Bob Speziale

How does the youtube video look on a computer monitor? What kind of TV is it? TV shows and movies are often saturated more to make them look good on a variety of old and new sets.

I think there ought to be some discussion of whether a person is actually talented and driven and smart enough to succeed in this type of environment. And by succeed I mean able to make a decent living and take pride in their work and accomplishments, not get to some peak of the profession. In many professions it seems the spots at the top involve more than just doing a good job. Nepotism, politics, and maybe a flexible conscience is needed to get the top spots. No matter how much you love something, there's no guarantee you will be more than mediocre at it, a hobbyist rather than a professional. Like Dirty Harry said many times, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Schools and friends won't tell you this, but it's something everyone needs to get a handle on. I agree that with luck and ability a person can often achieve his professional goals. But only if he has a special gift in that area. Not everyone can succeed in every area no matter how much effort they put into it.

But there are also areas that a person can "get into the business" without being a genius or star, like journalism, advertising, production companies. Even government jobs (pensions are priceless) hire and allow people to become competent in cinematography and vidography. It may not be art, but it will pay your bills.

Hundreds of thousands of kids picked up a guitar in the '60s and many are still playing them, but only a very few made a good living at it, and one in a million or so was an Eric Clapton, who had no formal training, no connections, and was at the top in his early 20's, and navigated not just the creative side but the business side brilliantly. The idea that everybody can become a Clapton or top cinematographer or movie maker through desire and hard work just isn't true.

I sure understand doing something I love and sacrifice. You have no idea how much time, personal debt and tears went to print magazines after the recession. At any rate, the way to help others is not to discourage them and beat them up. I guess I am guilty of the same and do so non-intentionally. Yes, it's competitive, but it's also a lot of who you know and not just what you know. For the longest time, the industry was ruled by Hollywood and a couple of camera companies. Nepotism and friends of friends got the jobs not the passionate and talented. Also, there is a lot of politics in front of the camera, behind the camera and at the box office. There is nothing in the world like making movies. If you want to do it go for it. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't do it. Find your way. And, be tougher than nails because you will need to be.

Very few people have the talent, ability and dedication to 24x7 learning and practice that it takes to become a moviemaker, or work in any art form. Probably the first thing to find out is if this craft is for you. Doing something as a hobbyist is not the same as getting paid to produce something that others value enough to pay for it (doing it as a profession). You can choose to be a Van Gogh and die peniless without ever having achieved any appreciation for your work, but that is not a viable option for most. Enjoying movies and knowing all about them and talking about them is not the same as making movies. Making movies is not the same as making good movies. Being in school is not the same as being in the working world. In school you pay them. In the working world they pay you. There's a science and an art to most challenging professions. To succeed (that is to make a living at it) you need to be well versed in both. You need to get way ahead of the learning curve so you stand out to those who pay you for your work. You also need the ability to handle people, bosses and peers.

Some older lenses focus past infinity, so going to the end of the focus ring is not focused at infinity. That is, infinity focus is achieved before the stop at the end of the focus ring.

Very nicely shot and edited.

All the used Japanese camera products I have bought on ebay were in excellent condition and there was no customs charges to the US. Good luck and let us know how this works out for you.

And lastly, I went ahead and pulled the trigger last night and bought a 1014xls from Japan. I hope there aren't any customs issues and everything works properly as described. I'll be selling the movexoom on eBay with all of it's problems listed. Which means no one will buy it and I will end up taking it apart under the false pretence that I could possibly repair it and then throwing it away after a few whiskeys. I'll post pics. :P

There's no correlation between age and ability. If you are working with the right people they are looking for ability.

I only buy used equipment on ebay from buyers with excellent feedback selling the type of equipment I am buying, with a full description of what is included and stating that everything works properly. If the equipment was not as described, Paypal has refunded my money including postage both ways. Strangely I have had no problems with any out of country purchases from Japan, China, South Africa, Canada, Britain and Lithiuania. The items that were refunded by Paypal were all US purchases.

You are right. I guess rhe best alternative is a small folding knife with a 1-3/4 " blade carried in the watch pocket of jeans.

Don't let the clip or knife show. It has to be concealed in NYC.

 

 

Has nothing to do with the length of the blade. Pocket knife blades under 4" are legal in NYC. What's not legal are knives that can be opened without effort like switchblades, gravity knifes, spring assisted opening pocket knives, and possibly locking pocket knives so loose they can be flicked open. I just bought a new carry pocket knife and had to avoid the spring assisted ones. A pocket knife that clips to the inside of my pants pocket and can be opened one handed with a thumb peg is perfectly legal as far as I know. The incident spoken of sounds more like a bad arrest than anything routine. Bad arrests are police bread and butter everywhere.

