Landon D. Parks

I think the term 'filmmaker' is one that you're not going to find a general agreement on. It can mean what you want it to mean. To Tyler, it means an auteur - A single person who is responsible from the product from beginning to end. For me, it means anyone who is involved in the making of a film (hence the term film-maker). Just like the term 'film' itself. To some people, it means 'celluloid' , to others its a generic term for a movie. Neither person is wrong, since there is no accepted standard for these terms. "Also, most "filmmakers" work for themselves, they do not have jobs, they do not work as a "crew person", they work on their own projects, which they find funding to produce." This one I can't get behind. You're basically saying that there are only a handful of filmmakers in the world, which is stretching it a little in my opinion. It's exceedingly rare to find someone who has the ability to produce, write, direct, and edit their own movie - and do it while finding the funding for it as well. It's just not the way the industry works any longer. Maybe back in the days of Smith and Rodriguez it was possible, but the industry has changed entirely now. Even with funding, unless your film is produced with the support of a studio, your odds of getting any meaningful distribution is slim to none. Not impossible - but the days when you could make a good movies and see it plasted on screens across the country is over. So, I guess we can use the term filmmaker to mean what you say it means, Tyler - but this will ultimately lead to the term dying entirely, since such auteur filmmakers are becoming less and less viable. That is why, while the terms can mean different things, I don't think people should apply them so literally.

Panasonic Lumix G-Vario 12-35 f/2.8 constant zoom lens for sale. Slightly used, with no defects inside or out. Less than 100 working hours on the lens. Lens is pristine and free of any dust, dirt, or other issues. Comes in original box. I am selling because I no longer use the lens. $525 shipped to the United States via insured USPS Priority Mail. Other shipping options, including international, are available for an extra fee. New, this lens will run you around $800. Reply here or send me a PM if interested. Additional Information about the lens can be obtained from the Panasonic website: http://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/lumix-camera-lenses/H-HS12035.html

Another thing to consider, DCP packages are 24fps, not 18fps. This means any theatrical exhibition will need a 24fps file. This could also affect some higher-tier film festivals - the ones that themselves require a DCP for screening.

Probably a rush job or inexperienced colorist. Of course, it could just be a mistake that was missed as well. I'd come more like forgiving it if it was the only color-related error in the project.

Yep, 'Power Window' is really just slang for a mask, I've only ever heard it referred to as that in Resolve. And yes, the issue is not the color itself - its the glaring hard-edged mask at the right of the frame. It wasn't blended correctly, it looks like.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to say you tampered with it... If its that way in the final film, then as Stuart has said - it's an error on the part of the colorist. Unless it was intentionally done, but I can't see why it would be.

I would tend to agree, Tyler - However, 'Filmmaking' as an art has little to nothing to do with your camera. While I'm sure there is some nostalgia about learning to shoot on celluloid film, I don't see how that directly plays into someone learning the skills required to be a filmmaker. The digital realm has caused some side effects that I don't like, such as the 'constantly running camera' and endless takes. However, you could easily remedy that by teaching the students, even on digital, that more is not better in all cases. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I can't see how the simple act of shooting on film could have such a huge impact on ones ability to learn to be a filmmaker. It's neat to shoot on the format, but HOW does it make one a better filmmaker in general? As for Lucas - we can blame him for the digital revolution, but the reality is - it was going to happen one way or the other. He ushered it in, but if he hadn't, someone else would have. I'd also argue against the idea that the digital revolution has 'ruined' filmmaking. A lack of original ideas and bad filmmakers have done that. For example, I learned Photography on film - but if I was teaching someone today, I couldn't see how teaching them ON film itself would have any bearing on their ability to be a good photographer. There is a lot more to it than format. PS) Episode one also relied a lot less on digital backlot effects, so the difference would certainly be more noticeable.

That may well be true, but to be entirely honest with you, I don't think it would have mattered much what camera Lucas shot the prequels on... 90-99% of each frame was digital CGI anyway, so film would probably have been overkill for such a production, and I question rather it would have improved the way it looked. Though to be honest, I didn't think they 'looked' all that bad - they where just bad films. I'd highly question if anyone other than other filmmakers and pixel-peepers could really tell any difference between a film shot and digital shot prequel. There just wasn't enough of the frame used to really make a difference.

I don't think its really fair to pick on the old Star Wars prequels for how shitty they look - I mean, the camera systems at the time were what they were. You wouldn't look back at an old black and white film from the 20's and say 'That looks shitty', even though it might to some degree and by modern standards. What shocks me most is you can STILL BUY an F900 new. And it's over $80,000. I don't see where the market for such a camera could possibly be in the 2017 landscape.

DSLR is a term that means 'digital single lens reflex', and is a type of camera. If you have seen a digital Cannon stills camera, you have seen a DSLR. A great many newer cameras are not DSLRs at all, like the Panasonic's, etc - they are mirrorless. HD is a resolution, and has nothing to do with the camera. Your DSLR can be HD or SD or even 4K, and your HD camera might not be a DSLR at all. Basically, DSLR is a form factor, HD is a resolution. The two are not interchangeable or related. I'm not sure how to expand on that. Perhaps you meant something different, like what is the difference between what we think of as a DSLR for video and traditional HD video camera? I don't want to go into a lot of detail without first knowing the intent of the question.

