Landon D. Parks

$1,000 is going to be tough to do. Even when I first started, I invested close to $3,000. If you have to stick to that budget, you're probably going to have to look at the mid-range DSLR's, something like an A6300 with an included kit lens. It's not going to be pretty, but it'll certainly work. Documentaries, and even features, have been shot with far less.

My main Windows editing machine has been running, non-stop, for over 3 weeks now (Background rendering CG). In fact, I NEVER turn off my computers - and only so so when installing an update or some such that requires a restart. It still works fine, and hasn't blown up or slowed down. There are certainly some features of Mac that are very 'cool looking', like the previews things - but most people don't need that workflow, and you only use it because you're use to using it and don't want to switch. I'd also avoid buying the Mac Pro (the one in the shiny, round, consumerist looking case) --- Last time I priced one, to get one on par with my current AMD setup would require close to $8,000. My entire setup cost $2,000, and still has more raw power than whats even possible to pre-configure in the new Macs. It's no doubt that Macs do have some neat features that Windows does not have, but to me, those features are not worth the highly inflated price difference. Resolve and Premiere allow me to 'preview' clips in a bin by hovering over them too. Yes, I have to have one of the programs up, but I'm not sure what good or purpose I would need to preview a bunch of clips outside of an editing environment... Just me though.

Camera controls don't have to be hard to understand. First, you need to find and download a manual for the camera - before you rent it. Study what modes the camera has, and the button assignments. Make sure you know what the buttons do. Most manuals have a diagram of the buttons and thing - so study that and know where the buttons are. Get the camera at least 1 day before you plan to shot with it... Spend that day getting it all put together, and then shoot some tests with it. Use this time to get use to changing menu settings and things, since the last thing you want to do is show up on set and have to fiddle with a menu for 15 minutes fiddling a setting, or having to pull out the manual. Have you operated a camera before? Do you know what controls such as ISO, Iris, ND's, Zebras, etc do? Knowing what these do, and how to use them, is vital before you arrive on set. As far as operating the camera, it's not that hard. I operate and pull focus on my own rig all the time. Just make sure you have a follow focus that allows you to re-position the indicator mark toward you - and preferable one that has A/B stops.

Your best option for the Atomos right now is to buy the Shogun Inferno. It takes SDI and HDMI inputs. It also has an loop-through. Another great advatntage to the Atomos recorders is that you're also getting an amazing 7", full-HD monitor that all kinds of scopes and things that helps you out on set. You could also look into Blackmagics own 7" Video Assist, which is basically the same thing as the Shogun Inferno, only about $400 less. Have no experience with it though, but it might play better with the Mini 4k. Of course, it still shoots on tiny SD cards, which would be a killer for me.

Hasn't the Atomos-line of external recorders always been an option for an SSD recorder on the 4K/Mini Pro? Just take the BNC out from the camera.

I still don't understand the aversion to Windows... It's a perfectly stable OS. I think most of it comes from people who don't actually use Windows PC's, or from those that have a deep-seated bias against them in general. From someone who has dealt with PC's his entire life, I have never, ever experienced a hiccup that I would attribute to the OS or the hardware. The fact that you have such a strong aversion to it, tells me you fall into the ladder category. I never understood the whole 'fan boy' mindset. While I use a PC, I'd certainly not actively discourage someone from using a Mac if they wanted to. Most PC users are like me. Most Mac users are so anti-Windows its almost scary. I try to tell people the real deal here, that PC's are designed with expand-ability in mind, and that cost-per-performance is vastly better on the PC system. My Threadripper CPU eat most any Intel-CPU for dinner, and it cost less than 20% of what a close equivalent Intel Xeon runs. Mac's are fine if your looking for plug-and-play, but other than that, there is no reason a Windows-based PC should be out of the norm. They work fine, have no issues, etc. that require someone to be a genius to fix, etc. Plus, when the next CPU or graphics card comes out, I can actually update without paying $10,000 for a brand new computer case. That doesn't mean I'm averse to Mac's though - if you like them, use them. They work fine for what they are - just know you're going to pay a premium for the Apple experience, whatever that is. In fact, I'm glad I recently made a switch away from Intel hardware as well - that new bug that is going around allows full access to Intel-based PC's, including Macs. The fix that is released reduces Intel processor performance by an average of 30%. Intel is taking a real beating right now for it - and it affects all Intel processors all the way back many generations. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the Intel booth at the next trade show.

