You all, there is no perfect anamorphic solution. Every anamorphic solution has flaws.

Nikon ZR, Panasonic S9 or Sony ZVE1?

>>4499512
Literally any camera now is good. Like if it can do 1080p and above and look decent, you're good to go. I got a duct-taped partially broken Canon T2i I use with vintage lenses, and still have managed to get good images out of it. Any camera is useful now.

>>4499512
lights and audio

>>4499504
Anamorphic is way too expensive to buy. They are so many options now. Renting for anamorphic makes much more sense than buying.

>>4499512
>ZR
Impractical joke camera. The irony is that anyone it appeals to due its cheap price probably can't afford to utilise its actual qualities (needing a decent computer, expensive software etc).
>S9
Decent but basically a toy. At least it has 6k opengate.
>ZVE1
Decent but limited by the sony cripple hammer. Also prone to overheating.
>tldr; just shell out an extra couple of hundred for a non-meme camera

So since arri's phone camera will inevitably flop, how long until they start licensing "official" arri log luts for every major camera brand (ie, an official phantom luts release)?

File: greenscreenbroo.webm (1.4 MB, 850x460)

1.4 MB WEBM

how do you prep your greenscreen work

>>4499594
looks direct to tubi lmao

>>4499631
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Mother_Sister_Brother

>>4499592
The Arri camera phone collab will probably be better than the shitty phone red tried to pass off years ago. Just saying.

>>4499594
>>4499640
lol, the light change on her face was nice though. Perspective is off, is that the main offender here?

>>4499697
focus and perspective are the biggest offenders

>>4499697
The actor isn't moving with the car or the "environment". There's camera shake towards the end but zero movement in her head or neck. It's less about the greenscreen feed itself but more that the real prop (the car interior) is completely motionless and doesn't match the movements the feed is imitating.
Also the perspective doesn't match, no.
And you'd never be able to rig a camera so stiff in a moving car that it shows literally zero camera shake. Even in race cars you'd have the suspension weight transfer and the chassis roll impact how the camera's framing.

>>4499700
What if the car’s shocks are so extremely good and the car is such a premium luxury car that it’s the smoothest fucking rise of all time?

>>4499701
*smoothest ride
FUCK I FUCKED IT UP :(

>>4499701
Add fucking shake in post to make it look legit to viewers. Video ain’t about showing the truth it’s showing people what they think is the truth.

>>4499701
>>4499704
This is actually true. There's a pretty good interview for One Battle After Another where they explain that the first time they shot the POV car shots from that ending chase, they stabilised the footage too well and it looked fake because of it. So they went back and refilmed it with more camera shake, essentially making it 'worse' to make it look better.

>>4499640
dp at least isn't to blame here, i've seen a bunch of their work. there are stinkers like this in bigger productions too
>>4499700
yeah, no one sits that still in a car and everything in the shot interior runs too smoothly. real truth, she'd be looking down at her phone the whole time lol.

>>4499640
also the irony here is this guy made night on earth, a total standard for car interior stuff

>>4499716
Rear projection still looks fucking incredible

>>4499716
You need a good director and a good cinematographer to make a good film. A good cinematographer working with a bad director just makes good looking garbage.

File: 1978 Pretty Peaches.jpg (710 KB, 1920x1080)

710 KB JPG

>>4499500
Today I'm doing the math on the total cost of digital capture vs 6mm Ektachrome, assuming both will be edited in DR. Yes the film is an upfront cost, but the cost of the cameras and subsequent lens options + downstream costs storage, subscriptions of a new modern digital camera is high compared to nonexistent in film gear.

The ektachrome image has more than sufficient picture quality & can be rescanned in the future as digital tech improves, whereas in 2 decades, 2 decade old digital images always seem annoyingly poor. In fact there's a quantifiable cost in time and expense to color grade each scene to look as good as the last century of work chemists did to get Ekta to look that good, the cost of which is built into the film.

Time to go get some numbers.