From someone who knows his way around compositing, the car certainly doesn't look composited to me. As for the power window issue, I believe I see what you mean - the rather large oval shape on the right of the frame... I'd question the validity of this image, as that is a pretty glaring error that certainly wouldn't have made it past the eyes of any half-assed colorist.

Alright, no problem. Just a note about the JTZ though, its not really a DSLR Mattebox. In fact, its more designed to mount with the likes of Reds, Alexas, and BMD's (their words, not mine). This is apparent when you get it, given its absolutely huge - and weights about 4x what the camera does, lol. Don't know that it would help much, but the JTZ includes about 8mm of vertical adjustment as well. I don't really have experience with film systems, so it might not even be appropriate for that type of thing though. Is there a way to adapt it to a 19mm system? The JTZ includes a 19mm adapter that rises the Mattebox assembly itself by about by another 10mm or so above the rails.

If you're mixing for speakers, don't mix with headphones. The two are not dynamically the same. I'm not aware of too many professionals who do mixes with headphones, actually. Headphones are usually reserved for recording sessions.

Have you looked into the JTZ Matte Boxes? I have one, and the front hole is something like 142mm. They are also built like a tank (tilta level quality) and only about $500. Mine is the 4x5.65 model, but they have a 4x4 model as well. https://www.amazon.com/JTZ-DP30-Carbon-Fiber-Matte/dp/B01N36WKCT/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513234402&sr=8-1&keywords=jtz+matte+box I was under the impression the Xeens where 114mm, is that wrong? The largest metal ring appears to be 114mm though, but it should work. PS) BH says the Xeen has a 114mm front, so that Matte Box should work. PSS) If you're looking for more budget, the Fotga DP500iii Matte Box is also a great choice, at around $260, and features 114mm donut.

I actually just bought a new lens a few weeks ago - the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. While it is certainly not a cinema lens, it does have hard focus stops - and the image I'm getting from it is amazing. I really like softer images, and the lens alone seems to be like throwing a digital diffusion 1 on the front of the camera - without the filter. Mind you, its not everyone's cup of tea, but that becomes an f1.8 with my speedbooster, which is fairly wide open. In fact, even though I own a set of Cine DS lenses (24, 35, 50, 85), I can see myself using the Sigma for 90% of work. The image is just... Nice. While the DS lenses are nice, as Tyler says - they are somewhat sharp - which is okay, but I often need to pair them with a 4x5.65 digital diffusion 1 to really bring down the super-sharp look. I don't have any content uploaded with it myself, but you can see a really good example of the softer feel of the lens from this video: . As for the Pocket camera sensor size and glass, it CAN work of course. Pairing it with a 0.58x speedbooster can certainly retain wide angle on many wide lenses, like the Sigma 11-16. It just seems like it needs a lot of work to get there. And while I certainly agree on the sharper aspects of using the middle of the lens glass, sharper isn't always better - and not usually what I'm looking for.

I use an Atomos with the GH4 for DNxHR (plays better than ProRes on my system), so I don't have that problem. Internal recording in the GH4 still has many of the pitfalls of the pocket - namely the fiddly SD card but without ProRes, so the GH4 is certainly something that needs to be outfitted with an external recorder to get the best footage from it. S16 is certainly a standard-sized sensor, but the need to put PL glass on a sub-$1,000 HD camera really kinda, I dunno, just seems overkill to me. It just seems to me, given the low price-point, they could have went m4/3, thus opening it up to pretty much any glass (keeping the same pixel count, it'd also be a killer low-light camera). Personal preference I guess, since so few people actually own Super 16 glass, escpailly those in the market for a pocket camera.

Okay, I'll give ya that. As good as the RED anyway, then. Alexa is really in a ballpark all by itself, from both a workflow and a color-science area. RED, in my mind, looks too digital - like an overpriced DSLR. Blackmagic produces much nicer images than the RED (and at a lot less the cost), but I have never been a fan of Blackmagic Design: they always seem to cut corners, and every one of their products I have bought has had major flaws. I shot a local commercial once with an FS700, which is closely related to the other mid-lower-end professional Sony cameras. That camera was a dream to work with, and if I had the money to purchase, I'd probably pick the FS700 w/ 4k upgrade over the Ursa Mini Pro, despite the cameras age. The only Panasonic I have ever shot with is a GH4 and GH5 - both of which are standout mirrorless cameras for cinematography, well built, etc. My one experience with Blackmagic was not so good - the pocket camera. Horrid battery life, impossible to get anything remotely wide angle due to the odd sensor, fiddly SD cards to shoot on, etc.The Micro could be an upgrade to the pocket, given its use of external canon batteries and the ability to record externally - but would not invest in it now.

