Berker Taşkıran

Kinda looks like a 1D but I'm guessing it's not. Any ideas? And why it has a leather cover like that? Seems interesting.

I can backlight the large (5.5m) one. I'll be shooting RAW on Pocket, I'm not too worried about lighting - it seems to generally work. Should still do some more tests tough. Do you think the green will spill onto the armchairs? Most of the stuff, including the character's clothing, is white, btw. The set is a practical location. I don't have a lot of lights or budget for it - my main question is if I should do the green screen like this or some other way. Thanks for your concern tough.

I'll be shooting a sci-fi short in a week. Should I stick to this setup or instead use a straight green screen dividing the room into two from the 2.2m wall? The location will have 7 scenes and 11 shots. Some steady some moving shots. In some shots the whole room must be seen. I also planned to add a 3d piano model behind the 2.2m and 1.75m walls. Is this the best possible setup? What kind of complications could I have if I do it like this? I have to use tracking markers obviously, but will it be harder to make the created parts of the room to match the real parts of the room with this? I also have to create matching floor if I follow this setup when extending the room into a whole rectangle. Will that be too hard? Any better ideas?

I've shot this 6 months ago, no budget, only a poor LED was used for lightning, rest is practicals. The LED had awful flickering which I realized too late and had to fix it on post, gave me incredible hard time, fortunately I "did" manage to fix it. I did all the audio on post which also was another pain. Both helped me learn some lessons. As you can see all shots are static, shot on a tripod, I didn't have a way to move my camera back then. I sent this to a few free-to-apply festivals online, haven't received any feedback positive/negative. Most people seen it in real life somewhat liked it, most obviously praising it technically, saying it to be a bit slow, as expected. I took some shortcuts while filming this, I had a few more scenes that I didn't film because I was lazy (more work/outside scenes), and I did most of the work including the post which was the most tedious part. I extended my list of gear a lot since then and now I have a shoulder rig and arguably a great powerful LED (without flicker!) and learnt a lot about lightning. I still have some needs most important ones being a smoother way to move the camera and record decent audio. Obviously gear doesn't make the film, you do. This is just some information about my situation. Right now I'm planning to shoot another short (got a bit sick of them, tbh) which will have more things going on and hopefully will be better technically as well, this time hoping to not take any shortcuts on shoot and hoping to offload some work from post.

Okay then, I got Insert and Cutaway covered now, but what about Cut-In? In thefreedictionary.com it says Cut-In is another word for Insert? Or if you can use insert for both cutaway and cut-in, then perhaps, as I said before, Insert is used for both and cutaway and cut-in are more specific? Just checked screenplays of Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises, and the only term out of these I found used, is Insert. Cutaway and cut-in seems a bit redundant if you ask me. Even Insert doesn't make too much sense when you have no idea what the scale will be. A close up of an actual human being standing up and a cup of coffee sitting on a table should not be described with same term.

Then how about cutaway vs cut-in? Here, he describes cutaway as something in or out of the scene. Which contradicts to what I read about, I thought cutaway was cutting to outside of the scene. Insert obviously can't be cutting to outside of the scene. Is insert a general description that includes both? But still the question of cutaway vs cut-in remains. If any 2 of these 3 terms means the same thing, which one is used where? E.g. is one used only in screenplays and one during shooting, something along those lines?

I can't seem to find anything on the internet which seems... weird. Both is showing something that exists within the scene in closer detail, right? I know the difference between cutaway and cut-in, and cutaway and insert but not between cut-in and insert. So it's just two different words for exact same thing..? For some reason it makes me uncomfortable to assume that.

So then can I assume that other than lighting the background the way you like it, the color of the lighting isn't something to worry about if you have the production design and color grading in place? My whole concern was that I was always thinking about the grading until the moment I started to get into lighting and then thought for a second that to achieve such colors you needed to pay great attention to color of the lighting. I can live with trying to figure out shaping the light and the shadows but if color plays such great role in it, it would introduce a whole other element to the picture (pun not intended) so that was what I wanted to get out of my head.