>>4499723
Man wtf you talking about, you can get any fuckin warm body to be a director. Plenty of great work has been made by actors with zero fucking education or training who wanted to try being a director for a day and viola, shit works bc most people already know how to do their fucking jobs.

Fuck up the DP though, and you'll regret your life choices, you'll have one person pulling this way and one person shoving that way and there's just a lot of screaming and crying & violent kneejerk reactions until everyone just wants to pull out at once and then shit goes flying everywhere and it's all a big stinky mess, until in the end you've got nothing you can make a sellable film out of, except maybe in germany, where they're into that sort of thing.

Butt fuck directors.

>>4499724
>subsequent lens options + downstream costs storage, subscriptions of a new modern digital camera is high compared to nonexistent in film gear.
This is a straight up lie and I don't quite know why you've written it.
It depends on the length I guess, but the film stock itself alone will almost definitely cost more than a half decent digital camera for any feature film. And that's without the cost of developing/scanning it factored in (which will increase its price substantially). The lens choices are the same, give or take a couple of hundred for a lens adapter. And then saying you can keep the film stock to rescan later, but the costs of storage for digital are too high?
Is this b8?

>>4499724
Yes but if you use 35mm or 65mm unless you are a trust fund brat or a Nolan digital is a hell of a lot cheaper. If you are a hipster it’s film all the way and Leica lenses.

>edit half my short
>looks ok to me, no grade or Foley yet
>go on a business trip
>two weeks later
>time to edit more as I've taken more footage as well
>fucking hate it nothing feels connected I wrote such a pos where you don't find out the main characters goal till the end so it's basically all filler but it's just a few minutes of filler but ugh

>>4499910
Don't sweat it, no one watches short films anyway except for filmmakers and actors. 99% of short films are incredibly boring so you're more likely to be judged on the quality of the technical aspects.
As long as your opening is semi-interesting and your ending is enjoyable, you've probably succeeded as far as the story is concerned.

>>4499915
>no one watches short films anyway except for filmmakers and actors
ah yes
I think I'll just finish this one up hastily so I can move onto the next one

>>4499910
>time to edit more as I've taken more footage as well
Then maybe it doesn’t need the extra footage you shot?

>nothing feels connected
Who cares?

>you don't find out the main characters goal till the end
Who cares?

>it's basically all filler
Who cares?

Some of my favorite movies have all of these elements.

>>4499935
>I think I'll just finish this one up hastily so I can move onto the next one
This is where I’m at too. Got the music done, just doing mixing (forgot how much of a slog syncing foley and EQ can be) and then color correction (the fun as fuck part for me), then finally done.

>>4499915
i like watching shorts, they can be a highlight of a festival, and they will probably become more important as fewer and fewer normalfags watch long form content anyway. i understand that my opinion may be a minority here as i enjoy watching film

>>4499915
>>4499935
>>4499952
>>4499975

ADHDbros watch shorts.

>>4499725
I was talking about good directors like Kubrick or Scorsese not pieces of shit who think the garage they make is great and call themselves directors.

>>4499975
>>4499976
I mean define shorts I guess, but not really no. As shortform content becomes more common, people aren't watching 10-minute dramas about a depressed college kid grapple with thoughts of suicide. They're watching a 20 second skit of a big-boobed thot pretend to be Ashley while calling out Leon's name to parody Resident Evil.
Even vertical dramas are split into 1 or 2 minute 'bites', and are offensively over the top when it comes to melodrama.
Most short films fall in the awkward position of being too long for people with short attention spans, and too short to feel satisfactory for anyone who wants to sit down and watch a film.
If you like them though, that's great. Maybe you can be the one to finally figure out the impossible challenge of how to monetise them that I keep seeing naive filmmakers ask about.

>>4499979
>impossible challenge of how to monetise them that I keep seeing naive filmmakers ask about.
R. Kelly already perfected this format. In all serious imho the only serious way to monetize is if you are pitching for tv or feature length.

