sudopera

Never met a professional that hasn't been willing to help/give advice to someone with less experience.
The ones that don't share are probably very insecure people & not worth bothering with.
Anyways, no matter your experience, we are all learning all of the time.
Wasn't it Coppola that said recently,  if he doesn't come home from work having not learnt something new, its been a wasted day.

The status quo isn't in the minds eye of next generation high tech storytellers, and mirrorless should be a wakeup call for legacy camera makers.
 
A lot of pros don't embrace change quickly as it is so damn expensive to constantly reinvest. It's never ending! However, as a very high end pro-shooter for 25 years now I am convinced, after experiencing it first hand, that mirrorless is the way forward, and 4K is a step in the right direction not just for video, but for printed stills as well. The next generation chips are only going to be better, and if you make a living with a camera, then it only makes sense to buy the brands that allow you to shoot stills, video, or both at the same time. Also, mirrorless cameras have features that make our lives easier. The camera does't make the photographer, but they definitely change the shape of the industry and how we survive or succeed in it.

I think we should be happy that 'the masses' are still buying Canon because it is 'the brand to get'.
We, as enthusiasts and some even professionals, earn their living with shooting video's. I'm so happy that 80% of video shooters still shoot 720p on their Canon 7D / 5D. Why? Because my GH3 looks amazing compared to it. And my clients go 'ooeh' and 'aah' when they see my footage. Of course it is composition, grading, talent, etc. But the camera is also important.
 
So I say, stop spreading the word about Canon camera's being shitty. You gain nothing from it, but you take the edge, of us video makers who spent lots of time selecting the best gear carefully, away.
 
Buy Canon folks! Great reliable gear! Never had any problems with them!
 
Furthermore, even though your articule is spot on Andrew, it accomplishes nothing. It's like asking Sony why they don't release a Mac Pro competitor for less money. Clearly there is no interest from Canon in this market. But also, they will still sell the most camera's for years and years to come. And you should buy a Canon, because they are great!

I learned this technique some 6 or 7 years ago in some short Photoshop course and totally forgot about it.
There are different combinations of CMYK percentages that represent common variations of proper skintones from various races.
Of course, no skintone is exactly the same so this is used as a guideline and you adjust the percentages just a little bit for your actual subject.
Then you can throw that corrected still into your editing suite and use it as a reference.
 
Here is tutorial link:
 
http://www.graphicconnectionkc.com/skin-tone-correction.html
 
At the bottom of that page are most common skintones with CMYK percentages.

This post was intended more as a way to see does the camera have accurate (as we see it in reality) skintones and not for grading, because grading gives stylized looks according to the mood and your preference. Regarding CMYK, in this technique it's used by photographers because they have separate control over blacks opposed to RGB. So when you have correct CMYK values in Photoshop, you can then export that jpeg or tiff in sRGB color space which is very similar to Rec709. Then you can put that jpeg side by side with your corrected but not graded footage in your editing suite and see the difference. I think it could be helpful for tweaking the camera color settings.
Of course this would probably only work for daylight balanced shots.
 
It wasn't my intention to suggest that everyone should now use Photoshop and change regular workflow for video, but finding some kind of a way to judge color accuracy objectively(with the help of some mathematical measurements), not in the subjective "I like Canon colors, you like Nikon colors, that one likes Sony etc." way. This was just an idea, so if someone finds it helpful great, if not nevermind.

I learned this technique some 6 or 7 years ago in some short Photoshop course and totally forgot about it.
There are different combinations of CMYK percentages that represent common variations of proper skintones from various races.
Of course, no skintone is exactly the same so this is used as a guideline and you adjust the percentages just a little bit for your actual subject.
Then you can throw that corrected still into your editing suite and use it as a reference.
 
Here is tutorial link:
 
http://www.graphicconnectionkc.com/skin-tone-correction.html
 
At the bottom of that page are most common skintones with CMYK percentages.

yes both the f3 and f35 become more and more exciting as the price comes down.  I think it's the size/shape of the f35 that dictates it's look more than anything else since it has to be rigged up properly with real cinema grade gear to make it operable.  also being PL mount means it's usually good glass rather than over contrasty canon EF lenses designed for still photography that get fitted to it.  If RED didnt offer the EF mount option I think we'd see a lot more mind blowing RED footage since it would all be shot using real lenses.  We'd see a lot less corporate stuff (which doesnt need to look like cinema, and when shot in a cinematic way it only serves to devalue the cinematic look-hence why hollywood are looking towards bigger formats to unlevel the playing field and give them the edge) shot on RED's if the users had to fork out for proper glass as you tend to when shooting in the F35.
 
Also..
It seems as if people 'in the know' tend to be shooting on these beautiful relics and as a result they know how to use the gear to its best rather than chasing new technology to make them more bookable.

I have 2 of them- damn I love them.  those colors are unmatched by any other digital camera.

sounds like a good idea!
 
we are all in the middle of a massive Digital Film making revoltion right now
- film is dying - it's almost gone for good (Christoper Nolan will have to start hording film stock soon!!)
- the Alexa has now made such in an inroad in mainstream Hollywood films this past 3 years that its accepted as the main camera now.
 
