Any tips on what acceptable apertures are for filming? I don't have an ND filter and just want to get some short walking videos or still videos in daylight. Is f8 and f11 still acceptable?

>>4372040
Any aperture is "acceptable". It's an art. As long as your image is in focus and correctly exposed, you're doing far better than most film students.
Personally, I like faster apertures because I like filming at night and I like bokeh. You do you though.
(Sometimes slower apertures might make your video look cheaper because smaller sensors have deeper depth of field than larger ones. Bear this is mind since it sounds like you won't be able to control your lighting very easily. Also though, nd filters are very cheap last I checked)

>>4372040
>>4372042
With deep depth of field you need to put a lot more thought into set design. You can’t hide stuff you don’t want people to see in the blur so you need to put a lot more thought into set design if you shoot at slower apertures and you also might need more light to get proper focus. Citizen Kane had extremely deep DOF and it was an awesome film.

>>4372038
Are any anons on here into color grading?

>>4372042
I find that a fast aperture and drawing focus between subjects as needed comes off as far more professional than just shooting at f/16 and having everything focused. Obviously depends on a lot of artistic directions. ND filters are fuck all; get KF Concept ones off of amazon. They are perfectly serviceable budget filters and will set you back a whopping $20 a pop. I recommend stacking fixed ND filters instead of using VNDs, but VNDs will cost less overall and be easier to adjust. Using wide angles (<24mm) with VNDs also causes weird shit with skies.
>>4372328
I'm dipping my toes into shooting HDRPQ and Clog2/3 footage then trying to grade it. One of my cameras does not do Clog hence learning HDRPQ. I'm practically fuckin' clueless but we're about to go down that rabbit hole with some freeware linux shit (KDEnlive) and will see how things turn out. If that software ends up being aids I'm not above putting some coins down on proper software. I'm not completely happy with the DR of my OOC footage so grading it is.

>>4372343
Resolve will let you color grade. It’s professional software. If you don’t need to deliver in 4k it’s free. If you want to upgrade to 4k delivery it’s just a one time fee of $300 not a monthly rental like adobe

>>4372345
Brilliant. I much prefer just doing a one-off even if it's like C1 where it's $500 and they only update for a year. I'm still using Photoshop 7 lol.
>>4372350
Fuck off mr.it'sdajooos

>>4372328
Yeah but it's a pain because of how inconsistent an image looks across multiple devices
>grade something to perfection with perfectly balanced details in the shadows
>look at it on my phone and it's an over contrasted piece of shit that's barely visible because everything is so dark
>inb4 get a better monitor

>>4372366
Aren't pretty much all phones now adding artifical vibrance, saturation, and contrast to the screen output? You can turn it off but you betcha most aren't. While annoying as fuck, it's like viewing HDR content on an SDR screen and saying it looks like shit.
I do sympathise though; having inconsistent photos/video is aids.

>>4372368
Yes. But weirdly, last time I noticed this I tried turning it off on my phone and it made only a minor difference. Maybe (probably) I'm doing something wrong. But my current solution is to just dial down my grades. Make everything a bit brighter, reduce the contrast slightly and follow the general rule that if something is very dark but viewable on my screen then it isn't viewable on a lot of other screens.

>>4372387
If you are going to set stuff really dark rely on your scopes and not on your screen until you can afford a properly calibrated reference monitor (those monitors run a few grand or more) so if you are just starting out use the waveform monitor in resolve to check your exposure levels if you are going for a very dark and moody scene.

>>4372387
It's likely the screen on your phone is brighter, which may unintentionally produce more saturated colours than what you see on your 250 nit (at best) PC monitor.
>>4372343
>Using wide angles (<24mm) with VNDs also causes weird shit with skies.
Depends on the filter and how you use it. It's best not to engage the far end, e.g. if the filter is 1 to 7 stops, then use it from 2 to 6 stops to avoid the x pattern.

File: 1728616692603801.jpg (46 KB, 567x611)

46 KB JPG

>>4372040
The best advice anybody could possibly give you right now is to just do what looks good. Even if you're an insecure faggot who's worried about what other film/video guys think of your work, you aren't making stuff for them, you're making it for the audience/client and they're not going to notice or give a fuck about all the gay shit your peers will scrutinize under a microscope as if any of it ever mattered.

>>4372328
Yes, I just graded a 6 minute docu project for a non-profit client. Nikon N-Log footage from 2 Z9s. A previous short film I used CSTs and Davinci's Film Look Creator with the Rochester template as a base. This one I used the new RED LUT for my Rec709 conversion as the final node, I think it turned out nicely. I'm pretty new to the world of color grading and video in general so I don't think I'm an authority or anything.

>>4372366
Best you can do is grade to Rec709 standards and stay in safe bounds.

File: alexa2.jpg (105 KB, 960x1280)

105 KB JPG

Poor mans Arri Alexa Plus update >>4371750
Got a tripod for $500AU (Manfrotto 546B + 504HD head)
The Ninja 5+ is coming next week, I believe I can record up to 30p 444 or 422 over SDI
16gb SxS card on the way, no reader yet lol (16gb is 7min @24p)
Battery adaptor is on order
Still need to find a mounting plate, its just sitting on the tripod in the photo, top handle would also be nice

>>4372715
What are you getting out of it that you can't get out of a c80?

>>4372716
It's just all fun for me, I don't even work in the industry, and the tonez.

File: saar3.jpg (1 KB, 84x40)

1 KB JPG

>>4372718
How fuckin' dare you enjoy your hobby. You should shut the fuck up and buy a CANon not a canNOT. Huehuehuehuehue, checkmate atheists

>>4372716
easy bait for sony/canon users

Anyone know how to hook up an old Mini DV camera with only S video/AV outputs to a modern hdmi monitor?

>>4372718
>$2k+ just for funsies
Must be nice

Anyone know how to adapt a three headed dildo to two holes?

>>4372715
I always had the impression it was bigger.

>>4372797
You need a composite to hdmi converter. Any cheap chinese throwdown will work.

File: 1711353785604355.jpg (97 KB, 2500x2500)

97 KB JPG

Does /vid/ use HDMI monitors/recorders? Do you recommend them? I kinda like that they record to SSDs and in ProRes...

>>4373389
I use a Ninja V

>>4372715

I'd never use Alexa with a recorder but whatever suits you I guess

>>4373605
If you get a used odyssey recorder you can record arriraw to ssd drives. I can’t see using anything else unless you just want to save on media costs or can’t find the sony media the older arri cameras require.

>>4373121
> three headed dildo
> two holes

Hay anon, what the hell are you filming?

File: question.png (155 KB, 495x439)

155 KB PNG

>>4374113
Filming?

>>4373567
>Ninja V
Would you recommend it? And if so, do you also recommend any accessories for it? Thanks anon!

>>4374533
>do you also recommend any accessories for it?
A camera

>>4374552
Sure, but how do you mount it, for example?

>>4374553
On your cage

>>4374628
Just a single 1/4-20 screw? Got some recommendations for cages? Is there a way to add some articulation to it?

>>4374634
Dude, there are a ton of YouTube reviews, rig builds, google searches that can answer this shit. I hate to be that guy, but I literally just did a bunch of research myself on pretty much the same subject and figured it out, you can do it I believe in you.

>>4374634
i have a cage on my ninja
smallrig have so many options to mount anything to anything, camera gear is sorta like lego you pick and choose what works for you and build it.
I have a magic arm for my monitor, so I can move it wherever

>>4374634
these are easy problems, figure it out. filmmaking is mostly having to solve annoying problems in the field so if you let this trip you, welcome to ygmi status

File: tumblr_pabcwf6NHY1r6k0gpo(...).jpg (995 KB, 1280x1707)

995 KB JPG

>>4374666
>annoying problems in the field
have a look at instagram.com/shittyrigs for inspo

>>4372038
I've been doing my own self study, and even though I disagree with some of this post, I still think it's pretty awesome. Good job.

I recommend a book called a A Practical Handbook for the Actor. It's one of the best books on acting, if not the best.

>>4374717
>instagram.com/shittyrigs
if it works, it's good

>>4374717
Based and DIY-pilled.

>>4374634
>>4374634
>>4374634
Look the media world is limited by your budget. Nobody can recommend shit unless they know your budget, and honestly, stop asking for recommendations it's annoying as fuck.

Figure out what your budget is and start researching based on that.

I'll give you this: The movie the creator looks incredible and it was shot on something you could build yourself as long as you have the cash. So you could potentially have a multimillion dollar movie rig in your closet.

