>>4398725
Nikonbros, is it over?

>>4399102
What 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

>>4399349
Simplest 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.

>>4399349
Film emulation software has solved this. Next?

>>4399296
Go 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

File: 4c75b1544d108ad90bfaa4660(...).png (16 KB, 645x770)

16 KB PNG

>>4399389
>crush blacks
I agree.

>>4399102
For me it's the best boy

>>4399419
What's he do?

>>4399421
Apparently he's the foreman of a department

>>4399349
Shoot with vintage lenses, compose the way they did in older films, and do the editing tricks other anons have already pointed out

>>4399389
> grain

What’s the point of grain. Won’t YouTube compression kill off the grain?

>>4399424
>compose the way they did in older films
What'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.

>>4399427
Are we talking about YouTube compression or are we talking about getting video to look like film? Jesus.

>>4399471
> both

You 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.

>>4399382
Some people want to know how to get the film look w/o needing to download and/or buy plugins.

>>4399481
Just shoot on film then

>>4399480
That wasn’t initially stated, and in that case I wouldn’t put it on YouTube in the first place because it’s inherently destroyed.

>>4399481
That 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 featureset

i 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.

>>4399505
Brandfaggots 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.

>>4399505
People 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

>>4399430
If you compare framing and blocking in recent films and then go back decade by decade you will see significant changes

>>4399509
yeah. 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

>>4399509
yeah. 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

>>4399505
I'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)

>>4399527
i 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 really

cameras 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 way

i 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.

>>4399531
A 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 over
I 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 video
Can you qualify this? I only miss the option to make a backup recording to a separate card. Otherwise I cannot fault recent Nikon gear.

>>4399593
The 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?)

>>4399509
The 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

>>4399599
Thanks. I've never had specific issues about disk space or memory.

>>4399599
Speaking 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.

>>4399608
Yeah 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.

>>4399427
youtube will destroy any video if you aren't a revenue generating channel. why would you deserve the bandwidth?

>>4399612
> $20k for a Burano

At 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?

>>4399585
You 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 nraw
Nah, 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

>>4399630
Canon's business model is to add user requests into the next model so the user is forced to buy a new camera.

>>4399630
Nowadays, 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.

>>4399691
If it were on somebody else’s dime, why not use an Arri.

>>4399697
Not 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)

>>4399508
You 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 dumb
Wow. So very enlightening

>>4399697
Despite 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).

File: IMG_3306.jpg (1.36 MB, 1290x1294)

1.36 MB JPG

RIP David Lynch

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1290
Image Height	1294

>>4399657
I'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"

>>4400085
Canon probably considers the R5ii a pro body, and the R6ii and below consoomer bodies, so it makes perfect sense.

Choosing substandard gear is a rookie mistake.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
where's my broadcast-cinema hybrid that can shoot with b4 lenses at 4K and then swap out for full frame lenses when needed
why has no one built one yet
hell, it could be super35, you would still get more creative freedom than with a 2/3 sensor
I see people jerry rigging b4 lenses unto full frame frames bodies, but only being able to shoot HD at best and then having to rig shitty parts so it all doesn't come crashing down or has some weight balance
why aren't manufacturers of broadcast cameras doing anything like this. They must see the market for 2/3 is shrinking yet the need for ridiculous zooms is still there

>>4400085
>r5ii is an improvement in every regard
Except DR and noise. You know, two of the most important things a camera provides

>>4400387
Dr in stills is a little worse.
Noise reduction is far better though? I'd be curious to see what makes you think the noise reduction is worse.
More importantly, the r5ii shoots clog2 and, along with far better noise reduction, produces much better video dynamic range than the r5.

(Dynamic range is calculated differently for video vs stills)

>Leica SL3-S is literally just a lumix s5ii/x for almost 3x the cost
Wait, what? Am I missing something? Will people actually buy this?

>>4400443
Well, unlike the lumix it says leica on it and has unfixable hardware flaws that overwrite cards and randomly cause the camera to crash. You can also pair it with leica lenses that get outdone by "shitty mogged by sonikon" panasonic glass so everyone can know you’re dumb and want to hang out with rich people.

>premiere cant export my videos
>free resolve cant use 10bit files
what would be easier pirating resolve or converting my files to DNxHR?

>>4400475
You know the answer, anon.
Buy a licence if you're going to sell your video.

File: 1628015997239.jpg (50 KB, 574x436)

50 KB JPG

>>4400475
This is where it ends for you. No tears, only dreams now.

>>4399349
I use Dehancer. Lots of cool film emulation.

>>4400484
Nooo!!!!! You can’t just suggest to download or buy plugins!!!! Give me another answer!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM3Q6XugT3I
Why does the footage from this camera kind of look like VHS camcorder only higher resolution?

>>4400488
Put a pair of pantyhose over your extreamly sharp lens. This will give you the cinematic filmatic look without you needing to buy a plug-in or a diffusion filter.

>>4399831
How does exposure latitude differ from dynamic range? I thought they were the same thing.

>>4400480
>>4400481
i pirated it now i have to relearn the most basic shit

>>4400494
>diffusion filter
Is an 1/8 cut or a quarter cut the kino?

>>4400494
I always heard they smeared Vaseline on the lens to shoot the romantic scenes but knowing how much they had to spend to rent those lenses I can’t imagine anyone doing that when they could just pantyhose it & not get nailed with an angry extra charge for overhauling & cleaning afterward.

>>4400505
Vaseline a cheap filter

>>4400498
1/8 is enough for most people, 1/4 approaches 80s hong kong film haze. I have a full range and did a test that's in the archive somewhere. If I ever get motivated, I'll do one with vaseline and pantyhose

>>4400505
Vaseline is usually put on an el-cheapo uv filter, not directly on the expensive lens you rented for the shoot.

>>4400475
Why’d you need to pirate Resolve? You get the full version of Resolve for free legally if you buy one of Blackmagic Design’s inexpensive cameras. Adobe I can understand pirating, but what is the point of pirating Resolve.

>>4400516
>I have a full range and did a test that's in the archive somewhere
Damn, would like to see that

>>4400522
Because there's other cameras to buy other than Blackmagic's? What an asinine question

>>4400496
Check out the lab tests on cined and they'll give you a far better explanation than me.
But in short, exposure latitude is how much room there is to recover the image if your exposure is wrong. Dynamic range is the extent of the image captured, adjusted for noise/clarity. Because of this dynamic range is heavily affected by internal noise reduction.
Almost every hybrid camera has near identical exposure latitude of ~8 stops (according to cined). The alexa lf has 10 stops.

>>4400340
>Choosing substandard gear is a rookie mistake.
True, it's worth spending the extra $2 grand or so.

>>4400352
I thought Blackmagic had something like this with their broadcast version URSA?

>>4400494
Yup, net diffusion I think they call it
Video below has a very quick tutorial on how to do it
https://vimeo.com/38670058

>>4400648
Several people have made feature films for less than 10 grand. Some of them are pretty decent.
This idea that quality has to cost a ludicrous amount and so serious professionals aren't allowed to complain about price is fucking stupid.

>>4399926
RIP

>>4400538
There are tests on youtube and boomer forums

>>4400696
I want to see his test

>>4399486
Considering a basic stock is roughly $2 per frame developed, at 24fps x 60secs x 90min, all you need is $260,000, assuming no bad takes. A faux-film LUT pack may be cheaper.

