Pre-summer 2024 editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras and higher) and have interchangeable lenses.In contrast, consumer camcorders often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVEPrevious thread >>4294741Quick FAQS>what’s the best camera available on a “budget”?The blackmagic pocket cinema camera 4k>what’s a good beginner video camera?Anything that works, shoots at least 1080p and preferably has interchangeable lenses. Any recommendation beyond that will cause arguments so read the fucking sticky if that isn't satisfactory.>What's a good sound solution that won't break the bank?Zoom h1>Can I use a zoom lens for video?Yes>Do I need cine lenses?No>Do I need 4k?No. It will make your footage look sharper if it’s in focus, and it gives you breathing room in post. But 1080p is still absolutely fine>Can someone tell me if my video is any good?Yes, but be prepared to receive harsh criticism. If you're going to waste 5 minutes of our time with a shitty out-of-focus montage of nothing then we'll tell you that it's crap
>>4307820Is the Roger Deakins dream cam. The Arri Alexa Studio with the mechanical shutter (not the electronic shutter) and optical view finder, a global shutter camera. What advantages do you get from having a real mechanical shutter in the camera rather then an electronic shutter? The advantage of an optical viewfinder is it looks cool and what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) without any lag time to put a signal on an electronic shutter. Why don’t they make more digital video cameras with optical viewfinders and real mechanical shutters. (Is their an advantage that an electronic shutter would offer people?)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 70DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.6Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2023:10:30 12:23:20Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/13.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1571Image Height1178RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4307826>Why don’t they make more digital video cameras with optical viewfindersOptical viewfinders in a video camera can be done in one of two ways as far as I'm aware. Either you have a mechanical shutter that you sync with/attach to a mirror, much like in an slr, and the viewfinder is showing the image between the camera's recording of frames. This has the downsides associated with using a mechanical shutter and means the image you're seeing is flickering and not technically the same as the image being recorded.The alternative way is to use an optical splitter, to split the light that comes in from the lens so that some of it goes to the sensor, and some of it goes to a secondary source. This what they do with most analogue video cameras. The problem is that this reduces the amount of light coming in from the lens, thus making picture quality worse.Instead. when the image fed to the monitor/evf is identical to the one being recorded, delayed by a couple of frames, most DPs and camera operators find this to be a much preferred solution/>and real mechanical shuttersMechanical shutters are moving parts. Moving parts break. If you have a mechanical shutter, your camera will need servicing a lot more frequently. When you're on a large film set, that's potentially millions being lost if the camera shits itself in the middle of the day.One of the advantages of digital cameras is that they don't need to use mechnical shutters
>>4307828> millions of dollars lost if it shits the bed because of problems with the mechanical shutterI guess it is for autists that lust after gear and not Hollywood dops. Is the fact that Roger Deakins loves that camera a fact or is it just a meme?
>>4307826The Arri viewfinder isn't very good, at least not the one that is on Amira and Mini. Genuinely hard to pull focus with it if you are doing work without a 1st AC. I'd love to test the optical viewfinder.
>>4307835> viewfinder isn’t that goodI thought everything arri made would be of the highest quality given what it costs to buy.
>>4307844Some companies are very aware that if they charge more, it will be perceived to be of higher quality.The entire cinema camera market relied on this for decades until canon accidentally fucked up their business model when they flippantly put 1080p video into a dslr meant for photography.
>>4307847But Arri’s lenses the master primes and ultra primes are top-tier quality and their zeiss/arri macro lenses are also top-tier quality. The real company that shook everything up is Blackmagic Design. If you wanted your old canon camera to work for video you needed to hack it with magic lantern to make it into a video making beast. I heard that the color science on the arri is the goat is that true?
>>4307826OVF isn't WYSIWYG, lol
>>4307867When I said WYSIWYG I was talking about the colors that the camera is capturing from the lens because I am a colorist. EVFs will always distort the colors. Without an Optical Viewfinder, you’d need to rent something from FSI or buy something from FSI and have your Flanders calibrated to make sure that the colors you were seeing were accurate to what was on-set. If you aren’t a colorist, you probably wouldn’t care. But if you want to grade the image it is helpful to know how the colors actually looked when the scene was filmed and an optical viewfinder would let you see the accurate colors getting captured by the camera.
>>4307858No shade towards arri's lenses or cinema lenses in general.HOWEVERVintage photography lenses used to be cheap as piss until about ten years ago when everyone realised how amazing they were, combined with the blowup in "content creators" using dslr/mlcs. Those vintage lenses produce great images. They aren't cinema lenses because they aren't optimised in a way that DoPs would prefer.The same goes for normal stills lenses. The canon nifty 50 is still a great lens. It's cheap as fuck.Cinema lenses are the price they're at because that's what people expect them to cost.>The real company that shook everything up is Blackmagic DesignEveryone has shook things up since. The point is that canon accidentally opened pandora's box with the 5dii.But yes, blackmagic has consistently been proving that cinema shit can be a lot cheaper without sacrificing quality. Their 17k camera should embarrass the shit out of arri
>>4307872So, I’m 10 years too late. I could have gotten a set of super baltars 10 years ago for a few hundred bucks not the price of a car. The image quality of the 40mm macro kit lens from Nikon gives my expensive cinema lenses a run for their money. I heard rumors that the glass from that lens was rehoused and turned into a cinema lens by one of the major players either Arri or Panavision—is that rumor true?
>>4307872>Their 17k camera should embarrass the shit out of arriOverheard at work: "Maybe Nikon will make them stop chasing K's and work on IQ for once." Not that I know anything, I'm in the engineering department here.>>4307878You don't even need a re-house, 3d printed focus gears are a thing. You can stick enough plastic on a lens to make it *look* re-housed.
>>4307880Unrehoused without a mount and without good optics you’d spend more then $5,000 for a set of super baltars with some lens that have fungus. If you wanted copies without fungus and proper mounts for modern cameras they’d cost $30,000 for a set and if you wanted them rehoused with proper cinema gears they’d cost you $70,000 or more for the set. So you are saying I could have gotten good clean super baltars that worked on a camera for less then $5,000 for a set of lenses. I started looking for lenses 10 years too late.
