Bioskop.Inc

The terms "Cinematic" & "Filmic" get thrown around (on filmmaking forums) without anyone really knowing why or how they should be used. They are theoretical terms that have some how been picked up on & misappropriated - language can be a tricky thing & you are all using these terms incorrectly, perhaps this might help:

"As adjectives the difference between cinematic and filmic is that cinematic is of or relating to the cinema while filmic is (nonstandard) of or relating to movies; cinematic."

http://the-difference-between.com/filmic/cinematic

This next one might make things clearer:

Christian Metz (one of the great French writers on cinema) in his book "Language and Cinema" put it this way - see the 2nd paragraph:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wAVYK2nnRysC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=cinematic+vs+filmic&source=bl&ots=OHjFplEwrj&sig=S6P5J_Hr1VrGQQjReZqr4J9MJHw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwievpC3srLLAhXld5oKHe6rBEgQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=cinematic%20vs%20filmic&f=false

Good luck!

1 hour ago, Alan Abrahams said:

Hi everyone, I've soem footage with the panasonic gh4 on anamorphic mode and I just want to know with final cut pro, what do I do to get the footage in correct aspect ratio, I believe its meant to be 2.66:1 , searching all over the net but cant find any information...

If its FCPX then you can choose a custom aspect ratio when you create a new Project - you decide what you want etc...

If you want to fit it in a 1080p or whatever wrapper (black bars top & bottom), then once your footage is in the timeline, highlight it & go to the Inspector window, then open the Transform window and go to the Scale section to change the Y axis to the desired squeeze (simple math to work out the percentage - that's your job!).

15 hours ago, DanC1 said:

Cool, I actually just bought a k3 on eBay to practice using super16 film and it comes with a shoulder mount! Which 35mm lenses do you use with the bmpcc and anamorphic lens? Thanks

I'm using the Mir-24M 35mm f2 with the Isco Widescreen 2000 (M=M42 mount, but it comes in a Nikon mount which is designated as the 24N), but i've also used the Nikon ai-s 24mm f2.8 with the Iscorama 54 - very pleasing results (without speedbooster clone).

This is the last thing that I did that was completely handheld (no tripod at all), with the Mir-24m, speedbooster clone, widescreen 2000 & K3 pistol grip/shoulder mount:

51 minutes ago, DanC1 said:

Thanks! I'd thought about a monopod and the other thing I'd considered is some sort of Hague steady cam hand held but I can't see that reducing the micro jitters ?

It's sometimes hard to know where to invest your money. I have been trying to find a wide enough ois taking lens? 

Get a cheep speedbooster - the new Zhongyi v2 aren't a bad investment for about £100 & you should be able to go wider (you could go wider now if you crop in post - use the 4:3 guide on the pocket cam menu).

Or just get a better tripod secondhand or a monopod (there's a topic in the general forum from Zac who recommended a good cheap monopod).

I use a BMPCC + 35mm + x1.5/x2 and a krasnogorsk-3 pistolgrip/shoulder mount with a cheap z-finder clone - 3 points of contact & no micro jitters.

Krasnogorsk-3 pistolgrip/shoulder mount - about £30 on ebay.

Z finder clone - £5/10 on amazon.

Yes! The majority of people on the internet that leave comments are idiots. They're kids with nothing better to do, who don't give a shit about anything - as long as they get a reaction out of someone, its fine to be racist, sexist etc... They really don't care what you think, because they are bored kids with nothing better to do!

Quite honestly, I'm done with watching these bullshit American movies! I just come out of the theatre nowadays & the first thing that springs to my mind isn't what a great film i've seen, but the fact that i've wasted £8/9 on yet another piece of shit garbage crap recycled money grabbing CON!

