>>4467266
>if I invent a strawman that didn't happen then you look very silly

How the fuck do you guys find cool locations to film at? Don’t want to use my shitty apartment, don’t want to use stupid public crowds/areas, don’t want to pay AirBnb and still potentially get a lawsuit.

>>4467589
I've used airbnb before, but that was years ago and I'd be wary of doing it again now that every property has cctv cameras inside and they tack on cleaning charges for everything.
I've found a lot of success in town hall spaces. They tend to be relatively cheap, central, and can be implied to be basically any location you need. If you're prepared to do proper set decoration, then they're even more perfect because they tend to be pretty large open spaces that can easily accommodate set builds and large lights.

>>4467589
Go on peerspace and get a legit place to film. It’s cheap where I live and you don’t need insurance. At least not where I live, if you live in LA or NYC or another famous filmmaking area it might cost you a lot more to use peerspace then if you live in the middle of nowhere where filmmaking isn’t a big thing.

>>4467624
>It’s cheap where I live
Can you give me a ballpark for a day rate?

>>4467624
There are only 3 locations on there for my town and they're all £100/hour. I live in the middle of nowhere

File: Apple-iPhone-17-Pro-03.jpg (262 KB, 1920x1080)

262 KB JPG

prores raw, genlock, maybe open gate?
is it going to be any good (for what it is)?

>>4467865
It's still a fucking phone. It's probably quite nice to have as a bcam and everyday cam. For guerilla shooting it's unparalleled. But for serious work just buy a fucking camera.

>>4467820
That’s what I’m seeing as well. You can rent an Airbnb for $150 for the entire day. Might just try to send messages to a handful asking if I can rent the place and if they mind I shoot a video there.

>>4467865
What the hell are those measurements?
>.5 1 2 4 8
Can't be ND

>>4467678
Anywhere from $25 (podcast rooms) to over $300 an hour (fancy places). Cheaper rates don’t allow nudity alcohol or smoke machines.

>>4467946
> shoot a video there

If you are not in a major filmmaking hub LA or NYC they are more likely to say yes especially if you don’t become obnoxious to other people while you’re filming that the Airbnb. If you are in LA or NYC you’ll probably need to pay more because major filmmaking hubs suck.

>>4467997
>$25/hr
Ok, that’s doable. Guess I can…make a short film about…a podcast?

>$300/hr
>$2,400/day
lmao

>>4467993
zoom, some of them will be cropped

>>4468044
It used to be a much better deal if you booked for 8 hours, you’d only need to pay for four hours. Those deals are long gone and peerspace has gotten way more expensive. The other thing that sucks now is that peerspace tends to double book so you rent gear (which isn’t something I do) you could lose money because you’d have your gear and no place to shoot. I have rented those very cheap motel rooms for a shoot, but that’s risky.

>>4468152
>very cheap motel rooms
>that’s risky
How so? They see you carrying shitload of gear in and knock on the door in a few hours? Send someone to steal your shit?

>>4468256
Somebody doing something illegal in another motel room (drugs or hookers or laying low after another crime) sees your camera gear and thinks your filming them.

>>4467865
The only thing it's missing is the 32-bit meme audio.

>>4468270
lol how is 32-bit float a meme?

>>4468280
Everything's a meme to contrarian shitposters. Ignore them. Useful features are useful to you or they're not.

I think what pisses me off so much about camera youtubers is that they spend more time showing footage of themselves holding the camera and trying to look epic instead of just presenting interesting footage shot using the camera.
It's fucking atrocious.

>wasting time on youtube instead of shooting
couldn't be me

>>4468280
it's a meme because it's a technological crutch that people with a modicum of skill and conscientiousness never had a need for

24 bit audio was historically considered excessive. it's not a game changer like being able to place a focus point anywhere in the frame or use autofocus at all, replacing the need for highly precise motor skills and extremely sharp eyesight. it's more like subject detection and tracking AF. cool for a new user but everyone who minds their own work can already place a focus point themselves. a literal disabled child can run with single point AF and a touchscreen these days.

>>4468573
>people with a modicum of skill and conscientiousness never had a need for
Lies. It's a surprisingly common occurrence for high budget films to need to rerecord audio, or foley, because the levels unexpectedly peaked. If you ever attend film festivals, you'll see lots of films where this has happened and they couldn't afford to adr. If you watch documentaries it's also very apparent because they can't rerecord.
Unexpected volume peaks happen. On top of that, it saves so much time to not have to monitor levels while recording. There's literally no reason to be this snooty about it.
>it's not a game changer like being able to place a focus point anywhere in the frame or use autofocus at all
When usable autofocus first started appearing in dslrs, people were much more critical than you about how unnecessary and detrimental it was, often using the exact same argument that it was a crutch that people with skill had no need for. It happened in this very general more times than I can count.

>>4468573
>it's a meme because it's a technological crutch that people with a modicum of skill and conscientiousness never had a need for
If anything things are worse now because it wasn't like you got much time to work as a sound recorder before, now there's even less because people assume 32 will cover it, but it can't fix mic issues or placement

>>4468573
>it's a technological crutch
lmao

>>4468280
People usually take "32bit float" to mean "you can't make this audio input clip by overloading it", but the preamp's and the converter's headroom in the analog domain are very much finite, so using a higher digital resolution doesn't solve anything and produces needlessly bigger files.
The thing that can be helpful if you're unable to set the input gain control to an acceptable level is an automatic input gain feature that lowers the input gain when the signal would overload something, but this works the same way with 24bit fixed point files save for a few added dB of noise, but the noise of a 24bit file is already -144dBFS, so negligible for even high end audio production.

The non-meme solution is simply to set up the input gain so that the loudest sound you expect on set doesn't overload anything, and then lower it by an additional 12dB to 24dB to make sure nothing clips even if a louder sound is recorded.

what do you think about fujifilm x-s20?

How do you manage massive video data? If I film raw and have 1TB of footage after a day of shooting. Would you delete them after editing and rendering your video? Coming from photography I always kept all raw files in order to edit them years later (which I did sometimes since my edit style changed).

Alternative is to shoot in a lower format so it's easier to keep everything.. but that comes at lower quality and worse colors. Hmmm

>>4468854
edit on ssd, once the project is done move it to the nas. backup really important stuff, don't worry about the snapshit tier work

Going to buy the Nikon ZR as my video camera (and some photos on the side). What Nikon Z lenses would you recommend for video? Travel, kids at home. My first one gonna be the 40mmf2 for its tiny size and small price. I read that it has lots of character too which is nice.
I'm more of a 50mm guy so I may buy a 50mm1.8 later on, even it's close to the 40mm. Or the Voigtländer 50mm f2 apo which is even sharper, but only manual. And to be more flexible: 24-120mmf4. Is that a good trio?

>>4468854
That’s why I like the blackmagic pocket cinema cameras. I buy a new ssd for each job. I keep the ssd drives stored. I edit the current job on my computer and I can go back and get an old ssd and edit it in resolve if I want to try new looks.

>>4468854
I bought a new camera literally just because it had smaller file sizes. This is why some cameras aren't practical at all imo.
But yeah, as other anons said, separate harddrives for every new project.

>>4468890
out of curiousity, what camera did you buy?

>>4468895
Lumix s5ii.
This was a couple of years ago. I had been using a canon 5div (very underrated btw) which shot 8bit 422 4k in an mjpg format. Great quality, but 500mb/s (or thereabouts) which added up to around 256gb/hour.
I contrast, my s5ii shoots 10bit 422 4k at around 150mb/s which gets around 70gb/hour (and also 420 6k that I don't use much because of how compressed it is but is around 80gb/hour).
The s5iix would've been better because it has an intraframe codec but at the time it was significantly more expensive, for identical hardware, and I wasn't too bothered.

>>4468854
It’s the price of doing business. Thankfully SSDs and HDDs keep getting cheaper. Edit on SSD, then label the drive and store it, or move storage files to larger HDDs.

>>4468877
this has been the way for years on many systems, i know guys that keep a extra ssd so you have two per job

>>4469080
I don’t know about now. But when I first got my bmpcc 4k it was the only camera that recorded directly to an ssd drive. That was the main reason I got the camera. I could go to a bestbuy before my gig and get a 1tb or 2tb ssd drive for under $250 so I’d have enough storage for the gig. This was way before covid when I actually had work filmng live bands. Now, I have nothing to do with anything because live bands haven’t picked up in my area yet even though covid is over, so I use my bmpcc 4k to shoot meme cat videos.

>>4469083
>shoot meme cat videos
Based

Is 4k/30 in the nlog of the nikon zf alright for some family/travel videos? Or better buy a camera that offers 4k/60? With 60 I can slow it down to 30 to get those smooth slow motion shots that are useful for some landscape, streets, or what do you think?

File: 083246.png (108 KB, 710x397)

108 KB PNG

>>4469083
recording monitors can output to ssd, also back on the original bmcc you would insert drives

File: nraw vs r3d (same file, j(...).jpg (528 KB, 4590x3442)

528 KB JPG

So everyone's favourite web forum apparently discovered an interesting/weird trick for nikon cameras that I haven't seen here.
If you take an nraw file and change the extension to r3d raw, resolve will interpret it as red footage without issue and unironically give a better image than just doing the normal nraw to nlog process.
I can't test this because imagine unironically buying a nikon for video. Anyone have a camera to confirm?

>>4469137
Lmao this cannot be real

>>4469140
It apparently gives all the normal red controls like chroma noise reduction, while also interpreting the blues better which are notorious for clipping in nraw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7U-WysxaRw
(warning, tard youtuber)

>>4469137
>>4469140
>>4469141

So rather then giving you a r3d file after buying red, they make you do a janky hack to get it.

