>>4493514
I am going to get a rehoused bmpcc 6k with built in electronic nd filter and a mft mount soon. That way I can replace my bmpcc 4k with a better camera without needing to rig the fuck out of my new camera. The long preorder to get it was fucking annoying. I hope it works like a boss once I get it.

>>4493548
>rehoused bmp 6k
>mft mount
What? Where are you getting this from and why? The sensor is much larger than mft. You're either going to get heavy bad lens vignetting, an extreme mft crop making it pointless to move on from the bmp4k, or some lens fuckery that's the opposite of a speed booster and means your lenses are actually slower.
Explain because I feel like I must be missing something obvious.

>>4493548
it's thiccer than the 4k, if you have a cage it might not fit

For a PAL region, should I use 25fps and 50fps? My main concern is playback on computers as I've never used anything that isn't NTSC and idk how well it will playback or if I'll have any other weird challenges as a result.

My other idea is to still use 30 and 60 but adjust the shutter speed to be slightly lower (1/50th for 30 and 1/100 for 60). Would this still be good? I can't decide at all and need help.

>>4493551
The one I am getting is rehoused into a box with a universal lens mount and built in electronic nd and sdi ports.

>>4493549
I have mft cinema primes and mft anamorphic lenses and mft cinema zooms that cover a s35 sensor and I could get a dumb EF to mft adapter or a dumb pl to mft adpter to use the other glass I wanna use.

>>4493553
You got your answer there, retard:
>>4493501
>>>4493492
>>My main concern is playback on TVs
>Are you still running CRT TVs lmao...?
>
>You really do come here and waste people's time with inane, retarded, questions like this, when you could literally https://chatgpt.com/share/6964e6f3-1680-8009-bb2a-8e6496c735c1
>"Oh Lord in heaven, what a humongous faggot I met on the road, and he was an enormous faggot indeed, my Lord". Are you one of those boomers that instead of using a search engine and finding an answer in FIVE FUCKING SECONDS, you go to fucking plebbit and youtube comments to fish for an answer that maybe, one day, perhaps, god willing, will appear as a reply to your stupid fucking inane questions? Go look in a mirror faggot. I said GO LOOK IN THE MIRROR, FAGGOT! What you will see is a ginormous, stupid, dumb retarded faggot, and instead of harassing locals in a foreign country with your camera, you should either:
>a) photograph said retard you see in a mirror, and mail the photo to a publishing house working on illustrated encyclopedias, so they could upgrade their illustrations on the topic of "RETARDED FAGGOTS"
>b) skip the trip, and spend the money on education and tutoring, mainly on the subject of "how to think and use what little brain I have for maximum effect" - recommended for the benefit of you and the whole of humanity, and all the unfortunate souls that you would meet along your way in this world.

>>4493565
>tl;dr schizopost
>ChatGPT
Lol, no.

>>4493557
i thought they came with the l-mount

>>4493553
Unless you are shooting for TV it literally doesn't matter. You might get some flicker with some lights depending on camera + grid frequency,
Computers all around the world play the same video just fine.
For the "cinema look" you want 180 degree shutter, (shutter speed double the frame rate)

Cinema 24fps 1/48sec
Video 30fps 1/60sec
Action 60fps 1/120fps
Slow-120+fps 1/240fps (shoot 120 and playback at timeline speed)

>>4493570
Based, thanks. What about the choppiness/stutter I see on 24fps sometimes? Not even just on my own work but others too, where even with the correct shutter speed, there's a really bad stutter even when it's objects moving past a still camera or especially stuttering if there's any panning.

I've been using 30/60 for a while to reduce the stutter risk of 24 but using 25 seems like there might be the same issue.

>>4493572
Not too sure, if the camera is 100% at 180 deg you will just get motion blur and not the slideshow effect, doesn't matter the frame rate.
Only thing I can think of is a compression issue either with the camera or playback. Youtube likes to do this when you have slow internet.
Rolling shutter is when fast moving objects go all jello because of a slow sensor readout, if you have a camera with a global shutter all pixel are recorded at the same time.

>>4493578
It's very odd. I did manage to find this which is exactly what I see in my own 24fps footage and I've used two different cameras.

https://youtu.be/zPRdd9jcmds?t=167

File: 1762053344979045.png (377 KB, 840x854)

377 KB PNG

>796 files
I'm never going to finish this project. I've viewed, organized, ranked and rated them all, deleted the unusable clips, grouped the multiple takes.... but cutting this pile of shit into coherent work... I'm not even worried about any other aspect at all other than cutting it and keeping this shit under half an hour. I'm never going to finish what I started, god damn. Why is there this many files... There's a file for every 2,5 seconds.

>>4493572
https://digifonics.com/24-fps.html

issue is the majority of laptop/computer monitors are 60hz and the 3:2 pulldown effect. tvs are also mostly interlaced while monitors are progressive, so theoretically 24fps will look good on TV but not on monitors.

Assuming I don't care too much about depth of field, is it cool for me to use aperture to adjust exposure? Assuming I have an ND filter that isn't variable and have my shutter and ISO set as I want them for the 180 degree motion and perfect ISO noise level.

>>4493583
>https://digifonics.com/24-fps.html
lol
no

>>4493585
>no counterargument
k

>>4493586
here is my counter: it looks like shit

>>4493581
I've been sitting on this pile of shit for months now and just got out of my depressed stupor.... opened Resolve, reviewed the raw material, considered the desired result... that gives me shooting ratio of 10:1 which isn't too bad at all. Lots of good footage will be discarded, lots of other stuff should've been filmed instead. I don't know why I didn't choose more sane hobbies desu...

>>4493569
This one is rebuilt with a universal mount that that takes any other mount. E mount mft or others. It’s still in preorder but should be released sometime Q1 this year and has a built in nd that works with any lens system you have

>>4493558
Every mft lens I own will cover a super 35 sensor except for the vazen 1.8x anamorphic lenses they only cover mft sensors. I own mainly manual geared cinema lenses in the mft mount not electric focus by wire lenses. The price of an mft cinema lens is so much cheaper then an equivalent lens in any other mount it’s almost like I’m stealing the lens. Why they will cover a super 35 sensor when they come in an mft mount is a mystery to me—unless the company just slaps an mft mount on super 35 or full frame cinema lenses and calls it a mft cinema lens, or something like that.

>>4493584
Technically fine, but footage is gonna look a bit odd especially if lighting changes during a scene (like cloud coverage) with the constantly different DoF. Will look a bit like news footage in a way.
With a fixed ND I would be adjusting ISO in good light to let it bounce around 100-800 and there should be little noticable difference. Under bad/low light I'd take the Tv route but I'd really really rather just buy a VND.
Idk, take some test footage and report back.

