>starts new general
>no one posts in it
Lmao op what a turbofaggot, bet you thought you did something huh

>>4322879
Why are you upset?

>>4322879
Did OP shit in your pants?

File: .png (56 KB, 1139x430)

56 KB PNG

remember $2000 a7 IV > $6000 FX6
1.5x crop 4k60p from a7 IV beats 1.0x crop 4k any frame rate from FX6
and now think how good 4k30p from a7 IV would look because that's 1.0x crop

FX6 ~2k true resolution
a7 IV ~3.5k true resolution
a7 IV 1.5x crop ~2.3k true resolution

>>4322968
>FX6 ~2k true resolution
>a7 IV ~3.5k true resolution
>a7 IV 1.5x crop ~2.3k true resolution
What on earth are you basing these numbers on?

a7 IV was engineered to share base ISO with BURANO and VENICE for a reason
Sony supports actual creators, left and right extremes of bell curve
ZV-E1, a7S III, FX3, FX6 users lose

Canon supports poorfag lefties
Nikon supports retards
Panasonic supports eastern europe

>>4322969
for bayer filter sensor which all of these are you just multiply horizontal sensor element count by 0.5 to obtain chroma resolution estimate
chroma resolution is what decides how good image looks

look here to see how shit FX6 type camera is (FX3 same sensor)
https://www.xdcam-user.com/2024/03/is-this-the-age-of-the-small-camera-part-2/

all the people I knew who owned FX6 sold it because the image is soft
you can see it even on YouTube but on YouTube due to compression less noticable for the uninitiated so unfortunately these camera sell

File: .png (225 KB, 1370x944)

225 KB PNG

case in point paid shill
80 years spent as a liar
burn in hell

ARRI is done for when their dynamic range patents run out
Germany L
bomb shelter construction well underway

>>4322985
How can you patient dynamic range? I think Arri is just honest with people about the dynamic range of their cameras (or understates it) when other companies either lie about the dynamic range thier cameras have or overstate it. I could see them patient in their sensor technology, but I don’t see how you can patient a measurement like dynamic range.

>>4322985
>when their dynamic range patents run out
First I'm hearing of this. What exactly have they patented?

Why are most of RF lenses so full retard tier priced awful with horrible apertures? Like, why would anyone buy some of their zooms that are variable and go to like f8 for over a thousand CAD.

>>4322999
Premium professional system. Everything that isnt clearly for professional event/sports photography is an afterthought that is meant to just be good enough for dadographers.

did the bodies being priced above apparent nikon counterparts not tip you off?

>>4322879
Are you upset because you didn't get to make the new thread? Guess you'll just have to keep waiting...

I may be able to buy a combo deal for a Canon T5i and the Canon EF 24-105mm 4 L lens for 650 CAD, the L lens is the first model but still seems like a good deal and I have been wanting the version 1 or two of that lens. I could flip the T5i quick for at least 250+ dollars bringing the cost of the lens to around 400 CAD. If the guy replies back to me I am going to do it, all the listings on ebay are from Japan and I will be raped with like a 60-80 import fee etc more than likely on top of paying 500-600+ for one of the first versions of the lens.

>>4322966
Sharper footage is not cinematic. You NEED slight blur to obscure the details else it looks too lifelike. If you're doing lowbrow documentaries, ads and vlogs, then that's okay. But real art requires sacrifices. Perfect and clinically sharp look produces a sterile and lifeless experience.

>>4323152
Wrong. You need the most clinical setup you can achieve, then you need to buy 10 plugins to dirty up, fix the skin and filmify the footage in Resolve

>>4323196
^^ that’s the truth. That way you can dial in how “cinematic” you want the image. Then you add needless grain which the YouTube compression algorithm destroys. That’s how modern cinematographers roll.

Eventually these youtube "Cinematic" videos will say, "if you want the Cinematic ™ look, you need to shoot on Eastman Kodiak"

>>4323441
Or, more likely, if you want that elusive cinematic look you need to buy this shitty lut pack that I’m selling that will make your footage look like out of focus shit. On YouTube they call footage that looks like crap character and I to compare it with professional cinematographers from the 70s or 80s etc.

File: decadence.png (835 KB, 1004x1555)

835 KB PNG

*filters /vid/*

>>4323522
This and you don’t want to see every mole blackhead and zit (pimple) on your talent. If you shot soft it’s gone. If you shot with clinical lenses have fun rotoing it out in post. ‘Nuff Said!

>>4323522
>the virgin bw pseud explanation - short, but doesn't last long in bed or change anything - easily written off, and easily misinforms. Just use a glitch art greek statue, same thing.
>the chad "human vision has a steep resolution drop away from the macula and heuristic memory so most people do not see or remember most details, which makes highly detailed footage with uniform sharpness appear uncanny especially when it involves human faces. however, highly detailed footage may be of use for its emotional impact in some scenes"
"brevity is the soul of wit" was killed by "after my lawyer makes sure every term is well defined"

>>4323522
>>4323541
>>4323545
You seriously have to be a mouth-breathing retard to think that there's such a thing as objectively better in art.

>>4322879
>Noooooo you can't just COPY and PASTE the OP and start a new general!
>I was WATCHING the BUMP LIMIT
>it was MY TURN
>NONONOONONONOOOOOOOO
t. (You)

>>4323548
Thier is no better in art. Thier is less effort. If your footage is too sharp you need to put in more work to make it look good. If it’s a little soft you don’t need to put in as much work to get a good looking image. Unless you are doing a commercial for a pimple removal cream or a makeup tutorial or something like that I see no real reason why you’d want a clinically sharp detailed image of the human face. Most actors and actresses want soft and glowing skin not skin that’s so detailed that you see every flaw. Most of your talent would make you remove the flaws in post so unless skin flaws are needed for your project I see no reason to capture them with a very sharp lens.

>>4323548
You are right, no one can tell whether the Mona Lisa or literally a banana taped to a wall is objectively better
Lol faggot

>>4323552
Some people like sharper footage. Your inability to see why anyone would want a detailed and overly sharp image of the human face doesn't mean that no one wants it or that it's bad.
Get over yourself.

File: PXL_20230814_135704886.jpg (120 KB, 1105x832)

120 KB JPG

Anyone else here record on VHS? I rigged mine up to take a 12v drill battery because the old lead ones were shot. Here's a sample clip I wrote over an old cartoon home-tape I had.
>Audio streams are not allowed
eat my ass moot
>>>/wsg/5581906

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4323548
He didnt say better or worse

He said uncanny and disturbing

Nothing communicates schizophrenia and intensity more than an ultra clinical sharp wide angle closeup of some retards face. This is used in countless movies and series.

>>4323545
how do you manage to film anything with your head so far up your own ass?

>>4323606
>wheredoyouthinkare.jpg

>>4323606
You got btfo. Its ok. Just let it go. Sharpness and softness both have a place in art depending on where and when they are used. No need to cope because you can’t afford sharpness.

