>>4482061
I think ping pong was a genius sport to use because it makes it so much easier to project whatever artistic endeavour you want in place of it.

File: Kino maker .gif (961 KB, 640x618)

961 KB GIF

Truth Nuke Alert:

If you want to be a director then you only need 5 directors then you have to memorize the fuck out of their films to the point where you can play whole films in your head. After that when they will merge with your experience a new thing will emerge. Simple as.

Only 5 directors, remember. No need to exceed and complicate retarded shit.

>>4482310
Which 5 directors for you anon?

>>4482351
John Ford
Sergei Eisenstein
Akira Kurosawa
Robert Bresson
Ingmar Bergman

What about you?

>>4482352
I don't know if I'd choose 5. I probably focus on just 3.
>Sergio Leone
>Stanley Kubrick
>Nicolas Winding Refn
I keep the 3 of them as my "base". If I'm envisioning a scene, it will probably be largely inspired by the way of them would do it.
And then additionally for everything I do I look more at individual films than directors as a whole. Sometimes I look at massively acclaimed films that I love, like Good Time. Sometimes I look at random films that weren't necessarily great or films I particularly love but ones that did something a little bit interesting, like Brick (from earlier this year, not the Rian Johnson film).

So if I was making a heist film I'd rewatch Inside Man. Maybe Ambulance. Definitely the beginning of Triple 9. I'd write it like it was a Leone/Kubrick/Refn film. And then I'd mix the aesthetics.

>>4482354
>I probably focus on just 3.
I like that, maybe I should reduce it to 3 but it would be hard

But I don't know about revisiting other films, in my case it puzzles me. I think one must absorb the influence of masters to the degree that they become you without you consciously thinking about them. I think one another thing that helps you very much is studying very remote things to your medium for example a car repair manual, directions for black magic, children book, medical books and shit like that.

>>4482355
That's probably the difference in our outlook.
I respect the old masters a great deal. Especially when starting out. They're brilliant in their simplicity as a lot of their great works come from utilising the basics in such brilliant ways. The camera work in Citizen Kane is a great example. There's nothing there that requires an expensive set up really - no weird helicopter shots or insane 1-takes where the camera's weaving in and out of a crowd.
But I also prioritise recent films a lot and moreso nowadays. I want to see what newer films are doing and I want to do it better. I watched Del Toro's Frankenstein the other day. Better than I expected but hardly a masterpiece. Still, visually gorgeous. Really bold colours and an almost-daunting sense of scale that many current filmmakers struggle with.
If I'm doing a close up, I'm always going to naturally revert to recreating Leone's eyes, or the Kubrick stare. But maybe I'll shoot it handheld, reminiscent of Uncut Gems. Maybe I'll add that slow head-tilt like Ryan Gosling in BR when he's staring at JOI. Maybe I'll add the bruising as well.
I think what I'm trying to say is that I want to take from as many sources as I can, and so I think it helps to have a relatively clean base to allow for that. I love Paul Thomas Anderson's films and he'd probably be my 4th but at the same time, if I took strong influences from him in everything I made then that would be such a strong base when combined with the other 3 that there wouldn't be much room to take other inspiration.
I need to find a way to express my thoughts in less words.
>I think one another thing that helps you very much is studying very remote things to your medium for example a car repair manual, directions for black magic, children book, medical books and shit like that.
I should probably do this more. The only thing I really study outside of films is editing in general.

>>4482358
>I want to see what newer films are doing and I want to do it better.
I would warn you against this. You are already a man of your times, you are already a contemporary so there is no need to willingly push yourself towards it. Try to make a film like John Ford today I am sure you will fail because you're a man of your times. If you take from what is contemporary than you will end up creating what everyone else is creating, you won't be unique. But yes if you are enjoying that then who am I to say anything against it. Art is pleasure first and foremost.

>>4482359
Personally I think the trap is not trying to push the medium forward. If you only look at those from 60 odd years ago, you're stuck with their limitations. What may seem a revolution to you might be something straightforward that's been improved on several times.
I see films kind of like academia. While older papers are cited the most, the newer papers are the ones that are actually pushing new ground. And maybe they don't push as far as those old papers did, but they're still pushing in the contemporary day while the old papers have been cited and adopted thousands of times. Likewise, older films are often quite cliche because of the amount of inspiration that has been taken from them. If you want to push the medium forward you have to acknowledge what people are doing today and try and build off it. You want to be an artist, not a historian. Or that's how I see it. To each their own of course.

>>4482351
Tark
Berg
Anto
Mizo
GOD

>>4482364
Dude, Robert Bresson and Kurosawa are singular no one has surpassed them. Art is not academia or science or philosophy. It is about aesthics and there things that are timeless like the works of Shakespeare, the music of Bach, photography of Eugene Atget etc. There are poets who still say that Homer was the greatest poet even though it's been 2000 years. I feel more thrill in looking that 20th century than any of contemporary shite. If I am watching the films of Eisenstein today then he is contemporary. Yes, Shakespeare is a contemporary poet.

>You want to be an artist, not a historian.
You can NEVER escape history. You can only build by standing on the shoulders of giants otherwise you'll on the shoulders of dwarfs making sand castles on the beach.

>>4482354
Can you tell me your name so I will definitely never watch one of your movies?

>>4482355
>I think one must absorb the influence of masters to the degree that they become you
“If one likes the Mona Lisa, one must burn it” - Godard

>>4482364
>you have to acknowledge what people are doing today and try and build off it
“There has been nothing original in cinema since the 60s. I don’t want to be original.” - Sokurov

>>4482369
>“If one likes the Mona Lisa, one must burn it” - Godard
What a retarded statement. Never liked his trash anyway

>>4482358
>There's nothing there that requires an expensive set up really
You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about

>recreating Leone's eyes, or the Kubrick stare. But maybe I'll shoot it handheld, reminiscent of Uncut Gems. Maybe I'll add that slow head-tilt like Ryan Gosling in BR when he's staring at JOI. Maybe I'll add the bruising as well
>I love Paul Thomas Anderson's films
Thanks for making my point

>>4482369
>hey guys look how contrarian I am, do I fit in yet?

>>4482371
The lighting used for those early films was as costly as fuck and so was the rolls of film used to make the image too. Digital made it much cheaper to film shit.

>>4482367
>You can only build by standing on the shoulders of giants otherwise you'll on the shoulders of dwarfs making sand castles on the beach.
I agree. This is my point. I'm saying that the achievements of the old masters are often reflected in the works of today. So by building off contemporary films, you're taking the inspiration from the old as well as new. But if you only build off of older films, you miss recent advances. To use a simple example, something like Hardcore Henry is probably the best base to build off of in my opinion if you want to do a first-person action scene. I don't think it's a particularly great film, it's alright. But it's solved a lot of problems that have plagued productions in the past.
I think there's a tendency to ignore more recent stuff because people love older stuff. And I think that's one of the reasons that a lot of filmmaking is stagnating (which is one of the reasons that a lot of more recent films feel worn out - and why I like seeing what interesting things are done despite that).
>>4482371
>You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about
I very clearly said I'm talking about the camera work, not the sets, lighting or production as a whole. If you think the camera work in the majority of that film is difficult then you might be an idiot. It's majority tripod shots, often static, sometimes with a gentle pan. There's a few dolly shots and the like. A film school idiot can easily replicate the vast majority of those shots. But sure, continue being a seething retard.

>>4482378
>originally said “expensive”
>changed it to “difficult”
The projecting seething retard is you.

>>4482385
Are you just trolling? Do you think film school retards are walking around with tens of thousands worth of gear?
I guess it depends what you count as expensive but most shots can easily be done with just a camera, tripod and gimbal. Maybe a tripod dolly for safety. Maybe a shoulder rig for the handheld shots but probably not needed. So yeah. Doesn't require an expensive set up. Seethe harder.
>inb4 "no u" (again)

>submit to film festival
>notification date supposed to be in October
>gradually gets shifted back until it's November 9th
>stays there consistently for a few months
>get notification on the 5th that they want to download my film
>(they haven't changed my submission status btw)
>decide to ignore it, assuming that they've jumped the gun and want to select me, but also, don't want to give it to a random programmer if they don't select me
>notification day comes and goes
>check their page today
>it's been shifted back again to today
>still no notification
This should be illegal

>>4482395
LMAO
Imagine being a filmmaker

>>4482295
>recommend DSLRs
Really? I'd always heard DSLRs were not at all recommended for video.

