tupp

​Whoa! That spokesperson in the video needs to tone it down a few notches! I think that I might be a little too faint of heart for the follow-up video, "Acratech Ballhead Tension Knob Adjustment." Seriously, the video you linked is a great find, and it is very informative on the Acratech head. It's cool how the head can be turned upside-down to use the ball portion for leveling the pan. Thanks for the link!

Arca Swiss is probably the most versatile and best value of all quick release systems. Here's the Really Right Stuff head. It seems a little expensive for the small amount of weight it holds. There is also hybrid the Acratech Video Ballhead 7100. Here is the inexpensive Custom Brackets Tilt Head AS. Of course, you could just get inexpensive Arca Swiss clamps for each of one of your heads for about $8 apiece, but you apparently don't want to go that route.

Not very clear on the configuration of the strobe head and receiver you mention, but flash sync connectors are standardized and most monobloc strobes these days come with built-in optical slaves. Indeed, the specs on the Interfit EXD200 show that it has a built-in optical slave and that it ships with a sync cord. So, if you are using your camera flash, you can use the optical slave to sync, as long as slave on the EXD2000 sees the light from your camera flash. Here is a sync cable that plugs into the receivers.

​I think that you bring up an important point. I quit trying to make video footage look like film about a dozen years ago, because, back then, DV cameras were starting to incorporate the two main elements that gave the "film look": progressive scan and cinema frame rates. These days, I think that we are all just trying to make our images look good, or add necessary clarity or help tell the story. Nonetheless, it is fun to talk about what makes film look like film and what makes video look like video.

​Tragic Lantern is great! It is a shame that the Magic Lantern folks decided to kick TL out of the ML world. Don't know if "normalizing" the shutter speed/angle is going to help much in making footage look like film. One can close down the shutter angle on a film camera, and the footage will still look like it was shot on film. By the way, shutter "speed" and and shutter "angle" are different ways of referring to the same property.

​While I agree that lighting, art direction and wardrobe can add visual clarity and make a scene more interesting, those elements of filmmaking are irrelevant to making video look like film. Look at these 8mm film clips. There is nothing special about the lighting, art direction nor wardrobe, yet it still looks like it was shot on film. So, there are other elements that make film look like film.

Very detailed assessment! Thanks! However, I disagree with a few points. I remember when the Filmlook company started in the 1980s, and I studied their techniques. I also had the opportunity to use Eddie Barber's "Vilm" camera on two projects. As I recall, the two main properties that make video look like film are having progressive frames and slower frame rates (properties which are a given today). Grain helped, but was not completely necessary. Of course, film has different exposure and saturation "response curves" compared to video, and one has to avoid blowing out the highlights when shooting video to look like film. The format size, aspect ratio, use of zoom lenses, use of non-cinema lenses, depth of field, shutter speed, camera movement are all largely irrelevant to making video look like film. To illustrate this point, let's say we shoot with a tiny, 4:3 format, 8mm film camera with a narrow shutter angle, while using a zoom TV lens with a small aperture (high depth-of-field) and light-weight camera movement. Even with all of these elements combined, the 8mm film footage will nevertheless look like it was shot on film. I would also like to add that I never used a 35mm film camera that couldn't be used handheld -- those huge 35mm cameras were mostly gone by the mid 1970s.

​What Iphone? By the way, it also works on Android devices.

I had the same experience with the EF-to-BMPCC Metabones Speedbooster, and I have a similar problem with my Nikkor-to-EF-M RJ focal reducer. Essentially, many speed-boosters/focal-reducers cannot accept EF-S lenses because the EF-S lenses sit deeper inside the adapter than regular EF lenses. So, to avoid scratching the front element in the focal-reducer, that front element is slightly recessed into the flange which surrounds it. This recessed configuration causes the the front inside flange of the focal reducer to touch/block the rear flange of an EF-S lens -- no glass gets scratched and the EF-S lens won't mount. Likewise, this forward flange on the focal reducer hits the rear protective tongue/shield on some Nikkor lenses, preventing them from mounting. You could try to remove or saw off the protective rear tongue/shield on the back of your Nikkor lens, but be careful when mounting the lens.

Video by InVisage.

