Aapo Lettinen

you can for example attach a 4 or 5 meter long steel pipe between two combos and hang the lights from it. two combo 2's or 3's, the pipe, two big bens, couple of safety wires, couple of sandbags, clamps to attach the lights to the pipe (you can use for example matellini clamps for this)

you may have to update your Resolve Lite to newer version. the 10 version and above can handle resolutions up to UHD (3840x2160) and 2K dpx is not a problem. If your file does not work with Color then it may be 16-bit dpx (not the more used 10-bit files). Resolve Lite can read and convert also that format easily

both can be adapted to PL or EF very easily if you have a right adapter, for example these ones: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ADAPTER-interchangeable-mount-of-LOMO-Foton-zoom-lens-to-Arri-PL-camera-mount-/141049645581?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item20d736ca0d http://www.ebay.com/itm/ADAPTER-interchangeable-mount-of-LOMO-Foton-zoom-lens-to-Canon-EOS-EF-mount-/141049643467?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item20d736c1cb Just loosen the retaining ring a bit, pull the old mount out of the lens, change the retaining ring to the other mount, insert the new mount, tighten the ring, done :lol:

I have understood it's something like 40 - 60K per lens but don't know for sure

it's much easier to match the shots in color grading if exposure is the same in all shots (differences between shots compensated with actual lighting, not camera tweaking. if you are changing the aperture to compensate, for example, hot window, then you will underexpose your ambience which definitely shows in the final image)

you're welcome :) If possible to do, it could be very useful if you can hand rough color correction LUTs of the shots to the VFX team, this way they can test the effects with rough grade and make sure the compositing edges etc. possible errors do not show when the intended contrast settings are added later in grading

you always do the VFX to the original footage or to the online intermediate format used in the whole pipeline. not to the color corrected versions. the idea is to use the best quality original footage in vfx to maintain best quality but to maintain color consistency at the same time and to be able to change the grade after the time-consuming vfx is made (the vfx team just ADDS the effects to the material, NOT changes the colors. otherwise it's impossible to match the effected clip's color to the other ones of the same scene when you grade the movie. RAW post pipeline can be challenging because someone has to decide which raw processing settings to use to the vfx shots BEFORE any color grading or VFX is done and different software can do the raw processing differently. usually it's most practical to do the grade in RAW but do the VFX in RGB to be absolutely sure that the vfx pipeline does not affect the colors, just adds to and removes elements from the image. If using anything but RAW in the post pipeline (RGB, YUV formats) you can do the color correction to the version which has no vfx yet and the vfx team can do the effects to the uncorrected original materials at the same time, then when the vfx is ready you replace the original clips in color correction software with the effected ones. This way you can start color correction without needing to wait that all of the vfx is ready, and when they are finished you simply replace the original clips in grading software with the effected ones and copy the same grading settings. one usual way is to do online in, for example, 10bit dpx (all movie first rendered to intermediate standard format, for example dpx or tiff, and then it all goes to color correction but the vfx images are hand-picked from the dpx of tiff sequence in online software, vfx is made to them working in dpx and when ready they are added to the grade in dpx and the grading settings are copied. for example, if you have a scene where a boy and a girl talk on the street, and there is one sky replacement shot and one vfx explosion in the scene. if you are grading raw you should first do the online and import all the movie to the color grading software. Then, you have to make the raw "developing" to the scene (not necessarily to the other scenes of the movie, just this one which involves effects.) Now you have the roughly corrected image (ONLY the raw settings touched: ISO, color temperature, debayer, etc. DO DOT touch the rgb processing section! ) Now when you have all the settings made to the scene which you have to do in raw, you can render the vfx shots in as less compressed format as possible. 16-bit TIFF sequence could be most useful. You'll hand these tiff sequences to the vfx team, and now you can grade the whole movie, but you CAN'T touch anymore to that particular vfx-involving scene's raw settings, only the rgb ones. When the vfx shots are ready, you will import them to the grading software manually over the original raw files (the import format can be 16-bit tiff or dpx for example) and now you have to copy the rgb settings from the raw sky replacement original and explosion shot to the version the vfx team provided. the same process can be used when importing vfx versions and tests to the grade. I hope that makes sense :lol: You should discuss with your Colorist and VFX supervisor about this. the only very important thing is that you have to be able to control how the RAW files are "developed" BEFORE anyone adds VFX to them, otherwise you'll have color inconsistency in the scene or you can't touch scene's raw settings anymore in grading because all of them have to match to the settings which the vfx team decided to use when they made the effects :ph34r: Otherwise they have to do all the effects again and that'll not make them happy <_<

