Bioskop.Inc

What ML has done with Canon cameras is simply amazing - they've taken a camera with great colour science, a really shitty delivery codec & given it a greatly needed shot in the arm!
But, and it is a big but, RAW can be a real pain in the arse - with my set up, I need to transcode the DNG files with RPP (it's great as it can batch stuff, has 3 different LOG settings & loads of JPEG/TIFF settings), then I need to wrap them in a QT PR .mov file & then i can edit them.
Personally, H264 is dead to me & all i want is a sturdy codec with which to play with in post - PR422 HQ or above is more than good enough for most things. RAW is only useful when you come across a difficult scene that needs some extra care/attention in post - DR to you guys.
However, if I was given the choice between the 5D3's internal codec & RAW (regardless of bits), then I'd certainly choose RAW everytime - so some of the ML flavours might not have as much DR, but come on, you don't or won't need that amount of DR all the time. I know it might be a bit old fashioned, but the rule of thumb should be to get it right, as close as possible, in-camera & then all you'll need to do is tweek in later - personally if you're spending more time in post than actually filming, you're doing it wrong.
What Andrew shot (see vid above) really shows the strengths of what ML has brought to the 5D3 table - if you can't see it, then i feel really sorry for you. It isn't an ideal situation, but if you have a 5D3 you should be jumping up & down with joy - so many choices are now available to you!
If you're still using a camera with an H264 delivery mode, I'd be pulling what's left of my hair out!

What ML has done with Canon cameras is simply amazing - they've taken a camera with great colour science, a really shitty delivery codec & given it a greatly needed shot in the arm!
But, and it is a big but, RAW can be a real pain in the arse - with my set up, I need to transcode the DNG files with RPP (it's great as it can batch stuff, has 3 different LOG settings & loads of JPEG/TIFF settings), then I need to wrap them in a QT PR .mov file & then i can edit them.
Personally, H264 is dead to me & all i want is a sturdy codec with which to play with in post - PR422 HQ or above is more than good enough for most things. RAW is only useful when you come across a difficult scene that needs some extra care/attention in post - DR to you guys.
However, if I was given the choice between the 5D3's internal codec & RAW (regardless of bits), then I'd certainly choose RAW everytime - so some of the ML flavours might not have as much DR, but come on, you don't or won't need that amount of DR all the time. I know it might be a bit old fashioned, but the rule of thumb should be to get it right, as close as possible, in-camera & then all you'll need to do is tweek in later - personally if you're spending more time in post than actually filming, you're doing it wrong.
What Andrew shot (see vid above) really shows the strengths of what ML has brought to the 5D3 table - if you can't see it, then i feel really sorry for you. It isn't an ideal situation, but if you have a 5D3 you should be jumping up & down with joy - so many choices are now available to you!
If you're still using a camera with an H264 delivery mode, I'd be pulling what's left of my hair out!

