Nick Hughes

Why the hate for people who shoot weddings? As if you can't be an artist and also make money (a lot, in fact) with a not-necessarily-as-artistic job that just so happens to sharpen your skills as a shooter. Shooting weddings has allowed me to quit my shitty, irrelevant part-time day jobs and focus way more on my art since I can make the same amount of money in 1/5 of the time. So yeah, shooting a wedding might not stimulate my creative side quite as much as, say, an abstract non-narrative documentary, but at least I'm getting some damn good shoulder rig and glidecam practice during those 8-10 hours. Does that strip me of the title of cinematographer or artist? Or do those terms only apply when I'm actually working on an 'actual' film?
mtheory - you mentioned working on a commercial as an accepted use of the word 'cinematographer.' Where's the cinema in that? Sure, I'll admit that there's definitely more creative leeway, but you're still just selling something. A wedding and a commercial can both be infused with some strong creativity. They can just as easily be flat and boring, like the days when 'wedding video' meant shooting to VHS with lots of slow zooms and awful dissolves on every cut. By the way, if you can figure out a way to think creatively during a boring wedding, then you're probably going to fare well when you actually have some interesting content on your plate.
Ok, so maybe you don't actually have a disdain for those who film weddings (though I know plenty of people who do), maybe it's just the term 'wedding cinematographer.' But is it really so offensive for someone to use such words to market themselves to brides who probably don't know the first thing about video? They don't care that a wedding video is not technically 'cinema.' They want to know that you understand how important their wedding is and that you can capture it in an immensely beautiful and artistic way (at least to them). If someone calling themself a wedding cinematogropher helps them get hired, then so be it. If they happen to also be a crappy videographer, then so be it. I'm more worried about the over-saturation of the market than the degradation of the word 'cinema.' And honestly, the word has already been degraded in my mind by douchey film school kids who can't frame a shot but love to spew pseudo-philosophical garbage about 'pure cinema.' Nothing against film school, but man, I can't stand some of the people who come out with no experience, thinking they've already 'made it.' 
 
So there's my rant. I hope I'm not missing the point.

UPDATE: Metabones has kindly offered to exchange my adapters for new ones.

Regardless of whether is matches the quality of A6000 or D5300, it will no doubt cost at least $300-400 more than those cameras.

With Sony you never know, they breed like rabbits but in the end you can't wait forever, if you are planning to get the a7s tomorrow and it does what you expect from it just start using it and don't visit the internet anymore so you won't be disappointed if the a7sII is announced in 2 days.

Keep in mind that Deakins (or any other Hollywood director) very likely does not think about s35 in terms of it's crop factor vs full frame. Full frame is not a cinema standard- this is where I think a lot of people get tripped up. To him, s35 is a 1x crop and if he happens to use a 5D on a shoot, he probably thinks of that as a .7x crop! 

Keep in mind that Deakins (or any other Hollywood director) very likely does not think about s35 in terms of it's crop factor vs full frame. Full frame is not a cinema standard- this is where I think a lot of people get tripped up. To him, s35 is a 1x crop and if he happens to use a 5D on a shoot, he probably thinks of that as a .7x crop! 

This grew out of a discussion over on DVX user, thought I'd add it here if anyone is interested.
A poster asked "what is the best c-stand" and my reply was "usually, not a c-stand".
C stands are designed to get small lights and flags into a maze of light stand feet. They're not intended for overheads or big 2K fresnels. They tip easily, they're hard to pack, and the way the column meets the base at a single point makes them even more prone to tipping. For some reason, "c-stand" has become a sort of knee-jerk must-have for people starting to build a kit. I like having c-stands, but especially on a tight budget, I'd shop for stands that are more versatile, can hold more weight with greater stability, are easier to pack, and could reasonably be used for, say, an 8x8 overhead in calm conditions, and (hopefully) cost the same or less. Something that can take an XL softbox or a big octagon without 3 sandbags and prayer.

