Landon D. Parks

That is why I love Ohio - $100 a year permit fee gets me unlimited access to about 5 metro-parks in the area, all with varying levels that fit our needs (wooded areas, rivers, even a Pioneer village). State parks are a flat $25 permit fee. Most cities and towns around here don't even have permits for a film - just if you need to close the streets or something like that. Studio space is a little hard to come by, since we don't really have any dedicated backlots - but not impossible to find an old abandoned factory to rent for a month or two, that is much less than the average $5,000 per day the backlots in LA want just for rental alone. We also have a wide variety of experienced crew members to pick from, and since the cost of living is cheaper, their fees are usually cheaper too. We have a fully stocked rental company where you can rent anything from apple boxes to a grip truck to a technocrane... Mind you, Ohio is not Georgia yet, but we do have a somewhat expanding movie scene - especially the southern-Ohio area. I actually had a little chat at a local coffee shop in Hamilton Ohio with James Franco one day this past year. He was here shooting one of the two films he shot in Hamilton-area - and he commented about how much more open and friendly people were to film production. I'm sure this would apply to a lot of locations outside of LA. LA seems like it would be brutal to try and make a movie in, at least a smaller budget movie.

Yes, but aren't the tax credits still lottery-based and capped? They use to be anyway. In Ohio, any production spending $300k or more gets a 35% refundable credit, and I believe its roughly the same deal in Georgia (or similar). Unless CA has made a major overhaul of their system, which I think has been well overdue if they have. While LA might be getting more film production, it's still a fact that when you look at the numbers: very few major films actually shoot there.

CA is, in general, hemorrhaging actual film production. While its still the home turf of the studios, more and more productions are choosing to shoot in other States, and Canada. If you look at pretty much any major film, you'll find that it was not shot in LA, or even California. Hell, most TV series (short of sitcoms) are not shot there either. LA is good if you're looking to hang out with studio executives. Don't live in LA, but that is my take on it. Might be wrong. PS) Come to Cincinnati, I'll have coffee with ya :)

It doesn't have a battery meter on it, which kinda sucks - but I have timed out how long they last - 2 x NPF-970 fully charged batteries will power for about 2 hours at full brightness. There is also not a color temperature setting in the traditional sense. You basically dim up and down the yellow and white LED's to achieve your color temperature. Both dimmers turned to 100% gives you around 4400k. Really though, if you need a temperature reading, you'll need a light meter. You'll also need to do a white balance card when making changes. There are easier lights to deal with, and I mostly use these LED panels when I'm at a location that doesn't have power or were 'quick in, quick-out' is needed, If I have time to set up a scene and have power, I mostly use my florescent kits - they produce more color-balanced light, and are brighter.

If you are looking for affordable yet reliable LED lights, look into Neewer 480/660/960 light panels. While it's a cheap brand, the lights are built like a tank, produce great color with no flicker, and are just all-around handy to have. I have 8 of these in my LED kit and use them almost exclusively. Litegear seems a little on the expensive side - though their strip lights might be worth looking into.

I currently use Sony NPF series batteries with an Atomos Power Station to power my GH5 and DR60D (and provide backup power for my Atomos), but I'm seriously looking into a V-mount solution in a hopes to eliminate the need for so many batteries. However, can someone here with knowledge of how batteries work explain something to me? I'm looking at a 14.8V 160Wh, 10400mAh V-mount battery, which is nearly $200. However, comparing that to the NPF batteries, at least in terms of capacity, I'm having trouble seeing how the V-mount would provide more power storage, given that an NPF-970 runs about $15 and has only slightly less mAh's, at around 9,000. Does the 14.8 vs 7.4v different also play into battery life?

Here is the thing: Digital and film can look pretty much identical. A lot of these issues above are more about grading choices than they are film vs digital. The shots on the right are very color saturated, almost to the point of absurdity. Those 'right' shots also make horrible use of highlights and look as if some kind of really bad post sharping was done to them. It was very much a stylistic choice on these, not a film vs digital issue.