>>4493629
I recommend to try out the dirt cheap Haida CPL + VND 2-in-1 Filter. 3-7 stops, doesn't screw with the colors, can shoot snow, sand, bright concrete at 1.8 aperture. I spent days trying to find the best cheap VND, reading and watching and unhealthy amount of reviews, videos, tests. If anything better hasn't come out during the last 6 months this is the best you can get without going for pro gear (and now you're paying $300 and up).

Can always try to stabilize exposure in post, but that's a lot of work, fucks with colors, and looks like shit when done more than a couple of times to save a shot you messed up on the field.

>>4493639
> fix it in post

This works best if you are using ProRes Raw, braw, r3draw (now n1konraw) or log and helps if it is 10bits or more. Compressed shit or 8bit video files good luck getting it to look good.

>>4493629
>footage is gonna look a bit odd especially if lighting changes during a scene (like cloud coverage) with the constantly different DoF
The majority of footage will be night time with artificial lighting or midday with clear skies, so I'm not too concerned with major light changes. I also won't be adjusting the aperture once I'm rolling either of course.

>I'd really really rather just buy a VND
I'd like to but I'm on a budget and the filter size I need is ludicrously expensive for a good quality one.

>>4493639
I'm honestly not at all familiar with Haida, so I'll need to check some reviews. I don't want to put a cheap filter on and make the image quality really bad, which I've seen with shit like K&F. The price for this Haida is really really good so I'm really hoping it's a decent filter.

>stabilize exposure in post
I want to do as little post editing as I can, as I'm both highly unskilled with video editing and have only done still image before this. This isn't a massive or high budget project either, it's just a small project about redevelopments in my city, but it still needs to look decent.

>>4493644
It'll be a mixture of 10bit and 8bit, with very little LOG footage (which I'd use 10bit for of course). How is 8bit if I have no plans to color grade or adjust exposure? Is it suitable enough for just using it untouched?

>>4493639
>try out the dirt cheap Haida CPL + VND 2-in-1 Filter
Had any issues yourself with the filter threading? A few reviews I found said there was something funny about it and it damaged the threading on their lenses.

>>4493685
> I also won't be adjusting the aperture once I'm rolling either of course
Sounds like you'll be fine using Tv
>>I'd really really rather just buy a VND
>I'd like to but I'm on a budget
Fair. Real cheap KF ones are like $40 but I understand. In complete fairness if you're not adjusting anything mid-roll then you should be fine anyway.

>>4493685
8bit is fine as long as you don’t want to adjust it in post or upscale it. Once you wanna do a lot of shit to the image 8bit tends to band that’s why people usually use 10bit. You might not wanna edit or grade it now, but 10bit will make it more useable in the future if you want to reuse the footage for other projects. If you post it on YouTube 10bit will make it less likely for the YouTube compression algorithm to break your image.

>>4493689
Been using it for almost 8 months now, no problems what so ever, must be user error or a lemon. I heard that some people have managed to unscrew and lose the little handle... no problems there either... just apply some thread glue if you worry about that.

I've seen a guy break 2 top of the line shovels in a row too, some people just find a way to do the impossible.
>>4493685
There are reviews which test the color-shift and compare it to a wide variety of cheap and pro filters. IIRC K&F and the likes were pretty bad in that regard. Haida was the best of the bunch by far when talking about affordable VNDs (and even many fixed NDs), even better than some expensive ones (bad color shift with $200 ND is unacceptable). When using it in front of a very wide angle lens you can have slight vignetting. The dreaded X pattern never appears with this filter since the range physically limited.

I looked in my bookmarks folder from when I was searching for an affordable VND/ND set: 70 bookmarks, and that's only the ones I saved. Research was done. I'm off for a minute and might go through some of the bookmarks to find a decent review or 2.

>>4493761
https://youtu.be/1CdpUYcrL4U?t=327 - tested@15mm, pretty bad X pattern, but I don't go wider than 20 myself so it's not much of an issue. Has comparison images
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzpijN8DjCw - short review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p44Zkb-BTTc - colors, sharpness, etc compared
https://youtu.be/L9EGtlrPr_0?t=922 - color shift, vignetting compared

God damn I spent some time researching (V)NDs lmao. At the end of the day Haida VND is extremely hard to beat for the money, depending on how wide you shoot, of course. If you're not a pro and are running and gunning then forget fixed ND sets and get a VND.

The Nikon Zr is growing on me even if I don't like some of the poor body design choices (which look like they made to keep the body as compact as possible). I don't really something like it just yet, but I want one. Might pick one up later in the year if the video job I have lined up pans out.

>>4493768
Here's another one comparing it to K&F (which gets destroyed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqXu3EucW_c
That should cover the affordable VND topic as of mid-2025. The good thing about Haida is that you can control the VND and polarization effect separately which gives you control over reflections, a feature that I'm using a lot.

>>4493769
Scratch that, I just saw the price of a 1TB CF Express type b card... Fucking hell, the card alone costs over half the camera itself... How much fucking money do people have for gear.. People seem to just be throwing that shit around like it's nothing "Just get a couple of cards and a million TB of hard drives haha!"

>>4493773
That’s why I like those blackmagic cameras you can record directly to an ssd drive. Got a gig go into a Best Buy and buy a fucking ssd drive for under $300 and you got 1tb of storage to rock at your gig. Those cards for cameras cost at least $600 and sometimes over $800 for 1tb of storage. I don’t know why more cameras don’t let you record directly to an ssd drive without requiring an external recorder or an external monitor.

>>4493773
imagine not using ssds lol, almost as bad as not using v-mount

>>4493789
But the Zr can't write straight to an external ssd as far as I'm aware

>>4493775
>>4493789
CF cards are more reliable and don’t require external mounting. I still use both though.

>>4493761
>>4493768
Alright, I've got one last retard question about that filter. Being that it has a CPL built on, what happens with things like panning? Or any movement at all? Changing angle means adjustment of CPLs and I'm going to have plenty of panning and movement. I've never used a CPL for video before and only still images, so it's all new to me on how this will work without causing issues.