>>4400744
>faux-film LUT pack
So it finally comes out- you just want some easy LUT to slap on the footage. A quick google and YouTube search will get you mountains of that garbage, have fun.

>>4400750
Cunt where are you getting a quater million to make feature length films?
>Durr you're just doing it the easy way, cope cope cope"
Digital + a LUT is orders of magnitude cheaper and easier, so unless you can cite your role as a film maker and post budgets, you can kindly fuck off.

>>4400752
There were also multiple other options to take rather than a shitty LUT, but hey like I said- enjoy your fucking LUT I bet it looks incredible

File: Screenshot 2025-01-21 132305.png (535 KB, 521x917)

535 KB PNG

>>4400475
>>4400480
>>4400481
>learnt resolve
>exports are giving me fucked artifacts
i cant fucking win bros

>>4400756
It could be excessive noise reduction or using fusion. Those two things caused my footage to have a lot of artifacts. If you deliver as glass valley 4444 and then convert that to ProRes using ffmpeg that might get rid of artifacts—that’s what I used to do until I learned it was excessive noise reduction that was causing the artifacts. That conversion works and the footage looks great but glass valley is a fucking huge codec.

>>4400756
this is going to hurt but you need to dial back processing and export sample clips step by step until the weird thing goes away

>>4400756
I had this happen with h264. Decreasing the space between I frames corrected it. Youtube does best with h265 or av1 though.

Any recommendations for good compact camcorders for travel?

Any of you used Dzofilm cine lenses before?

So apparently there are dpaf compatible EF lenses? So if I took and old EF lens with AF with an RF mount on a dpaf Canon and did video with AF, it goes to contrast? It's a firmware thing? Lens AF is AF, the camera should do DPAF and just tell the lens what to fo. Anybody run into problems with this?

>>4401116
Dpaf is a camera/sensor thing, not a lens thing. If the lens has af and the camera has dpaf, it will work. Some lenses are faster and less noisy when using their motors though

File: Screenshot_20250122_10081(...).jpg (461 KB, 1080x1207)

461 KB JPG

>>4401117
See pic, someone said on the forum, they never noticed the difference though

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S916USQS5CXJX
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1207

>>4401118
Never heard of this. No idea. My most used ef lens is a 3rd party Tamron lens that has never had any issue focusing so I don't know what to say.
At a complete guess, I'd assume that the early ef lenses weren't designed for continuous autofocus and the motors can't quickly readjust or something stupid

How good are the lidar systems that turn a manual cinema prime into an autofocus lens using follow focus motors?

>>4401121
Have you used ef to rf adapter? No problems with that right?

>>4401060
Was debating between those and Nisi Athenas, I went with Nisi and enjoy them

>>4401128
Oh no I actually swapped to panasonic about a year ago (no problems with the ef to l-mount adapter besides panasonic af just being worse in general).
Before that I used 2 canons with dpaf though.

>>4401140
Wait, is EF autofocus as good (with the Panasonic limitations you described) as native lenses on video?

>>4401150
Yes?
I don't actually have any l-mount lenses so I can't say for certain. And there have been a few firmware updates that has made the af better than it was, combined with teething problems in getting used to the camera.
I use a sigma adapter, cost like 250 bucks give or take. There was a cheaper one but I couldn't find any decent user reviews and wanted to be safe.
It works in the way it was advertised more or less. But no, I don't have a 100% hit rate. It's especially weaker in low light and with black actors. It's noticeably worse than my canons, mainly because it lacks the touchscreen switch to turn af on or off (I'm using an s5ii) (sidenote: video autofocus as a concept works well when it's not continuous but when you can use it to find focus once and then leave it, and then update it quickly and accurately if the scene changes).
But the lenses themselves aren't struggling, no, and I've gotten some great gimbal shots with them.

There's a reason I've never bothered to buy any l-lenses in the last year, aside from just being poor.

>>4401151
Thank you

>>4401150
You can't use continuous AF with adapted lenses, I believe it's even written on the product page of Sigma's EF-to-L adapter.
Single AF works exactly the same.

>>4401287
This isn't true. I don't know where you got this from. I own a sigma ef-l adapter and it's fine with continuous af

>>4401299
It probably depends on the lens used. Some lenses work great and others have limitations or they just put that warning in the manual to cover thier asses.

>>4401299
I own an S1, a Sgima MC21, and six Canon EF lenses.
If I set the AF mode to AF-C a message appears saying "Switch to AFS", and a few seconds after that the message disappears and the camera switches to AF-S mode by itself.
The MC21 product page also states "Not compatible with AF-C mode."
I doubt it's a lens issue because I've tried it with all Canon lenses and it doesn't work with anyone of them.
What camera and lenses is it working with for you?

>>4401352
>What camera and lenses is it working with for you?
S5ii
I didn't know the s1 even had continuous af. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what continuous af is? I don't think I am though, I've literally used it on a gimbal with ef lenses on multiple occasions where I was unable to adjust the focus and just had to rely on the camera to keep the moving subject in focus.
I've done it with more than ef lens too. I'm also using a sigma mc-21 btw

>>4401356
*I've done it with more than one ef lens too

>>4401356
Unless they were Sigma EF lenses then it probably depends on the camera then.

>>4401372
No, I don't have any sigma lenses.
As I said above, my most used is a tamron 28-75, but for gimbal work I use canon primes, 28mm mostly but I'm pretty sure I've used the nifty 50 too.

File: IMG_3806.jpg (59 KB, 686x386)

59 KB JPG

How can I copy this setup, does anyone know the approximate parts used?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	686
Image Height	386
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4401373
I'm sure I've read somewhere that AF-C only works with native lenses.

>>4401593
I don't know what to tell you. I literally use it.
If it's any help, a big reason why I bought my s5ii was because I saw Kai's preview/review where he tested canon lenses with its af.
(from around 23m)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtLqmM4HaIE

>>4400649
Thanks for the heads up. I just checked it out.
Like other solutions Broadcast Ursa G2 too uses an adapter. The adapter expands the b4 image circle to roughly 1'' in size, enough for UHD crop. From a few shots that I've seen, the image quality from the adapter isn't too good, sharp in the center but quickly loses resolution once outside of it. The G2 itself lacks a few features ordinary camcorders have, which is not something I'm not in favor either.
Sony did have a few of their own adapters, all of them expensive. Most recently for FS7/FX9 but the expanded image could only cover HD resolution. It was discontinued.
There are a few other adapters, all of them expensive due to use of optical correction. MTF services offers a B4 to s16 adapter but that needs a doubler, too much of a light loss there. IB/E Optics does make a few adapters, the best of them expands B4 to S35 so should be good with lower resolution sensors to still capture 4K picture, however the newer generation has no test footage online. Kipon is another manufacturer, has an adapter from B4 to S35 too, which is likely modeled after IB/E Optics one, no test footage either.
Luckily the next generation of 8K broadcast cameras will have no choice but to use bigger sensors, at least MFT sized, to keep the photosites from getting too small. So they will be forced to adapt both b4 and lenses for bigger image circles.

File: sddefault[1].jpg (87 KB, 640x480)

87 KB JPG

>>4399102
Beginner looking at cameras for mixed use (still + video). Minimum requirement is 1080p30 with anything above that being a perk. I really like the idea of a DSLR and mirrorless with the ability to use a ton of different photography lenses. Is this retarded so far? Extra perks I'd appreciate but won't get bent out of shape about is higher FPS and then higher resolution as a very low priority.