I've bought the Nikon ZR as my 50/50 video and photo camera. Most of the time it's just silly home movies of my two kids growing up and it's doing the job perfectly. I've tried tons of footage in R3D raw format as well as h265 with baked in red picture profile. While the R3D files obviously are very flexible, I can change the ISO, etc. it always involved lots of work to get the wb right and to make the colors look great. While in h265 I do a little bit of gradiation curve and I'm done. So now in most cases I just shoot that finished h265 mov. Not even in LOG. So now I'm wondering wether the cam is a bit overkill. I mean it is if I don't use red raw. And the only thing that really annoys me about this camera are the lenses. Not sure why Nikon just can't make smaller ones. Should have looked it up before but here I am. Now only shooting chink Viltrox lenses, but they are impressive sharp

Any other full frame cameras that are compact and shoot beautiful sooc videos? I think the Zf is a bit too big and clunky. Fuji might be nice, less so for photos because of the crop sensor.

>>4500086
>Any other full frame cameras that are compact and shoot beautiful sooc videos?
Lumix s9, canon r8, sony a7cii

hybridfags are gay

>want to start a yewchewb channel so I can justify buying an expensive camera
>still can't think of anything to film
I need to paypig BAD, bros. Talk me into this.

>>4500096
Correct, but there's literally no reason to buy a cinema camera anymore outside of mid-level production shoots and higher.
In that sense I guess the market told the manufacturers what they wanted and you and I are not that market.
>>4500118
The youtoob market is so ungodly oversaturated that for you to get any more than double digit views on anything, you'll need to game the algorithim harder than the boomers doing predictions on slot machines. You'll also very likely need to partake in ragebait, clickbait, or NOODbait. You WILL buy the expensive gear and you WILL spend months trying to dial in the reason you aren't getting subs, but the honest truth is that you need tits or genuine talent.

>>4500118
>want to start a yewchewb channel so I can justify buying an expensive camera
Yikes.
…what camera?

>>4500124
I mean, like, I don't even have anything interesting to film. Don't care to film myself talking either. The only thing I can think of to put on yewchewb is ranting about philosophy, and that can be done over 480p unregistered hypercam tier screen recordings.

>>4500128
black magic pcc 6k pro

Anyways I'm not going to buy it. As much as I want to buy useless things sometimes, I've been burned enough to know that doing so retarded.

>>4500118
>>4500154
>I mean, like, I don't even have anything interesting to film
Why do you want to spend thousands on a piece of gear that you have no use for?
> that can be done over 480p unregistered hypercam tier screen recordings
You can buy a gh5 second hand for less than 500 bucks and it will be more than good enough for any youtube shit.
If you want to gearfag, you should have a goal of some variety to justify it. Like you watch something dumb like Is This Thing On and go "I want to recreate that tracking shot where he descends the stairs to the comedy club for the first time". Or you want to make an arthouse "indie" flick like Leviathon.
And if you had a goal like that, you should be working on short scripts of that vein that you can produce with little money.
If your only goal is *maybe* talking head youtube shit, then genuinely why do you want an expensive camera?

>>4500161
I want it because I want it. Will is an irrational thing, anon. Rationality can only operate after the will has motivated it to do something. You can analyze how best to satisfy a desire, the purpose or utility of a thing in satisfying a desire, or the origin or more basic form of said desire. But you cannot engender desire itself through pure rationality, nor destroy it. If you truly felt no desire, you would not even bother to think.

Hence, although I want the camera, I have decided not to purchase it without a good use for it as it would not fulfill my desires in a satisfying way, at least compared to other options available to me.

>>4500154
>black magic pcc 6k pro
Damn, thought this was cheaper. Did they raise the price?
Those philosophy vids would look pretty good though… I have the 6kFF and fucking love it, but I shoot indie shit

>>4500167
>I want to spend a large amount of money for no benefit other than to show myself that I spent the money.
It would be less retarded to put $1000 on black and another $100 on drinks for a night out.
OR
Buy some physical item that retains or perhaps increases in value instead of the ewaste you want to buy, like a silver buillion bar or something.
Then you can be autistic about "collecting" metals or some other shit but when you finally grow a couple more neurons in your brain you can sell them for a tidy profit.

