Nick Hughes

Hi,
Does anyone have any experience with these? I'm in the market for something cheap but that still wont shake about when I pull focus.
 
Also can anyone confirm whether the plate is compatible with a Manfrotto 577 / Giottos 621?

I think he's talking about IS lenses.

Interesting test. Makes this camera much more versatile. Personally I think for some shooting styles rolling shutter should be embraced - if you know when it is going to happen and can exercise some control over how it affects the image (the "rhythm" of the jello perhaps?) then it can be a pleasant "flaw" just like lens flare etc. I'm sure all of this has been said before ...
 
Lovely shots by the way. Really nice. Exactly kind of subject matter this camera lends itself to imo. The grade is very nice too, though not my cup of tea. I still haven't seen ANY footage from the A7S that looks really convincing in terms of colour. Everything I've seen looks a little washed-out/thin. Perhaps this is because everyone is trying to extract maximum DR from the image so flattening it a bit too much, but I'm not sure ...

Very recent development
 
Seems to be limited between 1/10 and 15" exposures at the moment. Shutterless timelapses would probably save a ton of battery space.
 
Pretty interesting development!

Here's Steve Huff's review: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/07/01/the-sony-a7s-digital-camera-review-wow-period/
 
I'm still waiting on a legitimate video capability review, preferably one that's not focused on shooting in pitch black conditions.

My buddy showed me this video last week, so I came at it from a non-video-snob perspective, and I had two initial thoughts:
 
1. This is the greatest thing of all time. Maybe my favorite music video ever.
 
2. What the hell is that gross jello effect when they place the camera on the tripods? Are they shooting this on a cellphone?
 
So to sum up this forum dicussion: Yes, the post stabilization is gross. No, it doesn't matter.

ha.. "i don't get this place". 
 
as if there was any consensus on this forum.

That was originally what film LUTs were designed for. But who distributes on film nowadays?
 
I think the ImpulZ LUTs are definitely meant to be part of a colour grading workflow, and not a substitute for grading. Some of them are very subtle. They're a lot of fun. I blog a bit about it here:
http://marginaliafilm.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/using-impulz-luts-to-grade-hdslr-footage/
And here's my test on vimeo, only 720p I'm afraid:

The generic Rec.709 LUTs work really well with the G6 footage. If GH4 users aren't keen on the Cinelike D profile they could shoot with a natural profile and try the Rec.709 LUTs rather than the GH4 specific ones. 
 
Right, time to watch Mexico v Cameroon

I will be testing this with some Atomos gear before too long.

Didn't see that show. Could be deconstructivistic intention.
 
Generally, if someone is on the extreme left, looking to the right, he sees 'into the future'. Accordingly, if he sits on the right side and looks left (into an empty frame), he thinks about 'the past'.
 
In WW2, german newsreel cameramen had the order from the ministry of propaganda, that tanks and troops had always to move from left to right, when they were meant to conquer Russia. And from right to left for France ...
 
There is something arbitrary about the rule that one needs to be able to follow. We follow where the master leads us?
 
Life is chaotic, important moments are fragments, thoughts jump and mix with impulses from outside. An excuse for Nolan? Does he need excuses? Go, recut the sequence so it becomes comprehensible, will it make any more sense then or become 'better'? 
 
Decades ago someone wrote a rant about Back To The Future. How the episodes didn't fit if you tried and recut them in chronological order. I was more shocked than when I learned there was no Santa Claus.

There is a big discrepency here between the way things are and the way things should be in terms of copyright law, and I think a lot of people are forgetting that. The fact that the copyright system is broken doesn't invalidate it's legal implications.
 
I do think that Vimeo's process kind of sucks and needs refinement. I do a ton of music videos for bands that put their music on CDBaby- YouTube almost always flags my videos as having 'third-party content,' but the dispute process is straightforward and has never created any issues for me.

I am in talks with some professional musicians and film scorers here in Berlin and have discovered some real talent... The average quality of their work far exceeds the current music licensing libraries and it is more original, more interesting.
  I am thinking therefore some kind of music licensing service might be useful to offer on EOSHD especially with the Vimeo copyright problem filmmakers are facing. I don't want to see people sued for copyright infringement when they are just trying to express themselves and their art.
 
Some of the pros I know here are doing really high end audio - we're talking Hans Zimmer & feature film standard. However these are professionals and we need to pay them. It is simply not going to wash using a track for free that took them 6 months of recording time in studios that charge $400 per day.
 
I'm wondering what a fair and acceptable rate would be for licensing? I want it to start low to be accessible to artists but scale up to commercial work in the right way. Typical prices at the Music Bed range from a minimum of $50 for non-profit to $399 for commercial work and for larger scale commercial work custom quotes are required.
 
EOSHD music licensing would be different.
 
For personal work or zero budget short films on Vimeo / YouTube (non-commercial)
$19 - 1 track
$50 - 5 tracks
$99 - 10 tracks
 
For commercial work - small clients (<10 employees) and non-profit organisations
$50 - 1 track
$99 - 5 tracks
$199 - 10 tracks
 
For commercial work - large clients (>10 employees) and advertisements
$199 - 1 track
$399 - 5 tracks
Custom quote - 10 tracks
 
For features, documentaries and short films with a crew
$199 - 1 track
$499 - 5 tracks
Custom quote - 10 tracks
 
Of course before you buy you can play all tracks in full on EOSHD to see if they are what you need.
 
I'd like some feedback on this first before I decide to go ahead with it or not as the amount of work involved here is very significant.
 
In particular what do you need from such a service?
What projects do you need music for... And what do you think of the pricing?
 
Cheers!

I know Andrew. But that is not an excuse for copyright infringement. Make another edit with another score for your promo work, if you must... If a person is unable to do their business without copyright infringement, there is something terribly wrong with that business imo.