I've got a line on a potential Nikon d3300 for $250 with a 55-200mm and 18-55mm lens (both with stabilization) as well as four batteries. Is that a decent deal?

It seems like /vid/ as a whole is not fond of nikons (I noticed they're pretty much absent from the sticky and saw some negative talk in the last /vid/ or two), can anyone give some background on that? From some cursory searches it sounds like their autofocus might suck and that its metering isn't as well adapted to video as photo, but if the user is willing to learn and compensate for these detriments than they can be good performers and do particularly decently at low-light use. Am I off base here?

Oh, I've also already got an Osmo pocket for lighter/higher FPS work, but I'm hoping for a lot of capability gain from the lenses to take more interesting and varied shots.

TY for tolerating my newbie questions.

>>4401671
Oh sorry, I forgot to include that I understand (from this thread) that people hate the inefficient codec for the Nikons, that doesn't bother me either, storage is pretty cheap these days and I got 4 TBs of storage on my PC that I can offload cards to.

>>4401590
Cold shoe mount, spacers (dangerous amount), probably a 1/4" to 3/8" or 5/8" adapter, cheap 15-20cm stereo bar (from which you can easily remove the bolts instead of leaving them there dangling), a wireless lav mic system with one transmitter attached to the camera (middle), the two mics fixed to the bar with a zip tie or some such system (sides) and two furry windshields.
The drawbacks of that setup are that you can't move the mics closer to your source, you can't aim them independently from the camera, if they're not directional (like most lav mics) you're going to get a narrow and not-very-mono-compatible stereo image, and you're going to pick up handling noise.
It might be a good solution if you're doing nature vlogs or anyway recording ambient sounds, or you absolutely can't bring more stuff with you than what fits on your camera, but I wouldn't recommend it for recording people.

>>4401748
Yeah I just meant the actual metal bar setup etc, the mics are dji 2 and I'm considering it for an ambient sounds kinda setup so it doesn't bother me
Thanks

Just bought a DJI Ronin-S Kit +Focus Motor +Focus Wheel +Tilta Base that was going cheap for $130US on ebay. What am I in for, good choice. I do a lot of shooting on my R5 with manual vintage lenses so I thought the ability to pull focus easy would be helpful. Also bought a dual handgrip to go with it. Any other essential addons I am missing?

S5ii loses phase detection af in 1080p video mode. And not a single fucking peep about it in the manual. What the fuck is wrong with those gooks over @ panasonic

>>4401881
Oh, bummer. Never noticed because I've never shot anything in 1080 on it. Have you updated to the latest firmware?

>>4401898
>Have you updated to the latest firmware?
I'm 100% sure that even future FW updates aren't going to cut it, or it would've been solved by now, so I'd rather not even cope. This combined with APS-C crop on higher frame-rates...
It's a good thing I still have 9 days to send it back without a fuss, because 1080p with higher framerate is all I need like 40% of the time... editing, rendering, everything saves time and money. Except failed shots with shitty contrast based AF. That's a hyuge waste of moneys.
If there's one fucking thing that pisses me off is lying about features. I was promised PDAF. Nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE in official documentation is written that it is limited PDAF. I went through their manual with a fine tooth comb. Now that I search around plebbit and tube, people were aware of it right after the camera launched, but it never popped into my radar when I spent a week researching about my next camera, reading and watching countless (shill) reviews and (shill) tests.

Should've gone with Sony in the first place like literally everyone and their mother told me to.

>>4401881
>>4401948
I was confused as to what you're talking about since you can very definitely record 1080 proxies at the same time as 4k, and you don't lose af when doing so.
So I did the obvious and literally just whipped out my s5ii and tried recording a 1080 clip. And there was no change in af capabilities. So I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Maybe it was fixed in a previous firmware. Maybe you're a lying faggot.
But my camera definitely still has continous af when recording in 1080.

>>4401949
Now do 1080-50 or 1080-60 or maybe you just can't tell a difference between PDAF and contrast based AF.

>>4401967
>immediately moving goalposts
Yeah. What I figured. I'll check it tomorrow if I remember.
>or maybe you just can't tell a difference between PDAF and contrast based AF.
It's continuous, fast and isn't hunting. I don't pay attention outside of that I will admit

File: 1720675745259978.jpg (15 KB, 248x244)

15 KB JPG

>>4401971
>>immediately moving goalposts
>>4401948
>This combined with APS-C crop on higher frame-rate
>1080p with higher framerate is all I need like 40% of the time
Take the L and move on

>>4401976
Quoting >>4401881
>S5ii loses phase detection af in 1080p video mode
Yes. You moved the goalposts by claiming it's about high framerate video when you never mentioned that originally. I expect you'll move them again when I bother to check if it's even true that it loses af in 1080p60

>>4401978
>slight retard
>full retard

>>4401881
>panasonic product is subpar
:o

>arri releases new "base model"
>arri 35 with half of its features missing or gimped, for the low price of only $50k
>but don't worry, if you later decide you want those features, you can buy a license to use them!
Arri is a joke of a company and I only hope that is a result of the realisation that only selling stupidly expensive cameras isn't a great business model. It's astonishing that they're still the "default" camera company.

>>4402032
It’s not just Arri all pro cinema cameras used on Hollywood sets are stupidly expensive. That’s why they are rented not bought. If you are a one man band and know how to properly light stuff you could get the same result from a blackmagic for way less money.

>>4402044
Reds, Sonys and Canons are a fraction of the price of Arris. Red is dumb, by Sonys and Canons also don't require tens of thousands in add-ons just to make the camera work properly.

>>4402032
Hollywood and mass media in general is owned by and is full of pedophiles and (((more pedophiles))) and the based germans at arri know they deserve to be the ones being scammed for once.

Really starting to wish I could punch WanderingDP in the face

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

27 KB JPG

>>4402132
I DP and I wander. Wanna fucking go?

>>4402046
Reds always breakdown on set. Red filed for bankruptcy. Every filmmaking team that won an Oscar swears by Arri. Every lutpack the morons on YouTube sell is trying to recreate either the look or the color science of an Arri. Arri must be doing something right.

I just upgraded from a G9 to S52X. I was surprised to see 4 audio tracks on the camera audio. There was only ever 1 on the G9. Track 3 and 4 are blank so I delete those. Track 1 and 2 are mono so I'm assuming that I should link them together for stereo L and R? I'm using an on camera shotgun mic.

>>4402274
3 and 4 are for if you use the xlr-adapter if memory serves (so yeah you can just delete them).
Of 1 and 2, I think 1 is mono and the other is stereo but again I can't remember off the top of my head. The internal audio is surprisingly decent but I still only use it for scratch/backup.
Also I feel like I remember seeing some people on r/lumix saying that if you use a mic with the camera, there's a weird humming or something. So you should look into that.

>>4402132
>He's using tungsten.....*sigh*...I don't know if this is gonna work
Everyone in the comment section is telling him Source 4s are still great and used, although from his line of work, I get why he prefers LED, he needs to get things to look and fast.

>>4402032
Who's this kit for anyway? I can't imagine Corporate video guys buying this unless the company they work for buy it for them. Everyone else they listed as the target (Television programs, commercial ads) rents them.

