Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

marrying yourself with a single camera system and single limited lens kit mandates you to adapt every one of your project to suit that camera and lens kit.

Once again, this nonsense. Because -

1.Cameras really do not have a style

2. You can easily change lenses - including by renting as well as buying

3. In fact, a lot of styles can be shot with the same focal lengths. I gave examples to show this, but you don't seem to understand. (You should probably find out what a jump cut is and who Ozu was.)

Quote

 

Though the last couple of years most of the cinematographers seem to have confined their visual style with single camera system (always shooting on Alexa) 

 

This is just nonsense - literal nonsense, in that it is the Argument By Conclusion fallacy. Yes, Alexas are widely used. But do they impose a single style? Well, were Skyfall and Hugo shot in the same style? No. You're being silly. Style is a product of framing, camera movement, lighting, editing. Not Alexa vs Red.

Edited by David Mawson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Mawson said:

Once again, this nonsense. Because -

1.Cameras really do not have a style

2. You can easily change lenses - including by renting as well as buying

3. In fact, a lot of styles can be shot with the same focal lengths. I gave examples to show this, but you don't seem to understand. (You should probably find out what a jump cut is and who Ozu was.)

This is just nonsense - literal nonsense, in that it is the Argument By Conclusion fallacy. Yes, Alexas are widely used. But do they impose a single style? Well, were Skyfall and Hugo shot in the same style? No. You're being silly. Style is a product of framing, camera movement, lighting, editing. Not Alexa vs Red.

1. film cameras affect visual style based on for example the film gauge, lens mount, weight, form factor and viewfinder optics and mounting options. On digital cameras you need to factor the sensor, image processing and recording format as well. They affect the visual style in both "technical" and "practical" ways.

2. you can't puchase or rent lenses if you spent all the money you have on the expensive camera body and basic accessories. there is not any money left. that is exactly what I was talking about, read the posts again

3. every lens has its own imaging characteristics both by itself and by combining it with differing size shooting mediums (sensor sizes/film gauges/manual cropping in post) . they have practical usability limitations as well in addition to the technical characteristics which will both affect the shooting style a lot. One lens has bad mechanics, one has slow aperture, one does not focus near enough, one is bulky and heavy, one flares too much or in a wrong way...  combined with for example a oddball sized camera sensor you will have lots of potential problems in hand you are not able to control well enough without switching the camera body or lens or both. Even if you can make it work with only single body and one or two lenses it may not be practical at all in all situations.

Every practical limitations or advantages of a camera system will affect the shooting style and schedules and budget. Often it will become so problematic that you will need to change to different camera system and lenses to be able to maintain the style. OR to use significantly more resources like time and money and work to make the non-optimal camera work for the project. You can take a two Alexa 3D mirror rig for example and try to make it work for small indie gimbal and handheld movie. then claiming that equipment choices don't affect the visual style at all😅

Edited by aapo lettinen
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

1. film cameras affect visual style based on for example the film gauge, lens mount, weight, form factor and viewfinder optics and mounting options. On digital cameras you need to factor the sensor, image processing and recording format as well. They affect the visual style in both "technical" and "practical" ways.😅

Again, you haven't thought this through. They can alter the final look - but often not by much once you've compensated by eg using a wider aperture on a faster camera. But that has nothing to do with your claim. Which wasn't that there would be a minor impact on aesthetics - how polished a rendition of a style might be - but that camera system meaningfully limits the style you can learn to shoot in. Once again, with less than a $1000 of body and lenses, you can shoot like Ozu, Kurosawa, Godard, and in a mainstream style. Your "anamorphic" will low quality, but you can still practice Kurosawa's blocking. You'll have problem's shooting like Ozu because you won't be able to afford the sets he relied on - but you can shoot Dogville style, and that isn't a camera system problem anyway.

Quote

2. you can't puchase or rent lenses if you spent all the money you have on the expensive camera body and basic accessories.