How does one achieve such different colors? In the first image the shirt is greenish but the highlights of faces and hands and the watch aren't affected by green color. There's also some yellowish highlights in the background. Is this done by color grading using secondaries with tracking? That was my first assumption but Hannibal is filled with such shots, I don't see how to do that without spending a lot of time. The second image, again, has different colors for highlights, the background and the face. That shot look like a bit simpler since the background and foreground is easily apart. But the question is, is it the work of grading or lighting using different color lights?

Huh. Sorry about that. 1st image: http://i.hizliresim.com/3vR4jp.jpg 2nd image: http://i.hizliresim.com/R1659n.gif 3rd image: http://i.hizliresim.com/pXYQ8n.png

https://thenerdicon.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/hannibals01e09-2406.jpg http://67.media.tumblr.com/78b4c8d73746e81cd91f3871130e56f2/tumblr_n3x18n0Cft1rjp8eoo2_500.gif http://img2.tvtome.com/i/u/0e58a6975ca24a22ca59898c7c2dd1e4.png Are there more than one color of light used here, or is it all the magic of Resolve? With grading, would it not require doing heavy tracking at every shot in every part of the image? I found that too difficult to do so far. And I don't see how it would be possible to light the shirt that way in the first image. Or is the shirt's color really not white but greenish white? So how are the colors we see in these 3 images achieved? Also, I know that in Hannibal they grade using Resolve, but if there is tracking done for the colors, is it done in Resolve or something like After Effects?

Will probably buy the Sigma 17-50 in an hour. Any last words? :) Hope I won't regret it...

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 has been my first choice, but it's nearly 3 times the price of a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 here. This is a comparison of these two, and two other fast zooms. While the 18-35 is better than all, the 17-50 isn't really bad. I will try to find the 18-35 cheaper and maybe try to find a used one but I'm not sure how will that turn out. Here is Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 at f/2.8 and here is Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 at 17mm f/2.8, Rokinon is just awful. And here is the 18-35mm f/1.8 at 18mm f/1.8, better than Sigma 17-50 but not as much of a difference as the prior. Where I live the Sigma 17-50 is cheaper than the Rokinon. I can't find any comparisons with the cine Rokinons but I REALLY doubt it's any better, in terms of sharpness. I really don't think it's a good idea to pay more to an inferior lens and get fixed focal lenght. Sure the advantages of a cine lens is nice and cool but if I'm buying a prime cine I expect better optics. Rokinon is just awful in that department. The only consolation is that these are still picture comparisons so the video performance might not be this bad, but there isn't a comparison for video that I can see it with my own eyes. So I can't just "believe" that it "shouldn't be that bad". Logical thing is to think that the difference will scale in the same proportion to the video as well. This might or might not be true, but until seeing it, it's the best thing to assume. TL;DR: Do you think the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a bad choice in terms of optics performance to use on BMPCC, leaving the build quality/cine features out? That's what I want to know. I might even regret buying this just because it lacks cine features, but that must come later. Right now my only luxury is to compare optics quality. If it is better than Rokinons, which the overwhelming evidence says so, then I must choose the better optics. If I'll regret it, I'll have to regret it. Pretty sure I will also regret getting Rokinons with THAT optics performance. With the Sigma I will only regret that I don't have enough cash for decent cines, NOT Rokinon cines.