>>4493810
age old question that's answered here https://www.dvxuser.com/threads/circular-polarizing-filters.121230/
general cpl guide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9BXNrLofsQ
grab your old cpl filter and do a test to see how much of an issue it would be. you can set the polarizing effect to be minimal. if you need absolute perfection then your only other choice for run&gun is a pro set of magnetic nd-filters and that's going to be a lot more expensive.
one thing to note with chunky vnd-cpl filters like haida is 1. not all filters can accommodate a lens cap or have an external thread. 2. you probably can't fit a lens hood over it.
everything has its pros and cons and it's a game of tradeoffs. i'm still running and gunning with vnd-cpl, exposing with it is a breeze and i can quickly react to changing light or other conditions

>>4493819
nta, but i started out shooting outdoor sports and i had issues with ir pollution shooting midday so i ended up getting a set of irnds. this is probably very camera body specific though, but i totally had issues on the old ursas

Is 4:2:0 alright for 10bit if I'm not going to be doing much grading? It seems like my camera doesn't allow 4:2:2 in HEVC mode but does in H264. I can't see much difference in quality when I've compared screenshots but I'm new to this area of things.

File: 0586ba637005476399b33e33c(...).mp4 (264 KB, 1280x342)

264 KB MP4

What the fuck is this bullshit in davinci?

How the fuck do you design a video editing software that doesn't let you adjust the viewport to any size??

>>4493872
rtfm brother
experience the workspace menu

>>4493872
That’s because most colorists use an external reference monitor not the gui monitor to look at the image because that makes it easier to make critical decisions about color. It ain’t something you’d need to worry about if you are just using resolve as a video editor and not as a tool to do color grading. The editing part came later that’s why you get behavior like that. It assumes users want to color shit and not just edit footage.

>>4493873
>>4493875
I can't even make a strawman because this feature is so extremely fucking retarded. It's absolutely insane.

>>4493872
Isn't there a way to change it? I see tutorial videos where they have all the screens pretty big in the workspace.
Or is it only the paid version

>get a couple of 1.8 primes
>slap em in front of a FF camera
>shoot a big portion of a personal project wide open, even up close
>why yes, how do did you know I'm retarded
Every time I sit down to edit I scream at myself that it's ok to stop down to f4 or f8 even when getting closer to a subject. Ya, 1.8 and subject separation is great at some distance, but It's like I'm 12 all over again and found that lens flare button in photoshop. I can forgive myself when there was not enough light, but thinking such wow, much dof, f1.8 at noon, look at my new toys... getthefuckouttahere, this is so obvious. Why does learning have to be so painful when you're an idiot..........

File: dgdgdgd.png (662 KB, 1383x1218)

662 KB PNG

got a Canon PowerShot SX40 HS 12.1MP for 50 bucks. it any good for a newbie? i looked up some stuff about it before the ebay auction ended and it seemed good. i look up stuff about it now and just see people saying phone cameras are better and that it only takes jpg photos and i cant edit is as good as RAW. maybe i just flip it on ebay for like $115?

>>4493961
Yeah, it's all about the context of what you're shooting with every gear and setting choice you make.
We've all been there anon.

>>4493961
>shoot a big portion of a personal project wide open, even up close
Drop it down to f/4 by default homie. Muh bokeh is for certain shots not the whole reel. But I feel you, it's tempting for cleaner shots, but a bit of noise was never the end of a good video.

File: 1740330171365915.gif (1.96 MB, 640x560)

1.96 MB GIF

>Mfw I couldn't cut the movie front to back so I did it back to front, with the ending first, and so on, until I could decide on the opening

>>4493969
Don’t buy old cameras. If you are after something vintage-cool buy old lenses. Unless you really need that analog look and don’t want to use resolve plugins to get it.

>>4493961
I have 1.8 primes but never go past 2.8. Lens isn’t as sharp when you max out too.

>>4494014
fwiw better lenses don't suffer from this as drastically as cheap consumer f/1.8 or f/2 primes.
All my f/2.8 and f/4 zooms are very acceptably sharp wide open. In fact now that I think of it, it might be just one of those fundemental laws of physics that's out to fuck us since the vast vast majorty of lenses are not acceptable below f/2.8

>>4493961
>shoot a big portion of a personal project wide open, even up close
are you shooting shit that doesn't move?

>>4493980
how did you deal with music when editing it like that?

>>4493624
dont review any more
just pick a shot and make a first draft version now

>>4494011
ya i think ill flip it and use funds for a better camera

File: zoomin.jpg (496 KB, 1527x1000)

496 KB JPG

Was the lens worth buying?
Yes and no, so far. Its pretty soft wide, and stopped and zoomed out you can see the scratch in the image.
The image has a nice look to it, I have only taken it once twice so far so i'll see how it goes
With the mattebox she's 19kg, one of my tripod legs starts sagging over time if extended, its only good for "20"
It's something I really need to start to use, 180 at 800iso is pretty hot in the sun.
I've put 15 hours on the XT since march, gotta get those numbers up. The classic hasn't seen much use, If I ever need a B camera I'll dust it off.

I still think overall its been a fun project....

>>4494096
Are you a hulk? How do you carry that camera around? And how does a single vct contact portion support all that weight??

>>4494152
Arrianon might be the single most based retard otb these days. Not a magnificent feat by any stretch but still impressive.

>>4494096
you're crazy and i think you should carry on

>>4494048
There's no music. If there was I'd do it the same way and then re-cut and re-arrange where needed to fit the music in there. Make the music fit the movie and not the other way around. I have no idea what I'm doing. I just start working and see where it leads me, I'm like that guy in the office: "Sometimes I'll start a sentence and I don't even know where it's going. I just hope I find it along the way."

Fellow ADD enjoyers will get it.

>resolve can't play unedited 4k 10bit log with 0 nodes at more than 10fps
>meanwhile everything else can play and edit these files like normal
wtf is this bullshit

>>4494014
This right here. 2.8 is the lowest I go but I seem to sit on 5.6 the most or 8 if I just want to be ultra safe.

>>4494096
Holy fuck. I'm curious to see what your projects are, it'd be gigabased if you're just starting out and wanted to go hardcore with the gear.

>>4494217
Have you tried reducing the preview size? Cut that down to half resolution and you'll have no issues.

File: zgCvyq.gif (3 MB, 1280x720)

3 MB GIF

I just released Ume Movie Editor - a lossless video editor with multiple videos per project and subtitles/chapters support. I could only test it with what I had on hand (Sony FDR-AXP33 and some smartphones). Is anyone willing to check the demo and see how messed up the export results will be when used with professional cameras? [spoiler]inb4 buy an ad[/spoiler]

https://sengami.itch.io/ume-movie-editor

>>4494226
>Have you tried reducing the preview size? Cut that down to half resolution and you'll have no issues.
i did indeed, but the question remains, why can't it handle simple playback. i get it when i slap nodes upon nodes there, noise reduction etc, and it gets slow
what i can do is use optimized & proxy media. but it's easier just to switch back to adobe than to constantly fight with the software.