Movie trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex3C1-5Dhb8

The rig https://www.filmmaker.tools/sony-fx3-creator-camera-rig

The rig, autistically reviewed and assembled https://youtu.be/FljpaBdBCBY?t=51

Now you know that a top tier rig has, how it is assembled and based on your budget you can start selecting what you can get, where you can add or substract and what you should prioritize.

>>4372038
Sup boys. Got a job editing porn. Do you have any tips to make the shit either smoother or just general workflow tips?

It's a ton of multicam work and high speed footage review because the guy recording uses 3 cameras, there's a weird interview and then the sex. But I have been having trouble with the fucking just dragging too long and not having smooth transitions between positions.

Also any idea for copyright free music that would suit porn. No 70s shit, but... idk... what the fuck do you have in a porn teaser background?

>>4375041
If you had enough money you could get any camera rig you wanted even a red or an arri

How does the fx3 compare in image quality to a red or to an arri?

If budget is no object you could buy or rent whatever you need

Most people posting on here will need to use whatever they can get based on how much spare cash they have

If you have no money and you want to rig your camera out you could always go to a local mom and pop hardware store and DIY to get the rig you want without spending too much cash because stuff made for cinema cameras tends to be over priced for what you get.

>>4375045
>>4375045
Does it pay good? Just focus on the money shots. The privates of the girls. Or of the guys if you are going for the gay viewers. How did you get this plum job anon?

>>4375054
>If you have no money and you want to rig your camera out you could always go to a local mom and pop hardware store and DIY to get the rig you want without spending too much cash because stuff made for cinema cameras tends to be over priced for what you get.
Don't disagree. But the point I was trying to make is that you can get top tier level quality while still remaining close to a budget that an average joe with a job could afford with some saving. I don't care about people with unlimited budgets.

>Most people posting on here will need to use whatever they can get based on how much spare cash they have
Yes, we agree. I presented a top tier budget alternative for that other anon to dissect because all the information is readily available. He can then decide, based on his budget what he wants to do.

>>4375055
Pays well based on my local economy. Compared to american salaries I am below the poverty line. If you were to compare 1:1 I live like someone making 6k per month in the US, I pay around 86 dollars for my healthcare and pension and I own all my houses. Have car debt though and my phone is about to crap out, but I have an emergency fund, so all good.

I just applied to video editing jobs and it hasn't been exactly easy, but I have passive income so I could afford to wait. Content is content. And raw footage is far less exciting than the finished product. But I have no schedule and it is remote, so it's good.

>>4375041
Thanks! That's actually the only helpful reply I got. It's fascinating to watch how it's done by someone who knows what they're doing. Cool.

>>4374637
>mount anything to anything
Yeah, well, that's the problem for me because I don't have the lego pieces and don't have the budget to spend $10k on all the stuff to play with it.
And most importantly, I lack experience so I don't even know what's possible.

I was looking for a simple/cheap/affordable rig.

>>4375041

>So you could potentially have a multimillion dollar movie rig in your closet.

Yeah but the rig is like 5% of what makes the cinematography work

File: arri3.jpg (111 KB, 960x1280)

111 KB JPG

>>4372715
Another "cheap" Alexa update
So far Im about $5500AUD deep into the project, I just need to find a wedge (WA-1) that makes the VCT-14 plate click in and find a relatively cheap CCH-1 top handle, trying to sort something out with a UK supplier for £100 + postage.
I worked out a way to output 1080p 422 to the Ninja V over SDI, it looks pretty good and it will be a effective way to record with the ssd. I have one SxS card so far with more coming with a reader from all over the place so 2K 4444 will be possible soon.
The timecode seems to sync up to the ninja, so I could probably use this to sort out my audio, the ninja has a mic in, so even if I record internally if I hit record on the ninja i'll have something to sync it up later with, instead of using slates.
V mount draws about 5.2A @ 15.3V, she's a thirsty girl, I should get about a hour with my battery and I have two of them.
The log video (SDI) with the R709 lut on resolve looks pretty good, im happy with it so far.

I still have no idea what im doing, but its good fun and its all about the tonez.

>>4375107
>$5500AUD deep into the project
Must be nice…

>>4375107
Check for used odesssy recorders on eBay because for about $200 you can buy a license that lets you record arriraw if you use that recorder.

>>4375127
I have seen on on marketplace at a reasonable price, are you sure the license is $200? I was thinking its gonna be in the 5 digit range

File: IMG_4926.png (56 KB, 784x342)

56 KB PNG

>>4375155
I got one used on eBay for $800 usd and I bought the license for arriraw for under $200 usd from the vendor because the monitor was discontinued. I’d email the maker of the odyssey to check on the price and availability of the arriraw license with the company that makes that recorder because it’s been discontinued. I bought one for under 200 use earlier this year but you’d want to make sure you can still get that license before buying a used recorder.

I included the contact info of the person who sold me the arriraw license in the photo for this post just in case you buy an odyssey and want to inquire about buying a license for arriraw recording. Actually reach out first to make sure you can get the license at a reasonable price before buying the used recorder.

https://youtu.be/PkmO7YzzYgg?si=HkFSi3CILc4EaBjX

File: Screenshot 2024-10-19 at (...).jpg (586 KB, 2554x1434)

586 KB JPG

>>4375171
Cool,
Might be worth the "investment"

What do you reckon about this one? Doesn't look like it has the raw licence. Is it just the recorder that needs it? I know my alexa has a high speed licence but not really sure how it all works.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2554
Image Height	1434
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4375121
He's a propagandist with connections to Big Emu

>>4375489
>Big emu is after your Western Australia
>What will you do about it?
Fuck all thank you very much. Please keep in mind our Dollarydoos are basically US cents. Won't be long until we're counting with the Yen system.

>>4375411
I think you only need to buy the license for the recorder and not for the camera.

I think you’d only need to buy a Licence for the camera if you are using a newer camera such as an alexa mini or alexa 35 with the alexa classic (the older cameras) I think you’d only need a licence for the recorder not the camera.

I would research this to make sure it is true before snapping up that recorder.

File: Screenshot 2024-10-20 at (...).jpg (594 KB, 2880x1800)

594 KB JPG

>>4375632
I met a guy a while back who said he had one, so i started chatting to him about it all. He's got the raw setup so I might hold off buying more shit until I meet up with him and see if its worth it for me. Still need to get a handle and tripod mount. I have hand held it while recording by bear hugging it with one arm, not fun. The colours are kino though (still learning how to grade), I uploaded a test clip to youtube and it really does compress the shit out of it, but thats to be expected.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2880
Image Height	1800
Scene Capture Type	Standard

finished my project, turned it in to client, they loved it, have another vid on the books with them for next year, but I feel a little empty now bros. I really like working on these films. My next shoot date isn't until middle of next month, which won't be that long but still, I'm itching to shoot something just for funsies now.

>>4375714
What do you plan on doing with it down the road? Doc, narrative, experimental?

>>4375937
I have a similar perpetual itch. It really sucks. I've also reached the end of my line. If the film I've been making doesn't make a profit then I've either got to find a way to make money as a freelancer quick, or get a "real" job.
But I just want to shoot cool stuff.

File: IMG_4930-e1694790831492.jpg (461 KB, 1460x1723)

461 KB JPG

>>4375938
Doc would be nice to try, maybe try and interview some people. I really like the viniwki set with all the lights and props. Once i get the handle I might take it to a car show / drift event if im brave enough. 120p might work alright for something like that.
If for some reason someone wants to give me money to shoot something as a B cam, ill be happy to help, but I doubt that will ever happen

Something like this might also be fun to try, as long as I can work out a good mounting solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWd9tovL5ZY

The handle and VCT wedge have been ordered, extorted on the price, postage and exchange rate from the usa but I guess thats the outdated cinema camera tax.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 13 Pro
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	34 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:09:15 11:09:01
Exposure Time	1/120 sec
F-Number	f/1.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/1.5
Brightness	4.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.3

>>4375973

I live in America and any saving you think you get living in America get eaten up with sales taxes if you buy from a store in the states or from eBay or from Amazon. Or in high customs fees if you buy from outside the USA. I had luck avoiding customs fees by buying used stuff from China and Hong Hong but stuff from Europe comes with steep customs fees. The only real way to avoid hidden fees if you look on Craig’s List or Facebook Marketplace and pick up the stuff from a local seller for cash. Parts for an arri are extra expensive just because of the reputation that Arri has.