>>4500184
Typically you read a post before responding to it.
>Buy some physical item that retains or perhaps increases in value
Leicafags… I kneel…

>>4500184
If you are dead set on buying some camera shit because of your autism, buy lenses not camera bodies because lenses tend to hold their value or go up in value.

Is the Sigma FP the best “do it all” daily carry camera?

>>4500190
Not even close.
This is the video general. So any camera that can't do internal compressed 10bit 422 4k is definitely not the best.
The 'best' is something like a canon r5ii or sony a1ii. The 'best' that won't break your bank account is contentious. For a daily carry camera, you probably want something small. Ie. sony a7cii or lumix s9

>>4500086
i still throw up in my mouth when i look at the jacks on that camera. mini hdmi out and 1/8in audio, fucking why. i wanna use my monitor

File: IMG_7289.jpg (517 KB, 2048x1226)

517 KB JPG

Watched Magellan yesterday, which was shot on a GH7 - one of the most beautiful films of recent years, gearfags BTFO

>>4500295
>once again, lighting is key

>>4500306
If you have good enough lights you could shoot on a fucking potato; I mean on your cell phone.

>>4500295
whoa, it's in color

>>4500295
>Mist Diffusion Filter is back on the menu, boys!

>>4500314
this lol

>>4500314
never left

>>4500295
>want to watch this movie
>no good rips online
damn

>>4500341
Great reason to watch his other films then, which are much better

File: ....png (197 KB, 498x498)

197 KB PNG

> /vid/ - Video General
>look inside
>no videos

>>4500347
He saved this thread >>4499594

>>4500347
Wish I could feel comfortable sharing screenshots or short clips of stuff I’m working on or have completed, but I just can’t trust what might happen here :(

>>4500365
Even girls post in forums supposedly dangerous for them, like /r9k/, /b/, /s4s/, /bant/... and nothing happens to them. Except that one girl from /r9k/ who was killed, but she met up with them, so it doesn't count. Here, mossad won't suddenly track you over a few clips, dude.

>>4500366
There’s always some story posted in /p/ about a guy posting pics and getting it linked back to him, then 4chan completely destroying his professional career for no reason
I dunno man

>>4500366
>>4500384
you cant beat that time somebody posted a video and /sg/ successfully called an airstrike on them

>>4500384
multiple people in /p/ have gotten doxxed

>>4500416
To be fair we had unironic israeli intelligence agents posting here

>>4500437
With magic dogs that look slightly different every photo (AI)

>>4500416
>>4500437
>>4500438
ok and how would they even do that? if i post a simple video tossing a bath bomb and filming the bubbles... are they really going to hack me and expose me forever?

>>4500467
No, but if you were hoping to have a respectable career, then being associated with this shithole may limit your reach on its own.

>>4500295
Pacifiction is the most visually stunning movie I've watched in a long time and takes place in a tropical climate too.
I don't mind slow and/or long movies, but this movie is VERY slow, so just keep that in mind if you watch it. That being said, I was completely mesmerised by the visuals the entire time. It became an instant benchmark for me. The only thing I'd personally do is make the shadows/blacks a tiiiiiiiiny bit darker.
They shot it on some of the bigger black magic cameras, I forget which one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orTnb519t9w

>>4500154
>480p unregistered hypercam tier screen recordings
Based

>>4500467
The issue was worse in the past since EXIF data was supported and wasn't stripped, so you could find out whatever you want from that data. Being a 4chan user isn't the big bad it used to be, this place is sort of being left behind in the cultural zeitgeist for shit like Twitter, TikTok or dedicated forums to subjects like being incels or looksmaxxing.

A few famous musicians used /mu/ and it's well documented but it never harmed their careers. Lorde got her start because her and her producer used to post demos in dedicated SoundCloud shill threads to gauge what they thought or get some ideas.

