Jump to content

aapo lettinen

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    1353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Everything posted by aapo lettinen

  1. I think that using heavy lighting equipment will slow you down and make the end result worse than working with lightweight gear and taking advantage of the natural light. You will need to know your locations very well to know which times of day the sun position is perfect for a scene. then you will just bounce and reflect the sunlight as needed and need to work very fast before the sun changes position. With lots of pre-planning and precise schedule it should work great but your scenes can't then be very long or complicated. try to choose a day when the sunlight will be consistent (no clouds at all or full overcast the whole day) . You can have battery powered led panels as a backup but they need to be easy and fast to setup whenever needed. You could use frames and silk to soften harsh sunlight but setting them up will slow you down considerably (there may not even be enough room to use them in the jungle anyway) and you will need a larger crew (though still easier than using hmi and generators in that kind of location) . it could be possible to add a small portable generator which would be just enough to run a 1.2k or 1.8k hmi to create sunlight effect on small couple of meters areas if absolutely needed. But as said you will need to work FAST and any kind of bigger lighting package will slow you down. I would see the biggest issue being the massive green ambience you tend to get when shooting around and under vegetation. You might want to have SOMETHING to try to cancel that out which is why I would want to take some led panels there if nothing else. otherwise it tends to be super green in the shadows and the sunspots still normal looking which looks kind of weird. surely there is some Indian productions where you could see how others are shooting in similar situations?
  2. As Phil said it is pretty impossible to recommend any solution without knowing the specifics. As a general note, the logistics in that kind of location tend to be very challenging and probably the location is not easily accessible for big trucks and lifts/cranes so you are provably down to using small under 2.5k hmi:s on close to ground level with portable generators if you need additional light. Led lighting is also an option though not as powerful as hmi. Getting your lights high up over the trees is pretty impossible without the cranes/lifts of at least 150/200ft high and being next to a good road. Rigging the lights to the actual trees will take forever and will not look the same though could work if you have plenty of time and people trained and capable of doing that safely. I think a good gaffer can figure out some solutions for you if seeing the actual locations. One possibility is to use lightweight led lighting as backup and mainly just shape the natural light and trying to find good locations and times of day to shoot when the natural light looks great
  3. they are meant for situations where the air is moving relative to the mic, whether you are outdoors or not. so if you are shooting indoors in a situation where the air moves (like near ventilation or opening and closing door etc) then it might help using the screen. You might do with only a foam windscreen or a zeppelin type system without the fur. as a side note, that type of windscreen shown in your picture is not the best when recording outdoors. It is cheap and compact yes but it does not take the wind noise off very well if you have any harder than the most trivial air movement. The zeppelin style screens with the fur are pretty mandatory in most outdoor situations and they are not that expensive considering that one lasts maybe 10 years or more in normal use. the point of the zeppelin style ones is to get more airspace between the mic and the windscreen to calm down the turbulence more. they have the added benefit of having better shockmounts for the mic which reduces handling noise a little more than those quirky rubber things used in those cheaper systems
  4. It is cheaper if you need to record lots of material without on-set backup possibilities. Having a true uhd or 4k monitoring does not hurt either if doing more serious stuff with the camera. I don't see the lack of sdi as a big issue, there is cheap converters which can do the trick if sdi is needed
  5. something like Ursa Mini Pro G2 could be more useful in that price range. I think one could benefit a little from the interchangeable lens mount as well and the framerates and raw would be a huge benefit. if the customer specifically asks for that Alexa model and you will get most of your investment back from that single job then it would be no risk but I would not purchase a HD camera nowadays unless having a specific use for it which would pay back the whole bill very quickly ( like a live streaming job or something similar) . As others mentioned one needs to calculate the other expenses as well. The tripod for full size Alexa can easily be 5 to 10k, a usable quality lens set at least 8k or so (probably you would go with Xeens or with some kind of lower end zoom) . batteries and chargers maybe 3 or 4k . monitoring and follow focus (remote focus would be preferable) from 5k upwards. recoding media can cost anything but 2k would be more than enough for it if only shooting HD? throw in couple of K's for great quality ND filters and usable quality mattebox as well. the filters can easily be 500 bucks a piece and you really can't cheap on them because it will show instantly in the final image. the tripod and PL lenses and batteries are the biggest additional cost with the Alexa compared to more modern cameras. With other cameras it would be possible to use nice affordable vintage glass like spherical Lomos but I have understood most of them don't fit any Alexas or Amiras so one would need to stick with only couple of modern cheap PL glass options like Xeens or alternatively purchase the better ones which means 10 or 20k PER LENS.
