-
Posts
3,169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from jonpais in My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"
Me too.
It was fun as it tapped into my nostalgia for watching a film screening. The whrrrr of the projector was cool. But, aside from enjoying the novelty, it didn't look technically good as a digital projection. And I truly like the minor flaws that pop up from doing something mechanical and analog, but honestly, it's inferior to digital.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Flynn in What makes an image cinematic?
Yes, if one has the means to acquire the best camera, then maybe use the best --but look at the images posted by the OP, do any of them look like they'd be impossible to capture/create with modern/cheap gear?
"400 Blows" especially.
The more wonderful and advanced consumer gear gets, the sillier we all look [points finger at self] hanging out on-line talking about things rather than doing things.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Flynn in What makes an image cinematic?
I cut a concert film once where the two main cameras were a 5d and a gh1. Liked the gh1 image more, but they were close enough IQ-wise that it didn't really matter.
"Filmlook" really comes down to other things beside the sensor.
I truly believe sensor preference is akin to choosing a particular film-stock. No more, no less.
So...maybe you don't have the fastest and cleanest "film" for your movie, doesn't mean jack-squat that it would stop you from making a cinematic production.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Chrad in What makes an image cinematic?
I cut a concert film once where the two main cameras were a 5d and a gh1. Liked the gh1 image more, but they were close enough IQ-wise that it didn't really matter.
"Filmlook" really comes down to other things beside the sensor.
I truly believe sensor preference is akin to choosing a particular film-stock. No more, no less.
So...maybe you don't have the fastest and cleanest "film" for your movie, doesn't mean jack-squat that it would stop you from making a cinematic production.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from hyalinejim in My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"
I learned still photography on 35mm film, and that's typical of what people often talk about regarding "equivalence" online; which makes it easier to grasps from the get go the whole debate about it all. If you came into the camera enthusiasm/hobby these days, god help you. Ignorance mixed with all the jargon and all the different sizes of things? Yeah, we can understand why it'll make one's head spin. Mine still does because the maths on all this are not symmetrical. Sliding scales, expotentials, and numerical gradients. Physics stuffs.
But here's my rather redundant summation and basic understanding: shooting a 50mm lens set to f2 on an M43 is "equivalent" to what would happen (circle-of-confusion-depth-of-field-wise -- not exposure-wise) if you put a 100mm f4 on a full frame sensor.
Here's where the frustrating part comes in, I think. Folks use f-stop to generally talk about what it take to achieve a certain depth-of-field. You know if you're shooting glass wide open, you're going to be increasing the out-of-focus stuff in the frame, 'kuz that's how lenses work.
Director: "Hey, we need shallower DOF on this shot, go to a f2.8"
DP "Got it."
Those folks ain't talking directly about how many photons the want passing through the lens. Rather, they're talking about creating a visual look. So "f-stop," becomes an easy marker to achieve a certain visual result. That term can get convoluted in the broader technical consideration.
(And, hoo boy, let's not even bring in t-stops to this part of the discussion, lest brains start to implode)
The thing about full frame sensors, and even larger sensors, is that you can achieve the very shallow depth-of-field easier and with wider lenses than you can if you have a smaller sensor. So, when doing a portrait shot, one can whack some back ground out of focus effortlessly and rather affordably with a cheap 50mm f2 lens on a full frame.
Yes, you can get such "equivalent" DOF with something like M43, but then you're spending a lot of cash to get more exotic lenses that'll shoot f0.95 or something.
The good thing about full frame, pragmatically speaking, is that you can easily get shallow DOF while closer to a subject.
This is cool because when you have a wider field of view and shallow depth-of-field, the visual creates a sort of 3D pop. The in-focus bit separated easily from the background. Not to mention that motion in wider field of view has a different visual quality. I believe this is referenced as "parallax," which can also has a quality that should be taken into account.
Also, again, FF lenses cost less to accomplish the same shallow DOF/FOV than M43 lenses.
Other than that, I think a lot of people on-line in camera forums maybe don't have comprehensive wisdom, (including me) but certainly have a lot of notions they want to assert. More often than not, it seems like those assertions are wrapped up in some rhetorical ego. Seems like people want to hear and write affirmations about their current version of reality rather than actuality. So it's easy to understand why it's all a mix-up for readers of these words.
The phrase "circle-of-confusion" is apt, in more ways than one ain't it?
For me, I have a general knowledge of what stuff looks like simply because I've played around with this crap for decades. All one really has to do is put their eyeballs on results they create themselves and it's all obvious. It may remain inarticulated, but it does become obvious.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from jonpais in What devices are you using to make judgements about tests/comparisons
I do indy stuff for broadcast and I can tell you I don't obsess over IQ. The shows I've shot and broadcast this year look better than anything that came down the pipe from the guys doing productions in-house with their high end production gear. That result has nothing to do with cameras or properly calibrated displays.
Obsession over other elements of the production, like story, visual compositions, cinematography, and editing, is much more justified.
