Christina Ava

if you want to start from something, start from some good books on lighting.
 
1.
 
2. 3.
 
3.

Erm that is kind of how art works isn't it? Appropriation, borrowing ideas, images and sounds from others, mixing stuff together to create something new.
 
Also I don't think that 'lifting crap work on the free or cheap' is really the idea most filmmakers on Vimeo have in mind when they mix their cinematography sensitively and thoughtfully with a piece of music that inspired the shots in the first place.
 
Good job The Beatles didn't have to pay licensing fees to the musicians who influenced their sound... they'd have never have made it out the door.

Saying record companies lose money due to Vimeo airtime is as crazy as saying they lose sales through radio play and extensive advertising.

You guy did not understand at all. I 100% agree with Andrew, and this is a disaster. 
Now let me tell you why : 
 
1 - your exemple and comparison is wrong. Because in one case you use audio format (a music) to use it on a different industry : make a personnal video. So it is not copying the music to do the same music, but something else. SO you can't compare with video saying that it would be the same for exemple to copy my video and using it in another video (because you stay on the same support, same industry : video). 
 
2 - Come on man ? If you think 2 seconds about it : first of all I buy the music that I put in my video so the artist should be happy I bought it, secondly puting it in my video is an advertisement for him (see under videos how many comments what is this song blablabla) so it benefits DOUBLE for the artist. If tomorrow you copy my video and use it as a rush in your video, it doesn't give me money (cause you did not pay my video) and it does not make any add for me because people will think this is 100% your video. 
 
The rule should be to pay the track, and give credit to artist in the description, that's all. But when I say pay the track I mean pay the normal one, and not 10 000 USD to have to rights on it. I mean, if you do a commercial and make profit with your video it is normal that you have to pay more, but for creative work, is that not enough to pay the song and credit the artist ? Come on.....
 
The digital world is becoming less and less free, just like the real world. FUCK Vimeo if they do that seriously.

i used to use the shuttle pro http://retail.contourdesign.com/?/products/23
 
but after a while i returned to the mouse, its not that usefull,,
 
i have this keybord from http://www.editorskeys.com/products/video-editing-keyboards/ which i highly recommend!
 
edit with the keybord and it will save time!

stop the presses, before you grade read these two funny articles, theres a distinction to color correction and color grading.
 
Color correction is all those subtle little corrections in your movie, correcting the exposure etc, grading is changing the complete look and feel of your film all mentioned in the excellent book by mr Hurken "Color Correction Handbook - Professional techniques for video and cinema" 
 
I love these articles because they point out a simple thing, today its movies that are not "graded" that stand out from the crowd.
http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.gr/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html
 
http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends-that-make-every-movie-look-same.html
 
its nice to have a distintictive look, and currently i think its movies that dont look "graded"....

Here's an article on lighting for beginners I wrote about 3 years ago.
 
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/light-fantastic.htm
 
I've learned a lot since, but I still think this is a good starting point

maybe i will use some from the dance!the flashed are always a big problem, but theres nothing to do about it, everytime there is an important moment bam-flash, thats why i love video, is so undercover hehe..nobody even knows you are filming them they think you are photographing them, this was my set up and it was hard to shoot...monopod and double focus ...good luck

maybe i will use some from the dance!the flashed are always a big problem, but theres nothing to do about it, everytime there is an important moment bam-flash, thats why i love video, is so undercover hehe..nobody even knows you are filming them they think you are photographing them, this was my set up and it was hard to shoot...monopod and double focus ...good luck

Hi guys we recently shot an advert for Adidas using the 5d mk3 magic lantern raw hack.
 

 
I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I too am not a fan of Samyang lenses
also try a set of Canon FD lenses 24 , 28 , 35 , 50, 85, 100 will cost you not alot on ebay
 

Definitely some nice shots in there Christina. Really adds something special, think the clients will like it! Maybe even cool to edit this trough your normal (16:9 or 2,35:1) edit.
 
Shame about the flashes, kinda kills the mood. But you can't really do anything about that...

same day rough edit!
 
password: ana
 
it was shot with a 135mm pentacon as a taking lens that was harder to focus than the anamorphic, and had some jag, so we kept losing the vertical allignment. I need to find a better taking lens..but over 100mm to keep it from vignnetting in the full frame, suggestions welcome!

heres a guys test that might help you. i dont like samyang lenses, they are cheap for a reason, but who can afford real cine lenses?
 
http://mattscottvisuals.com/blog/2014/1/19/lens-up-my-nikkors-vs-the-rockinonsamyang-cine
 
p.s i d rather have 1 good lens, that 3 that are meh.. i mean how much do the 3 samyang lenses cost?  1500euros?
better spend that on one canon L 50 1.2

same day rough edit!
 
password: ana
 
it was shot with a 135mm pentacon as a taking lens that was harder to focus than the anamorphic, and had some jag, so we kept losing the vertical allignment. I need to find a better taking lens..but over 100mm to keep it from vignnetting in the full frame, suggestions welcome!