>>4499915
That legit is not true. There are specific festivals, entire archives of film history dedicated to shorts. I know a lot of people, including myself that watch short films. Short films in itself are harder to pull off than a normal film because there is less time to develop the plot and it's characters than in a standard film. Shorts have to reach near perfection in development and plot or they risk being roasted for being lacking, undeveloped, confusing and disconnected.

File: IMG_7543.jpg (423 KB, 2000x837)

423 KB JPG

>>4500893
I've seen Pacifiction, it's very good
Magellan reminded me a lot of it actually, as you said it's a similar tropical setting and kind of a similar pacing and one man focus. Same DoP as well and Albert Serra the director of Pacifiction produced and helped finance Magellan.
They shot Pacifiction on a bunch of BMPCCs, I don't know which gen though. But it was also a visually stunning film. Gearfags once again BTFO.

File: Indoor.jpg (653 KB, 1920x1080)

653 KB JPG

>>4500952
I bought Dehancer in hopes of getting my colour grading closer to this movie, but I live in Scandinavia, so getting those colours is nigh impossible. And I learned many years ago that trying to alter stuff into something it isn't through grading doesn't work. The same can be said for music/audio production. Or maybe I'm just not good enough.
Either way, my goal is to make my footage look more like that movie. I love the look of some of the indoor scenes too which should be more doable without a tropical climate.

File: IMG_7545.jpg (229 KB, 1920x1038)

229 KB JPG

>>4500957
You might not get the exact tropical look but Scandinavia has some pretty nice magic hour lighting in late spring/summer

File: unnamed.jpg (50 KB, 512x341)

50 KB JPG

For me it's the old Agfa film colors. Could not find any close luts so I try it myself next time when grading. I don't want any "film effect" with artificial grain, blury, etc. Just the colors.

Also annoying that every release of a movie seem to bring its own color interpretation. Makes it really difficult to understand what the directors intention was.

File: Day 1.jpg (732 KB, 1920x1080)

732 KB JPG

>>4500963
We do, I've just lived here my entire life and find it extremely uninspiring to be here. It's like I've shot every single thing I could possibly shoot here (exaggerating a bit, but you get my point).
I really need to go to another place of of the world for a while. I hate hot/humid weather, but I'd love to spend six months in a tropical place like that just to have some variety and feel inspired to actually shoot something. I'm so fucking tired of Scandinavia.

>>4500968
I feel the same here in Germany. Wherever I go it's kinda the same. All buildings, all towns, all landscapes. After being an hobby photographer for 15 years, like you, I feel like I've shot it all. Doesn't help that the sky is grey 90% of the year without dramatic lightning. It may be a meme but golden hours and sunsets in general hit very different in Japan for example. The light is incredible beautiful, saturated, glowy. I'm sure its the same in California or Hawaii, it might be part of the ocean air or so, no idea. But footage from there is very pleasing to look at usually. Also different people that seem happier over all compared to cold grumpy Euros

>>4499500
I don't get this picrel. How is the police going to help her evaluate his script?

>>4500952
the footage on the blackmagic cameras defaults to having a kind of filmish look in terms of highlights and shadows, particularly the older ones. if i remember there is a video setting to make things look more neutral if you are grading in a different direction

>>4500967
>every release of a movie seem to bring its own color interpretation
agreed, been a massive problem with releases for the past decade, I think it’s finally starting to course correct with a few boutique labels but the mainstream ones are still ruining films

>>4500967
>every release of a movie seem to bring its own color interpretation
That's because of the nature of analogue. I'm not accusing you of this because I have no idea what your views are. I see a lot of idiots across the internet who cry about film v digital and bad colour grading on rereleases for old films saying that they've betrayed the original intention or whatever. And to be fair, sometimes they are really bad. The majority of the time it's just a different interpretation though.
What these idiots don't understand is that there is no objective look for what the film is 'supposed' to look like. The best you could do is work with the original DP/director to try and get an image that aligns with what they wanted. But people who saw a film at its opening night premiere in 1967, versus people who saw it in a small cinema in France 2 weeks later, versus people who saw it on a late night tv broadcast 10 years later, versus people who watched it on vhs - all of them would've seen a different version than each other because that's just the way film works. The colours degrade. The copy process is/was imperfect. Changes are made by whoever's showing the film just to make it display properly.
So when people talk about it looking like "how they remember", chances are that the version they saw was never the ideal version.

