pablogrollan

I'm on a film festival committee.  Trust me when I say almost all indy movies look really good these days.  IQ looks on par with just about anything.  Even work that has limited dynamic range still looks pretty impressive.
As for all the other stuff that's actually more important in making a narrative film... well, not so much.
So, if you think what camera you're shooting with is what's holding you back.  IMHO, you're wrong.  So, you pick up and use what you're going to pick up and use.  That's it.  Stop thinking about the limitations of it.  You made the choice, move on.  Now, make smart lighting decisions.  Get a good audio guy (for god's sake please do this), concentrate on telling a good story, and find some actors that can actually do so.
Trust me, no one's going to give two shit(es) if you're dynamic range in 10 stops or 13.  Your skin tone looks a little goofy?  Oh well, I forgive you if you're showing me some interesting characters on screen.

Why don't we just ban this fool

To early to tell... The trade show stand was for Wodden Camera, Metabones, SLRMagic and Filmpower, and the guy was fluent in Japanese, which makes me think he is probably just a local rep and not a anyone from Filmpower. Perhaps that explains why he didn't have a clue what to do with the gimbal or how to configure it.
Still, it surprised me how huge the gimbal is (at 24:10). It looks like a full sized Ronin on a popsicle stick. The other hand gimbals I've seen are proportioned and compact. This one doesn't look like it can be really operated with a single hand... Regarding the 5 axis version, let's see if all those who alledgedly are about to receive the first shipped units are willing to test it out and post some footage. This gimbal so far seems to lack the compactness and travel-friendly size of one-handed gimbals and the reliability of larger models.

The only safe long-term storage would include several methods (SD, bluray, hard disk, usb stick, cloud) in several physical locations. 

I'm in two minds whether to actually change my URSA Mini 4.6k pre-order to a Sony FS5. They are much different cameras, but I think I'm getting bit of sense when thinking about this for business terms. 
For these reasons: 
Smaller, much lighter body. (constant shoulder cam on a long shoot really starts to hurt! Health matters). Can use the Sony FS5 with my lightweight grip gear - DJI Ronin M, Edelkrone Slider, Libec Tripod. (too small for URSA Mini).  Internal electronic ND means I don't need 100 step up/step rings/combos to put on a vari-ND on each lens.  240fps at 10bit - massive for music videos. (URSA is a worrying, windowed 3.4x 120fps. HFR is a MUST).  Much smaller file sizes (decent hard drives + backups cost a lot of money).  Much more reliable brand. Less likely to have weird issues on footage where money matters.  Very familiar with Sony video products and Slog2/3.  Much cheaper media.  Can record external RAW in future update. (might be a great way to "upgrade" the camera).  Put on a Speedbooster and also adapt all sorts of lenses. URSA Mini advantages:
Be able to produce much more spectacular images.  Much better colour science.  Rolling/Global Switchable - nice to have the option.  Larger screen and better EVF.  I'm wondering whether the benefits of the URSA Mini 4.6k are enough. The filmmaker says yes, the business person says no.

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. I own both lenses and I have to say the Sony G 18-105 PZ f4 is way better than the Canon 18-135:
- metal construction vs. fiddly plastic (and the Sony feels much better overall)
- constant f4 vs. variable which starts right after the 18mm, making it impossible to use as a zoom.
- parfocal vs non-parfocal
- internal non-protruding zoom vs. protruding: also, the Canon has so little dampening that it extends itself when shooting downwards at a steep angle.
- super silent zoom and focus motors vs. noisy one: the Canon doesn't have a zoom motor and it is considerably noisy if you choose to autofocus on both the C100 and C300.
- annoying focus-by-wire vs. conventional focusing: this would be the only "but" on the Sony lens (why, Sony, why??), but at least both the zoom and focus rings have a very nice feel and are large enough for manual use. The Canon 18-135 focus ring is rubbish: tiny, wobbly and with a minimal focus throw which make it pretty unusable.
- 550$ vs. 500$: money is not the issue here...
Keep in mind the Sony G series tried to be equivalent to the Canon L series. I think Canon L lenses are in another league in terms of handling and build quality, but this Sony G lens is still many steps above the cheapo Canon EF-S kit lenses...

C100 8 bit is pretty incredible for 24/Mbps. I've tried a A/B tests with the Ninja Star Pro Res and had to do a 400% zoom with a heavy grade to notice ANY difference. I'd say 90% of shots internal is good enough on that camera.

The canon has better colours argument is a myth.  It's simply that people haven't become accustomed to how to set their sony cameras up properly.   If i take an auto white balance picture as a jpeg out of the A7R and compare it to a jpeg from a 5dmk3 the 5d looks nicer.  But if i process the image, the a7r image smokes the 5dmk3 image.  With careful adjustment of the wb - temperature + the cyan/magenta etc adjustment a sony can be made to look like a canon and vice versa.  