>>4307882>super baltarsGet in on Soviet glass while you can.
>>4307884I collect Helios lenses. They cost $60 per lens and I love the bokeh they produce.
>>4307880>Maybe Nikon will make them stop chasing K's and work on IQ for once.I'm very curious. But this is a sensor they say they developed themselves (compared to the other sensors in their cameras that they bought off the self essentially).They rate the Pyxis sensor as having 13 stops of dr. CineD rated it at 12.9 at snr1, and 11.8 at snr2.They claim the new sensor has 16 stops. If the same logic holds, that would put it above 14 stops for snr2, which would put it above every other camera aside from the Alexa 35 (including the alexa lf). Now that's obviously a huge if but it's at least very realistic to assume that the dynamic range will be considerably better than the one in the Pyxis which is already pretty decent.
>>4307886The only reason why Blackmagic can deliver usable 12k or 17k. They make Resolve an NLE so they can make sure that the 12k or 17k raw file is handled properly so it can be edited without bogging the system down.
>>4307844Outside of the viewfinder being mediocre, I agree. But it just isn't very good. It is better than what most competitors have, but the problem for me is that if your eye isn't pressed "correctly" in a very specific way to the viewfinder, you can't tell for sure if your focus is absolutely correct or not. The viewing angle on the EV is not great, which sucks if you want to do handheld and use the viewfinder. I don't know if they fixed it for the S35, unfortunately I have not shot or assisted that camera yet. >But yes, blackmagic has consistently been proving that cinema shit can be a lot cheaper without sacrificing quality. Their 17k camera should embarrass the shit out of arriTheir hardware is unreliable, especially the lower end cameras. That is the downside of them keeping their prices so low.
>>4307885OH yah I heard about dune2. Picrel.>>4307886I didn't get into the details. There's hardware and software in the workflow, and I'm only involved with the software part, which has been problematic. Some projects won't have us using the Red GPU accelerated debayer, for example.
>>4307892I got them way before dune 2 was around, they used to sell dirt cheap on amazon. I haven’t looked for them in a while but I but the price is going to go up because of dune.I also got a lomogroaphy bokeh control lens and a modified 100 year old petzval lens because I just love the look of swirly bokeh.I shoot music videos so I am after crazy bokeh to make my music videos unique. I love my lomography bokeh control art petzval lens because you can dial in the strength of the swirl in the swirly bokeh and I find that awesome.I am looking for a lens that makes totally round bokeh so it looks like a circle of bokeh forms something that looks like a black hole around the subject. I haven’t found a lens that does that effect yet.
>>4307835If the viewfinder is hard to use. How do pros who use arri cameras pull focus on sets that cost over $10,000 usd an hour to shoot on where getting proper focus is critical. What tricks do they use to pull focus?
>>4308358>What tricks do they use to pull focus?The camera operator doesn't pull focus on large sets. The first ac is typically in charge of pulling focus.They have a special wireless external monitor with a focus ring attached to its side that lets them precisely adjust the focus without interrupting the camera operator or bothering the director.
>>4308358The 1st AC aka focus puller pulls focus. Nowadays wireless transmitters & monitors are the standard so the focus puller pulls away from the camera with a wireless follow focus unit. All good focus pullers & especially old school focus pullers don't rely just on the monitor, they know distances just by looking/with instinct and they can nail focus even without looking at the monitor. Which is sometimes the only way to nail focus, even with a zero latency monitor you can sometimes be too late/your timing is wrong if you are not monitoring the action with your own eyes.Operator/DP if he's self operating doesn't usually pull focus unless the production is really small. And really small productions don't usually shoot on Arris. From my experience documentaries are the exception and on those you often pull your own focus because the budget is so small. It is a shame that the EVF isn't very good, because form wise Arri Amira is a really good body that is made for handheld documentary work.
>>4308373>>4308377So on large sets the cinematographer uses the EVF to frame the shot not to get focus on the shot. Does the cinematographer even set up the lights to light the shot or does the director do that? It seems like they have specialists to do everything on larger sets.
>>4308406>Does the cinematographer even set up the lights to light the shot or does the director do that?Pretty sure the gaffer is in charge of that.DP tells the gaffer and grips what to do. Director talks with the dp in advance about what they're going to do. On set, the director's main job is to guide the actor's through the scene properly. But they'll also converse with the dp, camera operator and 1st ad about shots and set ups in general.
>>4308406Oh also, unions are a thing. So you're kind of right about the specialists for everything.To give an example: because of unions, a hollywood production literally isn't allowed to have anyone on set playback any recorded footage except for the DIT. If you don't hire one, you're fucked because pissing off the unions will basically end your production in an instant.And yes, I literally mean the act of pressing the play button on your camera or external monitor. An act that a literal child would be capable of performing.
>>4308410DITs do a lot more than that. They're responsible for data management on set. It's an important role, if not very high up the ladder.Rules are strict on set but for good reasons. It's not like forbidden for one department to help another necessarily, just isn't commonly done because everyone is on top of their shit. That said, there is the saying among gaffers and DPs, "the heaviest thing we carried today was... the art department."
>>4308377What would you recommend for a documentary?
>>4308429I'm not saying DITs aren't important. But that the director or DP literally isn't allowed to press the play button on the camera without the DIT's expressed permission (or at all if there's no DIT on set) is fucking retarded and a perfect example of why unions cause costs to balloon and impede production.
>>4308503This explains why a film me and my friends could make for 10k or less costs 100k or more if Hollywood makes it.I always thought it was the costs of permits but the costs of hiring union workers to press play also explains why costs are so high too.
How does this look for a beginner lighting rig for interviews:1x Aputure Amaran 200x S1x Matthews medium duty stand1x Aputure Lantern 90
>>4308513Blumhouse manages to do well shooting low budget union
>>4308523I forgot to mention that I plan on getting:2x Amaran 100x S1x Light Dome II2x Light Dome Mini II2x Matthews medium duty standsfor traditional 3 light interviews. Eventually.
