pablogrollan

​IMHO, Apple was about to collapse when they cared and looked after the professional segment and now they are focused on "universal" products for the masses. It makes sense, it is in line with the rest of their strategy and the numbers say that so far it is right path for them. The target group who buys iPhones and iPads (which is a large group) is not comprised of pro editors and colorists. They are much more comfortable with an amateur -yet powerful- tool like FCP X. Same applies to the new Mac Pro. Nothing in that machine makes sense to a pro, but it is very powerful and appealing to a prosumer or wannabe with money -no offense intended-.

Adobe has followed the opposite path, making their tools for pros and trying to carefully separate each craft and overlap them just the right amount. In fact, I've always had the feeling that Lightroom should have been the natural evolution of Photoshop. But since Photoshop -and not Photoshop Elements- is such a commonplace program in the hands of every amateur (using only 10% of its potential), Lightroom has become the "pro" tool.

I personally have no problem with having a different program for every craft. They are all included in the suite and it allows small production companies to work as a team with a few licences each doing "their thing" in a compatible software environment that allows certain overlapping and feedback.

​Well, not officially, but I just saw a video in which the not-so-articulate Came-TV rep announced they were working on a pistol 3 axis gimbal with 32 bit board to be released in the coming months. Given Came-TV's greater experience in the gimbal world, I'm guessing it should be more reliable than the Nebula or the Pilotfly. Still, they just released the "Came-TV mini" addressed to the same type of camera but with a traditional gimbal design, which I would deem obsolete if they release a pistol gimbal with the same hardware...

​When you research a little bit, you find out Bale behaved like an ass because he was "in character" at that moment and with an adrenaline rush. He apologised moments after that, and kept working with the crew -Hurlbut included- for several weeks after that with no problem. The incident took place in a closed set -in private- and was made public when "someone" released the tape. Bale's rant was unacceptable though he was right to call Hurlbut's attention -he screwed the take- he was not asking for a late steak.

And I don't know Shane Hurlbut from his "tutorials". He was a established DP already -because novice DP's are not usually in charge of $200M movies- and in a way he was an equal to Bale: sure not as powerful, but the DP is "above the line", probably the 4th in rank on set, has a team of maybe 40 people and is the director's most likely substitute -if he is unavailable for some reason-.

​One incident that we know about. I have a feeling that the "star complex" doesn't just appear one day, it's a process that worsens every passing day.

If the altercation had been in private or on set, I would consider conceivable handling it in private, with a simple apology and reprimand. But it took place in public, so a cover up was not possible.

What's really perverse about it and sets it apart from Bale's and O. Russell's incidents is that it was not a fight between equals. O. Russell is a major producer and Clooney a star actor. Bale is a star actor and Hurlbut a reknown DP. Clarkson is a TV star and the producer is, well "a nobody" really. What was he supposed to do? fight back? That would've ended his career instantly. I wonder if Clarkson would have thrown the punch against Tony Hall or anyone else with the power to fire him on the spot. His behaviour is not abou being creative or being a star. It's about someone with power treating those under his command like his "bitches", making them wait (and work) two extra hours after a long day so that he can have his beers, insulting them so that he can have his steak, etc.

Clarkson is not going out for his controversial on-screen persona, but because his attitude towards coworkers is unacceptable. And yes, stars should be (and usually are) submitted to the same workplace rules. Robert Downey Jr. has been fired many times for his addictions and many other bigger stars have been kicked out of a big budget shooting for being abusive and/or showing no respect. That is called unprofessionalism. And Maxotics is right, anyone who's ever been working in shootings with a realtively large crew (20+) knows that one rotten apple -especially the big one- is a cancer on set, a disruptive force that does a lot of harm.

I have to agree with Jimmy and Philip. This has absolutely nothing to do with creative freedom or artistic independence, it's simply a staff management issue. Much as enjoy Top Gear from time to time, Jeremy Clarkson's off-screen persona is troublesome. It's not the first time he's been involved in a public brawl (he tried to punch Piers Morgan at a gala, I believe) and he's been warned repeatedly about his behaviour.

If he had been suspended because of an unfortunate joke on screen -and let's face it, he IS funny as hell though bordering bigotry-, I might agree with some of Andrew's remarks. But it was due to his inability to be civil with his coworkers, and frankly, any staff manager or PR manager would have fired him long ago. Imagine he were a well-kown representative for Nike, Coca-Cola, etc. Add the fact that the BBC is a publicly owned state-run company, which increases the level of scrutiny and means it is not guided by the most profitable choice or a 350 million audience, but by politics.