>>4469149
...no

>take rec709 footage
>cst to log
>cst back to rec709
>image looks different than how it started
???

>>4469799
>Buy a raw potatoe
>Bake it. Looks good
>Take baked potatoe, mash up insides, add sour cream, bacon, and scallions
And that's how you make a jacket potatoe guys

>>4469806
'Potato' doesn't have an 'e' in it. Dumb esl

>>4469814
How many languages does Paul Allen speak?

File: xt ios.jpg (206 KB, 833x1111)

206 KB JPG

prores battle?

what free video editor is the best nowadays?

>>4471240
resolve

>>4471240
Windows clipchamp

>>4470630
Arri wins with a tko.

>>4471240

kdenlive

>>4471280
How does it stack against Windows Movie Maker? hehe

>>4471353
Different. Not worse or better. Windows Movie Maker at least was so simple and effective for basic edits that it's downright lovable. Kind of like classic MS Paint.
Clipchamp has more features, a bit more on the bloated "freewarium" side especially considering their default file location is onedrive.
I'd rather just use Movie Maker for the most basic cutting and editing etc, and get resolve or vegas pro or whatever for more complicated shit.

>the whole universe conspiring to stop me filming
FUUUUUCK
This sucks so fucking much.
>location unavailable
>give up
>stop being a pussy, find new location
>new location is also unavailable (they don't tell you their schedule by the way, you have to find out only by expressing interest)
>I'm ready this time, backup location already prepared that actually has a posted schedule (it's just far less ideal)
>casting website breaks after letting me spend an hour writing my casting call without saving (cause I'm a dunderhead)
>type the whole thing back up for another hour
>realise that retyping it doesn't fix the janky ass website
>realise I'm already compromising heavy on the location and would have to rush the casting process as is, nevermind work with a janky platform that wants to fuck me over
>realise it's not getting made (this year)
I have to make it next year. And not even just in the new year. Snow will fuck me in January/February so I really need to wait an entire freaking year. And at that point I won't even be making the same film because people change you know? I'm so frustrated. When I eventually make this thing, it better be the best fucking film ever made because I swear I am so fucking done right now.
/rant
/blogpost

>>4471719
I know this doesn’t help- but I’m in a very similar position as you. Getting fucked out of my location DURING THE SHOOT. Spending weeks finding another suitable location. It’s a compromise of course. And season is changing to rainy season where I’m at, so I will most likely also get fucked by weather for the next 4-5 months. I’ve got a second short idea that doesn’t require that specific location, so I can always pivot to that idea, but it also feels like another compromise.
It helps reading that others out there are in similar situations. Thanks for sharing- don’t give up.

>>4471719
>>4471766
Peerspace does that a lot. Double book. Which kind of sucks because you rent your gear and have no location to use the gear?

>>4471766
I think as filmmakers it's easy to see other people, from the incredibly famous to the no-budget youtube shit, making their films on a constant basis and feel a sense of fomo. It certainly doesn't help if you read any sort of film news site/blog that's constantly keeping you updated on who's doing what. It's like how social media lulls you into thinking that everyone else is living a perfect life of constant vacations and hanging out with bikini-clad women while drinking margheritas - only the good stuff is ever posted.

>>4471981
Yeah. Can’t remember who said it, but what you’re “supposed” to be doing is- always have a project in pre-production, a project in production, and a project in post-production. So you’re always moving forward and completing shit. But I don’t see how that shit is actually fucking possible 90% of the time, especially if you aren’t independently wealthy/already established.
I just have a horrendous case of imposter syndrome, I feel embarrassed to call myself a “filmmaker” if I’m not actively working on something or have released something recently. I couldn’t even seriously refer to myself as a filmmaker until I had released numerous shorts and two features.

>>4471981
>only the good stuff is ever posted
This. It’s like science journals only ever posting the fully funded and successfully-proven research. You’re actually holding science back by NOT posting the failures and where shit went wrong too.

>>4471984
Fml. I have had my three big projects locked in that status for the last 5-7 years. One of them requires all its footage to be shot the same weekend every year, so not much I can do about how long it’s taking on that one. By the time I get my footage processed I have to wait another year to get another shot I decide I need, or gods forbid reshoots. The one in post has been in post for fucking ages awaiting the humongous audio mix, which I’ve just been able to get moving on thx to Ai stem separation, but assembling it all now is like making a couple of Pink Floyd albums. A giant mix of a million very precise pieces. The one in Pre is actually the farthest along, bc it’s an archival doc and I’ve inadvertently amassed all the source material by now, I just haven’t even put a basic outline of the project together bc every time I get 5 minutes of time, I spend it on the other 2. But in my mind, I think I can make “something cool” out of it all. Great.

I’ll be 90 by the time I finish any of them, and probably they’ll all be finished at the same time. when I’m dead.

>>4472009
>requires all its footage to be shot the same weekend every year
>giant mix of a million very precise pieces
Jesus, what kind of films are you trying to make? You can shoot some easier, more practical projects, man…

>>4472220
It sounds to me like he’s shooting a yearly event like a music festival, concert or some sporting event and wants to make a documentary about that event using footage shot live at the event. I don’t know what else only lets you shoot footage of it once a year. I also don’t know why the anon doesn’t use multiple cameras to get all of the footage he needs in a year like the film makers who made Gimme Shelter (the documentary about the free concert in California that turned into the documentary about the murder that happened during that concert.)

What do you guys all shoot when you're not making anything specific? Do you shoot stuff just for fun?

File: 1642178096345.jpg (63 KB, 1024x574)

63 KB JPG

>>4473285

File: 004.jpg (1003 KB, 1920x1080)

1003 KB JPG

If anyone can recommend a /t/ for a relatively recent release of cc, that would be great. [blog] I just requested to reduce my hours at work down to part time, so that I can focus on my passion project (experimental film), but now my budget is very tight [/blog]

All I could find on here were:
>>>/t/1212777
>>>/t/1287963
Both the same, and appear to be the outdated CS as they're labelled as "master collection" (I'm guessing the "2022" is for the torrent release, as CS got discontinued in 2012, along with the master collection branding).
And:
>>>/t/1297131
I'll probably give this a shot, as it's labelled as CC, but it would be cool to have a fellow /p/een directly endorse a release for my peace of mind.

>>4468570
>showing footage of themselves holding the camera and trying to look epic
You have to understand, they are the face of their own brand, and showing off the product is secondary to promoting their brand.

>>4468579
>they couldn't afford to adr
AI tools. ElevenLabs (paid) and Adobe Podcast Enhance (free), can both be used to remove instances of peak.

>>4468854
>How do you manage massive video data
Very large files I'm unlikely to ever need again gets deleted, but the master copy of the completed project gets archived at full quality. But still, the majority of footage I have shot over the years remains archived, with backups. It's a real problem.

>>4473285
>Do you shoot stuff just for fun?
Insects, flowers, birds, re-shooting the same subjects like mountains and trees in each season in all weather conditions (to make flip-book/timelapse sequences). That's why I have a smart phone, ready to shoot, anytime, anywhere. Perfect videos to accompany my stream of consciousness narrative style.

>>4473430
>they're labelled as "master collection"
Ignore what I said here, turns out people releasing CC bundles continue using "master collection"

>>4473430
>AI tools. ElevenLabs (paid) and Adobe Podcast Enhance (free), can both be used to remove instances of peak.
This sort of highlights the issue. There are solutions that aren't being utilised. Why? Because that requires knowledge of its existence and skill to implement, along with additional time spent actually doing it. It all adds up.
There are hundreds of "solutions" in post to every issue. But anyone with experience knows that fixing it in the shoot is always preferable to fixing it in post.

what's the least retarded mic setup for nature sounds on a camera while hiking? my camera does ok video but has trash built in mics. i'm not recording people or myself, just nature sounds. clippy with wind screens on backpack straps?

>>4473752
Have you tried buying an external recorder and then experimenting with a cheap lav mic and a cheap omni mic? See which sounds better for you, and then invest in a more expensive one

>>4474496
>have you tried [anything]
obviously not

>>4474992
a $40 shotgun mic off amazon will be better than your camera tenfold. Only the aspergers-tier nerds require more for amateur video. The directional nature will mean less shit picked up behind the camera (your mouth breathing, clicking knobs etc.) so look for a directional mic as some are omnidirectional which is le bad.

Hey guys, I am going to shoot a video course in my home. It's a small apartment and I don't want to build out a full studio. So I will shoot against a white wall. Now, I know how to replace the background later in Adobe Premier. But any tips on how to generate a nice background with AI that will fit in perfectly in terms of perspective?

I'm going to shoot with a 35mm lens (on full frame) about 2 meters away. So basically I have camera, then me 2 meters away, and then another 1 meter to the wall. I am sitting at a desk.

I'd like to create a nice living room as a background.

File: 131.jpg (715 KB, 2124x1050)

715 KB JPG

>>4475811
just use this

File: blowout.jpg (256 KB, 1280x720)

256 KB JPG

>>4474997
>t.

12 hour shooting day yesterday, fucking exhausted right now. Lit the environment (a kitchen) and had to completely remove nearly everything visible on the kitchen countertops. Shot 4 different camera setups (2 involving dialogue, 1 involving dolly movement), then 5 quick b-roll shots. Then had to setup the kitchen again exactly how we found it of course.
I feel like we should have gotten something like this done way faster. Oh well.

>>4476272
>had to completely remove nearly everything visible on the kitchen countertops
Why?

>>4476496
It's called cinema, you wouldn't get it

>>4476496
Looked like shit. Also had to remove shit from the walls, shit from the fridge/doors, etc. I’d say tearing down the kitchen for my own set design and then putting everything back took up majority of the time, then next was lighting design (6 lights, each set on their own custom dimming/strobe timers). Actual filming didn’t take very long.
Watched some of the footage back- god I love Blackmagic. Used the gyro stabilization in Resolve- the dolly shot is silky fucking smooth. Insane shit.