>>4308527How? Don’t Unions try to get as much money as possible from filmmakers.
>>4308582Yeah, I'm sure it's the grips dragging production down lol. Producer hands typed this.
>>4308503This must be a Hollywood thing, there are definitely DIT's where I work but of course the operator, DP, or one of the camera assistants can push playback if they want and need to.
>>4308474Recommend what? A camera for a documentary?
>>4308678Yes.
>>4307885I'm seing the Helios bokeh on literally everything I watch these days. It's a big meme.
>>4308523Seems fine, you probably could've gone another cheaper brand because the chinese cine lighting market is flooded and they're all basically copying eachother.Same with the stand, really, I gambled on neewer light stands and they're incredibly solid.Stick with Aputure at this point so you can control them all with the app.
>>4308999it was all over dune 2
>>4308474Depends on the budget for the documentary, and how large the crew is. Can't go wrong with Sony FX line though, there's something at every price point basically.
>>4308523>>4308528Those lights are a little anemic if you're planning on shooting in/around natural light. If it's a closed set or only ever indoors, that could work.Why the lantern over a softbox or octa? Lanterns are typically used as overhead sources, like if you're shooting a dinner table type of scene. The skirt can only prevent spill if it's rigged like that. You can slap a cloth grid on an octa or a softbox, and they're easier to flag off.
post piece of art cinematorgraphy pics
>>4308685Depends on the style of the documentary and budget. Pick the best tool for your specific documentary and what it requires. Demands of a "stereotypical" Netflix talking head documentary are different from a documentary that is doing run and gun style shooting in middle of a riot or a warzone etc. I would also argue documentaries are the kind of films where most audiences are very used to and receptive to all kinds of different visual approaches and varying image qualities. Most documentaries back in the day didn't have budget for 35 mm film, many were shot on 16 mm. Then lots of great documentaries have been shot on tape or casette and other kind of "low" quality recording materials. But to roughly recommend some cameras: >High budgetArri Alexa Amira: Good ergonomics for long takes, XLR for audio, internal ND's. Arri built quality = can take a beating. Downside is that the EVF is not great if you are single pulling focus, isn't as big of a problem if you are using an external monitor, but that also means you'll most likely using a Easyrig or Cinesaddle or something similar, so you lose the shoulder handheld method of shooting. Amira is also pretty heavy which can be gruelling if the documentary is doing long takes and is otherwise physically demanding. Arri Alexa Mini: Same technical reasons as Amira. Different body, lighter than Amira. Depending on style of documentary and operator preferences, the Mini might be preferable for some people. Big downside compared to Amira is that no internal XLR, no preamp, no gain control or phantom power etc. >High to mid budgetCanon C300 Mark III: Internal ND. Good audio ports. A bit odd design but still ergonomically quite good even out of the box. Good build quality, though not Arri level obviously. Good codecs and flexible overall. Workhorse.
>>4309019I try to shoot with natural lighting whenever possible, but I need to be capable of shooting a standard indoor interview. I thought that lanterns are good for giving indirect light for an entire (smallish) room. Things might change, but I should only be able to afford the 200x S, stand, and lantern for the month of May. I need the proper light diffusion for a single light setup. Would I be better off with a softbox or octa if I want to mimic a 3 light interview with only a single light in a purely indoor environment?
>>4309041>High to mid budget continued Canon C70:Basically a mini C300. Depending on shooting style, demands of the production etc. the smaller footprint might be beneficial in some situations, but also can be a pain in the ass. Depends on the style of shooting and demands of the specific project. Sony FS7: Was a staple of shit ton of documentaries, ENG stuff etc. for almost a decade for a reason. Was very capable camera for its price. Surprisingly durable also despite all the plastic. Pretty good ergonomics even straight out of the box. The most obvious downsides are bad low light and Sony's earlier not so good color science, which needs a good colorist in post to make it work. XLR ports, internal ND etc. Sony FX6 and FX9The ones that followed FS7. Improved color science, better lowlight, internal ND, XLR. Very good workhorse cameras with a terrific price to quality ratio. There is also the FX3 which is basically Sony's C70 equivalent, except I think the FX3 is worse, especially lack of internal ND sucks and the boxy design is not good. bUt yeAh they sHot The Creator on it, so obviously it works if you want to. I do not have enough experience with Nikons to recommend anything, from what I understand they do not have a "dedicated" cinema line, which is most likely why they just bought RED. Speaking of RED, I would actually not pick their bodies for lots of documentary work. They still have problems with expensive propretiary equipment that isn't as reliable as Arri's. The cameras still are slow to boot up, the bodies need lots of rigging etc. V-Raptor XL has internal ND but the V-Raptor doesn't etc. I am not just a biggest RED fan, not in fiction, not in documentary context. Don't know enough about Fujifilm to recommend anything from them. I think that is pretty much most of the big players. In all honestly like I said, the camera you choose for a documentary is based on mutltiude of factors.
>>4309049ContinuedPIcking a camera for a documentary is about the style of the documentary, the style of filmmaking, budget etc. I honestly would not fret about it too much. There are so many terrific documentaries that have been shot on absolute potato cameras and I know it is a cliche to say it, but story triumphs everything. And now you can actually spend quite a little of money for a really good camera with 10 bit color etc. that absolutely mogs most cameras that docs were shot 20 years ago for example.
>>4309052Oh and one more thing, this might cause some butthurt, but I personally stay away from Blackmagic because of quality control issues. Brands like Canon, Sony etc. are much more reliable with their cameras in the same price range. Image quality on Blackmagic is good, build quality isn't and most of their bodies aren't so good for doc work
>>43090444' Octa up close is real nice and the eyelights will be more circular. Invest in some white and black vflats, whether that's buying new, used or diy. You always need negative fill, and a white v flat can double as a fill source in a pinch.
what's the digital equivalent of film? meaning color depth, luminance, etc
>>4309053Actually sorry for spamming, one more reply, if anyone is interested about Sundance documentaries of the last couple of years and what they were shot on.>2024https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/sundance-2024-cinematography-documentaries/and-so-it-begins-bruce-sakaki-cinematographer/>2023https://www.indiewire.com/feature/sundance-documentary-cameras-lens-equipment-sony-canon-1234801323/>2022https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/film-cameras-documentary-sundance-arri-canon-blackmagic-1234693570/>2021https://www.indiewire.com/feature/sundance-documentary-camera-lens-cinematography-1234612955/
post pics you absolute subhumans
>>4309077Of what? Spiderman?