This true, obvious, and irrelevant to the ridiculous claim you made and I'm debunking. Camera body, once you reach a level of sufficiency you can easily buy for $150, does not sanely restrict the style you can shoot in. Your claim was ridiculous, your defense defied basic rules of logic, and you're continuing to hide behind nonsense.

Quote

3. every lens has its own imaging characteristics both by itself

Yes. But that doesn't stop you from shooting in a particular style except in very rare case. Eg every 50mm lens made might have its own imaging style, but so what? Variations will normally be so minor that you - and I mean personally - wouldn't be able to tell a Contax F1.4 from a Pentacon f1.8 once they're at f5.6 and have bee through post. And nothing about those slight differences impact your ability to learn a shooting style. The idea that you can't learn to shoot Ozu 360 dialogue without exactly the lens he used is utter piffle.

Honestly, you've made one of the silliest claims I've ever seen on the Internet. I can only believe that you don't know what actual cinematographic style is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Mawson said:

Again, you haven't thought this through. They can alter the final look - but often not by much once you've compensated by eg using a wider aperture on a faster camera. But that has nothing to do with your claim. Which wasn't that there would be a minor impact on aesthetics - how polished a rendition of a style might be - but that camera system meaningfully limits the style you can learn to shoot in. Once again, with less than a $1000 of body and lenses, you can shoot like Ozu, Kurosawa, Godard, and in a mainstream style. Your "anamorphic" will low quality, but you can still practice Kurosawa's blocking. You'll have problem's shooting like Ozu because you won't be able to afford the sets he relied on - but you can shoot Dogville style, and that isn't a camera system problem anyway.

This true, obvious, and irrelevant to the ridiculous claim you made and I'm debunking. Camera body, once you reach a level of sufficiency you can easily buy for $150, does not sanely restrict the style you can shoot in. Your claim was ridiculous, your defense defied basic rules of logic, and you're continuing to hide behind nonsense.

Yes. But that doesn't stop you from shooting in a particular style except in very rare case. Eg every 50mm lens made might have its own imaging style, but so what? Variations will normally be so minor that you - and I mean personally - wouldn't be able to tell a Contax F1.4 from a Pentacon f1.8 once they're at f5.6 and have bee through post. And nothing about those slight differences impact your ability to learn a shooting style. The idea that you can't learn to shoot Ozu 360 dialogue without exactly the lens he used is utter piffle.

Honestly, you've made one of the silliest claims I've ever seen on the Internet. I can only believe that you don't know what actual cinematographic style is.

We were mostly talking about the operating style affecting the whole visual style. The camera and lens and accessories choices affect always at least the operating style in some way and that way the overall visual style. 

Maybe we have just different definitions of the "visual style" of a movie or alternatively you are changing yours from post to post. I don't know how experienced you are in filmmaking in general (google could not answer on a quick search) but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about in the previous posts.

If this is just about wanting to always having the final word (or final post in this case) then please post anything you want below so you'll have the final word on this thread no matter how true or false that would be :)

 I'm sure everything beneficial for the OP has already been said and I have some work to do so have a nice day and be sure to make the final post to this thread if thats meaningful to you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam - A prime is a lens that doesn't zoom. Image quality and brightness are usually much higher for the same price. A typical 3 prime set up would be a wide or semi-wide, a standard lens, and a moderate telephoto. In fullframe terms, something like a 28mm, a 50mm, and a 85mm. Whole movies have been shot with this lens range. Or even less - eg Rosemary's Baby or The Wrestler.

A cheap aps-c set-up with all those tools you need to learn like vector scopes would be an EOS-M with Magic Lantern, a modern Chinese 25mm, a vintage 50mm and a wide angle converter. That would get you 30, 40, and 80mm full frame equivalents for $600-800. You could add a decent vintage 135mm or 200mm lens for another $50-$100 if you ever wanted to play with more severe perspective compression.

Edited by David Mawson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:
5 hours ago, David Mawson said:

 

We were mostly talking about the operating style affecting the whole visual style.