>>4402334
I can only guess they're hoping to get sales from smaller production houses that have been stocking Sonys, Canons and Blackmagics.
But no matter how you look at it, it's exploitative. If someone can't afford the full alexa 35, they can't afford the basic one either.

>>4402332
He’s really living up to the stereotype of “holier than thou/my word is GOD” shit that DPs get accused of. Can’t be arsed to figure out names of lights? Can’t answer a question from one of your own subscribers? Jesus. Is he trying to sabotage others into getting fired from jobs trying copy him and act like this on set? If I hired a DP who gave me or my crew shit like this he’d be gone after day 1. I can’t watch this shit anymore.
And on another note- all of his videos and “advice” applies to commercial shoots and that’s pretty much it. Imaging others trying to apply this shit to narrative shorts/features is depressing as fuck to even think about.

>>4402336
I thought it was funny how in the B&H ad for it, Arri mentions the blue dial as the mark that differentiates it from the full version.

Is a V60 SD card worthwhile for 4k30p at 150mbps? Currently I have a V30 but I've been wondering if it's really enough for that bitrate, as for now I've been just using 1080 at 50mbps. I can get a really good deal from a local store on V60 Sony Tough cards, so I've been wondering about getting a few.

>>4402346
Maybe he’s trying to get rid of the competition. /s

>>4402449
Not necessary. V60 is needed for 4k60 but should not even remotely be an issue for 4k30

>>4402332
speed kills, gotta sanic. i hate shooting exteriors because you can't slow down

File: sundance cameras used 2025.jpg (263 KB, 1029x1030)

263 KB JPG

Sundance cameras used.
Thoughts?
Kino or bino?

>>4402558
Nothing surprising or interesting here.

>>4402558
>all those arris
>no blackmagics
>no canons
What a bunch of posers

>>4402569
>Sony....slowly climbing the ranks......
It's over for Red.

>>4402572
The only red on that list is the komodo (Red's shitty way of using influencers and vloggers to try and subsidise the cameras they actually care about). Red's been basically irrelevant for years. It's why they went bankrupt and had to be bought by nikon

>>4402569
sundance is pure nepotism. what do you expect, gritty indie DIYers fresh from the trenches?

>>4402467
I plan on doing a little 4k60 b-roll for slo-mo, so maybe V60 would be a good idea then?

I'm also not sure what having a card that's too slow would do to video either, so far things seem fine at 60fps with the V30, but I have seen video be a little choppy from time to time.

>>4402574
<sarcasm>It’s no longer the Red Komodo it’s now the Nikon Komodo. </sarcasm> Hopefully Nikon doesn’t turn into a patent troll. I’d love to see more mirrorless camera get real video raw.

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

92 KB JPG

Arri Raw Test

I am testing Arriraw on an Arri Alexa Mini using the Zeiss/Arri 100mm t3 macro lens

Let me know what you think of the footage.

I am a pro macro photographer moving into macro videography. I used the profits from selling macro photos to buy the gear needed to make macro videos.

Here’s the test footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FLVOIaWSng

Pic related: one of my macro photographs.

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

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

>>4402739
Are you Australian anon that bought the arri as a hobby?
Anyway, you didn't grade anything and the flowers at 33 seconds look out of focus. Get a tripod and work on the composition.

>>4402558
Burano bros?!

>>4402612
>but I have seen video be a little choppy from time to time
On camera or when playing back in your nle? Most cameras if they can't record to a particular media should just throw an error in the middle of the shoot rather than intentionally drop frames. If you're having issues during playback, then try prerendering the timeline and see how that plays or browse frame by frame and look if any of the frames are doubled or visibly missing where there's motion.

>>4402790
I walked through a local park. They don’t allow tripods in it. So everything was handheld. How good would an easy rig or steady cam (china knock off version) be? They don’t mind that. I just can’t put sticks on the ground there.

>>4402825
>They don’t allow tripods in it
I’ve never seen this anywhere

>>4402868
I’ll just take my camera to a friends house and film their garden. Then I can use sticks and take as long as I want. In larks in my town they rush you though making it hard to get well composed in-focus video. If you want to bring a tripod in they charge you a hefty fee.

>>4402875
>they
Who?

>>4402880
The park patrol. They're basically a gang in their own right but mostly cool

>>4402825
stop down nigga

>>4402884
It’s mostly a fee for taking up space with tripods and making so other people can’t enjoy using the park. It’s ok if you are doing a project because you can pass that fee off to the client. But, if you are just filming flowers for your own use to test a camera lens combo out it’s easier to just leave the sticks at home and avoid paying that fee.

>>4401978
>I expect you'll move them again when I bother to check if it's even true that it loses af in 1080p60
You've been real quiet for the past week

File: ab676161000051748ea8d59eb(...).jpg (20 KB, 320x320)

20 KB JPG

Hello I don't know anything about cameras or filming. Whats the cheapest video camera to make it looks like in the real cinema mobies?
pls don't bully

>>4403072
Fuji xm5

>>4403065
I genuinely forgot to check. But just did. You're right. That is a thing. My camera loses continuous af in 1080p60.
Still doesn't change your original misleading/false complaint, but I concede that that's a flaw. Forgot to check 4k60, I'm 90% sure that still has it though since I've recorded in that before and I feel like I'd have noticed if that was being fucky.

>>4403081
Is it better than "blackmagic pocket cinema camera 4k"? They are the same price here.

>>4403072
>>4403107
What features do you want? Do you have literally any experience with editing footage?
You can get cinematic looking footage with pretty much any camera. But you need to know what you're doing (and you clearly don't). The only way to learn is by doing, or paying someone to physically teach you (youtube is good for pointing you in the right direction).

My genuine suggestion, if you're serious, is to buy a shitty used camera for around 200 bucks (read the fucking sticky), find a decent nle, and spend a month filming random shit and editing it.

>>4403107
The Blackmagic will be better but you will need a lot more accessories to make it work and you need to know more what you're doing, the Fuji is more plug and play
Or do what this guy said >>4403121

>>4403121
>buy a shitty used camera for around 200 bucks (read the fucking sticky), find a decent nle, and spend a month filming random shit and editing it.
this

>>4403121
>>4403143
I know how to edit videos/doing post processing qnd sound mixing (doing 3d animations this is the easiest part)
I don't want to buy something cheap and then immediately feel gimped and then need to buy something more expensive anyway.

>>4403139
What kind of accessories for the Blackmagic? Lenses ofc. Audio recording devices? Some kind of grip-bars to attach to the camera? Stand? Gimbal?
What kind of lens(es) would you recommend?(Doing 3d stuff you can just set FoV, focal point, depth of field on the fly. I guess it's not so easy with physical lenses)

The Fuji you mentioned doesn't have image stabilization(I definitely need that) and the screen is small for me.

>>4403229
Ok then go buy an ARRI Alexa with a Cooke lens kit

>>4403237
Nah, just wait for that new fuji enterna or whatever they're calling it to come out.

>>4403229
Also the Fuji camera uses proprietary lens mount, yes?
The Blackmagic with more universal M43 mount sounds better to me.

>>4403072
>what's the cheapest
>>4403229
>I don't want to buy something cheap

anon make up your fucking mind

>>4403237
You're possibly a millionaire if you can afford that. Most I got is a Webcam, a smartphone, and a T2i. I used to have a GoPro, but my older brother took that away from me and I do not know where it is at anymore.