DNxHR is best if you're editing on a PC, ProRes if you're editing on a Mac. Also, if you are using Avid, you should use DNx period, since its Avid's native codec. DNxHR and ProRes have the exact same bit rate and compression, though I think ProRes might be 200mbps, where DNx is 220mbps. How much space you'll need depends on your project. Just keep in mind that 1 hour of DNx or ProRes will run you about 100GB. If you're storing 10 hours of raw footage on your computer, you will need at least 1TB of storage, in addition to your OS and programs - and space for an export too. From a storage stand-point, DNx and ProRes are the same file size - so it doesn't matter. And no, DNxHR is not 8-bit. There is is an 8-bit option for DNxHR, but the Atomos recorders do not offer it - they only do 10-bit. DNxHR is actually available anywhere from 8-bit to 12-bit. You'll only find the 8-bit and 12-bit options as export options in programs. The reason I suggest DNxHR over ProRes for PC's is because, like I mentioned earlier, PC's are limited to 32-bits with ProRes playback, and there is no native/easy way to render to ProRes on a PC. Apple has done all they can to keep ProRes off the PC systems - or at least cripple it where they couldn't keep it away entirely. Take it from someone who has dealt with both types in the past, DNx plays back a heck of a lot smoother on a PC than ProRes does, especially when you're dealing with large UHD/4K files.

The GH4 has an optical low pass filter, and is $1,000 new right now. GH5 doesn't though. That is one of the reasons I sent the GH5 back - the sharpness compared to the GH4 was outlandish.

Fusion has been cross-platform since version 8, shortly after BMD took over the software, actually. It was one of the first things Blackmagic did to the software. A am currently working with 5 different VFX artists in the US, Canada, and even Poland - we all use different systems, including Windows, Mac, and the guy in Poland uses a build of Linux. Works fine in all three. Even if you're not focused on heavy VFX work, Fusion is still much better at compositing than Resolve is. I'd suggest downloading it and checking it out - its worth the $300 as well - given it basically does most of what Nuke does. Includes planar and 3d point trackers (in paid version), full particle systems, full 3D render environment... It also allows you to send comps from Resolve directly into Fusion, and then back out to Resolve again for rendering. It's like the Premiere/AE pipeline, only a lot more streamlined. In fact, this little bit of info might pertain to you, since you use Avid too: Fusion Connect lets DaVinci Resolve and Avid Media Composer editors take advantage of Fusion’s massive visual effects and motion graphics toolset, right from their timelines! If you haven't done so in a while, I'd suggest checking out https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/fusion/, its a very powerful program. I have been using Resolve since 11 as well, and always on Windows. When I said 'with the 14 release', I meant the non-beta version of 14. 11 worked fine, 12 worked fine - even on the antiquated hardware I was running at the time. 14 beta ran like crap, but 14 stable release has ran like butter. I have noticed 14 loves a beefier computer though - it was one of the reasons I upgrade from the FX-based computer to the theadripper.

I use Resolve on a PC, and after the 14.0 stable release, have had no issues whatsoever. I'm not familiar with the history of Resolve, but I don't think it was written for the MAC necessarily. In either case, you need a powerful computer to run Resolve. Resolve is not optimized to run on lesser machines like the Adobe products are. You will find no 'mercury playback engine' in resolve, either. Basically, it's just not scale-able. Adding one effect to Resolve will bring the real-time playback to a halt, and you'll need to start using render cache and proxies. That is just the nature of the beast. I do agree though, Resolve is about as powerful as you can get. I now use Resolve for editing, color and delivery - and use Fusion for compositing and VFX. Fairlight is okay, but I still use Pro Tools for audio. The reality is, Resolve and Fusion can be had for $600 - and together, they basically do everything (and a lot more, actually) than Premiere, Media Encoder, After Effects, and Audition do - without the $50/ month fee. Don't even get me started on Avid though. Pro Tools is nice (though I hope Fairlight get a little better so I can dump it), but their Avid editing system is an over-rated, over-hyped, expensive joke from a bygone era. It doesn't do anything that you can't do in any other editor, and the cost is simply comical at $50 month. It's like paying Adobe $50 a month, but only getting 1 of the programs. Avid is one of these companies that is getting left in dust, but is still in denial of it. You can tell this by them releasing their 'free' version of the avid editor, which has less features than the entirely free version of the consumer program 'Hitfilm Express'. I'm sure 480p looked fine to most people as well... But that is not the point. Well of course 4k exists because people want it... That is why anything exists. You can dislike 4K all you want (and I personally don't work or deliver in it, either), but that isn't going to change reality as it moves into a 4K world around you. You wouldn't find me not buying at least a 4K camera right now, even if I don't plan to shoot everything in 4K. Lets remember, 4K can be made into 1080, not the other way around. Personally, I want a camera that I can use on all the projects that might come up. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu - pretty much all streaming providers now require 4K acquisition in any of their original programs. Since the cinema-experience is basically dead for indie films (when is the last time you seen the latest indie flick in wide release?), these new outlets are where its going. I'd hate to get caught with my pants down on that one. Most monitors, most TV's sold now are UHD. It's a fact of life. People are looking for 4K content to play on their 4K televisions. If you have 4K content, that will set you apart from others that don't. I agree, but I do wonder what it says for Blackmagic when a $1,000 DSLR can contain a low pass filter, but a $1,000 pocket can't. It's not like the $1,000 Pocket is doing something amazing here - its basically a striped down DSLR with better color science and a better codec. I have - Fusion. Resolve is not meant to be a compositing application. Yes, it has some functionality for compositing, but it doesn't even reach After Effects levels, let alone Fusion levels. I guess it depends on what you're compositing though. I take it you don't do much VFX work, so a really basic compositing is probably fine for non-VFX work. However, I wouldn't try to claim that Resolve is the best compositor - cause its not - not by a long shot. PS) You should really try Fusion. It also has a free version. Resolve and Fusion also work together now, similar to how Premiere and AE do.