>>4309078kek, spidermans are fine too, but make them cinematographic
I finally got the used arri alexa studio camcorder I ordered. That thing is built like a tank. It looks like it can be used for shoulder mount because it comes with a shoulder pad. It’s so freaking heavy. Who could carry that camera on their shoulder for a whole shoot day? Hercules or He-Man!
>>4307828I just looked at the users manual and the image you see in the viewfinder is not the image that gets recorded to the sensor. You see the image in the viewfinder when the shutter is closed and when the sensor is open it records to the sensor. Genius design! Does Roger Deakins really love this camera or is it just a YouTube meme that this is Deakins’ favorite camera.
>>4309155lol the dp doesn't have have to deal with the foibles of the camera, the 1st ac et al deal with it.
>>4309291Deakins self operates, which is something not all DP's do, especially in Hollywood
>months spent trying to convince myself to download and learn blender so I can do the vfx for a film>can never get over the intense pain and anxiety associated with trying such a thing, spending tens (if not 100s) of hours only to know that the results would look worse than the shittiest vfx shots from something like Sharkboy and Lava Girl>look for a tutorial/stock effects on youtube to achieve the result with compositing>zero help since all the tutorials are geared towards "content creators">have a think and decide to experiment if I can do it with just basic 2d image edits, tracking and compositing>it fucking worksJesus christ. Is there a greater editing feeling than finally solving an issue you'd been scared about doing for months?
>>4309326That’s why I respect Deakins. He always cares about image quality. That’s why I pay attention when he recommends lenses and cameras. That camera looks as boss as fuck. Given that YouTube compression killed quality I could get away with a Blackmagic or gh6 but you look like the fucking boss of it all if you are rocking an arri on set.
>>4309388Deakins is a visual genius and one of the best working today no doubt. But I'm honestly more impressed when someone like Greig Fraser can jerry-riga few fx3 cameras on a relative shoestring budget for the sake of quick and effective production while still producing a gorgeous image that's imax ready.
>>4309400>80 million>a relative shoestring budgetAlso it wasn't Fraser personally who rigged the cameras, it was his AC's and grip team
>>4309409For a hollywood film of that scale, $80m is absolutely tiny.Also, saying Fraser didn't personally rig the cameras is like saying Spielberg didn't personally set up the machine guns in the beach scene of Saving Private Ryan.
Got me a GoPro, gonna get my happy ass outside and make a short film. Fuck me.
>>4309533You are lucky. I have so many lenses and cameras but I can’t make shit now because my wife is sick. Hopefully when she is better I can go out and start making stuff. Having too many lenses makes it hard to make stuff because of being too worried about choosing the right lens. Just go out and make stuff and it will probably look better then what most of the gear-autists on here make.
>>4309541>my wife is sickWhat's her affliction?
>>4309326>Deakins self operatesthat's just code for being handed the camera once it's set up. sure, he decides aperature, exposure, lighting, etc. he's not menu diving, swapping batteries, his time is too valuable for shit like that
>>4309591I know, but he specifically wanted Arri to build the optical viewfinder because he self operates and he doesn't want to use the EVF and he doesn't like operating from an external monitor.
>>4309595So basically Arri built the optical viewfinder into a digital cinema camera because Rodger Deakins asked them to do it; I wish more camera companies would listen to the people who used their cameras. I love the optical viewfinder because it looks so cool—analog+digital—it is super awesome and super sweet.
>>4309561Just typical nagging stuff. She doesn’t want to eat and is wasting away to nothing. I think it’s anorexia and a cry for attention. So until she is able to get by w/o all of my attention, I won’t be able to film anything unless I like through my teeth and make it sound like it’s all about her when it’s really not about her. As long as she thinks it’s about her she’ll let me film stuff. I just want to be able to film stuff w/o needing to be deceptive.
>>4309631>is wasting away to nothingBetter than being obese I guess.What does she do when you go out anyway?
Is the r5c worth it? I heard it has shit battery life. I mostly shoot 1080p tho so should I get the r6 instead?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 23.0 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width5000Image Height3750Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2022:01:13 10:42:07Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2100Image Height1286
>>4309595it's because EVFs are gay
>>4309666I haven’t found a high quality usable EVF yet. From what I hear even arri doesn’t make one. I guess using a Flanders on set with a sun hood on it is probably better then using an EVF.
>>4309657Yes?Great cinema cam but if you're only shooting 1080 then it's pretty huge overkill
>>4309657the i/o on this is horrible, it must be for wedding photogs
How overkill would it be if a wedding photofag videographer wanna be cinematographer showed up to a wedding rocking an arri alexa mini and some cooke mini s4 and super baltars?
>>4309786That wouldn't be overkill, it'd just be bad optimisation. The alexa doesn't even shoot proper 4k. You'd be maximising image quality while significantly lowering ergonomics and usability for a one-man-band, while also risking a very high investment, for a an output where they probably wouldn't appreciate the added image quality.If you want really decent image quality for a wedding, use a canon c70.As for lenses, using expensive cine lenses without af for a wedding is just stupid to me. But to each their own.
Is anyone else just constantly frustrated with a desire to film something?I keep flip-flopping between wanting to shoot basically b-footage of a punk/goth girl against a cityscape backdrop at night with neon lights, and wanting to shoot a historical epic scene with a huge scale. It's the weirdest frustration.
>>4309831Any photos of said punk/goth girl model?
