Aussie Ash

Here's some broad generalizations, but it's how I see things:   My bottom line opinion is worry about the storytelling first, then fret about all the other junk.  The craft and gear will fall in line behind a great idea.  If you know the shots you want to create to tell a story, you can usually find a way to make even the cheapest camera/mic effectively capture it.      On the other hand, if you come at it from a mostly technical side don't expect compelling videos that will enchant a layperson viewer.   Walking around street shots of Berlin, London, or L.A. with a new camera is great for us here at this forum, or for people that are into gear-porn.  Heck I love to see what new tech offers too, but it's a snooze-fest for  a regular person that watches those types of videos. The technical side of the craft is fun, challenging, and exciting, but if you want to really be a filmmaker it's not what you put at the top of the priority list.   Real film makers aren't making movies for those of us that dig that stuff, they're telling stories to a much broader audience.   Try to build something like this:  http://tinyurl.com/kk23m4b   over building something like this:  http://tinyurl.com/kak87tc   ...and you'll be a step ahead of so many others in the low-end side of the biz that seems more concerned with buying things rather than making things.   Just about EVERYONE in the modern world can get access to gear that has the capability to make astounding images and tell great stories.  (They carry it around in their pocket and call it a smartphone)  I'd argue that the majority of people with this new affordable gear don't make great stories with astounding images.  So you really got to ask yourself ...which one of those people do you want to be?   I'm making a short right now with a used $200 GH1 and a $20 prime lens.  The image is ridiculously good.  I mean...it's nuts what I'm getting for less than $250.  Which is cool.  Great.  I'm not worried about the image.  I trust what I can get based on the quality of the gear and the skills I've acquired.  At this point what I worry about is the story I'm trying to tell.  Is what I have my characters doing interesting to the viewer?  Do my frame compositions covey the proper emotion that helps support my story?   Having a Sony lowlight camera or Panasonic 4K doesn't mean squat if you don't do anything interesting with that capability.   My advice about gear and kit:  Don't worry about your gear and kit.  Get what works well enough and then use it.  That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.

If I buy Nikon glass I can actually mount it on almost anything. This is why I stuck with F mount. Its the other way around if I bought canon glass it wont fit to F mount. F mount is a crappy mount for the cameras but on Lenses its great. I rent out my Nikkors and Fmount lenses for use on Emount, EF mount, PL mount Cameras...Its actually made my whole system very configurable. So with a D800 and Kinemini I can use every lens I own on both cameras.

We under expose on Nikons to save highlights and can then easily recover shadows or back lit subjects. In real world practice it makes a real difference. I work with a lot of canon fans and when it comes to the raw files out of the d800 or A7R it really shows the weakness in canon sensors.

Whilst i do love a good bokehlicious image, I think for the most part it is overused/rated as a cinematic tool.
 
Shows like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead are shot on 35mm film, but often use deep focus. Their image is very atmospheric. Quentin Trrantino is another director who mostly uses deep focus. And if i remember correctly, Reservoir dogs was shot on 16mm.
 
Then you have shows like Game Of Thrones that uses the Super 35 Arri Alexa. They often use shallow DOF, but to their detriment IMO. Because all the effort they put into making the fantastic sets becomes blurred out in every dialogue shot. Also I sometimes find shallow DOF to make the image look fake - as if the actors have been green screened in to the scene.

Excellent article.
 
I occupied myself intensively with the correlations of resolution, image size, perceived sharpness and - to introduce the Holy-Grail-term that combines all those parameters - glory, both professionally and personally virtually all my life.
 
There was an ancient german textbook on cinematography, considered The Bible at german filmschools, but I always found it to be unbearably dogmatic (it recommended, for instance, never to use sDoF and always to use 3-point-lighting). But it had a good, an indeed very good chapter on framing, on composing an image, using the french term cadrage.
 
Good framing, according to the book, always results in an image that has great *pithiness*. This was illustrated by putting grids over great, well-known paintings, thereby retracing the way the artists guided the viewer's attention from there to there, creating either harmony or dynamic (or, for that matter, a tension between harmony and disharmony). Furthermore, there was a debate on how detail contributed to pithiness - or on the contrary, confused it. And there was a crucial distinction between texture detail and motif detail.
 
Texture detail will always need sufficient resolution (relative to the image's size) to depict the pattern (grass, skin, fabrics), but it has no postive effect on pithiness (but may interfere with it). Motif detail is not so much about resolution, it is, interestingly, about *time*. 
 
Because to take in important motif detail within a film frame, you need time.
 
