distance back, the visual difference is just not there. However, if you tell them which one is the UHD TV, they will think it looks better. It's all down to marketing.

Problem is, finding a good used BMCC. Too bad they stopped making them.

Also, Stefano, if you need slow motion, you can look into the Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera. Same price as the pocket, but has 60fps and the same sensor. It doesn't have a built-on screen though, so you'll need an external monitor. Other than that though, the micro is actually built a lot better than the pocket it. Easier access the SD card, easier access to the larger batteries, full-sized HDMI port, etc.

I just wanted to add: The reason the low-light performance of the pocket is not as bad as one might fear, comes down to pixel count vs sensor size. In this example, I'm going to use the new GH5s as a comparison point, since its the new 'light light' king on the block in the under FF category. The BMPCC sensor is 87 square mm in size, in which they pack 2,000,000 pixels. The GH5s is standard micro 4/3, at 225 square mm in size, but in which they pack 10,000,000 pixels. This means the GH5s packs 44,000 pixels into each square mm of space, where the pocket packs 22,000 pixels into each square mm. This means that at ISO 1600, the pocket should actually give you double the low-light results as the GH5s at the same ISO. Now of course the pocket only goes to 1600, and the GH5s can go way higher, but what that also means is that the pocket should, in theory, have the same low-light performance at 1600 ISO as the GH5s has a 3,200 ISO. And the GH5s appears to my eyes to start to break down above 3,200 ISO anyway. Whats the take away here? The low light performance of the pocket is not bad at all. The above is a very clinical version of course, and assumes the same lenses, same internal processing, etc., which isn't always the case. However, it's apparent that on shear pixel density alone, the BMPCC at least holds its own against the GH5s. PS) What the hell, we'll through a full-frame comparison in here too: Lets just take a generic FF sensor at 860 square mm, and take - say - the A7Riii, which has 42,000,000 active pixels. This means that the density of the A7Riii is 48,000 pixels per square mm., or more than double the density of the pocket camera. So, from a pure pixel-density test alone, the pocket wins. Of course, there is more too it than that, but pixel density is a major player in the field of low-light, and the pocket actually wins against the full frame cameras in this area. Combine this with the potential RAW recording of the pocket for even more detail, it looks good to me. PSS) This also doesn't take into account less light actually hitting the smaller sensor, which is also where some of the low light performance comes from... However, the Speedbooster and low f-stop lenses help to combat this somewhat. Of course, that also means that pixel count and density alone is not enough to give bad low light, and is probably why even with the higher pixel density, full-frame still has better low light results.

Actually, I own two speedboosters: The Metabones Nikon G/F to m4/3 XL and the Viltrox NF-M43 0.71x. The Viltrox I picked up for less than $100 from Amazon a little while back, because I heard good things about it. My Metabones is currently screwed into the support cage on my GH4, which makes it a pain to take it apart, so I stuck the Viltrox on the pocket. The reality is, I shot several color and resolution test charts with both the Viltrox and the Metabones on the GH4 with a 24mm Cine DS lens, and my results showed that neither adapter showed any difference in color, moire, or any image warping effect. Resolution wise, the Viltrox was actually sharper than the Metabones in in all but the very outside corners of the image, whereas the Metabones maintained the same sharpness throughout, but was overall slightly softer. However, the Viltrox was sharper across the entire image on the GH4 in 4K video mode (smaller sensor area than m4/3), and as such I knew that the pocket would use even less of the adapters image area, would also be super-sharp. In all honesty, if given the choice again, I'd purchase a Viltrox over the Metabones. Roughly the same build quality, and since both are dumb adapters, they don't really have a lot of moving parts or electronics to screw up (other than the iris-engage ring, which is identical in looks and build in both units). The glass in both is superb, as mentioned from my tests above. Now, I might well decide to fork out the money for the Metabones Nikon GF to BMPCC speedbooster, since it does have a 0.58 factor, which means even wider and faster lenses, but that also means I'd have to shell out an additional $1,000 for them. From my tests, I don't really think its needed. The 16mm CineDS lens at f1.4 is plenty wide, and gives me probably f/0.95 or even less. Don't know if the 0.58 is really worth it at 4x the cost of the Viltrox. I can't speak for the performance of the Canon EF versions of the Viltrox, which are auto focus and electronic Iris control... Those might well be slower than the equiv. Metabones. I only have F-mount lenses, so only use the dumb F-mount adapter. Low-light performance is certainly one area to look at, and its one area I tested the BMPCC at, since the series I'm shooting will have a lot of nighttime woods/campfire scenes and such, I wanted to put through its paces... It's not a bad performer in low light. At all. While the sensor is smaller, it also has a lot less pixels than some DSLR's, meaning that the low light performance is not affected as much as one might think. Also combined with a speedbooster, you can easily get your lenses down to f1 or even less (The 24mm f1.4 DS I have becomes an f/.95, for example), which combined with the ISO 1600 of the camera, is perfectly usable in low light. Even with cameras that are capable of going above 1600 ISO, it's never usually a good idea to do it. Unless there is some extreme reason why you can't bring in some light to scene to keep it at 1600 or less, you really should. Even in the best 'low light monsters', the higher the ISO, the more artifacts and digital grain you introduce. I don't personally have any test footage uploaded yet. I might do that a little later if I have the time, but all you need to do is go to even YouTube and type in 'BMPCC Low Light', and you'll see that when combined with a speedbooster and an already fast lens, ISO 1600 is plenty. It's not going to shoot anything in the pitch dark, but then again no camera is going to perform well under those circumstances. PS) I'd venture to say that the Pocket has better low light performance, when combined with the Viltrox and a fast lens, than even my GH4 with the same lens and adapter. I guess because while the GH4 sensor is bigger, it also has about 10x as many pixels, this negating the sensor size gain in terms of low light performance.