Calibrate your own stuff, do your best, and don't worry about it.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Phil A in What devices are you using to make judgements about tests/comparisons
I do indy stuff for broadcast and I can tell you I don't obsess over IQ. The shows I've shot and broadcast this year look better than anything that came down the pipe from the guys doing productions in-house with their high end production gear. That result has nothing to do with cameras or properly calibrated displays.
Obsession over other elements of the production, like story, visual compositions, cinematography, and editing, is much more justified.
Calibrate your own stuff, do your best, and don't worry about it.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Liam in How do you define success in filmmaking?
Artistic and/or craft contentment from the work; hopefully allowing one to make a simple living from it.
I get what you mean, but (to get pedantic) this is inherently impossible. The best one can do is to try and be fair in service of a truth. The craft and art are always at contradiction to objectivity. Almost everything about filmmaking is subjective. I suppose you could screen footage from a security camera as a doc and call it extremely objective, but even then someone had to decide what the best angle of that camera would be.
And that's not even considering the craft of structuring story and editing.
If anything, docs are more, in a weird way, subjectively manipulative than narrative work.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Orangenz in Transferring large uncompressed video files via cloud
I've used a pro level Dropbox account for a few years now. No problem here regarding large files.
It also will allow for upload interruption and continuation without trouble. So if your signal drops when uploading a huge file, it's no big deal. It just keeps going when you reconnect to the internet.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Ed_David in Razer Blade - Returned, A Poem
I've spent the last year hoping back and forth between Premiere 2015.3 on Windows10 and Premier on OSX. I can't tell you the number of times I've clicked the mouse on the Windows machine within Premiere, have it do nothing, click it again, and have it finally work. Endless Windows quirks like that. Maddening.
Never an issue on the 9 year old iMac that opens and edits the same project.
Just sayin'
Of course, hitting the render button on the Windows machine is fun.
So, my next step is Hackintosh all the way. The joys of cheap swappable PC hardware and the Apple OS combined together...I'll go that route since I'm more of a power user with OSX anyway.
Agreed. The trashcan machine is an insult to professionals. That said, I bought a "cube" once back in the day. Of course, the cube never claimed it was a high performance pro rig.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from jase in Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!
Yup. As a doc filmmaker, I could work with that. ;-) 10KISO and a f.095 lens? That's handy for dark scenes. I might actually be able to make a film or something now!
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Liszon in Razer Blade - Returned, A Poem
Neither could I, but there it is. Randomly. Rather annoying. Not the biggest problem in the world, but when you're at the desk for months on end, that time adds up. Who knows what it is?
Indeed. Same hardware all around except the integrated sound card, so you just bypass that with an external. You can literally buy the same components, just half the price and then you also allow yourself upgrade room.
When I got my latest PC a half year ago, it was specifically for Premiere and to have a machine that would push the numbers, which it does. I really wanted to like and embrace the setup. But the fact that I can edit faster and easier on a 9 year old iMac literally using the same projects, that's enough for me to switch back to OSX.
Too bad too. The first short film I edited on a consumer non-linear editing system was a simple comedy skit I did back in 1994. It was a PC and Premiere must have been version 1.5 or something. 3 years later I used Premiere for a local TV series. A few years after that, my first 16mm film was cut on Premiere and a PC.
But when FinalCut came out. Forget it. The integrated system, great hardware, and commitment of Apple to the product made it a no-brainer. When things went wrong with FCP, you could figure out a real answer back then. With Premiere, it was a crap shoot. The hardware variables were maddening. Trying to figure out deep BIOS settings, IRQ address numbers, manual OS registry editing; it was all computer sciency-bull shit to try and get all the components and software to play nice. It was a time suck rabbit hole. No thank you.
On the other hand, the DIY nature of PC builds is kind of fun...
Now with hackintosh, everything old is new again.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from zetty in Panasonic GH5 - all is revealed!
Yup. As a doc filmmaker, I could work with that. ;-) 10KISO and a f.095 lens? That's handy for dark scenes. I might actually be able to make a film or something now!
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Mattias Burling in My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"
Of course, that's good for interviews as well. Allows a better report and interaction with the subject. So often film making is not about the visuals.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Justin Bacle in oh my gosh!, C100 ghosting?
Welp. everyone's gotta start somewhere. As they say, "There's no such thing as a dumb question..." Just because a question might betray someone's comprehension of things doesn't make the question in of itself ridiculous. After all, learning about this stuff now will lead to a better skill set down the line.
Here's some 101 level info I found quickly using the world wide web information super highway search engine provided by google.com: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning-speed
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Justin Bacle in oh my gosh!, C100 ghosting?
That it doesn't look anything like compression artifacts in my experience. It looks like motion blur.
OP: Shoot the exact same shots and use a tripod. Don't move the camera. Upload those images. If the "ghosting" is there, you can start worrying.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from jonpais in Special Family Project - Advice on Lenses
My recommendation is to consider longer focal lengths for what your going for.
