hmcindie

People complain about the 1DXii not having CLOG and then they use the a7sii with picture profile OFF because grading the slog is a slog.

Remember that when using 1080p60 it's generating more moire than 1080p24. These cameras will start lineskipping when doing 1080p60 so it's not real 1080p anyway.

Shot today with the A6300 and the 5dmarkIII RAW. Bought the A6300 to replace my aging nex 7 as a c-cam. 5dmarkIII RAW blows away the A6300 in everything. Maybe it's a little bit less detailed vs the A6300 in 4k but everything else is a blowout. I'm so glad I got the 5dmarkIII years back when people were moaning about it's softness. It's brilliant now.

But it isn't. The more they pay, the more you can give control to them. The less they pay, then you need to stay in control. It's a creative field, I will never edit anything for anyone for free, and then let them re-edit it. That only happens if I am paid. The more you pay, the more control I will give you. That keeps me creatively satisfied. I've done horrible shit music videos but if they pay me and ask for changes, so be it. I will happily oblige. The things is, it's hard to build a brand by doing shitty music videos, or you will be known as the "shitty music video" director haha. That's why actual high-priced directors will come with some provisions regarding the final cut because they have a brand to protect. In this case it might be wiser to just let go, do your director's cut, promote that and forget the one the band makes. Odds are the video is shit anyway. BUT make sure you get paid for the material. Don't just give it to them for free. I have some friends who have that same "laid back"- attitude concerning payment but the thing is... they will never get paid. One of them burned himself out doing music videos for free. So watch out.

There's this one movie shot with the Red One (Gamer, starring Gerard Butler) and it has HUGE amounts of rolling shutter in it's action scenes. High shutter speed does not help. I really disliked that aspect of it.

Ehhh, like what? Going through the top IMDB list and none of those films feature a rolling shutter. Except maybe a couple of Alexa ones but Alexa RS is quite small.

Only for slanted lines. Everything else that moves (hands on a guitar etc) would be very hard to fix as the software would have to calculate everything moving (sometimes the background moves in a different direction than the foreground). There is a rolling shutter fixer in After Effects that tries to do this but it will create some artifacts.

I don't know. I just shot my first music video with the FS7 and didn't like it, except the slowmotions (they were beautiful). Also had some problems with color and grading. Maybe I just suck with these things...

Disagree with these two. The ISO of 20.000 on the C300 is more like ISO 6400 on the 5d iii. 5d iii is better in low light. 5d raw was actually (in really low light) very close to the A7s (after denoising). A7s seemed to be slightly darker at the same ISO. Rolling shutter wise, if the 5d is about 20ms (you can get this to about 16.8ms with magic lantern by fiddling with the timers) then the C300 is somewhere around 16 too. (Basically the same as any CMOS cam, FS7 etc)

No motion issues when nothing is moving teehee. Granted I don't believe in any "motion cadence" issues anyways. Except for rolling shutter. That's actually measurable. Usually people just react to well shot material and say "no motion issues" and when someone is flailing with the camera with a shutter speed of 1/1000 it suddenly looks like "horrible motion cadence on the cam".

First one might be a Canon because no sharpening and softish. Let's say 5d. Could also be a Nikon, haven't used a Nikon in a long time but I do remember that they also had a nice filmic soft image. FS5 would be more detailed especially if it was shot 4k and downscaled. Second one might be a ... No idea. A6300? Third one...wow what is up with those sharpening settings? NX1, haven't used that one either.

Nikon Motion has been proven to make fake videos. They did it before, will be doing again. It's just one guy from a third world country posting clips and claiming they are from certain cameras only to get youtube views and ad pays.

We know. Problem is most sites focus only on the sharpness and feature specs. Usability and everything else kinda gets a pass. Probably because it's really made for consumers and they love dem specs. Just the placement of the record button and the build quality of these cams puts me off (my old a7s got the lcd scratched very easily). Things you think would be great are almost useless (slog2/3 - I'd rather use the cinegammas or no profile, the LUT viewing assist on the a7r - you need to overexpose the slog but you can't with the assist on as everything is burned out, useless). Same with the RX10 ii (oh look, there's a button and you can set the aperture without any stops! Except you can't, doesn't work that way, it still has electronic stops. What the hell? Why is that feature there except to check off a spec list?). The 50 or 100mbit/s mode that still is very blocky compared to even 24mbit/s AVCHD from other cams...etc etc. The 4k looks slightly better but it's so compressed that you don't want to watch it at 100% anyways.

My A7s did the same thing. Also the RX10 ii. Sony...

It's just sharpening. C-log turns it off (and it looks better to me). The sharpening is applied during debayering so it seems like it affects resolution but it really shouldn't. Here's the c-log jpeg file sharpened with a simple unsharp mask, quality isn't as good as I sharpened an already compressed file but anyways. People really underestimate how much sharpening is applied to cameras (hint: a shit ton!)

As 'creators' you need to able to trust your own opinions. But you can't be completely blind to others either, especially the opinions of your target audience. Learning to filter the good opinions from the bad and taking the correct lessons instead of the wrong ones is a lifelong journey. I don't know if this is useful but I wrote my first blog ever a couple of weeks ago. It tells about some issues of creativity during a short film shoot so it might fit this topic http://filmmakersprocess.com/blog/filmmaker-story-mikko-lopponen-short-film

No. HDMI is a consumer interface and 1.4b only supports 120hz (at fullhd) ONLY in 3d mode. HDMI 2.0 does support 1080p 120hz but it's rarely supported because most HDMI 2.0 monitors are 4k at 60p. HDMI is a monitor interface.