>>4309835There's not a specific one. There are girls I've shot in the past, ones i see on youtube/films and then artwork associated with that general vibe. I guess like Billie Eilish but more heroin chic
>>4309807>replying unironically to low-effort shitpost b8cmon anon
>>4309845>There are girls I've shot in the pastHow about photos of them?
>>4309627Arri and Panavision listen to the high end cinematographers who use their cameras and lenses.Deakins got the prototype Mini LF's for 1917, Arri and especially Panavision (and particularly Dan Sasaki of Panavision) detune and tune their lenses based on the wants and needs of cinematographers.
>>4309807You can blow up the Alexa 3.2K to 4K and it holds up & looks great on a movie screen. Resolution is one of the biggest midwit things in cinematography. I blame RED.
>>4309864>and it holds up & looks great on a movie screenThat's because 1080 looks good on a movie screen. That one of the supposedly best cinema cameras on the market (and still stupidly expensive) can't even do native 4k is kind of pathetic.>Resolution is one of the biggest midwit things in cinematographyGoing from working in 1080p to 4k was such a ridiculous leap in quality that I can't take this opinion seriously. Additional resolution gives you so much extra breathing room and produces a much sharper picture.If my computer could edit it properly, I would be all in on 8k if not 12k, even though I'd still only deliver in 4k.
>>4309867I think arri cares more about a high dynamic range and not as much about resolution or k because images can be upscaled in post but you can’t add more dynamic range in post.
>>4309870>because images can be upscaled in post but you can’t add more dynamic range in postThis is honestly one of the stupidest things I've read recently. How do you think upscaling works? Do you think camera sensors just secretly have all this extra resolution stored in the video file that you can extract with a good program?
Will the Helios 44-2 hyper die out soon? I'm tired of seeing all the circle jerking. The prices have skyrocketed on eBay and everyone has *rehoused* or *cinemodded* theirs on eBay as well
Trump’s Special Child just used a really special lens attached to a bmpcc 4k to make a new video for y’all. A arri master prime 32mm with the typical 2x crop that a bmpcc 4k gives that lens was used and it was shot wide open at t/1.3; enjoy the video, anons!https://youtu.be/YRzderhXk84
>>4310098Why does it look like the aspect ratio is screwed up?
>>4310098The person in that video looks like she's going through a lot. Did the person who videoed her took her to the hospital like she asked?
>>4310107No! Because she never wants to do. She just wants to whine and complain about going, but she never actually wants to go.I don’t know why the aspect ratio fucked up so badly. I edited using the Resolve app on my iPad and the new Bluetooth color controller that works with that app. I was focusing on color grading the braw footatage, not on the aspect ratio of the footage.
>>4310113Does it at least look correct in the app if not Youtube?
>>4310122It looks awesome on my iPad color wise. I don’t know why it has black bars. I was playing with a vazen anamorphic 1.8x lens and a Sauri 1.33x an anamorphic lens on my bmpcc 4k before I made it. Maybe I forgot to turn off some setting in resolve, but the image still looks great. I love the grain but YouTube probably killed off the grain.
>>4310143The lens was sharp and clean because master primes are fucking as awesome as fuck but I passed it through the cst into rec709 in cineon film log and then used a Kodak lut to make it look like film (resolve has film look luts that turn stuff in cineon film log into cinematic magic) and then i used the resolve grain plugin to add 16mm reversal grain because I love the way that grain looks.
>>4307835>>4309725>arri viewfinderI just saw this on r/cinematography. https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/52914823044/Basically the arri's viewfinder's advantage is that it has "looking room". Everything outside of the blue square isn't actually being recorded but lets the camera operator know what's about to come into shot (booms/props/personnel) and manoeuvre their movement accordingly.(Yes, it's basically just saying that the arri slightly crops the image and the viewfinder shows the uncropped image. Yes you could easily do this in post by applying a 1.x zoom on all footage and plan your shots around that in advance. Camera departments are fickle though. They like using what they're used to)
>>4310204So basically if you shoot opengate you’ll get what the viewfinder sees so you can reframe your image anyway you want but if you do the full sensor you get a crop into the sensor to make sure you get a sharp image because you are just using the middle of the sensor. Or something like that. I can understand cropping into the sensor in camera because doing that in post on a lot of shots can get very very annoying.
>>4310221>but if you do the full sensor you get a crop into the sensor to make sure you get a sharp image because you are just using the middle of the sensorThat's not a thing unless you're talking about a 1:1 cropped readout versus a larger aspect ratio having line-skipping - different to oversampling (taking a high res input and producing a lower res output with a complicated algorithm) which would theoretically just provide the same quality. Arri's are doing the opposite of oversampling; they're upscaling a lower res input into a higher res output.
>>4310248Then why does the image quality coming out of their cameras look so good if they upscale the image.
>>4310033As soon as some vlogger does a video about a cheap lens that’s awesome. People see it. Buy that lens. The price goes up. Another vlogger does another video on a cheap and good lens. Rinse, Repeat!
>>4310376Because 3k is enough resolution that you can't see any aliasing unless you blow it super large on a super sharp screen.(Theatre projectors aren't super sharp. You can watch 1080 on a cinema screen and it will look fine)The advantage of higher resolution isn't that we need to view in higher resolutions. It's additional sharpness (which can be faked in post with decent sharpening) and the ability to crop and reframe without losing quality.Arri cameras have insane colour science and dynamic range. They're unbeaten in terms of image quality (and it's even more ridiculous since they developed their sensor over a decade ago). But it's a lower resolution image because of how long ago they developed it. And that means that you lose all advantages of shooting higher res.Almost everyone in hollywood has moved on from the alexa classic now anyway to the alexa lf or the alexa 35 (both 4.6k)
>>4310493I am just a hobbyist so I can’t justify buying an Alexa LF camera nor can I afford to buy one. I am just barely able to afford the classic. I got it because it was used a lot of films I admire and it was used by a lot of directors I admire. Right now I am buying expensive lenses. Once I get all of the lenses I want—I will think of upgrading my body. Hopefully, the price of the Alexa 35 or Alexa LF will go down within the next four years once they hit the used market. It might be even longer then that because arri keeps their value forever. I am guessing that 3k would be more then enough for YouTube videos.