>>4482378
>So by building off contemporary films, you're taking the inspiration from the old as well as new. But if you only build off of older films, you miss recent advances.
Kek, this is like saying pieces of food in vomit are better than real food.

>>4482408
Ignore him, I finally realized he’s a troll when he said filmmakers should build off Hardcore Henry. Either that or he’s literally retarded.

>>4482411
>you're trolling if you look for good things in art instead of cynically writing off everything that isn't old
lmao are you 12?

>>4482386
ignore ngmi, anybody about that life has diyed their dolly/track among a ton of other shit

>>4482416
I remember making my first dolly track with pvc pipe, skateboard wheels, and a piece of plywood
Shoulder rig was pvc too
Still use pvc pipe brackets I made for diffusion/flags

Picked up a MKE 600 and a ZoomF3 for sound recording. Did I fuck up?

>>4483140
I am not here to soothe your buyer's regret.

>>4483358
Do I regret buying those items?

I have almost zero budget and I live in the middle of nowhere. Should I buy few zoomers new pods as acting fee and shoot my film with them? I don't want to make embarrassing student slop.

>>4483376
>Should I buy few zoomers new pods
What did he mean by this?

>>4483397
pod vape

XH-3 when???

>>4483363
Why? Test them out, listen to it and judge whether or not you like the sound of the mic. There's not much to it than that.

>>4483604
Do I like the sound and workflow?
Trolling aside, was just making a gear post and curious if anyone had anything to say about them. I’m pumped to use them. To get to the next ‘tier’ above these I’d probably have to spend $1k+ on each, which I’ll just rent in that case or hopefully be able to afford hiring a proper sound guy

Those new Amaran Ray lights look fucking insane. Amaran/Aputure and Blackmagic are the fucking angels of indie filmmaking.

>>4482295
>Panasonic gh5
I spotted a new one for 700 eurobucks, body only, no lenses. Which compatible lens is ok to start filming with? I also love photography. Is it enough as a photo camera too?

>>4483564
Not until the next generation sensor is out, so likely mid to late 2026 is my guess. I think they'll introduce the new sensor with a new X-Pro first, then maybe a lower priced model, and then the flagship XH3.

My question is though, why not buy a full frame camera instead? You won't be spending that much more for a bigger sensor camera considering the eventual XH3 will have a price bump like all other Fuji cameras. Even now the X-H2s is only a little bit cheaper than the Lumix S1Rii.
I just recently got a Fuji camera myself. It's fun and lightweight and all that, but I just notice a clear image difference between my older full frame stuff and this.
I'm not being snarky, I'm just curious after finally having played around with an APS-C sensor after using full frame for so many years.

>>4483951
>photography
20mp mft. Lol no.
ALSO: ugliest camera I've ever seen

>>4483951
it's a solid video camera and a so-so stills camera, the stills performance depends on how you plan to shoot.

>>4483952
My only goal is film emulation and I've color graded on many cameras and Fuji is the only one where I can actually get it to look like film sadly.

>>4483970
Just shoot film. It's not even hard or expensive.
>t. recovering digishitter

>>4483953
>>4483968
Thanks. I’d like to photograph streets when I travel (markets, food, monuments, museums, street artists or concerts). For video, I want to shoot paid gigs in theaters, music videos for small artists, or even openings at art galleries. Idk.
What lenses should I buy? The camera is 700 and I can spend up to 2000. I want to buy everything new because I’m an autist about second hand gear.
inb4: already have sound equipment (H4n and some lavs)

>>4483972
Google estimate says $3k in film for an 8 minute short film

>>4483972
If you have $50k in a bank sure, but most of us don't. 8mm film may be inexpensive costing only $500 to film and develop, but with film everything is mathematical more so than digital. With digital you got live view to help you. Film, it's a guessing game.

>>4483972
I’ve shot film exclusively for the last 6 years- I finally switched back to digital and I’m glad I did so. Film is very hard and expensive compared to digital.

>>4483974
>I want to buy everything new because I’m an autist about second hand gear.
I know you said your autismo about it but if you get stuff second hand from reputable retailers in your country it will be a lot cheaper than buying new and most places offer a 1yr warranty for peace of mind. I saved hundreds like this and never had anything fail.

>>4483970
Do you mean you prefer colour grading Flog2 footage or shooting video with one of the custom recipes in the camera?
I get wanting to use the recipes to make small short clips or something like that, but I think you'd be better off going with Flog2 footage if you're aiming to use the X-H2s (or future X-H3) and then use some sort of film emulation in post instead. You get more flexibility that way and have a lot more range to get the image you're after.

I've been messing with my new Fuji camera for a couple of weeks now, and as great and fun you can make the jpgs (and video straight out of camera) look with recipes, I still think you're fairly limited. They give you an ok amount of tools to tweak your image, but I still think you're fairly limited if you want something a little different or specific.

>first day of shooting down
I haven't filmed anything in over a year so I was pretty thankful that today was relatively light. Mainly just b-shots around the city. I'm off-loading it now. I'm already deathly scared that my hands will have been too shaky for the ibis, or the sound won't have recorded properly. I just need this film to be good.
/blogpost

If I'm shooting a small short film. Just a couple of actors sitting around a table do I really need a sound guy or can I do it myself while directing?

>>4484030
You can do it yourself. But you'll almost definitely fuck it up if you don't have a lot of experience doing so.

>>4483974
hybrid cameras are turbo gay, buy a videocamera and shoot stills on your cellphone

>>4483974
>The camera is 700 and I can spend up to 2000
>gigs in theaters, music videos
Lumix 12-35 f2.8 for video work and general purpose and 42.5 f1.7 for portraits and some bokeh when needed.

>>4484187
I got the lumix 12-35 f/2.8 and lumix 35-100 f/2.8. Those are nice lenses and cover everything a run and gun filmmaker could want to film.

Is anyone else getting an itch for
E L E C T R O N I C
C I N E M A T O G R A P H Y
lately?
f900? srw9000? dvw-790? or maybe aj-hdc27?

How do you guys deal with the fear and anxiety that comes with needing it to be more than just good? After you commit, there's no real going back. Maybe I put too much pressure on myself but I need this to be better than good, I need this to be great.

>>4484254
>”needing” art to be “anything”
Numerous mistakes already. You’ll learn, hopefully.

>>4484257
>just throw shit on a canvas and call it art and feel comfort in knowing that anyone who says it's shit doesn't get it
Jesus christ you're insufferable

>>4484259
Seethe, filtered brainlet

>>4484260
Are you literally just in this thread to troll?

>>4484003
I switched to digital in 2002 and was glad I did for the same reason as you. Then in 2022 I switched back to 16mm film and am even more happy I did. I’d rather spend more money on my actual films than on the endless parade of stupid expensive gear required to make digital look like film when I can just shoot on film in the first place and save myself a metric fuckton of time and energy which aren’t free either.

But I’m 49, so for me it isn’t about pinching pennies anymore, it’s about getting the results I want from them pennies. I’d gladly spend even more on film and have physical films to show for it, than pay all the depreciation & loss on digital gear & have nothing but memories of it in the end.

>>4484262
Projecting

>>4484263
>endless parade of stupid expensive gear required to make digital look like film
???
Filmbox is $50 for one month, Dehancer is $60. I actually shot rolls of 8mm and 16mm along with digital myself, and used these apps on the digital footage to see how close I could match it.
That was the final straw for me. Haven’t looked back since.

>>4484226
What camera do you use?

>>4484239
I spotted a mint DSR-PD150 for 550 bucks. Thinking about it. I own a GH7 but I dig the video aesthetic and ergonomics/workflow of this camcorder.

>>4484296
that's on the more expensive side for a used pd150.

if it's mint though, then the price is right.