>>4476496
artistic intent my man

>>4467259
I havent shot with my big spendy digi camera system in a year. Instead I have bought over two dozen vintage movie cameras and gotte very good at CLAing and rebuilding/fixing them. I just wanted one nice one for myself, but then discovered that certain parts of each model & generation were done better or worse than others, so before I knew it, I had a plan to build myself an ultimate model. Lucky for me they're relatively cheap to buy (cheaper than one that's already been CLA'd) so now I've spent the last few months building myself the ultimate 16mm movie camera while also building a supply of other (honestly perfectly fine) working cameras. I think, before I sell them, I'll put on a film contest, get all the local art kids signed up, put into groups of 3, and give them a week to write and shoot their film, then send the reels out for developing and have a film festival day where everyone is invited to come and watch all the movies and celebrate with drinks and group sex wait no, nevermind we'd need a liquor license for the drinks and everyone would have to be an adult to take part in that. Ok so anyway I think I'll need about a dozen reels of film and afterwards I'll uploady to vimeo where no one will ever see them. f. maybe internet archive bc at least it'll be searchable and stick around. Youtube is fucking worthless and the fucks will just plaster ads all over it and never deliver the money anyway. Anyway that's why I haven't been out shooting with my still camera, I find still images kind of stifling compared to the movement of even a single branch of autumn leaves fluttering in the breeze.

>>4476675
>vintage movie cameras
Brand/models?

>>4476675
>I havent shot with my big spendy digi camera system in a year.
I haven't filmed anything in almost 2 years. I'm literally dropping several thousand making a film in a few weeks because of this.
The great thing is that cameras have gotten so good in the last 5 or so years that any half decent camera from that time period will still hold up great today (which wasn't the case 10 years ago where you'd buy a camera and it'd feel outdated within 2 years easy)

>>4476718
>cameras have gotten so good in the last 5 or so years
It’s pretty insane. Made me finally get a BMCC6KFF once I finally looked into modern cameras.

>>4476778
What's so ridiculous is that relatively cheap cameras are so good that I find myself nitpicking the stupidest shit. Like with the bmc6k, my immediate thought is "damn, if only it had ibis and a better rolling shutter" while forgetting that it records great quality raw 6k full frame video in a multitude of compressed formats that spoil you for choice.
Infuriating. Marketing is very effective at making me think all the new advances with their diminishing returns are necessary.

>>4476789
Yeah, not only did I not give a fuck about those “issues”, but they’re both actually solved if you edit the footage in Resolve. Even more insane.
I kinda went down that hole when looking at built-in ND filters and autofocus. Decided neither of those things matter on a “professional shoot”- you’d be wanting to use higher quality ND filters and manually focusing/LIDAR anyway.

>>4476814
I have pouches of nd/ir but having built in nd still tempts the shit out of me, the guys i knew that had bodies with that were documentary shooters, but I agree that it's unnecessary in situations where you have full control

>>4477019
I saw some comparison tests between in-body and third party, and third party won every time. That was enough to justify for me not having it, plus yeah you can always go for even more convenience with a variable as well

Given the option between a Fuji X-H2S (or the inevitable X-H3S likely coming next year) and a Lumix S1ii as a small and versatile video kit, which would you choose?
Both look very interesting to me.

>>4477027
Personally? S1ii just because of full frame and dynamic range.
As long as you're not filming outside in the blaring sun the s1ii is a beast from what I understand.

>>4477028
I do shoot a lot in low light (both videos and photos) so the full frame would definitely be beneficial.
I've seen great footage with both cameras and just doing some research.

>>4477019
I want that built in nd filter but I shoot live bands doing concerts irl to swapping nd filters is a no go for me. I’m looking for an electronic nd filter that would go into a matte box as a filter so I can use any camera I want, but I haven’t found one that is available for me to buy yet?

>>4477027
All you need is an a7c and a 35mm f2.8

>>4477059
Do you know how good the a7c is when shooting with anamorphic lenses?
I really like the anamorphic look and 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The S1ii has built in desqueeze and stuff like that (I think the Fuji has too). I'd be surprised if the Sony didn't, but I've never really looked into Sony cameras because I found them a little bit boring even though they're great.

Although it seems like you're making a massive compromise shooting with anamorphic lenses unless it's a full on ten billion dollar Hollywood camera setup. It's going to be pretty wonky no matter which brand you shoot with. I just love that look and would like to get a nice video setup where I can go full anamorphic.

A different problem though is, combing that footage with drone footage from something like the DJI mini 5 pro. The look and quality is just so different.

>>4473752
A handheld stereo recorder such as the Zoom H1 mounted on the hot shoe.
It's not upgradable but it's cheap and convenient and it works well.
You definitely want stereo recording for nature sounds.
>>4475811
>I'm going to shoot a video course
>how do I generate a background using AI
>35mm 2m away from a person for a narration
I hope the subject isn't video or photography.
>>4477027
S1ii by a long shot.

>meet with potential actress
>she hasn't looked me up
>has been involved in a lot of film-school-graduate productions
>versus me, entirely self taught and chaotic
>explain my process and low budgets, complete with some self-deprecating jokes
>can visibly see her grow disinterested as she starts mentally writing me off and questioning her life choices
>she feigns interest and says she'll look at some of my stuff
>meeting ends, send followup email, no response
>whatever, you win some, lose some, insecurity be damned
>week later
>get email from her now that she's looked at my stuff, wants to work with me
lol, my ego needed that

>>4477024
Every variable ND I've tried has weird color casts, normally you'd have to stack a ton to get that, I used to shoot long exposure photos and never had problems as bad as variable NDs do.

File: IMG_20251030_141311648.jpg (4.87 MB, 4160x3120)

4.87 MB JPG

Hope this was the only mistake they made.....

>>4479043
I have two camera that don't have built-in nds and the its the cross vignetting that has always annoyed me about the variable nds.
If I'm shooting something I have time and control, I'm renting an ND set and just using 1 or 2 on a matte box.

>>4478979
will you pay her or does she work for free?
>>4479043
You can correct the color cast by white balancing the camera with the filter on. However a lot of filters change the color as the strength of the filter is adjusted. Some keep it constant which is what you should be after.
Here's a good recent comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os4hQEjhKzY
I went with nisi a few years ago, and that has been the best decision.

Speaking of NDs, 2,4,6 stops is the common kit to have or is there something else that is better?

>>4479068
If I hired her I'd be paying. But I probably won't hire her. We'll see

>>4479055
lol that’s surprising from them

>>4467259
This is mildly interdasting.
https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/shot-on-film/

A nice list of the few films that someone's willing to invest a few million extra to shoot on film. I think I'd give anyone willing to spend the extra time, effort and money shooting their load on film the benefit of the doubt. I mean except for the Jurassic Park shit, not sure why that's in there... the rest make sense. ...oh right the Jurassic shit probably chose film for their backdrops to try to make the focus of their movie, a bunch of CGI dino's, seem more realistic by setting them in a decidedly non-cgi medium. Ok ANYWAY, the rest of the list is a kind of a handy roster of films worth giving a chance. ...since there's so much shit being made how do you even narrow it down anymore? This might be an easy way to start.

>>4479078
I have 2 and 4, for super bright outdoors I wish I had the 6 as well

>>4479090
Why not hire her? Cause she was a bitch? Also, just cause she took a week to reply doesn’t mean she suddenly saw your stuff and became interested. Actors want to do projects for two reasons- paycheck or connections. Maybe she had a project fall through and sent you the follow up?
Just trying to give you another dose of humble medicine.

>>4479121
>Why not hire her? Cause she was a bitch?
No. There's definitely a satisfaction in feeling like I get to reject her after previously feeling like she felt I was beneath her.
But she wasn't the strongest I've seen for the role and didn't give me much insight back when discussing it. I think it works best when the actor and director have that connection over exploring the character and where they go. So if I ask "what if she as twirling her hair in the scene?" I want a response like "oh yeah that'd make so much sense because it'd tie into [insert line]" or "I don't know, I thought she was quite reserved in this scene and that might undermine it". That sort of thing. I don't think I was really getting that from her. She could probably do it mostly decently but there are better actresses who I had better rapport with.
>Just trying to give you another dose of humble medicine.
No that's fair. Like I say, after the meeting I was feeling a little insecure so it lifted my spirits.

>>4479122
Good. Wish I wrote projects like that, I never do deep character studies or dense narrative storylines.

File: 1761672568732230.jpg (126 KB, 968x750)

126 KB JPG

I'm getting so frustrated with 24p. I've got it on 1/50 for the shutter speed and even when the camera is completely still on a tripod, the footage of people walking looks choppy as if it lags, no matter if its my phone or my proper camera. I'm using a V60 card which should easily be enough since I'm even using a low bitrate.

What's the deal? Should I give up on this shit and use 30p instead?

>>4479128
I feel the opposite, I use the same settings and always think it looks too smoothed out and soap opera.

For converting footage, I want to compress some b-roll x264 that doesn't matter too much into x265. What CQ level should I be using? I want two styles where one retains the majority of quality but just get the filesize down a little and the other that still looks really good but is much smaller. They would be graded already, so it would be solely for editing/cutting on a timeline.

>>4479128
It's your eyes
I see what you see if I've been doing 60p for an extending period and then switching to 24p. After a while, it starts to look like what >>4479130 said.

>>4479133
I swear there's a stutter. It stuters when reviewing on my camera (which I always figure is down to the screen) but it stutters on my Macbook and my Windows build, so something is not right. I'd post a webm but idk if they work on /p/.

>>4479134
Upload to YouTube, still see a stutter?