So when you're converting an analogue film to digital, there's no 'objective' clean scan you can do. By definition, the scanner has to interpret that film in the same way that when you film a shot on your digital camera you have to choose white balance and a picture profile/lut. You can try and make it as close as possible to that same print as it looks to you on a projector with 'good' settings. But, again, that print is likely not the ideal version in the first place. And if it is, it won't look like how the majority of people remember it.
/rant

>>4500967
I find artificial grain too much even when it's at 1%. It's like there's already enough grain in the regular footage (I shoot A LOT in terrible lighting), so there's no need to add extra grain on top of that.

>>4501004
I don’t like the majority of rereleases because they simply look like shit. Don’t give a fuck about “original intent” “interpretation” or whatever the fuck you’re babbling about.

>The best you could do is work with the original DP/director
lmao yeah this has always worked out great

File: 1744257924583221.png (441 KB, 496x720)

441 KB PNG

>>4500969
Gruess dich, fellow German. Been living in Japan for close to 10 years now. Trust me, you feel that way because you don't live here. After a while, you've shot everything, seen everything a thousand times, and it becomes mundane. It's also gray here a lot and a rains a whole bunch when it isn't. The summer are brutal and not a whole lot of fun being outside unless you're on a beach, which is at best 5% of the the time. Good for testing the cooling capabilities in your camera though and seeing if it melts. For me visits to my hometown in BaWu are now way more exciting than another torii or some cramped izakaya with an old-looking sign.

There are some genuine advantages though:
1. If you're in Tokyo, you have access to a lot of subjects: all sorts of city scapes from office towers to master-planned districts to nightlight areas to quiet residential areas, bayside vistas, nearby mountains, nearby old towns, etc. You have to travel quite a bit further to get the same variety in Europe.
2. There are buildings taller than 4 storeys, so you can actually see above the city and get a nice view of things like sunsets or thunderstorms. Where I lived in Germany, that stuff was mostly obscured by someone's home or a tree.

>>4500467
No

Ordered the fucking Amaran 660c the day it was announced from B&H Photo. Still hasn’t fucking shipped. It says it’s in stock at both the Amaran site and even fucking Amazon, but I’m using the goddamn B&H credit card to get no interest payments, so I’m still stuck. Pisses me off, never had problems with Amaran or B&H up to this point

>>4499500
https://youtu.be/VGdXk6FpfsI?si=oARZXKovFa2b1s7y

File: BASED.jpg (341 KB, 789x1116)

341 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/@nikonfilmfest/videos

What's stopping you from getting here for the starter?

File: 1774471939850073.jpg (430 KB, 2040x2046)

430 KB JPG

>>4499500
do you like modern trends in cinema lighting?

>>4502172
Generally, yes.
I think the right side is a bit too extreme, but I suppose that also fits the neo-gothic aesthetic it's going for - in line with the latter films. It does look more like a Burton-inspired horror film than a kids' adventure though.
The left side looks very artificial, like a deliberate hallmark photoshoot. The lighting is super soft and lacking contrast, and there's an unappealing red hue bleeding into everything.

>>4502172
Absolutely not, but I think both look like shit

>>4502174
Both look very artificial. I see contrast on the left and actually dont mind the red hue. Right has unappealing everything.

>>4502174
>looks very artificial
Nothing wrong with artificial, I’d kill for classic Hollywood lighting to make a comeback in modern film

>>4502174
Right looks a lot more artificial than left though. The new version is just the same boring dark grade that everything does now.