>>4323548
You seriously have to be a mouth breathing retard to think that there’s such a thing as art being done by anyone posting here

>>4323593
>record on vhs just to digitize
Honestly doesn’t seem worth the trouble vs just slapping a filter on, likely most wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

>>4323615
Cope

>>4323618
I'm sure you're right, but I'm just into the analog stuff. I digitized it to share, but I have a VCR in my rec room. Also, I don't have any other camcorder (besides my phone?)

I run the drill batteries on it, and can fill a 90 minute tape with about 2 of these shitty harbor freight batteries.

Originally I tried to use a power bank, but the camera pulls too many amps and will turn off.

>>4322870
>Get the fuck out of my house
https://youtu.be/xU1gjhY6cKo

>>4323593
I shoot super 8 sometimes and that is all the ass pain I need

File: S8cut (2).webm (3.07 MB, 1280x720)

3.07 MB WEBM

I bought a Super 8 camera and filmed a roll for the first time on holiday with my family. Here's part of the results. Does anyone know why only part of it is exposed properly?

I can't understand why parts are too bright/too dark despite it all being shot in same weather conditions.

>>4323980
I can't even imagine how much of a pain super8 is. At least with VHS conversion to digital is easy.

File: .png (244 KB, 734x950)

244 KB PNG

ZV-E1, a7S III, FX3, and FX6 are a SCAM perpetuated by Sony on its unsuspecting customers and Sony needs to be called out and shunned for it

your 4K from your Sony ZV-E1/a7S III/FX3/FX6
is upscaled from 1080p
your Sony ZV-E1/a7S III/FX3/FX6 is a 1080p camera
1080p, not 2K, because these cameras lack proper DCI 2K, they're camcorders and Sony treats them as such, "Cinema Line" marketing is a gigantic lie

are you having fun trading half your resolution for a gain of one single stop of light? any other Sony camera beats these four models. Sony a7 IV loses one stop and quadruples resolution. you don't have the cinema features (high bit rate, DCI aspect ratio, whatever) but neither does FX6. not ready to spend $25,000 on a Sony BURANO? spend $2,200. Sony a7 IV is amazing, nothing comes close to it.

>>4324153
>i-it's 1/3 the megapixels brooooo!
This comes up every now and then when someone wants to shill a certain sigma product or cope with money sank into film or something else related to lost money/needing to make money

Contrast is fully preserved except on unrealistic multicolored line charts specially selected to confuse the demosaicing algorithm. Bayer is fine. There's a reason people dumped 35mm film as soon as digital cameras had ~12mp. Bayer actually works really, really well for real life subjects, and it does not take much to outresolve competing technologies unless your life's focus is a small section of dpreview's studio test scene.

>>4324157
And here you just totally shit the bed.

>>4324082
you really took ettr to heart but it doesn't work if you don't pull it back. also the sun is in a different position in all those scenes what did you expect

>>4324165
Unless you are a colorist after a certain type of color you don’t really need anything other that a modern cmos sensor. If you put the work in in post to get the look you want there is no need to get ccd or 3ccd sensor cameras.

File: 1607077363418.gif (1.32 MB, 360x270)

1.32 MB GIF

local band wants a music video. where do I begin to negotiate a price with them?

>>4324412
Tell them that it will roughly cost around 500 bucks per every day of filming, including editing but this depends on what exactly they want.
And then, if they're good with that, ask them for specifics they have in mind. Then do some maths, figure out how much it would actually cost you. Then double that figure. If it's less than 500/day, you're good and tell them you can do it for 500.
If it's more, then present them a series of alternatives.
>for 500/day, we can do [x]
>but if you really want [y] as well, that will cost 650/day
>and for [z], you'd be looking at 1000/day

If they don't know what they want, charge them less (like 200/300 + expenses total) and use it as a chance to play around with different ideas and concepts you want to experiment with.
That's what I would do but I don't do many jobs like that so...

File: 2016-10-02 11.41.59.jpg (92 KB, 1078x606)

92 KB JPG

>>4324412
I would do it for free if they got me good clean Molly some acid and shrooms etc. but I’m a druggie and I’d be spending whatever they paid me on drugs anyways.

Pic related. My drugs

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Michael Israel
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1086
Image Height	724
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:02 11:41:59
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1086
Image Height	724

File: 1713219360932897.jpg (87 KB, 750x738)

87 KB JPG

>>4324430
>Michael Israel

File: 1458141609933.jpg (40 KB, 680x848)

40 KB JPG

>>4324430
>I would do it for free
>>4324430
>Israel

File: the cure for autism macro(...).jpg (1.67 MB, 1800x1800)

1.67 MB JPG

>>4324443

Rick Strassman M.D. says that if you don’t abuse hard core psychedelics you are not a true Jew.

https://www.amazon.com/DMT-Soul-Prophecy-Spiritual-Revelation-ebook/dp/B00OBHCLJ6/ref=sr_1_1?asc_source=01HFY6QA7FYP0YEFD1ZY3XMFP8&tag=snx78-20

Since this is /vid/ you get bonus points if you use an arri or red to film your self abusing the psychedelics in an attempt at spiritual growth and turn the footage of you abusing hardcore psychedelics into a Hunter S Thompsonesq Indy film because psychedelic drugs are as boss as fuck and make for good gonzo films.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2018:02:17 15:47:42
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1800
Image Height	1800

Satan do you have to show up in every thread?

File: IMG_7957.jpg (4.16 MB, 7680x7680)

4.16 MB JPG

How would this be for a film? An Indy documentary.

It starts out sharp and clinical using something like a master prime and a gear head so everything is super controlled to show an autistic boy living his life before the DMT trip. Using a red camera to make it extra sharp.

During the DMT trip. Petzval lenses are used for swirly bokeh and mirrored 200mm primes are used for ring bokeh and a global shutter camera is rotated and spun for a trippy effect.

After the DMT trip soft cinematic lenses such as Super Baltars and Cookes are used on an Arri Amira Mini for that soft and cinematic look. Maybe with diffusion filters to make it look more cinematic.

Resolve is used to make the sharp part have sterile colors like in soap operas. The trip have vibrant poppy colors that are super saturated but look great like in Hero. After the trip the colors are graded to be cinematic like in the golden age of Hollywood.

Before the trip the film playing at 120fps during the trip the speed of the footage varies to make it trippy as fuck and after the trip the film plays at 24fps. (If this is even possible to do.)

If a film like this was done would it be a super cinematic Indy documentary film or would it be a shitty cookie cutter film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	7680
Image Height	7680
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4324679
A fluid head tripod such as an O’Connor 1040 or Sachler Flowtech would be used after the trip to make it more fluid and less controlled.

>>4324200
>ettr
I have no idea what this is. It was developed and scanned in a lab and sent to me.

Also how would the sun's positioning have that much of an effect?