>>4484295
>>4484295

I use a bmpcc 4k now; when I got those lenses I was using the Panasonic af100/af101–I still have it for my b cam and for eng style work

>>4484262
If you haven't noticed there are 1 or 2 faggot regulars in this thread who are literally just pretentious asshats insecure of any criticism. You have to ignore them and hope they fuck off back to whatever shithole they crawled out of

>>4484254
It's better to treat the medium as a way to express ideas, with the goal being to express the idea as fluently as possible using film language, rather than to create the next epic that blows the socks off. If you get trapped in the last part you will always feel anxious as not all ideas or stories are that grandeur.

>>4484308
Not everything is an epic or particularly grand. But I hate this attitude that it's a flaw or a failing to aim for greatness. The pretence that one doesn't care about the quality of their work (and regardless of your feelings on the subjectivity of art, there's a clear difference in quality between Uwe Boll's films versus Scorsese's for example). It's not arrogant to want to be ambitious. And you don't have to make an epic to make something great.
Not everything has to be grand. But if you don't care about the quality of your work, it will come out shit.

>>4482295
>>4484296
>GH7
Question for you/all anons itt
I’m thinking about the Gh7 for short films and that kind of stuff. I’ve already got some m43 glass from an Oly EM10 II. I want really good video quality and good autofocus. I know the Gh7 finally has decent AF... Thing is, the Gh7 has a stupid amount of codecs and I just want is to shoot with a LUT baked in (SOOC, no RAW, no external recorder, next to none color grading). Just load some LUTs, nail WB and exposure and then only do straight cuts in the edit.
Is the Gh7 good for my lazy and efficient workflow, or is it overkill and I should be looking at something else?
Any recommendations are welcome.

>>4484320
The gh7 is a weird camera. It's hard to figure out who it's really for.
It's basically a perfect hybrid camera in essentially every regard. But it's m43 and more expensive than a lot of competent ff cameras.
The thing is, m43 sensors are small and shitty, even when they're good (I know you say you have a lot of m43 glass, the point is that m43 cameras are normally cheap because they're shitty). If you're a professional production shooting with arris and you want a small crash cam, it's perfect. If you're a film school student and you want something light that can handle everything, it's perfect but expensive. If you're anyone else, why would you not drop a couple hundred more for an s1ii? Or save several hundred by buying an s1iie or s5iix? And that's without looking at other brands.
>I just want is to shoot with a LUT baked in
All cameras are fine for this. Lumix colours aren't the most beloved but they're decent. And they have their lab app where users can really easily share and create luts. It's supposedly quite popular.
>is it overkill and I should be looking at something else?
Hard to answer. You can buy a cheap camera that will probably do you fine. All the major brands have cameras sub $1000 that will work fine for you. But if you get serious about filmmaking, you'll need to learn to colour grade properly at some point. And you probably don't want to be in a situation where you need to spend all that extra money just to do so. At the same time, you can colour grade on 8bit 420 1080p footage as anyone making films 10 years ago knows.
>tldr
By all reports it's a good camera. The only criticism is price and sensor size.
There are lots of cameras that are worth looking at but none specifically. If this is your first camera, buy whatever you can get for less than 500 bucks on ebay. Otherwise, you should have a decent idea of what features you actually need. I very much doubt there's any situation where you'd regret only having a gh7 though.

File: IMG_1686.jpg (255 KB, 954x1027)

255 KB JPG

Speaking of GH7, gearfags BTFO:

https://fxtwitter.com/janusfilms/status/1992230751048438023

>>4484327
>janusfilms
ZOG nowadays, post should be disregarded... but as long as the script and basic visual composition is good and you don't fry the audio you can get away with it.

>>4484319
>there's a clear difference in quality between Uwe Boll's films versus Scorsese's for example
Shit vs Diarrhea

>>4484327
And guess what their budget/crew was for glass and post production?

>>4484319
Considered responding, but I think this is getting outside of the scope of the general. Nevermind.

>>4484325
Thanks for the detailed answer anon!
>m43 sensors are small and shitty
Jumping to FF sounds nice, but I’m a bit "scared" of starting another lens collection. My current body is crap, but I’ve got genuinely good Oly pro glass paired with quality filters. I’ve been eyeing the OM3 too bc it takes my lenses, AF should work nice with it and colors are probably what I'm used to see, but OM3 is clearly more of a photo camera that a video beast or even a hybrid camera.
>learn to colour grade properly
Been using some pro filters + Olympus JPEG colors for some years and I’m honestly really happy with the look I get. I don't dig the FF bokeh either as I learned to build the frame instead of nuking the background.
>there's any situation where you'd regret only having a gh7
Thanks again anon. I'll think about all this. God bless you.

>>4484335
Found the (filtered) pleb

>>4484327
No wonder it looks like shit. Should have used a Fuji would have looked more film like instead of sterile

>>4484327
every time with panasonic i feel like i'm watching a music video

>>4484338
>I’ve got genuinely good Oly pro glass paired with quality filters
You can sell it for 70-80% of what you paid.

Niggas I am a photographer who is trying to be a filmmaker because there is no money in photography. But I am absolute getting ass raped. The technical, financial and logistical hurdles in filmmaking are making me suicidal. How the fuck you faggots do this shit?

I swear I have so much respect for even the slop filmmakers due to amount of effort that goes into in this medium. But unfortunately this hinders true artistic freedom. I don't think that cinema will ever reach the heights of photography, fiction and painting due to these factors.

>>4484389
Filmmaking is very difficult. Some people can't handle it. There are lot of people who cope in weird ways. I saw a post on r/filmmakers a few weeks back about a guy complaining at his inability to make a career out of it after like 8 features or something. And then people looked at his filmography and he was one of those ones who would gleefully post about filming an entire feature within a day. I didn't personally check but the consensus was that his films were shit and he needed to focus on quality instead of making a film for the sake of it. (It'd be a separate long post to talk about why trying to make money is insanely difficult even if you make something good)
>How the fuck you faggots do this shit?
Passion and lots of sleepless nights. Hyperfocus adhd brain probably helps too.
You have to start small. You have to accept your first film will be shit unless you hire other people to make it for you.
Find a friend, go to to your town/city centre and just shoot a bunch of b-roll like you're doing a photoshoot, but with video clips instead. And then try and edit it into something vaguely watchable.
Then get two friends and write a short conversation for them. Focus on sound. Keep going. Just constantly build on what you've done before, making it a little more complicated each time. And spend a lot of time editing. Put these videos on youtube or something so that you have the shame of other people watching holding you accountable. If you know people are going to watch the shit you make, you suddenly have a far greater incentive to make something half decent.
It's like drawing. You want to be constantly doodling. But if you know your doodles are going to be displayed in an art gallery next to good drawings, you're going to put more effort into polishing them and you won't settle for acceptable (hopefully).

The one thing every indie filmmaker would kill for above all else is a competent producer who will handle the organisational shit.

>>4484389
>>4484397
To add on to this, if you're only in filmmaking for money then you'll struggle. There's a lot of money to be made in videography if you have the drive and aren't too concerned with making kino though.

>>4484397
>>4484398
Thank you anon for answering this in detail

I am not like the that reddit dude. I want to make kino that's why I am going mad. I have seen hacks like him in photography.

I have just so many questions like, how indie directors collect funds. who arrangess the actors, who hires the sound guy who manage the log sheets, who manage the time, who buy the food, who look for the safety of crew so on and so on...
How the all of this is possible in indie budgets? How do indie directors do it?

>The one thing every indie filmmaker would kill for above all else is a competent producer who will handle the organisational shit.
Producers also arrange money for you?

>There's a lot of money to be made in videography if you have the drive and aren't too concerned with making kino though.
I think this is my problem right now. Because I want to make kino but I have little money. Where I should start with videography considering my photography skills are good?