This is a "Shit happens & Bad Luck Comes in Threes" story:
So it's my 2nd day working on a big external production at the BBC (we're filming in the Ballroom of a hotel - lovely wooden floor etc..) & the Director is going through the Health & Safety speech. Just as she is getting to "What to do in case of a fire..." someone shouts FIRE! Everyone laughs, but the guy who shouted isn't & is wildly pointing to an alcove where a light transformer is actually on fire & has started to set the curtains a blaze. He proceeds to run around like a headless chicken - looking for a fire extinguisher, which has been carefully placed behind the transformer that has gone up in flames. Everyone is rooted to the spot - well we hadn't been told what to do in case of a fire yet! The fire alarm goes off, the hotel's fuses blow & someone does arrive with an extinguisher to put the transformer out of it's misery.
It's 7:30 am on a Sunday morning & the whole hotel has to be evacuated - none of the paying guests are too pleased! Well the damage is minimal, we get back in & filming is delayed.
The production is one where people bring their treasures in to be valued (not the Antiques Roadshow) & we are expecting about 1000+ people to turn up during the day (final figure was just over 1600). Normally, we'd get them to queue up in the road & into the venue. Well the heavens open up & it's starts to rain like its the monsoon season! We get people indoors & snake them aroung every available inch of the hotel - they're soaked (to the skin), not happy at all but we get them teas/coffees & that helps a little (well more like applying a plaster to a gapping wound).
Well, bad luck comes in threes & about halfway through the day a riot breaks out! People are wet, cold & not really happy that they have to wait for 3hrs in a queue - so about 300 people decide to charge up the main stairs, in an attempt to get seen quicker. All I remember is standing at the top of the stairs with my arm stretched out - in the universal language of a portable stop sign. I close my eyes & expect to get trampled under foot. When I reopen my eyes, I'm alive & surveying the angry hoard in front of me - they aren't happy, not one little bit. Some quick talking & the offer of free Teas/Coffees & Cake seems to do the trick - British people really are a sucker for Tea/Coffee & cake, especially if it's free!
There's something about mentioning Tea that changes things in people, like it's a magical healing potion. Well it's not really - they're still cold, wet through & will have to wait 3hrs. But hey! They're here & might get on TV - well maybe...probably not...& if they do it'll be very brief!
The day started at 6am & filming didn't finish until 8pm....
Anyway, shit happens & all you need to survive is to keep a cool head and have lots of tea on hand, maybe!

He's a good cheat sheet for DCP sizes
http://unravel.com.au/files/Unravel_Resolution_CheatSheet.pdf
You should be able to make a custom sized timeline - if you don't want black bars in a box.
Also, if you've been looking at squeezed footage it can look a bit weird when you de-squeeze. But more importantly, as someone has mentioned, the stretch factor can change slightly, since the x2 is taken from when the lens is at infinity - this tends to be a real problem with x2 anamorphics rather than say x1.5 etc.
The best way to know what you've got is to film a circle (on a piece of paper) and then de-squeeze it to your taste.
Doesn't matter how you filmed it, 16:9, 4:3 or 6:5 - you'll still end up de-squeezing it by the same factor.

He's a good cheat sheet for DCP sizes
http://unravel.com.au/files/Unravel_Resolution_CheatSheet.pdf
You should be able to make a custom sized timeline - if you don't want black bars in a box.
Also, if you've been looking at squeezed footage it can look a bit weird when you de-squeeze. But more importantly, as someone has mentioned, the stretch factor can change slightly, since the x2 is taken from when the lens is at infinity - this tends to be a real problem with x2 anamorphics rather than say x1.5 etc.
The best way to know what you've got is to film a circle (on a piece of paper) and then de-squeeze it to your taste.
Doesn't matter how you filmed it, 16:9, 4:3 or 6:5 - you'll still end up de-squeezing it by the same factor.

You really need to start reading people's posts properly & perhaps between the lines a little.
Some of us actually have genuine experience filming for proper production companies & have learnt a lot over the years.
I'll repeat myself, Zebras should not be completely trusted & I wouldn't ever advocate someone using them at 100% - i've been filming for 15 odd years & I still don't put them at 100%. And we aren't allergic to scopes etc...it's just that sometimes you do need to trust yourself, rather than a computer, which might not always be right. In all frankness, a light meter is the way to go - always has been, always will be.
Oh, and you can only properly use or get good results using ETTR with RAW! Not going to change my experience/opinion on this.
Also, if people cared about image quality, why are there so many high profile TV dramas & Films that are loaded with Moire/Aliasing?
And don't get me started on the Soft image vs. the Super Sharp.....
Sound & Image are completely different animals - please don't confuse the two or use one as an example for the other.
Amazon & Netfilx are really shaping up to producing some great content - watched OJKA last night & it was amazing (on Netflix now!).
Good Grief, sometimes its like slamming your head in the fridge door & realising you should be using the oven.....

