Somebody had to do it editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras and higher) and have interchangeable lenses.In contrast, consumer camcorders often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVEPrevious thread >>4372038Quick FAQS>what’s the best camera available on a “budget”?The blackmagic pocket cinema camera 4k, or the Panasonic gh5 (can pick one up for like 500 bucks atm)>what’s a good beginner video camera?Anything that works, shoots at least 1080p and preferably has interchangeable lenses. Any recommendation beyond that will cause arguments so read the fucking sticky if that isn't satisfactory.>What's a good sound solution that won't break the bank?Zoom h1>Can I use a zoom lens for video?Yes>Do I need cine lenses?No>Do I need 4k?No. 1080 looks great on a cinema screen. 4k looks better.>Can someone tell me if my video is any good?Yes, but be prepared to receive harsh criticism. If you're going to waste 5 minutes of our time with a shitty out-of-focus montage of nothing then we'll tell you that it's crap>Is it okay to dox myself?...Personally I wouldn't but what do I know?Previous thread >>4391803[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1290Image Height1290
>>4398725Nikonbros, is it over?
>>4399102What are the tricks for getting my video to look like film if I can't afford to shoot on film? I have access to a RED Komodo-X and several Blackmagic cameras
>>4399349Simplest method use the color space transform to convert the footage from your camera into the cineon film log color space and the apply one of resolves film luts to your footage. This works best if you are using raw footage or 10bit for higher ProRes footage.
>>4399349Film emulation software has solved this. Next?
>>4399296Go spread dumb lies somewhere else, faggot
>>4399349>crush blacks and highlights>davinci resolve film look creator>grain & halation (don't overdo it)>tweak contrast as required
>>4399389>crush blacksI agree.
>>4399102For me it's the best boy
>>4399419What's he do?
>>4399421Apparently he's the foreman of a department
>>4399349Shoot with vintage lenses, compose the way they did in older films, and do the editing tricks other anons have already pointed out
>>4399389> grainWhat’s the point of grain. Won’t YouTube compression kill off the grain?
>>4399424>compose the way they did in older filmsWhat's changed? Unless you're talking about Hitchcock/Fleming vs 90s filming style.
>>4399427>Won’t YouTube compression kill off the grain?Depends how extensively you do it. But you shouldn't focus on what it will look like after youtube compression. Just focus on making it look like how you want.
>>4399427Are we talking about YouTube compression or are we talking about getting video to look like film? Jesus.
>>4399471> bothYou want to make sure the people seeing your work are seeing what you intended them to see and not something else because YouTube broke your image.
>>4399382Some people want to know how to get the film look w/o needing to download and/or buy plugins.
>>4399481Just shoot on film then
>>4399480That wasn’t initially stated, and in that case I wouldn’t put it on YouTube in the first place because it’s inherently destroyed. >>4399481That wasn’t initially stated, and you’re rejecting the best solution for no reason at all. Christ.
>>4398713>>4398715>Nah bro panasonic just isnt as good as canon. Thats it. The features it has over canon/sony are unimportant.>canon’s reality based featureseti came from shooting canons, i had a 6d and i want to shoot video, so i bought an a7s. i fucking hated using the a7s so i'm moving around now, and trust me i miss the canon so much. photos straight out the thing looked phenomenal, i love EF lenses, and i enjoyed the ergonomics. if i could just go back to canons i would but its just that the panasonic has so many features it's becoming a glaring issue with switching to canon, the panasonic can do everything the r6ii can but better, with more features, better IBIS, etc. IBIS is a huge game changer for what I do. what features are you talking about that are reality based? like i said i dont give a fuck about sticking with the panasonic, i just need a good enough reason to go canon and i will. i know it has car AF which is perfect for me which the panasonic doesnt have, and canon AF is better but that seems like that's about it.
>>4399505Brandfaggots are insufferable. Over the past 20 years I've used Olympus, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, now Panasonic, and every single time there's been a few whiny corksniffing pudgy söyboys with albums full of crooked-horizon-midday-goose-in-flight-pics riding my ass over what I use and don't use. Every. Single Time. I couldn't care less about brands. Does your tech do what I need and how much does it cost - all I care about.
