Travis Gray

Don't get too caught up in flat picture profiles being a key thing with DSLRs. I heard pros and cons. I shoot a little flatter because it does make grading a little easier, but it's just like film stock. You go with what you know will achieve the look and handle the situation you're in. I have a couple profiles set up so that I can use different ones for indoors or outdoors or trouble situations where I'm not confident in the exposure and want to have latitude in post. But if I wanted to shoot something really contrasty or saturated or something and not have to do anything in post, I could set up my profile to do that. I don't like a lot of the stuff out there that's for "DSLR filmmaking". A DSLR is just a camera. Sure, there are certain tips that make it easier and manageable, but there's no special "DSLR filmmaking" thing that's different than "filmmaking". I used to be naive in the early days of shooting, and getting the magic bullet plugin and applying a film look and trying to convert 29.97 to 24p. But it's a lot more than that. Sure, contrast and maybe deep blacks or something are a part of bigger budget movies, but it's proper lighting, framing, hell.. acting, writing, sound, etc. Color correction is just that, to correct. Primarily. And then maybe applying a look a bit more than already achieved with set design. Filters... over the footage? Lens? Lights? The latter are to correct differences in light/stock or create a look on set. Filters on captured footage? Bleach bypass (that was the big one I always wanted to do) is just a preset of other changes. I don't like the pre done ones, they never look as good as I had built them up in my head. Mostly I just can't stand when people have workshops and other stuff relating to "DSLR filmmaking". Is it a technical workshop on a particular brand of camera or is it just a filmmaking workshop marketed to everyone who has a DSLR now and is a "filmmaker"?

Yeah, this is why I like to do everything as decimals haha. Doing this with pricing is the same thing too, where different point of sale software may handle discounts/profit margins differently. So yes, 2 stops is 75% transmission, 25% loss. And then an increase of 150%, I'd do ISO+(ISO*1.5). So 1600 ISO increased by 150% is 4000. Math annoys me.

I hate when people say that, because it seems like no one agrees on anything. I'm guessing you're spot on there, since increase should call for addition? So x + (x * 1.00)? This is photography. Say it in terms of stops, people. haha

That makes sense. So I guess it's just rating the sensor differently, so what may be 1600 on the monochrom would be 6400 on a traditional full color sensor? I was thinking it just meant it didn't have to process as much so it was able to go higher with less noise. Yikes then. If it is two stops... that's awesome.

From what I read (too lazy to find the article) the purely B&W sensor is better for low light since it's only dealing with pure light levels and not worrying about the color stuff. So, yeah, color filters. Traditional B&W photography. As soon as I have $8k in disposable income, plus some for lenses, I'd think about picking one up. Or maybe after I buy a regular Leica first.

I learned that when I was a kid. Geez people. Anyway, I like credits. I feel like they're part of the movie. I love a movie with a good transition into the credits. And then when the music settles and the final frames roll out, it's a good closure.

I'd rather work than sit around and wait for the right person to come around and really want film. I honestly don't think film will be going away any time soon. I still know plenty of photographers who shoot with hasselblads and polaroids, do wet plate process and their own developing. There's still an appreciation for old techniques out there. But there's some work that's just not practical to be shot on film. I got a call a few weeks ago to shoot a video resume. Sure, not artwork, but I'm more than capable to pull it off and they were going to pay for the quick turnaround. I'm not pulling out a 16mm camera to shoot this when I can easily shoot it on digital, ingest, and boom. Done. Maybe at MOST the storage will be 100gb. That's cake. I backup corporate stuff online, and that's not even a drop in the bucket for my unlimited storage, and after a while, I won't even hang on to the raw footage. So a final ~5 minute piece is a footnote. The costs associated with something like that are nothing compared to film. I get that it makes sense to be in support of the way things used to be, but are you arguing horse and carriages too? And guess what, those are still around. I think there will always be a market for film. Maybe it'll become small. Maybe it'll become more expensive. But it's not going away. If you're running a business, which 99% of people are, serving the client and at the very least not taking a loss is key. If you can convince the client that film is the best route for the project, then great. If they finance it, great. There are pros and cons to both.

When I was concentrating on audio, I loved recording and editing with tape. Something really cool about working with my hands and being precise with scrubbing. I was proctoring a lab and never really worked with it before except when I took the lab, and when someone didn't show up, I cut through the exercise and compared it to some other people. And turns out I had a knack for it. Really solid edits. Then I did the same exercise on the DAW. Took 5 minutes. It got the job done. I really would love to shoot film for motion stuff (do shoot it occasionally for stills), but turns out, I make money easier with digital. Smaller quieter gear for event shooting, and while you may say digital costs more than film, really look at the cost and that's not the case. 400' roll of Vision3: ~$45. 11 min on 24fps. Not sure on processing prices, but one source I looked at had $.99/foot for 2k scanning. Let's just go with that. $396 for that roll. If I shoot an event, accumulate 3 hours of footage, that works out to be 16.36repeating rolls. So, let's say 16. I'll be conservative. $6336 for scanning. $480 for the rolls (I gave myself a $15 discount). Now add in my editing time. Because time is money. And that's per shoot. Say you pick up an DSLR that gets the job done, a couple of lenses, some memory cards... $3000 on a camera, $3000 on a couple lenses, let's go crazy and buy $2,000 worth of memory cards. Right there I can already shoot more than 3 hours of footage, and I can do it multiple times for that same cost, minus labor. Fine, let's throw in $1500 for storage. What? You're only shooting in 1080p with that? Who cares. My clients don't notice. Digital pays me. When I work on something creative and can find someone to finance the film, I'll shoot film.