File: stare-wwe.gif (2.16 MB, 498x373)

2.16 MB GIF

>>4403280
Uppercut your brother.

>>4403121
>You can get cinematic looking footage with pretty much any camera.
Thats just wrong

File: s5f0FbVAABEnJYKaApWORTxhiFC.jpg (137 KB, 1000x1500)

137 KB JPG

>You can get cinematic looking footage with pretty much any camera.
I guess you can make a movie for cinema with just about anything, but it won't look cinematic.

>>4403328
Yeah inland empire is a good film but it's definitely not cinematic looking, looks like ass

>>4403271
if you've never rigged a camera you probably shouldn't buy blackmagic, it's not a beginner friendly camera

>>4403326
No, it's really not. They've literally shot 28 Years Later on an iphone

>>4403328
>>4403339
That's Lynch, not the camera.
Lynch purposely wants his films to look (or not look) a certain way. Twin Peaks is the same in terms of not looking "cinematic"
(Also, pretty sure Inland Empire was shot in 720p, obviously it helps if you're shooting in at least 1080p)

>>4403326
lights > camera

>>4403352
>Twin Peaks is the same in terms of not looking "cinematic"
Season 1 and 2 look about any series from that time, probably better.

"Fire walk with me/Missing pieces" definitely have a cinematic look(also film ofc)

"The Return" looks like any digital slop. Polished but no soul.

>>4403353
You could have the bestest lighting and the bestest post work on Inland Empire it would always looks like a shit student project. It's obviously about the gear being used.

>>4403350
Yeah but have you seen the iPhone? There’s like 24 adapters and a huge ass cine lens on it. The editing is probably also heavy. So the “shot on iPhone” is mainly a half false advertisement

>>4403356
Right. So you can get cinematic footage with pretty much any camera, like I said.
Saying that it doesn't count because you need a decent lens and to edit the footage is basically just admitting that you don't know how to make shit.

>>4403355
sounds like you can't light

>>4403353
set design > lights

>>4403370
Depends... If you can't see the image you're screwed.

>>4403353
Lights…you mean those glowy orb things? I don’t know what the fuck they’re called, I’m a cinematographer and that’s someone else’s job, some peasant piece of shit way beneath me. Just listen to how I describe the shot (DARK obviously, it’s cinematic) and make it happen. I’m in charge here, I’m in control.
This toilet paper commercial is gonna be my masterpiece.

>>4403376
wanderingdp put out a new video?

>>4403370
generally yes

>>4403414
Ah, a visually stunning scene of a family having breakfast. Brilliant cinematic shot, will be perfect for the PopTarts commercial I’m shooting.

>>4403398
When I walk on set, first thing I do is go to the director, grab his storyboards, and rip them up in his face. There’s a reason he hired ME- the director of photography, the cinematographer. I know what looks good, I create beauty in cinematic form, he doesn’t know jack shit. I don’t even know what that weird box is he keeps touching- people call it a camera but that’s not my fucking job to know what it’s called. I’m a creator, I speak my vision into existence and all you little dogs can mush, make it happen.
This Tampax commercial will cement my legacy.

>>4403473
Holy based

>>4403414
blacks = crushed

>>4403473
>Erector of Phodography

>>4403473
Would pay to watch this happen to that shitty youtuber

>>4403473
Immorality and being adorable does not mix.

>>4403496
You know you want a hug from him

WanderingDP got mad

File: abbey lee kershaw.jpg (34 KB, 300x300)

34 KB JPG

>company announces new camera
>follow up to a 7 year old camera
>"oh that's kind of random that they're reviving a line that old but I guess tech has changed a fair bit since 2012/2013 so if there's a niche it probably makes sense"
>7 years ago was 2018

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:10:26 12:12:06
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	300
Image Height	300

Just to test you all's common sense. You know when you overexpose a camera it goes completely to white and if you underexpose a camera it goes completely to black right?

File: camera exposed.png (1.01 MB, 1200x1350)

1.01 MB PNG

>>4403846
:-)

>>4403846
Depends what picture profile you're using. Log profiles in particular, but also some "film look" profiles, tend to purposely keep all the data above the clipping point. So the blackest the image can get is actually just a dark grey in the attempt to retain as much information as possible

>>4403843
delete this

>>4403843
Are these new camera's even that much better than cameras from that era? I have both the FS5 and FX6 and the difference isn't that much better, especially not at the performance to cost ratio.

>>4403889
It depends. Yes in some ways. No in others.
There are very few cameras (sub $10k) released before 2020 that have internal 4k 10bit 422 recording. Now almost every camera for more than a grand comes with that.
Conversely, there are very few cameras (above $1k) released before 2020 that don't have all-i recording. And now companies have decided that that's a premium feature.
Autofocus has gotten a lot better but canon and sony already had near-perfect af anyway. Lowlight has gotten a lot better but you should be lighting your stuff properly and dynamic range hasn't actually improved by very much. Though, noise reduction has gotten a lot better which essentially improves dr.

Generally I'd say that new cameras are worth it. But older cameras definitely feel more like workhorses to me.

>>4403897
>Generally I'd say that new cameras are worth it. But older cameras definitely feel more like workhorses to me.
it's because build quality on new cameras is shit, but you get lured in by the QoL features

>>4404061
Build quality is great. You just ignore the market stratification issues of last decade because all the shitty cameras are already dead, and the formerly top tier cameras are now affordable.

>>4403897
>>4404061
>>4404073

For about $3000 to $4000 you can get a used Arri or Red from that era. Those cameras used to cost $50000 or more and the image quality those cameras have can’t be beat by even a top tier prosumer camera sold today.

>>4404082
>Red from that era
Jesus I wouldn’t wish that on anyone

>>4404082
This is disingenuous at best.
First off, anyone who's buying a camera for $4k or less shouldn't be looking at one of those cameras since this price brackett can be firmly divided into 3 use cases:
>upper-tier single shooters (wedding videographers and the like)
>b-cams for larger sets
>small productions
High-end reds and arris aren't appropriate for the first 2 situations. Yes for the 3rd, but that brings me to the second point. $4k is an inaccurate number and you know it. You might be able to find the body for that. But then you have to also find an evf, monitor, battery solution, storage solution (because fuck you if you think you can just put in a generic sd card or cfe card) and rails. None of these things are cheap by themselves. And for all that you lose ergonomic advances that have made life easier in the last few years like a decent compressed internal raw codec, or autofocus or 100 other things.

And in image quality alone, they're not enough better than the hybrid cameras in the same price range that don't require all those expensive add-ons, can shoot to cheap sd cards and have huge QOL improvements. So personally, I'd say it wasn't justified unless you have a huge boner for shooting red/arri

I come from afar with a question, and I thought /p/hoto people would know.
Is there an image format on the web with more than 16777216 colors (24-bit depth)?
Can you link me to an example?

I have tried searching for examples of such images but I am drowning in AI generated web pages answering questions such as "Are there only 256 colors?"

>>4404113
I'm trying to save a 32bit bitmap (bmp) with GIMP but even then I can't create one myself with 17 million colors.
Anyone have an image where the color count is over 16777216? (No alpha channel.)

>>4403853
Yeah sure get overly technical with it like an overly complicated DMV clerk when you got a traffic violation on Friday afternoon.