Nope.

And if you're any good, it shouldn't. You go in knowing what shots you want (hello - storyboard, shot list, shooting set-up diagrams?) And you bloody well get them without being distracted by what font the GUI on the camera uses. If you're thrown off by the difference between a GM1 and a C100, you need to get your act together.

Edited by David Mawson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..And whatever you, leave money to buy a tripod or you're going nowhere. Even if you have a camera with IBIS, too many camera moves need "sticks". Buy a used set of legs and a decent new - or as new - fluid head. I'd be suspicious of anything cheaper than a Benro S6. 

You should really learn to use a slider too, but you can compromise quality more there (imo) or even diy one. 

If you're learning to use a camera then you're learning framing, focal length choice, colour balance, professional exposure techniques (which are aimed at maximising dynamic range and can be quite different) and camera "moves". That's why you manual focus, vector scope, false colour, log or raw, and a fluid head. But once you've got those, you're good to go - more money spent won't help you learn more once you have those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam if you are in film school, what cameras do you use there? Won't they let you use their equipment to learn on and make films with? Why do you need your own camera? What would having your own camera do for you. What do you want to achieve with it?

Cameras, lenses, audio, lighting equipment are just tools. There's no best tool for everything. You get the tools you need to fulfill your goals when you are lacking the equipment needed.

A $5K guitar won't make a beginner sound like Eric Clapton. And Clapton could sound good on a $500 guitar. People are often looking at hardware to make them better. But it's the skills acquired through trial and error that makes the difference. 

You could buy a Lumix FZ80 fixed lens bridge camera and a tripod and a gimbal and some lights and an audio recorder and shoot 4K movies, for less than $1000. The camera is full auto with auto tracking auto focus and a 20mm to 1200mm zoom lens. The video quality won't be as good as a BM but with proper framing, lighting and camera and audio technique and editing can look pretty good. Ultimately the content of the video and skill of the shooter is what is important. This is an art and a science. Learning how to operate equipment is the easiest part of it, the art comes after years of experience..

Edited by Bob Speziale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Mawson said:

You shouldn't need a camera to teach you shutter angle - it's something you should understand completely with about two minutes of reading. And any camera running Magic Lantern - which should really be the default for a low-end beginner camera - will white balance in Kelvin. I'm pretty sure that Fujis allow this too. And most Canons even without ML. So it's actually a common feature.

All of the commercial cameras use shutter angle vs shutter speed. So having it as your reference at all times, is really nice. So you can stay focused on "cinema" vs "still" terminology. I understand magic lantern does have some great features, but it still has the detractors in post production. Any camera that shoots LONG GOP 8 bit, 4:2:0 video OR some crazy uneditable Raw format, are not worth the discounted price in my opinion. I

11 hours ago, David Mawson said:

But you still have to add a decent power set-up. And this is not a camera you can hold your eye and shoot, so you need a tripod and fluid head. Add in memory cards and you really are looking at more like $3000. And then you'd better have a beast mode PC for editing.

Decent power? I still have the original pocket cameras with the 20 - 30 minute batteries which are $9 dollars on Amazon. The new pocket's batteries are around the same price and with the most recent firmware update, can last upwards of 40 minutes, which is about how much a 128gb SD card lasts in 4k mode anyway. So in all fairness, I don't see the necessity in a decent power setup. Ya buy 4 batteries, buy a double battery charger which are also cheap and you're done. The camera uses standard SD card's to capture, which are cheap. In terms of the computer, Pro Res is by far the easiest codec to decode because it's iframe based and it's decoding engine is multi-threaded. So as long as you have 4 or more cores (8 threads) you're going to decode 4k Pro Res HQ FASTER than 4k .h264/.h265. Plus, because it's an iframe codec, it's editable without needing to transcode.

11 hours ago, David Mawson said:

Otoh, you can buy an EOS-M for $150, install Magic Lantern and get all those tools, and get then a decent three prime set-up for another $150-300. You don't have a power problem that a couple$20 of generic batteries won't solve and you have plenty of money left over for support - even an HD editing PC if you need one.