It's not just about being "8bit" or not, the FS5 has these problems shooting 10bit too.

Youtube does correlate with sales. The view amounts for popular trailers does seem to correlate with success. Even here in Finland where government subsidized films get trailers that have less than 5000 views regularly. And no one watches them on cinema either. So yes, there is a correlation between being famous and selling/pirating well. But that goes without saying right? Pirates basically killed the dvd market (and created Netflix yay!) and everything is now streamed. To survive in this madness, you need to make madness. Like Sharknado or Asylum films, films designed to pop out of your stream with a crazy cover picture. You need to make films that don't cost anything if you are independent. Look at the youtube trailer views of Sharknado! I bet they correlate very well with the streaming amounts of that film. Speaking of making videos, Youtube has a specific niche that turns a profit and that's basically Let's Plays and comedy. If you get three grand per a million views, that is a very low sum compared to the amount of views you get. Pewdipie has a regular audience of millions. Absolutely some of them would pay to watch Pewdipie (which they are now trying with the Youtube Red thing). But not everyone will try to make a brand through sharing free work on youtube. It works when you can do a video where you basically just talk and entertain. When you make a film (that's about 1hr30mins) that approach won't work, you would only get a few grands even for a couple of million views. You need to make that film every week to survive on the Youtube horse. Unless you make a crazy trailer like Hardcore Henry/Kung Fury but even that does not guarantee that anyone buys it. I have a feeling Hardcore Henry will be heavily pirated. Even Youtube earners - people, who survive by doing shorts etc on Youtube are now having their stuff stolen. By people on facebook. And losing revenue quite a lot. Google up freebooting: By the way, the Pewdipie video you linked to, wasn't even in his own channel. (!!) It was not a Pewdipie video. Funny. BUT the thing is, even if you are popular, that won't shield you from being pirated and or not making enough money to get some amount of cost back. A lot of people react to simple things A) Name actors - which costs money B) Name director - which costs money. Kung Fury didn't actually start getting shared UNTIL the norwegian body builder Andreas Cahling shared it with his followers. You can get lucky with stuff like that (knowing the person and him not asking for a huge fee is a great start). Everyone can't do it like Pewdipie. Make several entertaining videos every week, share them for "free" (only get the ad credit - though Pewdipie makes more money than all of us on this forum combined, haha). There are loads of films hurt by piracy which have nothing to do with being a "scapegoat". That's usually what pirates claim. "We are just used as scapegoats!". Some people just have a bit of broken morals and there's no convincing them. "I can steal, I wouldn't buy it anyway!". I wonder what do the people who hang around torrent forums and download all the new flicks would do without torrents? There are so many of them. A lot of them go see the newest and most hyped films (Deadpool) but then pirate everything that is small and independent. Like Australian horror films. Which could really use your help guys.

You don't sell movies based on quality. There are tons of movies that are not very good (which still turn a good profit) being made all the time. Piracy hits everybody, some harder than others. If your unlucky, your great film will be pirated a lot and you will never earn your money back. If your lucky, your bad movie might turn a great profit without much piracy.

You have some great quality grains in your footage! Do you generate those with software (magic bullet etc) or are they actual 35mm grain textures?

But your clients aren't getting 4:2:2 anyways. Everyone looks at 4:2:0 images all the time. Everything on youtube/blurays is 4:2:0. Getting it originally at 4:4:4 doesn't matter if you don't do specific grading that uses those 4:2:2 sharper edges (like doing masks and mattes with color channels). The things is, capturing at 4:4:4 and then viewing at 4:2:0 is the same thing as capturing at 4:2:0 and viewing at 4:2:0. There is no quality difference to be attained. Except 4:4:4 looks better in your edit suite when viewed at 100%.

Well hello there fellow forumers! https://www.instagram.com/hmcindie/

Obviously before little mirrorless cams with peaking, no one could focus on anything.

Well - for starters - a better image than any of those cams, except probably dynamic range. If you like to pixel peep, I guarantee you will like the image of the 1dx II more than those other cams. The FS5 has that brittle 8bit image with artifacts and Sony colors, the FS7 is a great cam but it's usability is noticeably worse than the 1dx II. Two weeks ago I shot with the FS7 and the 5dmarkIII as a backup b-cam. Guess which was easier and faster to use? Yup, the 5d with ML. Funny. Though everything else was better on the FS7 but even it is not perfect. It's an old school wonky camera still with those effing 3 switches for gain but with a great image. Plus the stills. You like taking stills while you shoot? From the same angle as the main shot? During a shoot? I do. Good luck taking stills with the FS7. Even the a7s II can't take stills the way a Canon can and during movie shooting. This is just off the top of my head. But why are you mixing and matching these comparisons like a lunatic? The FS5, FS7 and the A7s II are completely different cams. The FS7 does things the A7s ii doesn't. Why are you comparing one cam to several? It seems you just have an axe to grind with Canon which is cool and modern I guess. If I go through your profile messages, they are the all the same subject. Canon this, Canon that. You haven't talked about anything else. Weird. Like do you even shoot bro?