>>4404105
I meant a whole camera package you’d get for that price not just a body. Maybe you’d need to buy batteries (just because I don’t think it’s legal to ship the large v-mount or gold mount batteries those cameras need) but it usually comes with everything else you’d need to start shooting even media. Maybe it might include a cheap Chinese or Russian lens such as the Helios or a China special lens too; if you want pro tier pl-mount cinema lenses you’d need to get those on your own.

>>4404153
I haven't personally seen any complete packages going for that sort of price because it's normally second hand sellers who have upgraded to a newer model. And all those accessories work with the newer models too.
But fair, if you can get a complete kit for that sort of price it's definitely worth it. Still not a good fit for the average indie 1-man-band though.

>>4404073
>Build quality is great. You just ignore the market stratification issues of last decade because all the shitty cameras are already dead, and the formerly top tier cameras are now affordable.
this guy doesn't shoot on the beach or in bad weather

File: 1738935372704.jpg (684 KB, 929x1235)

684 KB JPG

I want to film myself making traditional art. I have a studio easel that I use for drawing/painting. I have an old Nikon D5000, but I think my phone's video (Galaxy A54) is probably better at this point.

What kind of tripod should I get? I see many people recommending "Joby gorillapods", would that be a good first step?

I might get a better camera + a more legit tripod down the line, but I figured I should first start making stuff instead of dropping all my cash on new gear.

>>4404113
PNG supports 64bit color, with each ARGB channel getting 16-bit values. All browsers suppor this, you can even post them to 4chan.
>>4404125
New versions of Inkscape support 16-bit per color channel export, you can draw a few gradients and get an image that way.

>>4404345
Unless your easel sits on the desk, those "Joby gorillapods" are not going to be a good fit. It's better to get a cheap medium sized photo tripod that you can extend to chest height. That way you can film whatever you want, and adjust height as needed.
What camera you use isn't that important, as long as you have enough light. I follow another artist – James Gurney, he posts videos of his painting sessions outdoors, talks about them, it's pretty interesting. The gear he uses is nothing special, but through editing, commentary and attention to detail his videos come to life. Find your style I guess. He has a few blog posts about the gear he uses, and while the models are outdated and not manufactured anymore but in whole the principle remains – you can use consumer gear and still make interesting videos:
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-to-video-your-art-part-1-camera.html
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-to-video-your-art-microphones.html
https://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2017/03/shot-list-for-art-videos.html
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2022/01/how-to-make-art-video.html

>>4404441
Problem for me is I can't find any image that actually has more than 16777216 colors (no alpha channel). Every image I find just have 24bits per pixel. I want 32bits per pixel (no 8bit alpha channel).

I have a Zoom H1n that has great audio. It's able to pick up everything from the slight wind to the loud gunshots, but my voice is quiet if I stand far away or don't speak directly at it. I think I should get a separate recorder for a lapel mic.

I'm debating between something like the hollyland lark m2 for wireless or the Zoom f2 with the wired lav. I'd use the stock lav, I'm not upgrading.

I could be convinced to just get a lav mic for the H1n if someone has experience in that.

You guys know of any alternative egg crates for the Chimera softbox? The chimera grids are so expensive.

>>4404483
the afformentioned PNG supports 281474976710656 colors with no alpha channel
jpeg2000 apparently supports 38bpc
if you're wondering why nobody bothers with between 8 and 16 bpc it's because you don't need more than 8bpc for webshit and for real work you can use 16bpc. If you think you need 10bpc you're probably just a retard.

>>4404761
anon i just want an example image to make sure the program i'm building doesn't crash if it encounters such an image.

>>4404762
then fire up kidpix and make one numbnuts

>>4404767
i'm unable to. i can make an image above 24bits just fine but when counting the actual colors with other programs they are not above 16777216. i want an image with 17 million colors or more to make sure my own program can handle that, and I can't make or find such an image.

Back when he was just the twilight kid I never once imagined pattinsonkino would become a thing.

File: 16bpc.png (1.12 MB, 640x480)

1.12 MB PNG

>>4404773
I got u bro

>>4404782
original colors: 48 BitsPerPixel
current colors: 16,7 Million (24 BitsPerPixel)
appreciate the effort but there's not above 17 million colors in that image

>>4404784
To have over 17 million unique colors the image would have to be over 17 megapixels now wouldn't it? This site won't take a file that big.
But the image is 16bpc. If your dogshit software is telling you otherwise your software is broken. Let me guess, you pulled some image loading library from some rando github and it's converting everything to 8bpc?

>>4404767
>kidpix
Goddamn that takes me back

>>4404789
you seem to think i can just google "example image with more than 17 million colors" but it's not that easy. i wouldn't have asked here if i could just find such an image. was hoping for a photobro to link me to a photo he took of a bird or something with his über camera

>>4404801
what do you need an image with 17 million colors for? why would you expect some random bird pic to have 17 million colors? the pic I posted has colors that do not exist in 24bpp color space. If you really need 17 million colors here's how you do it:
open a blank image 4123x4124 pixels 16bpc
make a gradient all the way across from blue to black, no dithering
add a new layer "add" mode
make a gradient all the way from top bottom red to black, no dithering
now fill 3252 pixels manually with a hard edge tool solid black
if you did it right you now have an image with 17000000 unique colors

>>4404824
thanks, i'll try to make one again
>why would you expect some random bird pic to have 17 million colors?
i had just hoped someone on /p/ used a camera capable of capturing super many colors
>what do you need an image with 17 million colors for?
i just want to make sure my software doesn't crash if it encounters it

>>4404833
Why are you asking this shit in the video thread

>>4404911
i just searched for a "general" and picked this one, maybe the post count looked the most promising at the time or something.

what do you guys think about using anamorphic lenses as an amatuer? the images they produce look great but theres a learning curve to using them, is it better to just use spherical to start?

>>4404993
Zero advantage. They provide cool bokeh effects and lens flares. In exchange you lose autofocus and often make manual focusing a pain too depending on the lens (some anamorphic adapters require you to focus twice).

>>4404993
Bucket list item, love everything about them except the lens flares

>>4404093
Not quite... Here's DSLRvideoshooter's review of one:
https://youtu.be/wfAYvs8qz0E?feature=shared

>>4405091
Well if DSLRvideoshooter thinks it isn't a heaping pile of shit...

>>4404914
baka son

>>4404996
Can’t you just add black bars in post and use a spherical lens to get the same effects maybe with a cardboard cutout taped to your spherical lens to get the magical bokeh you are after?

>>4405185
Damn! Yeah that’s all it is, holy shit you’re a genius!!

>>4405190
Anon:
>Smart enough to know what anamorphic adapters are
>Strangely has no idea what adding black bars to get same look in post is...

Me:
?

>>4405185
No.
The way the bokeh looks you'd be losing a lot of light taping cardboard to try and achieve a similar effect. You'd also lose the lens flares, unless you artificially added them in post.
I don't think it's worth getting anamorphic lenses personally, but I think it's even stupider to go to all that trouble to imitate them instead of just using one.

>>4405201
Fuck!! Wow, you’re a level above us all, teach us more!!!

>>4405185
no, but you can fool people that can't tell the difference

>>4405206
No, just average...

Do any of you compressed recorded footage? I've been wondering about using AV1 since it's supposedly better than X265, but I'm always concerned about potential quality loss.