>>4479124
What's stopping you?
>>4479128
Check your sharpness. If you're burning-in sharpness, that can make everything look a lot harsher (and is particularly a problem on phones). If it's not that, go through your footage frame by frame and compare it to a cinematic film that you don't think has this problem. See if you can identify the differences

>>4479238
>What's stopping you
I’m not a good enough writer. Would love to collaborate with a good writer someday lol. And always loved the idea of adapting someone’s screenplay and really warping it in the direction/edit to a completely different level. “A man walks down a hallway” can be directed and edited a million different ways…

Do I need a green screen to change background and make it look realistic? Or with AI tools today it's enough to just shoot in front of a white wall?

>>4479282
No need for AI, regular tools are usually good enough. Green screen or any screen that doesn't have any matching color of the subject make it easier to select but you have to make sure the background is far enough that it doesn't affect the subject. There are a lot of people who do chromakey too close to the background and the green light spills on the subject. If your camera supports raw, that keys better than 4:2:0 but 4:4:4 should also be fine. AI tools might help match the lighting of the background but generally try to pick a background first and then setup your lighting to match the direction, diffusion, and temperature.

File: nick-bg.png (1.62 MB, 1870x947)

1.62 MB PNG

>>4479309
Thanks. Any suggestions on how to find a good background? I like Nick Fuentes' background of a penthouse apartment with New York City outside. It's also a video so the lights move. The perspective is very well matched.

https://rumble.com/v4de325-dhs-secretary-mayorkas-impeached-by-congress.html?

I wanna get a camera for taking videos while im travelling around Europe . I currently got a sony a6600 and for pics im happy with it but for video it's not great. Any recommendations for an upgrade for the sony that takes good video and stills that's not an insane price or should i just get a dedicated camera for video.

>>4479328
Do you have lenses already? Then the a6700 would be the natural upgrade.

>>4479334
>Do you have lenses already?
I'm not super invested i only got 3 so i dont mind ditching the sony if there's something better.
>Then the a6700 would be the natural upgrade.
I looked at that but just wanna know if there's something else i could get thats nicer at a similar price point.

>>4479264
I don't know if it's still usable but r/producemyscript used to be full of writers offering up short scripts for credit only. Worth checking out.
Alternatively, why not write anyway?
>I’m not a good enough writer.
It's a skill. You only get better by doing it. You should try writing some super basic shorts. The first short I ever wrote was basically just Only God Forgives reimagined to be filmable in my dorms. And that was nice because there was barely any dialogue so I just focused on the visuals.

>>4479328
What is the issue with the video specifically? Colors, IBIS, framerate, noise?

>>4479341
Main problem is bad rolling shutter. And having 10 color would be a nice extra

>>4479352
The rolling shutter on a lot of APS-C Sony is terrible. https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/ and you can sort by rolling shutter. If the times are different, that usually indicates a crop or line skipping so I would sort by 4k 24p results. I'd probably aim for 1/60s minimum. ZV-E1 is a solid choice and if 12MP is enough for your photos, it or the similar but nicer A7S3 might be all you need. Good luck!

>>4479359
Forgot to mention that the a6700 has much improved rolling shutter over the lower models. I wouldn't get the ZV-10 II that also has a faster sensor since it doesn't have mechanical shutter.

>>4479359
Thanks for the suggestions. I looked at them but they're definitely out of my price range right now especially a7siii. Damn that's expensive even used. A6700 could be a good option but that one i just feel like even with improvements it's not the greatest value.

>>4479384
just buy a gh5 (or gh6)
they're dirt cheap at this point and it will save you dropping several grand on a camera you only use once for some travel videos you never look at again

>>4479386
I was thinking about that but thought it would be easier to just upgrade my current gear than getting a second camera.

>>4479386
These could be a good option if contrast detect is enough for anon. Hate Panasonic colors though even when they got AF right (still not as good as Sony) with the still expensive G9II/GH7.

>>4479391
The way I see it, you have 2 options:
>upgrade to a proper "cinema"-like hybrid that has basically zero flaws and works amazing for photos and videos
>buy a camera specifically for video that is definitely outclassed by a lot of other cameras
(I suppose the third option is to buy a really good photo camera and hope the video is usable, but that's literally every camera so it's a moot idea)
The problem with the first choice is that the only cameras that will satisfy you are very expensive. If it was me, I'd want the canon r1. I don't have six grand to drop though. The r5ii, the lumix s1ii, the sony a1ii, etc these are all great cameras with very different price tags and different flaws. The point being, you can't afford perfection. And if you could, you'd feel a lot of regret in 2 years when there are entry-level cameras that have the features you value the most. And that point a little bit below perfection? You can't afford that either. There is no near-perfect camera that also costs only a thousand bucks.
So you have your second option. And there are so many great cameras that you're really spoilt for choice. Between the canon r8, lumix s9 and sony a7cii, you have 3 fantastic, cheap, small full frame cameras with 10bit 422 4k video. These cameras would be revolutionary even just 5 years ago. But they do have flaws. Whether it's ibis, overheating, rolling shutter or crops, they're not perfect. I can also throw in the nikon z5ii (I feel dirty recommending a nikon) which has internal raw too.
You have to figure out what you value the most. Look at fuji, they have some brilliant aps-c cameras that are relatively cheap. Look at expensive cameras from 5 years ago that you can pick up cheap used.

>>4479393
>Hate Panasonic colors though
I think the problem is that they're so inconsistent. The s1rii has one of the most pleasing sooc pictures of literally any camera to me. But that image is completely different from the s1ii which is completely different from the s1iie

I'm relatively new to video and I'm wondering about autofocus. Today I noticed on some footage that it does a brief in-focus/out-of-focus movement sometimes when moving or something is moving that occurs at least once in every clip. So as a general question, do most people just do manual focus? Even for when things are moving? Should I just set the point of focus to be based on distance and not let it do any autofocus shit?

>>4479428
What camera? If you use subject tracking it shouldn't do that. Pros do manual focus but it's really hard to do with moving things.

>>4479437
I currently just have it set to wide continuous AF, as I'm more or less filming places like shopping malls and streets, along with some videos that have moving forward shots or walking.

>>4479438
Wide continuous AF is basically the camera guessing where it should focus. You could try selecting the AF point and keep the subject on that point but if you have subject tracking it will follow the subject around the frame within reason but the quality of tracking varies with the camera. Otherwise you can try lenses with fast focus motors or increase dof.

>>4479443
Thanks, I'll experimental a little. What should I do about video when the camera is moving? Like say down a street or going around corners where there is no real subject?

>>4479444
Depending on lighting conditions, I would try to for hyperfocal settings with manual focus. https://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Hyperfocal-Distance-Chart.jpg is a chart that will keep the background in focus all the way to half the listed distance in front of that in focus. High f/stops don't matter for video as long as you have enough light unlike in photography where you'll get blurring from diffraction (but still way better than an out of focus subject). Back button/custom button focus can be useful for these situations as well.

>>4479450
Based, thank you. So if I understand correctly, say I was on 35mm with f8, I would set the distance point to being 17ft to keep basically everything in focus?

>>4479451
Yes, well everything from roughly 8.5ft all the way to infinity. If you are in an urban jungle, you'd want to adjust focus closer probably since there might not be anything that far away and probably some stuff you do want in focus a within those 8.5 feet or so. There are hyperfocal calculators out there but this idea is the idea behind Ricoh's snap focus feature so those guys might have a better idea for what works best in the city. But manual focus should make things look better since it's a lot more natural looking than a camera randomly focusing.

>>4479455
>But manual focus should make things look better since it's a lot more natural looking than a camera randomly focusing.
Yeah that's what I'll try for instead, I suspect it was focus hunting badly since I was indoors and there was a lot going on.

>>4479456
I don't want to keep adding "maybe try this" stuff but focus peaking works wonders for some people to help manual focus. It will highlight areas that are in focus in a certain color. I've never been good at it myself but maybe you will have better luck because half the time my camera would tell me something is in focus and the footage was off a bit. Plus when I do it I overshoot and it looks like plain old focus hunting. My target is usually the glint in someone's eye and some of my softer lenses would not work with it unless stopped down.

>>4479457
>focus peaking works wonders
Fuck, I had forgotten about that. I'll take a look at it and figure it out if I can, I played with it once and I had no idea what the colors meant.

>>4479128
Could be your monitor or playback software. Your monitor is probably 60hz or close to that and the player has to convert to that from 24 frames. It's not a 1:1 or 2:1 conversion, some frames have to be multiplied more times than the others, if done sloppily it can look bad, especially with pannning or tracking motion. Try different players (like mpv) and see if any of them are better at framerate conversion.

>>4479438
Decrease AF sensitivity and/or speed, that will help with keeping the focus from shifting so much.

>>4479428
That's called focus breathing.
There are a number of things that can cause it. The camera could be the culprit, just having a bad focusing algorithm. Or you could be using bad settings. Or the lens itself could be the issue.
There's no one sure solution.
But generally speaking, it shouldn't happen on a newer camera with a reputable lens.

>>4479396
>Look at expensive cameras from 5 years ago that you can pick up cheap used.
This is what I've been doing but theres a ton of options and I'm not familiar with any of them

>want to be a director
>shit health, under weight with billion allergies and several chronic illnesses
>balding
it never began for me

>>4479531
Yeah well I'm supposedly this ugly fat gay retard the internet makes me out to be, yet I'm still following filmmaking. Do you want to be as worse as a ugly fat gay retard like me and give up on your dreams? No? Then still follow your dreams.

>>4479532
Looks do matter in the industry as materialistic as showbiz. You can always lose weight and being gay means you are free from lust of women which I believe is a major freedom.