Okay but which one? Samyang 8mm f/3.5 UMC Fisheye 1079 Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS 1577 Samyang 12mm f2.8 ED AS NCS Fisheye 1691 Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC 1317 Samyang 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC CS 1462 Samyang 21mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC CS 1269 Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC 2449 Samyang 8mm T3.8 UMC Fisheye 1265 Samyang 10mm T3.1 ED AS NCS CS 1733 Samyang 12mm T3.1 ED AS NCS Fisheye 1899 Samyang 14mm T3.1 ED AS IF UMC 1442 Samyang 16mm T2.2 ED AS UMC CS 1577 Samyang 24mm T1.5 ED AS IF UMC 2210 Samyang 35mm T1.5 AS IF UMC 1815 These are the prices in where I live. BMPCC is sold for 2400 as a comparison, which is slightly cheaper than US/EU. On the contrary some lenses are more expensive. Bolded ones are the most viable options for me. Is the 16mm cine any good? I can get that one and use with and without focal reducer so I can get nearly 35mm and 50mm equivelent ranges in one lens (Of course at ~50mm I would have less light). But it's still a bit too much for my budget. I need to see some comparisons. I really want a cine lens but it's just too much. With focal reducer and SD card I will already catch up to my camera price. I know that's usually natural, usually lens is even more expensive than the camera, but... I'm still a student. Anyway right now the most logical choice seems to be the 16mm cine, unless it isn't good, but I "really" wonder if it would worth the price image-quality wise? I read somewhere that said these cine lenses only get sharp after f/3 or 4, if that's true that's not very good. I need the low light. Here is a non-cine Rokinon/Samyang 24mm comparison with Sigma 17-50's 21mm, the Rokinon/Samyang is simply awful. It's hard to believe the cine's are much better without seeing it.

Yeah I just realized that. They seem to have stills lenses, cine lenses, cine ds lenses, and now the most expensive xeen lenses. Do you recommend the stills lenses? They seem to have rubber rings instead of metal. But if I can get them half the price of the cine? Are there any comparisons, including with other similar stills lenses?

I too would prefer a cine lens, but the 24mm Rokinon (which is sold as Samyang here) is about twice the price of Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Even if I somehow managed to buy it, I would be stuck with that. I don't see how I can get a 17 or 18mm. Also are there two different version of this lens? Because I see both T1.5 and f/1.4 for the 24mm. I know the difference between T stop and F stop but I don't know if there are two versions of this lens and if so which one is better. How is the Samyang/Rokinon 21mm f1.4 ED AS UMC CS? Any comparisons with their 24mm? It is the same price of Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 where I live. I still won't be able to afford another lens unless it is dirt cheap, but it is at least affordable. With 21mm the resulting FOV would be a bit out of standart with 2.09 crop, but I guess I'll have to live with that.

New owner of a BMPCC here, I was on the verge of getting Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 but then saw that Canon 24mm 2.8 STM is quite cheap. Now when I get Lens Turbo 2 my crop factor will be 2.09 so I will only need an 18mm lens to compensate 17-50. I compared the 24mm to 17-50 @ 28mm, the 24mm is "much" sharper and kinda better in terms of color? I can also get 50mm 1.8 STM since it's dirt cheap. 100mm isn't very useful but can still come in handy and make me feel good having multiple lenses and whatnot. Of course my first priority should be to find a decent 18mm but that seems a bit hard, at least if I aim to get a brand new one. So yeah why should I even bother with 17-50? If I could get the Metabones for BMPCC my options would be amazing but unfortunately I cannot afford it. I can also carry the pancake with me, which is not very important but is very neat. Thoughts? Other suggestions? Thanks.

I don't know anyone can possibly answer my question or if there's even an answer but here it goes... What I want for sure -in order of importance-: - Best image quality for the money - 4K - Cover 18, 28, 35, 50mm - Very Shallow DOF - Low Light Performance - Slow Motion 2000-2500$ (would prefer 2000$) budget for camera, lens, and a few other stuff. Candidates: GH4 (cons: low light, shallow dof, lenses) G7 (cons: image quality?, shallow dof) A7S (cons: 4K, rolling shutter, price) A7S II (cons: price) I was gonna buy GH4 with Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 but even for a 800$ lens, I'm still not gonna get what I want. Which is something a bit more than a lens that -even with a speedbooster- "acts like" 30-60mm F/3.0 on MFT. Even if aperture was enough, which isn't, I still would miss the 18mm range. And buying another lens after a 800$ one is really a bad idea at this budget and at this point. Not to mention you can't really buy a cheap fast wide lens, not even a F/1.8 one (Best option I found was a Rokinon 12mm f/2 for 320$). Or any other fast non-tele lens, really. I think if the Sigma was like 500$ I might have bought the GH4 already, but it really feels like an empty investment for a lens that can't be used on bigger sensors. Right now GH4 is 1300$ and A7S is 2200$. I think A7S isn't too expensive considering what you get but the fact that you need an expensive gadget to record in 4K and the rolling shutter issue is a deal breaker. And A7S II is really all I want, but it's just out of my budget. So what, am I destined to not own a camera ever?