So, I bit the bullet two weeks ago and purchased a used BMPCC from Amazon. My last experience with the camera was not great, but this time I approached it with a different hat. Right off the bat, I purchased the SmallRig NPF battery plate for the BMPCC, which when combined with a large NPF battery, gives about 3.5 hours of record time. So, I got the package last week, unboxed it all, and played around a bit. I mounted my SmallHD 7” monitor to it, stuck the cheap knock-off speedbooster on the front, and topped it off with my Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. I then took it out and shot some test stuff. Video Quality As usual, it’s Blackmagic, and the image is very cinematic looking with great DR. Truth be told, it looks a lot better straight from the camera and with a basic grade than my GH4 vlog footage looks even after trying to tinker with it a bit. After all is said and done, the GH4 footage can look just as good - I'm just impressed with how quickly the pocket gave me the look. 5/5 Recording and battery time This one was my chief complaint last time. However, with the $20 SmallHD NPF plate, I did indeed get about 3 hours of record time to a single, cheap NPF battery. That is on-par with my GH4 - so that is win. 5/5 Audio Nothing to write home about here, it basically does not exist. So, I hooked my DR-60D up to my AT shotgun mic, and ran a reference cable out to the Blackmagic. Works fine for syncing sound in post. 3/5 Crop Factor This was the one that scared me most. I like to be able to get wide angles when I want them. Even with the .71 speedbooster and the 17mm APS-C lens, the field of view was still very tight. However, at 17mm, and my actors 9 feet away, I was able to get a pretty good wide-angle shot. Still nothing like what my GH4 with the .64 speed booster can do - not even close - but it works. 3/5 Bottom Line My opinion? Approaching it with fresh eyes, and with some new support equipment (battery plate and speed booster), I can say I’m very pleased. The footage plays well with Resolve (it should, after all), and the look is spot-on. I liked it so much, that I’m actually purchasing another one, and a couple of JTZ support cages and such so that I can have a couple of pockets for the series I’m shooting this summer for Amazon. I was going to use my GH4 for that, but after my experience, and the delivery medium, I changed my mind. So, does this mean I’m now a Blackmagic fan? Time will tell. But I’m pretty impressed this time around. 4/5.

Far be it from me to reign judgement upon Avid. I mean, I told you what my experience with it was, and that is basically it. I never got far enough that I felt like delving into the meat of the system. If you can get it to work, it might well be the god of all editing systems. However, I have never met anything that Premiere couldn't do, or even that Resolve can't do - in terms of editing. Then again, I'm not a fan of fancy editing - I prefer simple cuts and fades, and the razer tool combined with a fade slider works fine for me - in pretty much every program I have ever used. I see no reason for tools beyond those in editing. If you are doing things like compositing, color correcting, etc., those should be done in programs designed for that. I can't give any real hate to Adobe at all. Their programs have all ran like butter on my computers, and I have never met a job I needed that one of their tools couldn't do... I mostly have switched to Resolve and Fusion now, mainly since Fusion now integrates back and forth with Resolve, and Fusion is a lot more powerful than After Effects. I still find myself using after effects a lot though - the vast plugin collection I have for it does pretty much anything I could ever want. Boris suite, sapphire suite, Film Convert, all the Red Giant products, Hit Film Ignite... Probably close to $5,000 in total plugins. In terms of 'cheap', Adobe is not 'cheap'. It's the same price as Avid, you just get more for your money. I'm not saying Avid is not good software, I'm just saying that other programs have caught up with them in pretty much every area. Unless you're doing something special, I see no need for Avid. PS) I finally gave up Avid ProTools as well, never enjoyed working with it.

Usually, high ISO's are not chosen when shooting a film. Of course, this is starting to change now that more people shooting films have access to the high ISO settings. Higher ISO settings are more handy for run-and-gun and gorilla-style setups, documentaries, or ENG.