>>4484400
>I have just so many questions like, how indie directors collect funds.
lmao
That's the neat part, you don't! You have 3 options. Work a 'proper' job and save up money yourself. Beg for money through crowdfunding. Or try networking and rising through the ranks until a production company hires you/funds you to make something. Different people will tell you different things. In my opinion, experience is the most important thing so funding your own shit is the way forward but you do you.
>who arrangess the actors, who hires the sound guy who manage the log sheets, who manage the time, who buy the food, who look for the safety of crew so on and so on...
Producers and the people they delegate that shit to.
>How the all of this is possible in indie budgets? How do indie directors do it?
So the big secret that most people don't understand is that this is the difference between a 5k film and a 50k film. When you watch films that cost less than 100k to make, the quality is often shit in every department and the assumption is that it's a budget thing. It's not. It's just a 'proper' production company working through mostly official channels, making something cheap and quick. The cost is almost entirely all that shit you're talking about.
You figure out a way to do it cheaply/yourself, and you can make a film of the same quality and far greater for a fraction of that cost.
>Producers also arrange money for you?
They can. I frequently see indie productions begging for producers with 'experience in securing grants'. There are a lot of filmmaking grants available. Depending on where you live, they're very inaccessible though. They really only exist to subsidies expensive productions because rich people hate spending their own money.
>Where I should start with videography considering my photography skills are good?
Start by making shit. Volunteer to make stuff for free when you have some confidence.

>>4484404
Yeah no fuck begging. I'll do it on my own.

>Or try networking and rising through the ranks until a production company hires you/funds you to make something.
In this case how much freedom you have as an artist?

>They can. I frequently see indie productions begging for producers with 'experience in securing grants'.
I know a MILF producer, she is very well connected. I wish I was chad so I could seduce her, kek.

>>4484389
>there is no money in photography
>trying to be a filmmaker
lmao

>The technical, financial and logistical hurdles in filmmaking are making me suicidal
Welcome to hell :)

>I have so much respect for even the slop filmmakers
No.

>this hinders true artistic freedom
On a large scale, yes. You can still do it, but it just gets even fucking harder- funding, crew, programming, distribution becomes extremely difficult (and you risk filtering plebs by being “pretentious”, watch out!!).

Filmmaking is proof of masochism- and I can’t stop.

>>4484397
>You want to be constantly doodling. But if you know your doodles are going to be displayed in an art gallery next to good drawings, you're going to put more effort into polishing them and you won't settle for acceptable
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the person who sits in a park and doodles solely for himself, with no desire to ever show them publicly. This person can also focus on “quality” solely for himself- showing others has no inherent bearing on level of quality. His own personal drive and satisfaction can achieve this as well- “you’re your own worst critic”. If he doodles, makes himself smile, and closes his notebook satisfied at his quality- he is an artist and has created art. Someone else opening his notebook and saying “That’s amazing!” or “That’s shit!” has no effect on him and wouldn’t change his doodling either way.

>>4484412
For some people. For others, there's no need to put in effort if you're not being judged.
Don't tell me you're the same retard constantly trying to argue that you shouldn't strive to make anything that other people think is good.

>>4484415
>For some people.
Atleast I got that concession out of you

>For others, there's no need to put in effort if you're not being judged.
I pity these people.

>argue that you shouldn't strive
There is no “should” or “shouldn’t” in art.

>>4484417
>There is no “should” or “shouldn’t” in art.
And yet you're constantly trying to tell people that they shouldn't give any attention to how anyone feels about their art except themselves.
Art means whatever it means to you. One day you'll have to grow up and hopefully realise that your opinions are just that; subjective opinions that aren't some inherent truth that everyone must agree with. If someone wants to make something that's good and that people like (and most filmmakers do, the ones worth talking about certainly) then that's entirely their prerogative and they don't need you or some other teenager trying to tell them that all that matters is that they had fun.

>>4484418
>you're constantly trying to tell people that they shouldn't
I think you’re accusing me of acting how you’re acting- are you not telling people they “should” focus on the reaction and opinion of others? People reading this can throw their cameras in the trash or obsess over making a new Star Wars for all I care.

>subjective opinions that aren't some inherent truth that everyone must agree with
I agree. Do you?

>most filmmakers do
I agree. But that is an appeal to majority fallacy.

>the ones worth talking about certainly
lmao

>>4484420
>are you not telling people they “should” focus on the reaction and opinion of others?
I probably assume that any filmmaker asking for advice wants to make something that other people would enjoy. If you don't care about that then good for you, I'm not going to tell you that you should.
>Do you?
Yes. That's why I wrote it.
>that is an appeal to majority fallacy.
No it's not. Because we're not saying "should". I'm saying "do". If filmmakers want to do that, that's good for them and I think it's worthwhile in supporting and helping them. I agree in the sense that that's what I want to do, not that it's what I think everyone should do. You're the one telling them not to do that.
>lmao
All the lmaos in the world won't make anyone care about your slop that you call art. If you don't care that others don't care, fine. But I suspect you'll reply with an insecurity that confirms that you do care.

>>4484421
The man doodling in the park doesn’t care, and I agree with him. As far as being insecure- you’re the one using words like “retard” “grow up” “teenager” “slop that you call art”. Your own insecurity (jealousy?) is showing.

>>4484422
>no u
predictable

>>4484389
It depends on what kind of film making you're doing. Some of it is a nightmare, some of it is easy. I used to do social media and YouTube videos for commercial businesses and it was pretty simple shit, it was usually a camera on a gimbal and a wireless mic to record their lines, then the rest is just other general footage I got with the same camera on a gimbal.

File: toy story well paying gig.jpg (85 KB, 486x597)

85 KB JPG

Do you ever wonder if you could theoretically 'make it' by starting a meme account on insta?
(picrel is shamelessly stolen btw)

>>4482310
you actually dont need to do anything, you can do whatever you want, there are no rules

>>4484517
This but if you had the money

>>4484328
>>4484336
>>4484351
>>4484359
Cope

>>4484389
To add onto what the others said, if you're in Europe (and I guess some other countries around the world idk?) there's also government funding for independent kinos, but to get that you will also need to have some experience/pedigree/reputation and/or a producer
t. got govt funding to make kino

>>4484569
> Europe funds indy films

Can you make whatever you want to make or do you have to make woke shit that’ll make the audience wanna use eye bleach?

>>4484575
No the government literally waterboards us until we make films that will make chuds seethe online.

>>4484422
Some people lose more gracefully than you.

>>4484421
To be fair, his slop is probably art. It's not like he's shooting randomly like a monkey with a CCTV camera, street snapshitter style. The QUALITY of the art is another thing altogether. But as long as there's some creative intent, it's art. It may be atrocious unwatchable garbage art, but art nevertheless.

>>4484575
There aren't any explicit guidelines officially of course (except shit that is outright illegal I would guess), but I would expect them to favour projects that align either with the current governments policies or with the 'art community's' beliefs, as the panel that decides whether to give you funding is plucked from there. So you could get if you're in their camp or neutral, and less likely if the opposite. A couple examples. You won't get money from the government of Germany for a film about how great the holocaust waa. Nor will you get money from the government of Poland about how great Russia is. etc.

>>4484577
kek

>Buy high bitrate camera for $1500
>Pirate Da Vinci Resolve Studio
>Film outside without lights just using the sun
>Add Cineprint 35mm to do all the work for you

Is it really that easy to get professional looking footage? Honestly looks better than what the pros do and took no work at all. Am I missing something?

>>4484770
>Is it really that easy to get professional looking footage?
when people film using "natural light" there are modifiers

>>4483140
>>4483358
>>4483604
I’m back, just did a test shoot with the gear finally- fucking love it. Worked perfectly and I think it sounds fantastic. Prior to this I was using either an H1 mounted on the camera or a Shure SM57 going straight to a laptop through a Focusrite. World of fucking difference.

>>4484817
camera mounted mics are the worst option

>>4484836
I like it for general ambience/environment backing tracks, but thats all I use it for, generally don’t have a lot of room on the camera cage for mounting mics anyway

Honest opinons: sony fx3

When it released, I remember no one really caring about it because it was just an overpriced repackaged a7siii. It's now pretty much the defacto prosumer camcorder. And so my question is, does it deserve its success? In my head, the conversation really changed when it was used on The Creator. Is that it? Is it only beloved because it was used in a high-budget hollywood film? Or is it actually a near-perfect camera that just needed time for people to appreciate it?