>almost finished filming
This film better come out fucking kino because I am so ready to be done

Is Premiere Elements pretty decent or do I need to cuck out and get the subscription model? All I want is 10bit support, color grading LOG footage and basic editing. I won't be doing any greenscreen or anything super advanced.

>>4494361
Why not just pay $300 and buy resolve pro. If you don’t need photoshop no need to pay that adobe tax.

Could anyone recommend a good 100% SRGB monitor that's around 26-28 inches? 16:10 ratio preferred, but I can still work with 16:9 like before.
>>4494268
Sweet. You got this, senpai.

>>4494268
I’ve finished filming a short, assembly cut is almost 30 min.
Procrastinating the next steps- cutting it down, then starting audio (ADR, SFX, EQ, and Mix)

>>4494377
>Sweet. You got this, senpai.
Thanks bro
>>4494381
>assembly cut is almost 30 min
Why is it so long? What length are you aiming for ideally?

>>4494381
>Procrastinating the next steps
Aren't we all, anon, aren't we all...

>>4494381
At least you went out and made something. I have the gear I need. A c stand a camera and a prime lens set. I just can’t motivate myself to go out and film shit.

>>4494465
What camera and lens set?
I can never bring myself to blowing $100+ on a fucking c stand, so I’ve still just got a bunch of lightweight shitty stands that I have to use a bunch of sandbags on

>>4494446
Wasn’t aiming for anything, honestly. Script was 2 pages lol. But I’m going for slow cinema/arthouse so it is what it is. I don’t give a fuck about submitting to festivals and programming.

>>4494456
ADR and SFX are just so fucking monotonous, then afterwards all you have to show for it is “oh, cool, now you can hear every footstep clearly” and “oh, cool, now you can hear that line clearly” and it took a shitload of time and effort just to basically redo shit you already had
It’s “fun” to do but not a very rewarding part

>>4494479
I on the other hand am perfectly fine with monotonous work like grading, audio, reviewing, sorting and such, at least I know what to do and the task at hand, all I need to do is plough through it. There's no two ways about it. I also love filming. However the creative decisions afterwards, mainly cutting, is hell. I hate it, too many options, always an excess of footage. Maybe it's different for people who don't do documentaries.
>“oh, cool, now you can hear every footstep clearly” and “oh, cool, now you can hear that line clearly”
I just got complimented on my audio in my last project randomly at a social gathering by someone who just watches stuff.
>"Anon I don't know what you used but I could hear everything, even stuff far away".
Nothing but a shotgun mic and Fairlight, but all I said was "Thanks, glad you enjoyed it". Sometimes I forget that nitpicking is not what an average person does, it's what I do.

>>4494494
>grading
I love grading

>I also love filming
I usually hate filming, too much shit is like pulling teeth or always goes wrong even when you have backups all the way to Plan H. “But why didn’t you have a Plan I?!?!?” Shut the fuck up.

>the creative decisions afterwards, mainly cutting, is hell. I hate it
Cutting is probably my favorite part lol

>>4494477
I got 3 Matthew’s c stands in a case. I got a used red epic mx and I got a set of zeiss jana lenses? Dragging that shit around is what kills my motivation. I’m thinking of getting a bmpcc 6k to replace the red so I don’t kill my back carrying my camera around to film shit.

>>4494502
I have the BMCC6KFF and absolutely fucking love it

>>4494494
The average normie cares about a good story not about the awesome bokeh of the kickass lens you use, or that you shot in 12bit log to make the image look baller in post. They just care that the story is good and that they can understand the plot.

>>4494512
Not that anon, but even normies can tell when a movie "looks like a movie" and when it looks like Tele Mundo soap operas.
It's the same with gear in the music world. Will the crowd be able to tell if your pedalboard has one billion dollars worth of pedals? Of course not, but they can hear if it sounds like shit or not like it's "supposed to" sound.

>>4494513
adding that they may not consciously know, but dof, stabilized footage and high dynamic range or well lit scenes (colorful sunset instead of burned out white sky) triggers something in them that makes them go "heh that's pretty"
they may even not know why but they sure as shit know that it ain't their mommas iphone footage

>>4494513
>>4494518
I still can’t put my finger on what exactly causes this. Upon just watching maybe a few seconds of a shot, it will give a “this is a low budget indie” feel. Other than “I know it when I see it”, what is the real reason? Everyone says lighting, but what exactly is it about the lighting? There’s contrast and multiple light sources used, and it still looks low budget indie. Make up/costume? Location? But then why are some films able to have no name actors with no makeup in a shit location still look great and not give the same meh feeling?

>>4494524
Adding on: I have a sneaking suspicion it’s not just one thing, but multiple things adding up that give it this feeling. Amateur blocking and shot composition, with amateur lighting, with amateur location/set design- It all cooks together and results in a shit soup.

>>4494524
>>4494525
Has to be a multitude of things. I know that feel. I look at whatever shot on 35mm 70 years ago, bam, feels like a solid "movie", but people nowadays with gear that guys back then could only dream of (say average youtuber with modern fullframe mirrorless and a few quality primes, and Resolve or Premiere) and I look at their footage and it doesn't have that feel. Even something just as simple as a cliché wide angle landscape shot of a field, a road, a single tree, can feel right, or it can feel off.
>Other than “I know it when I see it”, what is the real reason?
Can't answer, but I sure as hell wish I could articulate that inner feeling.

A little tangent, but I can remember arguing with my teacher as a 14-15 year old when she said "I can hand you the same kit that a pro nature-photographer has and you can't replicate the shot right next to him", I was like "What do you mean I can't??? It's the same damn gear and location/animal, of course I can" "You can't" I kept arguing and thought she was a real dumbass for a few years until I bought my first DSLR at age 17 and got *balls deep* into photography. Only then did I later realize that I could not, lol, the importance of capturing the exact moment, that exact slice of time, with the right composition, the sunray hitting the exact place necessary, taking those few steps left or right, capturing just that little bit of extra that you only notice after training your eye and gathering some experience. Verified on many occasions by handing my gear to someone next to me. Hell I couldn't even "see" photos back then -- someones cut off torso, overexposed on the bottom left of a photo was a perfectly acceptable thing to look at. Now I can not "not see".

But that cheap indie vs a solid movie feel has to be something else.