sony raw takes lots of space and the camera is a lot longer than red cameras if you are using raw recorder. for purposes where the camera lenght is extremely critical (for example octacopter shoots, some remote heads, etc.) the epic is much more versatile. I'd say the sony has much better color reproduction and maybe less noise (haven't shoot with the F5/55 myself but I handle lots of material shot with the cameras and also epic material) one big thing with the sonys is the possibility to change lens mounts without tools and recalibration. may be a big feature for low budget shoots

made some tests with the 4K recording function. The codec seems to hold up quite well in scenes where there is only gentle movement and when you can shoot at ISO 200 for very low noise. Sometimes it can even somewhat manage 400 ISO but that seems to be about it. You can downscale the 4k to hd, 2k or 2.5k in post to smoothen some of the compression artifacts and to get very sharp hd image. The scaling is very time consuming, though

Depends on what kind of material you shoot… I think the price difference of the camera bodies (here in Finland about 999€ for GH3 and 1500€ for GH4 including VAT) is quite well compared to the extra features you get by purchasing the newer body. (the camera housing itself seems to be actually EXACTLY THE SAME, only electronics and the sensor differ. I'm having really hard time to tell by a quick look which one is which :blink: There is a locking button for the shooting mode wheel in GH4, that's the only difference I can find :ph34r: ) With GH4 you can shoot for example all-intra 200Mbps in 50 and 60fps and up to 96fps in long gop 100Mbps mode, all Full HD. I think the 4K feature is most useful if you need a crash cam or quadcopter footage for a bigger production or shoot stock footage for future needs (though less compressed material would be more useful for that purpose). Most of the people don't even have displays or tv sets which could playback 4K and even then, you'd need hell of a big TV to be able to see the difference in normal use without ultimate pixel peeping and magnifying glass (for example that 84" UHD television which was on display in the electronics store where I purchased the GH from would be useful. Price tag was nearly 9000 euros :lol: )

oh, and the GH4 should have faster rolling shutter than the previous models from the series, also when compared to Canon 5D series. Less jell-o-cam effect for handheld shooting :lol:

I just updated from GH3 to GH4, just testing the brand new body :lol: Previously have shot very much material with 5D mark2. FF sensor is nice to have but Panasonics are way ahead in video functionality and have much much better codec options. GH4 has better codecs, more frame rates (including 96fps), worldcam options, better hdmi and some better thought functions over GH3. You can attach almost any lens to the MFT mount with simple and affordable adapters. Touchscreens can be a bit tough to use in some situations (rain/cold/dusty environment) though the orientable screen is a neck saver in low budget use :) GH's are not that light sensitive, though. Canon 5D mark3 is much much better in low light than any of these cameras, with GH3 you don't want to use anything past 400 or 800 iso depending on image content, codec and use of the material. compared to 5D2, the codecs don't "brake up" that easily, I think, so noise is a bit less of an issue in low light situations. magic lantern for 5D2 helps a lot (including higher bitrate options and video meters) but can be a bit unreliable and the old camera body limits functionality quite much. You will still have some aliasing with GH3 but 98% of time it's not an issue and the moire is usually not colored (compared to the green/yellowish moire of the 5D2) so it is much less distracting.

the epic may be a little easier to rig sideways for vertical plates (for example a person standing upright and not moving much, something falling down, etc) , also has more high speed options. the 4:3 alexa sensor is also good for green screen work, though, and does not need oddball rigging...