>>4324699
You are shooting on film, rather than a phone. If you want things to look consistent you have to take into account stuff no one worries about anymore because modern cameras do it for you. You have to make sure your cartridges are protected from light before and after use. You need to check for light leaks in the cartridge chamber. White balance and focus distance matter again. If you use multiple shutter speeds you have to account for the exposure. Same goes for aperature. On different stocks and ASAs you will see variations in how the colors in shot respond based on your exposure value and the quality of light on target. If you are in midday sun and you shoot 10 sec with clear sky and 10 sec with a cloud blocking the sun, the exposure and color will look different in both shots. I don't want to bore you here, you just have to be more delibarate.

>>4324679
>>4324681

You should make it very sharp and digital before the DMT trip to symbolize how autistic people view the world and very organic and cinematic with a soft glow after the DMT trip to symbolize the transformative nature of the DMT trip.

>>4324794
You should make the footage before the DMT trip robotic or robot-like using controlled movements and sharp glass to symbolic how people with ASD interact with the word. And, organic and with very fluid movements annd glass with a lot of character after the DMT trip to symbolize the transformative nature of DMT.

File: 1704927808334818.png (3.55 MB, 1080x1920)

3.55 MB PNG

Hello /vid/eophiles I come from far lands to ask for your wisdom, I want to recreate some camera effects using VFX, to that purpose I'm trying to find a real life handheld camera from the 2000's to have hands-on reference material, but I don't know exactly what kind of camera I'm looking for, all I know is 2000-2010's handheld with a CCD sensor that creates vertical streaks as seen in the picrel.

If you can eyeball a range or help me narrow my search I'd be really grateful, if you also know what the artifacts on screen are called pls also let me know.

>>4324679
Use broken lenses for the after DMT trip part
Will symbolize how worldview is permanently shattered and broken (just like the subject's mind) due to drug use

>>4324810
Would those plastic helga lenses I see on amazon for under $20 be broken lenses.

They are pin hole lenses and they make a weird looking image.

>>4324810
We are talking about DMT not crystal meth. I thought DMT and ayahuasca healed people and didn’t break their brains.

File: 1690103836315620.png (850 KB, 700x497)

850 KB PNG

what body/lens?

>>4325165
Looks like a Sony Venice

File: article-production101-pro(...).jpg (627 KB, 1920x1080)

627 KB JPG

>>4322870
Have any boomers turned videography/filmmaking into a career later in their life? I'm 32 and I feel like it's ogre for me. I went to school for something marketing-adjacent that taught me a lot about video production, and worked in marketing for a few years after school but hated it so left the industry.

I have a pal who works as a content producer now (I think that's what the title would be called? He shoots and edits content for influencers and businesses mostly for use on social and websites etc) and it's really inspiring me to give video production another try.

Idk, am I too old and broken for this stuff? Not like physically wise, but am I gonna stick out like a sore thumb if I try to network with people as a 32 year old man who's more or less new?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2020:07:17 14:52:13

>>4325419
It’s all about your reel. Go out and shoot stuff to make a reel because when you first get into video stuff it’s the reel that gets you the work. Assuming, of course, you are trying to become a cinematographer.

>>4324825
DMT, ayahuasca, shrooms, etc. all cause permanent changes to brain
People argue whether those changes are positive/negative
Since the drug usage results in uncontrollable changes and no one can say for certain the actual effect it will have on a specific individual beforehand I lean towards breaking rather than healing anything.

What encoding options do you guys use for short clips? I'm not looking to make a film or even upload, but was curious if the file size could be reduced without lower perceptible quality.

>>4325425
So basically just because it healed the kid in my documentary doesn’t mean it will heal everybody who uses it.

>>4325425
I am kind of “cherry picking” and only show it healing people because I want my films to show that psychedelics are safe. The one thing I will say is that they will cure boredom.

>>4325620
>>4325622
Oh ok, sounds like you have a very good idea of what you want to portray

What about filming on shoulder w/o stabilization for the pre-trip, then switching to stabilized gimbal / sweeping tripod shots for post-trip? Jarrying harshness of subject's life pre-trip contrasted with smooth kino of post-trip. Might be weird with the frame rates you've chosen though, idk.

>>4325165

Lens is a Panavision I think, some of their series has that yellow/orange double ring in front of the element. Needs a bigger picture to be completely sure. Cooke also has a ring on front of some of their lens series but it is just one ring.

>>4325633
Would handheld or sholder mount pre-trip or shot on sticks locked down image and a steadycam shot post or a lot of dolly and jib shots trip work?

Just purchased:
Amaran 200x
Amaran MC
Smallrig freeblazer heavy duty tripod system

How badly did I fuck up?

>>4325421
Maybe lol, what's the difference between a cinematographer & a videographer?

Who is a good outfit to get older camcorders serviced? i have a Snoy DSR-300 that's currently a paperweight because it has a function cam motor issue

>>4325871
Video One Repair out of Cali did a pretty good job for a couple of Sony cams I own. Maybe they can help you.

>>4325871
https://youtu.be/ZFq5cp0OHqQ?si=ohwxhwEe8prsBd-F
What a neat video, gotta love old Sony adverts

>>4325872
I'll take a look into them, thanks
>>4325877
Yeah it's really fun seeing the old adverts and even professional "guide" videos that were made for these prosumer/broadcast cameras

>>4325827
A cinematographer films stuff where you control everything and light everything such as music videos, commercials or narrative films and a videographer films stuff where you just capture what is there but don’t have full control over everything such as live bands, concerts, footage of a music festival and weddings.

>>4325877
I never thought to use the strap the way she does when she loads her bag into the car. Learned something new.

>>4325815
If you didn't break your own bank, those aren't bad choices.
You can use the same app for both amaran lights which is great. There are cheaper systems than amaran out there though.

Get some sandbags for the light stand on that amaran cause it's heavy and will fall.

That tripod is alright. Make sure you tighten the little hex screws down the tripod legs, especially with heavier rigs, or the legs will slowly collapse while you shoot

So I was looking up the nikon z8 last night to see if maybe the memes were unfair and nikon is actually a worthy video brand.
And the reviews make it look super impressive with 8k internal raw and 4k 120. Then I looked up the dynamic range. Still looks good.
Okay, maybe I should change my tune?
Then I looked up its codecs.
>8k raw
>non raw 8k is actually 7.6k and 4:2:0
>4.1k raw
>non raw 4k is limited to uhd
>only way to get 4:2:2 is to record in prores hq which has stupidly large file sizes (160gb for 25 minutes, in uhd) (12 bit n-raw 4.1k gives you 56 minutes with 160gb for comparison)
This is like the definition of a camera designed by computer nerds with input from "content creators". If you're not shooting raw, your codecs are severely limited and you're probably getting relatively shit quality.
I genuinely wonder if they're purposely just trying to fuck indie productions who might try and use the camera for narrative work.