​Nooo.... don't get them in m4/3 mount! The safest bet is to get them in Nikon F mount. I went into a bit more detail as to why when I purchased my set:
http://ironfilm.co.nz/rokinon-cine-lenses/

​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.

Non working pros speaking on nothing they know of..... This attitude online definitely needs to stop, especially when enthusiasts such as yourself do not respect professionals being paid for their work and putting out great projects. I would like to see someone here put together a project this fast with more than likely a minimal budget and pressed for time. Acting was not the best, but overall I would say it was a pretty good project and definitely showed what can be done with this camera.

Not sure if its been said already (but despite many things i don't like about the institution) the bbc they have handled this clarkson melt down quite well in the circumstances: 
~ Conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the incident.
~ Let tank driving clarkson fan boys blow themselves out with their misplaced rhetoric while keeping mostly schtum.
~ Then drop the facts and make the correct action.
TV shows change and finish, people will move on. The sky wont fall in, the bbc will keep going.
For those who think he is a troubled anti-establishment comic genius and/or offers some kind of satirical critique of our 'PC' times or whatever, we could argue forever about how sadly confused i think you are but there is no need - he's gone, it's over. The people charged with disposing of large sums of public money for on-screen talent have correctly decided even money making fictional cult figures need to keep their fists to themselves to stay on the payroll. This isn't crazy "PC world gone mad" kind of stuff - it's called the modern 1st world where people with money, power and connections still quite often 'get away with it' but in any given time and place there are some limits and the limits (and principles) in this case are widely understood and accepted. The outcomes were inevitable the moment clarkson acted out in the way he did. Why he or anyone else would think there could be another outcome is a mystery to me and maybe represents some kind of wider cultural dissonance but probably not and its all just been a wonderful opportunity to learn a bit more about each other :-)
Andrew, I can see these threads have been popular, thank you and well done for hosting them.

If you like Top Gear, you should be angry at Clarkson for messing it up, not the BBC. What's happened is completely on him. The fact that Clarkson is despised by the left is irrelevant, the "PC police" can't be blamed for him punching the producer, and he should be held accountable for it like anyone else would be.
The same standards have to be applied universally. That means minor crew and it means talent such as Clarkson, David O. Russell, Christian Bale or anyone else. The fact that some talent have gotten away with vaguely similar things is no argument for allowing Clarkson to as well.
And why do people keep saying that punching someone isn't against the law? It is!

​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.

​
​Seems like you're contradicting yourself........ Panasonic will render Canon irrelevant, yet they sell much more......
Panasonic needs to work on their color science with their GH line, something I miss from the older Dvx. No one is going to give up their Canon Slr cameras in favor of Mft format, it's just not going to happen ever...... Canon and Nikon are top dawgs with mirrors cameras behind, even still I prefer Sony A7s and many production companies have been switching from 5D's as we all feel Sony A7s is a much superior "stock" camera.
 
Outside of aerial work I would prefer many other cameras over the GH4, that digital harsh look just isn't very pleasant at all. GH3 was sharp enough now in 4k it's like pain to the eyes. Black magic worked on Dynamic Range so does Alexa, Red now is working on DR as well. Moving forward Panasonic needs to focus on DR instead of resolution which is what Sony did with tier A7s and imo the best video camera in that price range

So... Potentially they do something that no one else is really doing.... A small, cheap, high quality 4K camera for gimbal/copter work. People cry
This place is brainwashed, not sure I can be bothered anymore. Why not see what happens and how it will suit your style, if this has C-log and 12 stops DR... Is it not quite a cool thing to have in the marketplace? If it doesn't work out, at least they are trying something, rather than Nikon, who seem to come in for little/no stick considering they have no video division to piss off.

I may not like that you punch an editor, but I will defend to the death your right to punch an editor, because you are a megastar and missing a steak will ruin your creativity.

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.

Well, yea, he did. Off camera, on camera, out take... What's the difference, he said it, he apologised. It shows the mindset of the man.
I'm about as hard to offend as possible, I'm not offended by Clarkson. I don't even dislike the guy (other than being a chelsea fan)... I laughed out loud when he said he was "off to the job centre" yesterday.
I just don't believe that huge stars should be given different rights to anyone else. If the producer had punched Clarkson, do you think he would be working today?
This diatribe is hiding an ugly point behind an indie/creativity mask.... That big stars should be able to do whatever they want, without consequence... Because they bring in money and entertain. It's the opposite of the indie mindset.

Hey Andrew
clearly this bothers you
the he thing is you are making statements based not upon facts not assumptions. We don't know the full story here but I can tell you this if the presenter of a show I was working on (allegedly) punched a producer the show would be most likely suspended until this was sorted out.
 