I had no idea that my pocket knife (2-7/8" blade) was illegal in NYC.

 

Here is video...

 

 

If you want to be safe, carry a small fixed blade knife. Bottom line...if ANYONE can open your knife one handed...you go to jail. I've been working on borrowed time for years in NYC and didn't know it.

Not at all. Actually if the subtitles are clearly visible and kept on the screen long enough to read you quickly lose awareness of reading them at all. It's more like you are hearing a foreign language but your brain is interpreting it into your language.

I'm bilingual in English / Spanish and even though there was a dialect spoken at times I could enjoy the film without having to read the subtitles......do you think (not spanish speakers) flicking your eyes up and down from text to image detracts from the experience or not?

Also depends on the aperture used. At low f-stops like f2 you may see vignetting or even have the image surrounded by a circular border. dark At higher f stops, like f8, you may not see it at all.

You're very welcome Alex. Merry Christmas!

 

Hi my camera can do max 20 fps here you can see my main scanner setup it does about 7fps that i use https://www.flickr.com/photos/94271811@N03/11007177505/ and i use hall sensor to trigger the camera https://www.flickr.com/photos/94271811@N03/10312776126/

and here you can see some HDR captures i have done i run the film two times low and high exposure and join them with Avisynth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0tv4im6HPo&frags=pl%2Cwn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCcKXjlwgRw&frags=pl%2Cwn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQd5RWj3hrA

Wow. Really well done. Great results. Great memories.

Hi i have test Photo interruptor sensor to detect sprocket hole and then trigger camera to take a picture and it works very good i think the RetroScan universal works the same way

 

but the camera need to have fast exposure 1/2000 or faster because the film move constantly

 

here is a movie clip when i test it i hand crank the film up to 18 fps no problem :)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABlW4jvSruM&frags=pl%2Cwn

Looks good. That type of equipment is usually in the $5K to $10K range including the camera. Could you post a follow up video of the finished scanned video?

I'm wondering if anyone has tried taking a high fps (120 to 240 fps) video of a film clip projected on a screen in a dark room? It would be simple to grade the video of the film clip and slow the sequence down to real time in the editor. Instead of working with about 3,000 frames for a 3 minute reel they would have a few minutes of video with multiple segments of images for each frame that could recorded and slowed down to real time in a few minutes. If I still had my 8mm reels and projector I'd try this myself.

This is beautifully shot, but so well shot and interesting I completely ignored the music. I would consider mixing live shots of the band performing with some of these sequences. Otherwise the subject is the video and the band and music fade into the background.

Watched the second part of the PBS Frontline documentary "The Facebook Dilemna" last night. Having seen the above video on focus pulling I noticed the focus pulling on this 2nd part of the documentary was terribly clumsy and overdone. The focus was usually better on the interviewer than the interviewee. Sometimes the focus popped in like it was done with an old three lens rotary lens turret. I wonder if the focus pulling was just bad or simulated in the editor digitally.

Liked the video. I never thought of how focus pulling adds to the story. Lots of things in a movie are not even noticed by the audience but they affect the audience. Regarding Lumix, I doubt if your words will be heeded. A $2K camera competing with Sony and Canon and Nikon for the advanced hobbiest or pro isn't going to include the technology you are advocating.

As an amateur videographer and photographer I try to learn as much as I can about the art and technology of today's cameras. One question I have is how does a FF dslr with 40+ MP stick that data into an 8MP 4K video frame.

As an aside, I wonder if the Lumix-S 4K 60P will be available in avchd?

Much better. Adding the color at 2:43 made all the difference. Looks good to me as is.

 

This video was F2 800 iso I added a light straight above the vise.

 

I also edited color half way through to get your opinions on the color correcting Lute that I have been using.

 

is this lighting good enough or will I need more? I do have 3 more of these clamp lights I can add. I use dryer sheets to diffuse the light a bit.

Three more suggestions came to mind.

1. if you are shooting in a flat color profile, that is only used if you are going to post process the video to put back the color, like in my example above. Otherwise use a standard color profile.

2. Shoot the video with auto settings and see what the camera decides looks the best. Then take still pics with the same auto settings and look at the still pic properties to see what the camera seected for iso, f-stop and exposure to get that look. Your camera is a $2K plus computer and initially may make better decisions than you do.

3. The time spent on a video is mostly in editing. For a 3-4 minute video I spend 5 or 6 hours cutting, editing, etc. before putting it on Youtube.

Making videos isn't like driving a car. It's more like making hand made furniture. It takes a lot of knowledge and experience to get there, but you've made a good start.