Buy an old camera that will basically be thrown away after a few months? How do you buy 3 prime lenses for $300 bux with external adjustable controls, clickless iris, repeatable manual focus, etc. Most older stills primes are way more than $100/lens if they're any good. Lenses that aren't clickless (which are nearly all of the electronic lenses too) really don't help. Might as well shoot with an iPhone if that's the case. 

11 hours ago, David Mawson said:

You won't get 4K and you'll have a couple of stops less DR, but do those things actually affect the learning process? People shot career making films like Tiny Furniture on the 7D Mk i (which you can buy for just a little more than the M, but has drawbacks as well as pluses) and the current stage of Magic Lantern development means you'll be shooting at a higher level of quality than that. 

You'll have clunky menu's that have nothing to do with real cinema cameras even with magic lantern. You'll be stuck to the EOS lens selection instead of having a mount that's easy to adapt to nearly anything. You'll be stuck to using antique still lenses instead of cinema lenses. You'll be stuck to the worst codec a camera can have. You'll be dealing with lots of issues in post production just editing the crappy media that comes from a DSLR. The 7DMKII which I've shot with A LOT, is a poor camera for video with a high noise floor that literally tears the image away in dark higher ISO scenes due to the compression. Also, the canon cameras offer no external or even internal audio source that has any value. Besides the blatant fact THEY ARE STILL CAMERAS! It's like buying an iPad Pro for the soul purpose of shooting video. Just because it has a certain function, doesn't mean you should use it for that function as the only reason you bought it. Since nobody makes an iFrame codec mirrorless or dslr, it's safe to say my comments work for all cameras. The only camera that makes any difference is the Panasonic GH5 with a 10 bit 4:2:2 .h265 codec, which only works with a hand-full of post production tools. 

11 hours ago, David Mawson said:

The BM is nice, but while I completely agree with your emphasis on getting advanced tools, I think underestimate the real lower cost options. (I'm guessing that you must have heard of ML but didn't realise that it runs on a lot of the cheaper Canon aps-c bodies as well as the 5Dii and 5Diii?)

Real low cost does not create real great video when the frustration level of the person using the camera and post tools, prevents them from shooting due to the disastrous mess of their usability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

All of the commercial cameras use shutter angle vs shutter speed.

Yes. But if you're a big enough idiot that you can't learn what shutter angle is without this, then you shouldn't be using electricity anyway.

Quote

 

Any camera that shoots LONG GOP 8 bit, 4:2:0 video OR some crazy uneditable Raw format, are not worth the discounted price in my opinion. I

 

But is your opinion worth anything as evidence, as you seem to think? Well, no. Because what you feel in you tummy is not a fact, which is what we need to look at.

The fact is that you're not supposed to edit raw. You transcode to an editable format - an operation with edits about 0.1% to the effort that editing takes.

Yes, it would better not to have to do this - even minor reductions in effort are good. But enough so to justify paying at least 5x more for a body and speedbooster? Again, if you can't cope with the minimal extra effort, you shouldn't be trying to learn to shoot - you're  wasting your time because other things you have to do are a thousand times harder and more laborious.

Paying $1200 for a body instead of $150 because you're such an idiot that otherwise you'll never understand shutter angle, a concept an averagely intelligent 10 year old could master, and because you don't want the effort of of clicking on a file to transcode it, is just silly. At least when you're on a total $2000 budget and have other stuff to buy. There are reasons to buy a BM in many circumstances - better image quality, ease of achieving the same. But buying one because you think you can't edit work shot in raw would just be stupid.

 

Edited by David Mawson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now hear this .. ... here is the empirical answer to this whole thread ..cease this idle chatter... A7III to learn a bit.. then 2nd hand fs7.. cheap as chips and best bang for the buck in the whole camera universe .. you can shoot a Netflix show with it ..  there you have it Sam.. go forth  and shoot... 