After doing some research, I'm going with the Glide Gear DEV 4 dolly and a 4' extension. Most of the shooting I do isn't crew heavy, so I really don't want to deal with laying and leveling dolly tracks. Plus, the DEV 4 mounted to some good tripod legs should allow for quicker leveling/setup in uneven locations. Now, I just wonder if I can fit my 8' camera jib on the DEV 4 without the entire thing crashing to the ground... :rolleyes:

Just watched it. Nice work. Honestly, I'm not usually much into short films due to the difficulty in telling a story in that amount of time. Few short films can pull this off, and yours did. It actually kept my attention the whole time. There is only one complaint I have, and it's not really a complaint - just something I noticed - the sound effects are a little over the top. They should be blended better into the scene so that they don't stick out, but appear natural instead.

Yes, the Sigma's are T2.2 I believe, and run $4,000 a pop. But in terms of zooms, that really isn't bad. I prefer primes myself.

Honestly, I own a set of Rokinon Cine DS primes, and they are the same optics as the Xeen lenses, yet about 1/4 the price. They are much less durable, but then if you take care of your gear like I do, that is not a problem. But as for the CP.2's, I'd say go for the Xeen's. They are newer, and the optics are fine for high-res video work. They have an all metal construction with proper 114mm fronts. They are also a little softer than some high-end cine lenses, which is a good thing in my opinion. If you're just after picture quality, there is nothing wrong with the Cine DS line, unless you're going for a very professional rig and you have thousands to spend on a set of lenses. A set of Xeens will run you about $15,000, compared to $2,400 on the Cine DS. Honestly, if I was purchasing today and had some money to spend, I'd probably just go for the Sigma 18-35 and 40-100 cinema series lenses. The same optics as the 18-35 art (amazing), yet in a cine housing with proper markings and such. Though these two lenses will set you back $8,000.

Thanks, Stuart. I can certainly see how the dolly getting in the way of the shots could be an issue, with the camera so close to the rail. I can also imagine that, since the camera is so close, it probably also picks up more track vibration than a floor dolly. Mainly, right now I'm looking for something similar to a slider for small 'moving shots'. The primary reason why I need to retire the slider I have now is that my current rig weighs in at around 12 pounds with the new rails and support, and I find I need to basically take the camera out of the cage to get it to be usable on the slider, due to weight distribution issues causing the slider to stick. It's not just the weight that is the problem, but those tiny slider plates don't like un-evenly balanced rigs. The slider worked fine on my old, cheap FilmCity rig, but the JTZ setup adds about 8 pounds to the whole rig over what the FC rig weighed. As for length, I was thinking buying a 4' base system with a 4' expansion (for a total of 8'). Anything over that and I'd probably whip out the Glidecam.

Hey guys! I’m just looking for your opinions on which is your preferred type of dolly: The dana-dolly style or the floor track style? Right now I mostly rely on a 54” slider, and looking to upgrade. Looking at a dana-dolly style system, but I’m just curious if anyone here has worked with the two types and can shed some light on the differences (pros and cons) between the two? Given that the Dana-Dolly system can also be expanded beyond the typical 4', is there any real advantage to a floor-track dolly system?

I don't think it's fair to pick on Panasonic. They, as a company, have been mostly responsible for the rise in affordable digital cameras for indie filmmakers. From the original DVX 100, to the HVX 200, then they really broke into the DSLR/Mirrorless market with the GH2 (which was really the first Mirrorless that was truly designed to have cinema-type functions without hacking). In the mirrorless market, they have been at the forefront of making cinema-style mirrorless cameras, where other manufacturers like Canon have only recently began to even implement SOME of those features. Sony mirrorless cameras have done a pretty good job staying up with Panasonic, though they still lack a lot of features Panasonic has long since made available, like 10-bit HDMI. The fact that both of these manufacturers have put a lot of cinema-focused features into their mirrirless line of cameras seem to me to directly relate to them both having professional cinema camera markets. Cannon still amazes me, despite having their C-line of somewhat cinema-grade cameras, and despite also being a pioneer in the video industry with the XL1/XL2 and such, they still show an utter lack of desire to add cinema features to their DSLR line. I'm not sure what your comment about 'Sony's world' is suppose to mean. They make cameras, just like Panasonic, and that is about it. In fact, I'd argue Sony and Panasonic are actually very similar, from what they do to the cameras they offer in their line ups. In the mirrorless market, they have a-series for Sony and Panasonic has the GH-series, In the midrange market they have the lower-end VariCams for Panasonic and the lower-end F-series for Sony, and then both companies have their high-end cinema market which consists of lines like the VariCam 35 from Panasonic and the F55 from Sony. The reality is though, both manufactures 'cinema' market has been rather stale. In the professional production world, the space is dominated by Arri and Red. I have not seen too many Sony F55 or VariCams as A cams on films with a budget. I'd argue neither really have a 'world', and if anything, Panasonic has developed more of a following than Sony has in the lower-end market.