File: arri.jpg (264 KB, 1273x1146)

264 KB JPG

>>4376041
I find it strange how you guys add tax to local sales after the price of the product, here its "included" in the price.
Big stores (ali, b+h, ebayUS) will charge Aussie GST tax (10%) on orders now, I think it started in 2017.
Top two are the two coming from the US, B+H and eBay. (film is just for fun)
Mattebox was a pretty good find, yahoo auctions from Japan, its got a funny description.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4376145

That description is 100% true. 90% of the people who add a matte box to their camera do it to impress clients or because they like the way it looks. Very few people actually use one for filtration or to block stray light. Some clients will pay you more because they think you are a pro just because you slap a matte box on your crappy point-and-shoot or mirrorless so you can charge your clients more. Plus it just looks as boss af.

>>4376145
Damn that mattebox is cheap af. I'm over here deciding how hard I want to get raped by Bright Tangerine.

>>4375045
Make sure to sync the cameras first and then separate the material where they fuck into separate scenes. The scenes could be foreplay, him pleasing her, her pleasing him, first fucks, different poses, the money shot, etc. Then go through each scene you want to keep, split and trim it so only essential motions remain, do not cut cameras yet. Join all trimmed scenes together, placing each in the order you want the final movie to be and only then start cutting cameras. Your NLE should have multicam mode, use that to switch between cameras as the timeline rolls. Make sure to make timeline copies at each step, so you can always go back and review or gather material that was removed earlier.
To cut between scenes it helps to use close ups and then cut to a medium or a wide shot. If you don't have much closeups, then communicate with the camera op and ask him to include some, especially when the actors are changing positions. As the actors to be formulaic and predictable in how they change positions, so this step can be easily handled by the camera op.
When cutting cameras, if you find yourself missing something that would help to cut it better, go back to original material and grab a closeup shot from another scene.
As for the music, copyright free usually entails some credit given or limited use otherwise, for example no porn (though paid platforms can also include this clause). Free music is also somewhat low quality on average, not as exciting. If possible I suggest getting a subscription, especially if you're getting paid enough, it'll be easier to find good music there. The music you choose depends on the style you're after, if you want something fierce and raw, go for fast rock music, if romantic, thus go slow and more melodic. Pro music platforms have search options to filter out tracks easily.

>>4376363
>>4375045
>music, copyright free
use this
https://youtu.be/EEGNKQS7vuM?t=502

>>4376363
Great advice honestly. I'll add that you shouldn't really go from a medium/wide shot to another medum/wide, use closeups to bridge your cuts. But honestly, people aren't watching porn for the edit. Make it hot. Fix the audio as much as you can, Voice Isolation in Resolve is a miracle worker for cleaning up shitty audio, and doesn't ever seem to dip into comb filtering territory which is nice.

>>4376183
Are the Arri accessories really that great or is it just marketing? I was able to get an Arri top plate for my c200 of Adorama from $80 and it doesn't look or feel any different from Smallrig stuff.

>>4376363
>>4376401
We're talking porn here, just get the chicks tits, ass, pussy, removing her bra and panties and cut any time the faggot camera op pans to the dude and you have porn kino.

>>4376407
It's the same with all these types of things. Most of it is overpriced and you're paying for the brand. But all of it is consistently 'good' from a brand like arri.
So for a professional dp or production house, you know if use their stuff then you're set and there's a certain degree of build quality that you can rely on,
Comparatively, you use smallrig (or even neewer(!)) and there's less consistency. A lot of that stuff will work perfect. But some of it won't. And is that a risk you can afford to take? On a hundred million dollar shoot, the answer is no. When you're making short films with your friends, the answer is probably yes.

File: rae.jpg (62 KB, 1235x653)

62 KB JPG

>>4376407
its all about the flex, these guys used a tilta mattebox, it does the same job but there might be slight differences on workflow but you will only know what works best if you use both
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sno9ii7JiYA

for a top plate I don't really see the benefit as long as the holes are in the spots you need them to be,.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	paul
Image-Specific Properties:

Looking into getting my first light(s). If my budget is around $300-400, would I be better off getting one big 300w light or one 150w light, a 60w light and a light tube? Mostly for indoor use, might wanna play with lighting through a window into a room.
Would a 150w light with a couple smaller ones be enough or am I better off just getting the strongest one I can right now and mess around with bouncing the light off ceiling/walls/reflectors?

File: 1308596292409.jpg (176 KB, 528x428)

176 KB JPG

I do have a question regarding what type of work exercises or something i can do to learn the trade with zero budget and only a camera.

Been debating to buy a camera with internal RAW recording as i have none with video capabilities ATM, want to start from the very basics as i want to learn "cinematography" but other than budget for the camera gear i have 10 dollars to spare and two books about natural light, i have nothing at all in terms of lighting, audio or any friends and their hypothetical time for acting.
I will only have the camera and its respective lenses and tripods, plus a decent enough computer to process 1080.
I was told that cinematography without budget is videography so there's that, what can i do to practice? if i can't think of anything i will just buy a good photocentric camera and spend the rest in lenses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	95 dpi
Vertical Resolution	95 dpi
Image Created	2010:02:15 11:24:53
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	528
Image Height	428

>>4376636
try to think about what environments you'll be using. for example: do you need to overpower sunlight? interior use, exterior? if you bounce a strong light ain't that strong anymore

>>4376698
I’d recommend getting a blackmagic pocket cinema camera if you are serious about learning cinematography on a budget.

It’s only videography if you depend on autofocus to get your shots. If you manually focus and make sure things are properly lit before you shoot, it’s cinematography.

There’s a reason my cinema lenses are manual only lenses.

>>4376636
300W you can front light a subject backlit by the sun. Lighting through a window you want at least a 600, though a 1200 or 2400 through diffusion is more professional.

For $300-400, I might focus on DIYing some beadboard and getting reflectors, flags, bounce boards, muslin, and working with shaping natural light.


Imo get a gig that pays enough to buy the lights, then buy them and charge the client the rental fee and start paying them off that way. I basically only buy gear when I need it, not before.

>>4376759
>omg are you using a tool to make your life easier and get consistent results?
>pfft how uncultured, real art can only be made by aritrarily limiting yourself
Cinematography is whatever the fuck I say it is. Fuck you

>>4376781
no having nice things is bad and wealthy people should be ashamed of themselves. you are worse than us hard working poor. see: jesus, marx, martin luther king. grab a shovel bourgie.

>>4376781
Results don't matter. It's about me feeling superior to you. Go film a youtube talking head vlog while us real cinematographers sit in the rain and feel professional.
I bet you use practical lights too, and cheap gimbals instead of paying an industry veteran to operate a steadicam.

>>4376363
Thanks, actually good advice I can tell you edit. I've been using a similar workflow. I start with matching cams, then cutting multicam, select most of the footage in one sequence and then create markers for each scene. Your advice is good and I should separate each action instead of just marking it because I've been having to go up and down the sequence looking for specifics.

Then I pancake down to a separate sequence. But I think your method would definitely save time. Is this how you'd cut a normal multicam show?

>>4376401
>Voice Isolation in Resolve is a miracle worker for cleaning up shitty audio, and doesn't ever seem to dip into comb filtering territory which is nice.
Thanks for the input. I have two questions about this. I use Premiere and I'm not very familiar with Resolve, but I'm very interested. Would you recommend to go on Resolve to fix audio or is this something I could do in Premiere?

If so (and I've always struggled with this) What's the best workflow for this? Do I clean the original clips first and them build proxies? Could be a time waster if I have 3h of unusable footage.

Do I select footage first and then render something to clean up in Resolve and then go back with those files to Premiere?

Do I edit the entire movie in premiere, render and then clean up that file in Resolve? Wouldn't I be compressing the living shit out of that file?

Do I ditch Premiere and just stay in Resolve for the rest of my career?

>>4377027
>Do I ditch Premiere and just stay in Resolve for the rest of my career?
This. Fuck adobe

>>4376759
OP says a 4k is now well under 1000, that's pretty good. Might consider it but shit gets gnarly fast if i have to gear it up with an external screen, battery and its cage.
I thought for running and gunning with a backpack something like a M43 or a modded Z6II would be easier, Z6III sounds good but flippy screen is a massive turnoff.
I don't know if it is cinematography or videography, what i know is that i won't use anything but natural light and zero actors, perhaps even no audio either outside from inventing some atmosphere track on Audacity or putting a something on the hot shoe, but i get discouraged to think i will only shoot B-Roll. Experimental video seems far too random and directionless from the stuff i've seen from back in the day, contemporary stuff seems mostly editing wizardry.

>>4377027
>Do I ditch Premiere and just stay in Resolve for the rest of my career?
Premiere is absolute garbage. It crashes all the time. I've lost so many hours on wasted work when I had to use that shit for a project because the guy paying me insisted I use it.

If I have a choice, I would never use Premiere.

Resolve > FCP >>> Premiere

>>4377408
Why would a client care what programs you're using?

