Leang

I never had anyone complain about the softness of the 550D (i have the filter to kill the aliasing, which people did notice), but someone did moan about the RX100 footage looking "too cheap", by which they meant video like, or like a camcorder.
 
Stats and specs are one thing, but what really matters is how the image makes your audience feel! sometimes sharp is the right choice, sometimes not. 
 
That's why pre-ordering is such a gamble. It could be great on paper but a practical nightmare! Just have to wait and see...

meanwhile at the Sigma Pro marketing and sales division we have the fully memorized ''pro'' presenter/speaker... wait for it...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_klkz5GVycM

digital bolex now delayed two more years...

I don't think in terms of full-frame personally, I've only really shot with APSC and S35 at great length, so when I "see" 50mm in my mind I "see" how it looks on a so-called 1.6 crop.
 
If you're talking about stills, then fine it's 3x.
 
If you're talking about film, it's a 2x crop, and Super 35 is standard. 
 
That's how I see it anyway, 135-film size shooting (photographic full frame, 5D Mkii, iii and 6D) is a special case and special use (very low light, very shallow DOF). It's a negative crop of x0.6 or so.

Nikon released a firmware update for the D600. If the crippled 95% hdmi output bothered you, that's fixed now:
 
 
http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18267/kw/D600/session/L3RpbWUvMTM2NDg3NzMxMS9zaWQvQTJSKndHbWw%3D
 
 

APS-C sensors are atheist.

Heya Everyone,   Ever wanted to freeze someone then smash them into a million pieces? Here is your chance! :)   I have uploaded a new tutorial where I show you how to achieve this effect:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCDhv8gD0aY   Please like the video and subscribe if you like my content.   Cheerz! Ruan Lotter youtube: http://www.youtube.com/tunnelviziontv twitter: @ruanlotter

Finally got mine! Threw this together in 10 minutes in AE.  
 
JUMP. Twixtored, burst at 60.
 
 
https://vimeo.com/62191830
 
Here's a quick snapshot of the raw in comparison to the final output.
 

I'd go for the Shure MX150 second hand on ebay, and second option the AT Pro70 brand new.  They sound great and amazing for the price!  For M43 Macro's it's best to consult with others.  I'm still confused about us mentioning ''voice overs.''  The reason why I mentioned ''voice over'' was because we don't see any talking heads in the video.  Therefore if your initial storyboarding didn't have shots for talking heads then it would have been better to approach it as a table top voice over which would sound really pro.  Speaking of which, maybe one last investment for your mic kit would be a medium to large diaphragm condenser mic and an audio interface.  You can buy a cheap $10 desktop mic stand and sit across from your subject on a table and record the interview.  It's all cool stuff to learn and master.
 
However, in the meantime the original t-stand setup I mentioned will do justice.  try it and you'll hear a difference.   B)

Good stuff Blanche.  Here's some audio tips from an audiophile.  B)
 
First off for talking head framing in docu's I prefer uni lavs since usually your subject is always facing a consistent direction and not so much moving their neck around...most likely always to the direction of the interviewer.  So your uni lav pattern will be focused towards the chin whereas the omni lav's pattern is going to pick up more room presence as its intended to.  Of course most real world scenarios in acting or news you can't be restricted to a static neck position which is why it's mainly used.
 
Can I assume the Zoom was strapped onto your subject with the lav, and your Sennheiser connected to the cam?
 
If you plan to do a similar edit again with no talking head cuts then it's to your full advantage to record audio at the closest proximity.  For this sort of docu framing forget about shoe mounting your Sennheiser to the cam.  Instead buy a cheap $20 t-stand for your 400 MKE and position it to the lips of your subject (court room style) as close as possible and strap the Zoom recorder to the stand.  You can now move the mic setup anywhere in the room at full control knowing the frame and avoiding noise as much as possible.  Voice over narration should be a priority if you don't plan on showing any talking heads.  Also, notice your close ups for machinery.  Do the exact same thing with the t-stand setup pointing the 400 MKE to the machine just barely out of frame.  Approach it the way a foley artist attacks challenges.
 