>>4494518
Yeah, they can recognise it very fast. That being said, gear isn't the end all be all. It's just important that you learn to utilise what you have to the fullest extent.
Another music example is, I used to record and write a lot of music and I spent countless hours trying every combination of every guitar, pedal, amp, speaker cab and microphones I had. I have some pretty nice guitar gear, but nothing insane. But that made me know exactly what to reach for when recording.
Another good example is, like him or not, I heard Tom Morello of Rage Against The Machine talk about his rig when they first started out and he didn't have a lot of money. He said something like "this is my amp and these are my pedals, whatever music I have to make, I'll make due with these few pieces"
It's a good mindset to have regarding gear and budget.

>>4494524
>>4494525
It's a mix of everything, but I'd say lighting is 100% the most important aspect in video and photography work. There's a reason you say "lights, camera, action!" in that order.
Composition, camera movement and all that stuff is also crucial. Then I'd say gear comes after that.
A nice camera with a couple of nice lenses obviously make a difference, but if you can't drive a Prius then you can't handle a Ferrari if that makes sense.

>>4494524
Composition and colour grading.
It's the same reason why an amateur can go into a professional photo shoot and have photos that look obviously much worse than the professional.
Basic things like where is the subject? What's the emotion trying to be conveyed? Do the colours compliment and sell a story?
It's one of the reasons I enjoy grading. The difference between an 'acceptable' grade and a good grade are night and day and it's where a lot of indie films fuck up. And because it's more of an art than a science, it's hard to teach and why a lot of youtubers have such bland footage from great cameras.

>>4494524
>what exactly is it about the lighting?
anon there are entire books about lighting. if you can't name three common setups off your head right now you need to study up

>>4494602
>three common setups off your head right now
Err...
Basic 3-point
...Single point?
2-point?

>>4494524
If you have a camera with a shitty sensor you can make the image look good if you use enough light. That’s how they made feature films on a fucking cell phone. They nuked the scene with light.

>>4494601
I always find it a bit funny how so many video and colour guys on youtube all have extremely over done grading in their videos. Incredibly strong diffusion filters too. And they're trying to teach you how to colour grade hehe.

>>4494607
I always knew lighting was important, but it really struck me when I took a photo of a sandwich I bought at a market with my old iphone 5. The lighting was just perfect and made the photo look incredible even though it was that shitty little camera.

>>4494607
Everyone remember:
>Noise is the absence of light, not a product of ISO.

File: 1743229984438948.png (1.18 MB, 1093x1108)

1.18 MB PNG

>>4494624
Picrelated
>>4494607
"28 days later" was shot on a digital camera at roughly 480p, Canon XL-1. 3 CCDs with 250k pixels each, 512x492, with usable DV resolution up to 750x492. Something something pixel shift technology.

And it looks like a movie. Although the resolution is undoubtedly shite. Never saw it in cinemas so I can't say how bad it looked on a big screen.

>>4494635
I watched "28 days later" at the cinema when it came out. I don't remember thinking it didn't "look like a movie" at the time. It just looked very gritty which suited the movie. It didn't look Hollywood either, but that kinda put you more into the movie with the main characters.

>>4494602
I understand.
But why do French new wave, Italian neorealism, etc films still posses that “this is a real movie” feel/look to them, but if I did the same natural setup in my apartment or outside right now it would have the “low budget indie” look?

>>4494647
It’s because of the story. With a story it’s cinema. Without a story it’s a crappy video.

Is there a reason why some matte boxes don't come with the ability to setup side cutters? I know you can poor man your way past this problem, but just wondering the reasoning.

>>4494654
Because some people use matte boxes for show not to cut lights and flares or use filters etc.

>>4494647
what's in front of the camera still matters.
>But why do French new wave, Italian neorealism, etc films still posses that “this is a real movie” feel/look to them
if you lit visconti like a netflix special it would look like a really good netflix special

File: IMG_3242.jpg (837 KB, 1125x629)

837 KB JPG

>>4494648
>>4494710
Take this screenshot- looks like a “real movie” to me. I don’t know the story and it obviously isn’t modern.
But if I were to recreate this in my own apartment and use the same lighting, blocking, costume, etc- why would it look “low budget indie shit movie”?
I also suspect it might have to do with “you’re your own worst critic” and anything I personally shoot I’ll be extremely critical of and never think it’s good enough or “real”, imposter syndrome shit. I watch movies I consider masterpieces with soft focus shots, shaky camera movement, bad audio mix, etc and I let it pass all the time, but if I were to have any of that in my own film I would be embarrassed and humiliated and think it’s an obvious sign I’m a total failure as a filmmaker.
Thanks for reading my latest therapy session.

>>4494723
I'm tired of hearing people talk about "imposter syndrome". People say they have some weird medical or mental syndrome for even the smallest things.
I think it's healthy being your own worst critic to an extent, because it shows you're not oblivious. You just need to learn when to stop tweaking stuff and just finish projects.
Think about how many times George Lucas wanted to tweak Star Wars movies, Ridley Scott does it too. All those Criterion Collection movies where they colour grade everything blue. Just learn to finish it and move on to the next project.

>>4494723
>I watch movies I consider masterpieces with soft focus shots, shaky camera movement, bad audio mix, etc and I let it pass all the time
Mistakes can easily be overlooked as long as everything else is right in the scene is or movie on the whole is right most of the time. One thing that always takes people out of a movie is really shit acting, the best lighting and composition in the world won't save a scene from that.

>>4494723
film grain and stock

>>4494723
As anon mentioned it's due to the film itself. With digital it's because of the colour grading. It also has a lot to do with frame rate and shutter angle, but obviously your screencap isn't going to illustrate that.

Why is this so important?
Because movies are not reality. They are stories and entertainment. In the same way that if you read a fiction novel and imagined what it would be like in your head, you're not going to imagine reality 1:1 because that's not how the story is written; it's presented to you in a way that's removed from reality.
Extrapolate that to movies; the colours you see in a film are markedly if not obviously different from real life. You don't see the same saturation or colour casts with your own eyes when looking around. The film grain itself also lends itself to this idea since your eyeballs don't have film grain in them.
The same goes for frame rate and motion blur; real life does not have the same "choppiness" that 23.97fps film has. This is also why 'video' looks different, because it's shot at 30fps or 60fps and we associate that with recordings of reality.

So, a few things:
If you want to portray a film, shoot at 23.97fps. If you want to portray TV or online video, shoot at 30fps. And lastly if you want portray real life, shoot at 60fps.
In regards to the look of colours and whatnot, grade to taste and mood. Avoid looking like real life. Some kind of artistic interpretation of colours is necessary.