>>4377419
>Why would a client care what programs you're using?
I was not working alone on a project. Plus they wanted the Premiere files for archives etc. Quite a few places have asked me for the actual project files instead of just finished video.

>>4377421
Between Resolve and Premiere, which is more commonly used?

Anyone here have experience with Baselight?

>>4377427
Depends on the industry. In agency/corporate/commercial, it's 70-30 for Premiere. it's about 60-40 for Premiere among wedding videographers from what I've seen.
For entertainment, I think Avid is still at the top with Resolve being used for Color.
That monthly Adobe subscription is still attractive to a lot of people I guess.

>>4377523
Most YouTubers are switching over to resolve to avoid that adobe tax.

>>4377523
It's actually filthy that avid has somehow still held onto its relevance in the industry

>>4377533
I’m guessing that’s because Avis has a robust database that can be accessed by hundreds or thousands of people at the same time or something like that.

>>4377534
No, it's because they've been in the industry the longest, so a lot of legacy stuff is involved with them.

>>4377533
I first learned Avid in college and stuck with it for a very long time. After getting tired of going Avid-Davinci-Avid I finally said fuck it and went full Davinci. By that time, the NLE had actually advanced a fair amount and it definitely covered everything I needed it to, still does (I don’t do any Fusion/After Effects work so no clue there). Admittedly Fairlight is complete garbage compared to ProTools obviously, but not a fair comparison

>>4377604
Give blackmagic some time and fairlight will improve

>>4377608
I think the fundamental problem with fairlight is that it's built-in to davinci.
So you can't edit individual sound files super meticulously. You can basically just change their pitch/eq and add fx. If there's a small pop in your audio, you can't easily remove it. You can try noise reduction (but that might require too extreme a reduction to remove the pop), you can mess with eq (but often the pop will cover almost all the sound frequencies) or you can see if there's an effect that they've specifically tailored to remove similar pops.
Conversely, if you go into audacity or audition you can just isolate those 2ms and apply an auto-heal. Takes 5 seconds. And then the sound file is fixed moving forward. You never have to apply it to the same place again.

Okay /vid/, I've narrowed down my first video-centric camera purchase to two cameras. The Blackmagic Production Camera 4K and the Canon 1DC.

I like them for different reasons:
1DC
>weather sealed
>4k uses an APS-H portion of the sensor giving me a more full frame field of view
>the image character is very nice and looks less digital than other more modern cameras
>it's weather sealed
>more discrete
>also a good stills camera

The Production 4k
>global shutter
>larger form factor
>uses 2.5" SSDs
>about ~$600 less than the 1DC
>much better codecs

Thoughts?

>>4377757
>a more full frame field of view
what did he mean by this?


You gonna use it on sticks its whole life or take it out with you? You picked two really strange cameras, I had never even heard of the 1DC and the production lives in a studio. I would rather get a pocket 4k at least you can hold it without looking like a retard, Blackmagic raw is pretty cool, I have the o.g pocket. 4k files are probably gonna be pretty big.

>>4377757
As guy above said, 1dc is a really weird choice.
Also, the 1dxii should be cheaper and is more capable. But coming from a guy who shot an entire feature on a 5div, mjpg is an annoying codec just because of how stupidly large the file sizes are.

File: 7e7.jpg (69 KB, 600x516)

69 KB JPG

>>4377757
hybridfags get the rope

>>4377757
I had the 1dc, it's a great camera, I loved the image coming out, but if I were in your shoes, I'd get the pyxis.

>>4377815
lmao imagine being this much of a gatekeeping faggot

>>4377898
He's right, even the highly praised FX3 has hybrid garbage in it.

>>4377901
>implying you're not samefagging
This is a bad troll
>actually using tools that give you great video at a cheap price is bad because umm... I don't like it

>>4377903
Wrong.
The problem is when it can't decide whether its a video camera or stills camera and tries to jam both together, resulting in operation decisions that doesn't make sense for either function.

>>4377908
>it's bad because I'm too retarded to use a device that can do more than one thing
Oh. Kind of a self own there but not everyone is actually as much of a dumbfuck as you

File: file.jpg (111 KB, 750x727)

111 KB JPG

>>4377898
commit or stay bootyblasted

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	727

>>4377915
luv me g master
luv me brick
aint racist against pancakes just dont loik em
simple as

>>4377915
I will not commit. I will shoot my kino beneath the moonlight and you can't stop me

>>4377912
>strawmans due to lack of comprehension
Sometimes, people like using dedicated devices that have the common features they should have instead of gimped hybrids that are marketed to consumer cattle for popularity. This isn't something you can attribute to a skill issue, since you would need personal insight to make that call.

>>4377921
>MUH CATTLE MUH CATTLE CONSOOMER CATTLE t. bought arri for a shitpost
too bad you cant express yourself without talking like a rabbi balls deep in hatred of white people as a way to express your narcissistic shrimp dicked disdain for people who dont take interlacing and bit depth seriously enough for you mr hoytema jr

>>4377922
What's difficult to understand? some people like a machine that does one thing very good and others want a machine that does several things decently enough.

>>4377921
And sometimes people like using cameras that just work and can also take nice photos. Get off your elitist high horse and stop being a faggot.

File: 1664049465700990.gif (2.31 MB, 498x498)

2.31 MB GIF

>>4377927
>get off your elitist high horse
i refuse
>And sometimes people like using cameras that just work and can also take nice photos
fuck them in particular

>>4377811
>what did he mean by this?
I meant it's crop factor is 1.3x compared to the Production 4k's 1.5x meaning all my existing lenses will be closer to their actual focal length.

>You gonna use it on sticks its whole life or take it out with you?
I have a couple different projects in mind both in controlled and outdoor scenarios. The advantage of the 1DC is that it's better outside.

>I would rather get a pocket 4k at least you can hold it without looking like a retard
After doing photography for years now I am immune to feeling judged by other people

>>4377812
>As guy above said, 1dc is a really weird choice.
It makes sense on me
>c-log
>EF mount (I have existing lenses)
>the sample footage I've seen from it looks beautiful (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8T4QuKkNXk&)

>Also, the 1dxii should be cheaper and is more capable
It's not cheaper, it's about the same/slightly more as it's newer. Just quickly glancing at the specs/features I don't see how it's "more capable", better autofocus sure, but otherwise I don't really see a good reason to get it over the 1dc, especially when it's a different sensor, the the image character will be different.

File: gonnacry.gif (1.36 MB, 440x330)

1.36 MB GIF

>>4377922
Too bad you can't express yourself coherently.
>>4377927
pic

>>4377935
Looks coherent to me autist. Say cattle again.

>>4377928
Hey if you want to be a fag, no one's stopping you. I suppose it provides a good excuse as to why you'll never make anything of value
>>4377935
Not an argument

>>4377930
A google search tells me that a 1dc is between £900 and £1500, where a 1dxii is between £500 and £1100. Maybe the prices are different where you live.
The 1dxii is the follow up to the 1dc so it should have better specs across the board.

In both cases, you're dealing with stupidly large file sizes that give you 8 bit 422 4k. It sounds like you want reasons to buy it and don't want to listen to reasons not to so I don't know why you even bothered posting but you do you I guess.

File: 4dc6aa1bcef9c7a431429231f(...).jpg (48 KB, 449x642)

48 KB JPG

>>4377941
i'd rather be a faggot than an artistic coward gearposting for the upvotes

>>4377943
Take your meds pal

>>4377943
>i'd rather be a faggot than someone who cares about making kino
Okay? Why are you even here then?

>>4377943
You ARE an artistic coward
>you cant film with a camera that takes photos! THATS UNCUMVENSHUNAL! ITS NOT “CINE”!

>>4377947
>>4377948
>>4377950
assplosion

>>4377942
>narrow my camera search down to two cameras
>ask /vid/ about their opinions between my two final contenders
>you recommend me a third option I already ruled out
>tell you why I ruled it out
>idk why you even bothered to to post
I don't know what to tell you. It sounds like you upset yourself.

>>4377952
>am i a widely mocked idiot? no. im a master troll.
unloved as a child huh

>>4377950
>THATS UNCUMVENSHUNAL! ITS NOT “CINE”!
I have also noticed this weird fascination amongst video people to be intensely fixated on copying the gear, methods and procedures of hollywood, as if that's the thing that makes their videos worthwhile, not creating an interesting, creative or otherwise engaging story, but correct applications of procedure. It's extremely strange to me.

/vid/ is a magical place

>>4377967
Its because of hybrids reputation for having missing features that are legit project stopping or expense adding. Even too-small HDMI ports that break.