Going back to the Idiots & the Internet thing: I just think that the World Wide Web will eventually implode on itself & we'll end up subscribing to online safe havens, where we don't have to worry about being hacked, scammed, stalked, profiled, used or trolled! As an experiment, I've stopped looking at my phone when I'm out walking & its amazing how many people are just absolutely transfixed by unreality as opposed to reality - I've even had these phone huggers shout at me for not looking where i'm going!

I think i'm becoming technophobic & having taken a break from this fake world has really opened my eyes!

PS. Ghostbusters will be shit & it has nothing to do with whose in it or what gender they are! It won't be the original & that's the reason...

At the start, when they rolled this nonsense out, it appeared to be ok. However, recently it just sucks big time - no buffering is the biggest problem!

I've got a feeling that they just assume that everyone is watching on their phones & not on computers, which for a company like Vimeo comes across as either naive or just damn insulting, considering that they started out as a service with no adverts for filmmakers that want to display/share their work with other like minded people.

But, unfortuneately most people ARE just watching on their phones (look at the amount of profiles on Vimeo that have never uploaded a single video!) & they can no longer ignore or compete with YouTube. I just wonder how much of this is about profit margins? Is it easier & cheaper for them to go down this road? Probably! No, almost certainly!

The one thing that I do know is that I'm no longer going to pay for their services. I might reconsider if they change things, but at the moment, if you need people to see your clips or things, then YouTube WILL get you the biggest audience - there's no question about this! If you use it to show clients footage, then I really do think most people understand about how bad the internet is/can be for viewing things. In fact, I've had people ask me why I haven't used YouTube, more than comments about the quality of the image.

NB. Has anyone used the Vimeo App on their TV? I tried using Chromecast the other day to stream something from my phone & boy did it suck - it didn't fill the HD screen & was a soft mushy load of nonsense! I was just wondering if the dedicated TV App produced a better image...

Why does the Pocket & Micro footage look so much nicer? Simple, it has to be the S16 sized sensor!

Personally, my favourite lens combo with the pocket is the Nikon 24mm f2.8 & Iscorama 54 (no speedbooster or lesser clone).

Anyone thinking that S16 is a format or sensor size that isn't used, then you must be kidding yourself - its everywhere simply because it has that something...

DSLRs & the introduction of FF for filming has created a snobbery towards S16, which is completely unfounded.

I'd take S16 over FF any day of the week, it just has such a pleasing look to my eye - S35 is the standard (obviously).

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Thanks a bunch. I have always wanted a pocket cam and I may have a little extra money in a couple weeks, so I've been contemplating picking one up. But I'm not sure. Do you shoot Raw with it or prores? Are the raw files dramatically better than the prores?

I shoot mostly ProRes with the pocket, which is mainly to do with the SD capacity (45mins vs. 12mins) and disk space - but Raw is an amazing feature to have. I'm really happy using ProRes as it exhibits little or zero moire/aliasing, whilst Raw (with a sharp lens) will be less forgiving - Raw will give you better DR & is slightly sharper. What I also like about ProRes is the filmlike grain it produces when you underexpose, it really looks nice. 

Basically the Pocket gives you the best of both worlds & really is the best of the BM bunch - the micro will almost certainly be on a par if not better than the pocket image. I stopped looking at cameras once I got the Pocket - just don't see anything that comes close to the image it produces & its a dream to colour. The one thing I would say is that it is a different filming experience than a DSLR, but not that much of a leap & once you get the hang of it, it becomes much easier to use than a DSLR.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I agree, my goal is not to fix in post, I am trying to get it as flat as I can, without ruining the image, so I can pull as much information as I can from the footage.

I really love the subtle nuances in shadows. Like many, I started with Canon as well using Prolost Flat. On most occasions, I'd only need to add a little contrast and that was it, and even lens choice played a bigger part in the look. With these newer cameras, there is so much more latitude and that extra stop or two is like fool's gold.

Anyway, thanks for your help, I'm going to use that tutorial series to help with my next round of tests.

Forgot to say, that yes, 10-bit footage would make learning CC a lot easier - a hell of a lot easier!