My understanding of the situation is that anytime anyone appears in your project, and they are in any way recognizable (voice, image, etc.), you need to obtain their permission. There is often thought to be an exception for the news media to this rule (see editorial use of likenesses), since gathering the news often times requires filming in public spaces in unpredictable circumstances, and involves provided current news and events. However, my understanding is that a motion picture set is presumed to be a control environment, and also a strictly commercial environment. This precise idea is why model release forms even exist. If you could simply film anyone in public any time you wanted, and use their likeness without permission, there would no need for such items. I stand by my stance that anytime ANYONE is recorded in a means that they are identifiable, and you intend to use that footage for commercial, income-generating purposes - you need either a model release, or to provide reasonable notice that filming is taking place and that they are releasing their rights by being in that area. Just because a lot of people don't follow that rule, does not mean it doesn't exist - they just haven't been on the receiving end of a lawsuit related to it yet. As explained in this article (https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/when-do-you-need-model-release-form-cb.rl): In this article (https://artlawjournal.com/need-model-release/), it goes further to explain: That leads me right back to my original statement: If your subjects are recognizable as individuals in your commercial project, you need to either get a written waiver (preferable) or at the very least limit your liability with a conspicuously placed sign. If you capture images of people from behind or in some means in which they cannot be easily identified, then you don't need the release of likeness. Ultimately though, even in cases where it might not be strictly required: you need to at least post a notice. It might well save you a headache (and some money) down the road if someone decides to sue you for a payday because they where walking down the street. Having proof they where warned that such might happen could very well be the thing that saves you.

More that 'almost hitting the mark' from Blackmagic... If it's a software glitch, you'd think they could take time away from screwing up Resolve and stick some people on fixing the glitch. Not that I'd really expect it, given they don't fix any of the other problems with the cameras they release - but hey, anything is plausible I suppose. I don't mean to rag on Blackmagic as much as I do, but that company has serious issues with releasing quality products. They try to 'one up' everyone else in the industry by making x-technology 10x cheaper than the other guy, and then leave their implementation half baked with no fix, and then proceed to build the 'next best thing', which will still suffer the same fate. I understand they are trying to offer the best camera at the lowest price point. How long did it take them to add something as simple as audio meters to their previous cameras? And that only happened because people wouldn't stop complaining to them. I also understand that they are going to be limited in what they can do when trying to do that, I just wish they understood that themselves. I'd rather they release actual 100% working products that have few less features, or cost a little more money... There is no reason why a release version camera should have a software glitch that causes bad battery life, especially one that has gone this long without a fix. Say what you will about the likes of Panasonic and such, but you'll rarely find them releasing a product that has any kind of major software issues or image quality issues not inherent to the format. The built-in LUTs in Premiere are crap. I have altogether stopped using Resolve, so I won't judge them (might try to download the stable release of 14 today, but not holding out much hope - the 14 I have been using has been a Hodge-podge of thrown together ideas that couldn't even render a TIFF sequence for me). The only LUTs I trust are from Film Convert in terms of 'out of the box' LUTs, and I still don't use those much. I purchased a set of really good GH-line LUTs that have served me very well.