We charge $50/Hr for all live recording, $200 daily minimum. It's the going rate in this area.

I would avoid the really low-quality FilmCity-type stuff. I purchased a $250 rig that had the shoulder rig, matte box and quick release plate - and it was the biggest joke in the world. The shoulder pad was a peice of foam with 'Film City' written in bold comic sans across the top. The rig was all plastic except for the rods, the quick release plate was crooked - which meant that you had to put the other accessories on the rails first, or else they just wouldn't go on. The Matte box flags consistently fell off, and the matte box itself would rock back and forth with simple handheld use of the rig. I bought a $100 follow focus as well, and it was just plain bad - trying put a speed crank in its 'accessories port', and it just hung there, loose as they come. Some Chinese stuff is okay, just make sure its from a respectable brand. Personally, the LOWEST level I would consider acceptable is Fotga and SmallRig, with JTZ being a premium brand - all metal construction, etc. Say what you will about the JTZ stuff, but its not only built like a tank - but its got convenient record buttons on the cage, etc. Here is the real issue with cheap Chinese and Indian stuff: Your 'rig' will last through many cameras. Your $450 JTZ Matte Box will last you years and years with good care, 40 years down the road the thing can still be slapped on the front of the greatest camera and be ready to go. Your rig (and your grip equipment) are areas you should never skimp on, because they are really a lifetime investment, unlike electronics. I'd still suggest a monitor. I don't see how a one-man camera band can operate with one eye consistently glued to a tiny viewfinder. A 7" monitor not only shows you your frame line, but also helps with focus peaking and zebra. It also allows you to pull your head away from the camera body, so you can pull focus. Maybe if you the luxury of a 1st and 2nd AC, but even then, I'd still rather view my image on a 7" screen, rather than trying to get my framing by squinting my eye through a tiny, uncomfortable viewfinder. Of course, you're mileage will vary. If you where raised in the era of film, that's just the way it was done.

Some links: Pocket Cage (They don't have a cage for the Micro, but you could go with a smallrig cage) https://www.amazon.com/JTZ-Baseplate-Handle-Blackmagic-Pocket/dp/B01NB10ML8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515213537&sr=8-1&keywords=jtz+pocket+cage JTZ Matte Box https://www.amazon.com/JTZ-DP30-Carbon-Fiber-Matte/dp/B01N36WKCT/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1515213567&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=jtz+matte+box Fotga DP500iii Follow Focus https://www.amazon.com/Filming-System-Cameras-Camcorders-Photography/dp/B01AI2AVXA/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1515213625&sr=1-2&keywords=fotga+dp500iii SmallHD 701 https://www.amazon.com/SmallHD-701-Lite-Camera-Monitor/dp/B01CBYN6US/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1515213653&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=smallhd+701&psc=1&smid=ALORA49PI3GGB