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Speling az yousul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Now hear this .. ... here is the empirical answer to this whole thread ..cease this idle chatter... A7III to learn a bit.. then 2nd hand fs7.. cheap as chips and best bang for the buck in the whole camera universe .. you can shoot a Netflix show with it ..  there you have it Sam.. go forth  and shoot... 

Finally... Someone with an opinion!  🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Now hear this .. ... here is the empirical answer to this whole thread ..cease this idle chatter... A7III to learn a bit.. then 2nd hand fs7.. cheap as chips and best bang for the buck in the whole camera universe .. you can shoot a Netflix show with it ..  there you have it Sam.. go forth  and shoot... 

Omg thank you for a straight forward answer. About time. Why the A7III and not one of the Other a7 models like a or r. Why not black magic pocket and why not the gh5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sam Petty said:

Omg thank you for a straight forward answer. About time. Why the A7III and not one of the Other a7 models like a or r. Why not black magic pocket and why not the gh5?

Ultimately camera choice is personal. There are so many ways you could approach ways to spend your budget. We all have hugely different approaches and way's we'd spend the money and there are so many approaches to film production and your priorities and needs will be your own.

Most the cameras suggested are fine cameras and to be honest we are now in a place where there are many great budget options that you could consider.

But when you get down to it its:

Sega Vs Nintendo

Playstation Vs Xbox

Mac Vs PC 

Apple Vs Samsung 

Fender Vs Gibson (Gibson Obvs)

Korg Vs Yamaha

etc...

You need to find what works for you. The best way to do that is actually try the cameras out your serious about. Maybe trying to borrow or hire a couple of cameras for your own test will give you a feel for what you like. Because each camera will have different image quality, ergonimics, menu's, etc... Somethings that might be a deal breaker for one person would be fine for another. 

Remember opinions are like arseholes, we've all got one. 

My suggestions were based on my own experiences, but that doesn't mean its right for you.

Make a list of your priorities:

What lenses do you want?

DO you need a Tripod

Do you want 4K

Do you want RAW

Do you want lights etc...

What are you shooting?

How much battery life do you need?

Do you want a new camera?

Is this going to be your main camera? For how long? Do you plan to upgrade? When etc...

Then bust out excel and make some budgets - include everything you need remember storage and batts etc.. will add up... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Mawson said:

Yes. But if you're a big enough idiot that you can't learn what shutter angle is without this, then you shouldn't be using electricity anyway.

It's not about figuring it out, it's about consistency when you're using the menu's and such. 

7 hours ago, David Mawson said:

The fact is that you're not supposed to edit raw. You transcode to an editable format - an operation with edits about 0.1% to the effort that editing takes.

Yes, it would better not to have to do this - even minor reductions in effort are good. But enough so to justify paying at least 5x more for a body and speedbooster? Again, if you can't cope with the minimal extra effort, you shouldn't be trying to learn to shoot - you're  wasting your time because other things you have to do are a thousand times harder and more laborious.

You talked about needing a fast computer, but reality is, if you aren't transcoding everything you shoot, then there is no reason to have a fast computer. Again, Pro Res is a very fast codec to work with and time is money. So if you're wasting time transcoding everything, you've just wasted money. 

Who said you need a speedbooster? I have never owned one, but I have $30 chinese M43 adaptors for Nikon, Canon, PL and Arri B mount. 

7 hours ago, David Mawson said:

Paying $1200 for a body instead of $150 because you're such an idiot that otherwise you'll never understand shutter angle, a concept an averagely intelligent 10 year old could master, and because you don't want the effort of of clicking on a file to transcode it, is just silly. At least when you're on a total $2000 budget and have other stuff to buy. There are reasons to buy a BM in many circumstances - better image quality, ease of achieving the same. But buying one because you think you can't edit work shot in raw would just be stupid.

