Posts posted by Chrad
56 minutes ago, R2me24 said:
I understand its under exposed. I shoot a lot of weddings and dont have control of my lighting. My point to this was that my footage doenst look like every other gh5 video Ive seen out there as far as noise is concerned.
I think every other GH5 video would look similar to your test if pointed at a scene that isn't even visible at ISO 200.
2 hours ago, alexcosy said:
Good vloggers nowadays are the new filmmakers. Dismissing that is, i think, a mistake when you seen the content and quality some of them can put out every single day.
Storytelling is storytelling.
What does it mean to be a 'filmmaker' when no one is using celluloid anymore?
The direct predecessors of vlogging are more reality tv and video journalism than anything we typically call film.
39 minutes ago, Vesku said:
It is a difficult dilemma. In low light is it better to get darker image with less noise (low iso) or brighter image with more noise (high iso). The light in sensor is the same but the iso changes.
The key is to test what level of underexposure you feel is acceptable on your subject at various ISO values. Sometimes it's better to go grainy and even or overexposed, even if you have to push to 3200 or so.
3 hours ago, R2me24 said:
Ok, I must be doing things all wrong. I did some ISO tests and at 1080 24p - ISO 200 was horrible and grainy, and progressively got worse as ISO increased. When shooting in 4K, it wasn't bad up to 800. Also, I noticed 1080 seems cropped vs 4k. (after uploading to Vimeo, noise doesn't look AS bad.)
New camera in 'Noisy when severely underexposed' shocker!
Even at 3200 you're not near a clean exposure, what did you expect? Even the Alexa produces a grainy image when you starve it of light.
3 hours ago, Kubrickian said:
Was this a filmmaking or vlogging website? I forget
DSLR Filmmaking: the new wave that wasn't.
1 minute ago, zetty said:
I am myself long since annoyed with this hype about "filmic/cinematic" image, which is a term that should never had been defined but of course now it is. It seems like lots of people have no individual vision of how they want their films to look, instead striving to emulate this "filmic" standard as the end of it all. It's also being universally implemented everywhere, including documentary, event coverage etc.. And there's a lot of snobbish attitude towards those, who care about different qualities and have different approaches, being deemed as "non-professional". You are almost forced to adapt the style to be competitive.
BTW, exactly the same thing goes for storytelling techniques and sound design == copy copy copy; copy is good; copy is professional; copy is cinematic. Form over content, level everything by overdramatizing and exaggerating at the cost of realism, logic, depth, subtlety and nuance.
Yes, yes, yes.
It seems like embracing the flexibility of DSLRs to define a new aesthetic has been replaced by trying to transform our little consumer cameras into Alexas.
10 minutes ago, Davey said:
Mr Kaewmani knows what he is doing. What a difference a skilled colourist makes.
Definitely, but wrong thread.
I think it's important to remember that people have different expectations when it comes to aesthetics and production standards when they sit down to watch a narrative than when they watch essentially video diaries of people talking to the camera.
14 minutes ago, Grégory LEROY said:
Aps-C look (as opposed to the m43 robotic look)
David Lynch shot his Inland Empire on autofocus on an old DV cam and couldn't stop raving about how creatively liberating not having to focus was
It depends on what your aims are. Do you want to produce content, or do you want to produce art?
Do you want to write a column or a novel?
The main attraction of VLog and instagram work usually isn't so much the qualities of the image, story, themes as it is the ego of those creating it. On the other hand, great filmmaking looks both within the self and to the outside world.
Where I think what these kids are doing does have something to offer people like us is in their willingness to shape a new aesthetic. We don't need to go as far in not caring about the technical, but perhaps creative liberation comes with holding ourselves to at least a different set of standards. I think a lot of DSLR filmmakers get caught in the trap of chasing the 'cinematic', which seems to me to be missing the point. I've been thinking of writing a thread about this for a while - maybe I should get to that.
2 hours ago, Cinegain said:
It would be somewhat of a first, no? A lowlight monster cinema camera? I mean, they could make an exception, as the BMPCC might often be used as-is, without much or any lighting equipment, but most of the cinema cameras traditionally have pretty lousy high ISO noise performance, some even don't have the option to go all that high in the first place. You don't want to be far off from your base ISO, I guess that might be one reason for not having the ISO up all the way high or low. We've seen with the A7S that LOG profiles with a high base ISO can actually impose limitations rather than lift them. More in a practical way, anyways.
These days all the cinema cameras have pretty high base ISO. Alexa is 800, as are the 4.6K, Pocket and 2.5K Blackmagics. Alexa has outstanding noise performance - to give you an idea, Birdman was shot at 1250. Varicam 35 is the true low light monster with two base ISOs on the sensor - 800 and 5000, with the same noise level for each.
19 minutes ago, Cinegain said:
A proper BMPCC successor wouldn't be bad! But... then the focus would be on DR and gradability, not lowlight.
Why not both? The size of the pixels here is huge. I don't know much about lens design, but I don't see why prioritising low light should necessarily mean poor DR.