I think the best thing about film is that the look of the final image is NOT defined by the camera system you use, just the film stock and lenses. You can use dozens of different cameras and get almost similar looking results, so you don't have to live with a look you don't like just because the producer or edit / post people demand the material to be shot with certain camera model and format for budget and workflow reasons

I believe about 95% of the people making statements about film theater print resolution have got the number from the ITU research from 2001 or other later works quoting that research. here is one (page 6 to 8) : http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

our rental house always stores the sr:s with mag attached and the transport cases are also made for that. also for example 35bl-series cameras. maybe if shipping is very harsh (air transport, etc. where they really smash the cases for fun) it may be good to ship the sr without the mag...

at least the older ze 28/2 and CP2 28/2.1 look like to have the same optical arrangement. don't know about other lenses on the series… cp2: http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/ZECIMG_5504.jpg (from page http://provideocoalition.com/Awilt/story/zeiss_eye_candy ) ze2: http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/distagont228.html (look the "design" section)

if you are using 1/50 or 1/100 shutter speed the flicker is not a problem at any frame rate

I believe you can even manage with one light in most scenes if you can sneak in some bounce boards and reflectors for eye light + modeling and fill light. Reflectors don't need power so they can be set more quickly than lights although they need more careful placing (you'll get used to it and it enhances your lighting skills a lot) You can at least shoot your close ups very well that way if you have a second or two to set up the reflectors (and of course you will use only these nice looking close ups for your reel, not the ugly wides ;) )

Andrei Rublev also has Rodina footage in it. as far as I know it's mostly shot with Lomo square front anamorphics and some version of Konvas was also used

other than the very bright and very dark tones. everything in between is linear gamma and therefore stored way below the mid range

raw mode shows a somewhat linear sensor image. almost all image data has to be encoded to logarithmic mode before presentation. that's why raw always looks somewhat dim and "underexposed" although it really isn't. more explanation here http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/log-vs.-raw-the-simple-version

as for the Konvas, I would not buy one if you are not able to do the basic service and modifications to it by yourself (power, lubing, all the necessary film tests, cleaning, etc.) The cameras may also be quite smashed up, old and used in hash environments so don't expect to be able to shoot right out of the box unless you have bought from a camera tech or cinematographer who has already serviced and adjusted the camera and shot something with it to make sure it works properly. Most of the eBay sellers buy these cameras from places where they may have been laying around unused maybe dozens of years and no one really nows if they are working or not. My camera, for example, was told to be some spare camera from a Russian company and was very slightly used, but had one incompatible magazine out of 3 and I had to grind away a small dent which was near the tachometer to get the mags to the camera. The dent seemed to be a factory error other than something that could form in everyday use... My point is, just be aware and if the seller is not very reputable and the camera and lenses are already tested with film and work properly, you should maybe prepare to buy 2 packages to get one working camera. Also, all these cameras usually need service just because they are really old and no one has probably serviced them since the collapse of the Soviet Union :ph34r:

I am using the 1KCP-1M model, it's even the old top-latch version and also have the hand crank and rheostat motor for it. I was able to find quite small and affordable 6V gel batteries from the local hardware store (about 100 x 50 x 70mm, 6V/4.5 Ah and cost about 7€ a piece) . There is also the side latch version of this old straight-viewfinder Konvas model which is more common than this top-latch version. Newer 1M version has orientable viewfinder but the motor usually needs the battery regular box which adds to the weight and needs a 8V battery (I suppose you could use a 8V gel battery with the box). Maybe you could find a rheostat motor for it, these are not that common but I saw at least one at eBay. The 2M version could be best for you if you shoot drama, the oct-19 lenses are better suitable for that purpose than the old tiny oct-18 lenses. For oct-18, the Foton zoom may be the best bet for drama shooting, you can even use a follow focus with it nicely if using lens support. anamorphics would also be a wonderful choice for this mount, but they are very rare nowadays and would cost you much much more than the budget allows ps. if using the Foton zoom, you can easily swap mounts to it (takes less than a minute because the lens has an intermediate mount) so it would also be possible to buy several different camera bodies if needed (oct-18 and oct-19 models, PL mount is also easily available for this lens) and just use the Foton with all the cameras. It is quite slow lens though, I usually use it at T8 or T11 to get a somewhat sharp image with tolerable amount of chromatic aberration

never mind, I figured it out when I found the manual from Rafcamera site. the female connector on the motor is - and goes through the camera body's switch (connector is near the mag under the round hand-drive casing) and the male connector is +. manual for this model: http://rafcamera.com/pdf/em-konvas-1m.pdf