I've never had any trouble with vLog on either the GH4 or the GH5. My testing shows I can pull about 12.5 stops of DR from the vLog on the GH5, which is just a half-stop less than the advertised 13-stops on the Pocket. Also, please don't make it out like the GH5 is un-shootable without accessories and the Pocket is not. BOTH camera's can shoot 10-bit 4:2:2 in LOG mode right inside the camera. Both take m4/3 lens mounts. Both have monitoring provisions. Both have about the same audio interface, connections, metering, and pre-amps. These are all standard in BOTH cameras without any accessories at all. The GH5 benefits from having an Atomos or such attached to it, simply for better monitoring, better scopes, and an easier time in post - but it won't affect image quality much at all rather you have one or not. The Pocket could also benefit from an Atomos for the same reason as the GH5. Audio provisions on either camera are slim to none, so you really need to outfit both cameras with some form of audio method. The Atomos takes care of this (on both cameras), or you can also purchase something like a DR-60D for either camera. Internally, both cameras have crappy audio. The GH5 might be more difficult to get use to, but that is no excuse not the use it. You just need to spend some time learning it before shooting with it. The big advantage to the GH5, in my opinion, is that I can shoot for 2.5 to 3 hours on a single battery. The Pocket will either require you carry a LOT of batteries with you, or you outfit it with a battery system - which brings it right into line with the 'needed accessories' you mention about the GH5. Yes, the Pocket also has RAW shooting, but I question how many people actually can use RAW footage anyway. If you have the power and storage to shoot and post in RAW, you can probably afford a better camera than either the GH5 or the Pocket. Price wise, the difference is not that major once you factor in the power accessories needed to make the Pocket usable. The GH5 can be had for $1,700 new, while a Pocket with a V-mount battery and power management system will run you close to that price. TL;DR: Both the Pocket and the GH5 record 10-bit 4:2:2 internal in LOG mode, so neither requires any accessories to deliver that image quality. The Atomos or the like simply improves on the camera's (either ones) usability. The pocket suffers from poor battery life that the GH5 and GH4 do not. RAW on the pocket is pretty much overkill. The GH5 gets 12.5 stops of DR in vLog mode, which I never had any trouble working with. Sharpeness is not the end-all-be-all in post. There are filters you can use to knock sharpness down. Shooting 1080p simply because 4k is too sharp is an odd option to me.

Full frame? Didn't really read much about the camera, but doesn't that mean that a lot of cinema-style lenses are basically moot on this camera? Edit: Never mind, I see the sensor scales... Camera seems kinda 'eh' to me. Sony has really fallen by the wayside in professional film production. I imagine this camera will be very expensive (didn't see any pricing details), and will probably be on par or exceed the cost of an Epic Dragon or an Alexa, without offering really much new other than a full-frame option, which appears to cost more money. It certainly isn't winning any frame-rate awards.

I always throw a soft black filter on digital cameras when I shoot with them. It knocks down the crispness, and in my experience helps with highlight handling. As for it being un-intuitive - I mean I guess it depends on what you're after. I just got done shooting an interview with my new GH5 setup the other day, and it turned out fine. Didn't have any issues with figuring out the camera. Although, I will add a disclaimer here: I don't shoot internal on the camera, so a lot of the settings I use are fairly simple. I use the Atomos for monitoring and recording, which provides a 10-bit 4:2:2 DNxHR file that is much better for editing and doesn't require transcoding, takes care of the DSLR audio issues, and has an amazing array of scopes and settings built-in. As such, I don't really touch the menu settings on the GH5 or the GH4 much at all, other than to set white balance, switch frame rates and formats, etc - and I have a lot of settings mapped to shortcuts. I shoot on Cine DS lenses, so autofocus and f-stop is also not an issue for me. Frankly, if I had to shoot internal on the camera, I'd probably be a little bit less pleased with it, though the same could be said for the GH4. The reality is, you need to treat the GH4/GH5 as a 'brain' and not a full camera package. If you do that, you'll be happy. But, at the same time, it's also possible to take the camera out alone and get pretty good results with it - which means its flexible. Not really trying to sway you toward the GH line of cameras, just offering my opinion on what I own and use a LOT. Having experience with the Pocket myself, I was not impressed with it. That was a long time ago though, and things could have changed. The biggest issue here is the only two cameras in this sort of budget, really worth even talking about, are the GH line and the lower-end offerings from Blackmagic. As for it being too crisp an image - I think all digital cameras suffer from this when you start talking about 4k and up - even the cinema cameras like the Epic... PS) This is the filter I use: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&O=&Q=&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C%7Bcreative%7D%2C%7Bkeyword%7D&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3MPNBRDjARIsAOYU6x9RdvhDeqmhZcVDV0ZYu-NUeoK5i4FSw1TXvGLx-C0o0kd3tIw1XQkaAps1EALw_wcB&is=REG&sku=683424