Btw, you mentioned I should research fair use, maybe, I'm not an expert. But I think you should do the same.. the Wiki you link to is exactly where I got that quote from, I'm pretty sure the way you use (copyrighted) music on your video's would not classify as fair use.
 
Also see Pablo's reply.
 
And: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
 
Anyway, I don't like copyright laws either, but I respect them when creating my own stuff and uploading it to the public. And even though I agree with a lot of the arguments, I don't think justifies to just do as you like.

Don't upload to Vimeo.  Just hand over the video in an SD card or USB stick and let the couple worry about the copyrights.

I was going to say, maybe ( I don't  know how this forum software works) but maybe you could have sub-forums, rather than single threads, as threads become quite a swamp very quickly.
 
Having sub forums for the topics, and even for individual camera discussion could be a brilliant way to keep things arranged and split administration
 
Quite a lot of other forums i use do this: http://www.thegearpage.net/board
 
Kinda like you do for anamorphic, it could encourage whole sub communities

Why? It's the truth. You can try it out yourself if you have a 50mm and 200mm. Or whatever focal lengths....
 
The bokeh quality is an interesting topic. I think bokeh 'roll off / smoothness' is better with bigger sensors vs same bokeh equivalents on smaller sensors. Would be nice to see a test of this. Might try something myself.

The examples you provide of cinematographers who use deep focus are good ones.  Nobody is saying they aren’t great.  And no-one is saying that deep focus is not a great look.  But to say a cinematographer who uses selective focus is not great because they use it is just strange.  I can’t see the basis of the argument.   There are plenty of selective focus shots in the godfather, among deep focus.  Typically selective focus for the closeups and mid shots and deep focus for the wide shots.   Do you think that the godfather has gimmicky cinematography?
 
What is wrong with the director or dp indicating where the viewer should look with focus?
How is it any different to lighting the scene with different intensities that may attract the eye, or compositional elements that direct the eye, or zoom shots that hone in on a particular element that the director deems relevant?
 
I take exception to the word gimmick.    It seems to come from a place of pomposity, as if you feel that shallow depth of field has somehow less artistic integrity.
If you were to say that you personally prefer deep focus I would have no quarrel, but you are making absolute statements that shallow focus is a gimmick used by non-great dps.
 
What definition of the word gimmick are you using?
Definitions I have found are:
 
"a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade."
 
Can the inherent characteristics of an optical system be considered a trick?   Apart from when the 5dii first came out, I can’t see it attracting attention in of itself.  A film shot with fast primes on a 5d3 might be more appealing to a client than a film shot on a camcorder, but I would argue it is because the image is more visually attractive, not because it is attention grabbing.
 
Wikipedia describes it:
 
" a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries."
 
Since everyone is doing shallow depth of field now, how is using it standing out from ones contemporaries.  In fact, one could suggest that deep focus achieves this definition more closely. didn’t citizen cane stand out for this reason.  Though I would never call deep focus it a gimmick.
 
Perhaps the word you mean is crutch or substitute.   That people use shallow depth of field as a crutch to make up for a lack of other things (although they may be unaware of what is lacking).   Probably in many cases with amateur film making this is true.  But it doesn’t follow that a great photographer should never use selective focus.
 
I happen to find that the varying focus through a scene can have a lot of beauty.  Let’s not forget that it isn’t a case of either f1.4 or f22.  There is a whole range in between.  Those that think f8 provides deep focus are mistaken.  Even the slightest of background blur is visible and has an effect on the dimensional quality of the image.  Even the easy rider example you gave had the background out of focus in certain shots.
 
I see depth of field as a parameter: too little can be detrimental in certain situations and too much can be detrimental in others.

The above seems so tragically steeped in deep subjectivity that it's almost inflammatory. There was otherwise great discussion until this. All art, apparently, derives from a healthy dose of illusion and its crafting. There are various techniques. Simply.
 
Why elevate your private thoughts (or others) about what "truly great" directors do to the level of universal truth? Remember, if you are making (...art, especially) you are constructing (reality, specifically). Again, various techniques.

Though I get what you're saying, As per your example, I don't think anyone in there right mind would shoot a sprawling desert landscape with razor thin DOF wide open. You want to see that beautiful location. Those shots required all to be in focus, but many shots don't. Its a matter of both style choice, mood, directing and subject. All these tools need to be used within a narrative... most of the tests we see aren't a part of any storyline, and are more just stylistic tests.

You're right about shallow DOF being used to direct the audiences eye. You're wrong in saying that its just to hide bad lighting or framing.

Do you actually believe that? meaning,is it a hypothesis that you have thought about for some time and are sure about? or is it something you have just pulled out of your ass in the last half an hour?   It sounds like the latter.
 
Deep focus is certainly a look that you can decide to go for and works well in a lot of cases.  But to suggest that every single shallow depth of field shot or photograph in the world ever is to mask bad framing, bad lighting and cheap ugly backgrounds is patently ridiculous.
 
As for anamorphic.  If you are shooting deep focus there is not much point.  Anamorphic is primarily to preserve resolution, but with 4k you have more than enough to just crop.

Here's a "low-res-for-web" video I did as a quick favor for a friend a few years back.  Shot on a Rebel Ti, no lights.   It's far from perfect, but shows how available light can be utilized with some shooting strategy and concessions:
 

If you can afford another G6, why wouldn't you? Keep using the same workflow, same lenses. The cameras will have the same colour renditions, etc.

I see they listened to the pros at NAB.... "As expensive as possible please!"

Just called a local dealer listed on Sigma's site and they had one left! They already shipped it and should be here in a matter of days. Local business saves the day.