Bioskop.Inc

Phew! No global shutter, so me don't have to buy the BMMCC! Couldn't careless about slow-mo & a few people have already proved that you can do this with the Pocket cam.

The 4.6K footage without GS looked pretty damn nice anyways & so I don't think its that big of a deal.

Now I suppose we can understand why it was taking them so long to release either cameras - they couldn't get GS to work. Maybe they'll figure it out & implement it in a FW upgrade later, which is the MO anyways.

This is going to save me money & now I can buy other stuff instead (jumps fpor joy!)

enny - show us the video (make it private/password protected), then at least we can advise you better. We won't hammer you, but it would be interesting - especially since you're doing it for free & i've got a feeling that in future you should be charging, even if it is a nominal fee.

If you post yours, i'll post my first free music video, which was a complete nightmare as well!

The problem with musicians is that they can be a pain, like a real pain. Nowadays everyone thinks that they can make a video/film (armchair directors), but in reality its a lot harder than that. The last live video that I made got a bit a criticism from the main guy, simply because he showed it to loads of people & a few of them had convinced him that the edits should be quicker. This was also coupled with the fact that he wasn't in it as much as the singer - starting to see the problem with working with bands?!

I met him face to face and explained to him very nicely that this was the best edit possible - the main reason being that I got some great footage during the sound check & then during the gig, the lighting guys went crazy with strobe lighting, which ruined everything and made my job 10 times harder. He obviously came around to my way of thinking - I am very persuasive, in a nice way.

Show us the video, as i'm almost 100% sure the singer wants to re-edit the footage so he's in it a lot more than the others!

Meet them all, face-to-face and I think that they will be your allies (you said the others liked it) in convincing the troublesome one that you've done them a great video for free! Remember, you've done them a video for free! If after meeting them, he's still a pain, then you just look him in the eyes and tell him that you don't need the hassle and are walking away from it all.

40 minutes ago, enny said:

I am in Canada i will try to get them to sign a consent form does a consent form has to be region specific

Most established broadcasters will have this sort of stuff on their websites, it might take a little digging, but the consent forms will be there somewhere.

quick google got me this:

http://www.cifvf.ca/English/cifvf_forms_tools.html

Do a few more searches & you'll get more examples.

Also, do searches for other things related to your problem (just start the search with Canada).

Bands can be real fuckers & more often than not you can find their stuck right up their backsides!

Thanks for starting this thread enny, as it has motivated me to contacting the band that owe me money, in a last ditch attempt to get paid!

Good Luck & don't feel afraid to just dump them - sometimes its just easier to just walk away and put it down to experience.

46 minutes ago, enny said:

That sound bad but i like your approach no money no honey right in the face. Did you write you won contract or did you pay for itSince i don't have the money for a proper contract from a legal source is there a template that i can use here where it would say that i can use the final video for my portfolio.

Where are you in the world, as each country will be different. Basically, if you're doing things for free, get consent forms signed & once they do that, you've got them - they've consented to you filming them & being able to do what the hell you want afterwards. This can be how Docs can twist people's words, because there's always a clause in there about editing, which is so ambiguous that it can mean that you can do what the hell you like (used to work for the BBC & that always made me laugh when people signed the form!).

Here is an English & an American resource:

Go down the page as it has some legal stuff (I know its not for music videos, but it'll give you an idea)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/filmmaking/guide/before-you-start/checklist

http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/copyright-issues.html

In my case, I should have known better & am a stupid fucking idiot!!!!!! What i've been doing is making the video private (password protected), since i'm applying for jobs, and I just give them the link + password, whilst making it quite clear that it isn't finished yet & i'm still to be paid!

Quite frankly, if they want to enter it into a competition like that get them to sign something saying that you can still use the footage (regardless of what they do with it) & get them to pay you!

Remember, you've got the footage & video - so you're in control!

Also, meet them face-to-face, as it changes the dynamic completely & people behave like idiots when they're hiding behind e-mail etc. but they change when they're in front of you! Maybe bring a friend or two along, for moral support & tell them to chime in if they want - gang mentality!

Vimeo still trumps YouTube for quality & there don't seem to be any other realistic options at the moment.

So i'm going to stop worrying about their new auto select function, since every viewer has the option to choose the quality of playback if they want to.

I've got until September to decide whether or not to renew.

Perhaps if you leave some constructive feedback, things might get better - since telling them you don't want this function isn't going to work. Work with them to make it better seems the only solution.

12 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

Andy do you have some examples of the G7?

I'd also welcome some footage from you. Doesn't have to be from the film you're shooting, but would be nice to see what can be done with it in your hands!

