HurtinMinorKey

Check out this guys stuff: It's quite beautiful.
 

vimeo.com/kendyty
 
 
Almost all of it done with the Canon 550D.
 
Clearly he knows the real secret: good looking girls and moody lighting. :P

Check out this guys stuff: It's quite beautiful.
 

vimeo.com/kendyty
 
 
Almost all of it done with the Canon 550D.
 
Clearly he knows the real secret: good looking girls and moody lighting. :P

Check out this guys stuff: It's quite beautiful.
 

vimeo.com/kendyty
 
 
Almost all of it done with the Canon 550D.
 
Clearly he knows the real secret: good looking girls and moody lighting. :P

I think as a general rule, all else equal the better the compression method is for delivery, the worse it will be for grading/editing.

Then I recommend the following workflow:

Preparations:

a) Connect your card reader to the iMac and an external HD (preferably an SSD with Thunderbolt). Open FCP X, select the external drive (by clicking on it) and choose "create camera archive" (choose a name). This will backup the content of your card and you can edit right from the archive, disabling "copy files in FinalCut event" (translated from german, you will find it). You find this option as well in general preferences "import" as well as in the import dialog after you hit "import". If you don't copy the clips, there will be only aliases in the FCP event folder, keeping your project small. BUT: You always need to connect the external drive when working on the project or else your clips will be offline.

OR

b.) Assign your sytem HD or any external HD/raid for the >New Event (choose a name), preview the clips you want right from your card, make selections with i & o or by the range (click & draw a yellow range within the thumbnail, you can select various portions of a long clip by keeping "cmd/⌘" pressed), and then you do check "copy files in FinalCut event".

OR

c) Have both archive and event copies for maximum security.

OR

d) Edit right and exclusively from the card. No fail safe option then, and if it's only a USB 2.0 connection, the skimmer will invite the much-hated "beachball of death".

Don't copy your card in the Finder! FCP X then doesn't recognize the folder as a camera, and you'd lose the very good "filmstrip view" in the import window.
In either case, uncheck "create optimized media" (=ProRes). ProRes at this stage is only needed for slow machines.

Organize your clips:

FCP X has the most advanced tagging system, allowing you to find any of your clips with very little effort. However, with the manageable project sizes you describe, you can as well skip this procedure and use the skimmer instead (hotkey "s" toggles this cursor behavior, it's very useful in the event window, often not so much in the timeline), I recommend you use the "view clips as filmstrips" (instead of "list", blue highlighted icon right beside the gear icon on the bottom of the event window). You can hover over all your clips, and you see them right in the viewer. Also, if you had recorded external audio, you can synch it in the event browser automatically (as an example of how powerful the tagging works, you can filter your search by the rule "synchronized clips", and FCP X will only show you the newly wed video & audio).

Edit:

1. In preferences >playback, disable >background rendering. Reason: Your machine is fast enough, you can render complex parts deliberately by selecting them and hitting ctrl + r. We'll come back to that render issue later.

2. In the project window (filmreel-icon bottom left highlighted blue) first assign a volume by clicking on it once, then create a new project by hitting the "+" button. Make it ProResHQ with the image size and frame rate of your original clips. After this, enter the timeline by clicking on the filmreel-icon again.

3. Make a rough cut by throwing all the selections from your clips into the timeline. Use only "e" to move them from event to timeline (as recommended, use the skimmer in the event (shortcut ⌘1) and the old-fashioned playhead in the timeline (shortcut ⌘2). This of course is a matter of personal preferences.

4. Trim your edit using the trim tools (if you don't know, view a tutorial about trimming with FCP X).

5. Add b-roll and music asf. by "connecting" them to your "one-track" timeline with "q".

6. Grade / color correct your clips, apply effects and titles.

7. View your video, for now neglecting the audio. Everything should be fine.

8. NOW enable background rendering in preferences and choose ⌘ + shift + r (render all).

9. Work on the audio. Every time you pause for a few seconds, FCP X will render the video.

10. After this is done, do one of the following:

Export

a) Create a ProRes HQ master on your harddrive by hitting ⌘ + e. From this self-contained, high quality video, you can use several tools like QT7, MpegStreamclip or compressor to encode an mp4 or mov for Youtube or Vimeo. I recommend the free x264 plugin.
 
OR
b.) Simply >file >share >Youtube or >Vimeo.

I hope this is helpful.

As far as I know ( i do  not claim to be an expert), a fluid head uses the flow of viscous fluid to smoothly control the rate of panning. As you turn (or tilt) the head, fluid is forced through an opening. The wider the opening (which is often adjustable) the less resistance on the movement. 
 