>>4479531
>shit health
Unless your health is physically stopping you from walking outside and holding a camera, this isn't an issue. And if it is, I feel like you've got much bigger problems than not being able to direct
>under weight
That was me. I started counting calories and eating more
>with billion allergies
This is also me. You don't need to eat specific food, sleep in weird places or wear weird costumes to direct though so I don't see how this stops you?
>and several chronic illnesses
That fucking sucks. Same as above though. If you can function in day to day life, you can direct. If not, you have bigger issues.
>balding
Look up Kubrick's hairline and tell me that this is a barrier in any way.

>>4479535
Oh wow. Thanks for replying.

My illnesses are manageable. Is there an end to learning? The feeling someday you'll be prepared to become a "proper" direction?

>>4479533
Looks don’t matter as much with directors, writers, editors. Even actors can play to their looks (cast as “creepy guy”, “gay retarded faggot”, etc)

>>4479533
Not really I lust a lot after women and personally prefer them instead of men.

>>4479538
>Is there an end to learning? The feeling someday you'll be prepared to become a "proper" direction?
lmao if there is then I'm nowhere it. It was only a couple of years that Scorsese was saying that he felt like he finally understood what Kurosawa meant on the subject.
I think one of the biggest hurdles to young filmmakers (aside from money and organisation) is the feeling that you have to be great from the get-go. You have to be like Paul Thomas Anderson or Shane Carruth and come out of the doors swinging with your first feature film.
But if you look at filmmaking as akin to literally any other artform (music, painting, photography) then it's easy to operate with the understanding that your skillset and outlook is constantly evolving. So you can be much kinder to yourself when looking at your early attempts. As long as everything you make builds upon the last thing, you're doing it right.
So don't wait to feel like you're perfect (it will never happen), just make what you can when you can.

>>4479531
>frail, misshapen
the writers room is ready for you

>>4479556
>come out of the doors swinging with your first feature film
Can’t stand this fucking shit. So stupid and nearly always been a lie/untruthful anyway. Any of my favorite filmmaker’s first films are garbage- which they should be.
And anyone who thinks they’re done learning an artform is so fucking stupid I wouldn’t even know where to start

>>4479556
>Shane Carruth
You got me. I want to be Vincent Gallo or Shane Carruth from the get go so bad.

Thanks for answering.

>>4479580
>Vincent Gallo or Shane Carruth
Jesus, you can set the bar higher than that man, have some self respect

>>4467621
What do you mean by 'town hall spaces'? Can I just search city name + town hall and find a rental? I have travelled once to shoot an interview and I just used an airbnb. I can't find a reliable alternative. I tried searching for the next city I'm going to town hall, but they don't have anything about rentals on their website.

>>4467624
Thank you anon, this is a super helpful resource. I was using airbnbs and that was a nightmare.

>>4478979
Where are you hosting your content? I don't want to post on IG because it's thoroughly jewed

>>4479701
>>4479702
Care to share your experiences with Airbnb? Insurance requirements? Release forms? How did you approach the owner?

>>4479716
This wasn't client work, it's my own personal project. I didn't tell the owner.

>>4479718
Rolling the dice- I’ve heard horror stories of owners looking at in-house cameras and once they see camera gear they can kick you out, call the cops, legal threats, etc

>>4479720
Why would they care if you ain’t disturbing the neighbors? Why the fuck would they call the cops over camera shit?

>>4479628
Brown Bunny is a masterpiece

>>4479701
>What do you mean by 'town hall spaces'?
Most towns/cities have spaces that are simple/cheap to rent. Spaces normally used for things like theatre rehearsals, dance groups, birthday parties, wedding receptions etc
>Can I just search city name + town hall and find a rental?
Should be able to. The larger the city the more expensive you'll find them to be though.

File: terry-richardson-backstag(...).jpg (43 KB, 533x298)

43 KB JPG

>>4479580
>>4479628
>>4479751
Is Vincent Gallo, dare I say it... the uncle T-Bone of film?

>4479803
kill yourself, don't reply to my posts

>>4479820
I do what I want, bitch

>>4479751
Not his first feature. It’s great, no masterpiece

>>4479531
I wish you well, but I'm having a hard time replying without going off on you. You think people aren't going to work with you because you're a bald, ugly, and fucked up? You just described half of all millennials. They're not fucking you, they're young and desperate for attention the same way you are. If they think you aren't a sinking ship and can get them attention and experience, they'll be on board. Go make shit. You can pay two actors $50 each to come to your apartment and shoot a short with zero crew. Who told you it should be easy? My first time directing a real film I was so scared and awkward I had to repeatedly sneak away to vomit and completely fucked the project. If you can't wrap your head around the idea of meeting a challenge, start lifting and you might internalize what progress is supposed to feel like. Or what, you want to skip all that and go straight to directing features with a talented crew and actors who could work with literally anyone else but have mysteriously chosen to work with you? Do you actually think that would change if you were pretty? Incorrect. The word you're looking for is "rich." Rich boys get to skip the line, not the beautiful ones, and I wouldn't wish that on you either way. They always suck at what they do. Stop being a pussy, go make shit.

File: 2.jpg (49 KB, 480x454)

49 KB JPG

Soviet mentally raped me so hard that I use to think that cuts were for plebs and tracking shots were for elitists, little did I know that Soviets has lots of man power but very little film stock that's they preferred tracking shots over cuts and retakes. I was so fucking foolish for running after tracking shots at the fucking start of making short films. I think aversions to cuts hindered my progress, fucking hell.

God damn America thank you for saving my ass. I am no longer afraid of cuts.

>>4479904
Good that you've learned. Don't stop there. There's no one way of doing things. Things aren't better because they're harder to do or require more skill. Ultimately you're making films for an audience, not just as a means to jerk off your own capability and impress film nerds. So first and foremost, your films should be entertaining to an actual audience. Not to a theoretical audience of cigarillo-smoking hipsters.

If the most satisfying end to your story is cliched, then embrace it. Don't do something dumb just because it's unexpected. If your film feels similar to someone else's film, that's okay. Don't butcher it out of insecurity. Be practical. Reject the hollywood notion of spending millions on a single shot. Reject the soviet notion of making things long and depressing for the sake of it. Embrace the idea of just making stuff that people will actually want to watch.

>>4479910
>you're making films for an audience
>first and foremost, your films should be entertaining to an actual audience. >Embrace the idea of just making stuff that people will actually want to watch
Fucking kill yourself.

>>4479952
lmao seethe harder faggot
no one wants to watch your pretentious trash about a plastic bag floating in the wind

>>4479953
>p word
I’m not surprised.

>>4479910
>filtered by non-commercial cinema
lmao

>>4479967
"artists" are the most universally derided people on earth ever since it stopped being about honoring the lord christ and started being about le relatively subjective expressionalities fyi

pretentious is a good word. tattoo it on your forehead.

>>4479493
If that's such a common issue, how do proper movies not have that sort of issue when people play them back on their computers and such? Genuinely curious.

>>4479494
>>4479515
I'll try that out. I'll do some other tests too, since I hadn't seen it occur in other video previously. I'm wondering if maybe it was the stabilisation I used in Davinci or something since I haven't looked back at the RAW footage just yet and only the rendered one.

>>4479531
Looks don't matter much if you're not the person in front of the camera. I can't think of many directors that looked good desu, even Stanley Kubrick looked like a deranged mental patient in his later years.

>>4479733
NTA but I worked in commercial photography for a while and owners/decorators don't like their places being used commercially without permission. Home decorators/stagers (they decorate a place professionally and have it available for viewing for inspiration/potential hiring or for buying the home) constantly have issues of photographers using those places for photo shoots of models or for boudior, and then when it shows up online, it can be considered harmful for their business. There's also been a lot of cases where amateurs do these photos and either use it to claim they're pro photographers, claim they do home decorating themselves or use the photos to make their website look professional.

It's a weird world overall, but the takeaway is that people are pretty protective of what's being photographed and why. Usually the boudior people end up with the legal requests since that pisses off home stagers the most.

>>4479969
>no you see it's good because it's intentionally shit
>caring about entertainment is where most filmmakers actually go wrong
kek
>>4479967
if it quacks like a duck...

>>4479973
>I'm wondering if maybe it was the stabilisation I used in Davinci or something
Oh there's a chance it's actually micro-jitters you're experiencing.
In short, speed is relative. It doesn't matter if you're moving 200mph or if the object is moving 200mph, either way you're gonna get motion blur. When you use stabilisation methods in post, they try and fix footage by keeping the framing smooth and consistent. But they can't (or they couldn't in the past, I assume it's a bit better now) fix the image itself and address the motion blur. This creates a very common problem if you're doing lots of handheld shooting, and the go-to case is trying to do a tracking shot entirely handheld.

When you move very fast to track your subject, it creates motion blur. Normally this looks entirely normal because your camera is moving around. But combine this with post-stabilisation and then suddenly it looks really off because the 'motion' is now gone/reduced and you're just left with the blur.
>tldr; there's a reason people spend hundreds/thousands on gimbals and steadicams to stabilise their footage instead of just applying warp stabiliser in post

>>4479953
Rubber is a masterpiece.

>>4479991
Ah, so maybe that's what's going on. It was all handheld footage at 24fps that was already stabilized in camera and I just added some extra with Davinci. It was definently weird since it was more like a jitter/stutter than focus breathing. I would post a webm but I'm not sure /p/ supports that.

Maybe I should just go with a gimbal instead of doing it in post.

>>4479995
>that was already stabilized in camera
How?
If it was ibis you shouldn't have any micro-jitters.
If it was e-stabilisation then this will probably be an issue.
Micro-jitters typically only last a frame or two at a time. They should be obvious though. Focus breathing should also be obvious, it lasts a few seconds and is clearly a case of hunting around the subject

>>4480000
Alright, wiped the old post since I managed to find the footage fast and the weird jitter isn't there in the RAW pre-Davinci edited footage. So I'm guessing the stabilization I did in post must've fucked it up.