$150 for a still camera, but you want to be a cinematographer, just doesn't make any sense. It's a waste of time and money because you can't use it for anything but personal stuff. Nobody is going to hire you and your camera to shoot anything and you aren't building a show reel with one. Might as well use your telephone's built-in camera and get an app that pretends to make it a video camera. 

For $1300, you can own a camera that will create images that you're proud of, that you can use to build a show reel, that you can use to rent yourself out with eventually. Buy a camera that will do excellent work for you in the future, rather than a throw away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are wasting our time here. I asked the OP if he was in film school and what cameras he has used there. He never answered. I asked him if he could use the school equipment for his projects. He never answered. It's hard to believe he has any knowledge or education in film making if he didn't know what a prime lens is. He is looking to purchase something under $2K that will make him a filmmaker. Fact is cameras and lenses don't make you a filmmaker. Knowledge and experience does. He doesn't seem to have either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

$150 for a still camera, but you want to be a cinematographer, just doesn't make any sense. It's a waste of time and money because you can't use it for anything but personal stuff.

This is both snobbish and ignorant. People have shot films that I'm pretty damn sure outweigh your entire career with "still" cameras, eg

The film got added to the Criterion collection, distributed by IFC, won two awards at SXSW, and got Lena Dunham a show of her own at HBO.  Shot on a 7Di without even using raw.

Or Like Crazy was shot with a 5Dii and bought for almost 20 times its production cost by Paramount.

...So you may feel more important clutching a larger sized box, but the audience and distributors don't care.

Quote

 

It's a waste of time and money because you can't use it for anything but personal stuff.

 

This is doubly nonsense.

First of all, even if the body wasn't good enough, the other $1850 would be spent on gear you could carry on using later. And you'd be able to re-sell the body, so you'd be out, what, $25-$50 when you upgraded? 

Second, again you simply seem to invent pseudo-facts. People do shoot commercial work on those cameras today. (Trust me: go check videography posts on reddit.)

You might not feel up to doing so but if so that's about you and has nothing to do with anyone else. And a $150 EOS M with the latest version of Lantern will get significantly better image quality than Tiny Monsters was shot with - and no one has any problems with that film's image quality. And if you want to spend more you can buy a 7Di or 5Dii and get even better image quality - and still spend a fraction of the cost of a BM, letting you buy the other stuff you need.

Yes, a BM will shoot better again. (Or at least more easily.) But one won't fit inside a $2000 budget with lenses, a usable tripod, power, ND, etc. You simply can't learn to how shoot cinematically without a fluid head and slider. Wahhing about better image quality is silly when it means you can't learn the essentials, which is the point here. It's like telling someone to buy a fast comfortable car to learn to drive in and ignoring the fact they can only afford it if they forego having a reverse gear. It's better to forgo a little comfort and speed and to actually be able to learn to parallel park.

And seriously - someone should warn this poor guy about the need for ND filters - and myabe an IR cut - and audio gear. If his film school didn't explain what a prime was or crop factor is, he probably doesn't know what an ND filter is and thinks the in-camera mic will do. 

If the OP can stretch his budget to fit a BM and the other gear he needs, great. But if he's tight on money, then really, invented facts and false claims aside, he won't have any problems if he needs to save a $1000 bucks by swapping to that cheap EOS M body.

Edited by David Mawson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Mawson said:

Yes, a BM will shoot better again. (Or at least more easily.) But one won't fit inside a $2000 budget with lenses, a usable tripod, power, ND, etc. You simply can't learn to how shoot cinematically without a fluid head and slider.

One lens is enough - I've done many many projects where we decided on a single focal length and worked within that - makes you think about your shots.

I did a paid gig last weekend on a sub $2k Bm pocket 4K rig - I had 2 canon batts and used mains power indoors. You might say thats impossible but it got the job done.

Affordable Fluid Heads appear on ebay - keep your eyes open

Of course you can shoot cinematically without a slider. They are a pretty recent phenomenon, most films don't use sliders. Lots of other ways to move a camera or not move it.