Good luck Blanche.  Looking forward to your next docu.   If you need advice I'm more than happy to give.  

Why address this to me?
 
An ASC though does command a certain professionalism because of the work they have done that has proven themselves Experience and knowledge often equate to talent if an ASC or  BSC offered to be my DP I would be very happy indeed. They are extremely knowledgeable talented people who know far more than I will probably ever know about being a DP.
 
Look I may not have liked Roger Deakins ASC BSC Cinematography in skfall with the Alexa and I'm entitled to an opinion. We criticise the pro's precisely because they are the best of the best. I might say I hated the last indiana jones film but there is more talent in that film than I may ever have in one of my miserable little efforts but I judge them by the very best of the best standards. I may be harsh but it doesn't mean I dont respect them for what they do because I damn well know how near impossible it is what they do do.
 
If Leang wants to tell me I know jack then fine He's right Until I earn my stripes that is. I have been learning all I can and making films but spent very little time actually directing But I feel I am ready that is why I want to make a breakout film.
 
I respect my peers. I may not always like them but in a professional capacity I would always be a professional because I do respect the work they do.

In 2046, if cinema is to survive, 'cinematography' will define something completely different. The word, as it is used by the americans, isn't too correct anyway. Literally it means 'drawing or recording movements'. Yes, the french pioneers who made the first 'film' (material: paper), just advanced an older technique called chronophotography, in which the word photo dominates, meaning light. But early on, it was clear that film as a new technical and cultural phenomenon was successful not because it was lit in any defining way, but because it allowed to manipulate time. Take this one from 1898:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oFnOAnL8Ss
 
'Cinematography' is synonymous with 'filmmaking'. Including the cheapest tricks and the costliest.
 
In In The Mood For Love, there are other major contributors to the look and feel than just Doyle: the director, the composer, the actors, and, quite humble in the background, the production designer and costume designer and editor and associate producer, all 4 in one person.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypY9OaKCfRU
 
Wouldn't you agree, that however masterfully and tastefully Doyle lit and photographed this film (in a way the bible for the DSLR-aesthetic-connoisseurs), he doesn't deserve to be called it's cinematographer, in the original meaning of this word. He is a cinema-photographer, skilled and with a cognizant style. But that's it.
 
Would William Chang, who painted the drafts, collected the props, searched the locations, defined the colors of the backgrounds and costumes (a.s.f.) feel cheated, if anyone said it was Doyle who created the look of the film?
 
No, because they worked together. It must have been a creative decision of this small team. 
 
If in Pi Ang Lee thought that he only needed an experienced blue screen camera operator (in german, DOP is simply credited as 'Kamera'), he could have hired a mere technician. But he didn't. Nor did he hire the 'artist' Doyle. He hired a talented team player, who had already proven that he cared for perfect 'plates' to make the VFX artist's job easier and prevent the CGI from looking like CGI (as he says in the Arri-interview).
 
Who was entitled to take the award for 'cinematography' for Pi ?
No one?
Was there no cinematography (in the modern sense of 'cinema-photographer' as well as in the old sense 'making images come alive')?
 
I'm sure, in 2046 we don't wonder any more. 

Come on guys, does it really need to get this low?

That's why I avoid talking about my personal work here, even if that makes many in here think I never did anything and all I do is speak out of my ass.

This is mostly a camera and technical forum, and still things heat up enough when talking about $1000 dollar cameras, so let's not expand the discussions to our own personal work, since that tends to get more personal and emotional, unless it's constructive criticism (which is often already quite hard to digest).

nor does your camera work.

Lol. This isn't me. It's about some girls complaining about Miranda's work which none of us have control over. I'm pro Miranda. Eat it.

OK enough of this shit. Back on topic please.

I came on here to see what people thought of the way the film looked and all I got was pages of argument based on textbook ideas.
 