I'm comparing stands here to the Avenger Turtle-Base (unless you are 100% studio, you really don't want 1-piece C-stands - I feel they're a pain to pack). And turtles do give you the floor-stand option with a butt plug. Yet I'd take a Beefy Baby over a c-stand any day, in most cases. 
So - Stands in the $200 or less range you should consider. In the US, all the stands below can be found with free US shipping. There's probably a few more choices out there, but here's what's top of my radar:

BEST VALUE:

Matthews Steel Kit Stand
25 lb load, 37" footprint - 9.5 ft. tall
(Actually better height, load and footprint than the Beefy Baby)
$87, free shipping
Not as heavy steel as Beefy Babies (and thus lighter to pack)... and, DUDE, eighty seven bucks!! That's two c-stands!!


THE KING OF AFFORDABLE STANDS:

Kupo Master Combo HD $156
88 freaking pounds max. load!
55" footprint! ELEVEN FEET high.
baby pin AND junior receiver.
Leveling leg!
Cons: a very very wide footprint (very stable) that might be overkill on a tiny set.

OR SAVE A FEW BUCKS:

Kupo Master Combo Alu Senior Stand $144
26.5 lb load at a maximum height of 12' 4".
Footprint: 46" - still pretty big.
Aluminum construction, a triple function universal head and a leveling leg.

THE KNEE JERK C-STAND, (most agree) THE BEST VERSION AVAILABLE:

Avenger turtle base c-stand $169
9.8' feet height, 3' footprint, 22 lb max load, baby pin. Anyone who puts 22 lbs. on a fully extendedd c-stand may be asking for trouble though...
If you shoot strictly in the studio, you can save some money and get 1-piece (non turtle) c-stands. Which are a pain to pack.
If you use turtle base stands, you should invest in some butt plugs at $20 or so each. Makes a great floor-level stand.
Or buy the narrower turtle base and a butt plug.

BEST ALTERNATES TO THE C-STAND
In addition to that $87 Steel Kit Stand...
Matthews Beefy Beefy Double Riser $173
8.5' height, 22 lb max load 33" footprint. An industry standard. Essentially same price as the best c-stand.
(Was manufactured with a 12' aluminum column for some time, and those show up cheap on the used market - I wouldn't extend those fully or use in the wind, as the column is weaker than steel. I have two of the aluminum stands and I feel the column could buckle with enough stress. Great lightweight stand to get smaller flags up very high though, great for big softboxes at reasonable heights.)

Matthews Beefy Beefy Triple Riser $203
12 ft height, 20 lbs max load 33" footprint. A killer stand.

WANT WHEELS ON A KILLER STAND?

Kupo Junior Roller $199
17 lb max load - 45" footprint - 8.8' high
With super useful and good-sized braking wheels - bigger wheels than the Matthews roller in fact, which don't have brakes (well, mine don't).
(Avenger roller is same price, 1 foot shorter, only 28" footprint.) The giant footprint of the Kupo roller suggests it could be used for smaller overheads in calm conditions if big height isn't needed.
This type of stand is a dynamite thing to have - I use them for microphone booms, they're sturdy and reposition fast, rarely need sand bags.

Super 35 is closest to APS-C, which has a 1.5x crop (or 1.6x for Canon). So to get a 50mm full frame focal length, you must use about a 35mm lens on the s35 or APS-C camera.
The reason super 35 is called that (rather than super 25 or something related to its actual dimensions) is because it uses the same film stock as 35mm SLR's but the image is only captured on a portion of it. This is as opposed to something like 16mm film where the actual film stock is smaller. And Super 16mm uses a wider portion of that film stock (to give a wider aspect ratio) which would otherwise have been reserved for the soundtrack.

That slo-mo looks niiiice.

Since mention of the price drop with used F35's, I've been meaning to compare similar shots from 2 different seasons of a show known to switch from the F35 to the Alexa (w/o a heavy grade), finally got around to it... Alexa on the left, F35 on the right. Season one and four are compared (or 4 next to 1).

The color grading was less consistent with season one and these are final, so I'd say take it with a grain of salt. You can download a full size jpeg here to see at 100% actual (cropped). 
 
 

Right at the beginning he says that he's only including cameras that he's worked with personally, excepting the F35 and C300, cameras that he has written about frequently. I don't often see him mention too FS700+7Q combo, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be included here. Not to say I wouldn't love to see where he'd rank it (I know I'd personally put it close to the top), but it's really not that big of a deal.
 It's not some random list with no context- it's a personal list where he gives concrete reasons for why he chose to place one camera ahead of the other. It's useful because it allows perceptive readers where their interests align and diverge with Andrew's.  We should all come to our own conclusions.
 