>>4310497Buying an alexa as a hobbyist/youtuber seems like a tremendous waste of money to me but you do you.
>>4310504I am a colorist and all of the people talk about how amazing arri’s color science is and they sell lut packs to turn footage from potatoes into something that looked like it was shot on an arri. So, I just wanted an arri with arriraw so I could see what all of the hype is about and I can now tell my clients I graded footage shot on arri. They don’t need to know that of the arriraw footage I graded is videos of my cats playing. Hopefully an ad agency will be dumb enough to hire me—hopefully they’ll think I’m a pro because I graded arri and arriraw footage.
>>4310107She gets angry because nobody will take her to the hospital, but when anybody offers to take her to the hospital, she gets angry at them and says she doesn’t want to go to the hospital. I can’t figure out woman. I am using these videos as a journal to help her vent, and I’m also testing you my cinema cameras and cinema lens so it is basically win win.
Apologies if I don't use the right terminology here. I need an overhead light. I need a boom of some kind that can hold a 9 pound light plus whatever diffusers I toss on it. I'll need counterweights too, right?
>>4310930I forgot what type of effect your achieving is called. It's an on going to infinity effect. Pretty interesting to look at.
>>4310945https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droste_effectalso deeply relatedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_feedback
I plan on trying my hat at making some short films being director and cameraman, are there any good practical books on cinematography that looks at great shots from classic film and explains how it was created? Does that exist?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width960Image Height720
>>4310976
>>4310976the catch with old school classic studio films is that they were often lit like the surface of the sun and you will have to take a different route and experiment a lot to reproduce similar lighting styles
I got this for free. What can I do with it?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G5Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size7.19 - 28.81 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 2.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2024:05:07 10:25:16Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length20.69 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2592Image Height1944RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeClose-Up (Macro Mode)Metering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeFull AutoImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeMacroSubject Distance0.510 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed128Image Number141-4157
>>4311160Make a Jackass film.
I'm digitizing some old media. VHS tapes at the moment. I'm using a VCR with S-Video out, going to a time base corrector/frame synchronizer, going into a Blackmagic Intensity shuttle with OBS. The first tape I digitized was fine, but the tape I'm on now is jittery even with a TBC in the signal chain. Will I be able to "stabilize" the footage in Resolve? The video file is still being digitized or else I'd try it myself. I don't want to interrupt the process.
>>4311160POV porn
>>4311160Go outside on a clear day during the blue hour or just after the sun has set to record the otherwordly blues of the sky that the 3CCD sensor is able to capture.>>4311273I recently digitized a few tapes myself (albeit using a different setup) and there was one portion of a video that had noticeably more jumpiness, with some frames nearly rolling off the screen. Luckily for me that part was mostly static graphics with only minor transition animations so I was able to fix it by applying motion stabilization filter and setting it to highest strength in my NLE, I also disabled all automatic cropping. The frames no longer jumped, however the image ended up floating around the screen somewhat, not too terrible compared to the original. I also tried stabilizing using several vapoursynth filters, but it wasn't as good. So I guess you can try applying it to the worst segment and see how that goes in your case.Also, if possible I suggest to get a cleaning tape and do some maitenance on those head drums. Nasty tapes can easily ruin any image.
>>4311410Thanks for the advice. These are 20+ year old tapes that have been storage for who knows how long. I ended up stopping that digitization transfer early after noticing that the quality of the image sharpy declined around the 2 hour mark. The entire screen was having tracking issues. These are 6 hour tapes so I don't expect the greatest quality though.
>>4311273Yes.VHS is a shitty shitbox of technological travesties. Expect disaster, the wringing of hands and the gnashing of teeth, and probably wear a garlic necklace for good measure. But yes you will be able to spend a lot of time stabilizing and trying to pull detail & color out of a 160p fucking vhs rip, only to turn in like 2 years just feed ai some high quality stills of your subjects and trees and furniture and it’ll just rebuild the entire video down to the finest pubes. Then we can finally see Pink Floyd in Pompeii in 1970 like it originally looked before the filmmakers fucking dipshit studio hand threw all 80 reels of 35mm film in the incinerator to make room on a shelf.
>>4311162>>4311299>>4311410>Go outsideOperation abortedHave a fumo recorded in a cinematic 720x576p 25fps
>>4311727based, but does it not do 4:3? should result in wider vertical perspective
>>4311737As far as I have been able to figure this thing out, it has 3 modes:>4:3 interlaced>16:9 interlaced>16:9 pseudo-progressiveInterlace in the current day and age is difficult to make look good. Not sure if VP9 even supports it. There is no 4:3 progressive mode which is a big shame. It's a MiniDV tape recorder from 2006 btw. Digital tape, but you can just plug the camera to a PC via USB (not firewire!) and it shows up as a video device which you can record. Rather convenient. Supports only 576 line PAL. There is an NTSC variant too.
The viewfinder is shockingly decent for its age.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G5Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size7.19 - 28.81 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 2.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2024:05:06 18:41:20Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/3.2Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length25.09 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2592Image Height1944RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeClose-Up (Macro Mode)Metering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeFull AutoImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeMacroSubject Distance0.410 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed128Image Number141-4144
>mfw new light arrived today
>>4311784>mfw anon's new light[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.24Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:05:09 12:37:22Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4312086
what's stopping me from using three lights with lantern fixtures instead of three softboxes or domes?
>>4307820Is that Dan 'Hymen Divider' Schneider?
>>4307885Different focal lengths or different copies of the same lens?
https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2024/24_4qf_c_e.pdfnikon bought red because it only cost them $85mil lmao. red must have been bleeding out the ass paying tower for sensors considering their 2023 revenue was $160mil.
>>4312682>red must have been bleeding out the ass paying towerI wouldn't doubt it.
>>4310098What is the point of this series?