Those shots look really nice!
I've been on the fence for so long about completing my ai-s set, but it was the short focus throw that was putting me off. However, if the non-ai lenses have a longer focus throw & by the looks of your shots, think I might be going in this direction - longer focus throw will be useful for some of the anamorphics i've got.
The only other consideration might be to go the Medium Format lens route & I've been really impressed by some of these lenses recently - anyone have experience with MF lenses? (Looking for budget conscious lenses btw)

I will always throw the Marantz PMD661 into threads like this. No question Zoom's has got the market cornered with their name and features. And I will say their pre-amps have gotten consistently better over time (I was down with Zoom for a minute. Had the original H4 and then the H4N), but they still don't have sh*t on the 661. 
Basically if audio quality is your priority then imho the Marantz PMD661 (Version 1 or 2) is a hugely slept on option (unless you need more than 2 XLR mics). I think it's mostly because it came out before the indie/DSLR revolution, but the PMD661 is still kind of the standard in the public radio broadcast world where audio quality is really all that matters (it's the standard recorder at the CBC in Canada, and I know This American Life and other PR shows swear by it).
Anyways, just my 2 cents but the PMD661 (for what you get in pre-amp quality, IN/OUT options and overall sound quality) is hugely slept on in the indie video world, and available used nowadays for $300 easy (just sold one of my units for that price). AND if you're lucky enough to get one of the OADE Mod'ed units, you're taking that thing to a whole other level.
https://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-661MODS.html
It's also bigger than a lot of the newer recorders out there, but realistically I don't see how it's size is really an issue beyond the optics of it being `bigger than' as opposed to it actually being big.

I'm with you all the way on this one - I've had the Marantz PMD661 for many years now, it's hands down excellent & still is.
One option people haven't thought of, if you're on a budget, is to get an old analogue field amp & then plug it into a small digital recorder - you'll get the the benfit of professional grade Limiters, Pre-amps etc... & you'll be recording to digital. Also, when/if you ever get to use a camera with XLR sockets, you can just plug straight into the camera & get perfect sound for editing.
Personally I'd think long & hard about getting something from ZOOM or TASCAM - you're buying into a name & not quality.
SONY doesn't appear anywhere here but they do some good small recorders, but probably not as cheap as Z or T.
Sound Devices have been at the top for some time & it doesn't look as if anyone will ever catch them - if you can afford it, don't look anywhere else. On a budget, you can get your hands on their analogue 2 channel field mixer (about £200-300), it'll be small & then you can get a small digital recorder to go with it - professional grade at a really decent price!
As far as mics go, old doesn't mean bad: you can pick up a Sennheiser K3 or K6 power module & then add an ME series Mic capsule (£200-300 for both) - again professional quality.
I've recorded plenty of sound from an analogue field mixer into the apparently hopeless Mic input of BM Pocket & got excellent results - everything is handled by the field mixer & then the camera just acts as a digital recorder.

These LOG problems/misunderstandings seem to be appearing a lot recently. I've read through most of the thread & there has been some really useful information put forward, some useful links (more or less). The main point that keeps coming to mind is, Has anyone actually tested the DR of their camera with & without the LOG profile? I know this might seem such a basic thing, & might be insulting to some, but it is the thing that is screaming out to me if you want to know how a LOG profile bahaves.
You read time & time again how professional DPs test cameras, so perhaps this is what you need to do to understand how the LOG profile behaves & so understand how to use the LOG profile. Simply put, the easiest way to do this is to test the DR of the camera with & without the LOG profile.
The following quote came from another forum & was suggested by David Mullen (a professional DP) as a simple way to do this:
"Put a white card and a black card on each side of an 18% gray card -- under and overexpose in whatever increments you want until you can't see a difference between the white and gray card at the overexposed end and between the gray and black card at the underexposed end. Make sure you shoot at whatever is the widest dynamic range recording format the camera offers (raw, log, cine gamma, hypergamma, etc.) but also test it in the narrower Rec.709 display gamma range just for comparison."
You can, of course, do this anyway you want & test all sorts of different aspects of the camera - you can test how different ISO/ASA behave, how different F stops behave etc... I'd suggest that you use a Histogram & Peeking (make notes of the values at which the camera over exposes/under exposes - all of them). You can use ND filters, but make sure if you use a Vari-ND that it has markings.
You can, and considering the topic at hand, should add a colour chart to the test - but if you do this White Balance the camera to the white piece of card (with BM cameras you'll need to test the various WB presets). You should also try to make sure the Black card is as black as possible - "The black card should be as black as possible, some people create a recessed box lined in black velvet".
Just remember that not all recording formats are equal e.g. 8bit vs.10bit or H264 vs. ProRes (do the test with what you'll be using). And do the test using your equipment & how you intend to shoot.
Having done this simple DR test you should now know how the LOG profile of your specific camera behaves, compared to the preset profiles (Rec.709). If you make careful notes then you'll know what to do with your camera in a variety of situations.
Finally, please remember LOG isn't RAW & you don't need/have to use either of these recording profiles to get great images!
Oh, and sometimes you might have to make a choice & crush blacks or blow highlights.....