Also, FilmConvert is my favourite plug-in, but take a look at what Vision Color offer too, as they seem to be flavour of the month (used their Canon Picture Profile with great success) - but each to their own!

13 hours ago, mercer said:

Thanks Bio, I think I may have watched part of that a while back but I'll go back and give it a thorough watching. Do you use Color Finale?

No I don't, as my iMac is too old & so can't get it. But if I could I would get it without a moments notice.

That series of videos is so useful & it'll help with solving the skintone problems that you were having in your other post.

10 hours ago, mercer said:

Bio, do you have the BMPCC? If so, do you think it is easier to learn to grade with a more robust codec? Or is it better to sow your oats with 8 bit and learn how to manipulate a more fragile codec?

Yes, I've got the BMPCC & grading with 10-bit footage is like discovering Eldorado!

The thing with 8-bit footage is that you can't really push it too hard - it'll just fall apart too easily. My rule of thumb, when I used to shoot 8-bit, was to get it as close to perfect in-camera & then any grading was performing minor tweeks so as not to destroy the footage. At the moment, I've been re-visiting a rejected project that I shot on my Canon 60D & most of the shots are fine, but some really need Film Grain to cover up stuff - but am really enjoying the limitations!

The way I've always seen filming is to get it right or as close as you can, when you are filming - thinking that you can or should just fix things in post is making more work for you in the long run & you won't really learn how to film properly with that mindset.

So 8-bit footage is a really good education, as it should teach you how to film properly. As for 10-bit footage (or Raw), it just gives you more options once you get your paint brush out - neither is going to save really badly shot footage. 

I wanna beat someone to death with some gear!

Really useful, thanks!

12 minutes ago, mercer said:

As you can probably tell from a recent post of mine, I have been attempting to do a little color grading. You can probably also tell that I am not that good at it. So, I was wondering how many people would recommend, to a beginner, LUTS or a plug in from Red Giant like Magic Bullet or Mojo?

I am in the middle of writing a script that was originally intended to be a short but has now ended up as a feature. There are few characters and even less locations, but is a high concept script and very feasible to shoot on an extremely low budget.

For the past few weeks I have been running tests and trying to nail down a look for the movie. I have had the most luck using a plug in from Color Grading Central called CineLook, but it is extremely computer intensive and my Mac practically comes to a halt while editing. So, I decided to try my hand at grading some of the tests. In some ways I can come close to what I'm looking for, but it's still off, so to make a long story short, do slider plug ins like Magic Bullet degrade the image at all? Or would a simple LUT or FCPX "Look" be better? Or should I just bite the bullet and practice, practice, practice until I get better at grading?

Also, would using a color chart to balance my color make my efforts more fruitful?

Anyway, thanks. 

There is a free Colour Grading tutorial from Color Grading Central, which should give you a very good starting point:

http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/final-cut-pro-x-color-grading-table-of-contents

This got me started & was very useful.

My advice is to start with the tutorials before spending any cash, so you can understand the grading tools & process of FCPX. Then just use some free LUTs in combo with what you've learnt from the tutorials (LUTs will give you a starting point & thenn you can go from there to tweek stuff you're not happy with).

1 hour ago, KelseyOnTheHouse said:

Thanks so much!  I've not tried ML, but will give it a shot.  What would I change the aspect ratio to in ML?

As Hans has said 4:3 is the usual aspect ration to go for, but if that doesn't give you long enough recording times then use 3:2 or 5:3 (on my 60D I had to use 5:3).

ML Raw also has fake anamorphic sizes, which will give you longer filming times & 2.35 is one of them.

49 minutes ago, KelseyOnTheHouse said:

Hi All,

I've been searching the forum, but can't seem to find the answer to my question. I'm excited to enter the world of shooting anamorphic, and I'm using a Canon 7D with a 50mm prime lens, and want to end up with a 2.35:1 finished product.  I understand that a 1.5x lens will get me that ratio with a crop sensor, but 1.5x are hard to come by and expensive.  2x lenses are more affordable and I'm wondering if there a good way to use a 2x lens with my 7D and achieve a 2.35:1 product.