  6. I am not a big fan of Blackmagic products but the Pocket4k or 6k might work pretty well for the OP's use. one of the advantages is integrated display which simplifies using it quickly and traveling with it (though may be hard to operate on any other than eye level) . the main advantage is them being simple packages but still good recording quality. you will probably need external battery though for most real uses unlike with most other small cameras which complicates the operating a little bit. there is also the disadvantage of having only HD hdmi output so there is no way to use external recorders with it. for onboard monitors the hd output should be enough
  7. the local broadcast store claims that it already has a small quantity of the 6K model in stock. If that's true it is really really impressive of Blackmagic. Finally they being able to deliver SOMETHING in time 🤣 I am boycotting their cameras for now so not going buy this one any time soon but pretty great thing anyway that they have something out already and not next year 😊 (I would need PL mount anyway so the 6K model would not do and the 4K model has too small sensor to be usable with the PL lenses I want to use. If they would have the 6K model with MFT mount then it would be pretty interesting for me )
  8. here is a DIY housing project I am working on. Something similar style could work for your application if you can get someone to built it for you. This is just a prototype and I will change the design on next one but you will get the idea. This is made out of 10mm Lexan sheet (because I got leftover pieces of it for cheap) and the plastic dome is purchased from eBay. More high quality dome would be ideal for you though. I recommend trying to find the plastic material of at least 2cm thick if you want to do a housing this way... otherwise it is challenging to seal it properly because not having enough room for it. This is just a first prototype after all and I will just do basic tests with it so it will do for couple of weeks of use I hope 😅
  9. there is also a great change of getting something knocked off when the camera hits the water at great force when jumping in. The custom underwater housing option would probably be the best bet especially if you want to get a clear image above the surface too. there is also the weighting issue. you need to balance the housing to be somewhat neutral in water which means you will need additional weights in it with that lightweight a camera. that means the camera setup is NOT lightweight on land and operating it may be more challenging than one would think at first. I don't know the exact dimensions but I suspect the custom housing would weight something between 5 and 10kg with that camera inside because it has considerable external volume even when the camera by itself weights close to nothing.
  10. the tricky things with underwater stuff is how you waterproof the camera controls (how to do push button controls and levers that can keep the water pressure out but are still easy to use from the high pressure side) and how you shoot through the watertight housing without the additional plastic or glass surfaces and the air/water boundary distorting the image too much. Nikonos-style wet lenses are the best solution but expensive and very rare. Dome ports are one of the most useful compromises for most uses and I think it should be relatively easy to do a housing which uses for example the DL lens ports https://www.ikelite.com/collections/dl-lens-ports
  11. you want to jump into water but not going much under the surface? so a splash bag could do and no need for an actual dive housing? something meant for prosume video cameras could work with the a-cam I believe if the size is somewhat similar. you could also let someone to custom manufacture a dive housing for your camera if you'll gonna use it extensively in water so that this kind of better solution would be practical. For example a thick glued-and-bolted-together polycarbonate custom housing which uses Ikelite lens ports. The deeper you want to get the more challenging it will get to keep the water out (one bar of water pressure added for every 10m addition in water depth) but should be reasonably easy to manufacture one for surface shots where you'll be no more than about one or two meters underwater
  12. yes it can generate disturbing strobing artefacts if always shooting at 50fps and converting everything to 25. if the camera has rolling shutter it can add to the effect to generate even weirder artefacts which can be very difficult or even impossible to remove. I recommend shooting those shots at 25fps which you KNOW you will never do slow motion effects to and the rest of the material can be 50 if you want. I mostly work with slow motion material which can be conformed directly to the playback fps and it will never play at normal speed. For example material which is shot 120fps on 50base and then I will just interpret footage it to 24fps before editing. One does not lose ANY image quality that way and it is very simple and fast to do. That workflow is possible because sync sound is rarely needed and the camera sound is not usable if there even is any. ------------------ One of the problems of not knowing what you'll gonna do with the material afterwards is that you will always lose image quality one way or another and will make your post workflow more difficult. By my opinion, you have to know .
  13. I meant this model, NOT the m4/3 normal E2 model: http://www.z-cam.com/e2-s6/ they are developing raw options for their cameras. we just started to use the regular E2 model for documentary stuff and it manages very well in that environment, especially when needing the remote controls. the integrated monitor thing is not important for most users if they are really doing work-related stuff and not super low end vimeography as a hobby. A fixed non-orientable monitor on the back of the camera is just not usable at all in any real production environment, not even in low budget indie films. If you really want to do anything with the camera you will need a separate onboard monitor anyway. the built in display on the Pocket is usable though if one is so low budget that cannot even afford proper lenses to put on the camera... It is nice to hear that the regular Pocket has been reliable in most uses. by my experience the Blackmagic hardware tends to be cheap build quality and unreliable at times so it would be great if they would have at least one product which does not release smoke and die in the middle of the production XD probably the 6K Pocket will not be delivered in time like has happened with all their camera models. Still better though than the Nikon Z6 raw option, they NEVER deliver the promised features not even one year late :P