If shooting a Doc, always roll the camera when speaking to a subject/contributor, even if it's just to run through what they're going to say - people come up with moments of clarity when they don't think they're being recorded, which they won't be able to recreate later. Also, have loads of cutaways so you can splice up an interview, which leads to the next point of making sure the sound is as even as possible throughout & get some room tone (the sound of the room with no one talking etc..).
I really like the David Fincher approach of splicing up different takes to make a perfect take - he uses this when he has 2 characters on screen together & makes sure that there is space between them so he can use Take 2 of Character 1 & Take 7 of Character 2.

The only M42 35mm lens I use now is the Mir 24m 35mm f2 (there is a nikon mount one & is listed as 24N) - just perfect for anamorphic.
I've used it with great success with Iscorama 54, Kowa for B&H & Isco Widescreen 2000.

Remember when the trend was to leave Alexa footage all milky/washed out - it was like they used LOG, couldn't make a grading decision & so just left it (or that's how it seemed). And here we have someone who has actually put some contrast/colour into his images & people call foul - it's a real shame & a very boring position to take. Would hate to see the comments if these people ever watched an old Film Noir....
Yes, the OP is correct - this piece doesn't look like video. Really thought you'd nailed it with the shot when the woman is moving in front of the shops.
The only comment would be that there is a slight colouring inconsistency between the wide & the close up shots with the opening dancing sequence (the close ups are slightly less contrasty, but not much).

Remember when the trend was to leave Alexa footage all milky/washed out - it was like they used LOG, couldn't make a grading decision & so just left it (or that's how it seemed). And here we have someone who has actually put some contrast/colour into his images & people call foul - it's a real shame & a very boring position to take. Would hate to see the comments if these people ever watched an old Film Noir....
Yes, the OP is correct - this piece doesn't look like video. Really thought you'd nailed it with the shot when the woman is moving in front of the shops.
The only comment would be that there is a slight colouring inconsistency between the wide & the close up shots with the opening dancing sequence (the close ups are slightly less contrasty, but not much).

You really need to start reading people's posts properly & perhaps between the lines a little.
Some of us actually have genuine experience filming for proper production companies & have learnt a lot over the years.
I'll repeat myself, Zebras should not be completely trusted & I wouldn't ever advocate someone using them at 100% - i've been filming for 15 odd years & I still don't put them at 100%. And we aren't allergic to scopes etc...it's just that sometimes you do need to trust yourself, rather than a computer, which might not always be right. In all frankness, a light meter is the way to go - always has been, always will be.
Oh, and you can only properly use or get good results using ETTR with RAW! Not going to change my experience/opinion on this.
Also, if people cared about image quality, why are there so many high profile TV dramas & Films that are loaded with Moire/Aliasing?
And don't get me started on the Soft image vs. the Super Sharp.....
Sound & Image are completely different animals - please don't confuse the two or use one as an example for the other.
Amazon & Netfilx are really shaping up to producing some great content - watched OJKA last night & it was amazing (on Netflix now!).
Good Grief, sometimes its like slamming your head in the fridge door & realising you should be using the oven.....