Can I just say I think it's amazing you take the time to post on threads ranging from this to subtleties in lighting?

I modified the B&H search under pro camcorders to include only interchangeable lenses http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Features_Interchangeable+Lenses&ci=1881&N=4256818814+4249888292

haha. that makes me laugh. Save up. Rent. The best you'll probably do is a cheaper DSLR (and remember you have to buy lenses then too), and even those leave something to be desired.

Sounds like it'd all be easier with a photo time-lapse, but I think it'll end up as a different effect than with a video shot with effects added on. The time-lapse is going to show a passage of time vs. (what I'm thinking of with) video with a longer shutter time, where you'll almost get 1:1 timing, just with blur (or stutter). So I would keep that in mind too.

Or you just download it.

No, he still has a point. George Lucas? So let's hope Jar Jar Binks doesn't make an appearance.

Looks like there's no AF, so, it would be all by hand. I haven't had experience with it myself, but I've never been a fan of AF on video stuff anyway. And then you just have to be careful with the focus ring too just because on still lenses, the rotation is so short that it's easy to throw yourself out of focus easily, especially when shooting pretty open. It would make sense to get a follow focus with an adapter ring and adjust the ratio for it to have a little more control. ...unless the FS700 is able to AF with the adapter. I do only speak for the FS100 right now, but I'm assuming they may be similar.

I have a nikon and a PL adapter. Both dumb adapters, but works for me. I don't like using still lenses though just because the ring to adjust aperture has no markings (can't really) and has too short of a throw. And I hate using still lenses for pulling focus and what-not. But I have one anyway just because I have a bunch of Nikon lenses I'd like to be able to use if needed. /endminirantonstilllenses Just make sure you spend a little money on an adapter if you're going to be using Canon lenses though. You want to make sure it'll hold up and is free of leaks and all that. If you do switch to Sony lenses, at least you'll have stabilization and all the control that goes with it. There's a metabones adapter for Canon that a lot of people use and seems to work well, and that does transfer some [no AF] functions over. http://www.metabones.com/product/sony-nex

I may be shooting something in July (assuming the script pans out) and it takes place in a hookah lounge. Not sure on the specifics if there will actually be hookah-ing going on, or if we can simulate it, but meeting with the director soon and want to be prepared with questions/concerns. I'd likely be shooting with a Sony FS100 and if we're in there for a whole day of shooting, would the smoke be bad for the sensor? I'm less worried about the lens, but still worried (Zeiss CP.2, and I know they're at least built somewhat well, just not sure if they can deal with that factor) Or am I better off going in with a weather-sealed DSLR to mitigate effects of smoke? I'd love to rent and, sadly I guess, let someone else work with cleaning it, instead of damaging my own stuff and incurring that expense, but I don't think there will be a budget for renting. Also, wasn't sure on what category this should go into. So, sorry, dumped it here haha

Agreed. You'll notice there's really not a ton of overlap. So, you shoot your plates or your first layer stuff, then the second part of the scene just could use a small green or blue panel to use over the trouble spots and then a garbage matte to work it in. Never done it, but I've seen some simple things done this way and it looks like this. But, maybe it's a post to garnish some more views on the page too haha. Classy.

Someone with more knowledge on this may be able to shed some more light on this, but just based on what I've seen in DSLR videos.. It may have to do with shutter speed. Since film cameras run at 180º typically, that equates to a 1/48 shutter speed at 24fps on other cameras without angle specifications. I've noticed a good majority of people, in order to get a exposure that isn't crazy blown out mostly, and doesn't use ND filters or can't stop down the aperture anymore, will bump up the shutter speed. That can have an effect on the look (depending on what you're going for). Could also have to do with techniques. Hand-held vs tripod or other stabilizer. That plus shutter speed differences may also affect the feeling of it. That's my best guess.

hmph! Are you knocking Alien vs Predator?? haha

Technically... you can use whatever type of microphone you feel like. Just the results won't all be the same. I like my shotgun because in some environments where you can't avoid it, it does a great job at knocking out off-axis noise. It's also lighter than my large diaphragm. The large diaphragm sounds great when close to it or you have a good source, but it's also pretty sensitive, so you have to make sure you really get the source to rise above any inevitable room noise. The pattern is full- er... too large on the large condensers and will pick up too much. If you can't work with the audio in post, I would say shotgun it during shooting, and then ADR it with the large diaphragm later. But, then you're still doing more work. If anything, try it. If you have the time, it can't hurt to experiment. Learn by doing.

Were there instructions with it? Follow those to get the plate to sit where it needs to so it falls the right way and spins level, etc. I know I had a helluvatime with a glide cam the first time I used it, but with patience you can get it. Be careful though, the changing of the focal length on the zoom, and any weight changes, could throw it off. So make sure you have the camera rigged up where it needs to be for a shot.

Crazy question, but, any reason to need to do it with video? Could you just do a time-lapse with an SLR?

When I've done something like this with flash photography, I get my settings to where they need to be to black everything out without light, and then get the light where I need it to be to just hit the areas I want. So, in the case of flash, I may power it all the way down and then flag it off to not hit anything else but the subject. I also didn't diffuse to make sure it didn't go anywhere I couldn't control (didn't flag on all sides, just the side closest to the background. Probably helps if you have a bigger space to work with too, I was in a small room doing that. Haven't done this for motion, but I would go with similar tactics.

Haven't used [the] Avid in a while, but isn't it still a dark art? I remember in college when we had a Final Cut and an Avid suite, the Avid suite had cobwebs most of the time. I loved it because it was always free haha. There was an elite few of us who knew how to cut on it and loved it. And I was thinking on the same lines as Mark, thinking people just dropped the word "system" after "the avid".