Avid has become a joke. While the software might have its merits, I would caution people away from it based on my experience. The first issue is the cost: The free version does absolutely nothing, so why they even bothered is beyond me. The only paid options are $50 a month, or $1,500 for a perpetual license. Neither one is chump change, and the monthly fee is the same as the ENTIRE Adobe CC suite. However, lets say you pay them for the software, now comes the problem I faced. I have a very powerful computer, beyond what most film editors would have, and it wreaked havoc all across my system. The installer installed no less than 9 separate programs on my computer, 3 of those were 'iLok' server programs that caused major driver compatibility issues with my wireless adapter. The iLok server kept sending so many quick burst of data through my internet connection that it caused the adapter to reset itself every time. Uninstalling that, problem gone. Of course so is access to the program. Upon launching the interface, I was greeted with something that looked along the lines of a love-child between Sony Vegas and early Premiere Pro builds. Needless to say the interface was outdated. But the real issue was performance. Loading in a 2K DNxHR clip resulted in choppy playback with no effects, that both Premiere and Resolve could play back in real time. It's not my computers fault, as every other program I use can play back the same file in real time. I uninstalled the entire thing, and canceled the subscription, and just ate the $80 I paid to try it for a month. Running it was WAY more trouble than it was worth. Avid also has the problem that it is bad at multi-tasking. It's basically nothing more than an editor - and for that, it's way overpriced. Resolve gives you an entire post-production suite, so does Adobe - all for the same price or less. Personally, if you only want an editor, use something like Lightworks. The only place I can ever see Avid being a good idea is if your primary job is editing work for other people, and you need all the associated features for that, like the ability to interchange with other avid editors. If you edit your own stuff, save yourself the hassle and try other options first. Or don't. Just don't say you weren't warned.

Personally, the free version of resolve is perfectly fine, and does pretty much what the paid version does. I use the paid version because I want to have the few extra features that come with it, but all the core editing, color, audio, and export features are in the free edition. With 14.2, Resolve's editing capabilities are now at the point where I can keep an entire project inside Resolve, from edit through delivery. There still might be some issues if you're working with an editing team, though the studio version includes networking-related tools for that reason if you need them. I also no longer need to do much work in ProTools or Audition, and keep most everything in Fairlight, Resolves built-in audio suite. Resolve really is a great software, and in my opinion, between Resolve and Fusion does pretty much everything Media Encoder, Premiere, After Effects, and Audition could do. I still subscribe to CC suite because I need Photoshop and InDesign for my book publishing, but for media-work, I don't really touch Adobe much anymore - unless a project is given to me in that format to do something with.

The JVC line of cameras are an interesting study. I've not seen anything from them that screams amazing, or out of the ordinary. Personally though, those cameras are just more noise in a sea of better options. If you're looking to spend roughly $3,000, one of the entry level URSA cameras is likely a better option for controlled environments - since you actually get the ability to record RAW and 10-bit ProRes without an external recorder, and you get Blackmagics cinematic-looking images compared to the rather 'video' looking JVC images. I have never worked with JVC cameras before though, so I can't say for sure.

You can pick up a used BMPCC for less than $800 off of Amazon right now - $700 to be exact. Honestly, I'd probably swing for this before a GH5s upgrade, but just note that the Pocket will not give you any kind of good low-light performance at all - it's simply not designed for that kind of work. If you're going with the pocket, and have a little extra money, I'd go for a .58x speedbooster and a few Rokinon lenses, that way you can get a wider FOV and get your F stop down to around f.95 or so, which will help offset the camera. A speedbooster and a 3-lens Rokinon set, combined with a used Pocket and a cheap 7" monitor will still be less than the cost of a GH5s, even a GH5 - and the image quality should certainly be on par or better. The longer I go, the more I'm considering giving up on the Panasonic brand (I use a GH4 vlog with Atomos right now), and really all DSLR-style cameras. Right now, I'm saving up to make a purchase of an URSA Mini Pro, and I'm actually looking forward to it.

Those super-8 samples look fine on the small windows they shop up as here. However, I copied the link to vimeo and opened them on my 1080p 140" projector screen. Talk about fuzzyness and grain, not to mention the apparent jitter in the image from the less-than-24p frame rate. You can scan Super 8 at 4K, but that does not mean it's going to create detail that isn't there. Trying to get 4K detail from a super-8 sized scan is pushing it a bit. Hell, you might be able to pull 4K detail from a 35mm scan, but that is about it. Super8? No. Even on my 29" Ultrawide TRUE 4K monitor, it looked worse than it did on the projector at 1080p. I'm not saying don't go with Super8, I'm just saying be careful using that a lot. It has it's own unique look, even from other film formats; due to its lower frame rate, larger grain, etc. The Super8 look can work, but its not appropriate for all situations, and certainly not for anything you plan to put on a large screen. There is a reason it has never really been used for professional work*... * - and I don't mean it never has, I just mean its not done commonly.