>>4399505People prefer good colors and in focus footage to the camera nerd saying >but ok, dude dude, its not just natively shot in DCI 4k… it has 0.5ev less noise in log!Hence canon wins
>>4399430If you compare framing and blocking in recent films and then go back decade by decade you will see significant changes
>>4399509yeah. i've been using canons so long that nothing else is easy for me to just pick up, adjust, and shoot. that alone is better than fucking around with settings forever >>4399509yeah. i've seen plenty of videos comparing the canon and panasonic and even though the dude in the video is like I LOVE PANASONIC COLORS!! to my eye, to my tastes, the canon ALWAYS looks better
>>4399505I'm in a suprisingly similar to situation to you. I used to use a 5div and fucking loved it. R5 was too expensive though and r6 wasn't good enough for its price.Panasonic s5ii was good enough and scarily cheap. I miss using canons but I never regret moving to panasonic.The closest thing I have to regret is the lust I have for the blackmagic cine 6k ff. It lacks af and ibis but fuck the image looks so fucking good. It came out right after I bought my s5ii as well.My dream camera is still a canon r5ii or a c80, but I make do.There's something wrong with you if you care about brands over actual camera quality (that said, Nikon are garbage and I don't know how anyone unironically buys one of them for video)
>>4399527i feel like canon is still trying to stick to their old method of trying to fit a camera for every single price bracket without letting them leak over, so they can sell more shit. it's annoying because the 6d lacks so many features that are totally arbitrary. open gate should be standard on every camera reallycameras like the BMPCC and sigma fp are way too reliant on rigging up for me, i'm not a professional videographer or colorist and i just want something i can quickly set up and just shoot, and every time it'll be in focus and look beautiful. im not sure if the panasonic is like that since it still has old style AF and the color science is nowhere NEAR something like BMPCCs or canons, and there's a limit to what you can do with a totally raw image even after you spend hours colorizing it... it's all down to the fundamentals of how that sensor reacts to light and its inherent tone curve. i dont think there's any consumer camera that can have a tone curve like an arri but these BMPCCs and higher end canons are very close, and its only a matter of time until we start seeing consumer cameras being that wayi feel like we're right at the corner of some company making the 'perfect camera' that'll just futureproof itself for the next 10 years and accidentally shooting itself in the foot because they were the first one to man up and do it. panasonic seems to be inching towards that way with pricing their camera like that, all it's missing is some fat to be trimmed and a better AF system.
>>4399531A modular camera is probably what you’d need. The base camera. An e-ND module for people who need ND. A LiDAR module for people who want good af. A module for IBIS. So you can get the camera of your dreams without forcing your needs on everybody else.
>>4399531>canon is still trying to stick to their old method of trying to fit a camera for every single price bracket without letting them leak overI remember the day I left Canon, I don't even remember when it was... early 10s? late 00s... when I put a 3rd party firmware on my Canon and suddenly it started doing magical shit that it should've been doing out of the box. Like... untold amounts of features added, incredible quality of life boost. That was the last Canon cam I ever owned. Fuck you, Canon, I'll happily give money to your direct competitors because your business model is cancerous.
>>4399527>Nikon are garbage and I don't know how anyone unironically buys one of them for videoCan you qualify this? I only miss the option to make a backup recording to a separate card. Otherwise I cannot fault recent Nikon gear.
>>4399593The codecs are all dogshit. It started when they first introduced 4k nraw onto a camera with a 6k sensor, still using the full width of the sensor. It took a day for people to realise that they were achieving this by line skipping and that the nlog looked significantly sharper and had less noise.But if you look at them today, their codecs are all stupidly high storage because nraw has shitty compression and they otherwise stick to prores for "quality" footage. You're talking over a tarrbyte to shoot 2 hours of 10b422 4k footage which is unusuable in practical terms (unless you're a large studio that doesn't care about storage expenses).I think they had a single codec that wasn't complete garbage but it was gimped in other ways (limited resolution, less bit depth maybe?)