Yeah what Mattias said - if he wants to edit the footage himself, then he buys the footage from you.

I feel for you, I'm in a, sort of, similar situation. I've done a short doc for a group, done a few things for them & never had any problems. Their manager is a friend, known him for years and a really nice guy (no problems with him). The real problems came when the main guy decided he wanted to change the focus of the doc away from a "making of their first single" and towards a doc about him - no problems, just interviewed him, reused footage i already had and he loved it.

However, when it came to paying me i got the "Oh, sorry, we've spent the money we were going to use to pay you with!" and add insult to injury the cheeky fucker asked if he could have it for free, with the promise that he'd pay me later! Well we didn't sign a contract and I told him (to his face), no money no doc and if he didn't pay up soon i'd delete the whole thing!

Be tough with these people, I know its unpaid, but if they want to take the piss then make them pay or just simply keep the footage without them in and delet the project & move on.

If you've done a few things and are getting work, you need to start charging. It doesn't have to be loads, but it has to be something & always make a contract regardless of whether its paid work or not!

44 minutes ago, andy lee said:

Yes buy one g7 recording internal is in my opinion as good as in places better than / comparable to red and Alexa , its that good ,g7 is great for stills too , this is the best Panasonic camera so far ...in my opinion .

Thanks Andy, that's good to hear - getting a bit bored of the 60D & the pics it creates.

& as always thanks for sharing so much useful info, much appreciated.

23 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Actually, I'm not offering any advice.  That's just the way I see the tech going.  I could be wrong, but I really think the tech isn't going to matter as much as it has in the past.

Just as the internal combustion engine was some sort of exotic luxurious thing to own in the early years, it eventually became ubiquitous.  Many people still love to use the latest and greatest, and finding the unique limits of that technology is exciting for some people.  Most of us just accept it as a matter of course, and use it to get from A to B...and if you drive in L.A. it doesn't matter what car you're in a Maserati or a Kia, you're not getting anywhere fast.

As for "make loads of stuff & get it out there as quickly as is humanly possible!"

I'll let the millennias put up quantity over quality.  That's a pursuit better suited for youth anyway.

Yeah, I know it wasn't advice, just an opinion.

I'm of the opinion that I've got better things to do than worry about how people watch my stuff & the performance/quality of their chosen viewing platform - if they're watching, that's a good thing.

In my experience, when I've put things online (privately) for a client to watch, they tend to view it on more than one platform - phone, laptop, desktop computer & TV. They want to know what it'll look like for everyone, no matter how they choose to watch the final product - in fact sound seems to be more important for some than image quality.

I was a bit taken aback by that article - if trying to hammer down a door with loads of content works for one person, it doesn't mean it'll work for all. I prefer quality over quantity anyday, it shows you want to present yourself at your best & actually care what people see - enthusiasm has its place, but not if you're shooting yourself in the foot with rubbish!

2 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Indeed.  Add to that the consideration that video is moving into a post-technical world, I think.  Not that tech is unimportant and the foundation of video, but the fact that even the base-line of stuff will be soon be more than "good enough" and video tech in general will become a raw commodity.

In less than a decade you're going to have just about everyone in developed countries shooting 8k on their phones and easily putting it online through any number of services.

From there it becomes less of "how awesome is your video tech" and what sort of advantage do you offer that allows me to share it?  How can I grab eyeballs with my content and can I do it better with hubbub.com vs. kablooey.com?

How the files get served, how information is controlled, how can I monetize my stuff with your service, etc.

The tech side will be a low priority.

So your advice, and Aaron's, is to put our stuff on YouTube & see if we can make some extra cash, which is always handy.

It doesn't matter about the quality, because everyone's watching on their phones right now & will continue to do so for the foreseable future!

Its called the Film Industry or Movie Business, not the "My video upload looks better than yours! Shit, i'm skint! Why the fuck do i waste my time making these things?!"

This seems to fall in line with this article - make stuff, make loads of stuff & get it out there as quickly as is humanly possible!

http://nofilmschool.com/2016/03/how-drinking-buddies-director-joe-swanberg-made-7-features-year

1 hour ago, bzpop said:

in firefox right click on the page >view page info>select media>select file you want> click Save As

Didn't know that - very interesting & slightly worrying! Thanks!

Also, been thinking about whether this Vimeo revamp is a bad thing & you know, if your client is so dumb that he can't figure out he needs to change the quality then why are they paying you to create stuff in the first place?! I mean, everyone has used YouTube (unless you're living in a cave) & knows about the fact that you can change the quality settings for playback viewing. So surely, if you're watching something & it looks shit, the first thing you're going to do is click that lovely bright HD button, right?