With a friction head, resistance is determined by two washers (i think nylon usually) that can be compressed tighter together to create more (or less) resistance.  The use of solid friction makes the resistance much less smooth than a fluid head. This is why most serious video tripods use fluid heads. Friction heads are more commonly used in photography.   
 
Personally I think if you are serious about video, you should't skimp on the tripod. It's something that is extremely important for quality camera movements, and even more important, they last a lot longer than a camera body. 

I have a Sachtler Ace M, which has a fluid head. It's by far the best tripod I've owned.

Everybody's routing for Canon, but they're like that dad that missed all your games. Yeah.

He shows up late with a happy meal and a lipstick "C" on his collar. You just tell him it's okay, mommie's new friend Mr. Lantern was there.

That's a f--kin analogy.

Win.

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/
 
Blackmagic Software 1.5 released with Blackmagic Pocket RAW support :)

I just saw a full F3 pack on reduser for $5k.... Wish i was based in USA, so much cheaper!
 
Trying to find which external recorder I would need for 1080/60p... Really love the F3 image and think it was an underrated camera.
 
btw - just saw a Sony F65 package on reduser for $40k! Sony really need to learn to market their high end gear.

I've skipped through the couple articles about this camera and I feel you are wrongly judging this camera Andrew.
 
I feel you are acting and over analyzing this as if it is the latest and best camera from Nikon and represents the future or direction the brand wants to go in.
 
But it is not.
 
It is a specialized camera targeted at a specific nostalgic type of consumers that can afford it.  A side "cool" "retro" camera so to speak.
 
And it is a retro camera, so obviously it will be retro in terms of features and by definition does not represent the future.
 

This video is a commercial for the 5D3, you'll notice the advert link right below the video.  It basically shows someone who doesn't know (or intentionally) f***s-up the BMCC in post. 
 
 
This is comparing the BMCC to 5D3 h264, not 5D3 raw.  H264 makes the 5D3 look soooo much worse than it actually is. 

Then the only other answers we have left is that Nikon is insane. It makes no sense otherwise. They can't be that daft. 
 
EOSHD, yes the GH3 has a Sony sensor... which isn't in the same universe as the sensors going into the high end Nikons. Plus, it's not like the gh3 has raw output either. It's got a decent codec, but nothing that's good enough to be perceived as a threat to Sony's high end cinema Cameras. 

Canon's answer is "Magic Lantern."
 
Sony's answer is, "We don't believe in magic"
 
NIkon's answer is "No mas, por favor."

Here is the issue. If they continue to use Sony sensors, Sony is going to make them pay to have Video features (because that's a big market for Sony). So it's not just about demand differentiation, it's about supply cost differentiation too.

Canon's answer is "Magic Lantern."
 
Sony's answer is, "We don't believe in magic"
 
NIkon's answer is "No mas, por favor."

On the spec you choose for Resolve at least 3GB VRAM on the GTX770, for the money a Zotac 4GB would be good, 5 yr warranty too.

RAM I'd watch those jerk off heat sinks possibly clashing with your CPU cooling if you were to choose a fan rather than water cooled. CAS is high and only dual channel? If 2x 8GB? Maybe consider some low CAS, low voltage Kingston HyperX or similar.

16GB is entry level for any RAM cache, play blast.

Does your mobo support dual 16x PCI-e 3.0 if you add a second GPU, if you're going for Resolve 10b with dual monitors then think about adding a second GPU for just GUI, as 10b supports multi GPU and prefably on a mobo supporting dual 16x not 16x then 8x and 8x.

Blackmagic recommend the Asus P9X79 Pro for that, socket 2011 Ivy Bridge, 4 channel RAM etc, have you done a cost comparison with socket 2011 and a quad core?

For PSU I'd suggest the 850W to cover things like second GPU and a small disk RAID. RAID 0 for that just as workspace, RAID 1 for backup to a Synology NAS and a eSATA dock for bare drives for off site. No RAID 5 or 6 unless using enterprise standard drives.

I suppose what you're saying is, for what you do Black Magic cameras make sense.
 
If you were primarily out and about in the street you may want something different!. Or if you were shooting a corporate talking head your client just wouldn't care about raw and you'd have a footage headache for nothing, you may as well make life easier!
 
You'll find my reasoning elsewhere here for cancelling my BMD order and going 5D MKiii, but of course it's all very personal, relating mainly to a desire for great full-frame stills as well as H264 and raw, and the focal lengths of my lens collection. As such, image quality isn't the sole deciding factor. Even if a pocket cam had a nicer final image (debatable, they are close), selling every lens and piece of kit I own to swap is not practical, so there are other factors.
 
what's great is that the BMD and 5D iii are so close. It gives us a lot of options. I can't say I really like the GH3 at all, but then I've never liked any Panasonic M4/3 for video so it's just taste.