>>4312682i'm convinced they did it to end the copyright trolling
>>4312716I’m bored. I live with an insane wife. I’m getting gear (cinema cameras and high-end cinema lenses) because I eventually want to make an art house film and I also want to use them to make spec ads. I film my insane wife ranting about Trump to do lens tests and color grading tests. That way I’ll know how to use and grade the lenses when I start doing real projects. I’m also doing it for the lulz too because this is 4chan!
>>4312719With only 220 employees at the time of acquisition I'm more convinced at this point Red was being bankrolled by Jannard for the majority of its existence. The fact that the Helium 8K released in 2016 had multiple FPGAs indicated they had absurdly high BOM costs for their cameras since they likely couldn't afford to get custom asics designed (they don't have enough employees to do it on their own), which also leads me to believe large parts of the camera design and engineering was likely contracted out too. It would make their shoddy support seem reasonable too if most of their shit was contracted out. If they didn't get lucky with Cameron, Jannard being a billionaire, and being one of the "firsts" in digital cinema then there's no way they would have lasted this long. Nikon probably thinks they could save Red because they already have a decent image processing asic that can compress raws in body so a lot of money on Red's BOM costs could be saved there with some tweaks, and it could be a stepping stone to get Nikon into the high margin cinema glass.
>>4312789Nikon already makes high-end cinema glass. At least they make the optical elements that get repackaged by other companies to make their cinema lenses. Now that Nikon bought out Red they can make cinema cameras and sell their own cinema lenses. They already make the optical elements other companies use in their cinema primes, now they have the clout needed to make their own cinema stuff since they bought Red’s name and the perceived quality Red has with YouTubers—it doesn’t matter that the quality isn’t real, perception is all that really matters in the high-end cinema market.
>>4312813>At least they make the optical elements that get repackaged by other companies to make their cinema lensesare you conflating "3rd party companies rehouse nikon lenses for 10x markup" as "nikon makes cinema glass"?
>>4312816If people are willing to pay 10x markup to get Nikon glass rehoused in a cinema package then Nikon could just use their glass to make cinema lenses. If people are willing to rehouse old Nikon lenses then Nikon is making cinema-quality glass.
>>4312816I know right. I bought an old Nikkor zoom lens rehoused into a PL mount parfocal zoom lens to use when I record live bands. I don’t care that it focuses in the wrong direction because I am a one man band.
>>4312836How many times do you fags need this explained?Pretty much every photo lens is "cinema quality".Video resolutions are far lower on average than photography resolutions. It's in the fucking op.Anyone who makes lenses that are half decent makes cinema quality glass.
>>4312847I heard rumors that Panavision used to rehouse Nikon lenses to make their cinema lenses. That’s why I said Nikon makes cinema quality glass. If it is good enough for Panavision to use for their lenses—it is cinema quality in my book.
>>4307828> image is flickering and not what is being recordedBut you could still use the image from the viewfinder to frame the shot. Right?
Since everyone here just argues about gear, thought I'd change things up and share something I've been working on. Temp audio/Temp grade Shot on original BMPCC and LG V30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sU7wWyMtrE
>>4311743is minidv worth the "muh nostalgia" hype? rn i have some old hdd camcorders and im kind of itching to get a tape format camera.
>be me>buy a Canon DSLR w/DIGIC 5 processor>install magic lantern>get a vintage lens + adapter to the camera>shoot RAW video about flowers, beaches etc>add a Super8 Dehancer filter to the video>add a lofi hiphop soundtrack>become an instant kinographer among kinographersIt's that easy!
>>4313232nta, but in my opinion it's not. miniDV doesn't actually look that retro and if you get a nice one looks pretty clean. Really the only reason you'd notice was the color and the aspect ratio. If you really want something with an aesthetic look into a hi8/video8 or vhs camcorder. But I personally don't think that it's worth it. Getting the tapes to your computer is a big pain in the ass. 99% of them will not let you transfer the files over usb unlike that guys. You either get stuck with those shitty usb > component connectors and it looks like shit. Most of them don't do a good job of maintaining the look, adding sharpening or do a really poor job with scaling introducing digital artifacts. Most miniDV equipment requires firewire which afaik isn't supported on windows 10, so you'd need to have a dedicated windows 7 injest machine. You'd also probably want an editing deck or sacrificial camera to save the mechanism on your recording camera because if that dies your fucked and you'll have to get another or use one of those janky direct to sd card recorders.Unless you have a specific project in mind, I would avoid it. It'll be expensive and a big pain in the ass most of the time.>>4313236Can you uninstall magic lantern? I've been thinking about getting an m5 for adapting lenses, but I don't want to make it video only.
>>4313150>ever wish u were young again>says the pretty girl in her early 20sWat. Bitch you’re young RIGHT NOW, there are no consequences, it dunnot get better than this age ever.And bro, your guy looks like a fuckibg greek god, he has no reason to be so mopey, everything in ill be handed to him in adulthood over and over, yes thats how raises, promotions, financing cops, women, and court appearances work.
>>4313150Most of the static compositions are absolutely beautiful, but your framing of shots that have people in them don't feel like they were given the same care, idk if it's intentional or a consequence of the location limitations but the quality difference is noticeable.A few of the outdoors shots seem wildly over exposed for some reason. I don't really have any notes on the story, I'm not a writer or anything. But the vibes are sad and nostalgic. It evokes a certain feeling of nostalgia for the immediate moment of the story. Like I'm watching someone else's wistful daydreams about the past and I can feel it. I am certain this is the purpose of those long, quiet moments and it's really effective. The (your?) band is pretty good. Both of the songs are catchy but I really liked the first song played in the house. The cuck conversation is really well acted. It was my favorite scene. Overall I thought it was really good and I enjoyed it a lot. Good job anon.
>>4313232as someone that shot on the sonys for a few years a long time ago i say skip it, just use after effects. you need the right ports to do the transfer from tape and getting good exposure is finicky on the average tiny sensor consumer minidv with no dynamic range. it's better to use an easy camera and get more shoots done in less time and effort
>>4313299damn that sucks ig ill call it quits then. also are there any decent prosumer hdd camcorder from the 2000s that isnt overhyped? i want something that has better handling and ergo than the normal consumer stuff.
