Leaderboard

Well gosh thanks a lot. I thought I would get ridiculed off the boards for shooting family videos with a 1dc. I'm just trying to get the best footage of my kids while they're young that I can afford. I shot the 5d3 raw for almost 2 years - I'd have stayed with it but I wanted the ability to crop with 4k plus the 12 FPS for sports. Plus of course the non-hacked reliability.

heh-heh...

To do this easily and accurately it's best to round trip with Speedgrade. at the moment FCPX does this much more easily I'm afraid. Adobe would be wise to just pull the whole of Speedgrade correction into Premiere as a plugin or panel.

No one is mad at you. At worst jealous. 1DC looks like a gem.

Quick link. I know this is simple home video type stuff, but to me I like the look. 4k 1dc file, built-in audio. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3W9u9cu-URWd2N4LWZzY2NkcXc/view?usp=sharing 4k frame grab...

I had to send mine back to the Sony shop as couldn't get the slow-mo in focus half the time due to a bug. Apart from that was great Review is written but didn't shoot as much nice footage as I'd liked to have, which has made the edit a difficult chore in the midst of a lot of other interesting stuff to be doing, hence the delay Wolf33d maybe you could crack the whip over my back a bit more, I am your unpaid slave after all.

Wow. Just when I thought Samsung had finally slowed down on the feature-adding updates, they come out of nowhere with DIS. Unexpected to say the least. Results look fairly promising

I'm...aware... My point was that it's possible to like the same focal length on two different formats. I like 50mm lenses on everything but FF. Can't say why.

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1580 http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2505 http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=21447 http://reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-2061.html My personal favorites are: 35-40mm equiv--wide shots and steadicam 70-75mm equiv--medium close-ups and general use 135-150mm equiv--intense close-ups, shallow focus/macro, and compressed perspective shots I find the really wide angles hard to use effectively, distractingly dramatic with their perspective, and unpleasant on people shots. Generally, I use my 75mm (25mm SLR Magic on the BMPCC) the most, because my movies are heavy on acting and dialogue. But that's just me. If that last thread taught me anything, it's that there's many different ways to shoot, and all can produce cinematic results. Malick loves his wides. Deakins stays between 28 and 50 for everything. Ridley Scott shoots everything crazy long. Park Chan-Wook shot everything with normal lenses on Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance but used nothing but wides and teles for Oldboy. As long as you choose your focal lengths with tact and intention, there's no wrong answers--only different preferences.

while raw video could even be possible for the mighty hw of the nx1, I have much lower requests that could be implemented in...less than a day, in the firmware. Perhaps they are simply too busy to read the mails of suggestion we sent.

Here's how I would look at it. If someone can't wait another 3 seconds for it to load you probably don't want to work with them anyway. They're the client asking when they can see the final cut - the day after shooting.

Doesn't look like a major upgrade at all, stil no freaking permanent manual focus with samsung lenses. I wonder if zoomed focus peaking now works with videos. I don't get why the keep on "wasting time" on features nobody asked.

thanks a lot for posting this shawn i downloaded your clip –– an astounding amount of true detail and rich color pulled the frame grab into photoshop to add a bit of magenta and yellow in the color balance..... wow at those canon skintones i gotta say. if i can ever get slog2 to do this ima start a blog lol the subtle modulation in the faces of the five children closest to the camera definitely reminds me of canon raw.... amazing

Define the tonal ranges in a clipThe Luma Corrector, RGB Color Corrector, and Three-way Color Corrector effects let you define the tonal ranges for the shadows, midtones, and highlights so you can apply a color correction to a specific tonal range in an image. When used along with the Secondary Color Correction controls, defining a tonal range can help you apply adjustments to very specific elements in the image. Select the clip you want to correct in a Timeline panel and apply either the Luma Corrector, RGB Color Corrector, or Three-way Color Corrector effect.In the Effect Controls panel, click the triangle to expand the Luma Corrector, RGB Color Corrector, or Three-way Color Corrector effect.Click the triangle to expand the Tonal Range Definition control. Tonal Range Definition controlA. Shadow threshold B. Shadow softness C. Highlight softness D. Highlight threshold Drag the Shadow Threshold and Highlight Threshold sliders to define the shadow and highlight tonal ranges.It’s best if you make the adjustments while viewing the tritone Tonal Range display of the image. Drag the Shadow Softness and Highlight Softness sliders to feather (soften) the boundaries between the tonal ranges.The amount of falloff depends on the image and how you want the color correction applied to it. Note: You can also define the tonal ranges by changing the numeric values or moving the sliders for the Shadow Threshold, Shadow Softness, Highlight Threshold, and Highlight Softness. This doesn't do it?