 

I can't believe you came out with this list today. I have a channel on vimeo called 50mm. And about a week ago I was convinced that a pocket cinema camera with a speedbooster was going to be my next upgrade. I currently own a hacked gh2 w/speedbooster which gives it a 1.34x crop and a sharp picture. but poor color reproduction and low dynamic range. I am yearning for RAW (coming from a VFX background). but I remembered the jump from my t2i to the gh2 which was very noticeable for lense choice. my .72x speedbooster would give a 2.3x crop in the bmpcc and I just can't do it again. The bmpcc speedbooster for canon glass is $659! fuck that's a heavy investment for a piece of glass that will only work with one camera. 
Then I started coming across 5d mark ii raw videos.And last night I went on a binge looking for every Raw 5dmkii video I could find. There is a certain aesthetic to FF which is not matched by many cameras. The Fact that you can get 1080p (2.35) raw with that  sweet sweet Bokehlicious depth of field, a fine noise grain and excellent color science. Plus probably the most used professional stills camera in the last decade. The image coming off of 5dii and 5diii just feels super sexy to me. 
https://vimeo.com/114574497  5d3 RAW
https://vimeo.com/groups/192251/videos/117056139  5dII RAW with VAF
https://vimeo.com/108711721 5dII RAW with VAF
https://vimeo.com/84603397  5dII RAW NO VAF
https://vimeo.com/70954407  5dII RAW NO VAF
 
https://vimeo.com/74610043 1DC porn
I hate to say this but I have to agree with Caleb I am becoming a Canon man again too, it just took me longer to mature. And that jerk Andrew Reid forced me to buy the GH2 when I was completely happy with my T2i back in the day.
Great Comparison Definitely Biased toward FF.
 
I also wanted to mention that I hate magenta as much as Paul Giamatti's character in sideaways hates Merlot. and I have noticed the 5d mark iii has more magenta than the 5d mark ii. This is also the reason I never got a GH3 and why I'm not getting a GH4.

Have you thought about shooting 4K prores, but using very occasional 4K raw when you absolutely need every drop of DR?
If you have time to edit raw though... I would shoot 2K/raw. I know all the hype is about 4K, but DR and color are still more important, imo and the 2K on FS700/O7Q is a joy, though you do hit some moire/aliasing at 120/240fps

​Boris, why so critical? He's simply asking some questions about the application. It doesn't matter if he edits for a profession or not. Can't we all be nice about this stuff?

Hi Nick,
We use the S-log2 setting and recorded internally in 1080p. We used samyang lenses, a slider and a steadicam. We also worked mostly with natural light. All post production was made in After Effects and the Color Grading DaVinci Resolve.

Sony A7s... a small camera nonetheless a great potential!
 
 

Ah I see, press X to select entire clip range before dragging. That does it.
Getting used to it... it's not bad actually.

​Here is why: 
Tell me one reason for using independent tracks to arrange clips in the timeline. I asked this a couple of times in other forums. No one had an answer. Finally comes the killer phrase 'it has always been done that way'. There could as well have been a splice tool in all historic NLEs to connect two adjacent clips. Well, at least a splice reminds the old folks of what needed to be done with physical film. Tracks then could origin in classic A/B-editing, where, in order to make crossfades possible, the clips had to overlap on two parallel reels. Who the heck came up with this concept for non-linear editing?
An NLEs GUI doesn't and needn't represent what's actually happening under the hood. It's there for our convenience. Tracks are nothing but inconvenient. They have no equivalent in the real world. If you start arguing with music scores: Are the 'tracks' independent of each other? Do you shove notes haphazardly back and forth?  
Imagine the timeline of NLEs had always had one track, as with film. That you could simply add isolated clips to the integer sequence, vertically as many as you like, either to temporarily change the flow of the narration ('B-roll'), make a composition of two or more images or simply try an alternative. Obvious idea, no? 
Imagine then, some two decades later, someone developed a new kind of NLE: The track based timeline!
Would editors say, why, this is indeed an improvement. Or would they scratch their heads and put that software trial to the trash immediately?