>>4377970
I'm pretty sure that /vid/ is one of the last generals that isn't infected by boomers and zoomers who just want to shitpost outrage b8
>>4377971
Is it really that difficult to research a camera before buying/using it? Is it so hard to plan ahead on how to navigate a camera's limitations?
Hybrids are cheaper than cinema cameras for a reason. I refuse to believe anyone who's graduated high school wouldn't understand that they're obviously less capable than cinema cameras that cost 10x the price

>>4377975
Buying reasonably priced things is for consoomer cattle and the only thing worse than failing is trying! -4chan

>>4377971
You can make a compelling video with a camera that has a micro hdmi port. I'm not saying that purpose built video cameras aren't better for video. I'm saying you're focused on the wrong thing.

>>4377977
Until your HDMI port breaks lol

There ARE cameras that dont need this. You can shoot internally with a canon R8 for better results than many cameras hollywood used to use for movies that still look good today. But if yours doesnt then it forms a bias in a tiny autistic brain.

>>4377967
It's like this weird fascination amongst people that don't shoot any video and want to post about whether or not turd X is a better camera than turd Y after spending hours look at spec sheets and never testing anything IRL

>>4377983
People have shot million dollar shit on the 5diii and here you are acting like you NEED netflix approved boxes to vlog and make a funny cat video

>>4377985
Obviously those films were shot by videographers who don't know what real cinema is. I would teach them but that would require going outside and I have a lengthy thesis to write on the case for bringing fedoras back

File: copium-meaning-e1662494143102.jpg (49 KB, 800x450)

49 KB JPG

>>4377988

Hard pill to swallow: professional results are more about audio setups and lighting than whether your camera offers longgop and all-i as options or not, let alone fixable white balance i mean raw video
>but muh vfx
Then surely you know what you need already ILM bro

>>4377998
People tend to thing of video as a logical extension of photography, when in actuality it's not. Film is an extension of writing.

>>4378005
Film is a combination of writing and photography in a new medium.
It isn't an extension of either.
>>4377998
>why do people in a thread about videography on a photography board care so much about the image?

File: 1720432517704974.jpg (362 KB, 2048x1536)

362 KB JPG

I bought a used Ninja V. Previous owner had it on AtomOS 10.1. Should I upgrade to 11? I read that you have to register and "unlock" some basic shit. I'm afraid of doing that since I'm not the original owner.
What am I missing by staying on 10?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 13
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:25 18:52:00
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/1.6
Brightness	2.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.10 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1536
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4377985
sounds like no one needs a new hybrid, the 5d is fine

>>4378021
>Why yes, I do make stupid bad-faith arguments after I'm exposed for being a retard, how could you tell?

>>4378023
>Everyone disagreeing with me is one person

File: Screenshot 2024-10-26 at (...).png (108 KB, 382x186)

108 KB PNG

>>4378018
not sure about that one, this is what came with mine, i bought it used.
I updated it but it was already on v11

>>4377027
You use whatever production is paying you to use.

As far as fairlight i don’t use that module, I’d like to, but it has a learning curve I need to get over. So I can’t speak to it. But it’s a long time application so I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a way to fix audio all kinds of ways buried in there. You’ve seen the fair light control surfaces they sell, they’re absolutely massive chonkers. But seems more like a mixing / mastering app than an editing one? I could be totally wrong. I’m a one man band but I still find budget to hire a soundie because they’re invaluable and it’s one less thing to worry about during a shoot and during post. Mine is a close friend and gives me an awesome rate. They work mainly in reaper I think.

Basically I’d love to take a class on fairlight some day. Fusion too. Resolve is a really insane suite of software for zero dollars, and a monstrous bargain at $300 (or just buy a camera or control surface of theirs and get a license thrown on top.)

>>4377419
Working with other team members on the same project file, over lucid link for instance. I handed a project over to a guy who mainly does premiere and said do whatever, but I’m giving you a resolve project so just send me back an xml or edl. But he ended up doing it in resolve, because guess what? I was the client and I said resolve.

>>4377757
You don’t say what it’s for. Doc / run n gun solo op type stuff? Low budget narrative? YouTube talking head type stuff?
FX3s are pretty ubiquitous for a good reason, very good low light performance, great AF, wide lens selection, can be rigged up or down as needed… for a solo op low budg starter camera they’re pretty sweet. FX30 if you can’t swing the budget.

If you’re looking to do narrative or advertising or something, maybe a box camera would serve you better, like a Pyxis, Kinefinity.

Idk man, all the cameras are really good now it’s just a choice what form factor and how much you’re going to spend rigging it out. Don’t blow all your budget on a body and then have a shit tripod and no fluid head.

>>4378018
Also looking for an answer to this. I have the ProRes Raw and h265 licenses already but haven’t upgraded to v11. Is there anything worthwhile? It already does everything I need.

>>4378033
>I updated it but it was already on v11
Well, you had nothing to lose!
BTW, is there a way to check these capabilities on v10? I've been looking at various screens but don't see it...

File: 1710301908961070.jpg (150 KB, 1200x408)

150 KB JPG

>>4378039
>and h265
I understand the appeal of H.265 for internet video delivery but I'm not sure why someone would use Atomos to record to it. About the only advantage is the length of recording. It's way more efficient and produces files a fraction of the size of ProRes.
But the issue is editing. Editing and grading H.265 is a nightmare.

Even if the license were free, I don't know when I'd use H.265 with Atomos...

>>4378212
Not him but h265 is, as you say, amazing for storage space. Hard drives aren't ludicrously expensive but you can definitely save a few hundred bucks on not needing to buy as many and it lets you keep a permanent, high-quality backup of anything you record.
Resolve 19 is amazing at editing h265 and my favourite thing about the update. I don't know what wizardry they've done but it's genuinely nice to edit - not as good as prores but very viable. The bigger issue, imo, are compression artefacts. You've got to really pixel-peep to see them though.

Is there any easy way to determine total runtime of all the material you have?

>>4378281
Load it all into a bin in resolve, right click "create timeline from this bin" - the length of that timeline

>>4378246
I’ve been shooting all my stuff in 4K 10bit h265 N Log and it has turned out great. No problem editing it in resolve with a M1 Max 64GB variant. It can slow down if you pile a bunch of fusion effects on it, but typically I’m not doing that.

>>4378282
Thank you

File: 0.06.35.jpg (902 KB, 3822x2118)

902 KB JPG

>>4376407
>>4376612

Big matteboxes can take more of a beating, which often happens on film sets. If the mattebox is built well, it can take lots of beatings for longer. Also if the mattebox is attached to the rails like some of the Arri matteboxes, the operator or DOP can grab the mattebox when operating. It's something lots of operators and DOP's like to do and flimsier matteboxes can't usually handle it, especially most clip on matteboxes. Lot of the bigger matteboxes are also swingable on rods, which isn't something that you can do on lots of smaller clip on matteboxes.

It is not just about flexing. Bigger matte boxes also tend to have separate locks for individual filters, again something that isn't available on all smaller matte boxes.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Image Width	3822
Image Height	2118

>>4378246
>>4378292
How hard is it to cut to right frame? I love ProRes because there are no inter-frames.

>>4378359
I haven’t noticed a difference.

>>4378359
I had issues with resolve 18
None with 19

>>4378363
>>4378507
TY! I'm still on 18.6.4.

Best compact camera for video? For travel and whenever else I don't want to lug my big camera around with me. Photo features would be appreciated as well but more emphasis on video

>>4378605
GoPro Hero 12

>>4378605
iPhone

is there anything better/easier than warp stabilizer?
i never use tripods but got panasonic dual IBIS

this is the type of video im working with
https://youtu.be/fWHUVr8Qg84?si=9VHdAWSKTVY8TOjk

>bird moves
>branch moves
>background moves
>camera moves
there's no real anchor point for positional stabilization
the background corners always end up spasming

>>4378658
this unironically, if you have the pro models and a usb ssd it can record to that in prores log

>>4378652
Need more photo features than that and better video
>>4378658
No phones

I'm talking Fuji X100VI, Sony RX100VII, something more in that direction

Explain me video quality

>>4378764
more is better

>>4378764
less is more

>>4378764
it means the quality of the video

>>4378772
>>4378791
>>4378792
Three anons sharing one braincell while the rest of us are still searching for ours.

>>4378764
>480i
S O V L
>8K UHD
cringe

File: 1725676058250791s.jpg (2 KB, 125x109)

2 KB JPG

>>4378903
>240i recorded on VHS
Based. Peak based even
>24, 25, 29.997 fps
Delicious
>1080p60
Tiktok zoomer cringe edits
>h.264/m-jpeg
Good
>h.265/AV1
Fuck right off for another 5 years

>>4378904
30 fps is trash cringe and gay.