>>4480007
So it should be there, just different.
Again, it should be obvious.
>before stabilising
You should have shaky footage that sometimes shakes more violently
>after stabilising
You should have smooth footage that occasionally blurs every few seconds, lining up with the more violent shakes from before stabilisation.
If that's not what you have then something else is going on.

>>4480011
Well at the moment it looks like its whatever I did in Davinci that cause the issue as the original untouched footage looks fine on playback. If there is an issue or focus jitter in that RAW footage, I either can't tell or can barely see it (which is a good thing really). So I think I'll be a bit more sparing with using post-stabilization in the future because it was extremely obvious in the rendered video.

>>4479910
Damn anon you have triggered some fart sniffing hipsters. Thank you for writing this. A film has to be entertaining, period!

>>4479979
If you are really that fvcking protective of your shit, don’t rent it out on airBNB where you know some indy film filmkids will rent it to get a cheap place to shoot.

>>4479888
Pretty boys can skip the line, but they’d have to let the actors do nasty shit to them in order to skip that line, and they better hope they have good medical insurance that pays for STDs if they go that route.

>>4479904
wew what a rabbit hole

>>4479904
did you ignore eisenstein entirely?

>>4479910
Not just an audience, but yourself. You have to know that you should be happy seeing your film on the big screen all alone, like a cake baker who is happy eating his cake when no one buys it at his bakery. You wouldn't just go spend 10 hours making a beautiful cake only to throw it in the trash because no one would buy it right? Same thing with films. It was one of the hardest lessons I knew when I was 28, but I did so in honor of my grandmother who loved my images and films most of all.

>shoot 30 minutes of footage, 40 gigs.
>davinci resolve, go
>take 2 minutes worth of low-light clips & add noise reduction
>decide to turn on render cache also for smooth playback
>somehow 2 minutes worth of rendercached clips end up as 103gb worth of cache files on my disk
>been constantly writing and rewriting shit on my disk for hours now
>playback is slow as shit meanwhile
>I repeat, video shot for the whole project is 40gigs
this software is retarded. i swear to god I'm going back to the cold embrace of adobe soon

>>4480262
A lot of the time it's not even rented or paid for, you just request to go look at the place for a few hours. The places have their photos up but you get to go look in person either for inspiration for your own home or if you are potentially looking to buy that home (as these staged places are going to be for sale shortly after the display). So there have been times when gooners have gone to these places, done nude photos or flat out porn, then posted about it online and try to drum up business to do more content at "beautiful locations".

A lot of OF gooners or boudior photographers use these places as sets and it's pretty gross, you'll find fluids on things.

>>4480318
>>4480319
You're a fucking idiot. I don't what you think render-cache does but it basically renders your footage as prores files for playback. Prores is great for editing. They're extremely large files though. Congrats.

>>4480321
You can change that when you set up the cache, you fuckwit. You stay in your lane and work on editing your cat videos for kikebook.

>>4480323
>well akshully
Go fuck yourself. Imagine unironically chiming in to add literally nothing of any value. Fucking retard. Go cry about it

>>4480319
Same reason I did. I hate adobe more than life itself so I just ran a haxnode install, but for all its limitations, it can at least read any file natively and not require creating a billion gigs of proxy media and render files. ...on win anyway. If your system is powerful enough to realtime render on the fly, there's nothing gained by consuming a mountain of drivespace. ...Mac OS can't deal with multiple file types so all NLE's on mac end up creating a shitload of working files too, so I run Win10 on the most powerful intel mac they ever made & Premiere fucking flies. And of course it can fully "Interpret Footage" to properly work with multiple framerates, placing frames directly on frames instead of sampling, dropping & approximating them due to mismatches like FCP. I forget if DaVinci was sophisticated enough to interpret footage that cleanly but if it is it was the only one other than Premiere bc all others hamfisted the fuck out of it. Now I'm high AF but this is the gist of it.

>>4480324
The default hasn't ever been ProRes, lmao. Take the L and move on.

Set the cache to ProRes 422 (LT) when working with 10bit footage or DNxHR SQ when working with 8bit footage and it should run even on lower end machines.

>>4480328
>prores isn't akshully the same as dnxhr
This is exactly what I mean. Adding literally nothing to the conversation except to say "well akshully" like some jilted faggot trying to claw any attempt at seeming smart.

File: 1747659288424435.gif (2.53 MB, 368x349)

2.53 MB GIF

>>4480330
>He couldn't move on

Is ProRes worthwhile? I like it just because it loads into the free version of Davinci.

>>4480333
Depends on a number of factors. Personally I don't love it because of the stupidly high amount of space it takes up. 10bit 422 h265 is a fraction of the size. The tradeoff is that it plays back worse (and it's lossier). But a half-decent pc and resolve will solve it since they literally had an update for smoother h265 playback.
If you can deal with the file sizes, there's no real drawback to shooting/editing prores.

>>4480337
I'd like to prioritize filesize I think, since a lot of what I'm filming are just personal projects and are extremely amateur since I'm still learning.

I've really been struggling with converting footage too. I have some x264 that I try to convert to x265, but it comes out with ridiculously small filesizes and has very visible banding. I'm even using CQ set at 18-20 as it's 1080p footage and it still comes out looking like ass. I've used both Handbrake and Shutter Encoder to no avail.

>>4480338
I don't understand why you're converting any footage? H264 is small enough as is that you shouldn't be worried about storage space for it. Especially if it's 1080p. That shit is tiny

>>4480342
The high bitrate mostly. Overall, again, I'd just like to shrink some videos down (such as b-roll).

I am starting work on my short film and I have some friends that are actors and they have connections to college students at a good school who do lightning, sound, and all that. I am quite autistic which is not great for a director but what else can I do? I have no idea what I'm doing and my plan is just to tell my friends to give my number out to the people they know and tell them I'm making a short film and then I will text these people what the film is about, what my plans are, what type of look I'm going for etc and if they are onboard then I will call them or meetup and then we will discuss details like what they need from me, what equipment we need, show them the storyboards and plans etc. Once I got those detailed sorted out when I'm getting close to ready to shoot I will set a schedule and detailed plans of what needs to be done each day and then I will get everyone together to get on the same page and then we will shoot based on the plans made. Is this the right move? Am I missing something?

>>4480374
>Am I missing something
Money

>>4480387
What do I need to spend money on? I already have all the gear.

>>4480388
>What do I need to spend money on?
People. Or do you plan to pay them for their experience, time, food, and travel with "exposure bucks"?

>>4480407
It's college students they have no expectations

>>4480408
Hopefully you also have no expectations for what they can do for you then.

>>4480408
>It's college students they have no expectations
You either have a long hooknose and curly hair with spontaneous outbursts of handrubbing, or you really do have mega autism in which case may the god of cellulose nitrate have mercy on your soul.

It seems like you can not afford that shoot and it will be a disaster.

>>4480315
I take pleasure in baking the cake. If nobody buys it, I don’t give a fuck.

>>4480388
You need to spend the money on food. It you ain’t gunna pay your talent, you better feed them well if you want them to do a decent job for you. Even college students want to eat. It might even need to throw a few beers or shots of hard liquor in too as part of the payment to your cast and crew.

>>4480374
>Am I missing something?
Learn how to do everything yourself. EVERYTHING essential. Then get people in where you can, with the knowledge that if they bail (if you're expecting people to work for free, some of them will bail) you won't be stuck up shit's creek.

>>4480414
I don't.
>>4480432
I'm broke too and spending thousands of dollars to do this and you should get paid and a free acting credit?
>>4480478
I'd rather them pay them then bring food. What is this a fucking picnic? So fucking dumb. Eat before you come. Let's shoot and get out of here. Why do I need to be a caterer? So retarded.

>>4480490
food makes a huge difference when working with people in general. you have no life experience.

>>4480494
I get people like free food at the hotel breakfast but can't you just go to Denny's before coming? I need to focus on the work and you want me to have to worry about eggs and sausages and beverages? Be a fucking man

>>4480496
Pay for the fucking Denny's then anon, jfc. You know how corporate bullshit is like yay he's a pizza party for all your hard work? It's like that except you're being even worse by not even having the fucking pizza party.
It doesn't even have to be a buffet, just bring a case of pepsi and some snacks so the guys you're getting free labour out of feel a bit appreciated you autist.

>>4480500
i'm pretty sure free pizza at the office has actually preemptively stopped workplace shootings

While I agree on paper about the food thing (last thing I personally want is to stuff myself with food and feel like shit while I’m trying to be creative and work), it’s a necessary evil. Even on my first no-budget film, I got people shitty sub sandwiches, breakfast tacos, etc

>>4480490
>>4480500

If you want them to work for free and don’t want to pay them let them punch you in the balls as payment for the free work they’re doing for you. Film them punching you in the balls and post it here so we can get some lulz!

I never provide catering on set outside of a few snacks like cookies and shit (and obviously water)(and people rarely eat any of the snacks anyway).
But then I do pay actors that I work with so I think they prefer physical cash to some slices of pizza.

>>4480374
Read this:
https://files.catbox.moe/cl8ei2.pdf
It's the book "Making A Film On A Micro Budget". Actually it even assumes that you may have no budget at all. Short and concise. Gives plenty of good starting tips and how to organize the production. There's some outdated stuff there when it comes to specific technologies, I suggest to skip those sections or use your imagination to reinterpret what's said in the current reality.

>>4480521
If you pay actors a decent day rate you don’t need to feed them, but it’s fucking disrespectful to expect people to work for you for free and not give them some food as a way of thanking them for their time and effort.If you are a big name director that people are dying to work for that might be a different story but you are a big name director you wouldn’t be posting on 4chan.