Watch videos that you like, take notes about the angles, length of shots, camera movement, and editing.  Try and emulate what you see.  This requires research.  I think learning by doing is the best.

Watch videos that you like, take notes about the angles, length of shots, camera movement, and editing.  Try and emulate what you see.  This requires research.  I think learning by doing is the best.

I really hope there will be a new wave of influental independant films that deserve this name. Even worse than being dependant on the politics of major production companies is the situation in my country. It has the "FFA", an acronym for film promotion association, founded in 1968, and it effectively finances german theatrical films with tax money, but approving the standards, which can only be described as uncinematic and boring. It's a federal association that decides if scripts are worth the investment, and you can easily imagine what that means for creativity and originality. 
 
I particularly hope, that indie filmmakers will stop to think retro. If they want to reinvent cinema, there is no frigging 'cinematic look' to be followed, no grain filters, no exaggerated DoF-gimmicks, no oange-teal-'blockbuster'-grading, that would be embarrassing. There has to be a good and revolutionary story that dictates it's own aestethics, preferably clean and straight.
 
Don't dream about fancy imagery, you've got a camera with sufficient color depth to look good on a big screen. Now it's time to tell something!

Yeah, you know what man, sorry for being a dick. Seriously. That was pretty immature to defend the
Project when it was presented like a redneck with a camera & some explosives.. So my apologies
For blasting off over it. I like over the top humor. I see every cut in my head and think "how could anyone
Not laugh their asses off at this scene?" But, nobody's seen anything yet.

To follow up however, I found a squadron of rebuilt Huey Hogs about 45 minutes away that will begin memberships and event
Flying next year. Oddly enough the PR lady was very sweet and down to earth on the concept of working with me, and
The negotiation is pretty awesome considering they need a videographer to get the word out there. Double whammy

Karim,
 
The BMCC gives you two basic monitoring options: Film and Video, which can be used for any recording mode. I think by monitoring in FILM Mode (log), you will get a much more useful monitoring image for the purpose of lighting  Was all this stuff monitored in Video Mode? It looks like it.
 
If you want to see all of the detail you are capturing, Film mode is the only way to go. It won't look pretty, and you may want to punch up the contrast and saturation on your monitor, but it's definitely better than looking at the over-exposed video mode monitor.

I say, let's wait for some moving images. Noise is hard to evaluate from a single image. Yes, if it was a stills camera ...
 
It may be bad, it may actually look good. You know, all the high bitrate - small GOP hacks of the GH2 never added any real detail to the images, they dithered obscure parts in a way like film did, creating so called 'temporal samples'.
 
Yes, I know, iso noise is fundamentally different from film grain. But, like Andrew wrote, it still is something people add voluntarily to make their videos look more organic (they add random film grain simulation, which like iso noise, has nothing to do with the pixels in the image, it's an artificial layer).
 
If it really turns out to be an 'issue', there is a good chance that tools like Neat (or the pro version of Resolve?) can fix it easily.
 
Raw photography is also not free from noise. Adobe Raw within Photoshop has it's own NR filter. The noise you detected on the ship is nothing I would have found in original size (1080 viewed on a 1080 monitor from a viewing distance appropriate to, er, cinema), my guess is that it is negligible for video in most situations. In this photo, the noise disappeares completely with a mild 18% luma NR (visible in 400%), no big deal, since one has to treat the raw with several agents anyway.
 
What is more, the sensor is said to be comparable to that of the BMCC. The first Brawley demos also showed some noise, but it isn't discussed as problem anymore, afaik. Maybe it can be avoided altogether, maybe not. No reason to despair.
 
Paramount for me, I like the images, I am not for missing the wood for the trees. Or worse, to ignore the path underneath your feet! 

Hello friends, I am new here, long time lurker. Thank you sincerely for the discourse; it's extremely educational to me.
 
After a brief analysis of these .dng files in ACR my reaction is, in a word...pleasure~! These images feel naturalistic to me in a way that the BMPCC prores for the most part does not, not to shit on the prores and say it's worthless––it's very fine. But there is a certain character to these that I far prefer, perhaps because of the added effective dynamic range [when properly processed]? I'm really not sure; I appreciate all of your comments as they help me get a grasp on what is going on here. I would like to understand the 'why' of digital cinema as much as possible and ultimately I am just a beginner.
 
Anyway, again, ACR produced pleasing results for me with minimal effort, and a little noise reduction goes a long way if that's the look you're going for. I didn't find what I would consider to be an unexpected amount of noise in any part of the images based on my perception of the exposure and lighting conditions.
 
I'm looking forward to seeing more raw imagery from the BMPCC and I look forward to seeing the analysis here on this board, thank you guys.
 
Cheers!