>>4325941
Thanks for the tip with the tripod, will do

Now looking at the z6iii and what the fuck? This looks terrible? Is anyone else seeing this?
https://youtu.be/Iw8yijTZQ5E?feature=shared&t=119
At around 2m in, he's walking and I assume they're using the camera's stabalisation to test handheld but it looks like absolutely shit.
Again at 7:49, there's just constant wobble at the sides of the frame.
9;06, as well as the footage being blurry for the entire sports montage, there's a stupid amount of noise in Chris' hair.
12:05 when they start talking about video specifically, the entire image is just wobbling constantly.
14:37 he talks about that shot from 2m in and says it's really nice, following him saying that their ibis is some of the best in the world.
I feel like I'm going insane watching this. Like the footage looks nice when the camera is static. But the second it moves, the footage looks like garbage.

>>4326012
hybrid shooters deserve slop

>>4326025
>Blurry footage 2m in
Autofocus hunting. Nikon hasn't improved AF that much. Probably doesn't compete with snoy.
>stabilization looks like shit
IBIS is for stills, not video, i have no idea why video kids want IBIS for video. Moving a sensor is fundamentally something that affects the image, not the stability.
>there's just constant wobble at the sides of the frame - wobbling constantly
ALL IBIS does this with lenses over a certain focal length unless the footage is cropped. It's the same as shifting the rear standard on a technical camera. It alters perspective. Doesn't the wobble look familiar to you? It's a tilt/shift effect like wiggling the rear standard of a view camera.
>their IBIS is some of the best
But it's still IBIS. Even in stills, which is what it's actually meant for, extremely strong stab that gives the camera a lot of leeway to move will only ever keep the center sharp with lenses this wide.

Again, this is a technical issue that applies to flat plane cameras no matter what. The only reason it hasn't come up so often is because earlier, most cameras with 8 stops had a lack of fast UWAs (m43 lol) which is what makes this most noticeable and cannot POS R IBIS usually depends partially on OIS, which helps lessen the tilt shift effect.

>>4326029
the g9ii's "gimbal tier ibis" had wobble too, only people left the electronic stabilization on which crops the wobble out lol

it just so happened lumix had a paid shill on /p/ so this fact was drowned out. nikon does not have a paid shill on /p/, just some ex-snoyboys who were excited to have a similarly sized body that wasn't shit.

>>4326012
sony, canon and nikon do this thing called a "cripple hammer" where snobby gearfag hobbyists are shit on by being denied a spec sheet item they desperately want in a way that people who make a significant amount of money off photography probably wouldn't be bothered by
>if you need 4:2:2, you are a professional, and you can afford the storage and processing to work with raw video
>if you need weather sealing on a full frame body, you are a professional, and you have an L lens anyways
>if you need this feature and that feature you are a professional so you should have the nicer model already
im starting to think its based, because they're actually kind of right

>>4326029
The ibis in my camera is nowhere near this bad. Ibis typically helps your camera not look like shit when doing handheld shots because it absorbs microjitters. But you're probably right that they're just using a lens that's too wide.
Also if that's af hunting, then it's laughable that they'd praise it so highly (but it looks more like microjitter blur "fixed" with digital stabilisation to me).
>>4326030
I recently bought my first panasonic after years of criticising them (s5ii is too cost-effective for its features to ignore imo).
The digital stabilisation is aids. The af is controlled in a stupid way (no way to turn it on/off via the touchscreen). And it's crashed on me more than once (I didn't even realise cameras could crash).
Having said all that, it's a remarkable camera and I don't regret buying it.
>>4326037
It pisses me off because the missing features are so minor but important at the same time (like dci 4k).
But more than that, it's because every youtuber that reviews these cameras does so from the pov of a content creator or a wedding videographer. So they completely overlook these issues and have no idea what ergonomics are needed for the camera to perfrom well on a narrative set.
I didn't realise how great canon were in that regards until I swapped brands (not absolving canon of cripple hammer bullshit but they're very nice to use in my experience if they have the features you need). I swapped brands because the only canon that could fit my needs was an r5 or higher and it was too expensive.

Also, photographers need to shut the fuck up and quit whining. Pretty much every camera costing more than 800 bucks released in the last 5 years (10 years really) is perfect for photography. Like any criticisms are so incredibly minor that a photographer has no excuses. Video shit is the only reason that new cameras are selling and thus the only reason that photographers are getting any new features.
My canon 70d still takes amazing photos

>>4326025
>petapixel
not watching their slop after their blatant S9 shilling

>>4326062
>DCI 4k
>important
Who do you work for that is so discerning that cropping regular uhd does not pass

>photographer whining
Photographers carry cameras 90% of the time and use them 10%, and risk losing their camera more than someone project/gig oriented
They have more reason to own their gear, someone project/gig oriented (most professional video) has more of a reason to rent whatever they want
When cameras get bigger, or more expensive, to fit in more video-centric features like larger HDMI ports, heatsinks, etc they whine - they SHOULD whine - they are 100% justified in doing so.

>>4326062
the 3 big features that really defined cameras up until now - autofocus, resolution, and IBIS, were all created for stills first
>"real video" doesnt use autofocus
>resolution? 4k is 8mp.
>IBIS = wobble, gimbal/ois work better
the big deal is that autofocus regressed for everyone but sony and canon, canon sucks at miniaturization, and internet people are allergic to sony lol

>>4326064
That's fair. I like them because they're generally nice and not too cringe compared to others. But mainly because they shoot most videos on the cameras they're p/reviewing and normally it's hard to find much footage for the camera at that point.
I don't take their opinions seriously though.
>>4326065
I make narrative shit. I deliver in uhd. So I need dci so that I have that slight bit of breathing room in case there's something at the edge of the frame that needs to be cropped out.
>When cameras get bigger, or more expensive, to fit in more video-centric features like larger HDMI ports, heatsinks, etc they whine - they SHOULD whine - they are 100% justified in doing so.
But this isn't true. All the features they whine about don't increase costs. Like 8k video in whatever camera is just a byproduct of being able to do 30fps burst raw shooting.
Adding it as an actual video mode costs a little bit more to r&d but increases the camera's appeal so much that it offsets the r&d cost and reduces the price if anything. This is why stills only cameras cost so much more for worse features.
And you can't honestly be telling me that you think the sony a7c, panasonic s9 or canon r8 would be smaller if they didn't have video features? These cameras are literally barely more than the vertical size of the lens mount and a hand grip to feel comfortable.

>>4326070
Who do you deliver to that is so discerning that cropping uhd is unacceptable
I am genuinely curious i've just held gear for other people and been a third wheel to the process

>30fps raw shooting
objectively speaking, this is also more than most photographers need
would you be happier if high specced hybrids came in clearly video-centric bodies, and stills cameras were totally set apart from them?