Perhaps this could also raise the issue of whether there should be a publicly owned TV station (when private initiative fully covers the market needs for entertainment and information). I personally feel those 350 million consumers are being unlawfully "snatched" from private competing TV Stations that don't have the luxury of trial and error backed with taxpayers money. Still, if the BBC were privately owned they would probably be suspending him anyway. He caused a PR storm that has to be weathered, and then he'll come back.

​I agree it's not worth the savings, but V batteries shouldn't blow up. It is possible, but unlikely since even Chinese brands have over-charge and power cut off failsafe circuitry. Keep in mind that many reputable brands from all fields in electronics manufacture in China. It's more about choosing the right Chinese knock-off -always a bit risky, though-.

Li-Po batteries are the dangerous ones. Even brand-name batteries can explode or go up in flames because they are volatile and have no safety circuitry. Its just a power cell (or several) with two cables, and all sorts of things could go wrong. That's what I don't like about drones and gimbals: no matter what brand you buy, if you store your gear in your studio you are at risk of having one of those batteries catching fire. I believe the only exception is the Letus Helix Jr, which has a conventional Li-Ion battery.

Hi camnova,

The A6000/5100 is a really good suggestion. Both will deliver better video quality than the A7 -which I'm not sure has an APS-C mode like the A7s-. The G series 18-105mm f/4 seems like the obvious choice as an all-around lens. Regarding tripods, I'd recommend the Sachtler ACE: it's Sachtler quality at 500$, lightweight and reliable. Sliders: the Edelkrone sliderplus is around 600$, the basic Kessler Pocket Dolly around 500$ and the Motionnine Linecam around the same. You could even think about getting a Nebula 4000 gimbal which I bet would nice with the A5100/6000 and the 18-105.

Hi Trias,

As Kotlos said, it's all about findind the bottlenecks. Your GPU seems a little dated. In the Adobe forums -I believe it was there- I remember reading that a minimum of 4GB DDR5 in your GPU was the recommendation to edit 4K.

The Quadros are OK for many uses (CAD), but for video they have been long surpassed by the chaper GTX. Check out this video:

(Embed doesn't work "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGP0ga6salw") 

The GTX 970 or even better 980 are obviously faster than the GTX780, and especially a lot less power-hungry.

Regarding HDDs, never use USB3 external drives for editing. They are useful for storage, but they cap at 150MB/s at best, which is only good enough for certain uses. If you want to use mechanical disks, you can set them in RAID to combine their speeds. The more you have, the better (or faster) until you reach the bandwith limit of the SATA controller.

The SSD solution is not as stupid as you think. You can have 3-4TB of SSD for editing purposes and use USB3 or Thunderbolt external HDDs to store original rushes and finished edits. That's actually my configuration. I distrust RAID configurations (just an irrational fear of losing data, which has been know to happen in RAIDs though it is unusual), so I have my current editing project in separate internal SSDs (1TB for project files, 2TB for rushes and 1TB for previews) that yield 500MB/s each. Of course you cannot leave previous jobs just hanging there in your drive, which forces you to be organized and tidy. As soon as I finish a project, rushes/previews/project files/exports leave the editing station via USB3 to an external "storage" drive (or many).

1,600$ in SSD + 400$ in a new GPU + some RAM (you never said how much you had and I'd recommend at least 32GB) and you'd still have money left for a new kickass mobo.

I believe they must be talking about sampling rate, but since you are going to record it on the Zoom H6 at 48kHz, the resulting .wav file is going to be 48kHz -honestly, I doubt anyone can really tell the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz in terms of audio quality-.

The only concern you may have would be comaptibility. Since your files are going to be sampled at 48khz, you should have no problem. Still, I usually edit in Premiere and it automatically conforms all video and audio files to the settings of the sequence/timeline, and I have used both 44.1 and 48khz sources in the same timeline without any drifting, distortion or noise.

Having said that, if you are going to do a proper sound mix, the sound technician will conform the files to whatever sampling rate he considers before mixing. Some mix at 96khz even though the delivered file will be sampled down to 48khz. Again, keep in mind not all sounds are as complex: if you have background music from a band in a scene taking place in a club, that music will probably include several instruments, it will be muted down and with several effects (reverb, etc). In that case, the technician may decide to have extra overhead to avoid any degradation. But human speech will always be recorded as clean as possible, and it's basically a mono stream at no more than 4-5khz.

Hi Dan,

Didn't notice the Rode was 44khz. Still, Why is that a problem?. Placing 44khz audio in a 48khz timeline will not speed your audio. Sampling rate has more to do with the quality of the audio (many conversions/interpretations are done automatically), and supposedly anything above 50khz is "wasted quality" to our limited human hearing. 44.1khz is CD-audio quality, pretty much the same as 48Khz, and IMHO should be enough if properly recorded. Keep in mind that you are capturing voice, a monoarural sound with a very specific and limited frequency bandwith. I suspect many of the other sounds you will be mixing with (foley, effects, music, etc.) may have different sampling frequencies (48khz, for example) but as far as I know you can mix them together -they maintain their pitch and speed- and encode the final mix to whatever you want.