>>4405306
What do you want to achieve exactly? Reduce file size prior to archiving the project?

Thread reminding me of quarantine days

>>4405507
Do you mean pandemic days? And in what way?

>>4405306
>>4405451
My guess is the poster wants the highest quality video possible so that when he uploads his kino cat videos to YouTube the compression algorithm doesn’t destroy video quality as badly as it would if the poster already compressed the video before uploading it to YouTube.

Does a GoPro Hero 3+ Black Edition support true 240 fps recording, or is it interpolated?

>>4405520
I fucked up and posted to the wrong thread, sorry lol

>>4405451
File size reduction for archiving.

>>4405624
Okay. Compressing the source material for archiving is not a recommended approach, but if you do that it's important that you confirm that the compressed material is: 1) still editable 2) you can still tweak the colors, crop and upscale the material as much as you would need in the future 3) doesn't degrade visually during slow and high action takes.
If those 3 points are met, then you can go ahead.
As for the formats, I'd suggest staying away from the ones you listed as they are no meant for editing, but rather delivery. You can experiment, but it's all up to you to figure the right encoding settings.
Imo it's better to go with more standardized formats that use inter-frame coding, so consider XAVC Long-Gop or AVC-Ultra LongG. You can edit these directly without having to do additional transcodes, and they will have long term support in most NLE and video processing programs. There are also multiple bitrate tiers, so you can more flexibly pick the one that fits the space savings that you expect.
When picking format settings it's important to match or exceed color parameters of the source file. Keep chroma subsampling same or higher, e.g. if chroma is 4:2:2 the compressed format should be 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, but not 4:2:0. If the colors are YUV, then the format should be YUV, not RGB. If the color space is rec709 or slog3/s-gamut or whatever, then it should be that and not something else. If the bitdepth is 10-bit, then the output should also be at least 10-bit. The only exception is if the bitdepth is 8-bit, then it'll be more efficient for the output to be 10-bit or more (due to more precise rounding) and not 8-bit.
When it comes to audio, there's no reason it should be compressed, so try to keep it uncompressed matching the sampling and bit depth of the source.
The formats that I suggested can do all that.

>>4405753
Had you been me talking that much people would think you're mentally insane. I wish I could talk as big and long as you anon. It'd make my life a lot easier. Especially when it's about filmmaking or photography, or when I'm trying to discuss complex themes in a screenplay I could be writing.

>>4405764
>namefag whining that he can't post masturbatory paragraphs
are you actually this lacking in self-awareness?

>>4405921
Stop abusing power.

File: reechtarded.jpg (208 KB, 1555x1037)

208 KB JPG

>oh so when i go on an unrelated, incoherent schizophrenic rant about being an incel i'm crazy but when someone writes just as many words talking about camera technology they're SANE!?!?!?!?
If anyone hasn't filtered Zach yet, now is the time to do so. There's nothing of value you can tell him besides to take his meds anyways.

Check out the [Settings] of 4chan x/xt/the unmodified website, look for filters, enable name filtering, type in Zach, save, refresh the page, done. The native filters need cookies to work, if you clear them frequently install 4chan X.

>>4405948
You lack the ability to read yourself and others.

File: Untitled.png (108 KB, 2030x1027)

108 KB PNG

>>4405948
If you want to hide stubs so you can't even tell he's there, you also need 4chan X

Hide thread stubs in the native filter doesn't work on replies :(

>>4405954
Goodbye and on my vacation I'll be doing something with my life like working and studying. And good luck with all those records on your behavior jann- I mean anon. Certainly gives your website a good image to real artists as opposed to snobs.

>>4405948
I filtered him too. He’s legit mentally disabled and had to spend time in a psychiatric ward by his own admission. He shouldn’t be here. The only thing that will make him leave is no more attention.

>>4405956
lmao good riddance leave forever

>>4405948
>4chan x/xt/the unmodified website
Is there anything recommended for phone posters to use?

File: 1691996601048177.webm (2.39 MB, 444x250)

2.39 MB WEBM

>>4405965
>Is there anything recommended for phone posters to use?

>>4405956
Later, faggot.

>>4405201
>>4405185
No, you can’t
Aside from the aspect ratio and bokeh, there are light artifacts that only happen when the image is anamorphosed

Okay, so how do I spare time in college for video work?

>>4406396
Drop out of college and go suck cocks for a living

>>4406398
This demonstrates the opposite of the maturity and intelligence you claim to have.

>>4406400
>>4406398
If you suck the right cocks and don’t mind getting crabs or aids you might find someone who’s willing to fund your films. That’s what Hollywood does. Am I right?

>>4406410
Hollywood is about social maturity, having recognizable filmmaking ability, and having leadership skills. If you're in crew all these skills lean towards the technical field, but if in things like direction and acting it leans more towards performance. I'd much rather believe that than some idiotic way of looking at things, given of how I have talked to real people in the industry. You wouldn't last very long on the set given your attitude unless you go complete 180, and even then you still wouldn't last long as your anger would boil at the sight of people who want to work with you.

It's your move, you can continue living your entire life alone trying to fit your arrogance of how the world is shit onto others risking potential clients and jobs in the industry, or you can learn to be respectful and drop this feeling like you are always in a room full of idiots attitude. Hollywood hires smart people willing to compromise and willing to work with others. Change how you feel towards others, and you may make it. Otherwise the most I see you doing is hitching rare clients who hate like you do and working at McDonalds in your spare time. Having a positive attitude is more important than skills as a filmmaker.

>>4406414
What do you think you’re talking about? You’re a fast food cook.

Have you met people from hollywood? Not only have I, a B list actor-director is my cousin and i’ve met some A listers. They are all horrible sardonic people who look down on people who are 10x more capable than you like they are you.

Hollywood: not a nice place, not nice people. Did you know the way movies are financially managed is engineered to ensure only the actors get paid, and an unfair share at that? The movie is a corporation that exists to pay excess fees to whoever is at the top of the privilege food chain.

>>4406396
You said you were going to leave you fucking liar

>>4406414
>Hollywood hires smart people willing to compromise and willing to work with others
This is exactly why I want absolutely nothing to do with the Hollywood industry. Have fun with your clients and your compromises you weak fool, you will never be an artist.

>>4406414
>Having a positive attitude is more important than skills as a filmmaker
This is the problem with modern filmmaking

File: alexa update.jpg (165 KB, 960x1280)

165 KB JPG

>>4402790
>Are you Australian anon that bought the arri as a hobby?
That's not him, but its me :)
Latest update is I got 3 PL Zeiss lenses for $1500AU and two 128GB SxS cards for $400AU from California.
Cards give me just under a hour of recording @4444 so that's nice.

>>4406612
That's a very nice setup with a nice set of lenses that should serve you well. Please post some links and pics of some of your work with it!

>>4406612
>Walking around Darling Harbour with a tinnie and a meat pie for lunch
>See some shirtless yobbo with his VB cap on holding a huge cinema camera
>Legend is harrassing the local wildlife (tourists) asking them to go back
>Uploads yuge high quality footage to YouTube of a complete list of local slurs for archival purposes
Legend.

>>4406612
How much have you spent in total now on everything
And how usable is it

>>4406612
What type of Zeiss lenses did you get. Master primes, Ultra primes or some other flavor of Zeiss lenses!