>>4326098
>Who do you deliver to
Cinema.
I put the stuff I make on a giant cinema screen.
Your implied argument that uhd should be good enough is dumb. By that logic, 3k should be good enough. Or 2.5k. Or fuck it, 1080p should be fine.
My 8 year old canon 5div shoots dci 4k. Video was literally an obvious afterthought in that camera. The idea that there are highly praised hybrid cameras in 2024 that can't do this is insulting to me as a consumer since I know it's an intentional cripple.
>this is also more than most photographers need
Stills cameras have exceeded what 99% of photographers have needed a decade ago.
>would you be happier if high specced hybrids came in clearly video-centric bodies, and stills cameras were totally set apart from them?
No. I like the dslr-type body. I like being able to shoot guerilla without standing out. And I like that my stills camera can shoot good video if I need it to.

>>4326127
>Cinema.
>I put the stuff I make on a giant cinema screen.
Do you have a brainfart clip kicking around that exemplifies your directorial talent

>>4326130
No.
As much as I'd love to link something so that you can shit on my ability as a filmmaker, it's not really at all relevant to my point and is a weak attempt at deflection.

>>4326127
>>4326137
Majority of """cinema""" screens are no more than 2K, and that's before the light even gets to the projector lens.

>>4326127
>Or fuck it, 1080p should be fine.
this is the real redpill, and anyone that has gone to festivals in their life has seen plenty c100 1080 thrown on the big screen

>>4326137
ah ok i hope your vlog gets lots of likes and subscribes. it must look amazing fullscreened on a macbook pro.

>>4326138
Okay? Why does that matter?
>>4326141
Yes. But no. The improvement in my footage's quality when I made the jump from 1080 to 4k was so extreme that I couldn't really believe it at first.
1080 you zoom in at all and everything becomes blurry and pixelated immediately.
4k you zoom in and it gets a little blurrier sure, but it doesn't get all pixelated.
In terms of what works, sure 1080 is adequate. But if I have the choice, I'm definitely going higher for the stuff I care about. I'd go 6k if the storage costs weren't so high and my computer could manage it. And that would only be for the sake of my autism knowing that there was roughly the same amount of detail as actual filmstock, more detail than most stills pictures I've taken, and more resolution than an arri lf.
>>4326143
Thanks bro.

I thought the original argument was “there is no discernible difference between DCI 4K and UHD 4K- anyone you’re delivering to would not be able to tell the difference eyeballing it”

>>4326144
>I'd go 6k if the storage costs weren't so high and my computer could manage it
Doesn’t proxy solve the problem of computer performance? And drives are cheaper than ever before

>>4326144
>zoom in
You mean crop in, right?

>>4326166
Cheaper is still expensive.
It genuinely amazes me every day I film to consider the cost of a 128gb sd card that records like an hour or so of 4k footage, compared to the equivalent cost of filmstock. But if I had to pay for filmstock I flat out wouldn't be able to make anything. Likewise with harddrives, it's great how cheap they are compared to what they were ten years ago. But they're still not so cheap that I can just buy several spare 6tb harddrives without thinking. At 6k very compressed, I'd be looking at well over 10tb for a single film.
And I know from experience that I don't want to deal with projects split across multiple drives.
Maybe when I have more money. (And also the 6k from my camera is 420 and I want 422 because reasons - so realistically I'd want a blackmagic 6k if I were to go that route)
>>4326169
Both. Sometimes it adds a bit of character to introduce a slow zoom
>>4326165
If you're talking to me, the original post I replied to was asking what I delivered to that uhd was not sufficient but dci was. It comes down to personal reasons at the end of the day. I've listed my reasons above. You can agree or disagree but my reasons are mine. I don't think it's unreasonable to have personal factors that are important to you, especially when they're specs that cheaper cameras already provide. And especially especially when they're specs that current cameras surpass but still refuse to include for no reason other than intentional crippling.
I know of several cinematographers who refuse to shoot in anything less than 8k. To me 8k is overkill but that doesn't make their criteria less valid just because it's not important to me.

>>4326177
I’ve worked exclusively with 8mm and 16mm film for the past 8 years, and after seeing whats now possible with digital I’ve literally just made the decision (like a few weeks ago) to finally move away from film and go digital. I absolutely love the medium of film, but there’s just too many positive aspects of digital now (financial, time/energy, workflow, equipment) that outweigh the positives of film.
I’m debating just picking up a used Ursa Mini Pro. The fact you can get that quality/workflow/options for less than $6K is absolutely mind blowing to me.
After seeing what’s possible with filming 6k/8k and cropping without any quality loss for a 4K output, I definitely understand people wanting to shoot in that resolution. Opens up worlds of possibility in post.

Remember that I was saying that I was doing a commercial? I finally did, but I fucked it up unironically really badly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55gsDeIKAIY

You might as well put glass in your eyes than watch this /joking.

>>4326274
Yeah….
But you atleast realize how you fucked it up and what you should do instead and do better next time, right?
Or if it’s supposed to be bad- congrats

File: file.png (5 KB, 112x138)

5 KB PNG

>>4322870
I have an interesting question for you /vid/.

I have a cheap projector and a simple projector screen for it. The videos typically end up looking pretty washed out/desaturated.
Would it make sense to edit the contrast/saturation of the video files I plan on using? Or would there be a better way to optimize this?

>>4326608
Your projector doesn't have settings that can be changed?

>>4326613
>checks projector
uh thanks anon nevermind haha

>>4325815
Just received the gear- goddamn these lights are bright. Very impressed with the output from the MC, considering the size.
These two are complimenting the 300c I already bought awhile back. Love the fact I can control all of them with the same app.
Waiting on the tripod to arrive tomorrow. Shooting some test footage and paying off the card, then getting more light modifiers and seeing where to go next after that.
Thanks for reading my blog

>>4325827
This is what I thought-
Cinematographer aka “director of photography” tells what the lighting techs need to do, what the camera techs need to do, etc. May or may not own the gear, might not even touch any of the gear during the shoot and just direct the departments to get the shot. Answers to the film director though.
Videographer- typically a “one man band” who owns all of his own video and lighting gear and operates it all.

File: images_page_2207_modules_(...).jpg (464 KB, 1400x788)

464 KB JPG

is 32 bit float really goat tier?

>>4326701
Yes. In my opinion.
Not having to watch your levels and keep adjusting depending on whether your actor is whispering or shouting (or both in the same scene) saves so much time and improves quality.

>>4326665
no such thing as too bright unless the mains go down

I want to git gud and start shooting cinematic things, how much of a difference does a cine lenses make? I am thinking of buying one of those cheap Sirui Nightwalker lenses, I can only really buy one and I will be on a crop sensor so I was thinking maybe the 35mm to get to around 50 something mm as an all around lenses. I do like shooting with narrower lenses/when I use my zooms I am usually pretty close to zoomed in all the way most of the time. I can get the 35mm for Sirui for 360 CAD/Canadian dollars I am kind of thinking of getting it but at the same time I think I am no where near even good enough to really make use of the benefits of a cine lens. I was wanting to buy a old Canon EF 24-105mm f4/L but I will be spending the same amount on that as the cine lens but I could also have a wide range of focal lengths. But I see that the stabilization is very loud on the older Canon lens if it was cheaper I wouldn't care. I think I may be falling for a meme of the cine lenses, I really want one as I think they are cool but at the same time, I don't think I have the skill to really utilize it properly.