I wish you wouldn't keep throwing out these dogmatic statements about what you can and can't do, as if they were facts when they are not. 

To reiterate: Its possible to purchase a black magic 4K, an SD card, a power source and a lens for less then $2K, it might not be the best "use" of $2k but its more them possible to shoot content on that set up.

It is possible to shoot films on servo controlled zoom lenses. Prior to the 5D the majority of affordable digital cameras were locked into using servo zooms, e.g ex1, Z1, Z5, PD150, PDX10, DVX100 etc... Many successful films were shot on these servo lensed cameras eg:  "Inland Empire", "Once"(that one won an Oscar), "Super Size Me", "The Last Broadcast", (most of)"The Blair Which Project", "Dancer in the Dark", " Lost in La Mancha" - so again its possible to shoot films (that are good) on electronic lenses. Yes nice manual lenses are better, but you can't make blanket statements that other things impossible when they are not.

Then the comment about the slider? Really? You can make completely cinematic films without moving the camera at all, check out the work of Patrick Kieller. In his case you wouldn't even need a fluid head because the cameras not moving.

It seems this thread has derailed into a crazy argument. Its important to be open minded and non judgmental about others opinions. I've not attacked anyones suggestions for proposed kit. Only defend my own, which come from a place of offering honest opinion backed up by plenty of experience. 

I'm shocked by the level of dogma and the throwing around of "facts", about what can and can't be achieved and I wouldn't have suggested the BM4K if I didn't think it was a potentially a good idea. It might not be the right thing for the OP and thats cool. Other ideas are available. I'm also making suggestions based on not knowing anything about the OP and what he wants to do. He may be happy with a single camera body, 1 fixed focal length lens and thats it or wanting a more full kit.

Its find to suggest kit and options - but to say you can't learn cinematography without a long list of stuff or very specific kit isn't true. There are many ways to embrace camera work and when your starting out you don't need to replicate a professional shoot but just find an approach that works for you.  

I guess the OP has probably run to the hills and I don't blame him. 

I think we should all just try and be a bit more open minded and respectful to each other. I'm not attacking anyones work or career and I don't think its cool for others to do so either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sam Petty said:

Omg thank you for a straight forward answer. About time. Why the A7III and not one of the Other a7 models like a or r. Why not black magic pocket and why not the gh5?

A7III is newer and cheaper ,plus it has better features for video/AF than the more expensive older r and s models.. and the large battery same as the A9.. this is crucial as the smaller batts are rubbish... its almost an industry standard B or C  camera for docs /corprate/ low budget drama..and has FF sensor.. wide lens choice etc..  BM is good not not often requested in the freelance world .. (if shooting your own stuff disregard this sage advise and buy anything you want, if the idea is to pursue a career as a freelance Camera person you need to have the gear thats requested )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Mawson said:

This is both snobbish and ignorant. People have shot films that I'm pretty damn sure outweigh your entire career with "still" cameras, eg

Why are you so obsessed with Tiny Furniture? Do you understand the image is created by the cinematographer right? When you're talented, it doesn't matter what you shoot with. When you're not talented, when you're just a beginner, it's great to have a kit that's not going to be a limiting factor. I mean for gosh sakes, there have been a bunch of high profile movies shot on iPhones. 

5 hours ago, David Mawson said:

The film got added to the Criterion collection, distributed by IFC, won two awards at SXSW, and got Lena Dunham a show of her own at HBO.  Shot on a 7Di without even using raw.

Lena Dunham wrote a great movie that took 3 years to get distribution and put her name on the map. As I always say to people, write good stories and the rest will fall into place. 

Another thing to think about is when that movie was made (2010), there weren't very many low-cost cinema quality options. The Blackmagic Cinema Camera came out 2 years later and it was the first of its kind. 

5 hours ago, David Mawson said:

..So you may feel more important clutching a larger sized box, but the audience and distributors don't care.

Story sells and owner-operators can only get jobs with 4k cameras with decent codec's in 2019. 

