tupp

I don't have a photo of the effect, but there are several video tutorials on YouTube that might show before/after images.

If you want to fix dead/hot pixels in your footage, you can do so in most NLEs. First, make a duplicate track of your footage. Then, make a mask that is transparent, except for the dead/hot pixels. Attach that mask to the top video track, so that the hot/dead pixels are the only part top track that covers identical track below. Then, Gaussian blur the footage in the top track (but not the attached mask), so that the values/color from the adjacent pixels seep into the masked hot/dead pixels.

Did it work?

One way is to make a duplicate track of your footage, and, then, make a mask that is transparent, except for the dead/hot pixels. Attach that mask to the top video track. Then, Guassian blur the footage in the top track (that is attached to mask), so that the values/color from the adjacent pixels seep into the hot/dead pixels. Here is a demo:

By the way, one good site to go to for documentary tips is http://doculink.org/ The Doculink "mailing list" is their forum.

Make transcription text files with time code references to all spoken lines in your footage/audio. Then, edit "on paper" before you even get close to sitting down at the edit bay. It makes the process exceedingly easier and much more thorough. You can add b-roll/cut-aways during the paper edit and/or during the NLE session. If you have a lot of footage/audio (more than ~20-30 minutes), hire a cheap transcription service to make the text files with time code reference. The least expensive transcription services are probably in India and, perhaps, in the Philippines, and they can often transcribe most languages. These services are worth every penny you spend on them.

With the high-speed capability, you can shoot videos like this: Just get a few smoke bombs and you're set!

You beat me to it! I was also going to suggest a cheap base rig with rails with this one that has adjustable height on the camera platform. Op, you might as well get a cheap rig such as this that additionally gives you rails to attach a matte box or lens hood, a follow focus, etc., if you ever want to use such items. On the other hand, you could also just slide the camera to its most forward position on the Manfrotto 502.

There is nothing like lensrentals.com or borrowlenses.com where you are located?

Consider renting. A $7000 budget for a camera package sans lenses seems rather excessive for a short. I've worked on shorts in which the budget for the entire project was a fraction of that of your camera (sans lenses) package. Plus, renting gives you more flexibility/recover-ability. If you rent a camera that has a problem (such as fpn) or if you just don't like it, you can return it and get another camera. Also, for a narrative short, you probably don't even need 4K, which could greatly reduce your budget.

Consider a fixture with some throw (not an LED panel), and a tall stand with a fill-able bag. Unless you want to spend the money on a waterproof fixture, just learn how to deploy/use rain hats.

Might want to check the math and add the percentages. At any rate, there were tons of C-mount lenses made for larger videcons/plumbicons, so, not the above percentages are a "rule of thumb."

There is no absolute image circle size for a C-mount, nor is there an absolute image circle size for the various focal lengths with a C-mount. Furthermore, one can use an adapter to mount APS-C and full frame lenses to C-mount cameras. You just have to determine the image circle of each lens on an individual basis.

I was getting corrupt file headers, and, consequently, the files would not work on all players. Changing the microSD card fixed the problem. Some have reported that removing or changing the SD card has fixed noise and crackling problems on Zoom recorders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E274Ev6yvJ8

Have you tried using a different microSD card? I was having problems with my H1 and a new microSD card fixed them.

I think that the mechanical shutter makes a more noticeable difference with significant movement and with handheld shots. The mechanical shutter probably also reduces noise. By the way, Panavision modified a few F65s by removing the mechanical shutter. They called the modified version the "F65 Mini," and they usually live in France: http://panavision.fr/produits/sony-f65-mini/ www.vimeo.com/197192795

Okay, but keep in mind that such a treatment of a classic album cut screams "millennial discarding the sanctity of the original," and some in the position to hire might react adversely. It's almost like using hip-hop jargon in business correspondence -- probably not a good idea. ... just keeping it real, Holmes...

That feature has existed in other tripods for a long time. I think that the Manfrotto 058B appeared at least 15 years ago: I think Manfrotto has several models with this feature, including one with video legs. They also have a similar small version of this with separate release buttons at the top of each leg. To release all the legs at the same time, you just wrap your hand around the smaller base, and squeeze all the buttons. I suspect that there are other manufacturers with tripods that have a similar feature.

Nice work! However, please don't speed-up the music of legacy artists, such as Al Green (singing the Beatles).

Determine what your time is worth for each day, and add 10% for contingency. Add/list expenses, plus 10% contingency. Hint: don't list the contingency amount separately -- just include it in the amount you list for your services and also in the amount for the expenses. Have fun!