>>4327024
The benefit of a cine lens depends on having a rig that can utilize it. Do you have a follow focus? Cage? 15mm rods? Shoulder rig? Tripod and fluid head? No to all of this? Then don’t bother. Get a vintage manual focus stills lens and get good with that. If you’re a solo operator then just do that. Cine lenses exist in the context of a full on film set with all the crew and gear that accompany that.

>>4326701
Not having to monitor levels is amazing but bear in mind you still gotta set them in post. Not a big deal for most people though.

The hype regarding quality is questionable. I've been a sound engineer far longer that I've ever held a camera and the vast majority of recordings are made with 24 bit. It's not like the the jump from 1080p to 4k, more like 4k to 6k and beyond.

32 bit was always about dynamic range. The music world still bases it's infrastructure around 24 bit because there is always some predictability in levels, but actors and ambient noise are a whole different story.

How do I remove lights looking like stars but without the ability to screw on filters because I'm using a camcorder?
>inb4 stop using a camcorder
No

I bought a "cinema camera". Now what?

>>4327215
find some cinema to film

>>4327215
Hire two lesbians to jerk you off and film it with your cinema camera saying it’s for an art house film you are making. If you film yourself getting pleasured it becomes legal because you are making a film not just getting pleasured by whores.

>>4327219
nothing says cinéma vérité like a double lesbo tugjob, even better if you're on your back and they takes turns shitting on your chest

>>4327029

Yeah I just have a cage and a few accessories for my r10, I bought a couple of those cheap Chinese manual lenses from 7artisan and Pergear I will try to practice with fully manual lenses on those a bit.

>>4327219
>>4327312
Make it adhere to Dogme95 for maximum kineaux

>>4327334
LOL
faggot poser movement that literally broke its own rules

>>4327312
>>4327334

For even more lulz have the lesbos using strap on dildos and film them having anal sex with you. That would be as kino as fuck. Especially if you use high quality cinema lenses like cooke, arri, or super baltars to film it.

>>4327215
Not sure if this is a troll but here you go:

If you want to get into cinema, read the OP links, there's some great references there such as books etc.

To work in these types of projects, you have to typically work with a big team, so it helps to make connections when you're getting started. Search local facebook/forums to find student / low budget short films.
If you want to write/direct your own films, these connections will also help you a lot in assembling a crew.

Joining a crew as a camera assistant at first will also give you some experience in working on a set without having too much responsibility right away.

If you want to work with a smaller team, try to find some music videos etc.
You can also make some cash filming stuff like corporate shoots, interviews etc with pretty basic gear.

>>4327024
Like the other anon said, cine lenses etc are made in the context of a full set.
I would rather buy 2-3 cheaper lenses than 1 expensive lens, since you dont seem to have a full kit yet (even if basic).

I would also add that these nightwalker lenses aren't really great. If you have lights etc on a set, you won't need the 1.2 at all.

This lens is made for walking at night lol

>>4327024
The sigma 1.8 18-35 is great if you want some range in one lens btw, and the rokinon etc lenses aren't bad at all for the price.

Is anyone actually filming shit at 1.8? Outside of maybe a one-off very specific shot I’d imagine an entire project would look like shit like this. Plus the lens most likely wouldn’t be very sharp at 1.8.
So why does it matter to video shooters that the lens is super fast?

>>4327640
A lot of close ups need a blurred background.
Plus, the wider the lens is, the less light you lose once you go down a couple stops for sharpness.

If it's 1.5 you might end up shooting at 2.5 or 2.8, while if it's a 2.0 lens you'll probably end up at f4.

File: Zack_Snyder.jpg (476 KB, 1360x1360)

476 KB JPG

>>4327640
>Is anyone actually filming shit at 1.8? Outside of maybe a one-off very specific shot I’d imagine an entire project would look like shit like this.
I know, right? That's why real filmmakers film shit at f1.2.

>>4327640
only if shit is fucked and you like to miss focus

Anyone know of a way to clean/salvage fogged lenses or lenses where the coating is being eaten away with age? I have an old camcorder- It works but the quality is obviously suffering due to the deterioration of the lens coating.

>>4327640
Me.
I frequently shoot at f/2 and f/1.8 very occasionally. Really helpful in low light situations and when I just want to see some cool bokeh

What is the “standard/normal” stop range for cinematography? I think I remember reading t2.2-5.6 and going slightly outside for very specific scenarios (closeup, deep focus, etc)

>>4327668
I was told that t/2.8 or f/2.8 is the normal apeture to use. If you go t/1.9 or f/1.8 or lower you got shallow focus and mad bokeh or you are shooting in a very low light environment and if you go much higher then that you’d get deep focus like in Citizen Cane so you want the normal amount of blur you should stick close to f/2.8 or t/2.8

>>4327584

>859 CAD for the Sigma 18-35 and after tip 970 CAD

Fuggin hell....I have the Canon 18-135mm STM 3.6/5.6 and the Canon 55-250mm 4/5.6 plus the Canon 50mm 1.8. Then a couple chinese lenses 24mm and 35mm I believe. I just kind of want something with a bit lower aperture to film in lower light/get more bokeh but the prices for any lens once you start going under 4.0 seems steep but I know it's pay to play. I was looking at the old Canon EF 24-105mm f4/L the first version but apparently it has really noisy stabilization but I don't know how much of a big deal that would be in a lot of scenarios. Even that lens is still 600~ CAD.

File: 1713813725783969.png (176 KB, 309x323)

176 KB PNG

>>4322870
Is the Autofocus on the SIIx bad? Can't decide between the SIIx and the A6700 for LowLight filming.

>>4327746
Yes. If things really, genuinely move, it sucks. Animals and cars are unfocusable. The usual cope is “AF DOES NOT HAVE A PLACE IN VIDEO REEEE! STOP DOWN REEE!” but yeah just get a sony

File: 1706400949135500.jpg (73 KB, 500x634)

73 KB JPG

>>4327750
>Animals and cars are unfocusable
Fugg. Humans and Cars is what I want to film. So 6700 it is ... any other recommendations?
>The usual cope is “AF DOES NOT HAVE A PLACE IN VIDEO REEEE! STOP DOWN REEE!” but yeah just get a sony
If God didn't want us to use AF in Videos, he would've made it impossible to be implemented by camera manufacturers.