My thing with the GH5, and the GH4 (which is also a fine camera that can be had for about the same price as the Pocket, though needs to be paired with an Atomos for 10-bit 4:2:2) is that the 4K is handy, but I don't actually post anything 4K. Rather, I use the 4k file to downrez to 2k or 1080, which effectively crushes the noise and some of the remaining compression artifacts x4, resulting in a much cleaner image - even at higher ISO's. The GH5 is certainly not perfect, and I would want to use it on a real film set with a large enough budget to afford a 'real' cinema camera, but I also think if you're in the ballpark of a $5,000 or less camera, the GH5 is certainly going to provide one of the better deals in that price range. At $5,000, you have the URSA Mini 4.6k, which the bare minimum I would consider as a real 'cinema camera', and even that is pushing it. The problem with the URSA though, is that the entire kit will cost you $8,000 or more dollars to get it shooting. You can get a GH5, Speedboster, set of Rokinon CineDS lenses, and a fairly beefy camera support rig for less than $4,000. To make the workflow easier you can add an Atomos Inferno, which will provide you with production-grade PRORES or DNxHD files, as well as XLR audio, and still stay under $5k for the entire package. For a camera that can give you Cinema 4k (not just UHD), with 12.5 stops of DR, it's a great deal. For the base cost of another 4k camera like the URSA, you can rather get some descent cine-grade lenses like the Cine DS line. I would argue that while the GH5 is double the price, the Pocket is rather bare bones by itself. You really need to outfit it with a better battery system and means of recording better audio at the very least, which could start to erode into that $1,000 difference pretty quickly.

Have you considered a GH5 purchase? The camera shoots 10-bit 4:2:2 internal, which is the same rate most people would shoot on the pocket anyway. The GH5 with Vlog also has about the same DR as the Pocket (my test showed 12.5 stops on the GH5 to the advertised 13 of the Pocket). Not to mention, I owned the Pocket for a brief period - and was less than impressed with it in terms of usability.

Does the 4.6k still have that Magenta issue? Frankly, I think I'd avoid Blackmagic all together. Their Pocket camera was a nice concept and works fairly well (for a 1080p, tiny-sensor camera - the RAW workflow is really not even relevent to most people, who will instead shoot with the 10-bit Prores codec), but pretty much everything else has had problems of some sort that they refuse to fix or try to provide 'workarounds' to rather than address the problem. The original cinema camera had the weird sized sensor that wasn't native to any lenses, the Production 4K and the 4K URSA had fixed-noise pattern that was never fully addressed, and the 4.6k has (or at least had last time I looked) a magenta hue issue. Blackmagic pushes these issues under the table. If you're in the range of the URSA PRO or some such, I'd consider the Red Raven instead, or if you're renting, it's not that much more to procure a Red Epic. Sorry, but in several instances, Blackmagic has left a bad taste in my mouth - from a software (Resolve is not even stable on my computer any longer), hardware (The mini-monitor is a purposefully crippled card incapable of displaying anything other than standard TV aspect ratios), and camera standpoint. I appreciate what they are trying to do, but they always seem to miss the mark by a notch each time. As the old adage goes though, you really do get what you pay for.