One of the o-rings arrived today. I spent a couple hours cutting & sanding it down to fit in the helicoid. The real trick was getting the the glass to align (relatively) parallel with the anamorphic lens. I'll probably seek a more accurate solution but it was enough to do some tests. Here is the helicod and the anamorphic, the anamorphic has some white pipe thread tape around it to help secure the helicoid reverse threads. Helicoid attached, focus fully extended. Helicoid fully retracted. Helicoid with improvised (but extremely snug) rubber o-ring. And a 58mm lens cap for good measure. So I threw on my Helios 44 (not Helios 44-2) 58mm and did some quick & dirty video. Here are a couple screenshots: Initial thoughts: Aspect ratio of 3.55:1 shows minor vignetting. Crazy flare.I don't think I was quite able to hit infinity, but I think I can resolve that by adjusting distance between the elements by reseating the glass in the o-ring.I need to secure the helicoid to the anamorphic assembly, there was a small amount of play there when shifting focus.There was a lot of alignment shift going on. The B&H will need to be locked down to a rig tightly to ensure the anamorphic remains aligned vertically.I still have a lot of work ahead to take this from work-in-progress to finished product, but so far the results are encouraging.Other miscellany: A rig may not be small enough to be considered run-and-gun, but would still respectably light & portable.Plenty of Series 7 adapters available to marry most lenses to the B&H, I even picked up a 72mm to Series 7 for my Angenieux 12-120mm Still need to test the 12-120mm on the B&H. Not the ideal, as it will vignette, but it will do for the purposes of testing parfocal zooming.Once I come up with a more permanent configuration for everything, I'm going to affix a focus gear around the helicoid for follow focus.I'm going to wait until the permanent configuration is done before I start slapping wide angle attachments on it.Other reasons I chose the Raynox 0.66x over the Sony 0.7x wide angle is that it is not only smaller in size, but it also has a 72mm front filter thread.That's all I got for now. More soon... Cheers, |. . | .|

Slow zoom and all! http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/20/vhs-quality-videos-ios-app/

Hey video and film lovers, Messed around with an Input Lut for flatening the footage before grading. More messing aroung with curves and color wheels. Don´t know, if it would have done better without the Input LUT? Footage is lowlight. Rest of the info in the video. It´s G6 all -2 on Natural. Quiet happy, though I recognize the obvious flaws, not the less obvious ones though:) If I can be happy with my G6 for low light footage and a somehow filmic Gestalt, then GH4 should do easily. 10bit, killer! By the way, why doesn´t anyone put out a YAGH like device, little smaller with big internal battery?

Rumor says the DIS doesn't loose any substantial image quality, anybody that can confirm? And does it work with manual lenses?

I say untraditional in the sense that primes sets are usually like 16, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135. I'm very guilty of using those set focal lengths and also using the opposite ends of zooms, 17-55, 12-35. I've been reading some interviews with cinematographers that really like using odd focal lengths such as Deakins with 21mm, and Speilberg, Scorsese, Malick with 28mm. http://noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/ I'm going to start experimenting with using some of these untraditional focal lengths myself with intention. Not sure if it will make a noticeable difference but I'm very curious. Does anyone else have a certain focal length that they love for a specific reason?