>>4313304i was gifted one of these and its been really fun to use[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4313240>says the pretty girl in her early 20sThat's already half her fertile years used up.She's middle aged as far as reproductive biology goes.
>>4313249Thanks I was going for an Ozu/Ernest Haas kind of feel. The handheld shots were the main ones we didn’t have a lot of control over especially at the house show. I’m always looking to improve, any specific shots that didn’t work for you? >>4313240Hehe fair enough. >>4313239Magic lantern is install on the sd card so just pop in a new card if you want to use the stock firmware
How do I go about getting child actors for a short film?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Width680Image Height1024
>>4313351To answer your question about child actors, I'm going to get you to think about child labor.How would Mcdonald's hire a teenager? If you're running a restaurant that serves alcohol should a child be serving it?Of course there are gray areas to all of this. But think about child labor when using child actors.
>>4313351Entice them with candy.
>>4313351Definitely make sure too that the parents are fully aware of what you're doing all the time with the child actor.One of the biggest mistakes some movies make is they hide things too much.
>>4313397What I meant by hiding things too much is that everyone should be fully aware without hesitation what all your scenes are.If you're going to make a film about a teenager running away from his abusive father make sure everyone is aware of every scene in the film instead of being secretative like you're being deceptive.
>>4313351The government doesn't want you to know this but children are free. You can just make one anytime you want and there is no limit to how many you can make. I have 437 children.
>>4309807>ergonomicsThis. You're gonna miss moments if you kit is a pain in the ass to set up.
>>4309867>can't even do native 4k is kind of pathetic.Yet, all the high end commercials, movies, documentaries use the same camera, what does that tell you? Get gud, as the boys in /v/ say.
>>4313441Uhhh clearly those producers are fools and they should have used a linux g9ii
>>4313453Everyone knows the Fujifilm X100VI is the superior option.
>>4313351anon, that's not what they mean by "short film"
>>4313232MiniDV is just digital so zero aesthetic comes from the fact it's tape. However, at least that specific Panasonic GS400 camera looks quite like mid 2000s broadcast TV, it looks even professional to my untrained eyes. 3CCD sensor and the perfect quality digital recording probably are responsible for this.Some random vids taken with the GS400 I foundhttps://youtu.be/KyjvIL1WsbI?feature=shared&t=46https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8vO1SzGtRcQuite a niche look I doubt anyone actually is after, but might be fun if you just happen to end up with a quality MiniDV camcorder like I did.
>>4313441>Yet, all the high end commercials, movies, documentaries use the same camera, what does that tell you?That DPs value systems they're familiar with that work well with other equipment they have and that come from companies with a great reputation for customer support in the worst case scenarios?(Also, lmao at "all")
>>4313631The takeaway is that image quality is borderline irrelevant to video and workflow is more valuable for getting shit done efficiently and on time. When do audiences pause, zoom in, and expect tack sharp screengrabs? That is what you do with a still because a still scene is to be admired as is. Video is to be watched as a sequence.
I pity the fool who signed on to shoot video of an action packed weekend when his camera has shit autofocus and the lenses are by-wire. I am that fool. Will I be ok if I just set my camera and lens to manual focus, with focus at infinity?
>>4313660Just because it isn't valued, doesn't mean it isn't relevant.All art is subjective. Personally I like being able to take any frame from the shit I shoot and know I can print it off and frame it with higher resolution that I had from my stills camera from 2008.It's all subjective. But for a high end super-expensive camera to not care about resolution is weak. And arri themselves recognise this which is why every camera they've released in the last decade is 4k+And most DPs tend to agree which is why barely anyone uses the alexa classic anymore.
>>4313663Stop down to f/16 for perfect autofocus at all times.
>>4313663learn to hyperfocal distance and do the math
>>4313663Quick, switch to sony and you wont have to manual lens cope
What is a good travel video camera? Thinking about a travel video camera for hiking and camping and that kind of thing where I might be out for 8-12 hours or even several days. I want better quality and more editing headroom than what I'd get out of a camcorder or gopro.I think the top priorities will be>compact size>battery life>efficient video codecs as storage will be limitedAny suggestions?
>>4313670Only the Alexa 35 is true 4k all other Alexa’s are upscaled 3.8k not true 4k
>>4314026>all other Alexa’s are upscaled 3.8k not true 4kIncorrect.The normal alexa is 3.4k.The Alexa lf and mini lf (which are more popular cameras than the classic now) are 4.5kThe alexa 65 is 6.5k
>>4313909Sony fx30 or fx3 duh. Bonus points the AF actually works.
>>4314084hope anon likes hiking with a bunch of batteries
>>4314483Anon needs to buy one large v-mount battery and a v-mount battery plate. That way anon can take one battery with him when he hikes. The only issues is that that one battery might cost more then the video camera it is powering.
>>4314483china batteries are $12 each, weigh nothing, and can be charged via usbc same as a phone
>>4314084I have been looking at the Sigma fp. It is very compact, it records to SSDs which would solve my capacity issue if I don't use the 12bit raw. It also seems like it has great low light performance. One problem with it is the battery life. One problem is that the EVF is so expensive, and would be necessary (a reason I'd rule out the fx3/0).I think I may just end up with a camcorder. I saw there are some newer camcorders which can do 10 bit 4:2:2
>>4314505i just assume most anons asking questions don't have v-mounts, monitors or recorders.>>4314510bargin basement china batteries swell and warp, hopefully not in the camera. we literally had a drone battery hiss and shoot gas at my job last year and it wasn't even the std 3rd party garbage
>>4314594When I got my bmpcc 4k. I bought a v-mount battery and a v-mount battery plate since I wanted to be able to shoot for a whole day without needing to swap batteries. The batteries costs just as much as the camera did but it let me record for the whole day so I could record live bands to a 2tb ssd without needing to worry about swapping media and/or batteries and missing something at the music festival. Plus, I was so high I wouldn’t be able to change a battery at that festival even if my life depended upon me doing it.