>>4494723
2 things:
-don't underestimate sound. Decent sound can change the feeling like that from amateur to professional.
-I see 'professional' shit that looks like low budget shit all the time. Even that screenshot you included doesn't look particularly special and, ignoring that I'm pretty sure both actors are pretty famous (which is another factor btw), I would probably assume that was a low budget tv show from the 80s with an underrated decent set decorator

>>4494745
I agree with the sound. But I've seen very high budget stuff where the sound effects are so obviously done in post that it takes me out of it. Like obvious fake footstep sounds, bottle/glass being placed on table sound, the "grab weapon sound" being really weird. It really takes me out of it

>>4494735
Unless you are going for the so shitty it’s good b film vibe. The one where they intentionally leave c stands or boom poles in the shot to fuck with people who whine about cinema not being good. Shitty acting would work for that film; great acting would kill the so shitty it’s good b film vibe.

>>4494745
You forget the 3rd point an interesting story. People will forgive video like visuals if the story they are watching is compelling. If the story is garbage people won’t forgive as much shit as they would if the story is good.

>>4494755
foley is just part of the game. you don't have to use it if you don't want to. though, if you barely invest in audio for dialogue what will there be left for background sounds or effects? if all you have is the background audio from on-camera and you have to make some hard edits you might run out of audio coverage

>>4494770
I know, my point was just that having good audio design is quite difficult and even high budget productions have shitty / obviously fake sound sometimes

>>4494772
i spent about a decade of my life as an audio tech. i think it gets glossed over sometimes that a production can put time and effort into it and then an "oh shit" event of some sort can happen, and that can result in dialogue becoming adr or shitty sounds getting added. for example you may have a minor actor that now has to be totally removed from the product and that can ruin sound continuity so you have to entirely replace things and now there's no money for it. everyone into audio at this point heard tom hardy's dialogue in parts of the dark knight rises, a classic example. christopher nolan does not do cheap in any context, it was a comedy of errors.

>>4494745
>that was a low budget tv show from the 80s with an underrated decent set decorator
Le Bonheur (1965)

>>4494735
>One thing that always takes people out of a movie is really shit acting
It’s interesting how normies seem to focus so much and place so much importance on things like acting. Acting is one of the last things I care about when watching a film next to story.

>>4494785
Acting is funny. I don't know if I'm just wrong here, but I always feel like I can't tell if foreign-language acting is any good, and I think others are the same (because if you don't speak the language, you don't notice when words are said very wooden or with weird stresses) which I think gives foreign films an advantage in the western market, among western 'cinephiles'.
The one recent exception is that when I was watching It Was Just An Accident, the guy playing Hamid and the woman playing Goli noticeably had a few lines where they seemed like they just read it off the script for the first time.

>>4494791
>if you don't speak the language, you don't notice when words are said very wooden or with weird stresses
100% agree

>>4494785
Poor acting or casting in something serious takes anybody out of the immersion, normie or not.

>>4494774
I can't imagine what a pain it is to work with those imax cameras in terms of sound. Even the actors getting in character with that shit blasting in your face

>>4494793
I guess caring about “the immersion” is also pretty low on my list

I find that when I use a more expensive camera like a red or an arri the footage tends to look plastic and fake and when I use a cheaper camera like a consumer mirrorless camera the footage tends to look a lot better then when I use a high end cinema camera; wft!

>>4494799
The more information, the harder to grade for 2 reasons.
Psychologically, there's that fallacy of thinking you can't waste anything. So you've got all this detail, you're reluctant to apply a grade that will destroy that detail (it's one of the reasons the muddy low contrast netflix look is so common).
Practically, shittier cameras force you into a specific look. When you can't change literally everything in post, you have to settle on something at the time (even if it's just white balance and exposure). And anything you fuck up, or where the camera underperforms, you have to grade to cover. So you're kind of forced into higher contrast and crushed shadows just to alleviate noise.
That's my guess anyway.

>>4494800
>you've got all this detail, you're reluctant to apply a grade that will destroy that detail (it's one of the reasons the muddy low contrast netflix look is so common)
Very guilty of this. Using software like Dehancer has been a game changer for me, which also adds a healthy amount of grain and softens the image. It’s been a big step towards making everything I shoot look more like “real movie”.

Since .NEV files can be renamed to R3D and my entire workflow is RAW + Resolve, would it be a better purchase to get the Nikon Z9 over the ZR? I like both, but I recently sold my R5C and would like the 8K plus the weather sealing that the Z9 has.

>>4494800
Low contrast and greenish yellow colour grading is like a direct attack on my eyes. I can't fucking stand that look. I'll take blue and orange any time over that shit. Everybody is doing that greenish yellow colour grade in both video and photography. Can't stand it.

So it's commonly said/agreed-upon that shooting in only a single-location is cheaper/easier.
But timewise, if you're shooting 2 weeks in a barn versus 3 days in a barn, 3 in a church, 3 in an office, 5 in a theatre, there's not much of a difference, right? Assuming location fees are the same, then either way it's still 14 days and you're still travelling there each day. As long as it's not multiple locations on the same day you should be good. Right?
Well I've found out the hard way why that's not the case. It's mainly lighting. But also reshoots in general.
If every day is in the same location, you can experiment and correct on subsequent days. It's very quick to reshoot if you've already rehearsed the blocking and direction. If you've only got very limited time in each location, you really have to get it perfect or get subpar footage. Ah well, live and learn.
>inb4 some smarmy "duh" from a shitposter who's never made anything of worth

>>4494901
i think it's even harder to manage continuity in one location unless you keep it all interior

>>4494902
I meant interior predominantly, yes.
I couldn't imagine trying to make a film that's mainly set outside. Maybe I should focus on that next. I think there's too many issues with scale. If it's a location you hire, then you either have to hire a lot of extras to make it feel real, or else it's barren. If you're shooting guerilla, bystanders are unpredictable and staying too long in the same place will attract unwanted attention that can impede you.
Or you shoot somewhere like a forest and you risk it feeling like a low budget student film shot at the local park.
And depending where you're shooting, if the weather is shit then that's several hours of being cold/uncomfortable every day. If you have a base nearby then that helps, but it adds faff in organising everyone back and forth from the base to the filming location.
None of these are big enough issues for one or two days. But for an entire shoot I don't think I could handle it (without a lot more money).

Just say fuck it and go all natural lighting.

>>4494902
>>4494905
You’d be surprised how nobody notices or gives a fuck about lighting continuity when it’s outside. It’s not as big of a deal as interiors.
Biggest issues are weather and sound. Even without rain, the heat got to everyone very quickly. And just assume you’ll ADR everything and figure that into post budget/time. I shot a feature that was 70% outdoors- we stole all the locations but they were in the middle of fucking nowhere, so didn’t have to worry about bystanders or getting shut down, and didn’t look like a park at all (was supposed to look barren).
This was quite a few years ago. Nowadays, there’s no way I’d have the balls to do it again.