>>4485094
It turns out every video camera that beats a gh5 is more than enough because people cant even tell 1080p from 4k without sniffing their macbook’s screen so all that matters to 99.99999% of people is autofocus and firmware gimmicks

>>4483376
That's the best place to be a filmmaker. The city is a meme

>>4482295
Ok I’m finally up to my big fat mantits in video I’ve shot over the years. Yeah sure I’ve got tags all over it, but that only partly helps. You know what’d be useful? Those contact sheet -like indexes that porn films tend to download with, with thumbnails every 5min or so. Bc you could rip through a folder of those fast and visually and recognize not just the subjects you thought to tag but get an instant overview of the look & feel of all the shots. Unfortunately there’s no way to search for a video index generator anymore bc Ai video generation has completely swamped the seo. Do any of you know of a good indexer? One site ranked a bunch of them and sure enough, they all do a bunch of keyword indexing but none of them actually do this..

>>4485657
AMT is the answer to that question.

>>4485657
Davinci has a way of viewing clips like that, don’t know if it’s as detailed/specific as you’re looking for though

File: arri cuts jobs.jpg (183 KB, 780x768)

183 KB JPG

For the record, I predicted this over 5 years ago

File: images (42).jpg (21 KB, 593x517)

21 KB JPG

I just witnessed a commercial made with AI. You all we need to step up our game...

>>4485782
WanderingDP on suicide watch

Any ideas how I could mount the camera inside a car without it being so jittery?

Here its clamped on the carseat headrest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzFbevXBVk

>sony a7v finally announced
>no dci 4k, nevermind 6k/7k/8k, nevermind internal raw
>no opengate
>4k 120 with a crop
>$2900
When literally every other company, including fucking canon, is providing more features for less money, you'd think sony would at least try and be consumer-friendly. Especially when the fx2 wasn't released that long ago and was despised by literally everyone who wasn't a literal paid shill.

>>4485753
They really fumbled with their LED production. That l7 weighs a shit ton and has a mediocre light. Aputure or whoever it was that thought of it was smart to separate the power box from the fixture.

>>4485853
Put it somewhere else that doesn't absorb some much vibration. Or check your tire pressure.

File: 1080vs720.png (2.69 MB, 1774x880)

2.69 MB PNG

>>4482295
There is no difference between one resolution source file and another, bc upscaling exists anons. Just look at this fucking 720p video with double the data bitrate being upscaled to match the 1080p at 100% on the Left. Over 720p, you'RE JUST RESOLVING GRAIN ARNCHA YA Sweaty cunts

and we all know seeing grain doens't help the quality of an image.

I know very little about cameras and especially lenses. I want to buy a gh5ii but I have no idea what lenses I should get with it. Any advice or suggestions? This is for filmmaking, not for shooting music videos or weird camera demos.

I saw that I could buy a 12-60mm leica zoom lens for $980 but idk how good that would be for filmmaking with its non-constant aperture. But then idk what I would buy instead, there seem to be so many options and I have no background or frame of reference.

>>4486099
Damn!!! BRB- rendering all my footage as 720p right now!!!

>>4486099
i love grain

>>4486099
I too love lowres blurry footage that looks like smartphone's noise reduction.

>>4486099
grain helps to me to improve perceived-resolution of the image.

>>4486681
>perceived-resolution
>perceived
You blind fuck. Can you not see that the original 1080 is miles ahead of that 720 joke? 720 has no sharpness to it what so ever. Complete loss of detail. Blotchy and ugly to boot. Looks like a thot with an instagram filter.
>>4486099
You can't just conjure up information from nothing. When it's lost - it's lost. You lack standards. You settle for shit. Which is okay. But keep your inane drivel to yourself.

>>4486685
>it looks higher resolution because there's grain
yes I agree with that statement for yours

>>4486687
That's it. Into the tard-squisher you go.

>>4486687
When did arguing in bad faith become tolerated?

Has anyone ever been tempted to make a christmas video of some variety? Experiences?

>>4487559
Past few years I’ve made a funny Christmas video with my family, we only share it with other family members though. Don’t know if we’ll get to it this year but I’ll try

can i just use autofocus i dont want to hire another person

>>4487648
yes

>>4487650
thank you i was going to give up otherwise i dont have the money to hire so many people

>>4487654
People will tell you all sorts of dumbass "rules". You can ignore all of them. Make shit, learn your own rules and follow only them.

>>4487648
wait until you find out autofocus needs light to work properly

>>4487767
as opposed to people, who don't need any light to perfectly pull focus

>>4487648
Unless you shooting high end commercial or narrative shit where where focusing on a watch while keeping the person out of focus is required you should be able to use autofocus. Autofocus really shines on keeping faces in focus. Keeping a ring or watch in focus while the face is blurry is what you’d need a focus puller to help you do.

>>4487789
>Keeping a ring or watch in focus while the face is blurry is what you’d need a focus puller to help you do.
Depends what system you're using. But pretty much every camera has a way to turn face-priority off, and then use single-point focus. My old canons would have no issue with that.

>>4487791
But if you want to rack focus between the ring or watch and the face at a specific time to fit with the story you need a focus puller. I always had problems with the autofocus getting shit wrong, and if you are using lenses that give you bokeh magic forget about using autofocus because lenses that give swirly bokeh or ring shaped bokeh or other awesome bokeh magic tend to me manual only lenses.

File: i-img1200x1200-1765153887(...).jpg (136 KB, 1200x1200)

136 KB JPG

should I do it bros?

>>4487820
That is fucking awesome bro. Do it if you don’t mind paying for film. Or if you just want an awesome looking camera to rock out to impress friends with.

>>4487820
35mm is cheaper on the long run (there's no 16mm short ends available so it's ironically more expensive than 35mm despite being supposed to be the cheaper format).

>>4487863
> shooting 35mm is cheaper in the long run

Wow! I didn’t know that. I thought shooting 35mm was much more expensive then shooting 16mm

>>4487865
Only if buying sealed canisters.

File: i-img1200x1200-1765153891(...).jpg (147 KB, 1200x1200)

147 KB JPG

>>4487861
its still up for auction, starting at $3kAU. it would be cool to have, but might need a bit of dosh for a cla. prolly put a roll or two thought it a year if it actually works.
>>4487863
pretty hard to find short ends here in aus, but I do have 2 in the freezer haha

35mm 400ft
2perf 9min
3perf 6min

16mm 400ft 11min

>>4487865
It is. The only way to imagine 35mm as cheaper is if you can buy other peoples leftover film canisters (that have been stored however the fuck) cheaply without other desperate fucks bidding them up to near retail cost. But then you’re still going to be on the hook for paying the 35mm developing and scanning costs.

As usual. cAnon is full of shit. 16mm is about 1/4 the cost, for slightly more visible grain, which you may find preferable so your footage actually looks like film, rather than spending 35mm money and getting shots so hi-res they look damn near digital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rerwXPtuHfg
Set your yt prefs to max quality and they”ll give you a shot comparison at about 45 seconds in, and again in greater detail later.

>>4487784
are you too young for distance and dof charts?

>>4487873
>400ft
>short ends
Those are long ends my dood

>>4487883
Justo buy your short ends from a reputable shop anon, eBay isn't where you do that. Places that specialize in that will usually test each batch.
>getting shots so hi-res they look damn near digital
lol, might as well shoot super 8 if your idea of film is lomography

File: 1713549606545776.jpg (78 KB, 640x760)

78 KB JPG

Read the sticky, looked through a bunch of youtube videos and such and probably did a stupid thing and got myself a bmpcc 6k, with a Tilta cage, upper-handle, side-handle and some extra batteries, cables and a few other tilta nick-nacks for around a 1000 eurobucks. Looking at getting myself some amaran pano lights with the new handle-batteries, the much lauded sigma 18-35, a decent v-mount battery and probably a second-hand Sachtler ace and shinobi monitor that I am eye-ing up. The goal at the end of it all is to just make some videos, that I have ideas for, learn the process of lighting/filming as I do it, edit and see if all of this is more than just a fantasy and actually brings joy in doing it. That being said, while I am reading the Blain Brown books to learn a bit and already slapped down more money than I probably should have, I feel a bit scared. I’ve been putting this off for maybe 10 years (in my 30s now), thinking that I’ll do it later and obviously it will be awesome, but now I feel time slipping away and am genuinely scared that I can't put it off any longer and at the same time, that it will all be shit (not the ‘everything that you do at first is shit, but you can get better’ type of shit, but rather in actually just fucking lame and shit).