>>4399509The canon 5d4 shoots c4k (it didn't even have clog when it released). It's unacceptable that subsequent canon cameras don't do this and there's no explanation other than intentional gimping.If you're happy to accept that then I guess carry on being a consoomer accepting whatever shitty slop is fed to you while because you're beyond salvation
>>4399599Thanks. I've never had specific issues about disk space or memory.
>>4399599Speaking as someone who uses the Z cameras for video, the codecs are fine actually. Yes the ProRes files take up a lot of space. Same story for everyone who uses it, it’s not an efficient format, it’s built for speed of editing and taking advantage of hardware decoders/encoders.nraw is good, but it’s raw, so of course the file sizes are enormous. You don’t need it most of the time, unless you feel like it and have a ton of storage.I mainly shoot oversampled 4K h.265 10bit n-log, which has been phenomenal in terms of small file sizes and quality when grading. If I’m throwing a bunch of effects on a clip that I haven’t rendered out to a ProRes proxy, then it can start to chug, but the kind of work I do doesn’t have a ton of effects usually just a FLC node in Resolve.People will bitch about anything I guess. Compared to the Nikons of yore the video functionality is miles better now. Does it compare to an Alexa yet? No, but a Z9 is like $5K and a Burano is $20K, so I’ll accept a few trade offs.
>>4399608Yeah because you treat storage as a cost of doing business and don’t think about it after that.Yeah it sucks to spend a couple grand building a NAS or DAS every few years, but that’s the biz.
>>4399427youtube will destroy any video if you aren't a revenue generating channel. why would you deserve the bandwidth?
>>4399612> $20k for a BuranoAt that much money for a camera just get a used Arri.
How good is a Dolby PRM-4220 Professional Reference LCD Monitor? How much is it worth used? How does it compare to the Stupid Sexy Flanders?
>>4399585You shouldn’t need to hack your camera to get it to work the way you want it to work; Canon should listen to customers and give them what they want so they don’t have to hack their camera to get it to work the way that they want it to work.
>>4399599>It started when they first introduced 4k nrawNah, it started when they first added video and it has gradually gotten better bit by bit over time. Still not my first choice but good for a backup
>>4399630Canon's business model is to add user requests into the next model so the user is forced to buy a new camera.
>>4399630Nowadays, I'll only get a Canon for stills. I would only use Canon for video if it was on someone else's dime and they didn't mind me getting the best one.
>>4399691If it were on somebody else’s dime, why not use an Arri.
>>4399697Not him but too big and clunky. Also, it costs in the tens of thousands to make it work properly (buying the right storage devices that will work with it, the arri video recordern module etc etc)
>>4399508You sound equally insufferable. A man's tool is important after all.
>>4399736>Yeah that guy's an idiot but have you ever considered that you're just as stupid for pointing it out? I am very smart and better than both you because I think you're both dumbWow. So very enlightening
>>4399697Despite their massive extra expensve, the image quality isn't drastically better than a hybrid you can buy for less than $5k.And if you're willing to shell out $15k, the ursa 12k ff outperforms the alexa lf in dynamic range and has a better raw codec at a much higher resolution (at the tradeoff of one stop of exposure latitude).
RIP David Lynch[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1290Image Height1294
>>4399657I'm like 90% sure that the people in charge of the r1, 3 and 5 are a completely different team to those in charge of the rest of the cameras.Their cheaper cameras all have arbitrary software limitations for no reason. But the 1, 3 and 5 all feel like they crammed as much as they physically could. The r5ii even has 2k video - a feature that no one was particularly concerned with but that doesn't cost anything extra so why not?One of the biggest complaints from youtubers and forum posters is that the r1 and 3 aren't worth the price compared to the r5. And in response, the r5ii is like $200 more expensive and still an improvement in every regard.Meanwhile the other team is like "well if we're gonna make a cheaper, shittier r6ii, we better make sure it only uses a turd for a battery so that the users have a worse experience"