Hello. I am 25, I live in Turkey, I currently study film in a university in my first year. I haven't shot anything, not even a short film. I have zero experience. I wrote one short screenplay, and writing one short and one feature screenplays. I have many other ideas I haven't scriptized yet. I believe I am a very creative person. I want to be a writer director. I was planning on shooting my first short film this summer, with my university friends. I believe it can be very good. So I was seeking ways to gain experience and a few days ago I met a tv director, thanks to a mutual friend. He is willing to set me up an intership in a film or tv set by asking his fellow director friends. There is no certain info. But we're talking about 6 am to 11 pm a full week 8 weeks of work. I know in Hollywood most films take a few months to shoot but in my country most films probably take 2 weeks. So if it's 8 weeks it's probably a tv set. And an episode of a tv show in my country is about 120 minutes. Yes, this is not a typo. I have no car of my own and it will probably take at least 1 hour to travel to and from set. So if this 6 am 11 pm thing becomes constant I won't even have time to sleep. What I have in mind is to ask him that if he can find me a job that's at most 4 weeks. So even at worst case scenario it will last only 1 month and then I will be done with it. As far as I'm concerned 1 or 2 weeks is probably all I need to fully get what's going on on a set. And I don't have any aim to do my work in my country so making connections or acquiring any positions is no concern. I really value my free time and I want to shoot my short film this summer so 8 weeks will probably be not good for me. But at the same time I don't want to miss this opportunity and I am not sure without seeing such a place I will be comfortable. I don't think I will have trouble shooting my short film or even my first feature film (one-room type) but I probably will want this experience. And there is no guarantee I will have this chance again. Oh and also I plan on continuing my study in Germany or UK next year and I can't shoot this particular short film anywhere else than here. Now I know I can always write another screenplay or shoot my short film in the remaining 1 month but that brings certain risks and I don't work well under pressure. That's about it. So what do you think I should do? I have less than 24 hours to decide.

Sorry I made a mistake above, I can't use 18mm as crop factor is 2.3 w/o SB. It is 29-81 instead of 18-60. Which is even better in terms of range, except lack of a very wide angle, which is acceptable, again.

Back with another "I have made my decision" post. :D A GH4 + A Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 + A knockoff Speedbooster from ebay sounds too good right now. It all costs $2400 which is cheaper than an A7S body-only! On 4K 2.3 crop factor with 0.71 on speedbooster I'll have a crop factor of 1.63. Makes it a 29-60mm lens. With SB, lens should be around f/2.8, can even be considered fast. If there's no vignetting and if it is sharp enough (which seems so) this is great. And I can use 18mm wide if I remove SB too! So a 18-60mm range with a somewhat fast lense. I may need to cover a longer range if I do outdoors but I can live with that. This should be all I need for interior. With a bit of push, I can even buy this soon! For the first time I feel relieved. I wasn't feeling right when I decided for A7S because it was expensive and I wasn't sure about lenses. I stated for a few times GH4 wasn't looking good but I think I was expecting too much from it, even TV Shows I'm watching those have dark, no-detail spots. Now my question is: Let's assume I bought those 3 items. "Can I really shoot a successful film with those?" I'm not asking about technical details. Do you think it's possible? Do you think someone professional would watch that thing and actually like what they see artistically, think it is on par with works of the more experienced? I know it all depends on how you use it, camera can't make you what you're not, I'm just asking if it is possible with such a gear? That I won't be blocked by technical limits of my gear? I wish there was a (very) successful movie/short movie made with GH4. Hopefully I can stop researching 24/7 now, I want to stick to my decision and buy these items ASAP. I am actually feeling a lot more close to my goal than ever. This didn't seem possible a short while ago. I feel... "sane" again. P.S.: Please don't change my mind. :P