Say someone has a bmpcc 6k, the sigma lens and some pano lights, what would you suggest as the main things to focus on buying, that would give the most bang for your buck in terms of just creative work? I really want to be as independent as I can, so that I would have the most self-sustaining simple load out, that could, if I eventually get better, allow me the most freedom in what and where I could shoot.

>>4487894
So if you're measuring and being scientific, then you can easily (theoretically) do that with af through rack focusing. To be fair, I think most people using af are probably running and gunning it a bit more, trying to save time. Using proper measurements would slow everything down significantly.
I think if you're avoiding hiring another person due to money, you're unlikely to be prepared to go through all that in the first place. But I admit I could just be wrong.

>>4487949
The best way to know what to buy next is to make some videos and see what it frustrates you to not have. Some people love sliders for example, I don't really care about them at all. Likewise with shoulder rigs, a handle for your cage, a second monitor etc etc. Only you can know what will help you significantly.
Having said that, I don't think you said anything about sound. You really need something that can record half decent audio.

>>4487953
>The best way to know what to buy next is to make some videos and see what it frustrates you to not have
That's a very valid point, but at the same time, I sort of feel that as a complete beginner, I need a slightly bigger safety-net from the get-go. I am fully aware that someone experienced can make something watchable with a simple smartphone and maybe a simple flashlight, for myself I feel I need to start off a bit bigger, to at least make something workable before I could even know what I might actually feel I need. At the same time, the financial angle of it all is super depressing.
> I don't think you said anything about sound.
I made a conscious (maybe stupid) decision that sound would be the area I would not distract myself with in learning or purchasing. Just ask for advice at the local rental and rent something for the weekend. My logic is that I am already starting everything from scratch and learning everything on the go, so perhaps I can save some nerves and money by remaining completely ignorant in at least this area.

>>4487954
>I sort of feel that as a complete beginner, I need a slightly bigger safety-net from the get-go
Bad mentality. There's always going to be excuses for why it's not perfect. You can't plan for everything. You can't have everything. Skill in filmmaking is really just being skilled in adapting to the unexpected. The most important piece of advice: If you actually want to be a filmmaker, you need to make films.
Most people start by making shit with their phones or on a cheap dslr with their friends. You should follow them. Experience is vital.
>sound would be the area I would not distract myself with in learning or purchasing. Just ask for advice at the local rental and rent something for the weekend
You can have the best mic in the world. If you don't know how to use it, where to place it or how to edit it then it may as well be your camera's internal microphone.

>>4487954
The safety net is reading up on technique, then reading the manuals and knowing your gear to prevent it from getting in the way of what you want to make. If you can get a cheap zoom digishit you can use it to figure out the lenses you will need for your desired framing with help of the EXIF data. Like anon said, sound is vital too. Unless of course you sidestep the issue by shooting silent films but it's harder to make a decent silent film than a decent talkie. If you can use wireless lavs on your talent that would be a damn fine starting point.

>>4487957
>If you actually want to be a filmmaker, you need to make films.
I know you are right, but taking the first step already seems really daunting and I feel like I need to have at least a few bases covered. At least in areas that would eventually be unavoidable, like a tripod, for example. Since with this being my first real attempt, my shakiness of my shot will probably be atrocious, even though eventually I hope to learn to control it a bit better.

>You can have the best mic in the world. If you don't know how to use it, where to place it or how to edit it then it may as well be your camera's internal microphone.
Sort of feel that the same would go for lights, camerawork and most other things. That being said, at least the first few ideas I have should involve very little speech, so most would probably just be catching the ambient room-sound.

>>4487959
Wireless lavs were sort of what I was thinking about. Renting them for the weekend isn't super expensive and I do know someone that has limited experience with sound, so they could probably help out in that are as a buddy-favor for a few beers.

>>4487960
Get a pan/tilt fluid head tripod. And some books on cinematography.
>>4487962
Neat. Also get yourself this book, you can download it from your favorite mateys from the seven seas:

>A Shot in the Dark: A Creative DIY Guide to Digital Video Lighting on (Almost) No Budget

>>4487965
Thank you, anon, I will get the book.

>>4487960
>I know you are right, but taking the first step already seems really daunting
That's the point. That's why you need to do it. It's never not going to feel scary. Hence, you're never going to run out of excuses for not shooting something. Hence, fuck excuses, fuck fear, just make something. The more you put it off, the harder it becomes.
You need to make peace with knowing that the first thing(s) you make will be shit. No exceptions unless you hire someone else to make it for you.
>I need to have at least a few bases covered. At least in areas that would eventually be unavoidable, like a tripod
You don't need a tripod. It's a fucking great thing to have. But you don't need one. And if you make something without one, you'll learn a lot about which situations do and don't require one. The only way you can learn the fuckton of shit you need to know is to remove that safety blanket, which will force you to be creative and avant-garde. Most of it will fail. That bit which isn't a failure will teach you so much

>>4487969
Yeah skip the fluid head. Static shots are timeless. Pans and zooms are 1970s kitch. Don't do it. Shoot your shit with the appropriate focal length & framed properly.

To really Cinefag/Canon out, put a nice ultrawide on and pan that fucker back & forth between subjects in a two shot, you'll make the whole audience throw up, it's great.

You don't need a camera. It's a fucking great thing to have. But you don't need one. And if you make something without one, you'll learn a lot about which situations do and don't require one. The only way you can learn the fuckton of shit you need to know is to remove that safety blanket, which will force you to be creative and avant-garde. Most of it will fail. That bit which isn't a failure will teach you so much

>>4488008
true, just get fast at sketching and draw 24fps and you'll never need a camera

>>4488008
Chris Marker pilled

>>4488008
This is the trvke we all needed. All the best movies you could ever dream of making are already in your head. You don't need a camera to see them.

>>4488008
>You don't need a cinema camera.
ftfy

>>4487977
>Fuck excuses, fuck fear, just make something.
Thank you, anon. Deep down I know there is no possible future in which this would ever get more easy to do later, or there being a future in which I would not feel regret if I were to never even try this. But to this day, whatever it was fear or pride, or laziness, or all of the above, I would just put it off. In a way, I suppose my retard move in buying shit before even knowing much about cinematography in general was a way to push myself over the limit of stagnation. Now or never kind of mid-life crisis/need to at least try before I get a kid type shit.

I'm an absolute tourist pleb that is just starting to really learn cursory things on the very first-step basics of this form of expression and my past experiences on set are limited and devoid of technical know-how.

What comes out at least initially will without a doubt come out as shit, and my main goal is to find joy in the process, but there is still this fear of shame? I have worked office jobs, I know that failure in those areas might bring fear for a position or promotion, but no shame. This, even without immediate financial incentive, seems scarier.

>You don't need a tripod. It's a fucking great thing to have. But you don't need one.
I fear that certain areas/scenes I have in mind would then need hand-held shots, and I fear 0 experience here and bmpcc's limited stabilization help, anything I catch would be a parkinsonian fever dream.

>>4487998
>Yeah skip the fluid head.
Without going into wild jerking shots, wouldn't a little bit of slow tilt help spread out certain shots? I agree that static shots are peak, I always just figured that while you might need such a thing rarely, when you do need it, fluid heads are great. A bit of a luxury addition, but invaluable once bought.