Shot handheld with DIS + OIS; NX 16-50mm S lens. https://vimeo.com/136972283

My wife and I went to Spain a few years back to make a humble, simple, and impressionistic travel film; labor of love sort of thing. We were going to shoot it with multiple cameras/lenses... but when we got there and spent a few week on a paid assignment before our personal film making, we began to debate about the visuals --and ultimately decided that the most cohesive look would be to film with one camera and one 50mm lens. Nothing else. No audio or tripod even. So we put all the other gear in storage and went into our shoot with a 5D and an old piece of Nikon glass. Also, we'd film it, for better or worse, with the max aperture., f1.4. Our reasoning was that since the subject was supposed to be a reverent and sometimes mystical experience, the aesthetic of shallow DOF would heighten that sense. In the end I believe it worked well enough, but I've never shot a project like that before or since. Doubt I will again. It just happened to fit the vibe.

The distagon 28mm f2 "hollywood" is a classic and very "cinematic".

Well that answers my question. 24-50 every few mm counts. That's why I want to experiment. I've never used great PL glass with 24, 25, 28, 32 so I guess I made a mistake by saying untraditional. I'm going to start testing different incremental mm's to find a unique look to what I've always shot (18,24,35,50).

I had not intended to say what is right or wrong, or FF equivs. I'm just talking in terms of S35 and why certain cinematographers use odd specific non traditionals like 28. Why did they settle on 28 instead of 24 or 35. It's worth experimenting and seeing some results.

SORRY SORRY SORRY Oliver. Marketing 101 here. "We Direct" is great for musicians who don't know what they want, but for those who do (commercial clients), it's a red flag that you'll impose your ideas on the shoot. I'm going to sound really old man here. This is why I get hired; 1. The client has tried to do what I do and has failed. 2. I'm available and I have the necessary tools. 3. It doesn't look like I have a drug problem. This is why I don't get hired. 1. I think I'm smarter than the client. 2. I want to use my tools to do things that interest me, not the client. 3. It looks like I want to party. Again, put yourself in the position of hiring a PA say, What do you want to see on the site where they want to work for you. The irony here, Oliver, is that what little I know of you through this forum is you're very humble and client-focused. The site doesn't put that across. "We Direct" ? It doesn't really represent you, I feel. When I read "We Direct" I think about a smart-ass hipster telling everyone what to do. Maybe I'm wrong. Just some ideas "Superlative Video. On Time. On Budget." Or "We Film. We Edit. Our Clients Look Good" "Your Vision. Our Crew" Etc. I know I"m a broken record on this. Focus on not scaring anyone away. Let your reel do the rest! It's that f'ing good Oh YES, site is VASTLY improved. You're getting there. Keep sweating the details!

oh dear god, never in post. sorry all I see is reduced vibrations and jello. But it sounds like none of you have the camera. So let's all try and not stear the thread of topic and wait for someone that have it to confirm or deny the usability of the DIS.

It would be great if everybody used degrees for FOV instead of focal lengths. 50mm on FF ~ 40 degrees horizontally. Then as the cheapest possible director's viewfinder, I have measured the angles between my fingers and I place my eye on the imaginary crossing line of the two fingers that are closer to the FOV that I want to achieve.

To my eye the example in your link shows that it massively reduces jello... Btw, in my experience stabilisation always reduces jello. What IS is it you have used that also has some sort of additional jello correction? Never heard of it before. Did you watch it?

I know this is completely unhelpful, but this makes me really happy I'm using DaVinci Resolve now.

"Crop sensor" is not a format. It could mean S16, M4/3, APS-C, APS-H, or even 135 if you're a medium format shooter.

Favorite is 20mm on s16. On s35 or FF I prefer 35mm.

At least they don't seem very demanding or have unrealistic expectations Keep up the good work on the site and the filming!

35-50mm is around what the human eye sees in real life. I think that is why exotic lens choices like 28, 16, 60, etc. seem surreal and thus more cinematic. At least that's what I gathered from the article by Noam Kroll.

Thanks, Bold. That thread helped a little with what I was looking for. I might have to do more info hunting.

looks like firmware 1.4 is on the way..... http://***URL removed***/forums/post/56347354 I didn't notice there is already a topic about that on this forum:http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8932-samsung-nx1-firmware-update-version-132/ so it is better to close mine. Sorry for that

Very true. Glad to see the positivity. It did take me a very ,very, very long time to make this - and I'm getting really great feedback. (p.s this particular client will ring you - they want to shoot tomorrow and shoot on a RED Epic Dragon in the highest resolution on a yacht in the dark with 200 semi-naked models, for $500.)