Its 2016 after all & a client that pays for videos can't be that in the dark?

Your parents/grandparents (depending on your age) yes, but someone who hires a filmmaker to create content - it beggers belief if they can't figure it out...

So here's a couple of questions:

1) What's the G7 like for photos?

2) Is the in-camera codec good enough for video or do you really need an external recorder to make it sing?

I ask because a friend sounded me out about buying a camera (mainly for photos, but he did say he might use it for video in the future) - I looked around & since Panasonic are offering £100 cashback at the moment, my recommendation was going to be the G7 since his budget was around the £450 mark. Unfortuneately he didn't wait for me to get back to him - so bright and early the next morning he went out & bought a Canon 700D.

Now I ask this, as during my internet travels, i found out that I could sell my 60D for £300 & would only have to put forward £100 to buy the G7 - I have a couple of Speedbooster clones & lenses etc.. that I use with my BMPCC.

Is it worth selling the 60D & getting a G7?

I do still want to take photos with it not just video....

Just found out something real odd!

Q. Why does the Vimeo iPhone App have buffering & not the desktop version?

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Ok here is a little comparisons.

In the sky of the very first shot its visible straight away imo. The grain is almost fully preserved on Vimeo but turned to crap on youtube.
(watch in 1080p of course)

Youtube just tried to smooth the whole thing out & totally ruined what was looking very nice on Vimeo - they've become 2 completely different looking videos.

Hmmm, food for thought!

One thing that must be pointed out is that since i'm using Firefox, there is a great plugin which automatically forces YouTube videos to play in your required viewing standard - 4k, 2k, 1080p etc. (wonder if they'll do one for Vimeo?). So in fact Vimeo has become exactly like YouTube?!

Damn! You just can't win against these people...

I turned off my auto-repeat pay function & have until september to see if they will get anymore money out of me. They have some serious work to make their new system hum, but perhaps this is only a first step & they will start to encode with a newer/better codec so that the streaming is smoother?

The real problem is that more & more people are just watching on their phones - this is the whole internet & most websites are more mobile friendly than desktop kind. With the new update to their mobile app, it really does seem that they are trying to copy YouTube - but they are so far behind the curve that they will end up driving people away, instead of getting them to switch.

All they have to do is put back the buffer for those that want/need it - YouTube has a buffer, goddamit!

7 minutes ago, Ed David said:

I think that db stuff looks great. My other issue now that i remember is that i rated it at 200 asa. Which makes sense cause its basically the same sensor as the ikonscope d16 made a few years before. And has the same feel really.  Also it felt like 11 stops if usable dynamic range to me.

Man, its the same sensor as the Ikonoskop A-Cam DII?!

How did that pass me buy? Because that was one of the images that i really loved, coupled with the shape of its body. It just seemed to be the perfect camera for just picking up & shooting with - no rigging or evf/monitor needed! Such as shame it got discontinued - now if BM or someone does a camera with that form factor again, I'd jump...

2 hours ago, Bold said:

Nice work, Bioskop.  Love that opening timelapse!

View from my window

Shot jpegs not raw (just played with auto WB & PP settings) - 60D + Helios 44-2 + Kowa for B&H

33 minutes ago, Axel said:

Bioskop, very well done.

Only after I had bought a gimbal myself - the Ronin M - I came to realize of how little use it was for me. Another example of terminator vision (I used this term on poor color depiction in another thread).

And there is another aspect your clip demonstrates: lowlight abilities. The whole thing is rather dark. Could have looked a better lit place with the A7s. Now I see (to quote Bloom) the problem with that. Because obviously the place was rather dark. And the Pocket renders the backlight very naturally as well as the shadows (which are called depths -Tiefen - in german. And that's how they appear: deep).

Yeah the BMPCC is an amazing camera & this wasn't filmed in RAW, but ProRes.

It was a bit of a nightmare, because the wide shot was shot during the soundcheck (which was perfect) & the lighting guys said they'd do the same thing during the actual concert - then they just wacked in loads of strobe, fuckers! Low light is great on this tiny beast & the lights they had were really strong (got a MC taking lens & anamorphic to flare!). Got to remember that concerts are dark places, so you need to have that balance between light & dark - it just wouldn't have made sense to brighten the whole thing up, especially considering how strong the lights were.

I got my first message from Vimeo, whilst watching a video at 1080p, saying that is should change the quality.

Never had a problem before (even after they implemented their new system) & now they seem to have crippled the playback even more!