Thanks!

You could always try shooting Magic Lantern RAW with your 7D with a 4:3 crop (or something similar) with a 2x anamorphic lens - you'll probably still need to crop off the sides a little to get 2.35:1 or go for 2.40:1. If not just shoot it normally (16:9 H264) and crop off the sides, which will mean you'll be losing about half the frame.

I use FCPX & my computer just can't handle Resolve.

H264 footage is imported & changed to the standard flavour of ProRes - its 8-bit so there's absolutely no need to use HQ (no point in pretending its more than 8-Bit or pretending your footage will benefit from being put into a wrapper that can handle more than 8-Bit), in fact ProRes Proxy/LT would do just as well to keep file sizes down.

For RAW (photos or video) i've been using RPP (Raw Photo Processor 64 - for Mac) to convert the images to TIFF. RPP really does an excellent job of converting RAW files (much better than anything Adobe produces) - it has the option to tweek a lot of things & some really v.good film emulation pre-sets. Its NOT a colouring tool, its just for converstion purposes only, but boy does it do an excellent job of getting your files into a state to CC (highlight retrieval is v.good).

14 hours ago, DPStewart said:

In North America it will NEVER default to anything other than "Auto" now. 
As was suggested earlier - it's likely that this new change has not been rolled out to Europe yet.

My tests (and others) are that it's auto-selecting a quality below what our connection could support. 
Their adaptive streaming is "playing it safe". Again, that's a good move if your primary goal is only to never have a video stutter for a viewer.

But remember they also removed buffering. 
Which means they took away the viewer's choice to simply pause it for a moment to let it buffer so they could then continue and watch in a higher quality than a 100% glitch-free adaptive stream can provide therm.

We're not saying that it's 100% worse in every single possible situation. It's not.
We're saying that the specific things we PAY Vimeo for instead of just using YouTube have been severely compromised.
 

 

It has to have been rolled out in Europe - no reason it shouldn't as it is a web site after all, so every user has it, no exceptions.

Didn't know about the buffering & that's a seriously stupid thing to remove, as we all know that sometimes you need it for smooth playback - its gone!

I'm with you all the way, as my subscription (which I thought I'd turned off from auto renewing - hmmm!) started in Sept & I certainly wasn't told that this new function would be rolled out. If I had known I would have been quite happy to move to YouTube for free!

So now we are paying for extra upload file capacity & that's it! Fuck'em!

Why is it that at the moment so many companies etc. are trying to get one over on their customers? I've encountered this willful disrespect everywhere recently, from [so-called] paying clients and now from Vimeo! I just don't get this attitude where people & companies think its OK to just screw people over! Do they really think that people are just going to roll over?

I've been a bit fed up with Vimeo for a while now (kinda started when unchecking the auto renew function didn't work), it all feels like a bit of a racket. Just look at their Staff Picks - how the fuck does that work? I mention this cause some "picks" just seem to be financially motivated rather than showcasing something really good/original (you know, like to help out the small independant struggling filmmaker or aspiring filmmaker) - "Please give our video, which cost 50K to make, a Staff Pick. Because our company/band/whatever could really do with the extra advertising/influx of revenue!".

I know nothing that I've done should be highlighted, but some of the stuff that is.....well, just call me Mr. Cynical! 

HELLO YOUTUBE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just tried the auto function on 2 different OLD iMacs and the default playback on both was 1080p!

V.surprised at this considering one is over 10yrs old & the screen isn't even 1080p!

Might be worth testing the feature out before crying bloody murder...

Don't skimp if you really need to de-noise your footage - Neat Video isn't just the best at removing noise, it is also the best tool for sharpening your footage too (if you do that). Yes it takes a long time to render & I know its a pain with an older machine, but you do that as your final step.

