hmcindie

Thanks Bozzie, managed to shoot and edit that thing in one afternoon 8)

Shot mostly with 100fps and 50fps on the A7s.

​Still better than a GH4 ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

​Different horses, different courses. I've had the "priviledge" to edit some music videos here in Finland and I've noticed a funny trend. If it's shot on the GH4, it will most likely look like crap. If it's shot even on an old 5dmarkII, it will most likely look pretty nice. Funny.

This film was fucking excellent. 6/5 stars from me. We were a group of three, two loved it, one didn't so I guess it polarizes. It was a surprisingly smart movie (it didn't explain stuff through dialogue) with great character development and awesome awesome little moments. I really liked how the story was told. People say that Max was a side character but I saw this more as an ensemble film and we were seeing the world through Max's eyes. The simplicity and the drive really kept the film together. All the characters were great, especially Nux and his little story. Expertly edited, every single action sequence was near perfection. I don't think you can do a movie like this any better. My god, I'm like a gibbering fanboy. Haven't felt like this for a movie since...can't even remember. Who knew a 70-year old George Miller would show all these new guys how action is really done?

​Super35 look? I think most are trying to emulate the anamorphic 35mm look which has considerably more bokeh (and artifacts and softness). All the great commercial directors seem to be shooting anamorphic. It's great doing vfx for those as every shot is warped x)

​That's funny because there was a thread a while back where someone claimed "there are no soft shots in Game of Thrones, everything is sharp! You could shoot it with any sized sensor!"

​Just do a light noise reduction pass. Neat Video automatically fills up 8-bits to 16/32bits while cleaning up stuff. Noise helps reduce banding in the final 8-bit version (especially if compressing it to h264) but I can get really smooth video out of neatvideo. For example, do a huge curve that lifts the shadows really up so you can see banding. Now add a neatvideo noise reduction before that curve and suddenly all the bandings are gone. You need to do it in a 16-bit composition atleast in AE. Using Neatvideo in 8-bit mode or even in Premiere won't help. You don't even have to sample a banded area in my experience.

Well it's great that you actually made a feature film. That in itself takes a lot of work. I really think you should try making a couple of short films where you tackle exactly the issues you had in this feature film. Make a 5 minute short where you really concentrate on lighting and sound. Make another one where you do a simple dialogue scene and concentrate on how to make that work. From moving the camera to simple cuts between lines, where to focus, how to really bring the characters to life. Watch a great film and try to copy it. Learn by doing. Making one feature film like that will teach you what went wrong, but it won't necessarily get you up-to-date on all the different techniques you could've utilised.

Distribution? Hell no, no one will ask what camera you used. If the image looks great, it will make an impression and that's it. No one cares if it's 360p or 4k. When you do distribution deals you are selling your FILM. The film has to have merit, it has to have sellable qualities. The camera you used doesn't matter at all to distribution companies. Do not go selling your film and start it by "We are shooting with this and that camera". That's a no-no. Make some good taglines, come up with marketing ideas and present the film as a film. No one in Cannes is selling their film with a camera. They are selling them with talent, bankable names and ideas. Choosing a camera is just an aspect of production, when you do distribution deals, it has no merit at all. Unless you are doing a gimmicky thing like a gopro point-of-view film.

I don't know but you can remove banding pretty well with neatvideo. It's a noise reduction plugin and it's really slow but I use it with after effects and combined with 16/32bit processing, it really does give a lot of boost to 8bit material.

Ed, that was just beautiful. I really like global shutter and the feeling it gives motion. Ebrahim: Though after you buy the F35 your probably just gonna be "Damn, this thing is big! I wonder if a dslr could replace it" 8)

​Well yeah sure but Terrence does have a really filmic aesthetic. You think he would shoot 60p?? About the CCD / CMOS: CCD CMOS:

​I think you're not grasping how films are made. They are made in a studio with a hazer blowing out in the corner with 2kw lights pretending to be sunlight. You walk into that set and look at it with your real eyes and your gonna be like "looks like theatre". You make the cameras shoot realistic 48p and you're gonna see that set "as is" and it's quite difficult to just take that feeling out with a bit of grading as the Hobbit 48fps showed. There were ridiculous scenes where the characters stood in a studio, surrounded by greenscreen, extremely plasticky swords and a couple of plastic walls painted over to look like boulders. Huge amounts of light were blasting overhead so that the "firelit" atmosphere looked ridiculous. The 3d did not help as you were focusing in on the characters and saw how everything was fake, from their moustaches to their clothes. You could also see the different grading areas funnily in 3d and look at the different masks in stereo. Pouring rain did not look like pouring rain but something that was poured on just a bit over the cameras and lit from the side (as they are done) All of that disappeared in the 24fps 2D version. And oh my lord, Lord of the Rings looked SO MUCH BETTER.