>>4502172
two of these are essentially the same window shot you dishonest faggot

>>4502203
B-but it’s CINEMATIC!!!!!1! DARK = CINEMATIC!!1!!! The other one looks like a 90s CHRISTMAS COMMERCIAL YAWN BOOOORING!!!!!

>>4502203
Right looks like a generic a24 horror film.
Left looks like a generic low budget bbc show from 20 years ago.

>>4501362
Update- I finally received it yesterday. It’s bright as fuck, I love it
Maybe B&H reads these threads? lmao but I’ll definitely think twice about ordering new release items from them in the future, I think they just get slammed with orders and have to slow drip ship them out

Any of you ever use LUTs? Or is that considered cheating?

>>4502470
I didn't use to. I use them all the time now that I shoot log more frequently.
The arri look library is free and incredible. Far better and more extensive than any shitty luts being sold by youtubers.
Don't look at luts as a be-all end-all. They're just another step in the grading process.

>>4502508
That's my thinking. I want to start using LOG more and use it as the final flavor to the whole thing after correcting things like exposure and the white balance.

>>4502585
>use it as the final flavor to the whole thing
I wouldn't recommend that. I use them as the start. Apply the lut first when getting your initial rec 709 image. Then correct exposure (in resolve, create a precursor node for this). Try and get wb right in camera if you're not shooting raw. And that gives you your baseline for a workable 'pleasing' image.
Then you create another node before the lut and do your actual colour balancing. Tweak saturation and contrast. Then nodes at the end for the dumb stuff like adding grain.
But the colour balancing is super important. It's where you turn the image into your own. The lut just gives you a base look to work with.
(It also depends what you're shooting. If you're shooting something basic like a talking head with natural lighting during daytime, it's a lot simpler than shooting a concert hall with flashing multi-coloured lights, for example, and will probably need less tweaking)

>>4502589
>Apply the lut first when getting your initial rec 709 image
I see, so CST first to get the REC709 and then add the LUT? I'll try that out instead. A few tutorials I watched had the LUT added at the very end and then they'd go back to previous and tweak exposure a little.

>>4502470
I always use a LUT of the look to preload on to my monitor so I can see how things line up as I go

>>4502590
>so CST first to get the REC709 and then add the LUT?
Exactly. This is specifically for the arri luts because they're log to log. Obviously if you're using a log to 709 lut then you don't want a cst as well (unless you're using the wrong log for the lut).
>A few tutorials I watched had the LUT added at the very end
This is a very strange way to do it and would only work if you're doing very very little work on the image. Luts can alter the image quite drastically. You can't fine tune an image if you have no idea what the image will generally look like. Eg. If the skintones are too magenta, you can fix that fairly easily. But a lut might fix it itself, or it might compound the issue. So there's no point fixing it before applying the lut. Likewise, you might choose one specifically because of the way it affects skintones which, again, would be completely pointless if you've already spent time tweaking them beforehand.

>>4502597
>This is a very strange way to do it and would only work if you're doing very very little work on the image.
I'm going to be minimal to start with as I'm new to grading in Davinci. It seems like even trying slight adjustments of color changes things drastically and in ways I don't like, so I'm sort of relying on LUTs for the grading (lazy as that may seem).

I'd be open to any short or easy tutorials you could link that do things the right way though.

>>4502598
I've only swapped to log from standard profiles relatively recently. I can tell you that grading rec709 is 'easier' because bigger changes (in the dials, curves etc) don't make as big a difference to the image.
A tip is to right click the node and change its colour space to whatever it was recorded in. That helps a lot.
I can't recommend any channels because the one that taught me most of what I know recently outed himself as a sony shill without integrity (he turned off comments for the video as well so that people couldn't call him out for it). The other, better ones, I only see from time to time for a specific issue so I don't remember their names. You have to be careful and wary of any 'pro colourist' who seems to spend most of the runtime just shilling their own shitty luts.
DaVinci Resolved is an instagram page that's really helpful, but more on the technical side for doing complex things quickly and simply.