The one advantage to the Micro Cinema Camera vs the Pocket is 60p. The pocket maxes at 30. Yes, it lacks a viewfinder - but more likely than not you're going to be putting a 5-7" monitor onto your rig anyway. You simply can't pull good focus on those tiny, low res 3" screens. If you're looking to outfit your camera with a rig, a monitor, follow focus and matte box are essential, along with a rail and base plate system. My advice is, don't go super-cheap with your rig. I did this at first as well, and regretted it. Honestly, right now a really good combination if you're working with the Pocket is the JTZ setup. They have a nice camera cage, follow focus, matte box, and even a v-mount battery plate with backup. The whole kit can be had for around $1,200 - and is sturdy as hell. I regularly pick my rig up by the matte box - its the sturdy. You can find the JTZ products on Amazon, just type in JTZ _ (matte box, follow focus, pocket cage, etc). If you're looking to save a little cash, you can go with the Fotga DP500iii follow focus, which saves about $150 - and is essential the same as the JTZ, except it doesn't have the record-buttons on the follow focus. For a monitor, the best budget one right now, in my mind anyway, is the SmallHD 701/501.

Several things I'll touch on here: My question is first how much data will I be capturing. It depends on what format and frame rate. The highest quality from the recorder is ProRes HQ and DNxHR 220x. Both are the same quality settings, though it's better to use DNxHR when editing/finishing on a PC, and ProRes when doing so on a MAC. DNxHR simply plays better with PC's than ProRes does - given that apple has limited ProRes to 32-bits on PC, and doesn't easily allow it to be written (only read). I can attest that on my Atomos Ninja Flame, I use 250GB SSD drives, and can get about 2:20:00 of 10-bit 4:2:2 UHD in DNxHR 220x at 24fps. To record 4 hours straight, you'll either need a single larger SSD, more SSD's, or the ability to dump the SSD on set. If not what would be the most optimal settings to record in? You likely want the highest quality setting, so either DNxHR 220x or ProRes HQ. If you are working with a post-house, or someone else who will be doing the editing - find out which format they prefer. The second thing is would ProRes that this recorder provides give us ability to color grade well the footage? ProRes and DNxHR are intermediate editing codecs. Not only do they provide more bits (10-bit vs 8-bits on most internal recordings), but the 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 color space makes a big difference as well. However, even the bigger difference is the compression. H264 is just BAD compression, where either ProRes or DNx are great all-i recording formats. So yes, you can certainly push your Atomos footage a lot farther than you could H264 footage in post. The video final output will be 2K. when I deliver like this, I take the UHD DNxHR footage into Media Encoder, and re-encode it at DnxHR 2K 4:4:4 10-bit. Because you are taking a UHD image and shrinking it down, in theory you can pull even more than 4:2:2 color space from it. Not full 4:4:4 color, but something in between. To get the best color option there, and if you plan to deliver / edit 2K - then record UHD on the Atomos, take it into Media Encoder and output it as DNx/ProRes 2K 4:4:4. I haven't noticed any slow-downs when using 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4.

You have two options under $1,000 - well, at least two GOOD options: My personal go-to, the GH4 can be had for $1,000 new right now - possibly even less. The Lumix mirrorless cameras are probably the most 'high tech' of the cinema-capable DSLR's right now. The system shoots up to 24p Cinema4k, has good color and DR, has the ability to add a vlog update (for Varicam matching and 2 more stops of DR) for a couple more stops of DR (putting it at the top of DR spectrum for DSLR's), and it has the ability to record 10-bit 422 to an external recorder later if you need it (not aware of any other DSLR that has this). It's just a great camera that can be 'built on' as you need the features. It also shoots good stills, has really long battery life (I have gotten 8 hours of shooting out of a single battery). The other option is the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. It's not a DSLR, but has a 'small mirrorless' format. It shoots only 1080p, but does also shoot in RAW and ProRes/DNxHR - meaning a more robust codec out of the box compared to the GH4 (unless using an external recorder). It has about the same number of stops of DR as the GH4 with vlog, and has Blackmagics very Arri-like color science. HOWEVER, it suffers in several areas: Battery life is terrible, at around 30-45 minutes per battery. The RAW function is finicky, and requires certain high speed cards to work. It also uses a Super16 sized sensor, meaning you'll either need to deal with crop factor or find Super16 native lenses (2-3x the cost of the camera, at least for a descent Super16mm Cine zoom). Honestly, if you're looking to spend right at around $1,000 - the GH4 is probably a better option. It is ready to shoot right out of the box for that price, whereas the blackmagic pocket is going to require a lens (not included), possibly a speedbooster to get a wide angle if needed, and more than likely a new battery solutions. The pocket also does not have any still recording functions, so there is that too. Also, don't discount 4K --- some people would have you think its not important, but many delivery channels are requiring it now. Even if they don't require it, having a 4K master might well put you ahead of the game - since platforms are looking to sell their 'available in 4K' content.