Besides, if your mics are going to the ZoomH6, their sound would be recorded at 48khz. And even if you should deem it necessary, any 44.1Khz sources could be easily converted to 48Khz.

Hi Norliss,

I have mine in a Pelican with foam and have had no such issues. Still, if you don't like foam you could still use the same pelican cases with dividers.

Yes, that device is a transmitter to turn a dynamic hand mic into a wireless one that can be synchronized with the receiver. There is also a bundle without it (slightly cheaper):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/618739-REG/Sennheiser_EW_112P_G3_A_EW112_p_G3_Camera_Mount.html

The EW G3 is a single lav mic plugged into a transmitter on the same frequency as the receiver. If you need 4 lavs, you need four sets (from Sennheiser or any other brand) of lav mic+bodypack transmitter+bodypack receiver. The 4 sets would obviously need to be set to different frequencies and the receivers could be plugged into the 4 XLR inputs of the Zoom H6.

I also have seen this bundle:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/877198-REG/Sennheiser_ew_100_ENG_G3.html

There are many brands and many bodypack wireless bundles, but most of them are crap! I would stay with the few reliable brands: Sennheiser, Shure, RODE, AKG... If you have a tight budget you might consider skipping Sennheiser and trying out Shure or the new RODE filmmaker kit, but nothing cheaper. I have tried out some cheapo brands and the difference is so noticeable that it isn't worth it.

Hi Dan,

These are the ones I use:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/649986-REG/Sennheiser_EW100ENGG3_G_Evolution_G3_100_Series.html

They are pretty much the standard for interviews and such, basically because they are reliable and nearly indestructible. You'd be using this kit 10 years from now easily... and I'm sure you can find them in Italy, they're very popular everywhere.

A cheaper option would be this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1115091-REG/rode_rodlnk_fm_rodelink_wireless_filmmaker_kit.html

Coming from RODE they must be good, but frankly I haven't used them nor know anyone who has.

Well, both cameras offer similar quality in many areas, but I would go for the A6000 or even A5100. Video quality is similar, but the Sonys have peaking and zebra, which help a lot especially with manual primes. The E-mount is very "adaptable", allowing you to use not only Sony lenses, but also Canon and Nikon (with adapters) plus a very wide range of legacy lenses form different mounts. The A6000 doesn't suffer from terrible rolling shutter jello, it is much better than the T2i, but I suspect the D5300 is also much better than the T2i in that regard. Don't discard the A5100, though the body lacks as many buttons and dials video is recorded in the better XAVC-S codec...

I've used the A6000 with speedbooster and vintage Nikkor primes and the combination works great. Also with Rokinon primes. Working at around f1.4-f4, you shouldn't need to go too high on the ISO, which I'd say is a little better on the A6000/5100 than on the Nikon.

​That reminds me of the "old days" when FCP users had to transcode 5DMKII H264 to ProRes and I heard some colleagues complaining about occassional artifacts due to the 5DMKII's "poor H264 implementation". At the time I was already using PremierePro and never came across them. I suppose we'll have to start the flux condenser and fast forward in time to an Adobe update to edit H265 natively...

​100 million? I would say it would be around 60-70 million. Usually the calculus is that around 50% of the movie's budget (on average) is spent in marketing. That burden (20-30 million) is aided by product placement and branding so that the studio does not have to cover for all of it -in Men in Black III, Mercedes, Burger King, etc. paid for pretty much all the marketing costs-. That's why the conventional rule is that a movie needs to make 2.5 times its cost to break even (50% of gross goes to cinemas).

In the case of VOD, I suspect Sony has a greater return than 50% of the gross, but who knows... Needless to say that the movie still has to do relatively well overseas to be profitable, because although the 100-150 million worldwide was doable at first it will be more difficult with such poor domestic figures.

I have a kinotehnik and a zacuto and despite the price difference, I believe I prefer the kino... comfortable and light, and as QuikHitRecord says it doesn't interfere with plates.

I believe there are options within your budget. The a6000 or even a5100 are pretty good for stills and decent for video -especially the a5100 with XAVC-S-, well below your budget with kit lens or even the double lens kit (16-50 and 55-200 I believe). Not fast lenses but with nice autofocus for stills. Or buy the body and a metabones adapter if you have access to cheap used glass from Canon or Nikon -though forget about autofocus in that case-

You could also have a look at a Panasonic FZ1000 or a Sony RX10. Sure, the sensor is smaller (1 inch) and no interchangeable glass, but the Sony RX10 has a 25-200mm equivalent Zeiss with constant 2.8 aperture, mic input and built-in nd filters (should there be such a lens for full frame, it would be a must regardless of the price). If you are not too concerned with super shallow depth of field, both of these cameras could be considered.