I've been shooting with a canon fd 55mm f1.2 and a cheap speed booster. It's not a pristine image/high contrast image, which is why I like it.
The longer focal length appeals to me, emulates some "filmlook" mojo, and looks more flattering for capturing portraits/people.
Plus, it's very fast, even though I don't often shoot with it wide open.
That glass combo is about $325.
Getting used to going narrower on the field of view is a challenge, but the visual rewards are worth it, imho.
This glass on my stabilized gx85 or em5ii has been a lot of fun to shoot handheld.
On the other hand, as mentioned, the Speedboosted Sigma 18-35mm Art F1.8 would give you one lens with more focal length options.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from ade towell in oh my gosh!, C100 ghosting?
Trying to help friend-o. You claimed Red cameras need a slow pan. It's a fact you said that. It's also false. It's not brand specific. I was just clarifying the issue as you and I are not the only ones potentially reading this stuff.
And FWIW, the actual advice from the specific person you requested was the same advice as various other posters. And, I'd bet that you do need some more guidance about camera operation, but each of us has to find our own way --and at least you're here trying. That's something. We all keep learning. Good luck.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Don Kotlos in oh my gosh!, C100 ghosting?
Trying to help friend-o. You claimed Red cameras need a slow pan. It's a fact you said that. It's also false. It's not brand specific. I was just clarifying the issue as you and I are not the only ones potentially reading this stuff.
And FWIW, the actual advice from the specific person you requested was the same advice as various other posters. And, I'd bet that you do need some more guidance about camera operation, but each of us has to find our own way --and at least you're here trying. That's something. We all keep learning. Good luck.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Don Kotlos in oh my gosh!, C100 ghosting?
No, that's not accurate. It has nothing to do with the brand of camera. This is just fundamental camera operation. Shutter speeds and frame rates affect motion blur. Those things are constant across every motion picture camera made in the last 100+ years.
It's okay if you don't fully grasps these concepts yet. But, definitely make it a point to understand them if you want to develop your craft.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from webrunner5 in oh my gosh!, C100 ghosting?
Well, we don't know how violently the lens was panning when those shots were taken. Looks well within normal motion blur probability to my eye.
Why are we looking at stills anyway? The c100 is a video camera. The OP should upload the actual clip.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from hyalinejim in What tools do you use for lower thirds, overlays and graphics?
Indeed. Consider the choir preacher to.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from Geoff CB in DIY Film Look
Yeah, no question, but when I was watching films at run-down grindhouses during the 1dollar matinees, the print and projection was not all that great. So the quality perception is skewed regarding "film" if all one is used to is watching a pristine transfer on blu-ray.
My movie going experience as a kid growing up was decidedly less refined. Memories of sloppy screenings of "Corvette Summer" or "Fort Apache The Bronx" or "Phantasm" are more my recollection.
...this doesn't even touch on the reality of VHS home viewing of movies.
So yeah, film is great! But by the time copies of movies filtered into my rust belt neighborhood, the IQ reality had taken a beating.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from jonpais in DIY Film Look
Yeah, no question, but when I was watching films at run-down grindhouses during the 1dollar matinees, the print and projection was not all that great. So the quality perception is skewed regarding "film" if all one is used to is watching a pristine transfer on blu-ray.
My movie going experience as a kid growing up was decidedly less refined. Memories of sloppy screenings of "Corvette Summer" or "Fort Apache The Bronx" or "Phantasm" are more my recollection.
...this doesn't even touch on the reality of VHS home viewing of movies.
So yeah, film is great! But by the time copies of movies filtered into my rust belt neighborhood, the IQ reality had taken a beating.
-
fuzzynormal got a reaction from jonpais in DIY Film Look
I tend to think if you shoot a "360" degree shutter it pretty much takes away most of the video look.
I used to call it "0 degree" shutter, but 360 is technically correct (so I've been told). Whatever the case, it's basically a 24 shutter speed matched with 24fps video.
One needs to be mindful of the motion blur, but I really like motion blur because it takes away the video-ish-ness. I shoot my documentaries this way, on m43, with longer focal lengths. The footage doesn't look like it was shot on video at all to my eye. Not sure if you can say they look exactly like film, but it seems pretty close to me.
Also, I think MTM was a multicam film production, like other sitcoms such as Cheers. Gunsmoke was film too, I'd wager; single cam. Typical film production style.
Price is Right was most definitely live to video tape. Studio video cameras all the way.
An interesting bit of trivia you probably know: in the days of before video tape, electronic NTSC tv shows were recorded live to film via a primitive telecine; basically a film camera recording a tv screen.
FWIW, the magic bullet suite is a 3rd party plugin from red giant software. I think it costs about $800.
It's not installed by default with premiere, so the OP might not have it on his/her particular system.
But regardless, you can easily make a custom gradient and overlay it on your video in any NLE.
personally, in premiere, I'd recommend just masking a lumetri effect.