3 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:
Extreme low light is a great reason to pick Sony. For 98% of shooting, that advantage holds little allure for me. Thus, I continue to wonder what advantage Sony holds for that vast percentage of shooters that don't need crazy ISOs.
Small full frame bodies that can take any lens that covers the sensor. That's basically it.
The A7s line are amazing guerilla filmmaking tools. They open up incredible possibilities to use available light that simply wouldn't exist otherwise.
55 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:
The new modes are ideal if you're making work in the style of James Benning, though! (fantastic antidote to the hectic pace of contemporary media)
Why commit to working in a challenging and uncompromised aesthetic when you can do something just as good without making a difficult artistic choice: camera tests! Wonderful 4K raw-shot camera tests of the gardens, parks and city scapes near 'aspiring filmmakers' everywhere, coming soon to Vimeo.
While this is amazing, will no doubt be put to good use, and any democritization of prohibitively expensive technology should be welcomed with open arms...
...the elephant in the room is that if you can afford to do serious work with 4K raw, you can afford a more suitable camera that requires less hoop jumping than the 5Diii. The storage cost is astronomical. Even independent features with A-list talent choose to record in less space intensive formats for economic reasons.
11 hours ago, hijodeibn said:
If focus peaking is your deal breaker I guess you have never filmed in celluloid, I have shoot in 35mm with a Konvas and 16mm with an eclair NPR, you can not imagine how tiny is the viewfinder in the NPR, of course I didn`t have focus peaking and never needed, there is something called focus chart, probably you should familiarize with it, DPAF is another history, for doc and run&gun is a bless.....yeap, as a filmmaker I could not care less about peaking....
So because you used a focus chart in the past, you don't need focus peaking now?
Err? Not sure I follow.
DPAF and focus peaking are both great features that serve different needs. Rubbishing a manual focus assistance tool like no one needs it while championing auto focus just makes you sound like a fanboy.
Sony won't put everything we want in an inexpensive body. When have they ever done this? And why would they?
They are the number one choice for video DSLR shooters right now. They are not fighting for relevance like Panasonic. They have a succesful prosumer line to protect, which further lowers their likelihood of putting features like 10 bit in consumer level bodies.
What they already offer is selling well, so why push the limits?
The main advances I see from this camera are the 1080p out of camera being of comparable sharpness to downscaled UHD, the ability to use stabilization with my manual primes, and usable V-Log files and monitoring without an external recorder.
The low light imprpvement and removal of the sensor crop for 4K are just bonuses.
10 minutes ago, Shield3 said:
However it's still a "quarter size" sensor
Not this shit again.
It's only a quarter size sensor if super 35 is a half size sensor and super 16 is a 1/8 size sensor.
Low light on this thing is actually pretty good - it's not the A7S but it's comparable to the A6300, A6500. Maybe a stop under, becoming noticeable as you get to the upper end of the ISO range.
7-14 F/4 is like 14-28 F/8 on FF
Only in terms of depth of field, but if you see the sensor size as a potential advantage that allows you deeper DOF for the same level of light transmission, then that can be an advantage. There's also a (admittedly very expensive) 7-14 2.8 lens from an Olympus, and a 7.5mm F2 manual focus almost-pancake from Laowa launches shortly. If you want to work with Speed Boosters a ' FF 18mm F1.8' is attainable with a 14mm 2.8 and a Speed Booster XL. But how often do you shoot at Ultra wide? There are a bunch of fast options for M43 from the 20mm on full frame and upward.
I guess it just depends on what you're using it for. You have a point that the auto focus is weak vs the competition, and also about the body getting a bit big for micro 4/3. I think that's preferable to a too small body that overheats. I'm guessing that the IBIS, 10 bit, high frame rates, etc necessitated a size increase from the GH4, along with the professional features they've added (HDMI and dual SD slots).
If you're all about low light, a Canon cinema EOS or Sony A7s makes much more sense.
The short is actually pretty good.
The final shot is a little unclear. We didn't get much of a view of the SUV earlier, so it's not an 'ah-hah' moment as much as it should be. And now that we're in this upper layer in the meta fiction, the meaning could be shifted...is that her actual vehicle in this world? It would be more clear if we had a shot of both of the cars. Maybe show her car and the SUV creeping in, still following her.
The other main problem I had is that a lot of the first half of the film felt like filler. I understand this is necessary to an extent and common in horror films, to put you in the protagonist's world so you feel the tension as they start to be menaced. But, a lot of little details could be trimmed. Since we can't actually see what she's writing on the laptop screen, a lot of the time spent around that could be trimmed. Or her running sequence, etc. Just generally tighten things, since nothing essential is being communicated. For a short like this, minimal is best.
Love the BMPCC image on this. The noisy/grainy image is great for narrative, it really is today's S16 film.
What lighting was being used when she turns the lamps off in the bedroom?
Casey Neistat - Panasonic GH5 shooter
The real wit of it comes from the Farrelly's though. He just illustrated it in an incredibly obvious way.