Speaking of not wanting to pay for shit, anyone here buy apple boxes? $50 a piece, anyone do any cheaper DIY options?

>>4494919
natural lighting still means modifiers in practice

>>4494921
That's arbitrary, there are dead inside directors that don't care about anything, that doesn't mean dp autists don't care

>>4494949
Sure, there are autists for any aspect of filmmaking that will care more than others, but I was talking about normie audiences

File: bRJ7Sk26raiYYhtJpdcm6L.jpg (2.89 MB, 4096x2304)

2.89 MB JPG

I'm filming with my fullframe canon and I take photos with a Leica Q. I adore those qt compact fuji bodies like that of the X-E5. I tend to not edit that much of my videos anymore, I'm fine with shooting directly in h265 and do some light color grading. Would it be much of a downgrade to sell the Canon and just bring the X-E5 for filming? It can do 6k, downsampled to 4k it must look pretty good or? Sensor size is smaller though..

>>4494902
Isn't the secret to do it at the same time of day every shooting day? Assuming that's in a dry location, like that movie "The last stop in Yuma County". Set in the same location and it never looked like the sun or weather changed at all.

>>4495092
Correct. The only variables would be time of year or cloud cover, so waiting too long will mean days might be shorter or longer than when you were originally filming, and that can fuck with if you had daylight at 8pm initially but it's dark out by 8pm a few months later.

The key to the "cinematic" look is intention. It's how the actors act, what they wear, what it looks like, what it sounds like. The intention has to permeate the screen and the air. That's how even films shot on shitty cameras can suddenly be-cinema grade. It's the intention.

>>4495115
Tell that to Criterion, all their re-releases have a blue or orange tint now to look "cinematic".

>>4494948
Nah, go full natural

>>4495154
>look "cinematic
Kek, so what was the movie before? Uncinematic?

>>4495196
Apparently natural looking colors aren't very cinematic and everything needs to be teal or orange. If you go on YouTube and lookup "making cinematic videos" it will always be about using teal or orange for all the grading.

File: 1768836186788p.png (44 KB, 1025x1128)

44 KB PNG

>>4495198
>Apparently natural looking colors aren't very cinematic
This but unironically.

>>4495199
>everything must be blue or orange
So every movie has to look like it takes place in Mexico or the ocean?

>>4495200
You see, it's funny, because I didn't say that. Also notice how I didn't quote the last part of what was said because I didn't agree with that.
The funny part is how you're retarded.

>>4495201
Yes, truly hilarious good sir. Well done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsSlXk0lA5g

>>4495199
Kys

>>4495214
ladies first, faggot

>>4495198
Teal and orange hasn't been a thing for a while. All I see proclaimed as being "cinematic" is the hideous greenish yellowy colour grade everybody is using. Looks hideous.
Teal and orange was at least a natural contrast to skin tones if you didn't overdo it. That terrible greenish yellow tone isn't natural looking. It's fucking dreadful.

File: 1767601488117561.jpg (901 KB, 1920x2160)

901 KB JPG

>>4495294
>Teal and orange
Unfortunately, a lot of decisions in the last few years have been to use just one or the other, not combining them for the contrast.

>>4495295
Yeah Criterion slap blue on everything to an almost comedic degree, but still if you look at new movies and photographers, they aren't using teal and orange like they used to 10-20 years ago. They're using green/yellow and they make the image insanely flat too.

>>4495295
>look how they massacred my boy
this is just beyond disgusting and iirc even the terminator remasters did this

>>4495298
Don’t get me started on Cameron

>>4495295
God damn, this is a travesty. This is artistic terrorism. Just like how it is with music.
>open spotify
>put on a classic album you've loved for ages
>wtf is this, compressed to shit all of a sudden, everything sounds like ass, no dynamics
>"MUH REMASTER"
>wtf where's the original, who fucked with it, what kind of a demon destroyed it?
>you can't have the original lmao
Even worse when the 80s original has been replaced with early 00s re-recording. That's the point where my hands start reaching for my holster.

And this is why I run 2x24Tb hard-drives and everything I hold dear is on them and backed up.

>>4495297
yeah contrast is out of style now for whatever reason

>>4495343
>small inexpensive piece of plastic that can be replicated in the billions for the cost of a pack of gum
>can hold studio quality uncompressed audio
>nah bro we don’t do that caveman shit no more *slurps onions*
We deserve everything bad happening to us as a species
>but muh disc rot
rip your stamped cds to any other lossless medium and later report which one died first
Redundant and periodic backups can coexist with the original disc if you’re not autistic about it.

>>4495405
My CDs have all been going okay but some of my original DVDs from the early days of the medium itself rotted away, which was really weird, and yet I have some CDs from West Germany in the very early 80s that are perfectly fine and verified as perfect via a checksum database.

I could really sperg out on CDs and masters for the whole thread but I'll try to reign it in, but if there are any 1980s albums that you love, a West German or Nimbus CD pressing will be almost a direct transfer from the master. They're nothing short of incredible.

hey I have an audio question.
I want to get a mic. I'd like it to be something that is viable for shooting videos with, just solo outdoor stuff I might want to do.
I also need a desktop mic for home recording.
Is there something I can start out with that is decent and covers both use cases?

>>4495523
Rode VideoMic Pro Plus is your best bet (plus, not the regular version, and not anything cheaper either). Or if you want general ambience then something like a zoom portable recorder. I'd go with Rode VMP+ & a deadcat

>>4495523
No clue, but I just got a MKE 600 and really like it

>>4495548
>MKE 600
i think those are the best decent starter shotguns. i have a 416 and a 50, and the 600 isn't losing out much if you have good positioning

>>4495895
Awesome, that’s what my research was telling me as well. Leagues above the garbage I was previously using.

>>4494723
I used to feel the same. You'll get over it.
Another anon already mentioned this, but none of those old movies you compare yourself to had bad sound. The single most important factor for making a movie feel "professional" is sound. Sound gets zero forgiveness. Image is almost disposable in comparison. Weird balancing or that echoy, internal-microphone-like, student film audio quality is a death sentence, even if the image is perfect. If you want to make a good movie you should obviously aspire to have both good image and sound, but there's more wiggle room in what constitutes a good image. If you recreated that scene in your apartment and had perfect audio going along with it, it'd literally change how you felt about the image through context and any imperfections would be dismissed as style.