You really need to start reading people's posts properly & perhaps between the lines a little.
Some of us actually have genuine experience filming for proper production companies & have learnt a lot over the years.
I'll repeat myself, Zebras should not be completely trusted & I wouldn't ever advocate someone using them at 100% - i've been filming for 15 odd years & I still don't put them at 100%. And we aren't allergic to scopes etc...it's just that sometimes you do need to trust yourself, rather than a computer, which might not always be right. In all frankness, a light meter is the way to go - always has been, always will be.
Oh, and you can only properly use or get good results using ETTR with RAW! Not going to change my experience/opinion on this.
Also, if people cared about image quality, why are there so many high profile TV dramas & Films that are loaded with Moire/Aliasing?
And don't get me started on the Soft image vs. the Super Sharp.....
Sound & Image are completely different animals - please don't confuse the two or use one as an example for the other.
Amazon & Netfilx are really shaping up to producing some great content - watched OJKA last night & it was amazing (on Netflix now!).
Good Grief, sometimes its like slamming your head in the fridge door & realising you should be using the oven.....

You really need to start reading people's posts properly & perhaps between the lines a little.
Some of us actually have genuine experience filming for proper production companies & have learnt a lot over the years.
I'll repeat myself, Zebras should not be completely trusted & I wouldn't ever advocate someone using them at 100% - i've been filming for 15 odd years & I still don't put them at 100%. And we aren't allergic to scopes etc...it's just that sometimes you do need to trust yourself, rather than a computer, which might not always be right. In all frankness, a light meter is the way to go - always has been, always will be.
Oh, and you can only properly use or get good results using ETTR with RAW! Not going to change my experience/opinion on this.
Also, if people cared about image quality, why are there so many high profile TV dramas & Films that are loaded with Moire/Aliasing?
And don't get me started on the Soft image vs. the Super Sharp.....
Sound & Image are completely different animals - please don't confuse the two or use one as an example for the other.
Amazon & Netfilx are really shaping up to producing some great content - watched OJKA last night & it was amazing (on Netflix now!).
Good Grief, sometimes its like slamming your head in the fridge door & realising you should be using the oven.....

What i found with [ML] RAW is that ETTR only needs to be used to help clean up the noise in an image when filming in dark situations & a complete waste of time in well lit places - but that's obvious, right? There is too much misunderstanding about how or when to use this technique & I've had so many DOH! moments when watching footage of people using it in nice daylight!
I'm with you, I expose to what my eye likes & then peep a little at the zebras. When I first started out, a seasoned cameraman told me that to begin with I should set the zebras to around 70-80% & then as I got used to exposure, move up to a max of 90% - he said never set at 100%, because it'll only show the hotspots that are really blown & mask other areas of the image that won't look blown, but can very easily be unrecoverable. This is mainly because zebras aren't 100% accurate & should always be treated as such - they put you in the right ball park, but never tell you the whole story. The only thing that will be accurate is a light meter.
Is that because you're using a Black Pro Mist filter & the result has a more pleasant rendering for blown highlights - to my eyes they really bloom softly & become a lot more pleasing to the eye.

If shooting a Doc, always roll the camera when speaking to a subject/contributor, even if it's just to run through what they're going to say - people come up with moments of clarity when they don't think they're being recorded, which they won't be able to recreate later. Also, have loads of cutaways so you can splice up an interview, which leads to the next point of making sure the sound is as even as possible throughout & get some room tone (the sound of the room with no one talking etc..).
I really like the David Fincher approach of splicing up different takes to make a perfect take - he uses this when he has 2 characters on screen together & makes sure that there is space between them so he can use Take 2 of Character 1 & Take 7 of Character 2.

What i found with [ML] RAW is that ETTR only needs to be used to help clean up the noise in an image when filming in dark situations & a complete waste of time in well lit places - but that's obvious, right? There is too much misunderstanding about how or when to use this technique & I've had so many DOH! moments when watching footage of people using it in nice daylight!
I'm with you, I expose to what my eye likes & then peep a little at the zebras. When I first started out, a seasoned cameraman told me that to begin with I should set the zebras to around 70-80% & then as I got used to exposure, move up to a max of 90% - he said never set at 100%, because it'll only show the hotspots that are really blown & mask other areas of the image that won't look blown, but can very easily be unrecoverable. This is mainly because zebras aren't 100% accurate & should always be treated as such - they put you in the right ball park, but never tell you the whole story. The only thing that will be accurate is a light meter.
Is that because you're using a Black Pro Mist filter & the result has a more pleasant rendering for blown highlights - to my eyes they really bloom softly & become a lot more pleasing to the eye.