File: .png (517 KB, 1878x618)

517 KB PNG

a1 is a BURANO with forced noise reduction
FX6 is a BURANO with forced low resolution
BURANO is five times the price of either

a1 or a7 IV are the only Sony cameras worth buying

>>4327215
you didn't
see above
unless you spent at least $25,000
which you did not
return the camera and tell everyone you know their camera is cucked beyond saving
totally unusably and waste of money

hate ZV-E1, a7S III, FX3, FX6

>>4324165
i presume you just don't have eyes then
it's obvious even on YouTube with its compression how soft the ZV-E1, a7S III, FX3, FX6 are
unusably soft!!!
and if you have zero technical knowledge, don't worry, if you look you can find warnings that Sony graciously puts out every now and again, i.e. Gerald Undone's video about switching from a7S III to a1
everyone talking about cameras online is camera industry controlled opposition
even CineD and DXOMark ffs
their tests suck and could be so much better
but they selectively leave out stuff that would make glaringly obvious the marketing lies those cameras are sold by
FX6 is usable if your audience doesn't have eyes and then you can use an a7 III with its dogshit codecs and dogshit everything

never saw good FX6 footage ever
2008 quality out of camera and then YouTube takes that and compresses it into GTA 5

with FX6 you lose so much detail and contrast you think your lenses suck
you are doomed to a shitty soft image without detail
that's where you start every time you think about going out and shooting
like having both your arms amputated or turning blind or getting the vax, where's the point after that?
you'll hate your camera and you will never want to use it

who needs texture i love smooth gradients on everything that's what the 10 bit encoding is for

who needs to outperform AI upscaling I love buying $6000 camcorder when I could get same video from my iPhone X and pirated Topaz

>>4327783
love the Gerald Undone FX6 (or was it a7S III) video where he compares it to a7 III and it looks exactly the same

masochist paypig camera of the century award goes to FX6

all the beautiful things in the world and you create an A/D converter that goes for that part I want only green, and for that part measure only red, and for that part do green again, and for good measures, take blue from that part
and if that wasn't already enough take away 75% of the pixels
who cares what you're left with

Is the old Canon EF 24-105MM f4/l I a good lens? I can pick one up from Japan for 500 CAD, I plan on trying to do cinematic video and car photography. I have a Canon 18-135mm 3.6/5.6 and a Canon 55-250mm 4/5.6, how much of an upgrade will this old L glass be to these lenses if any?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (168 KB, 1280x720)

168 KB JPG

Reccomended monitor for r6ii? Not interested in a recorder. The more exposure tools the better.

Budget $150-$250. Maybe $300

FX6 has 33% markup over FX3 because of no noise reduction
expect people to figure out how to disable noise reduction and then your money is wasted
better yet FX3 has an actual audio input on the body and FX6 doesn't, the XLRs don't count because they're unusable
and FX3 has nothing over a7S III after firmware updates, saved another 10%
and since these cameras are only useful at night (it's cold at night) you might as well go with ZV-E1
wow you just saved 60% over an FX6 and got the same exact camera
and you can tell people your $2500 ZV-E1 has the same sensor as the $25k BURANO because it's just true

good job retards after seeing FX6 sell like no other camera (wtf) Sony is much more willing to fuck everyone over
but it does just what i need!! yeah probably you leech because your work sucks

anything to delay the inevitable
just one more generation of camera plz!!

>>4322870
I’m not buying another Sony, I’m fucking done with them. Who has the best glass going these days, the Nik Z stuff. Too bad their vid was an afterthought til now. Perhaps buying Red will give them a reason to step up their video game. Or perhaps they’ll keep the two separate and just finally be the funding for Red so it doesn’t go tits up.

>>4327828
Canon
but all the mirrorless glass is a dead end
they're desperate they know soon they won't have any more cameras to sell and then they go out of business
you should be buying PL glass
all of this is going to become way less commercialized in the future and only PL will remain
and if you can't afford that why are you in this business anyway you should know by now that Sony, Nikon, Canon, RED all hate you

art industry and having the ability to buy skill just doesn't go together
there are people following leak outlets to prepare for the upcoming new lens that's going to get them their edge over the competition
how pathetic is that but that's what boomers turned this industry into

all the mirrorless glass is soulless "clinical" because it was purpose designed for documenting the upcoming war
you have two more years to build your kit and after the war all that gear is getting trashed because then they'll convince you that what you bought is crap just like how they convinced you mirrorless lenses are a good investment
you are not an artist

everyone hates you
you have no power
and no worth

>>4327834
>all the mirrorless glass is soulless "clinical"
or because they don't want you to be able to buy skill
you get the most uncharacteristic lens ever
how nice of them to give you a blank canvas so you have more options in post to tune it into something that's your own, you know, art
either you're a first world native and you are granted access to the lens library
or you have a go at post production
requires skill so barely anybody has been doing it and there's so much untapped potential and it's actually something worth investing time into unlike what you boomers have been doing for the past 20 years i.e. Canon plz release a faster lens

Germans in particular have zero skill and are the biggest beggars and paycucks and degenerates
that's what they asked for and they got it

File: kek.png (2.98 MB, 2500x1158)

2.98 MB PNG

>>4327830
>>4327832
>>4327834
>>4327836
I was gonna dump mirrorless and go back to SLRs but your schizo rant convinced me that mirrorless is BASED and I am sticking with what I have

>>4327840
no problem
have fun

>>4327841
Ok
Take meds btw

(ps: i am a professor of paleantology)

>>4327842
nice

do your work get your reward (Canon lens)

Little did he know, he was talking to a philadelphia codeine dealer.

>that one autist who won't shut the fuck up about how shit sony cameras are
I guess I'm impressed that we managed to go this many years without a resident retard spamming up the thread. At least our other retards only post relatively infrequently

>>4327991
>thinking actual photographers enjoy shooting with Sony
>all the bitching everyone has done about the poor design, shit ergonomics, terrible menu, & crap software since forever must all be from one guy

Yeah, makes sense.

>>4327777
> the cheaper camera has forced noise reduction
Why would you want to pay more money for a more noisy image.

>>4327838
Most cinematographers use clinical glass like arri master primes (the most clinical glass) and filters in their matte box (diffusion filters, streak filters, ND filters, soft focus filters, etc.) so they can add character to their footage and dial in the look.

Unless they are shooting something retro and then they use vintage lenses from the era of their film to give thier film the look they want.

You could use the Sigma 12-35 f/1.8 and Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 art lenses and filters to dial in the look you want.

>>4327777
>FORCED noise reduction!
Can you name five times you didn't use noise reduction

>>4328023
Most photographers are tech illiterate boomer retards who took 10 years to learn to shoot raw.
Sony is more popular for videography because you need to actually know what you're doing

When retards get into video they get filtered by white balance and blame the camera brand for using an ugly green tint instead of their preferred ugly magenta tint

>>4328035
forced nr is a stills complaint, because you can stand in one spot and admire one 50mp frame printed out full size, 300dpi forever and at base ISO there's no noise to reduce, so NR just softens the shadow detail in a way you might not want

for video i dont see it as worth giving a shit about, less time editing for me

>>4328035
>Can you name five times you didn't use noise reduction
i use lights

Anyone here use any film grain emulation software or scan packs? I’m considering using Dehancer. Going for a very “1920’s silent film” look

File: file.png (233 KB, 280x289)

233 KB PNG

What video gear are they using in 2024 euros? What body/lens is this?