Best advice I can give you: Try before you buy. Maybe your friends have any of the bodys mentioned in the thread, maybe you can find a friendly store to let you try them in their premises... but it is important that you feel comfortable with the camera you'll be working with.

Btw, I agree with JawZ that the 12MP of the A7s are enough for print magazines. With nice glass, it is sharp enough to scale to anything reasonable. The only limitation is heavy cropping/reframing.

Maybe a Sony A5100 and an E-mount to Nikon F speedbooster? The camera is really cheap, with a great 24MP APS-C sensor, XAVC-S codec for video, and the speedbooster would allow you to use those lovely legacy Nikkor lenses and get the full frame look. There is also a cheap but supposedly very good Commlite adpater for EOS glass in case you need to use stabilized lenses, and even some decent and affordable native Sony glass. Add a kinotehnik or zacuto loupe and you have quite a versatile camera for about 1000$.

I completely agree with you sunyata, HFR should follow the path of 3D (except, you know, faster!) and go out of fashion, if it ever was "in"...

Are both mics recorded on the same track (mixed)? Usually you would have each mic in a separate track, in which case, yeah, you should fade the cheapo mic when the opposite actor is talking. To compensate the fading in and out of the background noise you could use a room tone (if you recorded one) or some other suitable background noise applied on a different track during the whole dialogue...

as with most schools, the people teaching are quite often the ones who never made it in the real world.  If they had done, they'd be on set rather than taking the money from people who don;t know better.  Obviously this is a generalisation, but unless you're being taught by someone who actually has some proper background, don;t pay a penny! 

 

put the money in the bank, and live off it while working for free in the real world in a decent place with real people.

Obviously that is the case with some teachers, plenty of theoretical knowledge and little real life experience, but I also had several teachers who were working professionals and others who were retired but not pleased with senior citizen lifestyle. And that includes producers, directors, DPs...

Academic education is paramount in filmmaking. Any of those names that supposedly didn't go to film school actually did. Just, not the kind of school that gives you a degree in the end.

Many succesful directors and cinematographers have built a career without going college or any "formal" film school. You can skip it if you read tons of books, attend seminars and experiment a little. You need to crawl before you walk, let alone run... Nowadays you can get the education without going to school (the Internet has made available many study programs an bibliographies that can serve as a guide), but you need to get the education anyway!!

Making a feature with that money would probably a waste of money (one that I've seen more than once). Taking time to study and learn, and then spend money on some film (preferably not a feature) would be more sensible. I've been working for almost 20 years and you can easily tell the difference between the formally trained professional and the self-taught through experience. The latter is a one-trick pony, effective in his/her task but easily confused when taken out of his/her comfort zone.

You see, the thing is that not only should you know HOW to do a task, but also WHY is that task performed in a specific way. The phrase "because it's always been done that way" or "that's way everyone does it" is sadly quite common and reveals a professional with shallow knowledge and little ground for improvement or evolution. Some gaffers will always be gaffers and some get to be DPs. And it's not beacuse of their "talent", that's a made up word which means "lots of hard work, perseverance and continuous study".

Get some vast base -not basic- knowledge, either going to school or by your own means, watch and analyse as many films as you can and then go on screw up some minor production. If you've done the former, you'll be able to know why you failed and learn from your mistakes instead of repeating them systematically. And ten years from now you won't have to watch the expensive pile of crap that you shot when you were not ready. I don't mean to offend anyone or be patronising, but I've seen that mistake made so many times... and not once have I seen anyone spend their "college money" on a feature that was even watchable. And the worst thing is that not even they knew why it was so bad.

Back on topic, I believe the 36000 fps are just a technical measurement of what the sensor is capable of on paper, but I doubt it will be actually useable, not even in military or scientific environments. From what I've read, this "filtered" sensor would kinda need a "triple" exposure (R-G-B so that exact color info is collected per pixel, bringing its "real lfe" ISO values to about a third of what's technically capable (still high, though). At 36000 fps, what kind of shutter speed would we be talking about? Something like 1/100000? Respecting a 180º shutter angle, wouldn't it be 1/72000 for a bayer sensor and something around 1/216000 for this?

My maths could be way off, but the point is that the amount of light required to properly expose at the required shutter speeds (at least 1/40000) would make the 36000fps a technical capability rather than a useable feature (no missiles in super-duper slomo).

Still, If they managed to release a camera with a sensor with global shutter, total color accuracy, good resolution, noiseless 25000 ISO, 500fps and close to 20 stops of dynamic range, who wouldn't be sold?