If you're looking for someone to help you take a second look at maybe cutting down the film, I can spare some time right now since I'm between projects. I can also help you get it into a DCP format for some of the bigger festivals. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you.

Can't really help with audio, I use Audition for audio - not Premiere. Have you installed the latest updates to CS6?

For small cases, it hard to beat Pelican. I don't really use them anymore, since I now have my gear in larger 'road cases' - but I still keep my Rokinon lenses in one.

I'd take anything Shane says with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to Canon. It's no secret they guy has a personal bias toward Canon products. The C500 is an okay camera, but much like the other canon cameras, they don't have anything on-par with a true 'cinema' camera - at least in my opinion. Each one of their cameras appears over-priced for the feature set, and always seem to play it safe in the feature department. They also don't have any spectacular color science or DR handling. For the $5,000 you'd spend on a C500, I'd look into other cameras. The 4.6K Ursa is $5,000 as well, as had better DR, better color science, a more cinematic form-factor, and records in a large array of both compressed and RAW codecs. Meanwhile, the C500 shoots 8-bit highly compressed footage. It's not even clear from the spec sheet rather the C500 has the ability to record externally in anything other than 8-bit...

I had a feeling it was Blackmagic. The more footage I see from the 4.6k, the more impressed I become with it. It looks very filmic, with good highlight roll-off and a not overly-sharp image for a 4K sensor. But the film looks great, and the acting is spot-on. Having worked with kids in the past, I know that it can sometimes be a challenge - but is often very rewarding in the end. There was a few minor ADR issues as Macks pointed out, but nothing that was enough to distract from the film - and certainly understandable in a low-budget sort of project.

What camera did you use for this? Cinematography looks really nice.

I think I might have mentioned this earlier, but the Panasonic EVA-1 is also worth considering. Panasonic makes strong cameras, and the dual native ISO of the VariCam systems is a great asset when shooting low-light stuff without getting FPN/Digital grain. It's also about $7,000 - which for such a camera is a steal, at least in my opinion. Sony makes great cameras too, though I think the cameras in the price range of the EVA-1 are pretty much last-gen technology. Canon, on the other hand, is a company I try to avoid. Their cameras all seem to have quirks to them that make each camera less than ideal for its intended purpose. They also appear to me to be overpriced vs. features with other manufacturers - and your mostly stuck with the EF mount, which is not one of the better ones in my opinion. Of course, with the EVA-1 you're also still stuck with an EF mount, but it is what it is. Of course, you could always go with the URSA Pro. It's certainly no slouch, and while it has its issues - it is one of the few Netflix-approved Cameras in that price range (maybe the only one). Not saying Netflix has all the answers or anything, but getting that camera over something else might well be a good option. It shots RAW 4K, takes any lens mount you can basically throw at at, has good color and DR. Yes, it has FPN (like all BMD cameras do), but keep it under 1600 ISO and things are good to go. I'd say from a purchasing standpoint right now, the URSA Mini Pro 4.6K leads its price-bracket, as much as I don't want to admit it. I'd say the reason why you don't see it used more professionally is because things we general consider professional don't shoot with cameras in that price category.

The Sigma cine-zooms appear to be great lenses - but they are almost $4,000 a pop - and you really need the set of two in order to complete a standard zoom range. Basically, in terms of cheap PL mount, $8,000 is about as 'cheap' as you can go.

I suppose it would depend on what type of investment your planning to make. While it might make since to invest in an Alexa Mini - isn't that camera around $50,000 for the base unit? That is a LARGE investment for a camera system, unless you're planning to put it to a lot of use in the next couple of years. Camera's like Arris, F55, Reds, etc. make much more sense a rental solution rather than a purchase. For even the average cinematographer, by the time you pay off the investment on a $50,000 camera it's going to be obsolete. Rental houses can usually return their investment, which in my opinion is why these cameras are priced as they are. They are not priced for purchasing by individuals. Same reason why its hard to find a Blackmagic at a rental shop - they are priced for purchase, and in many cases - its cheaper to purchase one than to rent one for a shoot. And likely the reason why you don't see BMD cameras and such on professional shoots is simply because the camera rental budget is so small in proportion to the cost of the project, that it makes little sense to try and scrimp in the camera dept. You use what everyone else is using. What is tested to have worked, etc. BMD could have had this market as well, but their price-point basically precludes them to small projects.