Take this painting from Pieter Brueghel the Elder (The Procession to Calvary, 1564):

(EDIT: Resolution is about size. You can't recognize all the interlocking scenes, because the resolution is 800px)
 
Polish filmmaker Lech Majewski made a feature-lengh film of all the little actions put into this painting (which clearly is meant to be watched for quite a while), The Mill & The Cross:

 
Every single of the awesome GH4 demos we saw so far either have no pithiness of the image (users are tempted to 'show off' meaningless High-Res and shoot the naked chaos) or they are resolution-independant. One could as well say, higher resolutions don't add any information to the image, they just allow to blow it up more. But then again, as the article says, we saw the latest blockbusters, including Godzilla, in meagre 2k (856 x 2046 pixels), and nobody complained.

there are some good articles over at no film school and especially this one at Redshark
http://www.redsharknews.com/post/item/1710-how-to-make-hd-look-like-4k
 
I love my BMPCC and I can't imagine moving away from it anytime soon. Like you I moved from 550D (euro name) and have never regretted the decision

This is bullshit.
 
We need a shrink to analyze all those continuity-peepers. 
 
 
They didn't get the first thing of what cinema is about. Every great action scene has to cut out the joints of a sequence in order to boost the speed and to make the audience a complice by actively filling the gaps.
 
Wait: There are multiple car chases from multiple views. Haven't we got the goddam right to stay oriented? Shouldn't we know exactly about directions, positions and frigging road maps? Everything should be clearly followable (as for the participants in this chase, they know everything, they see everything, they foresee it).
 
Quote from Wikipedia on 'continuity':
 
 
There are such unwanted, annoying continuity errors, the new Carrie is full of them, where someone raises his hands, cut, akimbo. And they can destroy the magic. But, Mr. Emerson, Sir, you chose the wrong example. Nolan clearly is a master of 'prestige', he knows what he is doing and why. Go see a doctor, have your anal fixation fixed.

This was my first time with the Pocket cam & it was probably too soon to use it, having only had it a couple of weeks. This is an extended sequence from a doc i'm making about the band, so there are shots in there that won't be in the final cut - just thought it was a shame to loose some of them & others i'll be glad to see the back of.
NB. The original venue for the shoot was an old dance studio, which had lots of mirrors & tons of light - my heart sunk when they changed venue the morning of the shoot...
 

Especially since he doesn't light, generally speaking.  Being able to see where he can use available light to artistic effect is some kung fu he's really strong in.

There's always the risk of feeling buyer's remorse with technology but, realistically, your film won't be any better or worse off no matter the decision you make.  4K isn't something most folks should be concerned about.  It's no guarantee of a better looking film if it was projected in a theater and if it's not being projected in a theater it's pretty much a waste of money and resources and effort that could be used elsewhere.  
 
Most theatrical films are still finished 2K (regardless of origination) unless a director has the juice to force production to pony up for a 4K finish.  You would think that for $100+ million dollar blockbusters this would just be a given, since they're already spending a mint but that isn't the case.  It's still quite rare.  Not as rare as even a year ago but it's not standard practice to finish 4K.
 
Making your own feature, either putting up your own money or getting some from investors, you should save yourself the headache.  Spend the money that might be needed for extra storage or an upgrade to your editorial on something like catering, being able to bump your key talent's per diem a bit or the wrap party (or wrap gifts...I didn't understand the importance of these my first indie).
 
And make sure you even really need to upgrade your camera, considering it's an asset you already own.  $1500 goes a long way on an independent feature.  I admit I never thought much about the T2i but that was before seeing Kendy's stuff...
 

 

 
 
...I'm a GH2 guy and know it's technically a better camera but operator talent (along with the quality of the content) can render technical jibber jabber and megabits rather meaningless.

Here's something I'd like to get feedback for from all you creative types. What methods do you use when coming up with ideas for your craft? Do you find yourself too distracted by the noise of things like instagram, twitter, Facebook, etc? How do you stay focused and make your work a reality?

good topic.  but one that will probably not yield much interest here since its quite a deep subject.  
 
I think your sentence "What methods do you use when coming up with ideas for your craft?" is a superb highlight of the current phenomenon of lots of individuals who consider themselves as 'creatives' when really they are not so.
 
I think a better sentence would be:- "What methods do you use when realising / putting in motion and ultimately seeing through your ideas?"
 
It shouldn't need method to think creatively in my opinion.  It's something you either are or are not.  A true creative head is always seeing creative opportunity and if anything the main holdback is the delivery of these ideas into a completed physical object or creation.
 
The really successful ones are the guys who see their strengths and weaknesses and seem to naturally surround themselves with like minded collaborators.  Online forums are a great source of information, but unfortunately are very unhelpful at driving a personal project forward since they give a false sense of being around like minded people when 90% of the time they are the other side of the world.  It's a lot harder to go out and join a theatre club and meet real people, but i imagine this method will ultimately bring more productivity.
 