A good idea, that every tutorial will actively tell you not to do, might be to just build a node tree after the rec709 conversion. That way you've got your log image as your safety net, but you can have a bit more fun just playing with the image. Focus just on curves and the main 4 dials (lift, gamma, gain and offset). Maybe add masks in there as well to get a feel for them. (Theoretically this will give a slightly worse image but don't worry about that yet)
But try not to be one of these low-effort creators who just shoots in log and then immediately applies the same lut and leaves it at that. If you're doing this you may as well bake the lut in when recording. It will give you slightly better quality since baking it in will apply it to the raw image, as opposed to a compressed log image.

>>4502601
>A tip is to right click the node and change its colour space to whatever it was recorded in. That helps a lot.
Yeah I've been learning about that. I initially used LUTs to get the 709 look but learned about the CST and setting things in there.

>A good idea, that every tutorial will actively tell you not to do, might be to just build a node tree after the rec709 conversion.
Opposite of what I see all the time. Every video makes 4 or 5 nodes, names them and puts the CST right near the end (with LUT being the very last). So does it not make sense to have the CST at the end so that the earlier nodes are adjusting it at the LOG level rather than the final 709 level? In my mind it would mean there's more editing range.

>>4502601
>If you're doing this you may as well bake the lut in when recording. It will give you slightly better quality since baking it in will apply it to the raw image, as opposed to a compressed log image.
As much as I would, my camera doesn't have a LUTs ability.

>>4502603
Putting nodes after the cst conversion will arguably have less available dynamic range and your image will be more susceptible to breaking, I say arguably because I've never noticed it but then I don't do it much (also I believe it's an issue more to do with rec709 luts, that using a cst shouldn't result in).
You *should* create most of your nodes before the cst. However, like I said, doing it after will make the process a bit easier for you and allow you to get a feel for grading footage without every slight change having a massive impact. So it's something worth doing just for the learning process.

A lot of these tutorials have one of 2 problems:
-they're aimed at professionals in a collaborative environment
-they're trying to convince you that the uploader is a professional
Colour grading is an art. Don't ever forget that. Do what it takes to get the most pleasing image, not what some mouthbreather has told you that you have to do to avoid being laughed at.

>>4502607
>Colour grading is an art. Don't ever forget that. Do what it takes to get the most pleasing image, not what some mouthbreather has told you that you have to do to avoid being laughed at.
Thanks man, I'll keep it in mind. I've been doing photo editing for years but this just feels different and more challenging for some reason, despite being the same in principle.

Any good free LUTs you like to use? Obviously non-YouTuber ones, I never buy any YouTuber products.

>Sony Suspending Orders of Memory Cards Due to Global Memory Shortage
Umm... Look I know this story gets a bit of coverage on tech sites from time to time, but this seems like a huge fucking deal and it's only getting a lot worse. I'm kind of glad I picked up a harddrive over xmas because I feel like it's going to be years before I ever get another external memory storage thing now.

>>4502689
Memory cards though? Why? Nobody's running a fucking AI data center off of SD cards.

>>4502689
Looked at prices just now, SSDs that I bought last year have doubled in price. Un fucking real.
I’ve got one 2TB drive left that has about 70% free space. After that, I don’t know what I’ll do.

>>4502971
i know guys that used a separate ssd for each decent paying gig, they have to be sitting on stacks lmao

>>4502971
RAM price is crashing, please god let SSD be next

>>4502998
Yeah, but do they keep them intact as archive/backup or do they wipe their drives after a certain amount of time has passed? Upload to cloud storage and reuse the drives then?

>>4502998
Dudes that use a separate SSD for each shoot charge their client the cost of the SSD. They don’t pay for the SSD out of their pocket.

>>4503007
as archives
>>4503041
that's not what i'm getting at, i'm saying if you've been at it for a long time you probably have a closet is full of drives. i'm only semi pro and i have dozens of those samsung t3s

>>4503006
>RAM price is crashing
I call bullshit. DDR4 and DDR5 Sodimms might be, but desktop-grade UDIMMs and RDIMMs are absolutely not.