Outfitting a studio for lighting can be involved. Things to consider are square footage, power, lighting grid design, grid height, power distro, grid grip hardware and fixtures. There are companies that will look at your space and do all of the design and construction work. Also, some lighting manufacturers will give estimates and make overhead diagrams for free (featuring their fixtures, of course). If one is beginning in lighting, start small and get a kit with one or two focusable lights (Fresnel or open-faced), a flood light and a soft box. If more gear is needed for a specific job, rent more gear and see what works. Then, when one has a better idea of what is needed, one can start getting more lights and grip equipment. Another good approach for a beginner is to hire an experienced gaffer (ideally one who is also a DP) for the first jobs. He/she will spec what is needed for the shoot, and one will get to see the equipment in action, utilized and deployed in an optimal and professional manner.

​There are lots of Nikon F to Canon EF adapters out there. I believe that Fotodiox makes two or three versions. I have the cheapest one ($14?). It wobbles a little. If you only have three or four Nikkor lenses, it might be easiest just to get a cheap adapter for each lens and keep the adapters mounted to the lenses, for quick lens changes. With this plan, you'll also need an EF rear lens cap for each lens. Really? ​I have never had any trouble removing my cheap Fotodiox adapters from the lenses.

​I haven't had any trouble with TL. I think the last build that I loaded on the EOSM was from February, 2015. However, it is easy to hit the bit rate limit when shooting all-I frames -- which means that the GOP ("group-of-pictures") is set to "1". I usually don't set the bit rate higher than "2X" with all-I. A few folks have reported nice results when shooting with a GOP of "3," which should allow higher bit rates. By the way, it is recommended to disable the camera audio when setting low GOPs. In regards to the focal reducer for the EOSM it is made by RJ and, as you mentioned, it accepts Nikon F lenses. I had a brief interaction with RJ ( because the focal reducer was wobbly due to screws which were too long), and it didn't sound like they were inclined to make an EOSM focal reducer with other lens mounts. However, I have a bunch of Nikkor lenses, and it is great to be shooting "full frame" on the EOSM. Thank you for the kind word, but the beautiful, fearless subject has a lot to do with the appeal of the look. Of course, it is also amazing that one can shoot full HD without H264 interframe artifacts on that little, inexpensive and exceptionally versatile APS-C camera. ​I have never tried the focus peaking, but I'll search for it in the TL menu on my next shoot.

Thank you for the kind word. ​FYI, there are other C-mount lenses with image circles that encompass an APS-C sensor. Here's a review of a 25mm, f1.4, APS-C, CCTV C-mount lens of apparently decent quality. Furthermore, the EOSM can shoot in "crop" mode, so some of the C-mount lenses with smaller image circles might work with the EOSM. I think that both Magic Lantern and Tragic Lantern offer special cropping in raw mode. ​That's a good point. Another great thing about the EOSM is that it is (was) cheap -- for over a one-year period, EOSMs were selling for USD$200-$250!

@Jonstaf Your EOSM is a great camera, and you can significantly extend its capabilities by loading Tragic Lantern onto it. I use TL on my EOSM to boost the bit rate and to shoot all "I" frames with H264. Here is an extreme test I did with the EOSM, TL and, mostly, the quirky Fujian 35mm f1.7 CCTV lens. Although I pushed the EOSM past it's DR limits (obvious FPN and just plain old noise), note that there is significantly reduced compression artifacting. Also, the strange focal plane of that c-mount Fujian 35mm really "pops" with an APS-C camera, such as the EOSM. Here is a better example of the Fujian's wonkiness on an EOSM (shot by maxotics). Other great things about the EOSM line, is that there is a focal reducer for it that gives almost a 1:1 crop factor (in addition to extra brightness) and that there are tilt and tilt-shift adapters for it, if one desires interesting focus effects or if one merely wants to Scheimpflug. Of course, with the shallow flange-focal distance of the EF-M mount, there are zillions of lenses that can be adapted to the EOSM. To me, it is sometimes more valuable than 4K and high dynamic range to have the TL build combined with the ability to use these special attachments and a huge variety of lenses.

Not sure which lights your are asking about. What do you want the lights to do?

Please call me when RED offers an 18K camera.