For me, I only ever undertake things i feel are worthy of my time.  I try to block out what others are doing, while maintaining an awareness of my surroundings, selectively picking and choosing the finest creative output from others and allowing it to influence me subconsciously.

Hello Everyone!
 
I'm a huge fan of this forum and I'd really like what Andrew has done for the Indie Filmmaking community. Anyway, here is a video I'd like to share with you all about my trip to Yosemite with the GH4. It was raining, snowing, and sunny in one weekend so I was very fortunate to catch all of those elements in such a short span of time!
 
As for the GH4, it was completely drenched in rain and snow and it still survived! I absolutely love this camera and I found it to be much more practical and enjoyable to shoot on than my BMCC and Pocket Cinema Camera. I can't wait to post my video review on this camera. I'll be comparing this to the 5D Mk. III Raw, BMCC, and Pocket Cinema Camera.
 
I hope you enjoy the video as much as I enjoyed making it, and any questions and feedback is welcomed! Thanks!
 

If you're making an argument, comparing FF to MFT in PHOTOGRAPHY, then you have to factor in the diffraction of light and the width of each sensel on the sensor.  
 
With both MFT and FF video sample sensels on a chip which leads to a trade-off. FF, less diffraction and more DOF, but less sharpness, because pixels are farther apart.  MFT, more sharpness because pixels are closer together, but more diffraction and noise in low light.  
 
If one is to buy this argument, why not go back to camcorders, which use smaller sensors than MFT?  
 
Both the 5D3 and GH4 are camera platforms originally built for photography.  Because the chips are made for large resolution images. Both cameras bastardize the original image for video.  The GH4 is now bastardizing it less by save more of the pixels the sensor was designed to capture. 
 
You don't see the trade-offs in focal reducers when shooting video because video does not maximize the quality of the MFT or FF sensor.  If you were to shoot serious photography, you would see that focal reducers are no free lunch.
 
I agree.  there is nothing "magical" about FF video.  Quite the opposite.  I would take MFT video of FF video because the spread of the FF sensor creates too much aliasing/moire problems.  The calculations you're going through explain why most cameras can take the same image in good light with modest color-depth needs.  When you need really shallow DOF, or less diffraction in low light, then the calculations don't tell the whole story.

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!

Very good thirty minute interview with Gordon here
 
 
 

The Prince of Darkness - Gordon Willis has always been a big influence on me.
Klute and All The Presidents Men are 2 of my fave films he shot ,
He was one of the first to pioneer this darker , more realistic look to lighting.
It almost looked like it was all available light , but it was Gordons masterful use of light and film to create these looks.
The Godfather series really took this look to the limit , lots of use of shadows.
David Fincher is the new Prince of Darkness and owes alot to Gordon for leading the way .
Paul Greengrass quotes All the Presidents men as a big Influenece on him too.
 
Eveyone on this forum should study Gordon's work - you will learn alot form him.

All this craziness on high ISOs comes from his legacy, among others, such as Kubrick or Storaro, of course. I guess all of them loved the 'film noir', actually, the German Expressionism to have moved to Hollywood. Also a minimal concept of light and shadow brought to the mainstream, never seen before except with the italians or french (or Cassavetes in America) three, two, one decades before. But not strictly for aesthetic reasons. To us, arrived as the 'light fimmaking' possible to conquer the world today in Sundance. Even if my mom complains the movies are too dark nowadays... : D Those were golden days when men like him changed forever the way the movies could be made.

We also owe this to him.

Emanuel

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/the-godfather-cinematographer-gordon-willis-dies-at-82-1201185649/

I think you can start with a smaller budget for your lenses. For filmmaking you don't have to buy brand new high end glass. Old glass is fun! dirt cheap and it has character. If you want to spend the money anyway, you can easily allocate it to your camera.
 
The setup I mentioned will cost like €1500 (GH4) + €720 (18-35mm) + €100 (Speed Booster Clone). You still have money left to buy some vintage glass / adapters.
 
Anyway, if you are serious about your film making, what do you have in mind for audio? You'd probably need a budget for that too.
 
On another note, if you don't want to spend much on the camera, score a Panasonic G6 for CHEAP! (like €400). Image quality is on par with the GH3 and it has focus peaking, the GH3 doesn't. Yes - it is a plastic/cheap camera, but great for the money. Perfect to start with.
 
Actually I think it makes more sense to start with something like that. Of course, if you have the money burning in your pocket, support the economy, that's all fine with me :) But I see you are 19, can't imagine €2500 is peanuts for you.
 