>>4488008
Based minimalism

>>4488048
This is the reason I got into filmmaking- seeing movies in my head that I wanted to just make real
Too bad it’s so incredibly fucking difficult on numerous levels to actually achieve

>>4482295
I mean honestly the reason people end up at 16mm is bc its the sweet spot, quality cameras are dirt cheap (a $25 Bell-Howell Filmo will do it) and everything post-capture & 4k scan, you've got full, excellent control over in editing with very little work. I just did an action scene and we used 3 of those little cams and FPP ektachrome mags, and the footage is fucking gorgeous & it was as simple as a point & shoot to operate. Cost was like a hundred bucks for the film and processing. The color is consistent enough I don't have to fuck with anything, & it's stable enough I don't have to, (but I will anyway) + I have a real physical backup of the footage, actual footage, that we can have rescanned if disaster or assholery strikes.

I paid more for the fucking battery pack for our red than for all the film we used in this sequence lol

>>4488089
>$25 Bell-Howell Filmo
Link?

How long did loading and unloading take?
How much did the scan cost?

>>4488102
here's one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/165033287230?_skw=bell+howell+filmo&itmmeta=01KCCZES1NY26BPWAD82TZCGAC&hash=item266cc01e3e:g:vBQAAOSwyUZhI-6E&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA0FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1cxawU3naEluJr%2FD7p2sdpfUBEQwDZFgVeEY80tEFohxHepSqgtc%2FlbwnWfrEFKrcLosgOUOy1U%2Fc3cjO2rwQ7%2B0gsGqxP5FngPG3DXF2eVpABsdRKDeCJduZXjhYs7v0WnElSCni8YZMhannbGOAtIbaYAKnDsRkCB1r3wuyTq08nm%2B7vfy5wtbi0WSmBLc7FIhaQJWaaE36E0QrTjS%2FGt7YiDPbQgDaypBYHza%2FUe55bKQYpk1Pd1I4MNzQduOXU%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR4CRu5_jZg

That one is filthy but you can see in the pics how loading works. It takes under a second bc the film comes pre-loaded in that black magazine, so you pop the rear door open, slide it in, burn through it, check the window on the side to see ftg remaining, and when you've used it up, in broad daylight pop the back door open, yank the mag out and slide another one in with more film. You send the entire mag off to FPP and they develop, scan and reload for the next customer. The BIG thing that makes these cameras (which were originally made as premium $$$$ home movie cameras) the prime choice for crash cams in real productions is that it has B&H's awesome mechanism, w/ an internal clock movement and brake to keep the film rate constant as the spring winds down, so your footage always plays back at a steady speed. It just runs at whatever (and I mean whatever) frame rate you set it to, for about 20secs, & then BAM, firm stop. It's unique among old cameras, and the mechanism that built that company, starting with the big hollywood cameras, & then they shrunk it down to these 16mm cameras and just kept making them for about 50 years, w all the parts interchangable from the 1920s to the late 1970s/80 model, because it's pretty much perfect, never needs maintenance, just works.
I could go on, bc I've been impressed as hell with these little things as minimalist film capture devices.

>>4488102
https://www.ebay.com/itm/135460898208?_

We also have one of these, a three-lens turret on it, but never really used it. All these take standard C-mount lenses so you can play around with lenses and mounts. If you're going to shoot on a tripod, you might as well have your wide narrow & long lenses on the turret.

However, there's not much difference in price between a camera with a lens and one without, so you might as well get one with lens for no other reason than to get the viewfinder (the smaller lens you actually look through up & off to the side).

https://www.ebay.com/itm/287004873411?_

But we bought some little C-Mount to F-Mount adapter, and put the insanely sharp Nikkor 50mm Micro lens on it, one of the absolute sharpest lenses ever made, and the 16mm film is using the absolute sharpest center of that glass. I think we got the Nikkor lenses for about $75 ea, and the adapters for $20.

Terantino used them as crash cams in car chases & whatnot, so I thought I'd try them, and they're my favorite cameras ever. You can buy one so old & neglected it's siezed, and it'll just be old sticky grease gumming it up. Pull the face off it with four screws, drop some oil on the exposed gears and it'll work its way free in no time and start running smooth as butta.

>>4488119
lol wide normal & long, not wide narrow & long
Dev&Scan cost combined was about $50/roll.
I haven't tried the big shop in Denver yet but have heard enough good things they're next, just to spread the business around a bitand support both.

>>4488116
>>4488119

You can get those cameras for under $50 + taxes and shipping.

What’s the catch?

File: angenioux.jpg (31 KB, 540x363)

31 KB JPG

>>4488129
There isn't one, they were extremely nice (and expensive as hell) back when they were on the market, bc they don't do a million things, they just do the essentials and do them very very reliably. They also have an actual claw, doing a proper serpantine motion, unlike most compact movie cameras which typically just cheap out and use a gear to yank the film along. They have a 4 position shutter button for run, run (lock), + you can nudge it upward to take a still, either for stop motion animation or whatever.

They're priced low bc before FPP reintroduced 16mm magazines, you couldn't get mag film at all, which made all the compact cams worthless. ...I've picked up a half dozen expired kodachrome magazines just to get the empty mags, and am loading my own now from a big 400' roll to save more $ on my next project.

The rounded model of the Filmo is the nicest to hold, though I'm not a fan of handheld. The boxy later version with the chrome plates on the back are available in gray and black, and both of those have a nice ratcheting winder. They have different front face & lens arrangements. The double turret is handy but still flat & small enough to pack small, though the pull rod in the center was in the way of our big Nikkor lens. The 3-lens turret is nice but is big & clunky to carry. The single lens face comes kitted with a very sharp 20mm lens (equivalent to a 40mm angle of view on 35/FF).

There is also an EE model to avoid, it's got electronic metering & auto exposure tacked on, which worked great when film ISO's were much slower, but are practically useless today. Skip the EE models.

If you really want to geek out, Angenioux made a reflex zoom lens assembly for them. I tried a couple, they're pretty interesting, but they're in high enough demand they sell for a few hundred, and of course a prime lens will give you much sharper image than an old zoom.

They're so cheap you can just get a few just to play with em.

>spent literal years obsessing over gear
>randomly watch some old clips of me fucking around with friends and family
>don't give a shit about any gear
Anons it took me years to realise what's important are the memories you capture, how come no one on this board ever emphasised that

>>4488218
>number one piece of advice in this general has always consistently been "just fucking make shit"
>anon: "how come no one ever told me to just shoot stuff instead of obsessing over gear?"

>>4488218
Yeah, my great grandfathers 8mm films that start in 1936 and end in 1980 are my favorites. Everyone I used to know as a little kid is on them, their whole lives, them as young ppl, hanging out at every age, marriages, etc, it’s all in there, and I’m the first person to open them up in 45 years. But ngl I wish he had spent more $ on a 16mm cam instead of the 8mm. 8 is rough.

>>4488218
>what's important are the memories you capture
You can't deliver an executive video package with memories and feelings, you need specs to justify the product under the eyes of suits

File: Screenshot 2025-12-15 at (...).png (1.3 MB, 2424x1268)

1.3 MB PNG

>>4487820
Mission failed, We'll get 'em next time
I should probably start with super8 or a bolex

>>4488327
Since the fuzz questioned me about my crypto profits I can no longer buy cool gear like that. ;-( I guess I’ll go back to using my phone. Lenses and tripod and support shit make stuff like that super expensive. I wish nobody questioned me about my crypto money. Getting gear and toys was super fun, but (for me) it’s over now.

>>4488327
$5000 on a 16mm film camera in 2025 is not well considered. All you’re going to use it for is holding the lens in front of the film and running the shutter, and everything else you’re gong to do much better, capably, consistently and practically instantaneously in the software editor after developing. All that beast gives you is a regular service bill high enough you could buy another bolex with the money instead.

File: 1765735407461851.webm (3.96 MB, 1280x712)

3.96 MB WEBM

>>4487998
or you could go full doyle

File: ycryve80jyje1.jpg (313 KB, 3360x1880)

313 KB JPG

How do you manage storage when traveling? Ahead is a 3 weeks trip to Japan where I most likely shoot my new Nikon ZR daily. Now I could easily shoot in h265, 4k/25 and call it a day, not worrying about storage. But obviously the red raw is really nice and I wanna shoot in that probably. However after just 40 mins my 512gb cf express card is full. That would definitely be enough for one full day for me. My usual workflow is to directly cut the footage together in davinci, export in h265 and delete all raw files. So no storage issues. But I doubt I wanna edit daily when traveling. Should I buy a 10TB harddrive or so? How would you do it?