I included the manufacturing operations in the list. The design costs are essentially the same, as the only extra cost is creating another Autocad file and adding two to eight threaded holes -- the front tube to the EF lenses has to be designed, regardless. Again, your list is fine for those who don't want to stray outside of the box. However, creative pros will often want more versatility than that list (not to mention great Cine lenses which only come in PL. The short-sighted intentions of Panasonic's management/marketing/sales people have no bearing on what they should have done. Furthermore, outside speculation on some company's intentions is not exceptionally relevant. Well, not too typical shooters are putting old Schneider cinema lenses on Alexas either, but they can if they want to! I was helping someone on a commercial a few months ago, and the DP had just hit the big time. She is already sitting in on panel discussions with ASC and BSC members. She was using old Crystal Express lenses on an Alexa, and they were distinctively beautiful. Shooters on that level usually seek alternatives to typical run-of-the-mill EF glass, as they are usually more sensitive to the subtleties of lenses' looks and effects. Then neither is an EF mount. However, cinema lens mounts don't need to be as rugged as PL or PV -- we have lens support for that. Furthermore, Panasonic didn't have to commit to a M4/3 mount. They could have just made a shallow interchangeable lens plate, as I have described. The EF mount offers only a small fraction of the possibilities available with a Micro 4/3 mount, an E-mount (there are ways to make this work) or an EF-M mount. That is a risky adapter as there are plenty of lenses that won't into it. On the other hand, a simple PL adapter for M4/3 will take almost every PL lens. In addition, some M4/3-to-PL adapters also allow TILT/SWING movement!: http://www.ebay.com/itm/TILT-adapter-ARRI-Red-One-Arriflex-PL-lens-for-Micro-Four-Thirds-4-3-cameras-/322240061177 http://www.ebay.com/itm/ARAX-TILT-adapter-ARRI-PL-lens-MICRO-4-3-Camera-Camcorder-pl-tilt-micro-adapter-/271523819029 Tilt/swing adapters are impossible with the EF mount and any full-frame or smaller lens. FTFY: There are countless lenses and adapters that won't work with an EF mount! No. Regardless of speculation for whom the EVA1 is designed, a lot of the top cinematographers use PL/PV glass and also seek out all kinds of unusual optics and adapters (probably not Veydras) that will give them an edge. Panasonic could have easily accommodated such high-end shooters (and even some of the lowly shooters who know better) while also catering to the typical EF people. Actually, I think that every cinematography camera should have either a shallow mount or an interchangeable lens plate. We're experienced and creative pros -- we need versatility, not protection from FUD.

Wow! What a complete surprise!

Wait... Panasonic had to go EF with the EVA1?

Actually, Panasonic would be getting a much more serious and versatile camera for very little extra in cost. There has to be some sort of "tube" or enclosure going from the sensor to the lens mount. So, having that "tube" as a separate piece doesn't require much extra in materials, but it adds a whole heck of a lot to the capability (and maintenance) of the camera. The extra costs would be for: a separate die-cast piece (could be incorporated in the same die as the rest of the camera housing); one to four threading operations in the camera body (about US$2 each); a deburring operation; a powder coating (again, no extra materials here); wiring/contacts for the EF electronics (US$30?). Such a small expense is negligible to such an expensive camera, but a removable front would greatly enhance what lenses and adapters/speedboosters one can use. Who said anything about using Panasonic lenses? That is the kind of narrow thinking that produces cinema cameras with EF mounts! A removable front would literally open the camera up to a whole world of lenses, including professional cinematography lenses offered in PL mount, PV mount, C-mount, Arri Bayonet mount, and it would even allow the attachment of "Minolta, Konica, or FD lenses (which all have very nice optics)." Additionally, such a feature would enable the use of focal reducers (extra stops and wider view angle), tilt/swing adapters, macro bellows, helical mechanisms, and other lens modifiers. Certainly, the typical walled-garden EF shooter is not interested in such versatility, but this multitude of possibilities would be very useful to cinematographers who want to create interesting images and who want to get an edge on the "straight" shooters. Again, the additional manufacturing cost for a removable front would be minimal, and the EF shooters would never know the difference.

Yes. Essentially, frequency separation is wavelet decompression with with just two layers -- the residual layer and the high frequency layer. However, on Photoshop it probably still has to be done manually (similar to the manual procedure given by the OP). Two layer frequency separation sets up a little more quickly in the GIMP, due to the grain extract and grain merge features. Of course, it is even faster to get two-layer frequency separation in the GIMP with either of the wavelet decompression plug-ins, but setting it up manually probably gives one more control over the "frequency." I don't know if Photoshop currently has a wavelet decompression plug-in (it didn't have one four years ago). If it doesn't, manually making five wavelet scale layers plus a residual layer would probably be a long, arduous process in Photoshop.