I adore what BMD is doing, but I also never understood the hate geared toward the likes of Sony and Panasonic in the cinema field. Let's face it, in the cinema realm there is Arri, and then there is everyone else. As great (and overpriced as hell) as RED cameras are, they are certainly nothing great image-wise; a super sharp image that is not cinematic in my opinion. BMD always has some issues with their cameras, which is a given when you try to make an expensive camera for little money. From my understanding, the Mini Pro has taken care of a great deal of the old issues BMD faced, but its still far from a perfect camera. Then again, people put WAY too much time and effort into camera choice. In the right hands, my GH4 can produce an image on par with any Alexa, let alone a Blackmagic. You see, the reality is, the quality of the image - and how cinematic it looks - comes down to many things, 99% of which revolves around the talent of the cinematographer in conjunction with the colorist and editor. Much of that great 'film look' people pipe on about is a result of heavy post process, unless you actually shoot on film. A CMOS chip is a CMOS chip, period. It collects light in the same way. Some might be more sensitive than others, some have betters processors backing them up, but image-wise - it's an electronic capture device. That is not to say that from a workflow standpoint all cameras are equal, as some cameras work better on different types of shoots - but the underlying image quality is not that much different.

My take on this is that while lower-budget cameras can work, you'll quickly find yourself outgrowing them. I'd rather spend $800 ONCE to acquire a camera I can use for years to come, rather than spend $500 now, and then a year down the road have to sell it and spend $800 on a camera. If your budget is low, I'd strongly suggest the GH4. New, it can be had for under $1,000 - used, around $600-$700. It's a steal for a camera that has the potential to record 10-bit 4:2:2 Vlog images in Cinema 4k format. It won't do this 'out of the box', but it is a good camera to build on later when you need the features. I Still use the GH4 on a regular basis as my 'A' cam, and I'm perfectly happy with it. The biggest problem with lower budget cameras is that, while you can certainly learn on them, they don't always have the features that you really need to learn to become good. That is just my opinion of course, and others opinions are just as valid. It's really down to what you want to do, and how you see yourself doing it a year down the road. If you don't know that you want to be into filmmaking, don't invest $1,000's of dollars in gear before you have had a chance to try it out.

18fps shot at 18fps and played back at 18fps will not experience any 'fast motion' effects, but it will change the characteristics of the moving image. If you want to see what 18fps looks like, just watch some old 8mm/super8mm stuff on Youtube. It definitely has a different motion feel to it, even if ever so slightly. Sample: https://youtu.be/jfwC6FmxFp0?list=RDdx76mdu5d5w

I feel ya; I awoke to over an inch of snow. For all of LA shortcomings, the weather sure is nice.

If you're going for a DSLR/mirrorless and you want to do serious video with it, there are really only a few cameras you should spend any money on: GH4 (still a good camera), under $1,000 new. GH5 (even better than the GH4, under $2,000 new) A7S (good in low-light, but lacks 10-bit output or recording, over $2,000). Other than these - some of the cameras can work pretty well, but they all lack adequate video features in my opinion. Some of the lower-priced Panasonics are okay, but for example the GH series is the only one you can monitor externally with while recording.

Even with permits, you should ALWAYS call the non-emergency phone number of the local PD and the Sheriffs office, alerting them to any use of fake weaponry and when you plan to use it. Here in Cincinnati, many of the towns (including city proper) does not require any permits at all - in which case it's doubly important to make your intent to use fake weapons known. Likewise, anytime you are using pyro or fire, you need to alert the fire departments to such usage, even if permits are not required. Ideally, you'd even alert these places if you don't have weapons in your production - just so they know you're going to be there. Making sure these places know about this will usually prevent any issues in the first place. As for a cop randomly shooting me, not really. PS) The Eclair really does look like a gun.... lol. My fully-rigged GH4 is plainly a camera, given the monitor, follow focus and matte box hanging off of it.

$14,000? Sounds to me like the union is the one making the money, not the people it represents. Even as a Democrat, I never liked labor unions. Back when I was, oh maybe 16, I got a job at a Kroger store that was unionized. I paid the union like $10 from every paycheck, and got nothing but minimum wage out of it. Shortly thereafter, I went to Walmart (non-union) that paid me $3 more an hour to start, and access to benefits. Don't know how this compared to professional film unions, but if its anything like the nightmare I have been going through with SAG-AFTRA trying to get a new media agreement approved, then I can't say my experience on either end has been great. I'm all for fair wages and work conditions, I just think that should be something the state sets out as a law, rather than allowing the mob (aka labor unions) bamboozle millions of dollars out of their members.

The story is good, but as others have said: The audio is really not acceptable. The reality is, in many cases, the audio is far more important than what it looks like, and even if the story is good. If people can't hear something, or it sounds like its recorded in a tin can, they simply won't watch - period - good or bad. If I may ask, how did you record audio? I use a Rode NTG-3 and Tascam DR60D II, which I think is the bare minimum for dialogue work like this.