I own a GH5, Atomos Inferno, Speedbooster, and a full set of Rokinon CineDS primes, in addition to some minor camera support stuff like a 16' jib, slider, home-made track dolly, a basic lighting package, and some misc. grip stuff. All totaled, this equipment probably costs me $8,000 over the several years of trading up, etc. That setup can shoot pretty much anything, right up to a feature length film. However, if I had a budget of $1,000,000 - I'd probably upgrade the camera package to an Alexa or a Epic or some such. In that case, it is most certain I would rent that equipment rather than buy. If the $100,000 or more pricetag for a fully decked out Alexa or Epic doesn't scare you away, technology simply moves too quickly to make that kind of investment, unless your also in the business of renting out that equipment to more quickly recoup your investment. While Alexas seem to hold their value, Red seems to come out with something 'new and great' each year, which replaces the prior years product. Basically, this: Buy your own kit for most of your projects. Spend less than $10k on it. This kit will serve you well in most of what you need. If you are working on something that necessitates a larger camera (and this is not image quality driven - but rather workflow driven), then you should probably rent that camera package.

I just completed a DCP-mastering for a short film I'm doing post work on... I take it your not doing the actual DCP conversion yourself? If not, you'll need to check with the authoring house on what formats they wish to receive. I'd say its pretty safe to export your project as 16-bit TIFF image sequences in 2048x858 aspect ratio. As for projectors playing non-DCP material. Yes, most can. A local cinema here actually allows you to rent a screen, and play XBOX games on the screen through the projector. As Bruce said, each projector will have different means of accomplishing this. For some it's as simple as plugging in an HDMI - other require routing through the digital cinema server itself. Audio will also depend on the setup, since most of the time the sound system and the projector are two different things in a cinema. If you're running the non-DCP through the DCP server, it might well map the audio. If not, the theatre might have to patch into their own system. Bottom line is, you'll need to talk to the theatre in question and find out. There are too many variables.

I was involved as an instructor in a summer high-school filmmaking camp that just wrapped a couple weeks ago. Of the 29 students who took part in the camp, 16 were girls – so more than half. At the end of the class, we took a poll on what each kid wanted to ‘do’ in the industry when they grew up, this is the results: Director: 14, 7 of which were girls. Cinematographer/DP: 6, 5 of which were girls. Producer: 3, 2 girls. Writer: 2, 1 girl. Editor: 3, 1 girl. Production Management: 1, 0 girl. Below-The-Line Production Personnel (catch all for ops, ac, gaffer, etc): 0 Post-Production (including VFX): 0 Surprisingly, the most startling statistic was that 5 of the 6 who wanted to be a cinematographer where girls, the highest among any category next to Producer, where 2 of the 3 were girls. Take these numbers as what you will, and I don’t want to say they are any kind of scientific numbers – but I think it does prove that we shouldn’t write-off girls not wanting to get into the industry at all. I think we should be more concerned with the fact that no one wants to actually do any of the grunt work and/or work in post-production. Not that I’m really shocked, since everyone wants to ‘big’ jobs. Bottom line, I think the real reason there are not a lot of working female cinematographers is not because they are discriminated against, it’s just that there aren’t many who actually enter the field in the first place. When 95% of the workforce is male, is it really shocking to see 95% of working cinematographers be male? Any other statistic and I’d have to assume discrimination on the part of the men. BTW) As part of the class, I took them to my studio office downtown and let them play around in the post-suite a little. Imagine my surprise when this one girl, who was either 14 or 15, sat down, opened up Fusion Studio and began to construct a sequence of nodes on a clip she pulled from her phone. I believe she was one who wanted to be a producer, but that chick had some talent with VFX. After a few minutes, she had fusion particles shooting out of her friends hand, deflecting off the ground… And we all know (or might), that Fusion is not the easiest of VFX software to learn. Come to find out, her dad bought her a Blackmagic Pocket Camera for her 13th birthday, and she had been playing around with resolve and fusion for a few years. I was impressed. I certainly hope she stays with the film industry, since I seen some major talent in her.