File: soccer-uefa-champions-lea(...).jpg (147 KB, 1300x976)

147 KB JPG

>>4328060
>What video gear are they using in 2024 euros?
Stadium broadcast cameras

File: 1705118794171443.jpg (27 KB, 740x415)

27 KB JPG

>>4328035
>you need to actually know what you're doing
Not if you're shooting sony.

>>4328186
Yeah but what about the pic I posted? Which one is that? Is that some canon or sony cine line camera?

>>4328238
>oh no, not working autofocus
hollywood is using autofocus now, sorry bud
>but its lidar
because they have to adapt it to ancient arricams and $50,000 all manual scheiss primes

>>4328323
Yea for sure. Did you work on the creator set too? Or do you just sell accessories to make my camera go vertical more easily on the RS3 Pro TM?

>>4328315
>i can't fap without brands and specs

>>4328058
There’s nothing you can’t do just as well tinkering with the effects yourself. Most of these plugins are just stacked presets using the in-built stock fx of the program in the first place.

>>4328315
Dude, that image is so grainy, you could barely tell he even has a camera.

>>4328539
I love grain

>>4323548
Art that successfully delivers a sensation or idea from the creator to the perceiver is objectively better than art that fails to. Failing to understand this makes you a poor artist, refusing to reduces you to a public masturbator.

>>4328756
actually totally false. your work of art doesn't have to do anything on its own.

the vast majority of art today is based on the interaction between impenetrable nonsense, preferably offensive to good christian morals, and the dense but ultimately meaningless "critique" of some social-marxist pseud ala sontag

the real work of art is the synthesis between the nonsensical piece, and the nonsensical prompt (critique) for thinking about it. alone, both are just garbage on a page.

>>4328756
lmao classic horrible “argument”

>>4328760
So edgy teens that shit on religious artifacts to make TikTok videos are making art.

Especially if the leave the comment section open so they can make fun of religious people that get angry.

Your argument is basically art is trolling people for the lulz or something like that. Am I right?

>>4328786
>So edgy teens that shit on religious artifacts to make TikTok videos are making art.
Yes, absolutely

>art is trolling people for the lulz
It certainly can be. Or it can be serious critique.

Why are you so set on setting hard boundaries and building walls on what art can/cannot be and should/shouldn’t be?

>>4328760
>alone, both are just garbage on a page
You can think of them as garbage, that’s fine, but they’re still art, even alone

File: 1701057813797732.jpg (31 KB, 800x534)

31 KB JPG

Bros help me out here, finances are tight but finally have to get my own gear, I have the option of getting an untested c300 Mark 1 with a full cage/rig for around 350$ right now but I'm not sure wether or not I should just bite the bullet and save up for a pocket 6k. From what I understand the c300 has a 4k super 35 sensor but internally encodes to 1080p because of limitations at the time of production, but I've heard that I could potentially get around that by using an external recorder, however I have pretty much no experience doing that and have no idea how that would work or how expensive/mobile that sort of rig would be. What should I do?

>>4329065
>unable to do even the most basic research for himself
>wants to buy a cinema camera
lmao

File: 1697689705982628.jpg (900 KB, 2976x2232)

900 KB JPG

>>4329070
You're right I'm being stupid here. I'm trying to learn more about cameras but usually I'm not working camera on set. I've spent a few years now working with blackmagic 4ks and shooting stuff with friends but I'm gonna lose access to that gear soon and I don't want it to fuck up my ability to shoot stuff. I'm punching above my weight here but I'm trying to buy a camera that I'm not gonna outgrow in the next ten years, and the reason the c300 looked appealing was because 350 seemed really cheap for a cinema camera but it's an auction that's ending really soon, so I've got to make a call.

Like I said I'm not normally on camera but I'm trying to get more into shooting my stuff on my own, so from what I can tell if I were to try and use an external recorder the quality of the output would depend on what sort of SDI output the camera would have and that's where I really don't know what I'm talking about. From looking around online the camera has an HD-SDI output but from my understanding (which is really limited) I would need SDI 6g output to really have the camera optimized for 4k output, but I'm not quite sure what "optimized" would mean in this scenario, would it mean unable to record externally in 4k entirely or would it just mean potential image problems? In addition almost all of the spec listings I could find for the camera just say HD-SDI and don't actually specify 6g or 3g or anything, I'm unsure if I should just be assuming HD means 3g or what here.

File: 1692648980235368.png (2.43 MB, 1920x1076)

2.43 MB PNG

>>4329070
>>4329084

I'm also unsure wether or not this would even be possible in the first place. I've seen people mention online that since the sensor is 4k capable I'd be able to capture 4k with an external recorder but pretty much no one even goes into slight detail on how or if that would actually be possible. From what I've heard online this camera was a pretty specific scenario wherein cannon had a 4k sensor in the camera but had the footage encoded to 1080p due to 4k editing and workflows being really cumbersome in 2012. I'm mainly confused about this specific decision and it's implications because there isn't a ton of info online about them, unless I'm just looking in the wrong place which is entirely possible. Any help would be appreciated because I'm trying to learn more but it's been difficult since I've been working with a variety of rented cameras all with different quirks for the last few years and I'm now trying to sort of settle into one of my own I can learn everything about.

>>4329086
I think it down sampled (if that’s what it is called) from 4k to 1080p to get a sharper image. I don’t think it was because of editing limitations. I think it was to both save some space and get a better looking 1080p image. The Sony F35 does something like that too. If you capture your 1080p image at a higher resolution, it’ll just look better.

>>4329086
Canon paywalled the same sensors in different bodies to get you to spend more money if you wanted to unlock all the features

>>4329117
>>4329118
Makes sense, I'm sure the 1080 image will look great but does anyone have any ideas on how to potentially circumvent the internal downsampling and either output 4k or just sensor data? Or am I being stupid here?

>>4329172
No clue. I shot a feature on the C300 way back in 2014 with Zeiss Cine lenses and thought the quality was fantastic at the time, that’s about all I can offer.

>>4329226
>shooting a feature on a c300
Is that common? I thought canons were basically only used in corporate/advertising and documentary work

>>4329241
Didn’t care at the time- got an insanely cheap package deal from a local rental house so that’s what we went with. Even held up at theater screenings.
Personally at this point I wouldn’t use it, for the 4K you mentioned and also wondering if you can get 10 bit 4:2:2 out of it or if that would also be a no-go.

>>4329241
One man bands with Indy budgets sometimes use it for narrative stuff because of the autofocus. You don’t need to hire an ac to use it. People with a large crew and larger budget probably just go out and rent an arri.

Captcha=NNDMT

>>4329259
>autofocus
Wish we knew that lol.

>>4327657
*makes npc brainlets seethe in ya path*