I've been researching about vignetting and I started to think no cheap lenses (<$500) would give you clear image at Full Frame. I'm not even sure even the expensive ones ($500-1000 primes) are fully reliable. Even if they are I can't buy more than one $1000 lens and I can't buy anything else. The question is would you get vignetting with an MFT lens aswell? By MFT lens I mean either a lens designed solely for MFT or a lens with an MFT adapter. IF vignetting is a nonexistent topic on MFT then it sounds appealing. I would need to get at least a f/1.4 for shallow DoF on MFT to compensate crop factor. I would get f/2 with a speedbooster, if my calculation is correct. I have started to come to a conclusion: I would have to pay similar amounts for equal quality lenses on both MFT and FF format. Is this true? *** But I'm not sure about low-light performance/dynamic range about GH4. I've seen some videos and it felt kind of cheap, there were too little details on dark parts of picture. I specifically dislike that look. But Tom Antos on his YouTube review of A7S says two cameras aren't that different compared to cameras like RED Epic. But most professionals who shoots on RED Epic is probably using T1.5 lenses. Which is obviously better than f/2. Not to mention their lighting capabilities. It seems like a wise choice to choose the cheaper camera but while I am fairly convinced lens prices aren't much different in similar quality, I am still NOT 100% sure about it. "Doubt" is what's bugging me. Is it possible for me to get 1 zoom and 1 prime lens "suggestions" from you for me to make sure of their prices with absolutely equal IQ that can be decent enough (but still affordable with low budget) to shoot a film with absolutely acceptably-low vignetting for both GH4 and A7S, assuming GH4 possibly being used with a speedbooster (and wide angle filter if those are reliable?!). I was looking at Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens that's nearly $800 but vignetting seems like a problem with that one on Full Frame. And I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use it on GH4 since it will be f/4 for shallow DoF even with speedbooster. f/4 seems too high for decent shallow DoF.

@David, While A7S is expensive for me, it is the cheapest in a way. Even cheapest MFT's cost more with decent lenses, and a cheaper FF would be way too poor quality. I haven't seen a comparison of D600 against A7S but I don't think it can be anywhere near 'decent'. I rather buy an A7S at the first time than buy a D600 or something like that and buy an A7S later. I already stated that I needed experience, I won't go and buy an A7S before gaining some kind of experience even if I was sure to do great with it, which I'm not. If everything else fails I'll just go and experiment on those MarkII/III's at my school for a few weeks in there (Yes, they don't allow us to take them out). Unless there's a magical solution waiting for me around the corner, I will choose A7S. I think this is the right choice for me. I may try to find a used one, or wait for its price to drop, or teach some English lessons or something. As clichéd it may be to link a vimeo (my decision is not based on this): I loved the first comparison. It seem to do wonders with AWB and stuff. And the small filesize with S-LOG can be very useful. Great choice of music by the way, and the way the uploader expresses himself in both video and comments sounds like someone who can succeed in the industry. Nice to see such people.

Also, will I need AF? I didn't think so and there shouldn't be fast action but people are saying A7S is hard to focus and even harder when there's movement.

But how can they change when used on FF? FF doesn't have a crop factor. Is it because the only way to use them on FF is to get APS-C adapter so that with that adapter installed FF camera turns into APS-C? Or is there something else? So those 170$ lenses are good? I will get the promised specs? Are they on par with Panasonic/Olympus lenses quality? I was thinking 1500$ for camera and maybe 1000$ for lenses. But nothing is certain. If there's no better alternative than A7S I can wait or reconsider GH4 but I want to stick to FF. Camera part is easier than lenses. I have no idea what will be the price for a decent lens and their summed up price.