>>4488793
>anon learns the reason why nikon cameras are impractical for video the hard way

>>4488793
Grab a couple of portable 2.5" SSDs (or buy a M.2 storage key where you can slot in your own disks on a USB adapter). Sure it'll cost you a couple hundred dollars, but there's no way to avoid that. Spinning disks WILL get jossled around enough that you risk damage.

You could directly upload your footage to a cloud-based system via a laptop but that requires you to bring a laptop on your trip and have a cloud service you're paying for (free services are going to give you fuck all storage). Google drive is only like $7 for 2TB of storage, so I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a different service with greater storage.

>>4488793
shoot lightweight files and get it right in camera

>>4488814
this. you don't need raw.

>>4489133
>>4488814
Not that anon, but raw is fun. Especially if you wanna color grade your shit without it breaking.

What's up with the Open Gate™ meme?

>>4489186
its for
1: serious cinema productions that want the camera guys evf to see the rigging before it enters the frame area that is to be used, the extra space just gets cropped out later
2: spec sheet wankers that think their shitty youtube selfie vlogs need every feature under the sun, justified with theories about marginal resolution and quality improvements (its video ffs, even stillsfags struggle to tell 36mp and 50mp apart, open gate is less, and it moves)
3: micro four thirds users with buyers remorse

>>4489186
Delicious anamorphic baby

>>4489190
You dont need open gate to shoot anamorphic. Never have.

>>4489189
>Point 1
See, that's the only place where I've seen it efficiently implemented or when production can't decide what ratio to use. Outside of that, I don't see what use it has.

>>4489191
Ok

>>4489186
wider vertical fov allows to shoot for both 16:9, 1:1 and 9:16 ratios. It's easier to crop for different standards for delivery

>>4489186
>>4489189
You missed anamorphic shooters who don't want meme aspect ratios

>shoot outdoor scene using neon lights for stylised effect
>week later realise I chose the wrong colour
>spend less than a minute adjusting colour wheels and get perfect colour balance as if I'd chosen correctly in the first place
Sometimes I forget how amazing log footage is in modern cameras

>>4489296
>fuck it up in-camera
>save it in post
a tail as old as thyme

If I could AI generate a film that is exactly like how I picture it in my head, it comes out a perfect 1:1 depiction of every single slight detail according to any whim or desire I have-
I would absolutely do it, immediately, without question

>>4489446
I would do it even if the cost associated with generating the footage was the same as a production budget
Fuck I’d probably still do it if it even cost more than shooting it in real life

>>4489446
I just want an ai powerful enough to be able to take my crappy footage and turn it into a cinematic masterpiece. I’d use that shit in a heart beat.

>>4489618
What do you mean by that- editing? Color correction? Music?
Because I know for a fact 2 of those already exist.

>>4489620
Color correcting and cleaning up the footage and replacing the background (my shitty apartment) with something awesome and cinematic? I don’t do music. I usually hire someone to do that for me. So I film myself jumping and acting like a retard and feed it into the ai and it outputs footage of me doing something cool and cinematic.

>>4489622
>Color correcting and cleaning up the footage
Already possible

>replacing the background (my shitty apartment) with something awesome and cinematic
Don’t really know what you mean by this, but it’s very easy to greenscreen and do background replacement yourself.

>I don’t do music. I usually hire someone to do that for me
AI can do music now

>I film myself jumping and acting like a retard and feed it into the ai and it outputs footage of me doing something cool and cinematic
I know it can expand on still images to start animating them, you could potentially film yourself infront of a greenscreen and then tell the AI what you want. Try it, I’ve seen some insane results from AI lately and it’s getting better literally month by month

>>4489618
Same. I have crystal clear MF stills of Katherine Hepburn, or for example my great grandparents, or Pink Floyd in 1967. AND we have a terribly aged barely surviving single print of a lost Hep movie, badly lit footage of my grandparents in the 1930s inside Mount Rushmore while it was being built, and a bunch of shaky 8mm footage of Syd’s insane psychedelic Floyd jam gigs shot in the dark but exposed for their light shows. My brain can look at the stills and apply that high resolution clear image of them to the dark grainy movements I see on stage in the footage. What I’m waiting for is the Ai to say, train me on all the photographic images you have of the subjects, stills & frames of films, and I’ll build their model and apply it to the movements you see them making in the film, composite it all into layers and you can adjust as needed afterward.

When it can do that, we’ve got something.
All that vintage porn shot on crappy vhs in the 80s, in crystal clear 3D VR!

Since 2 or 3 years ago, I've maintained that the ultimate ai filmmaking tool will be a program that essentially acts as a final step in something like unreal or blender (or that game, The Movies).
Ie, you use relatively low-quality 3d assets to build a scene, render it, then run it through an ai which makes it looks photo-realistic and cinematic.
All the control of 3d animation, all the simplicity of a videogame, all the quality of actually shooting real-life footage.

>>4489618
sounds gay

Remember, you better make your shit soon. You've got like 3 years maybe until everyone will assume that anything good you make is all because of ai. Doesn't matter whether or not you actually used it
>Oh I love the cinematography in that shot! What prompt did you write to get that movement?
>...Riiiight, yeah I don't use ai either, WINK WINK

>>4489719
Ok

>>4489719
I just want to use ai to do rotoscoping for me because rotoscoping sucks. I’ll shoot my own stuff, and I will use the ai to do the painful stuff like rotoscoping for me.

>>4489741
Tryout Davinci Magic Mask with depth mapping- it’s become a largely painless process, especially compared to how it used to be

>>4489746
I like magic mask but it runs so slow. I can’t wait until cpus get ai cores so I can do magic mask in realtime.

>>4489749
Nice to hear it runs slow on someone else’s rig too- my Mac laptop is old as fuck so I figured that was it.

File: Screenshot 2025-12-23 at (...).png (1.8 MB, 2532x1176)

1.8 MB PNG

Coming my way, was the risky click worth it? $3800AUD ($2400USD)
I have been on the lookout for a PL zoom for the meme alexa build and found this.
Its a 20-100, bit of a scratch on the front, but I hope it doesn't effect the image,

>>4489896
Front element damage isn't a death sentence. You will probably get some extra ghosting and flares from light coming in at that angle and the scratch is just centered enough that you'll probably feel it regardless of the f/stop used.
That being said, a bit of ghosting and flaring isn't that big of a deal and may even be what you want (vintage lenses had tonnes of it and it reflects in media of the time).
How far in the hole has this set you back so far aussieanon? I haven't seen any updates on your memelexa build in months.

>preparing to put film on filmhub
>they preferably want proress 422 or dnxhr
>a 90 minute 4k film will easily turn into over 300gb in either of these formats
>they begrudgingly say they'll accept h264 (with a stupidly high bitrate) but don't like it
>google/ai tells me that if I submit an h264 file then there's a good chance I'll run into qc issues like duplicate frames
What the shit? A 4k h264 file at 25mbps looks fantastic. And that's like less than 20gb for a 90 minute 4k film. If I double that to 50, that should be more than good enough, not 'maybe but probably not lol'. What is this obsession with using such stupidly large file sizes? This isn't the early 00s where compression ruins quality anymore.
I don't want to fill my harddrives with random renders only to realise that there are like 5 frames I don't like and have to rerender another several hundred gigs to fix it.

>>4490050
Unless you are sending it to a finishing house to do color grading or vfx on it their is no reason you need to send a ProRes master.

>>4490061
Hey man, I'm just telling you what they're saying.
https://help.filmhub.com/en/articles/2663770-video-audio-requirements
If you google delivering them an h264 file, you get a lot of forum chatter about an increased failure in qc (and qc failure is already massively on the rise as they look for ways to scam filmmakers out of as much money as they can)

>>4490050
a bluray remux is 50-80gb+ and thats after its been compressed to fit on a disk. they want to start with something good before they put their magic sauce on it for distribution