I used fcpx I used fcpx color board for shot matching and the plugin color finale for out and final overal tweaks

That looks like a good option. I figured out another way to identify super highlights in colorista with a key. Shadows didn't work out. I'll try your method for shadows.

Some things suit Sony style ultra sharp ultra colourful cool tone reality, and some suit 16mm Kodak with moody tones and a ton of noise. Samsara suits the hyper-real 70mm film as its a visual anthropological document of sorts as well as social comment. the fact that we can choose formats is great. Truth is it's nice to have access to wonderful formats, but if you're doing narrative it's the least of you worries, because you're relying on performance and script to sell your story and story world. If those are good enough, format is usually a background element. It can enhance a story but it can't break it unless you REALLY screw up. if you aren't doing narrative then other practical considerations will take over, though most modern formats will do you fine. i recently re-watched some of my older 550D music videos, and the softness combines with the grain added makes them look quite nice and 16mm like, which suits the gritty feel. I prefer them to some work I've done on other cameras (Epic etc). The format suits the content and helps sell the piece. F65 would have been impractical (huge size extra crew) and would have needed to be degraded a lot to suit. So don't get *too* tied up in technology. Only other film-makers are looking for that, if they make up the majority of your audience and the technology is the point, I'd motion that you needn't worry about posterity, as your work will likely become obsolete naturally as technology changes. I agree on "narrative detachment". That's why Lord Of The Rings shot on film whips The Hobbit shot on crystal clear high-frame rate digital. layers of subtle non-linear organic distortion create the detachment, which helps you feel you're looking at another world. The Hobbit often looks like you're on a set, and that's no fun, i still maintain though, that if the story in The Hobbit was more bearably paced and the whole a little better written I wouldn't have cared so much about the sharpness of the makeup

Haven't had much time to peruse yet, but your promo video looks great, and I checked out a couple of the music videos. Impressive work! Regarding the website, from the little I have seen, looks sharp, though the rotating video ink logo (presumably used for loading), on my fast internet connection is on just a tad too long. If you could cut it down/find a way to make it load faster if it is a fancy hour glass , that would be great, I'd say somewhere along the lines of 15-20% faster load would be acceptable. (people are impatient these days!

I'll probably just get depressed if I download the footage (compared to the stuff I can produce), but even the framegrab is very impressive. I have started using the 4k photo mode on the panasonic lx100 a bit, and while it is impressively good as well, it doesn't look as good as this...

What's that? All I see is a muppet.

Doesn't seem that wide to me. Lubezki spends most of his time ultra-wide, Polanski was usually on the wide side of things (40mm anamorphic and 20mm anamorphic), Spielberg hovers around 28mm for the most part... Bay and Woo obviously go super long, too, but spend as much time super wide.

Well... version 2.0 of my new site is now up: Hello hello hello!! Generally the whole thing has been revamped under the same design.... faster, more compact, re-worded and also all sorts of little tweaks. Now I'm a zombie. Boo! (p.s working on a blog section too... 90% there!)

Man, does EVERYTHING have to be some sort of damn algorithm these days? This is the arts (supposedly). Just do it for yourself. If you can't find rhythm in an edit, I don't know how you're ever going to be a successful editor. So say I, grumpy old man. Now get off my lawn.

I don't see a separate control for saturation in highlights. Only normal HSL controls, and 3 way color wheels. In Magic Bullet Looks they have ranged saturation which has a saturation slider for Highs/Mids/Lows. Only problem with that is that it lumps in the highs on a broad spectrum. I'd like to tweak that spectrum to include specular or super bright highlights only.

over time, you develop an ear for this sort of thing. as a trailer editor, it's pretty much mandatory to be a good music editor. rather than relying on some plugin, looking at the waveform can help you make a picture or audio cut (or cuts) to the beat/percussion/etc. personally, i don't need to place markers because the waveform is right there.

I didn't trust the small body, wanted to get it over the RX10 in the beginning, as well, but held back. Just get the 10 instead if you're willing to pay the extra, same incredible image and no issues.