My 2 cents. The film was insanely dull, yet still his best film since Pulp Fiction. Why do Americans fall down swooning every time Tarantino makes another long indulgent piece of crap. Robert Richardson top lights too much for my taste and aesthetically the film was pretty bland. For me it was a reminder of how beautifully composed the films he was referencing were, and how as a director I don't think he has the chops to do more than emulate better directors.
 
Leang that is an awesome picture btw.
 
Cheers,
 
Toby

Mmmm I'm interested... One of my favorite videos I made so far has really quick cuts!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgh-RSJh_Qw
 
Though they were taken from long clips... It'd be harder to capture just what you want in the right second!

Axel Censorship is of course a neccesary tool. Your cry for freedom from censorship and artistic licence to create what you want is what you use to bash me with so you dont have to confront the moral issues.
 
Leang's film was very well done and still used extreme violence and included depraved characters and their conversation was quite chilling. We didn't know much about the two characters and not asked to follow either as a main character. The pedophile gets shot and although not something we do as a society we can empathise with morally wrong charactr getting his come uppance the guy that shot him may very well be a bad guy who obviously has a sense of right and wrong He may even turn out to be a tortured anti hero.
 
However he didn't as a hero scalp all the victims nor torture and maim while playing the good and just main hero character.
 
Recent times a few British and American soldiers tortured innocent civilans to death. They are dealt with by the courts. This is not something to consider as right and those guys were fighting for our freedoms But there is a moral code that is there they must abide by. Unless there is some moral reasons we can understand IE Like the soldier reacted after the insurgent come out of a crowd and blew his mate up and he reacted in the moment But we do not make heroes out of soldiers who torture maim and kill in a fun way. That is a reflection of our society as it stands today.
 
I'm sure many war crimes are commited and go unpunished but when they are found out they are prosecuted.
A film maker may show war crimes being commited but the main hero character must be a moral person and not in a religious sense but a way we know is right. You just cant have a hero that an audience roots for and by nature of the hero main character sees the film through their eyes and empathises with as a character that commits war crimes and a sadist torturer.
 
There is a clear line here that film makers naturally adhere to. Tarantino though blurs those lines.
 
Of course when you watch you see the main character doing bad Getting away with it then getting the rewards You think OH WOW this is different This is new. This is exciting. The man is a genius. He is not He is blurring the lines. We as a society take for granted our laws and rules, Not all do. We break our moral values at the risk of our own freedom. Let alone the encouragemnt of this being copied in real life just as many violent acts from films are copied. And although violent acts will happen without film and at a worse level. IE Gaddafi's golden gun. Film still has a responsibilty not to teach new tricks that break moral codes.
 
It's really not worth it.
 
Why have I bothered to write all this. WELL. My hope is others may realise that writers do have a responsibility and  films will be made with a moral framework and recognised as video nasties when they're not. At the very least know what you are doing and why.

Yeah, Leang, that was something!
The first minute reminded me of a scene in a Tarantino film, where they talk about 'Like a virgin' and what Madonna might have been referring to ...

Leang. Quite a powerful film within a moral framework and a clever ending.

https://vimeo.com/57786264

Always 24-bit, just because it gives you more resolution with quieter sounds. Zooms are noisy when sounds are quiet (signal to noise ratio) so try and keep your gain quite high without clipping.
 
48kHz is your video standard, just use 48kHz 24-bit if in doubt.
 
I spent years in pro audio embroiled in endless debates about benefits of high sample rate (basically recording frequencies beyond our hearing range, but that may have an effect on frequencies we can hear or that processors can use). If you're working with lots of analogue outboard studio gear then 96kHz is good, if not go for 48kHz.
 
At one point I even started reading Dan Lavry's papers on sampling theory. After going that far down the rabbit hole I emerged to A/B a few recordings...
 
And concluded you should just stick to 48kHz 24-bit for the most part and save yourself the brain space and the sleep!

I don't believe the twisted morality spoken of comes from art. Art reflects society.
 
The twisted morality spoken of comes, for the most part, from the dehumanising pursuit of capital above all else... money as new God.
 
But that's another huge debate I think.