The G6 will be a great tool to start with, image quality won't hold you back in any way (if you think it does, look at the frontpage at the videos of Kendy, shot on a cheap 550D)... Buy some old primes + Speed Booster Clone and you are all set and done for under €1000.

First pick you camera, then the lens. Those 35mm and 85mm will behave completely different on a 5D Mark III opposed to a GH4, for example.
 
The 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great lens, very sharp. Many people use it to film. I'd definitely go with the 18-35mm instead of the 24 and 35mm prime. Cheaper, you get both 35mm, 24mm + 18mm and everything in between! Plus you don't have to change lenses.
 
Anyway, it all depends on which camera you are planning to buy.
On a 5D Mark III the Sigma 18-35mm won't even work since it's designed for smaller sensors.
 
So at least tell us which camera's you are considering :)
 
Another note: since you are just starting out, maybe you don't want to spend a lot of money to start with. You can just grab a camera and buy some old manual primes (on eBay) for almost pocket change. You can always upgrade and sell your 2nd hand lenses without loss if you get a good deal.
 
If you have the budget i'd Panasonic GH4 + Sigma 18-35mm (Nikon) + Normal Adapter + Speed Booster (can be a cheap $140 clone too, they seem to be pretty ok. Can always upgrade).
 
With the Speed Booster you will get 'two' lenses. It will make the 18-35mm 1.8 a 13-25mm f/1.3 equivalent.
On the GH4 in Cinema 4K mode (2.3x crop) that will give you ~30-57.5mm f/1.3. Use the 'normal' adapter and it will give you ~41.5-80.5mm f/1.8 (so you can use it to zoom in a bit more).

I love A Drop In The Ocean, Kendy is truly a talented guy!
 
It's really sad to see people saying that a movie is bad just because it doesn't respect linearity like most movies do now a days. Come on, open your eyes, Cinema and filmmaking is much more than that ! Every one chooses to do what ever they want to do in terms of editing, obviously keeping in mind that in has to be in service of the story and has to be well made and to have a purpose , not just because it looks cool. I personally think that the non-linearity in this movie is a good choice and is justified (showing for exemple the passage of time etc...) and it's really well made. 
Look at some amazing movies with non-linearity like the Tree of Life by Terrence Malick or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind by Michel Gondry and there are so many more...
Imagine if everyone was like Kurth... Cinema is about experimenting with what we have, its about trying and founding something new. So Kurth please look at the bigger picture here, because you are missing a lot of things.

ED = extra-low dispersion glass elements, reducing chromatic abberation. Not reducing the price of the lens, unfortunately.

AL = aspherical elements, used in wide angle lenses to get a flatter focus field and better corner/edge sharpness. Like ED, it costs more.

IF = internal focusing. Only glass elements inside the lens moves when you focus, the rear and front elements keep in place. The lens keeps the same size at all focusing distances. A bit more complicated for the engineers, thus adds to the price of the lens.

now this is gonzo...

Julians shots already were enough to convince me that you can get great cinematic look out of GH4.
 
There was a time when nofilmschool had some useful comment threads as well, but that time is long gone. Ignore and move along :)
 
To me that video speaks of itself. They clearly mention that it was all done in 2 days. Which probably means they were too ambitious about their idea and the filming - which made them end up rushing the post work to be able to finish. Been there, done that - and learnt that you need to plan which shortcuts to take if you want to produce something good in a short amount of time.
Had I had two days to pull something off with any camera, I'd try a much simpler story with fewer shots so I could focus on getting the shots right and having a much simpler process for editing and coloring.

Most people doing video work (that looks like film to them  :) ) usually only have one lens beside the stock one, the cheaper 50mm from Canon, that's a safe lens, you can get easily good pictures without much work involved.
With wider lens you have to be more careful, there's much more going on in the image, many people don't get it right easily, i think that this short is one good example, it was made in a hurry also.
The light is mostly bad, the color grading… at some times looks like it came from a Canon DSLR, too much red tint, again made in a hurry maybe with bad reference monitors and maybe by inexperienced grader.
The "actors" and editing… it's that kind of things that can work within a group of friends but you should't show it to everyone else.   :)
 
It's not the camera, it's how and what you do with it. Not so long ago we were putting lens adapters in front of our DVX100, HVX200, PD150 so it could have the "film look", without it it was a video camera that made videoish images. The film that Gareth Edwards made before the new "Godzilla" was shot with a Sony EX3 with a lens adapter http://nakedfilmmaking.com/2010/10/05/naked-monster-the-future-of-film/  
 
I respect Nick Driftwood a lot but i think he got carried away with this hype around GH4 and with everyone trying to show new footage.
 
My order is still awaiting for stock in Europe, i won't cancel it because of this.