If shooting a Doc, always roll the camera when speaking to a subject/contributor, even if it's just to run through what they're going to say - people come up with moments of clarity when they don't think they're being recorded, which they won't be able to recreate later. Also, have loads of cutaways so you can splice up an interview, which leads to the next point of making sure the sound is as even as possible throughout & get some room tone (the sound of the room with no one talking etc..).
I really like the David Fincher approach of splicing up different takes to make a perfect take - he uses this when he has 2 characters on screen together & makes sure that there is space between them so he can use Take 2 of Character 1 & Take 7 of Character 2.

If shooting a Doc, always roll the camera when speaking to a subject/contributor, even if it's just to run through what they're going to say - people come up with moments of clarity when they don't think they're being recorded, which they won't be able to recreate later. Also, have loads of cutaways so you can splice up an interview, which leads to the next point of making sure the sound is as even as possible throughout & get some room tone (the sound of the room with no one talking etc..).
I really like the David Fincher approach of splicing up different takes to make a perfect take - he uses this when he has 2 characters on screen together & makes sure that there is space between them so he can use Take 2 of Character 1 & Take 7 of Character 2.

That T&O phase was just horrible - was Transformers to blame?!
 
The Cinestyle PS was probably the worst thing to happen to DSLRs & I really do think that people haven't really learnt about LOG profiles properly either.
I shoot LOG (Film mode) with the BMPCC, but view in Video mode & I shoot as I see it in ProRes HQ, then tweek later. I would never use ETTR for anything else than RAW recording, there are no benefits of using this technique for any other codec as it simply can't cope. Can't believe there's a thread on this forum advocating using ETTR on a camera that doesn't shoot RAW - it's wrong, pure & simple, and leading people down a rabbit whole where nothing good can be found.
A lot of people are obsessed with DR & think it means that you have to have a uniform picture - no noise in Blacks or blown Highlights. I have always tried to get it right in-camera & then just tweek in post - ProRes HQ is 100% ok to use & I see RAW as completely pointless, it is only useful for special effects shots.
Finally, Perfection doesn't exist! As soon as you learn this & embrace filming, the better off you'll be. Filming & Experimentation go hand-in-hand - so the more you fail, the better you'll get.

Remember when the trend was to leave Alexa footage all milky/washed out - it was like they used LOG, couldn't make a grading decision & so just left it (or that's how it seemed). And here we have someone who has actually put some contrast/colour into his images & people call foul - it's a real shame & a very boring position to take. Would hate to see the comments if these people ever watched an old Film Noir....
Yes, the OP is correct - this piece doesn't look like video. Really thought you'd nailed it with the shot when the woman is moving in front of the shops.
The only comment would be that there is a slight colouring inconsistency between the wide & the close up shots with the opening dancing sequence (the close ups are slightly less contrasty, but not much).

I've always been a little unsure about this never-ending desire to see detail in shadows. I mean - sometimes, if there's something in those shadows that you particularly want or need to see then - yeah - I get it. On those occasions you need to expose (or light if you're able) to reveal it. But most of the time I just can't se the point. Film, video, photography - even used journalistically they're not reality, where you can see into shadows with your human eyes; they're a stylised representation of reality where you, as the artist, get to use light and dark to convey a 3d scene into 2d, to model and sculpt, to draw attention and imply emotion. Seeing into a shadow is important for a sensor demo but for art - especially narrative art - it seems a particularly silly aspect of the whole to get uptight about.
FWIW I think the OP's teaser is a compelling and beautiful piece of art. His placement of black tones on the response curve is immaterial to that.