>>4495901
As far as brands go, stick with Sanken, DPA, Sennheiser (416, 50, 80 series) and Schoeps.

>go to filmmaker meetup to maybe join some indie or collab since I can't be arsed get shit done working alone
>meet this guy who seems like genuine future auteur, he is obsessed with writing and is on smaller streaming service and is constantly pumping out shorts with a techie type he met at one of the meetings
>laurels all over his thumbnails
>add a couple of other people, another guy unsure of his specialization, an actor, another photographer turned wannabe filmmaker like myself
>get home, go to watch auteur guys shorts
>holy shit they're so bad, they might have been ok with better edits and sound but every cut is >10 seconds it's so painfully slow, audio is shit, they don't even try with multiple mics or at least a boom guy or even just volume adjustment on the timeline, dialogue goes from quiet to loud to quiet depending on who's close to the camera, set is a bare undecorated house in one, and just random outdoor places in another, they didn't even try to get nice visuals
>no music or sfx except in ending scenes, in an age where YouTube doesn't even care that much for copyrighted sounds these shorts are not getting enough views for monetization
>actors are shit but it's forgivable, nowhere near as bad as the other issues
>no grade at all, everything looks sooc or the grade is so bland
I'm now motivated to put him in his place at the screening. I have been shooting and editing obsessively since the meeting. Thanks for reading my blog post.
Oh shit hope he's not here. Well if he's here there's your raw nothing held back feedback get to work.

>>4496190
At least he's making stuff. But yeah.
Similar story of my own
>looking for some networking events the other day
>can probably find the event I'm about to talk about if you care
>see one along the lines of "actors and filmmakers connect"
>idea is that you get actors and filmmakers together to meet and collaborate or whatever
>sounds cool
>look into it
>actually just this one studio looking for actors for their next project
>that one studio is actually just one guy
>that one guy has made a slew of feature films that he's hyped up
>none of them have any festival laurels
>(normally wouldn't care, but based on the way he writes about himself as some sort of bigshot, you know he'd be posting laurels fucking everywhere if he had any)
>is making a sequel to a film no one's ever heard of.
>networking event is entirely him just selling tickets to a screening of a film and trying to recruit desperate actors for the sequel (because of course it isn't free to attend)
>realise there's very little chance he plans on paying any of them
>he just wants desperate actors to show up and fawn over him in the hopes of starring in his next shitty film
That's 90% of the indie filmmaking world. The reason it's so competitive is because it's full of genuine retards who take up all the oxygen. You're competing with the most arrogant, big-headed retards with no talent. So if you hype yourself up, you sound like one of them. If you try and let your work speak for itself, you don't sound confident enough and people assume you're not even as good as these idiots.

>>4496191
so I have to self promote with confidence, got it
actually I think my ego has blown TF up since seeing his work, it'll be ok

>>4496192
Yeah. But the problem is that you'll sound like every other arrogant douchebag full of smoke. And the second you talk to someone who's actually successful/talented, you'll look like a fucking retard.
Being better than shit =/= being good
I've been trying to master the art of being humble but confident. It's challenging.

What kind of equipment and software do you need to make a decent babbie's first short film?

>>4496194
ur phone and shotcut or clipchamp or whatever, you can do resolve if you have enough ram
if u have a potato 1080p phone use opencamera app to force higher bitrate to 50 mb/s or higher

>>4496190
Damn, these meetups sound cool, I’ll try to look into some in my area

>>4496191
…nevermind

>>4496192
>>4496193
I always default to humble short-selling of myself. I’m sure I’m fucking up, but I absolutely can’t bring myself to act like these pompous douchebag cocksuckers. Fuck em.

>>4496197
hey my meetup was ok, it was at a collective org for filmmakers not just a casting call for some rando
and I was just bitching about one guy, everyone else seemed ok

>>4496197
>…nevermind
That was just one event I saw. There were others. I was a bit jaded because they're all paid events for what should be a small group meeting up in a bar.
I saw a couple that were just small film screenings, advertised as networking to try and sell tickets. I saw one that was like speed-dating but for networking.
The thing is, there are good events. If you're on facebook acting/filmmaking pages, they'll advertise them occasionally. But if you go actively looking, people will try and take advantage.
Also, if you live near a theatre/small indie cinema, chances are that they'll have small meetups of their own that you can probably attend.

>>4496191
Be prepared for that guy to see your film, immediately ask to “collab” on a new film, then just get you to do all the areas that he doesn’t want to do for free

>>4496194
Blackmagic cameras and software

>>4496204
I wouldn't mind actually, I thought about offering it myself as I think his stories could do better with just better technicals and he seems to have a good network already so I'd be getting DP credit among other things and credited with the improvements. They are already doing everything for free. I don't wanna insult his current tech guy though, they seem very close.

>>4496204
If I could get somebody to do rotoscoping and I’d do color grading that would be super awesome because rotoscoping stuff sucks.

>>4496208
I don't mind rotoscoping that much. It only becomes a pain when you've got a hundred other effects and you have really slow playback
>>4496204
I'm at the point where I think collabing is the only way forward (other than being noticed somehow). I just shot a feature as (mostly) a one-man-band and it near enough wrecked me. I don't want to do that again. You just have to find someone you semi trust not to fuck you over. Even if they make shit, as long as you're credited for the stuff you do that you do well (eg, cinematography/editing/sound mixing etc) then it'd be a nice change of pace.
As one person, the admin stuff is too great. Festivals, distributors, marketing, it becomes overwhelming. With more people it becomes doable because different people are surprisingly adept at different areas.

So how do you find people that are willing to “collab” and don’t demand payment? And then how do you respond to people (even in this thread) giving you shit for not paying people?
I’d love to hire and pay for a 20 person crew. I can’t fucking afford it. So I have to do majority of work myself. Then people complain they don’t have work and aren’t given opportunities. Then you try to give them opportunities, and they complain you can’t pay them.
I don’t know what to do.

>>4496223
pay with a profit sharing agreement or backend deal like spielberg. you make money, everyone makes money, and vice versa. or just pay minimum wage (if you are buying filmmaking equipment you can afford a bit of min wage labor). if they were getting big time work they wouldn't even be talking to you.
with the profit sharing they may do their absolute best to perform and promote afterwards if it means getting a paycheck.

>>4496223
>>4496228

I’d do a great job with color because I need a fucking reel so I can get a good paying job as a colorist. I don’t need points; I just need footage for a reel. I’m sure actors and other crew need a reel so they can land the job they really want. This advice should get you crew. Fuck exposure—that’s bullshit; footage for a reel that the crew can use is where it’s at.