>>4378905
I think it has it's creative uses and merits.

>>4378310
Thank you for the informative post. First time reading about this.

>>4378711
Get a tripod. Nature and digital stabilization doesn't work well. If you can get close enough you can get away with ibis, but further away and hand shakes are way too distracting.

File: DJI-Osmo-Pocket-3-768x512.jpg (28 KB, 768x512)

28 KB JPG

Now I Am Become Kino, the Destroyer of Cinema Cameras

>>4378911
30 frames per second, slow motion, fast motion, shaky handheld camera, and non-subtle movements are all awful.

>>4378764
Assuming you're using a sony. Just use 24 frames per second, 4k resolution, 1/50 shutter speed, the lowest ISO you can go, manually set white balance like your lighting (for example 35,000 kelvins) and add 0.25 green, set zebra to 94+, focus peaking on. Set picture profile to S.Log3 and S.Gamut3.Cine and +20 saturation. Color correct in Davinci Resolve accordingly. Look up short tutorials how to do this, very easy. Check the ending to below video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k9cJKnQJaUY

>>4378943
>shaky unwatchable garbage 30fps :|
>shaky unwatchable garbage 24fps :O
I would tell you to just give up and quit, but I doubt you actually use your gear to make anything anyway

>>4378954
Shaky 24 frames per second is bad too genius and I never said it was good in the first place. I would tell you to learn how to read but you wouldn't be able to anyway.

>>4378954
anon do you know how commas work

>>4378605
>>4378748
I feel I should rephrase this: I'm looking for a secondary camera for traveling which is 1. Compact 2. Has good video 3 has good photo
Is there anything like that? The S9, for instance

File: Screenshot_20241028_20124(...).jpg (527 KB, 1079x1556)

527 KB JPG

Is this a good light? Any softbound suggestions?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S916USQS4CXI4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1079
Image Height	1556

>>4379006
No but it’s fine if that’s what you can afford. Godox, Westcott and Aputure all make good octas / soft boxes. I’m partial to the Light Dome for ease of setup and striking.

>>4378995
Z6III with a small lens like the 26, 40, or 24-70.

FX3 can be rigged pretty tiny too but if you want photos then you prob want an A7SIII.

>>4378905
30 is literally the YouTube and television look, generally speaking. It’s fine. It yields video-like results. 24 is more for film and narrative tv rather than say a soap opera or a news broadcast. Let’s say 30 has more of a verite / live feeling to it, whereas 24 is more “cinematic” and stilted. Neither is bad, they both have their applications.

>>4379012
I agree, I think that if I wanted to make something look 'real' like found footatge/documentary I would use 30 or if it was important that the audience view the characters as real people existing in the world rather than characters in a fictional reality. I think there is actually a lot of untapped story telling potential in 30fps, but everyone is so fixated on trying to make their stuff look like it came from a hollywood movie that no one seems to care. I think it's because it used to be gated behind gigantic budgets, so it's a really novel thing to be able to produce images that look like that. But someday someone is going to produce something really great doing something purposefully non-cinematic and everyone is going to butthurt because they could have been doing that instead of wasting their time producing stuff that looks exactly like what everyone else is making and has been making for decades.

What is the best DSLR for video? For reasons you will not understand, I need to shoot video on a DSLR. I don't need 4k, just a nice, flexible 1080p image.

>>4379021
Nikon D780 or Canon 1D X mk.III

>>4379013
>But someday someone is going to produce something really great doing something purposefully non-cinematic
Japs have been doing Direct2DVD shit like that for decades and the west hasn't been able to carry that aesthetic, merely because i think people don't really dig it.
Visitor Q, for instance.

>>4379054
Do you know how I can watch any of it or give me a term to search to find more stuff like that?

>>4379047
>Canon 1D X mk.III
okay, what's the second best then? I already have EF mount, so no nikon

>>4379069
>so no nikon
You asked for the best DSLR, not the best Canon.
A distant third in the Canon range would be a 5D mk.IV i suppose, perhaps the 90D if you count APS-C as i've seen very good footage from it but somewhat soft compared to newer stuff but that's OK if not better at times; also no RAW in either of these cameras, 5D needs a paid mod to get C-Log and honestly doesn't look that much better compared to other stuff.
Might as well get a Canon 1D C if you want something a bit more dedicated.

>>4379021
>For reasons you will not understand
Try me

>>4379083
There is something wrong with the way footage from mirrorless cameras look. Combined with a lack of interesting lenses and god awful electronic focus. I could adapt the dslr glass, but that takes me back to there is something wrong with mirrorless sensors I cannot put my finger on.

>>4379093
I completely understand.

>>4379093
I think you are coping, i wanted to think it was about the much more sturdy body construction and OVF which are completely understandable traits to seek but now i also think you are a fag, plus i gave you bad advice because the Nikon D780 does use the Z6 sensor.
I suspect the 1DX mk.III also uses something similar, you might as well get the 1D C

>>4379093
Would you consider the bmpcc 4k to be a mirrorless camera because I like the way footage from that camera looks.

>>4379093
I feel that what you are used to is the anti aliasing filter in dslrs. Some mirrorless has removed them which sharpens the image giving to you the uncanny mirrorless "look."

>>4379010
not really compact desu

>>4379054
Because it looks fucking terrible
Digital video and its consequences have been a disaster for the Japanese film industry

Just go with the 1DC. Great image with a bullshit codec, but hey, it has an out to an atomos.

>>4379332
I haven't checked but I'm 99% sure it can't transmit 4k externally.

>>4379337
Whelp, I guess you're stuck with the JPEG thing.

>>4378946
is it better to go for the lowest iso, or the native base iso?

File: memexa.jpg (1.04 MB, 2464x2364)

1.04 MB JPG

>>4376145
>>4375107
Meme alexa build update, got some shit from japan (costs in photo)
The mattebox is fucking huge, was not expecting it to be that big, but then again i have only used shitty ones for DSLRs.
Not sure how i'm going to mount it yet, the rails are different to whats on the camera, and I'm going to use a VCT plate to go on tripod, something to work out down the line. It was cheap though, no filter holders but it looks cool and its genuine arri, $110 not bad hey.

Still waiting on B+H and ebay orders to come in, then I can actually hold/mount the thing and get some tonez

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4379572
people will do gymnastics here to avoid shooting test footage

>>4379664
Not me. I watched hours of BMCC 6K FF test footage and once I received mine I still set it up and started shooting tests of my own. When you get hands on it and start using it in realistic shooting/lighting situations you’d usually encounter, then edit the raw video files on your own, it’s completely different than watching a shitty YouTube.

>>4379695
YouTube lens and filter tests suck because the YouTube algorithm kills any of subtle effects that you’d want to see in those tests when deciding which lenses and/or filters to get.

>>4379572
S.Log3 won't have you go lower than ISO 500, I just use that or as close to that as possible, as low as ISO as I can go.

>>4379021
Easy, Canon 5D3 and Magic Lantern, if you're up tp the workflow. Well, the full frame 1080p is not very sharp, but there is also a one to one pixel 1080p with 3x crop, both of these have working hdmi out and 14 bit raw. Lots of other resolutions also, image still can't be beaten

>>4379695
it's hard for my autism to imagine not at shooting some rough lighting and/or lens tests before going on location. i'm sure it gets easier when you've shot the same system for a decade and used the same lights, but i need the peaceful sleep

>>4379790
Every time I get a new camera I need to test the fuck out of the camera to feel confident to use it on a job.

>>4379612
You gonna post on test footage or what? This board allows webms, right?

>>4379612
Have you ever used or set one together before? If no, I'd be glad to help.
t. Camera assistant on film sets

>>4379612
What's the endgame anon? Will you rent it or offer service?
How competitive is ARRI Alexa in 2024/5?

File: 1718578189381693.jpg (194 KB, 1639x993)

194 KB JPG

I got the Smallrig for Atomos. It's nice for mounting on camera.
Is there an easy way to mount it at, say, 45 deg, when I'm sitting at my desk? Battery/battery-eliminator props it at a weird angle and it's rocking around. Keeping it on top of desk is probably bad for airflow too.
Anyone have some ideas?

File: Screen Shot 2024-10-31 at(...).png (146 KB, 547x509)

146 KB PNG

>>4380151
Get a cine grip arm or hot shot with a screw mount. OR if you're looking to clamp it on your desk, get a dinkum clamp

>>4380141
nta but people mainly use the mini LF. Older models like the one anon is building isn't used in professional setting very much. I've seen more fx3/fx6 than an older alexa

>>4380155
grip arm is the only true answer

File: 1700988580887184.jpg (84 KB, 1200x628)

84 KB JPG

>>4380155
>>4380163
The footprint is too large. Do you guys have any idea how I could turn it into a this kind of a form-factor?