>>4480534
Exactly what I need. Thank you.

File: 1758322031689305.jpg (90 KB, 1024x683)

90 KB JPG

>>4480490
I don't know what to say other than do it, lmao, and report back. You won't even get this shit off the ground, nobody will show up. Report back when you're done.
>inb4 you won't report back
God you're so fucking autistic, lol. I'm not even being mean, honestly, good luck, lmao. This reminds me of a time when an acquaintance tried to get some programmers to work on his "genius" app idea for free.

>>4480564
Okay fine I'll buy the fucking mcgriddles

>>4480570
Hey, people do need food!

It's common courtesy to have food at hand in case someone gets hungry, and it's common sense to pay people for their time and work, otherwise you get what you pay for, which in this case is nothing.

>>4480570
Good man.

File: MV5BMjA0NjQxNzUyNF5BMl5Ba(...).jpg (515 KB, 2048x1478)

515 KB JPG

I have a question that confuses me a bit. Japanese movie director Ozu filmed all his movies with just one 50mm lens. Is that equal to a 50mm lens on a digital full frame camera? Because from what I read is that back then 35mm film in motion would be much smaller than the "real 35mm". So that it translates more to a 75mm? lens on digital full frame. Or am I wrong?

I'm still a beginner in /vid/ and my goal is to recreate Ozu style video snippets about my newborn, etc. just for fun.

>>4479122
>I want people to agree with whatever I suggest
>I was feeling insecure after not getting a call back
>I was satisfied knowing I can reject her after she made me feel insecure
You should be an actor rather than a director.
>>4479128
If things look choppy the reason might be the refresh rate of the screen doesn't match (or isn't an integer multiple of) the footage frame rate.
The cause might also be that the camera isn't shooting each frame at the right time and you're getting frame drift, but that's unlikely to make a noticeable difference if you're using a decent modern camera.
Another issue might be the shutter angle, try a higher one and see if it makes a difference, but I reckon the first issue is the most likely.
>>4479132
Depends on the footage type, resolution and many other factors.
The only way to be sure is to try a few options and see what's acceptable for you.

>>4480319
>can't be bothered to open project settings
>calls software retarded
Open the project settings window anon.
>>4480327
>Mac OS can't deal with multiple file types
It's software that opens a media file, not the OS.
Resolve can open the same files on win and mac os.
>now I'm high af
That explains why your post barely makes sense.
>>4480374
>I, the director, will meet with other people to discuss what we need
You're missing some experience and a clear idea what you're doing.
Experience you can't make up for with study, but you should get a very very clear idea what you want to do and how you'll do it as the first thing, otherwise you run the very concrete risk of being strung along by the first idiot who will confidently say they know what they're doing.

File: _Sep9_LATE_AUTUMN_Ozu5banner.jpg (285 KB, 1480x1080)

285 KB JPG

>>4480662
I did some more research. Ozu movies were filmed with the Mitchell BNC that uses 35mm motion film. The image area is 22mm × 16mm which, compared to digital full frame, is smaller. Digital full frame is times 1.6 bigger.

So if Ozu used a 50mm lens on his Mitchell.. it means to recreate the same image I need an (50mm*1.6) 80mm lens on my FF Nikon Z right? Kinda makes sens looking at pic related. Looks closer to what I get from 85mm lens than 50mm. But must be a quite high f-stop to reduce all the blur.

>>4480490
>I'm expecting people to work for me, follow my directions and help me when they know something I don't AND THEY SHOULD GET PAID!?!?!?
>I'm expecting people to be professional and act like it, this isn't a picnic.
I'm not quite sure whether you don't realize how you sound, or you're so clueless that you realize how you sounds and you don't find any issue with it.
>>4480676
>80mm on FF
Just about, yes.

Short film: why

Who the f watches a short film

>>4480680
>Who the f watches a short film
Filmmakers being polite while waiting to showcase their own short films

>>4480680
I think that question applies to anything video these days. The only cinematic video being watched today are gear review footage by influencer on youtube. What normie person goes to youtube and searches for "cinematic tokyo movie" in his free time just to enjoy a video? No one. You can only reach other enthusiasts that are interested in gear or in fact certain video types.

The average person watches TikTok reels and they don't care about any video specs as long as it's entertaining. Next question would be who the f watches a long film? Movie theater are a thing of the past as everyone can just download any 4k movie in minutes and watch on their OLED sony tv. But they watch avengers or other well known chain productions. No one values art in movies anymore. People have no time with all the endless entertainment. And TikTok reels offer much quicker satisfaction than watching a 2 hours movie.

Cinematography, same as photography is going to be a very small niche for hobby enthusiasts. But you can't expect anyone else being interested in your work. Unfortuante times for artists.

>>4480680
>>4480680
That’s all anyone watches anymore grandpa. The kids don’t want to watch feature length movies, they want you to get through your fucking story and on to the next one in around 15 seconds. The movie biz has been trying to figure out why they have no interest in going to see movies. They’ve been raised on tiktok machine gunning 6 second short films into their eyeballs for free in the palm of their hand. Having to go sit in a theatre, and pay money, to watch a single story consume an hour and a half of your day, & that may not even be any good, is not something you can sell them.

Theaters are going away.

>>4480685
People with adhd who can’t sit through a feature also watch shorts too.

>>4480685
Never a truer word was spoken
>>4480693
>The movie biz has been trying to figure out why they have no interest in going to see movies
Um, maybe because it's a complete fucking rort? Tickets aren't even cheap anymore and you get a pat down by the theatre gestapo to make sure you're buying their $9 M&Ms. That's not even considering eating dinner/lunch out or parking fees or whatever the fuck else.
When going to the movies costs me and my wife $60 why the fuck wouldn't I just pirate it (thx jellyfin) spend $30 on a couple good burgers and fries and watch it in the comfort of my own home where I can get a handjob in peace?

>>4480694
People with ADHD binge movies and shows for 16 hours in a row, the fuck are you talking about?
The only fucking situation where people with ADHD can't watch something is when they'd rather do something else.

>>4480685
TRVKE

>>4480696
People with OCD binge watch long form shit; people with adhd want it quick and a lot of it because they want everything to be like TikTok

>>4480699
You're clueless about how clueless you are. Your first point might've worked as a joke among normies who are equally as clueless, but after this post... negro, please.

>>4480695
The OLED at home is often better than the 20 years old projector in movie theaters that has worse blacks than any lcd panel

>>4480702
>movie theaters that has worse blacks
was all you needed to post

>>4480702
This is the reason why I stopped going to theaters a decade ago- the home theater experience is (95% of the time) better.
Theater projector bulb is burnt out, out of focus, screen is stained/ripped VS My projector is professionally calibrated and looks perfect every single time
Theater speakers are blown, not loud enough VS my 7.2 surround sound system is professionally calibrated and sounds perfect every single time
Audience members are loud and distracting, cellphones, waiters, smell of food VS my home theater is quiet and perfect for watching cinema every single time
Theaters screen garbage crap films, at specific times, for increasing prices VS my home theater can show literally the entire history of cinema at any time I want for free every single time

Fuck theaters.

>>4480719
Yep, also don't wanna know how dirty the seats really are. Though, the smell of popcorn is something I do miss. Also the taste of them. Probably need to invest into an popcorn machine

>>4480729
>popcorn machine
Can you not just buy some microwaveable popcorn and recreate the smell in seconds?
(put the microwave in your kinotorium for added aroma)

>>4480676
>>4480662
What you say is correct. For modern super35/aps-c sensors you should multiply by 1.5 to get digital full frame equivalent.
Also make note that it's not enough to get the right focal length. You must match aperture as well.
Here's a good article on equivalence and how to convert between different systems:
https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso
And here's a good calculator that will tell you focal length and aperture equivalence for whatever parameters you use:
https://espensusort.no/35mm-equivalent-lens-calculator/

>>4480719
Same. I’ll watch the shit out of a 70mm iMax projection but since all the other theaters went digital, fuck that shit I can watch a digital file myself and it looks a lot better on my gear & I can pause it to take a piss or suck cocks or whatever I’m jolly well in the mood to do you fuckers.

I’m this goddamn close to buying a vintage B&H 16mm projector to add to my home theatre. I figure I’ll have a nice roll-up silver screen, but keep it below but in front of my big display behind the sound bar. And when it’s time to get romantic about it & thread a film to listen to the little beast clicking away, with the light streaming through the dark over our hears and the dust in the air sparkling in the light, then I’ll just pull it up and hook it to a little eyelet in the ceiling, and instant full featured film theatre.

>>4480758
In fact, I’m going to shoot 16mm films and refuse to digitize them shits. They will only be able to be seen on a suitable projector, and that way there will be zero chance of duplication, distribution, censoring, or accountability beyond the room they’re being projected in. In a digital world of quantity over quality & zero-value mass-distributed content, this will be the opposite. Make a film, retain possession of it. Keep only the original negative in cold storage, and a single print to project. Make all the anti-establishment violent hatefuck illegal psychoporn films you want, retain complete control of them.

Fuck Silicon Valley, anarchy is a 16mm camera & projector.

>>4480760
>I'm going to spend a lot of money unnecessarily to make a lower-quality film that I'll then make difficult for anyone to actually watch
Wow, I can tell you're a real artist.

>>4480758
>all this talk
>has a fucking sound bar
lmao. Think about upgrading that before a goddamn 16mm projector

>>4480760
I’ve made several 8mm and 16mm short films where I’ve precisely done just that. They’ve only been shown projected at fests and will never be released digitally. It’s common with experimental films/filmmakers.

>>4480763
>lower-quality
No.

>make difficult for anyone to actually watch
Good.