So they seem to have been taking even more steps backwards.

I wonder if this is because I cancelled my auto payment? Hmmm, makes you wonder...

3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I just don't see how a camera snug tight against your body with 5 points of contact if using an evf would shake much more than a DSLR with 2 or Mirrorless with 3 (evf). Lots of films where shot in the 70s on the original Bolex with the Pistol Grip, they aren't shaky.
Its not like Youtube is full of super stable home videos. All home videos are shaky regardless of what camera is used, plus jello.

(BTW, now its getting worse, people are starting to use gimbals... Personally I hate that floaty thing when it doesn't have a purpose.)
 

I'm with you Mattias. I use the BMPCC with a K3 pistolgrip/shoulder mount & its just fine - the minor movement you get feels real, rather than that floaty footage that produces a fake irreal effect.

This is an example of what you can get - all handheld (yes even the wide shot!).

NB. I'm not plugging me or this group - since they've just screwed me over on a payment on a short doc I did for them! (no money, no doc! And i'm on the dole again!):

Exactly what Tito said about the fact that you can't spend loads of time & money on tests. Here's some of my stuff:

This was a test of a cheap anamorphic lens I bought in a drunken ebay bidding moment a few years ago at Christmas time (Canon 60D + Iscomorphot S8/x2:

This is Short film I shot for a friend, using the same set up (60D + Iscomorphot S8/x2):

And this is a short sequence for another Short Film, which I didn't like at the time, but have now gone back to the footage and am editing up for a quasi fake Documentary (60D + Iscomorphot S8/x2 - aspect ratio/squeeze is wrong on this one)):

2 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

If Digital Bolex got a picture of Wes Anderson holding the D16, people would go nuts.

Spike Lee has been using it, but I suppose he means shit to people!

28 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

It's only a problem when people don't read between the lines and in context. Then there's nothing wrong. But of course, you're right. But I wouldn't worry about it too much.

And too be honest, I think I might be the only one that really doesn't like the Digital Bolex look at all. Do love me them Blackmagics though.

To be honest, I got a little confused by the Cinematic/Filmic conversation that went on - I knew what they were trying to say, but they just weren't saying it!

It's like people who go to Wikipedia, read the page & then think thats that - i know everything now. Or when students (yeah, I used to teach this stuff) would ask me whether they really had to read this or that book and then they'd go to Wikipedia, copy the half-arsed explanation down (not realising that I have a computer too) word for word & then get surprised that you fail them or mark them down! Language is there for a purpose, to enable people to express themselves properly, in order to be understood. The Language of Cinema is/can be difficult, but if you're going to use it, use it properly! (Sorry, bit a rant - not aimed at you Cinegain).

I know what you mean about the DB & there are some nasty examples out there - especially when they've been coloured badly!

Perhaps these examples of the DB might change your mind? In the right hands it can look awesome!

Spike Lee:

Someone else:

1 minute ago, Cinegain said:

Yeah, we've been over that before, but still something can LOOK or FEEL cinematic/filmic to someone.

That hasn't got much to do with cinematic of filmic being a technically appropriate term for something. It's like saying 'no, it's BOH-KEE, not BO-KEH', "No it isn't!". How do you say '.gif'? 'You've got it all wrong!' Does it really matter what is technically right? Doesn't it just matter that everyone knows what we're all trying to say?

I know its kinda nit picking, but just look at the way people react when you don't use these terms properly! And pronunciation is a completely different thing. So yes it really does matter, because people obviously don't know what's trying to be said.

Why not just be clear and say that the digital image is very close to replicating the look of celluloid/film - simple & easy.

Anyhow, the small BM cams really do replicate that celluloid look quite well, but not as good as the Digital Bolex, which really is the king here.

8 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Honestly, I'd be happy with a pocket 2 that just had the BMCC 2.5K sensor and 60p. A better screen would be nice, and a more secure HDMI connection, but otherwise the old body is fine.

There's no doubt that BM's smaller cameras just produce that magic image - the Pocket & now the Micro.

I'd love a Pocket version 2 & would even go so far as to say that it could be a bigger body - same shape just bigger. This would allow them to put all the extras like 60p, a better/bigger battery & screen on it. Not bothered by a 2.5k sensor, as I really do think that the picture quality, which these cameras produce, is completely down to the 16mm sized sensor - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I just hope that the only camera that they announce at NAB is the Pocket V2 or that they just replace their original camera in the form of a bigger pocket. If they wanted to be very clever, then they'd just introduce a BM DSLR that does awesome film & pictures - now that would blow the whole market wide open!