>>4380179
Dude, you have that cage on it, just figure out how to screw a base plate on it that you can tilt.

File: cch1.jpg (150 KB, 1280x960)

150 KB JPG

>>4379612
Got the handle CCH-1 delivered today $350 from B+H, she's a heavy girl but at least I can hold it. Still waiting for the wedge for the tripod mount, maybe next week.....

>>4380057
I have done a tiny bit outside at night, looks pretty crisp for what it is. Not that I can hold it and use the cards ill be doing some test shots next week. WebM's will be compressed but ill get a few for you <3


>>4380062
Nah man, never really use any "pro" gear before or been anywhere near a set. I think I have most of it sorted out, the next hurdle will be sound, I was thinking of getting the rode wireless pro's, only really because of how versatile they are, 32 bit and most importantly timecode sync with the alexa. I know its not gonna be as good as a zoom recorder, but it should work.

>>4380141
>endgame
So far just to fuck around and find out, make a few videos and see how I go. Hopefully I can rent it out to some people, but thats gonna be for next year me to work out.
From what I understand the alexa mini owns the market now, you won't really see a classic anywhere, most of the rental houses I emailed asking for parts don't stock them anymore.

>>4380219
>Hopefully I can rent it out to some people
Emphasis on hopefully

>>4380141
I bet the end game is bragging rights on 4chan; hey look am me anons I’m the fag using an Alexa.

>>4380260
kek

>>4380219
not feeling that monitor mounting, but i bet your back will be

>>4380223
its a moonshot but its possible
>>4380271
yeah, got parts coming to move it on the handle, magic arm is all i have atm

File: 1665927526593253.jpg (51 KB, 600x758)

51 KB JPG

>>4380260
Guy is having fun and doing something with tech none of us will ever see. I'm enjoying the story as it develops. But yeah, I'm sure the guy is trying to build rep on an anonymous Estonian butter churning forum.

>>4380286
Ikr I can’t wait to see the test footage from the project. I hope he’s able to get arriraw working because that’d be super awesome. I can’t want for those cinematic cat videos.

>>4380290
>cinematic cat videos
Still leagues ahead of the content 70% of posters contribute

>>4380290
cinematic cat videos power the internet

>>4380286
>the story as it develops
What?
The story isn't developing. He bought an arri. That's the entire story.
>>4380290
I could post footage from any half decent hybrid and tell you it was from an arri and you'd have no way of confirming unless I filmed something badly with too high a difference in dr across the scene.

>>4380300
So, in other words, unless you really suck at cinematography and don’t know how to properly light a scene—you don’t need an Arri. Then why do all of the big boys and ballers in Hollywood use it.

>>4380301
>Then why do all of the big boys and ballers in Hollywood use it.
A number of reasons that boil down to convenience.
It just works. They've been using them for over a decade and the camera doesn't have any issues. You swap systems and you're giving up compatability with a billion random add ons (monitors, screws, focus systems etc) and in return you get a picture that is slightly less maleable.
And despite this, a lot of productions are moving away from arris.
If you can afford it and have a large camera team to handle all the bullshit, they're great cameras (but not always perfect). For a small production (let alone a 1-man-band), there are several other far better options though that cost a fraction of the price.

>>4380300
How fuckin' dare someone spend money on a hobby they enjoy. Yeah you really btfo'd him. Sneed. Based. Heckin reddit moment.

Christ, fuck off and be a depressing asshole somewhere else. >>>/b/

>>4380302
But if you hire two hookers to go into a seedy hotel room to film some lesbian action for an Indy adult film they’d be more likely to trust you if you were rocking an Arri. If you were using another mirrorless they’d think you were a creep not a cinematographer.

>>4380304
>projecting this hard
Show me where I criticised him for buying an arri. I'll fucking wait

>>4380302
People mainly shoot on Arri because:
1. They making really good cameras that almost never have problems
2. The Arri hi-5 follow focus is the best out there, so its only natural to get the two
3. Its Arri, so a well know brand with prestige (people on set love wearing Arri branded clothing)

Ive been on sets with Sony Venice's and some fx's but if people can they will always go for a mini lf

Get out of here with these reasons, Arri image is fantastic, that's why it's used on sets with the budget to afford it, along with lenses that can get the best out of it.
Venice has recently put in a fight to get into that market and their image is fantastic as well.
The FX series aint bad either, tbf. Not sure where Canon is, they used to be the low budget choice.

>>4380347
People love canons in advertising and corporate video work. Mainly the c70 and r5c from my understanding.
I think they're quite popular with documentary filmmaking too
>Arri image is fantastic
It is. But you would not be able to tell the difference between it and a decent milc camera in 99% of situations (as a viewer, not an editor).
In a lot of hollywood blockbusters, they make extensive use of non-arri b-cameras/crash-cameras. I believe the bmp4k is very popular in these circumstances. It's pretty much impossible to watch any of these films and figure out which shots used which camera without resorting to thinking about what would practically make sense (instead of trying to judge the image quality)

File: 1723195872497285.jpg (318 KB, 1642x1314)

318 KB JPG

Does anyone here use this with their Atomos? I ordered it the other day when I got Ninja V and decided to try it. Works well so far. It unblocks the bottom left fan/exhaust section of Ninja. It's also small and you don't need caddies.

>>4380448
I bought a couple of them but never got around to actually setting them up, still just use the atomos caddies to this day

>>4380449
It takes literally few minutes to get them into these enclosures. I ordered another one for one of the Samsung SSDs that I currently use. They're fully metal and dissipate the heat well.

>>4380451
Well it takes longer than the caddies because you have to dismantle the ssd casing first

File: 1717532119953495.jpg (120 KB, 1689x1242)

120 KB JPG

>>4380179
>>4380197
I've been looking at various hacks and mods and this guy mounted his old Ninja on a board and a hinge. Could something like this be accomplished from some nicer pieces? Something not too expensive?

>>4380305
>implying most people could tell the difference between a box body or SLR body when they're hooked into a cinema rig
Not everyone is as autistic as we are.

>>4380753
You buy a matte box, a cage and a v-mount battery and even the shittiest dslr looks like an arri (minus the logo).
Of course, most people don't actually care. "Execs" who wear expensive suits and think they're experts on everything 'care' because they think it makes them sound smart. Everyone else just trusts your ability to do your job based on my experience. You show up with a barebones milc and lens (maybe a neck strap) and people are well-versed enough to know that that means it's an expensive camera so the video should be good.

>>4380754
The execs who care you use an arri woudn’t know that you aren’t using an arri if you show up with a shitty dslr with a matte box and a cage and a v-mount battery and maybe a follow focus unit wasn’t an arri. If you use a label maker and print out the word arri and slap it on the camera they’d probably assume it was an arri.

Isn’t it ironic that the people who care the most about what gear you use couldn’t even tell if you were really using the gear that they wanted you to use.

File: GW41.0044-1-1200x1200__74425.jpg (46 KB, 608x608)

46 KB JPG

>>4380751
You could 3d-print a nice stand, but why not just a small tripod foot or suction cup?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4380751
kek, i like this

>>4380770
I came across this too! I also came across those Z-folding tripods. That's also an option. But hte problem is the base. I'd like to keep in top of my desk so suction is no-go.
>>4380774
>kek, i like this
Same. So simple. You can find parts at any home renovation store.

>>4380768
>If you use a label maker and print out the word arri and slap it on the camera they’d probably assume it was an arri.
I’ve actually considered this lol, and I agree with a full kit 90% of people onset wouldn’t know the difference

>>4380768
Wouldn’t it be interesting if camera bodies finally reach a peak to completely even the playing field, and suddenly all anyone cares about is glass and lighting kits

>>4380768
>>4381154
I saw a funny mockup on facebook a couple of months ago of a gh7 body with a sticker covering the lumix logo and reading "Alexa 43". The sad thing is that I really wanted it because it looked cool.
>>4381157
They essentially have. If you're shooting 10 bit 422 4k, the quality is more than you'll ever need if you're lighting your scenes properly.
If you need (internal) raw for whatever dumb reason, blackmagic have you covered as do a number of canon bodies, nikon (lol) and now panasonic too.
The advantage of more expensive cameras is their usefulness on large sets when you need to attach a follow focus system, 200 SDI cables and constantly swap between a tripod, shoulder rig and gimble. Because of this, large cameras will always be associated with money and have an "allure" of prestige about them.