>Wow, I can tell you're a real artist.
Unironically yes.

Remember kids, real art is about making shit that no one else will actually enjoy and then purposely not showing it to anyone, claiming it's due to artistic integrity and not because you're an insecure bitch who's making trash.

>>4480773
lmao cry more little faggot, the adults are talking about making cinema

>>4480775
Making masturbatory cringe home movies isn't cinema. The clue is in the name. Cope harder

>>4480776
Filtered, seethe

>>4480777
lmao, yeah it's everyone else that's the problem, well done

>>4480763
>>4480773
>>4480776
>>4480778
Holy salt lmao. You's a little bitch. Interested in being in my documentary short about lil bitches?

>>4480729
make it on the stovetop, use coconut oil and clarified butter. it's as close as you can get

>>4480797
>samefagging after getting btfo
kek seethe harder

>canon r6iii
>7k opengate raw
>7k opengate non-raw
>4k120
>same rrp as r6ii
I wasn't sure it'd happen until I saw it with my own eyes but it's happened apparently. This might be the first canon camera for under 3500 bucks since 2020 that doesn't feel purposely gimped

>>4480908
>DSLR formfactor
I'll pass.

>>4480908
>same shit new video codecs less stills dr
Can they just release new film cameras already since they hate photographers

>>4480945
You understand that this is /vid/ right? Like if you want to bitch about its photo capabilities, you literally have the entire rest of the board

>>4480953
the rest of the board isnt even aware this camcorder exists. telling.

Fuji is the only camera brand with good colors I've seen. Is there a brand or camera I'm missing?

>>4480958
something something eye of the beholder something subjective something something
(seriously, everyone has different preferences, but every modern camera has enough latitude that you should be able to get great colours if you take the time to colour grade properly)

>>4480963
>if you take the time to colour grade properly
Nobody knows how to do this, including myself

>>4480972
Read the sticky. Or youtube it. It's not particularly hard, it just takes a fair amount of time and trial & error.
Also, there are a lot of lut packs available to get every camera to the same base point. I'd never buy a lut myself because I like colour grading, but they can be really effective. The arri imitation ones are particularly nice imo. But people like Gerald Undone have basic ones just for consistency (not advocating him in particular, just the first name that came to mind).
And on top of that, you can just use a cst in resolve to put your footage in whatever log format in order to use the standard rec709 luts that each company has available. I'd especially look into nlog for this because the red film luts are really nice.

>>4480993
It’s hard, atleast for me. Luts always look like shit, when I do it myself it always looks like shit. I’m getting better at not being afraid of contrast, pushing that more than I think is necessary looks better. Still hard to get rid of that “milky digital” look. Film emulation plugins have also been a massive help.

>>4480908
why can't it do lower res raw? 4k raw would be kino

>>4467259
My entire fucking room/office is full of stacks. Stacks of shit 8 need to read, stacks of things 8 need to sell on eBay, stacks of started projects I need to finish fabricating, stacks of materials, stacks of computers stacks of cameras, stacks of books to scan and stacks of slide carousels to digitize.

I just spent 2 weeks doing nothing but fully rebuilding a pair of *prefect* Bell & Howell American 141-A and rare British model 200 16mm cameras. That’s about 100 hours of labor on what are a pair of about $20 bodies. But they are my favorite cameras of all time.

>>4480770
>anon throws center channel in the garbage
Wew, what an upgrade.
That’s some 4tard wisdum anon

>>4481049
My guess is that it's a combination of two things:
-being a hybrid as opposed to a cinema camera
-no way to oversample in raw
It's $1000 cheaper than the c50 for almost identical specs. The c50 can do 5k raw cropped, or 2.5k raw with a bigger crop. The c50 is canon's cheapest 'proper' cinema camera.
Lower resolution raw with the full width of the sensor can only be done via line-skipping which results in a much softer image, defeating the advantage of wanting raw. The r5ii does it though. Nikon cameras do it too and the quality is notoriously shitter than shooting in log.
Blackmagic's new cameras do it but they're an exception because they have some crazy voodoo technology that allows them to combine the photosites for larger pixels.

>>4481094
Do you have a full surround sound setup or not, dipshit?

File: 1734430530103759.jpg (3 KB, 117x125)

3 KB JPG

>shoot, cut, grade, work my ass off on 30 minutes of pristine 4k footage
>good audio even
>upload, everyone praising the work
>"wow nicely done man, good stuff, really like how you cut it"
>watch youtube stats
>everyone's watching it on their phones
>6% computers
I feel right now like when I work my ass off on shooping pro-grade photos of our kids, vacations, personal work, etc, meticulously working on the colors and exposure, only for my wife to watch them at 10% screen brightness with 100% warm tint night mode on Windows.

Feels good, man.

>>4481280
This is why I make art only for myself and don’t give a flying fuck what others think.

>>4480958
Can you be more specific? How are the colors better?

>>4481280
Don't be discouraged.
A lot of people watching on their phones are only doing so because the video was recommended/boosted by people watching on bigger set ups.
Additionally, if you ever plan to showcase anything in an actual cinema you need to have the experience with delivering for it. Making something better is never a bad thing even if the only thing it accomplishes in the short term is honing your skills. Take pride in your work anon

>>4481207
Of course I do, I have all my old klipsch shit from the 90s for my consoomer audio shit. It’s sandwiched in the middle of a pair of reference monitors I use for playback when recording the Selmer TnB 100 driving pair of 4x12 cabs with greenbacks and a phase-matched, 60degree sync’d pair of Leslie rotating speakers driven by a mesa boogie stereo 250. So that long ass line of shit I referred to as the sound bar, so I wouldn’t have to type all that shit out on this fuckin iPad, would conceal the projection screen when not in use. When in use it’d pull up in front of the tv, hook to the ceiling & show grainy 8mm flicks of ultraviolence and brutal sodomy or sunshine & rainbows or whatever.

>>4481527
You should’ve just said this and it would have ultimately saved us both time

>>4481527
>I have a home theater room with 8k projector, 12 speakers, tiered couch seating, dimmed lighting, 40TB NAS, popcorn machine
>instead of typing out all that I just say “watch movie on phone”
Smart anon

9 hour shoot (1 hr lunch, two 15 min breaks). 12 total setups- 3 with dialogue, 1 dolly, lighting changed with every setup. I’m exhausted today but that was one of the best shooting days I’ve had in a long fucking time. Was genuinely having fun which is fucking rare.

>>4481905
Sounds fun. Proud of you.
I've got my first day on set in just over a week and anxiety is killing me. I'm getting flashbacks of the last time I did this when I swore to myself I'd never do it like this again.

The economy has fucked over socially awkward wannabe filmmakers, actors, and crew members. Get a trade in something like welding or data analytics before approaching this field. Try to get into the military even as a combat videographer. This is one of the most competitive fields. People talk about how stressful the jobs are, but getting the job is a million times more stressful.

>>4481919
You got this. Anytime anxiety hits, just go over the plans and structure of the shoot. Plus, having a bit of anxiety is a good thing, means you care and not overconfident.

>>4467259
>pay $300 for Final Cunt Pro X & Logic
>to see if I can ditch windows before it goes full dumb terminal trojan federal police
>create project, drag clips in
>this motherfucking software can't accurately change the speed of imported clips. no "interpret footage" option to set 29.97 to 30fps so every frame gets places on a frame
>just 5 different stupid frame sampling & interpolation options
>one with "machine learning" zomg
>the MF retarded devs made a fucking ai to sample frames but never thouoght to provide a way to preserve all frames and conform the framerate itself.
>enjoy fucking around trying to minimize shitty stuttering playback from missing & duplicated frames
Apple is supposed to be good at this shit. What the absolute fuck. They can't do the simplest shit, always have to do some backward convoluted bullshit that only half works. man, fuck this

>>4481948
Meanwhile you could have spent it on Resolve

>>4481953
Would have been a better bet. I assumed Apple's own Apps would run better, optimized for Apples own OS & hardware list. Whoops.

I assume resolve does framerates properly, like Premiere Pro does?

>>4467259
https://youtu.be/z8Bo5z90agQ?si=_UkT8yXktbJ5enxV
Unfathomably based.

>>4481955
No clue, I’m just a Blackmagic shill who shoots 24p only

>>4481959
i have a nice camera, but I got it because I love old tech
he's right tho, lighting is everything, a 4444 camera wont make it look better if you have shit lighting

>>4481948
>why can't this software automatically do something and why does it let me choose how to do it instead
If you're importing clips and want to play them back at a different frame rate your software will have to do some interpolation, the difference here is that Premiere's default option is different from Final Cut's.
>retarded devs made an ai to sample frames
Wow you really know how this works anon.

>>4482047
Well done deducing 1/5 of the meaning in the original post retard. How do you sit down on a brain that fukkin big?

>>4481939
Thanks anon. Honestly I'm trying to avoid overthinking it to prevent spiralling but it's kind of hard when there's still so much prep to be done.

I just watched the latest Marty Supreme trailer. It's good. But fuck if it doesn't feel like an ode to every struggling artist out there running off sheer arrogance and willpower to try and achieve something that feels impossible.

>>4481959
Markus is the realest video-related youtuber out there.

>>4482055
What took up some time on that shoot was not having a rocksolid definitive lighting plan already designed and locked down. We had a ballpark idea of how we wanted it to look, and wanted to keep a light gameplan that was open to on-the-spot changes and new ideas- but if we had drawn up atleast a fallback lighting design for each and every shot, it would’ve ended up saving a ton of time and energy.
Lesson learned. Plan everything- even the stuff you potentially want to have as “spontaneous on the day open collaboration”.

>>4481280
Send me a link, I watch it on my 4k monitor on my windows pc.

Bump limit reached. New thread
>>4482295