>>4406612
Nice.

>>4402875
i would tell them to fuck off, there has never ever been a rule against tripods ever. If its impeding other park goers fun time then they should ban the slow walking dumbass old asian people shuffling at 0.5 nautical miles per hour.

>festival notification date comes
>no update on submission status
It's over isn't it? Goddamnit, I just for once want to get some fucking good news like not everything I do is fucking shitty and that there might be any sort of light or future at the end of the tunnel instead of the inevitable moment where I realise I have to bow out because I'm too old to be spending thousands on a "hobby" that isn't making me any money while working part time in a job that pays pennies
/rant

File: GedR4oVWIAAFMuH.jpg (40 KB, 493x663)

40 KB JPG

>>4406825
im not even sure which festivals are the legitimate ones. They all seem to be email scams. The main film festival in my state is legitimate though and ive always wanted to enter it but being a neet i have no money to hire actors. I think your problem could be resolved by networking with people, i once matched with a lady on a dating app that somehow worked in the tiny ass film industry here and she got me into her casting agency but then we stopped talking for some reason. The point is networking though, many people get in through sheer clout but for others its getting your picture seen by the right eyes. Weinstein would never of hired Devine but Devine only needed John Waters. The right people will be the right matches

>>4406826
I thought this one would be good because it's connected to my old uni and I've seen evidence that the screenings actually take place.
But it is what it is. I should be getting drunk but it doesn't really make me feel any better so I guess I'm just going to stare vacantly at my computer screen clinging onto the hope that maybe it's not as bad as it obviously is

>>4406828
how about you post it here, we will audience it. I love watching anon films. You shouldn't feel bad either because the distinction between filmmaking and video making is how you see yourself. This is why you should continue to take yourself seriously so others will too. Maybe a weakness can become a power and you could even take teh drunkedness and inject it into the production cycle

>>4406838
>how about you post it here
I might do that in a few months after it finishes its attempt at a festival run. Maybe not. The lead actor is black and I don't think I'll have the energy to deal with racist seething. Also it's a feature and who has time for that lmao
>You shouldn't feel bad either because the distinction between filmmaking and video making is how you see yourself. This is why you should continue to take yourself seriously so others will too
Good advice. Hard to follow. I don't about you and others, but filmmaking for me is another extension of my escapism. It's a way to avoid life and everything. My thoughts and feelings bleed into it obviously but it's pretty difficult for me to present it as anything other than "haha yeah I made this thing but you probably don't care - which is fine lol".
I've met so many showboaty arrogant filmmakers who make crap and try to overcome their complete lack of talent with boastfulness and a big energy. And it's so fucking cringe. I'm really arrogant as well which makes it worse. I just want to hide behind my films and never speak about them (publicly) so that I can essentially protect them from me.
"Like yeah, I'm a twat and all the rest, but don't conflate me with my films"

>>4406878
Don’t worry about racism bro if your film is good. This is /p/ aka /vid/ not /pol/

If your film sucks or it looks like your actor as a DEI ( didn’t earn it) hire well let you know.

But if your film is good and the acting is good I don’t think you’ll find many racist ‘tards here. Just keep it off of /pol/ ‘cuz that place is a cesspool.

>>4406878
just take it as it comes. with my photography they dont get many likes on Instagram at all, and as much as we all dont want to admit that low like counts doesnt affect us, it does. I stopped uploading for a long time because the reception or engagement would be way too low, but then i realised that this is my instagram account, this is my page, i upload for myself. Its a portable portfolio, its a collection of states of mind and the progression of that. Whenever i look over my old photos i think of where i was and what i was doing at the time and its nice to do, and the satisfaction of creation comes back to me. You dont need others to enable you, only yourself can enable you and when you turn against yourself thats when the whole world turns on you too. For every director that has 'made it' and theres 20 that didnt but that didn't stop them. Everything has been done before but you havent done it before, and your voice is what matters

>>4406825
Dude fuck that shit. Majority of festivals are shit, and the ones that aren’t you’ve gotta either know the programmers or pay to get in, and then the 0.01% that are actual legit fests that program on artistic merit are just extremely hard to get in.
This says absolutely nothing about the quality of your art. I submit my films to fests just for fun, and if they get in then hey that’s icing on the cake- but main reason I make them is to make them. Doesn’t matter if they get in or not, I already know it’s a game rigged against me to begin with, and if I’m happy with the art that’s all that fucking matters.
You can be 70+ years old still making art, still doing any hobby, who gives a fucking shit? I know plenty of people who blow thousands on their dumbass fucking hobbies and have absolutely nothing to show for it. You’ll have films, you can upload them, you can self distribute, you can do whatever you want with them for as long as you choose.
Just trying to say, festivals aren’t the end all judgment of quality or validity. Far from it.

Audio question
>getting into movie making
>for a first thing have a ~3 minute short documentary sketched out
>have on-camera mic (RODE VideoMic Pro) on top of S5iiX
>but need to record good quality ambient sound also
>leaves, cars, birds, water, working machinery, the whole atmosphere 360°
What kind of gear would fit the bill? In a reasonable price bracket for starting amateurs, yet something that would give acceptable results and not something that I would instantly grow out of

And to go on from here, same circumstances
>how to best record people talking in such situation
Can't do a boom with a boom guy, as I work solo. Some clip-on bluetooth mics or what? I know next to nothing about amateur film audio, as I come from photography world

>>4406949
Hate to be that guy, but this is such a broad general question that you really should just fucking google this shit and start doing research on your own. There’s way too much shit to get into on this subject with the way you’re presenting it.
If you have a more specific question, please ask away.

>>4406951
Can it be done with a few bluetooth mics and a cheap zoom dictaphone so it actually sounds okay for normies?

>>4406952
Yes absolutely

>>4406952
No absolutely not

>>4406952
Hmm maybe

>>4406949
I think the dji mic 2 should be usable for all of your scentsuoe - get some stereo mounting bracket to use on camera for ambient shit, and attach them to your subjects as lavs when you need to

>>4407082
*for all of your scenarios

>>4406878
>The lead actor is black and I don't think I'll have the energy to deal with racist seething.
If you actually think this is a possibility, then you really need to take a REALLY long break from the internet and quit perpetuating this meme by projecting your own racism.

>>4406897
>>4406907
>>4406910
Wow. That's much nicer than any response I expected.
I'm so used to just spiraling into another depression. It's really easy for me to just project my own toxicity onto everyone else.
Thanks.
>>4407093
You're probably right. I'm gonna stop posting

File: _91408619_55df76d5-2245-4(...).jpg (55 KB, 976x850)

55 KB JPG

I have been watching hundreds of youtube videos now recently about cameras, cinematography, lighting etc. and I feel like almost all of them get lost in technicalities.
When I was in photography class the teacher would also go like you have to look out for this, make sure its in focus, make sure there is no under/overexposed parts anywhere etc. basically making everything formularic, more thinking what other photographers doing everywthing by the formular were doing.

I feel like they are obsessing too much what other cinematographers/photographers think is right or wrong, things normal people outside don't even notice or think different about. But most of them don't really seem like very creative or imaginative people so the formulaic approach is right for them. I mean I know couple people working in that field and a lot of them are quite dim, so I guess working by the formular works best for them.

Bump limit reached, new thread
>>4407161
>>4407161

>>4407132
Gotta know the rules to break em anon