​What is this bullshit? 60fps has been here for decades and decades. It was 60i/50i but every sport event and documentary was shot with it. Movies weren't and will not be shot with 48p/60p except for experimentations. And they will be failures just like they always are. There was a time when videocameras DID NOT SHOOT 24p. They all shot 60i/50i. The 24p was a coveted film look. When the DVX100 appeared, people rejoiced. I will never shoot 60p unless I'm doing a documentary or sporting event (or slowmo). I think that's why the Avatar sequels might work in 48p, they are actually going for that documentary / realistic look.

​No. But saying shit like "isn't really connected" is lying too. So there you go. It was basically a rule for years and years.

99% of CMOS based cameras are rolling shutter variants. And 99% of CCD cameras are global. So yeah, there's pretty much a connection there. It costs more to make CMOS sensors with Global Shutter. That number may start to change as there are now two mass market cameras with electronic global shutter CMOS sensors (blackmagic production cam / sony f55)

Premiere doesn't change anything for me, but different players display differently. Try importing that prores back into Premiere to see if there is actually any difference.

I agree with midloch, I have one the last Pioneer Kuro plasmas before Panasonic bought them and it's a treat. Some people can't stand the slight flickering of plasmas but I love the Kuro and have no need to ever replace it, until it breaks down. I'd go as far as claiming it has better image quality than the local theatres here. About the Art of Flight and stutting, most of that is because they shoot with high frame rates and then try to drop it down to 24. If you just do it the simple way, you will get stutters as some frames are a bit offset from others, depending on the speed adjustments. Especially if some speed ramps are arbitrary like going from 100 fps to 24. Stutter is also used in an "artistic" way in some action scenes. Filmmakers and directors might like the staccato that makes their action scene a bit more "rough" and "edgy".

​Of course not. You know why? You can't quantify it. It's much easier to just say "this is magical" than actually prove it with numbers / snores. There is no "motion cadence" magic (except rolling shutter). F35 looks great because the image is very milky / low contrasty. You add that contrast back in and it'll look exactly like any global shutter cam. Also professionals use it, GH4 is in the hands of amateurs = not so great "motion cadence" i.e they are not using dollies. Same applies to Alexa. "Great motion!" = "low contrast". You ask what's actually better, the only answer is "magic".

Some lowlight action with A7s. Lots of 120fps and shot in very, very low light (when the sun went down, that was it. You can see stars in the last shots) Also youtube link, though the vimeo one is better quality:

​I don't know about that. VFX is an area that requires years and years to perfect. And it's an area that is never perfected anyways. But excluding VFX, pretty much everything else about film making on a feature level is learnable. Audio work is not rocket science, directing, lighting and operating a camera is not that difficult. Location scouting and producing are hard but they're not impossible to learn. Editing / grading, all learnable. I'd say with maybe 10 years of real good practice and doing mistakes in all-of-those areas and you could do a feature film all by yourself. It would just take a lot of time. The biggest issues are time and money (you still need to get a cast, catering etc) But I would exclude VFX. Atleast on a heavy level.

​ Fusion is crazy good. You learn that beast and you won't need much else for compositing. AE is better for motion work with titles and stuff but for compositing, you can't beat Fusion. Except with Nuke. Node based workflows are smarter and easier to manage. I really suggest people learn softwares that professionals use. Why? Well if something ever happens and you need to change jobs, it's just easier if you know the programs that VFX / Production companies use than to say to them "I use hitfilm". Learning new stuff should not be a chore. It's pretty much mandatory now-a-days.

Haven't used a gopro 4 but gopro 3 had a shitty image. If the 4 is the same, it won't compete with anything except size. " gopro 4 is still a much better 4k drone camera than the XC10" - That is just an insane thing to say (especially without using both) but I guess that's the trend.

​I never said they are the "same", I just said "they look bad". Actually they look worse then the C300mkII shortfilm. Everything featuring a lightsource looks really bad. Episode 4 had some really ugly highlights. If you think those look "good" then I am seriously questioning your skills as a human being / internet expert. Now I'll just wait for Kedbear to come rushing in and say how much better the highlights are on that second shot and claim "I'm a pro!".