This is looking more and more like "YouTube here I come!".

At first I thought it would be OK, but the more I use it, the more I feel cheated & want my money back for the next 6 months of a service I paid for, but am not getting.

Perhaps we need to be more specific when complaining - if we are paying for better quality, then they should give us the option for our desired playback quality & be sure to mention that we are not paying for a service that gives us JUST more upload space. Might be a good idea to mention using YouTube - its free and has more users!

Going to stress test this auto feature on my Brother's +10 year old iMac this weekend - if it plays it in 1080...well miracles might just be possible!

Damn! There was always a chance that this little thing could get lost in all the 4.6K hype, but no chance...amazing image!

I want one.....

5 hours ago, DPStewart said:

Here in the USA, under that section called "UPGRADE THIS VIDEO" - beneath it "Choose the HD format(s) for this video" is now greyed out and I cannot make any selection.
But here's the biggest problem, as I wrote originally:

I'm in the UK and this happened to me the other day - it was greyed out and only the 720p had been checked. Normally, in the past, the 720p box was always checked and once the video had been uploaded, the 1080p box would appear and then I could choose that as the default viewing resolution.

However, this time I had to go back and forth into the video's settings section and eventually the 1080p box appeared to have been checked automatically (still greyed out though) - so a bonus, but a bit worrying for a while.

Now my video still has the HD button and yes, it is by default on auto, but I can choose to click on 1080p or whatever.

This is exactly like YouTube (luckily Firefox has a plugin that automatically plays all videos in 1080 or whatever your prefered flavour is) & can help people who DO NOT have up-to-date computers that can play say Full-HD or 4K videos.

The only worrying aspect of this is how does Vimeo decide or compute what the best viewing quality is? Because without getting full access to your computer (without your permission, which is better known as hacking), how can they they know what the best resolution is for your computer? I've had no one ask me or is there a new box/section in your Account Settings that you can check & so they remember that Auto for you is 1080p?

Been editing up some old Canon 60D footage & was wondering if adding Film Grain would help at all - what do you think?

2K version uploaded in ProRes Proxy:

I'm using FCPX, so you can just select to export the Master File as ProRes Proxy and then you upload.

Or just export at the highest quality (not H264) & then use MPEGStreamclip to convert (its better at transcoding).

If not then do as DPStewert said - 10-bit DNxHD or something similar.

The good thing about ProRes Proxy, is that its great quality & small files - perfect for uploading & keeping the quality. The problem with uploading H264 files is that Vimeo/YouTube will transcode your files to their flavour of H264 again - so your footage gets a double compression.

James Miller did a couple of tests about using film grain from Film Convert & it sure looks as if you really need to pump it up between 90-120% for it to be noticeable on Vimeo - I think it should be a bit higher @ about 150%.

Also, its worth mentioning that when you upload to Vimeo its best upscaling to 2k & using ProRes Proxy.

Here's his tests:

ProRes Proxy version: https://vimeo.com/73032762

H264 version: https://vimeo.com/73031258

For all those people saying ML has never crashed, well they're lucky - but it does & they will experience it one day.

Battery life is of no concern on the Pocket, as it lasts about 45/50mins & since I shoot ProRes HQ, when my SD card is full and needs changing, I change the battery at the same time.

RAW is awesome, but I've only needed to use it twice and that's simply because 10bit ProRes is amazing!

The whole Full Frame thing is of no concern to me - I love S16 sized sensor & the way it looks. My cheap speedbooster get me to M4/3 sized sensor, which is nice too and one day I'll get the metabones for normal cinema standard size, but don't feel the need just yet.

Also, if you like adding grain to your footage, the Pocket produce one of the nicest looking of all the cheap cameras (really is Alexa-like) when you underexpose or have to raise exposure in post - so no more grain in post needed!