What large sized box? the 1st gen Pocket Cinema is the camera I recommended for nearly 5 years and it was smaller than nearly every other mirrorless or DSLR on the market. Yes the new pocket is larger, but it's not end of the world large. It's larger because it has XLR audio, because it has 2 different card slots, because it has a big beautiful display, because it has decent built-in mic's, because it uses bigger batteries that last longer, because it has a full sized HDMI part, etc. It has all the functions AND the new double battery adaptor, allows it to run for WAY more time than any other camera in it's class. 

5 hours ago, David Mawson said:

First of all, even if the body wasn't good enough, the other $1850 would be spent on gear you could carry on using later. And you'd be able to re-sell the body, so you'd be out, what, $25-$50 when you upgraded? 

What gear to use later? Shitty still glass with non-repeatable focus and zoom's that aren't parfocal? 

Batteries, cases, charger, cables, cards, post workflow, etc... that can't be used on a different camera. 

You wanna learn on a camera that's worthless, just use your cell phone. My iPhone creates beautiful images even in the base shooting mode. I've blown people away with the footage with my gimbal and a little color correction. 

5 hours ago, David Mawson said:

Second, again you simply seem to invent pseudo-facts. People do shoot commercial work on those cameras today. (Trust me: go check videography posts on reddit.)

Plenty of people use the pocket cinema camera for PAID work. My pocket cameras were the "B" camera on two feature documentaries, both will be in the theaters. I've shot dozens of commercials, dozens of promo's, an entire documentary series, I mean the cameras also been rented out plenty of times. The 4k pocket will just garnish more business for a would-be beginner filmmaker. The concept is, if you have an up to date camera system that works, you can get little jobs here and there that will not only pay back for the investment, BUT will also get you out shooting, which means you'll be paid to practice your craft. If all you got is a toy throw away camera, you can't market yourself. This is 2019, the day's of 1080p cameras being acceptable, are over. 

5 hours ago, David Mawson said:

Yes, a BM will shoot better again. (Or at least more easily.) But one won't fit inside a $2000 budget with lenses, a usable tripod, power, ND, etc. You simply can't learn to how shoot cinematically without a fluid head and slider. Wahhing about better image quality is silly when it means you can't learn the essentials, which is the point here. It's like telling someone to buy a fast comfortable car to learn to drive in and ignoring the fact they can only afford it if they forego having a reverse gear. It's better to forgo a little comfort and speed and to actually be able to learn to parallel park.

You were trying to push a used camera, you can get your entire kit used outside of the camera body. Can you get two primes, a low-end tripod , SD card's and some batteries for $600? Nope... but for $1000 you can. GO over budget by what, $400 bux and you get a serious camera, or you can buy useless junk and save a few bux. 

$1300 
$150 Tripod
$500  (used Rokinon DS lenses)
$160  (2x 128gb sd card)
$180 (4x Pocket cinema battery)
$99 (battery charger) 

$2389

Then you add the accessories up the road; Mattebox, IR ND filter, Rode Videomic Pro, Wireless mic, case, etc. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bob Speziale said:

I think we are wasting our time here. I asked the OP if he was in film school and what cameras he has used there. He never answered. I asked him if he could use the school equipment for his projects. He never answered. It's hard to believe he has any knowledge or education in film making if he didn't know what a prime lens is. He is looking to purchase something under $2K that will make him a filmmaker. Fact is cameras and lenses don't make you a filmmaker. Knowledge and experience does. He doesn't seem to have either.

Look sorry I didn’t answer earlier but I know my stuff. I’ve done many classing in school for film and we are using gh5. I want a camera so I can shoot my own stuff with out school restrictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Abel Cine



    Ritter Battery



    Wooden Camera



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Tai Audio



    Paralinx LLC



    Glidecam



    CineLab



    Serious Gear



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    FJS International



    Just Cinema Gear



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    G-Force Grips



    Metropolis Post



    Visual Products



    Rig Wheels Passport


×
×
  • Create New...