The thing that has not changed is glass! and getting the right focal lengths for the right shot in your film is still exactly the same for Digital or Film.
What has changed is that Indie film making on Canon and Panasonic cameras it is now possible to make a finished product that is almost 95% as good as the big boys in Hollywood - the difference is not that great if you know what you are doing and if you learn to exploit the 'pros' of what ever camera you are using and mask the 'cons '.
 
The right lenses help you get the 'movie look' and it is all very acheivable very cheaply if you look around for lenses that have a certain 'look' similar to expensive movie lenses.

Here is a thread on this topic with links to videos where a guy from ARRI explains difference between various types of lights
'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

glad you've got one they are very good ,
these 1990's made Angenieux lenses are superb on modern digital cameras , they have a look to the glass that takes off the harsh aspheric crushed blacks look you get with modern glass , they are slightly softer and the blacks are a bit more grey so they hold the shadow detail better than modern lenses - I do really like these Angenieux lenses , they are as near as damn it parfocal too .
The 28-70mm is stunning - especially on faces and skin - this is my main lens for shooting girls.
 
 
'' target='_blank'>>

I dont white balance as I have way of shooting that works for me
I shoot day interiors lit to 3200k at 4000k as it gives a warmer looking skin tone
and I shoot day exteriors at 6400k all the time cloudy sunny or over cast as I prefer the warmer tones
I shoot night exteriors at 2500k as it makes a cooler blue tone I prefer .....and it kills sodium vapour street lights too
 
so my whites are completely off technically but I like the look,
 
It all gets messed with in the grade anyhow so it never looks like it came out the camera.

Roger Deakins is a great DP. Can't argue that. That being said I could care less what his opinion is (or anyone else) of any given film. 
 
A lot of DP's have terrible taste in film.
 
BITWC is a great film. Not that anyone gives a shit what I think :P

Sure. Hopefully by Wednesday I can put them.

Oh yes it can look filmic in the right hands

This sort of modular build is reminiscent of Red where I can say as a former Epic  / R1 owner, the body is the cheap part. To be functional on a pro level costs a fortune (my package was about 150k USD, the "brain" was a fraction of that) .
 
But let's start with the basics a semi-pro needs to be functional.
 
Axiom Body (2or 4 grand at retail).
4k recorder
EVF
On board Monitor
Media (whatever it uses)
AB or Vmount Battery system (four batts, charger, batt plate)
Baseplate and rods
Mattebox
Canon Adaptor (the semi pro won't be buying PL glass)
ND IR Set (Axiom has no built in ND)
SDI Module (Price?)
Hand Held Rig
 
Put in your estimates, add it all up and tell me does it cost less than Sony's proposed price of an F7s? Will it be as functional without built in ND's? Will you be using or buying more lights with its less than stellar ISO? Will you lose set up time lugging a battery system instead of small internal mount batts that'll get you till lunch until you have to change? How well will it talk with Canon EF Lenses? Is your Alphatron or Zacuto EVF driving you nuts already? Are you better off buying a used Red 1 MX with better ISO, IQ and established workflow?
 
How much do you really save?
 
Things to think about before pulling the trigger on any system.

Formatt make a great diffusion filter - same quality as Tiffen but cheaper
 
Formatt Super Mist 1/4 is a nice filter less harsh than Tiffen Promist 1/4
I only ever use these filters when shooting close ups for girls/actresses faces or it can end up looking like 1970's Penthouse porn if you are not carefull!! beware!! haha!

you can make your own diffussion very cheaply - stretch nylons over the back of the lens - this is an old Hollywood trick that works a treat - they have been doing it for years - how tight you stretch it effects the amount of diffussion.
 
Janusz Kaminski’s work with Steven Spielberg uses this alot , as well as Joe Wright’s Atonement, shot by Seamus McGarvey,
 
have a read of this !
 
http://coltondavie.com/tests/testing-net-diffusion/

It seems that this really is the best stills/video hybrid on the market right now. Just found a great review from England No.1 Wedding Photographer Ross Harvey: http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review
He says that he will use D3s as a backup body for stills from now on.
 
EDIT: Btw Andrew, it would be nice to see some anamorphic footage from D750 if possible.

What is it about new cameras that has such a magical power to transform professional filmmakers into arrogant, bratty children? It's incredible, really.

BTW lafilm, what lenses do they use for porn?

Beautiful image but the price not so beautiful.
 

Nokia 3210

I saw your post earlier and thought maybe there is some way to have an adjustment layer in fcp. Then I googled it and here it is, great stuff :)

Just found a way to use an adjustment layer in FCPX, used it with VisionColor LUT-s and renders much faster this way. Also you can make your primary corrections directly on the clip and put LUT on the layer. Here is the link for the custom made adjustment layer: http://www.rippletraining.com/using-the-adjustment-layer-title-in-final-cut-pro-x.html
 
Really like these ImpulZ LUT-s by the way