Also, maybe try more light and raise the iso a bit to see if the focus is sharper, like Robin said iso1600 at f4. Also I'd try a higher frame rate. You can try 60 fps. in HD. That will give a sharper image. 24fps gives a smoother cinema look, but a blog or news show or sports looks sharper at 60fps. Also I've shot 60fps HD at 1/60th of a second in lower light and it works out fine. Alot of the shooting rules can be broken when it gives you a better image. With your camera and lens you ought to be able to get a sharper image, it's a top of the line dslr and lens. Good luck.

Also, maybe try more light and raise the iso a bit to see if the focus is sharper, like Robin said iso1600 at f4. Also I'd try a higher frame rate. You can try 60 fps. in HD. That will give a sharper image. 24fps gives a smoother cinema look, but a blog or news show or sports looks sharper at 60fps. Also I've shot 60fps HD at 1/60th of a second in lower light and it works out fine. Alot of the shooting rules can be broken when it gives you a better image. With your camera and lens you ought to be able to get a sharper image, it's a top of the line dslr and lens. Good luck.

Your video can be brightened up in post. I took a screen shot of a single frame and used the brightness and contrast sliders in Photoshop the same as I would do in Premiere Pro for a whole video sequence. Takes less than a minute in Photoshop or Premiere Pro. I think the more light you have, the more sharpness you will see. Like taking a pic with and without a flash. It seems like with that lens and camera you should have a sharper focus. Maybe more light and raise the iso a bit to see if the focus is sharper. Then you can brighten it up in post.

 

https://tinyurl.com/yd9ousoy

Your video can be brightened up in post. I took a screen shot of a single frame and used the brightness and contrast sliders in Photoshop the same as I would do in Premiere Pro for a whole video sequence. Takes less than a minute in Photoshop or Premiere Pro. I think the more light you have, the more sharpness you will see. Like taking a pic with and without a flash. It seems like with that lens and camera you should have a sharper focus. Maybe more light and raise the iso a bit to see if the focus is sharper. Then you can brighten it up in post.

https://tinyurl.com/yd9ousoy

I apparently turned it to private instead of unlisted
Thanks

 

here is a test video. did f4 at 800 iso showed up a lot darker than it looked on the back of the screen as well.

Video unavailabe on youtube. Maybe a bad link?

And Robin, you are right in that you get what you pay for in cameras and lenses and in narrative video or outdoor shoots in different lighting etc, this is quite evident. But for youtube videos in small indoor spaces like tutorials or solo against a wall music videos, I have found (and a year ago I would have considered this ridiculous heresy) my two $300 to $400 super zoom bridge cameras, a coolpix b700 with a fixed 24 to 1440 mm equivalent zoom lens and lumix fz80 with a fixed 20 to 1200 mm equivalent zoom lens work the best. And I can put two on a tripod next to each other on a bar, focus one to a medium shot and one to a close up, start the video and step in front of the cameras.

I say this after making youtube videos with a variety of dslrs and lenses and video cams and bridge cameras, The reason is the coolpix b700 and lumix fz-80 bridge cameras both shoot in 4K, they have excellent silent continuous auto tracking in video that changes focus silently in 1 to 3 seconds and in video mode they set everything automatically, iso, f stop, shutter speed to get the best exposure in any lighting. I spent years in manual video mode with dslrs and I have to concede the bridge cameras work better and faster for me. A little color grading and the vast majority of viewers wouldn't see the difference on a solo music video shot against a wall or a tutorial from a dslr with a prime or zoom lens. Sure a Blackmagic Ursa Mini 4.6K with cine lenses would look better, but it's really the content that people are looking at.

Robin you are 100% correct. When I first looked at the OP's video what stood out as needing work to me was the camera technique and presentation. I saw it in a small youtube window and didn't even notice how grainy and poor the camera settings were making the video look. I looked at it again in full screen and you are exactly right. And really he needs more light available. I just bought a couple of 500 watt equivalent mogul e39 led bulbs and adapters to standard e26 sockets and a couple of pvc clip on lamps to point at the ceiling from above a 6 ft'. cabinet to light up a space without shadows. Whole thing cost less than 75 bucks.

Bob,with respect, I would say setting your camera at f16 /32,000 Iso with a f1.4 lens for low light interior ..is totally wrong.. you would rarely want to shoot f16 in the blazing sun let alone a dark garage .. cranking up the ISO to this limit on a f1.4 lens to shoot f16 in low light is absolutely the wrong way round..

 

Brandon.. I see you did this to have maximum depth of field due to previous focus problems.. f1.4 even on 24mm it will be shallow.. you could go up to f4/5.6 but you dont need f16.. and ISO 32,000 way off the scale.. you would only use this as some extreme emergency setting like a dark colored UFU landing in the night :)... the A7III has very good AF.. check your settings.. are you in movie mode?.. Auto focus continuous is what you want.. WIDE focus area.. with Face detect .. for when you turn the camera to yourself..