The sad fact is that having a decent camera is a relatively small part of making a decent film. Locations are the hardest cost to overcome imo
(But cameras are the most fun for us photographers because they're basically a toy that we can play with)

>>4381166
amen brother

>>4381166
>Locations are the hardest cost to overcome imo
Fuck, this is what I’m worried about. I have a feature screenplay that relies on a big location for the entire duration of the shoot (only 1 location and we’re outside of LA/NYC, so those are a plus) but I’m assuming this is going to be costly.
Happen to know a general ballpark for renting an “abandoned warehouse” look for approx 3 week shoot?

>>4381166

> The sad thing is that I really wanted it because it looked cool.

I bet 90% of the people who buy accessories for their camera or a cage for their camera buy it because it looks cool, not because they need it. It’s like the stuff people who like hot rods put on their car to pimp out their ride. It’s about making your camera or your car look cool; it’s not about improving performance, in most cases, it’s just about improving perception,

>>4381206
I had a friend who was certain I could get an abandoned warehouse for cheap. And then he looked it up.
It's doable. Moreso in the us. But not easy. Real estate is too valuable these days.
Your options are either finding a genuinely abandoned building and shooting there illegally (which will absolutely fuck you every which way if something goes "wrong" (eg your actor gets injured or something)) or shelling out several hundred each day to film in a shitty dust trap in the middle of nowhere. (Uk prices but I assume the us is roughly the same)

And several hundred isn't even that bad relatively. You try and get a "proper" location using websites specifically for supplying locations for filming and you're looking at a couple of thousand bucks a day (and that's not including insurance)
>>4381208
Yeah. It's irritating because I totally get it even though it's so dumb. I'm too focused on making stuff for myself that I never bother to invest in these dumbass add-ons. I honestly get so jealous of like wedding videographers who are upgrading their bodies every 2 years or so to the latest camera costing north of 3 grand on release day.

>>4381166
>(internal) raw for whatever dumb reason
Spoke like a true dumb nigger studio scum, people need compact crew run n' gun sometimes you mongoloid

>>4381228
it's not the internal part that's dumb but the raw part

>>4381213
>a genuinely abandoned building and shooting there illegally
No, can’t do it

>shelling out several hundred each day to film in a shitty dust trap in the middle of nowhere
This is honestly what I’m hoping for

>websites specifically for supplying locations for filming and you're looking at a couple of thousand bucks a day
Jesus Christ

>>4381245
The other thing worth asking is whether or not it really needs to be set in a warehouse? I find, and I know I'm not alone, that I often naturally fall back into writing into familiar tropes because that's just the accepted norm. Like I consciously avoid having characters get knocked out to easily transition from one scene to another but I still sometimes write meme dialogue like "with all due respect".
Criminals using an abandoned warehouse as a hideout is a trope that doesn't make loads of sense in the modern day. I'm assuming they're criminals because that's what people tend to want abandoned warehouses for. But they aren't super common and criminals are more likely to use someone's unassuming house after a job or to plan their next one.

If you're more flexible then you might be able to find a shockingly good deal in another location that would work just as well (like a loft above a restaurant for example)

File: vlcsnap-2024-11-04-10h48m(...).jpg (1.35 MB, 3840x2160)

1.35 MB JPG

>>4380062
how do you meter for your shots, i used false colour on the ninja,
does it still work with the monitor out vs rec out? I'm pretty sure the rec out is log and the monitor is 709.

>>4380260
yeah bro, you got me

>>4380290
>>>/wsg/5723991
Compressed to shit but its something, resolve logc / 709 lut.
I recored more interesting things to start with but I forgot to set the white balance to daylight lol,

>>4380305
bit over my budget but I don't think they will care what you shoot with, they are being paid regardless,

[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	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4381256
People probably shoot films in abandoned warehouses, not because people actually use abandoned warehouses in real life—they shoot in abandoned warehouses because an abandoned warehouse looks super cinematic and can be lit to look Hollywood glam or moody or however else you want it lit.

>>4381259
The hiring two hookers was mostly a USA thing. In the USA it is illegal to hire hookers, but if you use pro gear like an arri it becomes legal because then you could claim to be making a porno film, and it is legal to film pornos in a lot more areas then it is just to hire a few hookers. I am not sure if the laws are the same in other countries—where using a camera makes something that would be illegal if you were not filming it, legal just because you are filming it with a pro-teir cinema camera.

>>4381256
This guy nailed it- >>4381300
just want something that looks like “abandoned porn” or whatever they call it- a place that has a ton of textured walls, floors, ceilings- a ton of character yet no specific character at all.
Could probably build wild walls and sets that have whatever I want them to look like, but I figured renting a modern working warehouse/studio would be more expensive than an old abandoned one

>>4381302
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDscdmOwDNA

>>4381259
>buy an arri alexa
>use it to film leaves
where the fuck is rock and leaves schizo when you need him?

It does look very nice though

>>4381331
anon is Dorskypilled

>>4381302
Why would you claim it's porn when you can claim it's art? You're capturing the decisive moment.

>>4381408
Because it is porn even if you call it art. The cinematographer filming that shit probably wants to get off watching lesbians fuck. Now filming a fugly asspie fucking his sonic plushy would be art. No cinematographer would film that just to get off on it.

File: file.png (190 KB, 447x421)

190 KB PNG

Ok hear me out guys and don't be cringe.
How can I achieve the following:
>record base video of subject background without subject + minimal panning/moving frame
>record overlay video adding subject to background
>automate overlay video to track position of base video using the matching visual data from both videos
Thanks in advance.

>>4381411
>The cinematographer filming that shit probably wants to get off watching lesbians fuck.
I think you mean director. Personally, I'm bricked up whenever anything is properly lit.

>>4381413
You should be able to do what you want in resolve using keyframes and tracking if it’s simple you can do it in the color page but if it’s complex you will probably need to go to the fusion page. If you use fusion you’ll need a very powerful computer unless you are willing to wait a long time to get results.

>>4381418
fusion is depressing, i built a tower for running blender renders and fusion still hitches sometimes on it

File: 3396efe43e9ac948a94be2265(...).jpg (44 KB, 677x680)

44 KB JPG

Anamorphic lenses look like shit, why does everyone insist on using them?

>>4381625
I can’t stand the flares

>>4381625
I don't remember anamorphic flare being so prominent in movies when I was growing up. When did it become a meme?

>>4381631
It feels like the late 00s/early 10s,

>>4381632
80's stuff definitely had anamorphic flare, particularly sci-fi movies when the DPs wanted more out-worldy looks to it

>>4381637
like what?

>>4381655
here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ

File: 18 (1002).jpg (407 KB, 1280x544)

407 KB JPG

>>4381655

File: the-thing-(1982).jpg (90 KB, 1988x1118)

90 KB JPG

>>4381655

>>4381625
The same reason film makers use anything. Bragging rights. “Look ma I am using an expensive anamorphic lens I made it as a film makers” or maybe this sensor is too clean let me use this shitty lens to dirty up the image and make it look “organic” in the 80s the sensors were shit so they didn’t need to use a shitty lens to make the image look like shit.

>>4381625
60s and 70s films with anamorphic lenses looked very cool, modern films however look shit

>>4381770
60s and 70s films were filmed on real film not digital sensors. That may be why they looked so cool.

>>4381788
Some films nowadays are made with real film and they look as soulless as if they were made in digital so no.
It's technique.

>>4381833
I think an example of that is The Force Awakens, shot and scanned, but the way a lot of it is lit things can look surprisingly flat. I think that may be a way to accomodate the vfx needs. Also, with so much digital correction done to faces now I could see that driving the dead look

>>4381863
>>4381833
It's not because of that.
It's beacuse the "soul" that hipsters jerk off about is actually just imperfections. Film grain, lens distortion/dirt, soft details etc
This is all a result of old equipment/film and techniques in developing that film. Modern film and lenses are much better from an objective standpoint. So they're way too "clean" (and thus look like "digital").
And the thing is you can easily add these imperfections in post (in digital too). But most directiors/DPs/editors don't want to do that because they want the best image possible that showcases their work as opposed to appeasing hipsters in love with a decades-old aesthetic.

>>4381631
>>4381625
>>4381627
>>4381637
>>4381732


DP's have been flaring lenses on purpose since at least the 60's, even on bigger Hollywood movies. Both on anamorphic and spherical.

Example from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kidd, shot by Conrad Hall, came out in 1969.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_JPDEHU1ok

>>4381878

Old film was good too and modern 2K or 4K scanes of old classics like The Godfather or Ben-Hur prove this. The detail of film is very good, same with color rendition etc.

Lot of people have just seen either terrible prints or scans of movies shot on films and they associate that look with "old film".