​Right. It's the same sort of idea as with photos like this:
 
A lot of people use the term 'lens compression' or 'telephoto compression,' when a more appropriate term would be 'perspective compression.' It's not anything about the lens itself that is compressing the image like this (except that it allows you to get 'close'), it's how far away you are from the subject. It's a small difference and doesn't make too much of a difference when shooting (you're not going to stand 200 feet away with a 28mm and crop it look like it was shot with a 200mm), but it's a good thing to know.

​Right. It's the same sort of idea as with photos like this:
 
A lot of people use the term 'lens compression' or 'telephoto compression,' when a more appropriate term would be 'perspective compression.' It's not anything about the lens itself that is compressing the image like this (except that it allows you to get 'close'), it's how far away you are from the subject. It's a small difference and doesn't make too much of a difference when shooting (you're not going to stand 200 feet away with a 28mm and crop it look like it was shot with a 200mm), but it's a good thing to know.

One thing, the distortion on faces comes because of perspective not because of distortions of the lens. Just try to close one eye and get close to the face of someone, your brain corrects any distortion but the perspective is still there and it will look akward. This is why some people say that wideangle closeups are "intimate".
Let's say that the most natural perspective is with the 50mm. A shot done with a 50mm on FullFrame will be natural because when viewed in a normal sized screen/viewing-distance relation it has the same perspective as your eyes watching the scene through a rectangle and being  at the same place where the camera is placed.
When going above 50mm it gets a closeup, or the way you would remember something where you concentraded on details while sitting away in a confortable distance.

*OT*:
Funny thing that Resolve 11.1.4 (available on the App Store) now adds even better interoperability with FCP X. It now (allegedly, had no time yet to test it) fully understands compound clips, synched clips and all retiming operations within FCP X. 11.1.4 does not yet show up on the official BM site. Just a sidenote ...

The best counterweight for any rig (and I'm not going to get into particulars here) is a solid V-mount battery and some kind of cheese plate and rail clamp to mount it to your rig. A cheap D-tap cable, a soldering iron and some heat-shrink, and a few radio shack plugs (and of course a converter if your rig is sensitive to voltages - most are not) and you have a huge battery that will keep your gear running for hours plus less weight up front (no batteries needed anymore except for the one in the back!) which gives you both a lighter overall setup, a longer battery time, and a more balanced rig in general. It's worth the few hundred it costs because you save it in diverse batteries and fewer charge rounds and less overall lost time on set. 
Also you only have one battery to change when power gets low rather than two, three, four (camera, EVF, recorder if you have one, lights, etc.). 

​You sound a lot like those many old school photographers I encounter at weddings that have their origin in analog photography, back in a time where photography was considered a specialty only to be executed by those few that had the knowledge to handle a camera having to carefully select which and how many photo's to take, not knowing what to expect until the photo's where developed which again was a specialty of it's own, at least over here you needed a license to even be allowed to develop photos if you where planning on selling them. It was also a profession mainly executed by men, maybe because they where living in a time when woman where expected to work in the kitchen.
But then came digital photography and along a new young generation of male and female photogs with equal rights and suddenly where one village usually had one wedding photog now in every house there could be a potential photographer selling their services.
The problem I see with the old school photog's is that they don't adapt, they stick with what they know, their photography is often dated, looks the same as 20 years ago, they use the same poses, the same techniques, never try something new and still expect people to continue to pay big money for it, they often have a small store where they sell photogear or take some studio portraits but they forget there is a big store out there called the internet. They constantly complain on a wedding day how the new generation of young photogs are ruining their profession and how in the old days it all was better, basically they are just dinosaurs not realizing the comet already has hit .
The new and young generation of photogs are mixed male and female, they experiment, think outside the box and they are technically very skilled, they live on the internet, have facebook pages, share knowledge with other photogs and are able to reach a very wide audience. Ofcourse you have those cheap ones as well that undercut you by selling real cheap but you do have that in videography as well, they are no threat, they serve an audience as well, one that would never spend much on video or photo anyway. 
Photography is very much alive, at least where I live where it's easy to charge much more then what a equally skilled videographer is getting.

http://www.motionsix.co.uk has anamorphic clamps as well.