I hope that the prices on these cameras are good and that they use inexpensive media -- not Cfast.

Between shoots, it might be wise to air-out all of your camera gear in a room with low humidity. Lens fungus is no fun! Lacking an area with low humidity, you could keep your gear in a dry container/case along with plenty of new desiccant packets (or some other form of desiccant/dehumidifier). Avoid leather cases, as leather tends to harbor fungus more than most synthetic materials.

You would probably be better off going with a typical tungsten kit, unless there is a special reason that you want to use batteries. Tungsten fixtures are not as efficient as LEDs nor ballasted sources, but tungsten has a much lower "piastre-to-footcandle" ratio, and the color spectrum of tungsten is as pure as you will ever need. In addition, tungsten lights are generally easier to control (focusing, dimming, cutting, etc.) than LEDs and Fluorescents. On the whole, tungstens have more "punch" than LEDs. Just look at the photometric data charts of some of the LEDs and compare them to those of the tungsten fixtures. Be mindful to compare the readings from same distance and with the same beam angle. By the way, some manufacturers mislead regarding their beam angles. The standard way to get a beam angle is to delineate it at the point at which the brightness drops one stop (50%) from the maximum level (usually at the center of the beam). If the manufacturer doesn't specify how the beam is delineated, there's no telling what the "actual" beam angle is, unless you can test the unit yourself. If you aren't too particular about the double shadow from cuts into the side of the beam, you will probably be happier with open-faced focusing lights, instead of Fresnels/refractive-focus units. Open-faced fixtures are usually lighter, more compact, more rugged and less expensive than their lensed counterparts. Open faced sources usually have more output, as well.

There might be a way to correct the footage that you have already shot. You could make a reverse matte shooting a piece of black velvet/groovytene under the same/similar conditions.

Your two cameras -- the EOSM and T3i -- are somewhat unique in that they both have Tragic Lantern builds and they both have a native crop mode. Ain't nothing wrong with either of them. The Tragic Lantern capability is a significant advantage, primarily because it allows you to shoot h264 with all I-frames (and with boosted bit rates, just like Magic Lantern). Here is an early example of such footage (the video's notes are informative). Here is more info on TL. The native crop capability is important, because it means that you can eliminate moire/aliasing that results from sensor line-skipping, even when using the built-in video function. The EOSM is particularly special, in that you can shoot raw in crop mode (just like the T3i), but, due to its short flange-focal distance, you can also use 16mm lenses in crop mode. By the way, I that there are a few examples of 720P raw on the EOSM.

Looks like ambient edge flare. If so, you might be able to reduce it when shooting by using an aggressive lens hood/matte box. On the other hand, if you are using a medium format lens on a GH4 with a plain adapter, you might have all kinds of light bouncing around inside the GH4/adapter (especially with such a high-key image). Is the adapter matte black on the inside? I think that there have been reports on some of the focal reducers causing a similar problem.

​Well, it might be possible to get the same/similar settings with the choices offered by IFFMPEG, but I don't really know much about that "app" nor about the ffmpeg front-end which you linked. Of course, I am talking about trying to duplicate/approximate settings -- not change the "code" of any "app." ​Not sure if I made the scenario clear. We have three (3) "apps" in question here: 1. The "RockyMountains transcoder" (which you linked). 2. "IFFMPEG." 3. The venerable, robust, command-line decoder/encoder, "ffmpeg." Both RockyMountains and IFFMPEG are front-ends for ffmpeg. There are lots of front ends for ffmpeg. Ffmpeg is open-source and free. If you know the ffmpeg settings that are used in RockyMountains, you can merely use them on the command line to get the same (or faster) results. Better yet, you can include those settings into a simple batch script and use it on a separate bare-bones render box, while you do the "creative" work on your GUI machine. I doubt that there is anything particularly remarkable about the ffmpeg settings used in RockyMountains. A web search could probably find settings for similarly transcoding h265 with ffmpeg. However, with IFFMPEG, you probably won't be able to use the exact same settings as those employed by RockyMountains, because such front-ends often limit the choices that are allowed (and ffmpeg gives a zillion choices).

Don't know which settings differ. Someone would have to look at the code. I would guess that the front-end introduced in this thread does not do multiple passes.