Love him or loathe him he is the show. He is what you see, a loutish, arrogant loudmouth. That's why he is so polarising. I personally grew tired of him a couple of decades ago but my post here is not about my personal feelings towards Mr. Clarkson. He does what he does very well indeed.  
There clearly is more to this than we have been told but hypothetically if Clarkson punched this producer unprovoked just because there was no catering that is beyond acceptable behaviour. He should be fired. If it was the other way round and producer punched Clarkson would the show be suspended like this? Would the producer still have a job a half million petition to bring him back? If there was a fight between them behind closed doors then maybe, just maybe they could sort it out between them. But in the public? It becomes something more...this is public behaviour.
If Clarkson did punch him then it's assault pure and simple. Do we just ignore it and give out the message this is ok to do? No we do not. Last time I checked punching someone was still illegal. 
Yes, it's a massively successful show and brings in huge amounts of money. I think what the BBC have done is show balls! The cynical amongst us would have expected the Beeb to not want to lose their cash cow and sweep it under the carpet, pay off producer and carry on like nothing happened for danger of losing said cash cow. 
The BBC have to be beyond reproach. It's part of their remit. They are not a broadcaster like all the others. If they want to do away with the licence fee and make it a commercial station like all the rest then they could get away with the aforementioned cynical behaviour. They are the BBC. They cannot. They have a really bad stigma these days about very serious past incidents that they ignored. We all know what those are. They HAVE to be seen to not protect their stars and brush stuff under the carpet. No company should but especially the BBC given what's happened the past two years or so. 
 
so there are my thoughts.  
if you miss the show watch the movie version.  It's more believable. "fast and the furious"  

I'm not offended by your post, but I do find it a load of tub thumping nonsense.
1) If a lead star on a production punched a producer, there would be consequences, even if it were Tom Cruise.
2) You seem to conveniently paper over the fact that he was caught saying nigger on camera and also called an asian guy a "slant'. Two of numerous offences that went unpunished and led to his final warning.
If you want to move into this sort of editorial you need to put down both sides of the story, especially when your followers are not all UK based.
This isn't bending over to political correctness, it is very lightly punishing someone for a constant stream of problems. Most other presenters would have been kicked in to touch long ago. You cannot let someone go unpunished, time and again, just because he is a creative asset and pulls in big bucks.
I don't mind Clarkson, he can be funny, entertaining, no nonsense and clearly knows his cars. But that isn't a green light to do absolutely anything.

​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.

​Utterly uncalled for.  Why stoop this low just because you assumed a different viewpoint from someone else?  I see preschool and grade school children that conduct themselves with much better manner and less reproach.  I have seen a good number of genuinely kind and even altruistic gestures from the gamut of photo/video forums across the blogosphere, but occasionally it's posts like this that flies in the face of basic decency and humility. Not only that it does not adds, but I believe it is outbursts like this that has a deleterious effect to the visual artisans and technicians community as a whole.  If this trend continues, then I think we will have much more to loose than gain in our common pursuit for knowledge and growth here.  Perhaps the great veil of anonymity through the iron curtain of the internet is conducive to malicious behaviors.  I can hardly imagine such things being said in the physical presence of another person with so many to witness.
No one is infallible, I had my own blunders just as you had yours and everyone else here and elsewhere.  If you're having a bad day or for whatever reason had succumbed to your own emotional impulse, then that's understandable (though not excusable).  I think a simple apology maybe in order here, of course that's entirely up to you.
I don't know Max, I have read some of his blog comments, and believe him to be a learned and cultivated man. Although I may not necessarily agreed with some of the viewpoints he espoused, I do feel that he was offering constructive and cogent feedback to Andrew for the betterment of the blog.
Everyone can exercise and benefit from a bit more civility, especially toward another artist and/or technician who shared the same passion for filmaking.  Lets hold ourselves to a higher standard. Vitriol and ad hominen attacks are better left at the landfill.
=========================================================================================================================================
On to the topic at hand. I don't doubt that the FS7's menu layout and operations are atrocious, though I much rather that Steve Job was not employ as a reference model, not because he was incapable of conceiving some of the most functional and beautiful design in gadgetry that the world has ever seen and put to good use, but precisely because he may have accomplish more by being more tactful and less corrosive/coercive with his interpersonal dealings/interactions. It's one thing being assertive and quite another being aggressive, and for some, that's a fine line.  Shortly after Job passed, one of the senior executive at a top management consultancy asserted that Job exhibited his personal traits and management style not because they were particularly effective, but because they required less skills--soft skills that is.  Agree or not, there is no denial of the man's legacy in technical and design prowess and the success that persists to this day.
Personally, I think a more apt example for us here in the community is none other than James Cameron, whose personality is very much fungible with Job's, but has gone through a long evolution through his time spent out in the field in scientific explorations and expeditions. Cameron has recounted and acknowledged his shortcomings early in his career in directing the performance and work of his cast and crew.  He readily admitted that a more collaborative approach, one that he had cultivated through his work with countless teams of scientists, deep sea explorers, and technical personnel would have suited him better as a filmaker in those formative years.

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.