  14. EF to PL adaptors are not compatible with anything. or maybe one or two or three lens types but very limited lens options can be used and would be much more practical to just use the EF version of the same lens because most of the ones which can fit the adapter can be purchased and rented in EF mount as well or can be easily switched between PL and EF. Anyway, if someone noticed there is some comparable models from Z-Cam which are in same price range and have some features the Pocket cameras are unable to do... like full remote control, more practical form factor, batteries lasting longer, full resolution 10-bit hdmi. Can be ordered in PL mount as well. As I see it, the Blackmagic and Z-cam are now competing directly with each other and the Kinefinity cameras (being less bang for the buck even when the intermediate mount system is very very nice solution) are those who are going to suffer
  15. I always stack the densest filter closest to the lens to avoid reflections from the less dense filters like diffusion filters which I use very often. diffusion can have significant impact on saturation if the image contains bright highlights... for example the Promist filters will contaminate the other parts of the picture with that bright area colour, for example if the highlight area is bluish white the filter will contaminate most of the image with that colour and it will be most prominent in the shadows. and will reduce the saturation on objects as well because of "spreading a layer of colour over the image area" . I personally use promists mostly for the highlight effect on digital cameras and will grade most of the exposure boost +contrast change away. sometimes I also use them to fake more dynamic range to the image (depending on the content I can get an advantage of about 1.5 or 2 stops that way but I will lose some colour separation and saturation so it is not a perfect solution for all uses)
  16. the large format and anamorphic trend after the 3D is not a new thing at all, it has happened multiple times in the past. People are all into 3D for a short time and when it fails they will go to large format and anamorphic again. It is a cycle which seems to happen once per every generation I think. This is maybe the fourth time it is happening again...? anyway, I think at least the VFX thing has come to stay... that is because the market is nowadays dominated with endless sequels and remakes and adaptations of existing material (for example the Disney remakes with talking CG animals, the Marvel adaptations and sequels with lots of vfx, all the book adaptations etc.) and there is relatively small amount of completely new fresh content. almost every film nowadays seems to be a remake or based on a bestseller or a comic book series. It is much safer to finance that kind of content than to try to invent something new which has never been seen before and which needs to be rebranded.... (compared to for example to those Disney remakes where they mostly seem to pretty much copy the original hand drawn characters 1:1 and replace them with talking CG animals. no need to even compose new music for the movie because you can just use the old songs and everything. you can recycle the whole script as well, just let the current big name actors to read the character lines again and you're done :P )
  17. the better xavc varieties may be visually very similar looking in quality compared to the prores422 unless you underexpose the xavc camera a lot which may generate weird compression artifacts like blue dots flashing around. I haven't pixel peeped them side by side with material shot in the same situation (would require the same camera to record both at the same time which has not been practical yet in projects I do) . nowadays I shoot a lot with an external recorder on Prores422hq and it is slightly better quality than xavc especially if underexposed though will take significantly more storage spage. So I would put it pretty close to the Prores422 on that scale if it is properly exposed. workability in post is pretty much the same in most situations I think though you may find differences if the material is not optimally shot. this is for the 300-400Mbps 4k/UHD xavc varieties... if you shoot the more compressed ones like the 100Mbps ones then there is lots more difference
  18. one could probably also construct something out of one of those multi-purpose ladders which can be bent to U-shape... that should be a fast alternative if said ladders already exist on set
  19. I would find a tele zoom more useful especially if it does not breathe much and focuses close. the 70-200 is very useful like others mentioned and for most work it is much faster to use than a tele prime because you can fine tune the framing without moving the camera...
  20. Never give away expensive equipment for free even on no profit projects. You can donate you time and work if you really want but them taking advantage of you financially is a completely different thing. Personally I sometimes do no profit projects where I may not charge much for my own equipment IF they accept to rent some expensive additional gear which I really want to test on a project but dont want to rent it by myself just for camera tests. Effectively making yourself a no charge rental house is never a good idea and will make it look like you are hired just for your gear not for your talent
  21. the magazines are the mildly challenging part of these cameras but they are relatively easy to load with little practicing. if you would live here I would lend you some mags for free for practicing but not practical to ship them to Canada... you can ask the locals if you can borrow a mag for loading practicing :) one easy way to load Konvas mags, this is for the older 1KCP model but works for newer mags and cameras as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s8-wCGC3eg
  22. I havent tried matching them but by my limited experience it is usually a bad idea to push the 50d that much even on 35mm. That is subjective of course...But you may run into serious issues on losing the shadow detail even if the grain would be ok for your uses. I would rather try to source some 250d instead as a starting point and adjust in processing or in post to match
  23. sometimes it works for the scene but often it is pretty pointless and just gives a "student movie" impression (overly artsy with not enough to say and too stylistic and concept centered instead of wanting to tell a good story in the best way possible)
  24. Yes it is important to test the result on uncalibrated devices as well. But one can't really grade the image without having the main monitor calibrated to the working standard...you will grade to one standard and then you can do versioning for different viewing environments and devices. But you cant really grade a project without having ONE of the monitors properly calibrated so that you will know how the image SHOULD look so that you can adjust the colors and especially the gamma and brightness levels right. Otherwise it will look like crap on every device no matter if they are calibrated or not. Often the project graded on a properly calibrated setup will look surprisingly similar on most uncalibrated devices as well. Much easier and faster to just get it right from the beginning rather than trying to avarage the grade using 10 different uncalibrated devices to guess how the project SHOULD MAYBE look on a calibrated device on a good day. One properly calibrated monitor would probably have saved about 15 versions worth of OP's work so calibrating would be much easier by my opinion :)
×
×
  • Create New...