It depends on where you want to take your cinematography. For example if you have a Malik type shot in mind of a pretty girl on horseback in a meadow reaching up to grab an apple from a tree in magic hour with all the butterflies around and such (can you see this shot in your minds eye?) then you might think F5@400mm
 
To pull this off you will need one of these....
 
Rectimascop 80/2x
 

 
On the other hand for a Wedding reception where you want to use a 2.8/70-200 Canon L on a 5D , you can use the WA Cinelux which has a 63mm rear optic
 

 
 
This was shot with the above using 2/90mm
 

 
 
Again the WA Cinelux will give the full height of the couple in a bokeh background at F3.2/200mm

Looks like you're ready to make the move to a scope with larger rear optic for bigger bokeh ;)

The negativity is just jealousy.
 
Hats of to kendy to playing his one camera and lens like a guitar, instead of doing endless lens tests and upgrades. Love all his work and look forward to him digging into meatier things in the future!

To me the editing is wonderful, I don't know what kurth was getting at, possibly a bit confused? The segments with the yellow straps and the photograph are clearly intercut with him smoking his cigarette in a non-linear way. They're not supposed to be continuous, so continuity isn't really an issue, they're not action-matches.

same day rough edit!
 
password: ana
 
it was shot with a 135mm pentacon as a taking lens that was harder to focus than the anamorphic, and had some jag, so we kept losing the vertical allignment. I need to find a better taking lens..but over 100mm to keep it from vignnetting in the full frame, suggestions welcome!

mission acomplished! thanks for the tips, it was very hard but i think i have some nice footage!

The 100W (18W used), 1600 lumen Cree 5000K LED lights were $21 each. They are super bright, and look pretty good. When recording at 24fps, they look OK. However at 240fps (Sony FS700), they flicker. I tested the Yongnuo YN-300, YN-600, and F&V R-300- no flicker at 240fps. The old 120W (45W used) 5100K CFLs don't flicker (though some make noise & buzz). Here's a 60W Cree tested (no flicker at 24/30fps): 
 
Those looking for budget lighting, I'd start with the Yongnuo YN-300: 2280 lumens for $67
http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-Professional-300pcs-sheets-Camera/dp/B00AZFE5DS/ref=sr_1_1
 
and this power supply (in addition to Sony NP-970 batteries for non-AC use), $25:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/110V-220V-AC-Adapter-Power-For-SONY-NP-F970-F960-F750-F550-YN-300-II-YN600-YN160-/291005963183
 
Based on specs only (not tested), 2 Cree 5000K lights are 3200 lumens for $42 + $20 for 2 clamp-on bulb holders = $62. The YN-300 with AC adapter is $92, however it's also dimmable, camera mountable, doesn't flicker at high frame rates, and can also run on batteries.
 
The YN-300 II and YN-600 are "bicolor" and more versatile, however they are effectively 1/2 brightness when using the daylight LEDs (I'm using lights in the daylight 5000+ K range).
 
I'm going to keep looking for LEDs that don't flicker at high frame rates to replace the CFLs. This info is helpful: http://www.davidsatz.com/aboutflicker_en.html

Yep. If you are shooting ML raw, I'd go for 4:3. That'd give you a resolution of ~1706x1280.
Stretch 2x and you'll get a resolution 3413x1280, aspect ratio 2,66:1

Hi Christina,
It sounds like you have thought this through. Definitely a good idea to shoot some spherical stuff as well, just incase. I think an anamorphic wedding video would be a beautiful thing, and worth the risk :)
I assume you are using Magic Lantern? As Julian mentioned, that is the only way different aspect ratios are really available.
If it was me, I would shoot 4:3 with a 2x anamorphic. I assume ML gives you a higher verticle resolution in 4:3 than just simply cropping the sides off? (I haven't really used the new ML raw so feel free to chime in anyone)

Even though I quite like the 3.55 ratio a 2x would give at 16:9, it may be a bit too much for some people. The last thing you want is someone asking why their video occupies a thin strip across the screen, then even worse, "can we change that" after you have finished the video. :)

If it was my choice I would go with the full frame 5D, and really pronounce that anamorphic look. But that is a matter of taste I suppose, and the 7D may be easier to focus on the fly. In that respect, have you though about getting a laser measuring tool to help you quickly judge distances? Might be worth a look.

Best of luck!

Chris.